Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to attend a talk about China's expanding capabilities in big hull ships for HADR.
China's New Navy and Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief
It was interesting to see how China is building big hulls (aircraft carriers and amphibs), and how they can be used to further Chinese influence through provision of HADR.
After the Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011, the JMSDF (and Japan's Self-Defense Force in general) has gain a huge reputation boost for its involvement in disaster relief. While big hulls have a primary combat roll, their secondary role in HADR is increasingly being used to justify the spending required to build, operate, and maintain them.
And it looks like China has caught on to this narrative.
An idea that kept bugging me is how China can use such big hulls and the HADR role to bankrupt the U.S.
As the global policeman, the U.S. deploys forces all over the globe. But this places a huge fiscal burden on the U.S., and the U.S. is increasingly calling out to its allies to chip in. It is expensive to keep forces abroad due to the infrastructure needed to support them. What this means is that we are likely to see reduced U.S. presence in various parts of the world.
And China can easily step in to fill that presence-gap with its new big hulls. On the pretext of HADR readiness, China can deploy a carrier group and two amphib groups in the region (the carrier group in the South China Sea, while one amphib group in the Indian Ocean and another in the southern Pacific). This gives China opportunities to show the flag, and they will be ready to render immediate assistance should a disaster occur, which will again be a reputation boost.
The message? "We are here to do what the U.S. used to do."
Is the U.S. ready to concede to such messaging? If now, the U.S. will need to maintain a similar presence: three groups out at sea at any time, ever ready to respond to any disaster. The problem here is cost: the region is closer to China, which means it will cost them less to rotate the assets necessary to maintain such a presence. The U.S. will increasingly be called to justify such costs to its citizens back home, given its domestic needs and rising government debt.
Such a move by China will put the U.S. in a very difficult position. Does it cede regional leadership to China by scaling back its presence? Or should the U.S. continue to spend on such presence, ignoring its dangerous fiscal position and other domestic needs (which may eventually undermine its global economic position)? Will such a move by China lead to the bankruptcy of the U.S. due to imperial overstretch?
China's New Navy and Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief
It was interesting to see how China is building big hulls (aircraft carriers and amphibs), and how they can be used to further Chinese influence through provision of HADR.
After the Great East Japan Earthquake of 2011, the JMSDF (and Japan's Self-Defense Force in general) has gain a huge reputation boost for its involvement in disaster relief. While big hulls have a primary combat roll, their secondary role in HADR is increasingly being used to justify the spending required to build, operate, and maintain them.
And it looks like China has caught on to this narrative.
An idea that kept bugging me is how China can use such big hulls and the HADR role to bankrupt the U.S.
As the global policeman, the U.S. deploys forces all over the globe. But this places a huge fiscal burden on the U.S., and the U.S. is increasingly calling out to its allies to chip in. It is expensive to keep forces abroad due to the infrastructure needed to support them. What this means is that we are likely to see reduced U.S. presence in various parts of the world.
And China can easily step in to fill that presence-gap with its new big hulls. On the pretext of HADR readiness, China can deploy a carrier group and two amphib groups in the region (the carrier group in the South China Sea, while one amphib group in the Indian Ocean and another in the southern Pacific). This gives China opportunities to show the flag, and they will be ready to render immediate assistance should a disaster occur, which will again be a reputation boost.
The message? "We are here to do what the U.S. used to do."
Is the U.S. ready to concede to such messaging? If now, the U.S. will need to maintain a similar presence: three groups out at sea at any time, ever ready to respond to any disaster. The problem here is cost: the region is closer to China, which means it will cost them less to rotate the assets necessary to maintain such a presence. The U.S. will increasingly be called to justify such costs to its citizens back home, given its domestic needs and rising government debt.
Such a move by China will put the U.S. in a very difficult position. Does it cede regional leadership to China by scaling back its presence? Or should the U.S. continue to spend on such presence, ignoring its dangerous fiscal position and other domestic needs (which may eventually undermine its global economic position)? Will such a move by China lead to the bankruptcy of the U.S. due to imperial overstretch?
No comments:
Post a Comment