The Future Issue New World Disorder The Next Gen Internet So long, Saudi Arabia

The South China Sea Is the Future of Conflict

The 21st century's defining battleground is going to be on water.

BY ROBERT D. KAPLAN | SEPT/OCT 2011

Europe is a landscape; East Asia a seascape. Therein lies a crucial difference between the 20th and 21st centuries. The most contested areas of the globe in the last century lay on dry land in Europe, particularly in the flat expanse that rendered the eastern and western borders of Germany artificial and exposed to the inexorable march of armies. But over the span of the decades, the demographic and economic axis of the Earth has shifted measurably to the opposite end of Eurasia, where the spaces between major population centers are overwhelmingly maritime.

For More

Tour the South China Sea
A visual guide to understanding the conflict.

Because of the way geography illuminates and sets priorities, these physical contours of East Asia augur a naval century -- naval being defined here in the broad sense to include both sea and air battle formations now that they have become increasingly inextricable. Why? China, which, especially now that its land borders are more secure than at any time since the height of the Qing dynasty at the end of the 18th century, is engaged in an undeniable naval expansion. It is through sea power that China will psychologically erase two centuries of foreign transgressions on its territory -- forcing every country around it to react.

Military engagements on land and at sea are vastly different, with major implications for the grand strategies needed to win -- or avoid -- them. Those on land enmesh civilian populations, in effect making human rights a signal element of war studies. Those at sea approach conflict as a clinical and technocratic affair, in effect reducing war to math, in marked contrast with the intellectual battles that helped define previous conflicts.

World War II was a moral struggle against fascism, the ideology responsible for the murder of tens of millions of noncombatants. The Cold War was a moral struggle against communism, an equally oppressive ideology by which the vast territories captured by the Red Army were ruled. The immediate post-Cold War period became a moral struggle against genocide in the Balkans and Central Africa, two places where ground warfare and crimes against humanity could not be separated. More recently, a moral struggle against radical Islam has drawn the United States deep into the mountainous confines of Afghanistan, where the humane treatment of millions of civilians is critical to the war's success. In all these efforts, war and foreign policy have become subjects not only for soldiers and diplomats, but for humanists and intellectuals. Indeed, counterinsurgency represents a culmination of sorts of the union between uniformed officers and human rights experts. This is the upshot of ground war evolving into total war in the modern age.

East Asia, or more precisely the Western Pacific, which is quickly becoming the world's new center of naval activity, presages a fundamentally different dynamic. It will likely produce relatively few moral dilemmas of the kind we have been used to in the 20th and early 21st centuries, with the remote possibility of land warfare on the Korean Peninsula as the striking exception. The Western Pacific will return military affairs to the narrow realm of defense experts. This is not merely because we are dealing with a naval realm, in which civilians are not present. It is also because of the nature of the states themselves in East Asia, which, like China, may be strongly authoritarian but in most cases are not tyrannical or deeply inhumane.

The struggle for primacy in the Western Pacific will not necessarily involve combat; much of what takes place will happen quietly and over the horizon in blank sea space, at a glacial tempo befitting the slow, steady accommodation to superior economic and military power that states have made throughout history. War is far from inevitable even if competition is a given. And if China and the United States manage the coming handoff successfully, Asia, and the world, will be a more secure, prosperous place. What could be more moral than that? Remember: It is realism in the service of the national interest -- whose goal is the avoidance of war -- that has saved lives over the span of history far more than humanitarian interventionism.

Paul M O'Connell

 

Robert D. Kaplan is senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, national correspondent for the Atlantic, and a member of the U.S. Defense Department's Defense Policy Board. He is the author of Monsoon: The Indian Ocean and the Future of American Power.

XTIANGODLOKI

10:04 AM ET

August 15, 2011

Missing in this analysis is econoimc interdepedency

I am not sure how can anyone see countries like China and India, each with nukes, having physical confrontations with each other.

But IMO China's real strength is its economy and not its military might. I simply don't see how can countries like India, Indonesia, and Vietnam go on war with China given that the later is their biggest trading partners. If the animosity between these countries are getting to dangerous levels, shouldn't they stop trading with each other so to prepare for war?

As for the US, these think tanks really should debate over the benefits of having a global hegemony and the costs. Is it really worth it for America to invest in guns rather than butter?

 

JBROCKLE

11:18 AM ET

August 15, 2011

A fair point

But these decisions aren't always rational ones; they can always result from lack of trust and rapid escalation of minor incidents or something like that. There isn't necessarily the time to think through all the consequences if policy makers feel the pressure is really on.

 

ALEXBC

6:44 PM ET

August 15, 2011

An Old Argument, And A Wrong One

Prior to World War I, most of Europe subscribed to the naive conventional wisdom contained in your post. After all, their logic went, how can we possibly have conflict with Germany when it the center of our entire economic community? European inter-dependency was far higher at this time than Asia's is today, too. These nations continued trading all the way up to World War I.

Granted, Germany was already a major, if not the foremost, military power in the region, whereas China today is no match even for Japan, much less the US. Plus, Germany was a newly formed nation which did not yet have a concrete feel for its geopolitical place in the region. But, China is aggressively trying to upgrade its military capacity, despite the fact that it really does not even need it as a means of ensuring its prosperity (the US already does that for it, basically for free). And "China" itself is a nebulous geopolitical concept that has fluctuated over the centuries and now encompasses regions like Tibet, East Turkestan, and Taiwan (to a degree), none of which would willingly be ruled by Beijing; so who knows how far it might wish to extend its quasi-imperial state.

US hegemony is not nearly as costly as most observers imagine. The total sum, for example, of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the combined annual defense budgets from 2001-2011 is a mere fraction of US total GDP during that same span. At this point, the only way the US could lose hegemony and/or go bankrupt would be for it to voluntarily do so.

 

NORTHERNBLVDFLUSHING

7:49 PM ET

August 15, 2011

To JBROCKLE: I can just see you and Mr. Kaplan salivating ...

... over the prospect of China and Vietnam/the Phillipines/South Korea/Japan at each other's throat and bleeding to death while the USA recovers from its current troubles. This kind of wishful thinking ignores the fundamental differences in the basic world view of China and that of the USA. Ever heard of the Chinese concept of "benevolent rule"? I suggest you and Mr. K hit the books and learn a bit more of Chinese culture and thinking before you imagine all out naval engagements resulting from "lack of trust and rapid escalation of minor incidents or something like that".

 

BISHOP_110011

1:01 AM ET

August 16, 2011

germany went to war

germany went to war essentially over the austro-hungarian empire, citing ethnic grounds. that causus belli followed directly from the public mood in berlin, early 20th century. the analogy may be convenient to apply to china, but its approximate at best because *china has already secured all the borders it wants*, with the sole exception of taiwan. i.e. china has no incentive to go to war with anyone unless the taiwanese declare independence. and the taiwanese have no incentive to. what they gain?

and china is not going to go to war over the south china sea. don't be ridiculous. strategic ambiguity is useful, i grant you. make the other guy think you're crazy enough to do something extreme, and you change the nash equilibrium. that doesn't mean you actually have to *be* crazy. do you guys actually read chinese government press releases and believe them word for word?!! ZOMG...

also chinese borders are anything but 'nebulous'. and they're going to stay that way for a long time. possession is nine tenth of the law (c'mon, don't be naive...). texas probably has a greater chance of seceding from the union than tibet has of changing the status quo based on internally driven forces. and there isn't going to be externally driven events in tibet's favor. however antiquated china's military is, let's not forget their nuclear umbrella ALSO has a global reach. if they can put a man in orbit...... now, lets weigh the pros and cons. i don't really take the tibetian issue seriously from a balance of power perspective. maybe a minor bargaining chip ("let the yuan appreciate 1% more and obama won't meet with the dalai lama this month"), but thats it.

 

PUBLICUS

7:29 AM ET

September 7, 2011

Benevolent Rule?!?

Benevolent Rule and the Mandate of Heaven were dumped and flushed long ago by the CCP in Beijing. The CCP in Beijing has the most massive apparatus of oppression, repression and and surpression in human history. In the Age of Information Technology, the CCP in Beijing are expending enormous resources to establish, extend and solidify censorship. The notion anyway of Belevolent Rule by elites and the Mandate of Heaven were historical absurdities during their time and in the contemporary and future world are laughable anachronisms (same as the CCP itself).

Air Force Gen Chi Haotian as the CCP-PRC Defense Minister until recently, continually spoke only of slaughtering 2/3 of people in the United States by chemical warfare and on June 6th 2009 (the 65th Anniversary of WW2 D-Day) said, "The Chinese century is soon upon us and war is its midwife." Gen Haotian also sees another way to defeat the United States thereby making the world submit to the rule of the Middle Kingdom, i.e., destroy all U.S. satellites, black out all cyber systems in the United States and engage and sink the U.S. Navy on the high seas. The Chinese are not chummy or normal people. Indeed, Gen Haotian said many times that "Hitler was too soft" towards the peoples he hated and made war against.

 

URGELT

2:46 PM ET

August 15, 2011

China's Ambitions

Projecting interests over the next decade or so, the author's analysis is defensible.

But as a characterization of the 21st Century, I think it is not.

Here's why: there just isn't that much there in the South China Sea. No place for China's 1.5+ billion souls to live. Though there can be no doubt that China has a national interest in the South China Sea, what China needs more than anything else is land.

And as it happens, right next door is land aplenty, sparsely populated, richer in resources than ten South China Seas.

Siberia.

China is certainly not looking to grab Siberia in the near term. But I can think of a scenario where it becomes feasible for them, and if it is feasible, it will be irresistible. All you need is for the Russian Federation to fall into civil war; this is not such a stretch of imagination, Russia is nearly as much an empire of diverse ethnic and national factions as the USSR once was. Once underway, China could be invited by a client faction to enter the fray, and we may even cheer them on if their stated purpose is to secure loose nukes from falling into factionary hands. The end result could well be a diminished Russia and an enlarged China.

Risky; nukes are nothing to sneeze at. But what an enlargement it would be! Siberia is the last great untapped stretch of wilderness and natural resources remaining on the continents. Climate change may render much of it more desirable, not less. Siberia would provide room for China to grow, a frontier for its vast population, and set the stage for China to become the world's true superpower (as America settles into senescence).

This plum is so ripe, China may even be tempted to foment a Russian civil war by clandestine means just so it can grab it.

China has a history of taking a very long view and exhibiting patience. A time may come when America has turned inward, where no other regional powers could muster the will or might to interfere, and where Russia itself - or a faction of it - invites China to help. If that day comes, the land war the author finds inconceivable in East Asia could become a reality, with all of its accompanying moral baggage.

 

BISHOP_110011

3:07 PM ET

August 15, 2011

i think the russian nuclear

i think the russian nuclear umbrella will probably keep china out. even covert ops to foment a russian civil war seems too dangerous. what if they get caught?

caveat: a substantial change in the form and makeup of the russian military due to economic and demographic difficulties may change that in the far far far future though.

 

ALEXBC

6:53 PM ET

August 15, 2011

Unrealistic

China could not defeat Russia even in a conventional war, much less a nuclear one. Russia has the most advanced military technology and best-trained personnel after the US, and of course its nuclear arsenal is the largest in the world.

I do not subscribe to the cliché that China "takes the long view." Oftentimes, this remark is buttressed by nonsense about a Chinese official saying, in 1973, that it was "too early to tell" if the French revolution was a good idea; never mind that he was actually talking about the 1968 student revolts in Paris, rather than the 1797 Revolution proper! China is just as interested in short-term gain as anyone else. In fact, you could say that it is even more so this way than its great power rivals, as it is so impatient to be a preeminent power in Asia that it has bitten off more than it can chew when it comes to issues like infrastructure development, disruptive naval expansionism, and economic development that largely benefits the state and its enterprises at the expense of households. It could easily pivot away from any of these pursuits, but why do so when the current regime's time is up in 2012 and it could leave with its nationalistic legacy untarnished?

China won't need all that land, anyway. If current fertility rates persist, China's population will be nearly halved by the dawn of next century.

 

BISHOP_110011

1:14 AM ET

August 16, 2011

interesting anecdote on the

interesting anecdote on the french revolution...didn't know that.

slightly off tangent here, but i don't really share your assessment of russia's conventional forces. i was a soldier once (air force), after awhile, you figure out that training, practice, experience and discipline counts for as much as technology. give me a highly motivated and disciplined low-tech army, and i'll show you how to beat a high-tech but unmotivated army in a conventional war (no need for guerilla tactics). russia's military technology...*maybe* (but fading). highly trained and motivated? no way. firsthand interactions with them. to put it bluntly, their guys "don't really give a !@#$".

 

MATTW0699

4:58 PM ET

August 15, 2011

Conflict and China Equals War

"War is far from inevitable even if competition is a given."

No, mere competition means war. Historically, over the last 500 years when an empire meets a serious competitor then war has occurred 6 out of 7 times. Only the Soviet Union and America did not go to war.

Will the rise of China lead to conflict with the US?

Great power rivalries in history:

1. Spain versus Holland in the 16th century. [War]
2. Holland versus England in the 17th century. [War]
3. Britain versus France in both the 18th and 19th centuries. [War]
4. France and Britain versus Germany in the 20th century. [War]
5. Germany versus Russia in 1914. [War]
6. Germany versus Russia (Soviet Union) in 1941. [War]
7. Soviet Union versus the US and its allies in the Cold War after 1945. [No War]

The story below suggests that America is in trouble.

The Parable of Goujian

The story of the king [Goujian] who slept on sticks and tasted gall is as known to the Chinese as George Washington and the cherry tree are to Americans. He has become a symbol of resistance against the treaty ports, foreign concessions and the years of colonial humiliation.

King Goujian (Yue) was defeated by King Fuchai (Wu) and taken prisoner. He worked in the royal stables and gradually won the respect of Fuchai. Later he was allow to govern his old kingdom under Fuchai. Goujian quietly bided his time and hide his capabilities over eight years until he was strong enough to finally attack and defeat Fuchai. During the eight years he quietly undermined Fuchai and facilitated Fuchai’s growth of debt.

Taken like that, the parable of Goujian sums up what some people find alarming about China’s rise as a superpower today. Ever since Deng Xiaoping set about reforming the economy in 1978, China has talked peace. Still militarily and economically too weak to challenge America, it has concentrated on getting richer. Even as China has grown in power and rebuilt its armed forces, the West and Japan have run up debts and sold it their technology. China has been patient, but the day when it can once again start to impose its will is drawing near.

China has completed in the last few years massive underground nuclear bunkers under many of its major cities. Why is this necessary?

The conflict over Taiwan:

A senior Chinese general has warned that his country could destroy hundreds of American cities with nuclear weapons if the two nations clashed over Taiwan.

Major general Zhu Chenghu, a dean at the National Defence University, said he was expressing a private opinion, but his comments, the most inflammatory by a senior government official in 10 years, will fuel growing concerns in Washington about the rise of China.

China is preparing for the “eventuality of a nuclear war.”

Defense analysts for the British intelligence service MI6 believe China is preparing for the “eventuality of a nuclear war.” The conclusion follows evidence that Beijing has built secretly a major naval base deep inside caverns which even sophisticated satellites cannot penetrate, says a report in Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

In an unusual development, the analysts have provided details to the specialist defense periodical, Jane’s Intelligence Review, which published satellite images of the base location which is hidden beneath millions of tons of rock on the South China Sea island of Hainan.

China is thinking about a cold war and a hot war.

Now almost 55% of those questioned for Global Times, a state-run newspaper, agree that “a cold war will break out between the US and China”.

An independent survey of Chinese-language media for The Sunday Times has found army and navy officers predicting a military showdown and political leaders calling for China to sell more arms to America’s foes. The trigger for their fury was Obama’s decision to sell $6.4 billion (£4 billion) worth of weapons to Taiwan, the thriving democratic island that has ruled itself since 1949.

Of course, I have only focused on the China side. There is the Russian side as well. Also, America is now at an inflection point and has gone into decline.

A large part of the world has moved to a pre-collapse state. Russia and China are in danger of collapse. America, Europe and Japan are in danger of economic collapse. The Middle East is now in the state of collapse. The UN predicts “global social crisis” stemming from the 2008-2009 economic downturn. If the world is a big sandpile, then it’s coming down soon.

The decline of America is real this time, says Foreign Policy magazine. The decline of an empire is a sign of bad things to come, like war. The Congressional Budget Offfice says the US could face a European-style debt crisis.

Russia has moved to a pre-collapse state similar to the one that occurred right before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. China is “In Danger” of collapse according to the 2011 Failed Sates Index.

With Greece on the verge of default, and Ireland, Portugal and Spain waiting in the wings, the collapse of the Eurozone is a real possibility. One author calls Japan a bug in search of a windshield. It’s only a matter of time.

Historian Niall Ferguson has some interesting theories which I follow in the Niall Ferguson section. For example, Niall points out that the 20th century signs of wars are based on the three E’s: Empires in decline, economic volatility and ethnic conflict. The American empire is clearly in decline. The current global financial crisis is causing volatility around the world. Finally, conflict in the Middle East between Israel and its neighbors completes the third E for ethnic conflict. When all three are present, like they are today, there is great danger of upheaval – war.

The US runs into a crisis period every 80 to 100 years according to “The Fourth Turning“. In 2005 we entered another 20 year crisis period. “Winter’s Coming for the Boomers” is an article that discusses the theories in “The Fourth Turning”. Each new crisis period is due to the impact of crises on the generations over an 80 to 100 year period. Each new generation increasingly forgets the lessons from the past. Since smaller collapses (recessions and wars) tend to be suppressed, eventually the country must experience a large crisis.

Actually, society works like a big sandpile or forest. All collapses follow the power law distribution. They move into future in the same way. Suppressing collapses only means that bigger collapses will follow. The West is now experiencing a huge economic collapse, because it constantly suppresses smaller collapses. Now it's time for payback.

 

JORDAN.BERNHARDT

6:35 PM ET

August 15, 2011

Purpose of War

If Mr. Kaplan reads the comments, I was interested in his thoughts on the following issue:

"The South China Sea presages a different form of conflict than the ones to which we have become accustomed. Since the beginning of the 20th century, we have been traumatized by massive, conventional land engagements on the one hand, and dirty, irregular small wars on the other. Because both kinds of war produced massive civilian casualties, war has been a subject for humanists as well as generals. But in the future we just might see a purer form of conflict, limited to the naval realm."

Clausewitz said that war is an extension of policy. If war in the South China Sea is limited to the engagements of the combatant's navies, what is the policy gain from the war? For example, if (and I hope this does not happen) the Philippines and China fought a naval conflict, what would each side be hoping to gain? What would sinking the other's ships or shooting down their planes win? Would China (the assumed victor) hope to safeguard claims to undersea resources?

 

LIFEISLIFE

5:10 PM ET

August 20, 2011

there is none

Granted, Germany was already a major, if not the foremost, military power in the region, whereas China today is no match even for Japan, much less the US. Plus, Germany was a newly formed nation which did not yet have a concrete feel for its geopolitical place in the region. But, China is aggressively trying to upgrade its military capacity, like building a simple handmade jewelry factory, despite the fact that it really does not even need it as a means of ensuring its prosperity (the US already does that for it, basically for free). And "China" itself is a nebulous geopolitical concept that has fluctuated over the centuries and now encompasses regions like Tibet, East Turkestan, and Taiwan (to a degree), none of which would willingly be ruled by Beijing; so who knows how far it might wish to extend its quasi-imperial state.

 

WAHOO94

8:26 PM ET

August 15, 2011

are boats still useful?

Do you guys believe that boats are still useful? During WW2 the only way to take out an aircraft carrier was to drop a couple of well placed bombs on them. This was of course no easy task. Now a days with our advanced technology, especially that of smart missles it seems to mee that large aircraft carriers make quite vulnuerable targets and as far as I now we have no real defense system to target and destory missles in an effective and consistent manner. Obviously they are still useful, such as in their role in Iraq whre they sit off the shore launching missions and shooting missles themselves if needed. I just don't know how practical a navy is now.

Paper Wasp Nest Removal

 

PAUL SHERBO

10:36 AM ET

September 5, 2011

"Boats" are still useful

Yes. No matter how "smart" the missile aimed at a carrier, equally smart defenses can take them out. Even if a carrier is damaged, the fleet's striking power is spread out among Tomahawk-carrying cruisers and destroyers. Plus, ships' mobility adds a lot to the targeting problem. Then there are our submarines - hard to find and very lethal.
No weapon in history has ever been the "ultimate weapon" except for a very short period of time.

 

KEYBASHER

8:54 PM ET

August 15, 2011

Don't bet on China just yet

Whenever a one-party state hosts an Olympics, ten years later that state circles the drain if it isn't already down it. To wit:

1936: Berlin Olympics / Garmisch-Partenkirchen Winter Olympics
1946: Allied Occupation

1980: Moscow Olympics
1990: Collapse of Communism

1984: Sarajevo Winter Olympics
1994: Yugoslav Civil War

2008: Bejing Olympics
2018: ?

Remember, you read it here first.

 

BUBBLE BURSTER

12:50 AM ET

August 16, 2011

hmmmm

Well, the dates are a little off

Allied occupation of Germany begins in 1945

The USSR collapsed in 1991 not 1990

The Yugoslav civil wars began in 1991.

Finally, what is the cause you are offering?

Hosting Olympics --> X? ---> Collapse of authoritarian regime

What is X ? Death by overexposure???

 

KEYBASHER

7:34 AM ET

August 16, 2011

@Bubble Burster

Each detail you provided supports my original observation: "ten years later that state circles the drain if it isn't already down it."

As for "X" (your term, not mine), your guess is as good as mine.

 

INDIANMUNZZANI

2:34 AM ET

August 16, 2011

Leave them alone

Why do we interest ourselves in other countires, lets just leave china alone in peace and they will do the same for us. If it came down to conflict with China I would want to brush up on my martial arts styles as my brother spent some time out there 2 years ago for a MMA competition and he said they were fearsome fighters, I would not want to get on the wrong side of them.

 

ARVAY

4:57 AM ET

August 16, 2011

corrections

World War II was a moral struggle against fascism, the ideology responsible for the murder of tens of millions of noncombatants. The Cold War was a moral struggle against communism, an equally oppressive ideology by which the vast territories captured by the Red Army were ruled.

In fact, as Kennan outlined it, this was a cleanup job for the unwieldy colossus we enabled in the east. And plenty of military funding and big business opportunities fighting the "war."

More recently, a moral struggle against radical Islam has drawn the United States deep into the mountainous confines of Afghanistan, where the humane treatment of millions of civilians is critical to the war's success. .

Hilarious. The rise of radical islam has been bolstered by our own nonsensical and predatory Mideast foreign policy, ranging from the imposition of the Shah in Iran to the imposition of Israel in Palestine. We've already been defeated in both Afghanistan and Iraq, at enormous cost in human life and resources.

The US as "check to Chinese aggression? "

More absurdity. Imagine a large aggressive Chinese naval, infantry and air force deployed in, say, Cuba and Mexico. You know, to checkmate the US' historic and well-documented record of blatant interference and intervention in the region.

That's what we are doing in Asia.

 

ARVAY

4:58 AM ET

August 16, 2011

un-garbled version, garbled by the inept FP Web idiots

World War II was a moral struggle against fascism, the ideology responsible for the murder of tens of millions of noncombatants. The Cold War was a moral struggle against communism, an equally oppressive ideology by which the vast territories captured by the Red Army were ruled.

In fact, as Kennan outlined it, this was a cleanup job for the unwieldy colossus we enabled in the east. And plenty of military funding and big business opportunities fighting the "war."

More recently, a moral struggle against radical Islam has drawn the United States deep into the mountainous confines of Afghanistan, where the humane treatment of millions of civilians is critical to the war's success. .

Hilarious. The rise of radical islam has been bolstered by our own nonsensical and predatory Mideast foreign policy, ranging from the imposition of the Shah in Iran to the imposition of Israel in Palestine. We've already been defeated in both Afghanistan and Iraq, at enormous cost in human life and resources.

The US as "check to Chinese aggression? "

More absurdity. Imagine a large aggressive Chinese naval, infantry and air force deployed in, say, Cuba and Mexico. You know, to checkmate the US' historic and well-documented record of blatant interference and intervention in the region.

That's what we are doing in Asia.

 

ARVAY

4:59 AM ET

August 16, 2011

corrections

World War II was a moral struggle against fascism, the ideology responsible for the murder of tens of millions of noncombatants.

Nonsense. It was a war to prevent Germany from acquiring enough eastern resources to challenge us for global dominance. When the Germany and the USSR invaded Poland -- the west declared war against Germany, not against the equally oppressive communists. Let the stupid communists win was the strategy.

The Cold War was a moral struggle against communism, an equally oppressive ideology by which the vast territories captured by the Red Army were ruled.

In fact, as Kennan outlined it, this was a cleanup job for the unwieldy colossus we enabled in the east. And plenty of military funding and big business opportunities fighting the "war."

More recently, a moral struggle against radical Islam has drawn the United States deep into the mountainous confines of Afghanistan, where the humane treatment of millions of civilians is critical to the war's success. .

Hilarious. The rise of radical islam has been bolstered by our own nonsensical and predatory Mideast foreign policy, ranging from the imposition of the Shah in Iran to the imposition of Israel in Palestine. We've already been defeated in both Afghanistan and Iraq, at enormous cost in human life and resources.

The US as "check to Chinese aggression? "

More absurdity. Imagine a large aggressive Chinese naval, infantry and air force deployed in, say, Cuba and Mexico. You know, to checkmate the US' historic and well-documented record of blatant interference and intervention in the region.

That's what we are doing in Asia.

 

T1BRIT

7:18 AM ET

August 16, 2011

T1Brit

What the hell is this nonsense about war in the South China sea being 'quite' and 'over the horizon' and no casualties???

You are kidding right? The Chinese would invade Taiwan - there would be a million bloody casualties - the US would strike Chinese mainland targets especially missile launchers - there would be shit flying around in all directions.

Is the author so naive to suppose that the energy of a war like that can be contained to navies and air forces? Really?

The article also seems to contradict itself utterly - it says the region is buffered by sea barriers which make war a pure academic military exercise -
that war will not be costly in civilian lives ..
then goes on to list the wars that have ACTUALLY happened in this region...

The civilians of China, Japan, Korea and Vietnam might beg to differ.

 

IDEA

8:32 AM ET

August 16, 2011

Moral dilemmas

It will likely produce relatively few moral dilemmas of the kind we have been used to in the 20th and early
21st centuries

 

TINATINKA

11:35 AM ET

August 16, 2011

Living in Peace

Discussion about whether there will be war or not is really distasteful. Is not there a lot of wars and killing. Previous wars have not brought anything good.Leave the Chinese people to live in peace and there will not be a conflict!food poisoning symptoms

 

HURRICANEWARNING

12:13 PM ET

August 16, 2011

This articles contention that

This articles contention that China will be a naval power due to its geography is an interesting claim to make. While China has historically had SOME naval abilities, most of that was used for exploration, and in-fact, China historically is a LAND power NOT A MARITIME POWER.. They always look internally,struggling to manage their own massive populous, and defend their borders from invaders. They are no different today, almost all their military technology in use and being developed is DEFENSIVE in nature, and reactive in it's deployment. I find this article to be flawed in this regard. Just because a country has a coast line doesnt mean that it is capable of en-masse, expeditionary naval warfare. That capability takes generations to develop. If they want to compete with the US on the high seas, I think they will need to put more money into their naval development. A slant-ramp 60's era defunct russian trainer carrier is a start, but they are generations away from our current mastery of the worlds oceans,

 

BETALOVER

12:54 PM ET

August 16, 2011

Europe is a landscape; East Asia a seascape.

The comparison between Europe and E Asia ends here.

The future in E Asia will be decided by two major factors: relative peace for stable development and relative population. The trend highly favors China and the Chinese leadership knows this crux. If this trend has the time to come to fruition, E Asia will be as if the entire continental part, Germany, France, Russia etc. is one country (China), leaving Britain (Japan) and the other non-Russian Slavic states (Vietnam, Philippines) as the remainder. Reunification across the Taiwan Strait is almost certain so Taiwan will be a part of the Continent.

Will war break out before China naturally achieves natural dominance within 20 or 30 years? This is the question.

A more and more powerful China will remain flexible and will negotiate. The issues would be settled this way.

The Vietnam leadership also knows that as long as the issues are not settled, any contract will any multinational firms in exploration and extraction will be worth less. Many firms will just weigh antagonizing China as a definite cost, which may be evaluated as too high. But Vietnam has the underdog mentality and will be less tractable and may be less rational.

The Japanese leadership senses that Japans claim is not as rigorously valid as the Japanese populace think. The US gave the island for Japanese administration. Japan will eventually negotiate for a settlement that does not insult the Japanese populace.

 

BETALOVER

1:30 PM ET

August 16, 2011

China’s dominance in E Asia is the natural state of affairs.

What had disturbed this natural state were some abrupt occurrences in the past two centuries: Western industrial revolution and Japanese willingness to Westernize and then becoming aggressive.

Racism has been the wildcard. When the West was virulently racist, it compelled China to import Opium. China was devastated and could not resist a smaller Westernized Japan. Now racism has much ameliorated, part and parcel of Western social progress. State sponsored illicit drug trafficking is now out of vogue and there is no Japan to wage war on China; China’s progress can thus be understood. True, during that period, China had had its own internal problems, a certain mindset that was detrimental to growth and Westernization; this is also coming to an end.

I see China’s progress into an upper middle income country, say with a nominal per capita GNP of USD10, 000, as highly likely. China does not need any major reform to achieve to this level, as long as it can manage its environmental problems. China’s rapid resurgence is a natural phenomenon upon the background of Western social progress: ameliorated racism and other forms of bigotry.

 

BETALOVER

1:52 PM ET

August 16, 2011

China not aggressively building up

"But, China is aggressively trying to upgrade its military capacity, despite the fact that it really does not even need it as a means of ensuring its prosperity (the US already does that for it, basically for free). And "China" itself is a nebulous geopolitical concept that has fluctuated over the centuries and now encompasses regions like Tibet, East Turkestan, and Taiwan (to a degree), none of which would willingly be ruled by Beijing; so who knows how far it might wish to extend its quasi-imperial state."

China today is not diplomatically nebulous. Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan are all parts of China per diplomatic parlance. One can inject ideology into diplomatic reality, but one should first recognize such diplomatic reality and place ideology in its perspective.

If China were a qusai-imperial state, it will not have accepted the independence of parts of Vietnam, Korea, and Mongolia. Diplomatically. these are countries and China accept this diplomatic reality.

Is the USA a nebulous geographic concept? No, per diplomatic parlance. If one wants to inject ideology into the concept, then at the USA is the greater quasi-imperial state.

How can one say a country that spends 1-2 % of GNP on defense is aggressively building up?

 

ISABEL DE LOS RIOS

11:55 AM ET

August 24, 2011

I wonder why...

I wonder why China is aggressively upgrading it's military capacity? Could it be because of countries like the US and NATO invading here there and everywhere? I wonder...

Isabel De Los Rios

 

BETALOVER

2:35 PM ET

August 16, 2011

Taiwan will not be the issue

Taiwan Taiwan and Taiwan.

Why don't people claim that Cuba will define a major part of American posture and strategy?

Taiwan will actually be a small issue. This is due to its geograhy as an island without little energy. I don't mean geopolitics, but simple geography. All energy supplies are hopelessly exposed.

In another 30 years, what will be the most aggressive that the mainland will need to do, gradually but decisvely, to force reunification?

It will target oil-tankers leaving Taiwam. What specifically will the mainland need to do to oil-tankers leaving Taiwan. Will it need to actually sink one? No, all it will need to do is to fire a few shots at one and declare to do so again without any more warning. Taiwan will be gradually paralysed economcially. Any commercial uniqueness to the world will be gradually vitiated as long term planing will be more and more difficult.

In another 30 years, will Taiwan start an attack on the mainland to break away? What will be at stake for Taiwan will be the erosion of business confidence due to uncertainty of energy supply. Taiwan has no defense against this gradual approach.

Some people go so far to say that the mainland will have little time and will have to act fast. Nonsense. When the time comes the mainland WILL have plenty of time as there will be no recourse. As far as the UN is concerned, Taiwan is a part of China and will have no voice.

What will motivate the rest of the world to prevent Taiwan being another Hong Kong? Gradually, nothing. And, the way to prevent a war will dominate global affairs re Taiwan, upon the background of a more and more powerful China.

Moreover and fundamentally, Taiwan has not articulated to the world that it prefers taking the chance of winning a destructive war (if it loses there will be one country one system) over becoming another Hong Kong after negotiation. Taiwan will not , does not want to, and will not be allowed to articulate a real choice. Last, the rest of the world will not choose to start a war even if Taiwan articulated such a choice.

Taiwan has feet of clay and in order to avoid eventual reunifcation it will be asked to start a war, to bear destruction in the hope of winning a war. It won't. I see another Hong Kong, no war, coming up within 20-40 years.

China will be less and less dependent on global trade with ideologically driven economies and will endure the economic losses from stepping up pressure on Taiwan, as long as there is no gory pictures of attack on Taiwan. China will continue to sense the economic impact of brute force on Taiwan.

In so many ways, attack on Taiwan will be seen as both unwise and unnecessary. Let's hope that the ultra-nationalist in China will not be in power. In a way, populace fervor on the Taiwan issue may be the wildcard, if China becomes democratic.

 

ORMONDOTVOS

2:52 PM ET

August 16, 2011

Neglected, but critical factors --

Climate, thus food supply. Starvation causes conflict and suffering. Farmers can't handle irregular weather well.

Four more worlds: China, India, Indonesia, etc can't all have the material standards of living that the Big Seven have, BECAUSE there aren't four more earths to supply the raw materials for it.

It's not insoluble. People can travel much less, and educate and entertain and socialize electronically, increasing world cohesion, and allowing the adventurous to learn new, and integrative cultures.

Of course, the war mongers like Kaplan will keep wringing their hands, as the surplus energy and goods go into destructive armaments.

 

QUSMAN1

4:16 AM ET

August 17, 2011

what a mediocre and superficial article!

Kaplan yet again projects his trademark paranoia that American government functionaries lap up so well.

 

MICHAELW_NEWYORK

7:01 AM ET

August 17, 2011

Kilo Class Submarines (not all submarines are equal)

Its an interesting article, but whenever I read articles like this which make
completely obvious mistakes about the very subject they think they are discussing, well, it just makes me wonder who is fooling who. Kaplan in this article calls the Russian Kilo Class Submarine, which VIetnam and China both have variants of, "state of the art". Really ? Since when ? This is a diesel electric submarine with a snorkel that is no doubt deadly enough, but not state of the art, not even close.

And while we are on the subject, 1 aircraft carrier, which China didnt even build, is a long way from having a serious aircraft carrier like capability. A long way.

I know its not politically correct, but if you are going to write articles like this, I think it would behoove the authors to learn the first thing or two about the military side of the subject, or perhaps have someone who does review it for them.

MW

 

ANDYT

9:10 AM ET

August 17, 2011

All it takes is a spark...

...for something to blow up. Just a small scuffle, and everything could collapse, from Hong Kong equities to Singapore property. Just my two cents.

 

KEITH MCDONALD

1:16 PM ET

August 17, 2011

With any luck at all

With any luck at all, China will seek to keep the peace and kill the customers of its giant economy..

 

BING520

4:37 PM ET

August 17, 2011

South China Sea Conflict

A great artocle. I truly enjoy it. My applause to Robert Kaplan. But, I have difficulty understanding his conclusion. How can the US maintain the balance by keeping its current military posture unchanged? If China's military might ascends, the US would have to add more, quantitatively as well as qualitatively, to its present military force in the western Pacific. Our military strength either declines or ascends relatively to China's military buildup.

Sort of a diplomatic solution acceptable to major players in the region, no balance can be maintained. Europe's concept of balance of power had led to wars until after WW II. I don't see how Kaplan's advocate for balance of power would create an opportunity for lasting peace.

 

ANSEL03

1:27 AM ET

August 18, 2011

Don't conflict in south china sea

it's the china end if the conflict boom

 

NULIZ

10:04 AM ET

August 18, 2011

Sneaky China

China has very interesting home land policy as well as foreign. They buying land for farms in Australia, they established strategic pig meat reserve (i know it sounds strange, but they did it). And of course they have hudge ambitions in military role.

Oh yeah, and also they (Chinese) are biggest debtor of USA .

- Zaliuzes klaipedoje

 

PT109

7:53 PM ET

August 18, 2011

Another war in the Pacific ??

The contention that conflict in East Asia will be any less of a burden on civilian populations seems flat out wrong. Wasn't this the Pacific Theater of War? That war saw major conflict in Burma, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines to name a few of the countries affected. The Indochina conflict was obviously very bloody and was the scene of one of the worst instances of genocide in history. Ultimately, countries need to control land territory, and not just the sea, so it is inevitable that conflict will move to the land.

 

PT109

7:53 PM ET

August 18, 2011

Another war in the Pacific ??

The contention that conflict in East Asia will be any less of a burden on civilian populations seems flat out wrong. Wasn't this the Pacific Theater of War? That war saw major conflict in Burma, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines to name a few of the countries affected. The Indochina conflict was obviously very bloody and was the scene of one of the worst instances of genocide in history. Ultimately, countries need to control land territory, and not just the sea, so it is inevitable that conflict will move to the land.

 

DARRIN.GERMANY

12:50 AM ET

August 19, 2011

South China Sea

The article is somewhat sensational in that is fails to identify a fundamental rationale supporting a prognostication of naval battles in the South China Sea. As a few others have indicated, naval power projection is not sufficient enough, in the COE, to secure strategic objectives.

 

TING_M_1999

1:10 PM ET

August 19, 2011

Future conflict

The cause of future conflict in the South China Sea area depends on the actions of USA and the littoral nations in that area. The author seams not to know the history of that area and forget to mention that the islands in that area are also literally called South Sand Islands and West Sand islands and that they have been claimed by China and acknowledged internationally before and during the Western colonial expansion into that area. The recent rise in tension is entirely initiated by territorial claims from those littoral nations that not even their previous colonial powers ever tried. They would be day dream if they can snatch a piece of territoy from China with the help of USA. They should remember that, with USA and USSR support, India failed miserably in trying to snatch some Chinese land territory in the China-India war in 1962.

 

PUBLICUS

10:40 AM ET

September 2, 2011

Its proper name: the Southeast Asia Sea

Of the 130,000 km coastline extant on maps as the "South China Sea," fewer than 3,000 km actually border the People's Republic of China (the CCP-PRC). Until the 16th century the body of water was known as the Sea of Cham, Cham having been a notable maritime kindgom of the era. The Chinese (eunuch) Admiral Zheng He sailed his giant fleet through it but never had the audacity to try to claim it for China and its otherwise grabby imperial dynasties. The dictatorship of the People's Republic of China claims to have maps clarifying China's assertions of a deep historical sovereignty over the body of water, but hasn't ever revealed the alleged maps to provide undisputable or clear evidence, much less any proof.

The Nguen Thai Hoc Foundation (NTHFoundation@yahoo.com) in 2010 launched a petition to the United Nations Atlas of the Oceans, the United Nations Secretary General, the leaders of ASEAN countries, the EU, the Geographic Organizations of the USA and a dozen individual nations of Europe to include Germany; Japan, S Korea, Russia among other nations, and 7000 individuals connected to global maritime activities to properly name the body of water the Southeast Asia Sea.

Last year I was the 4,383rd signer of the petition, which now has obtained more than 52,000 signatures. The goal is 500,000 signatures. I invite all interested persons, groups and organizations to contact the Nguen Thai Hoc Foundation to sign the petition (NTHFoundation@yahoo.com).

 

IMANT

9:28 AM ET

August 21, 2011

The world is looking for the

The world is looking for the new spaces fro war, how nice... Why is it so crucial to make war? What about the healthy competition, it will not only save thousands and thousands of lives, a lot of money and tons of time, but ot will also favor the progress in general, when the scientists, sportsmen, politicians, etc. will struggle to do their best to make their country #1. The time when the sword was the answer to everything has passed, nobody needs that anymore. So, what we should really look for is the new technologies that will make our world the better place to live, the support for the talented doctors who will have the motivation to develop new strategies how to cure incurable; the engineers who will have time, desire and again motivation to create something that will make our life easier. That's what we should think of and not about the new spaces where to bleed.
miniarticlebase

 

MITTAL

1:17 PM ET

August 26, 2011

keeping peace in uncharted territory

http://www.ehow.com/about_6620614_do-scratch-ground-after-defecating_.html?utm_medium=Test8

 

BEN-PK

3:48 AM ET

August 27, 2011

Towards a bi-polar world....

The analysts are waiting with their fingers crossed for the trigger for this century's world war, which will surely take place in East Asia. If the tension on South China Sea intensifies, the world will witness global realignment into Allied and Axis powers as a prelude to First Naval World War. Presently, all nine states that touch the South China Sea are more or less arrayed against China and, therefore, dependent on the United States for diplomatic and military support. The South China Sea has increasingly become an armed camp, as the claimants build up and modernize their navies. War or no war, will this realignment translate into another bi-polar world of post-WWII? Analysts have their fingers crossed but given the economic growth and fast industrialization of China, the world is already on the road to a bi-polar world. Read more at: http://pksecurity.blogspot.com/2011/08/towards-bipolar-world-via-south-china.html

 

HANS HOWARD

12:47 PM ET

August 30, 2011

Conflict, it is!

It seems like it's going to be another war in the Pacific. As I was searching for some articles related to this (but I ended up looking for how to order watches online!), I realized that China seems like it is threatening it's neighboring countries. I have read a recent news that China has a refurbished destroyer. It's not brand new, but it is useful on its South China Sea exploration..or bullying, huh?

 

PAUL SHERBO

10:24 AM ET

September 5, 2011

War would not stay at sea

Good article. I do take issue with a couple of items.
- The author contends that conflict in the Western Pacific will be mostly at sea and therefore will have little impact on civilian populations. World War II survivors in Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia and Indochina would not agree. In fact, neither would survivors of the country that lost - Japan, whose major cities burned to the ground. War at sea has a way of finding the path to your front door.
- The author also seems to view water in the way land forces commonly view it - as a barrier. It isn't. Navies view the oceans as highways - perfect for transporting large numbers of troops and tons of equipment.
But again, good article.

 

BERN

3:04 AM ET

September 7, 2011

Future of Battleground

The South China Sea has acquired the status of melting pot over the past few decades and not just the neighboring nations but even the far away countries have been eyeing this region suspiciously expecting an outcry of tallyho from it. The way poor circulation in legs impedes your walk and erodes your stamina, the South China Sea’s aggressive naval tactics might prove detrimental to their own security and economic prosperity. Instead of harnessing such unfounded fears, it would be advisable for the nations to formulate a mutually acceptable commercial agreement that will work out for everybody’s good.