This news comes as the US and China continue their war of words on most subjects, from trade to viruses to ideologies. The Chinese claim their navy has expelled US warships from the South China Sea, among other rhetorical responses.
Prehistoric geopolitics explained.
So far it’s all about projecting power, but not much has actually happened, at least in public. Nor is the Pacific suffering unduly from the pandemic, which is pretty well under control around here. Unless the US Navy has some unknown ability to shoot down viruses in mid-air or torpedo them, it’s a rather odd basis for deploying major naval capacity.
China seems to be using a military-flavored approach to so many things these days. Friction with India has escalated drastically recently, for example. The South China Sea remains as abrasive as ever, with multiple incidents in recent years. Hardline for the sake of hardline seems to be the general Chinese response to everything.
For those born after 1914:
Military power is traditionally used by nations to deliver a message of power. Highly visible military presence is as much a PR exercise as any sort of operational consideration. This message is also historically a proven way of starting wars.
It’s arguable that the mere presence of military forces anywhere does more to create tensions than it can do to reduce them. Diametrically opposed ideologies and hostile political posturing make these stresses much worse.
During the Cold War, confrontations were often staged by military units in regions around the world. This type of confrontation could include near-ramming by ships and planes and killed quite a few people.
The takeaway from this is that the hotter the situation on the ground gets, the more likely actual conflict becomes.
The military realities
A US carrier strike force is no joke. Even China, gigantic as it is, would feel the effects of a major carrier strike. Carrier strike forces are extremely hard targets, highly mobile, and definitely effective.
That said – The sending of a carrier strike force is also very similar to drawing a loaded gun. You can’t expect there to be no reaction. It is an escalation in any sense, and at best a dubious way of making a point in political terms.
China isn’t a soft target, either. The US theory of “dominance” could be in trouble. The Chinese navy isn’t in the same league as the US navy in terms of strategic reach or firepower, but it’s perfectly capable of hitting back, or hitting first, hard. An actual fight between the two navies could be quite a barroom brawl, but not a pushover for the US as in previous wars.
Whether or not this move makes any military sense is highly debatable. Theodore Roosevelt, after whom one of the US carriers is named, built up the US Navy as a strategic initiative. The Great White Fleet was a showpiece for America’s new global role, too.
This little effort, however, barely qualifies as strategic, and as PR, it’s simply adding fuel to the many political fires. Militarily, this type of heavy-duty deployment would usually be for an actual operation, not mere propaganda. It would be made with clear military goals and objectives.
As a mid-ocean parade, it’s a lot of resources to use on a political situation. Implied threats are simply a gift to Chinese propaganda.
Actually, it’s worse, in one way. What used to be called “gunboat diplomacy” was practiced in China in the 19th and 20th centuries. This was the theory of showing the flag and sending a few naval or riverine combat units to pacify the natives. The Chinese experienced gunboat diplomacy many times, and reminding them of it is unlikely to achieve anything but more hostility. It’s hard to imagine anything they’d resent more.
In terms of absolute basic military realities, it’s an even stranger picture. Is a standalone task force supposed to tackle the whole of China in a sudden shooting war? What happens if someone starts shooting?
Military situations can escalate in seconds. One side claims to have been attacked, the other denies it. The point is that the shooting has started, and stopping it isn’t usually easy. A lot of other reactions may also start as a result.
As a way of starting World War 3, a naval engagement is definitely a working proposition, particularly in this case. Both sides have been talking themselves in to no-budge positions for years. Backing down would be seen as weakness and a serious loss of prestige for either national leader.
At the sharp end – Local commanders can’t make “don’t shoot” decisions and expect no consequences, especially on the Chinese side, where command is very much top-down with no discussion.
US commanders may also have instructions which could be vague or hyper-reactive where any serious shooting is a real possibility. I doubt if China or the US are in any way enthusiastic about a real war, but when one side pushes and the other pushes back, anything can happen.
China and the US would be well advised to maintain a distance between forces and close down any threats. If a real shooting war starts, it may be very hard to control the shock waves.
