In the NYT, Robert Kaplan discusses Asia’s military modernization and America’s loss of its Pacific “lake.” Here’s just a sample:
THE ultimate strategic effect of the Iraq war has been to hasten the arrival of the Asian Century.
While the American government has been occupied in Mesopotamia, and our European allies continue to starve their defense programs, Asian militaries — in particular those of China, India, Japan and South Korea — have been quietly modernizing and in some cases enlarging. Asian dynamism is now military as well as economic.
The military trend that is hiding in plain sight is the loss of the Pacific Ocean as an American lake after 60 years of near-total dominance. A few years down the road, according to the security analysts at the private policy group Strategic Forecasting, Americans will not to the same extent be the prime deliverers of disaster relief in a place like the Indonesian archipelago, as we were in 2005. Our ships will share the waters (and the prestige) with new “big decks” from Australia, Japan and South Korea.
Then there is China, whose production and acquisition of submarines is now five times that of America’s. Many military analysts feel it is mounting a quantitative advantage in naval technology that could erode our qualitative one. Yet the Chinese have been buying smart rather than across the board.
(HT to Ampontan, whose comments on the piece are worth reading)
10 Comments
Not even sure that the U.S was the prime deliverer of aid in the 2005 tsunami.
http://www.nationmaster.com/gr.....id-package
If you look at it as a per GPD graph:
http://www.nationmaster.com/gr.....ic-per-gdp
I remember there were alot of military personel involved though, so maybe that tipped the scales.
Looks like China sent a couple of chuppa chupps.
I always thought this Kaplan guy was a bit of a hack, and gets much more credit than he deserves. His Korean analysis was particularly amateurish, and the sloppiness of this article doesn’t really help to convince me otherwise. Never-the-less people act as if the sun shines out of his ass; theres eve a blog that worships him (Coming Anarchy; an excellent blog, better than Kaplan IMHO)
I’m not saying the guys a dunce, but his articles are nothing to get excited about.
Particularly the comment about Europe starving their armies and contrasting it with Asia.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html
In terms of defense spending as a percent of GDP, South Korea, in a “constant state of peril” is but three slots lower than France, and its standing army has in fact contracted in recent years as a result of sporadic service time reductions. Don’t forget about the big contraction to come, a reduction of service time by 6 months.
Japans defense budget is at 0.8% of GDP, and comparing its Navy to that of Britain is comparing an apple to an orange (albeit an orange that used to be an apple) as its obviously meant to play off Britain’s history as a great naval power whereas in modern times its spending goes into a more substantial Army than Japan’s.
rankcountrymilitary exp as % of GDPdefense budget
57Korea, South2.732.292
60France 2.649.452
69Australia2.416.2
70United Kingdom2.456.304
72Portugal2.34.83
76Taiwan2.2 14.982
93Thailand1.8 10.728
148Japan 0.839.064
(Frong the CIA WFB; The defense budget was recalculated from GDP, and I didn’t check whether or not the year from the GDP were the same as the years for the defense budget, the main point of this is to show it in terms of GDP. If you want different budget figures go here: http://www.borgenproject.org/Defense_Spending.html)
I also left out China and Russia, for obvious reasons (you can’t trust their numbers)
As you can see, “old Europe” is not exactly “neglecting” its armies. And China is actually decreasing tis military, while spending more on it to improve its quality.
(apparently tables are cut parsed out in posting)
57 Korea, South 2.7 32.292
60 France 2.6 49.452
69 Australia 2.4 16.2
70 United Kingdom 2.4 56.304
72 Portugal 2.3 4.83
76 Taiwan 2.2 14.982
93 Thailand 1.8 10.728
148 Japan 0.8 39.064
So, as a thank-you gift for renewing my subscription, the Economist sent me a “Pocket World in Figures” (Yes, I feel very special).
I think the article would be more valid if it focused more on the recent news about updating war machines in all three countries…
Rank. Country - Regulars - Reserves
1. China - 2255000 - 800000
3. India - 1325000 - 1155000
6. South Korea - 687000 - 4500000
20 . Japan - 239000 - 44000
The ‘Asian Century’. Does this term imply dominance beyond Asia, or primacy in Asia only?
One day people will look back on the “Asian Century” and “China Rising” quacking and think it the quaintest thing. The modern western world’s amazing skill in the early and loud recognition of the bare beginnings of any challenge to it’s hegemony (which I welcome) is the story here. Such early detection is followed by the crushing of the challenge. Wow, what happened to Japan rising in the 80’s, anyone?
Why I am a China-scoffer: A nation where the national dream is to get the fuck out of China. Pshaw. Add India in to that too. These are basket-case countries on a far deeper level than the ‘gee whiz’ stories let you know.
Defense budgets as a % of GDP show how serious a country is to its national security. But the actual defense budgets themselves can be very misleading. I think it comes down to how much bang for the buck a military gets. For example, the ROK Navy paid approx. $1.2 billion for each Aegis Destroyer (comparable to a US Arleigh Burke) whereas the Australians are paying approx. $2.2 billion for each Aegis Frigate (a smaller and less capable ship then the KDX-3 or Arleigh Burke). This can be attributed to the lack of a strong military industrial base in Australia.
The Kaplan piece was timely and provided much needed visibility to the naval build-up in Asia. Much of this development started in the 1980’s - as navies do not arrive overnight. Nations with $$ are the ones that operate large navies and its a fact that traditional European naval powers are declining and Asian navies are ascending. Some of Kaplan’s assertions are questionable, but the overall tone of the article resonated well.
I know we all like to throw numbers around, but when comparing navies, it should be done from a capabilities based approach. Gross tonnage doesn’t work anymore and #’s of ships are not as significant as they used to be. Strictly by size, China has the largest navy, followed by the U.S. and Russia. But from a capabilities based standpoint I think a more reasonable assessment would be:
1. U.S.
2. Japan
3. France
4. UK
5. ROK *
6. India *
? China **
? Russia **
* India and ROK will surpass France and UK within 5 years based on commissioning and decommissioning schedules.
**Training and operational readiness questionable.
Why I am a China-scoffer: A nation where the national dream is to get the fuck out of China
I like that
# 7,
I doubt that the ROK navy will surpass the UK or France for awhile. Given that the UK and France has nuclear powered attack and ballistic subs and several aircraft carriers/LTPs and the ROK will not for the forseeable future.
#9, I did some research on my own after reading about the ROK Navy’s acquisition of a Type 214 AIP sub, Aegis Destroyer and big deck amphib this past year, especially what it meant it from a balance of power point of view, and I was pretty shocked at the results. I looked at strictly blue water capability (surface combatants and subs) since ballistic subs are strictly strategic deterrence assets and the single aircraft carriers - in UK and France - are merely for symbolic purposes. The ROK Navy is a growing blue water navy that consists of very modern ships, whereas 50% of the French Navy consists of major combatants that are older than 20 yrs of age. So this means France is losing more ships than they are gaining. I also looked at it from a capabilities standpoint and the ROK Navy’s use of indigenous anti-ship missiles, land attack cruise missiles, amphibious capability, etc. make them a very potent navy and marine corps. The nuclear attack subs that the French and UK operate are extremely old and loud and doesn’t come close to an AIP. IMHO the most dangerous navies are now in Northeast Asia (US, China, Russia, Japan and ROK). In contrast to what Kaplan says, I think India has a long way to go.
One Trackback
That Old Kaplan Magic…
Click to continue reading ""Popularity: unranked [?]
……