If you watched Monday's debate, you saw Mr. Romney raise the point again. The president, with no lack of snark, suggested that such comparisons are inaccurate. The Navy may be smaller, but by replacing battleships with aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines it remains the strongest navy on the planet.
Who's right? They both are, although Mr. Obama's claim is more relevant (snark notwithstanding).
A pair of infographics at Popular Science illustrate the problem. The US Navy in 2012 is indeed smaller, with fifty fewer active ships than 1917. On the other hand, we have eleven active carrier strike groups--equal to 50% of the total world deployment. Just one of those carrier strike groups could sink the entire US Navy in 1917, and probably any other navy it went up against: British, German, Japanese or otherwise.
;10080504.jpg/300px-USS_Bataan_(LHD-5);10080504.jpg) |
| Amphibious assault craft: USS Bataan Photo courtesy: Wikipedia |
However, that the president is right about the power of the modern navy doesn't mean that his challenger is wrong about the overall message. Mr. Romney's point is that the Navy should be bigger than it is now in order to meet the unseen threats beyond our current time horizon.
Presidents Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama have overseen a transition from a navy that contained the Soviet Union to one more geared towards shoreline conflict and amphibious assault (in support of humanitarian missions and the War on Terror). Romney, on the other hand, argues that this is short-sighted, and that we rebuilding the Navy to deter a future great power war.
What do you think?
From a realist stand point, states should never stop increasing their securities by gaining more power. Thus Romney is right about his proposal to expand US Navy. Especially at this time, when the ideologically-conflicting China is raising rapidly across the ocean. Layne would also argue the growing demand of US power in the Pacific and beyond drives US to increase its navy size, to contain China and Russia, and to prevent the emergence of another great power. Since this could lead to imperial overstretch, an upheaval in technology and quality is more efficient than in size and quantity. Whereas liberals would argue Romney is too pessimistic. In liberals eyes, military power doesn't explain everything. Since democracies tend not to fight each other, liberals would try to contain competitors ideologically, rather than militarily. Liberals wouldn't want to spend more budget to increase the size of the navy, because they believe states can trade some security to prosperity.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Andy. One question: can an naval arms race really contain China, or would it just encourage China to escalate in return and push both sides closer to war.
DeleteI have never thought about that. I guess China would respond by significantly increasing its military spending as well(despite the fact China will keep spending more on national security no matter what). Actually I think China is the one country that will never trade security to prosperity, because Chinese government,by heart, still feels threatened by the outside world, and Chinese mass public can't influence the policy-making once every four years. Chinese government is willing to put national security (or namely the security of the party) at a much higher priority than civil issues is partially due to the Communist Party's underground history, and partially because of the "century of humiliation". That being said, I think there is no way China is able to keep up with the US on an naval arm race in the short run. Chinese Navy recently unveiled its first aircraft carrier "Liaoning", not too long after Japan has "bought" the disputed islands from its "private owner". However Liaoning is still a baby in comparison to US carriers, and China has not been able to land any planes on it.
DeleteThanks, Andy. These are definitely long-run issues.
DeleteI would argue that although the US certainly has its competitors in the global arena, it still holds too much soft power for immediate expansion of the Navy (to deter a power war) to be a spending priority.
ReplyDeleteInteresting point, Chloe.
DeleteI find it interesting that Romney never cites which future great power he is talking about. The current threat are non-state actors that couldn't care less about the size of our naval fleet. That being said, it is important to think of the long run, in which an increase in naval buildup would be tactical. But without a clear threat, it is pointless and too costly to build up and maintain the military. Until an actual threat presents itself, we should maintain the status quot, if not reduce.
ReplyDeleteGood thoughts, Collin.
DeleteAndy is definitely right, and from a realist point of view a state should always try to increase its relative power. However these decisions cannot be made in a vacuum and given the US budget deficit this is not the most prudent course of action. Collin is also correct when he says that there is no current threat to US naval superiority. China, often cited as the bogey man waiting to challenge US hegemony, has exactly one aircraft carrier which is a refitted Ukrainian carrier that was originally launched in 1990. Though China may grow more ambitious, they will be unable to threaten US naval superiority for quite some time. I think the threat to US naval superiority derives less from other navies, then from ship to ship missiles, space denial tactics and other means of asymmetrical warfare. For example, if I was in charge of a country that wished to threaten the USN I would much rather spend $500 million on sea mines (which could stop the US from approaching my territory) or ship to ship missiles then $4.5 billion on a Nimitz class carrier (of which the US has 10). If the US's financial crisis deepens it may actually be in our best interest to decrease our naval forces, or develop less capital ships, as a more cost efficient method of force projection. Control (or at least the ability to deny control) of the sea is essential to US strategic interests because of the role of global trade. However, both the cost and the vulnerability of super carriers make them an inefficient way to maintain this control. There is no country that is, or will be able to threaten the US military in the foreseeable future and thus there is no reason the US should further develop its military capabilities.
ReplyDeleteWell-thought out. Thanks, David.
Delete