Risk [Updated]
[Image from Wikipedia]
.jpg){kind=link}
Published: 2021-07-19
Updated: 2021-11-29. Added a Culture section.
Alexander Mercouris is one of my favourite geo-political analysts. He has just released a 75 odd minute video piece (see sources) which looks at the growing naval tensions in the eastern Pacific between China and the US (and perhaps Japan).
He also brings in Russia's fleet, and particularly its new submarine class.
It is all horrifically scary. Towards the end he gets to what he sees as the strategic purposes behind these moves by both Russia and China. I think there is merit in his analyses.
I will briefly summarise the key points in the potentially coming naval arms race, and the horror of the new Russian submarine class, and then move on to a geopolitical strategic analysis.
I offer the same caveat as Mr. Mercouris. I have never served in any military, and have no military training or expertise in military hardware at all. I just have a basic science degree and have studied history as an amateur (literally, for the love of it).
Carriers
China bought an old Russian made aircraft carrier from Ukraine many years ago. It was modified to integrate it with China's existing navy (and no doubt they built support vessels for it). China then studied its design, modernised various components and built a newer version of it. These two carriers are what China has. They are in no way comparable to any of the 11 super-carriers of the USA Navy. The key differences are the lengths of the flight decks (China smaller) and the use or lack thereof of "catapults" to launch aircraft. US has these, China not. Thus, the US can launch aircraft faster, and far more importantly launch heavier aircraft with much higher bomb loads. The US carriers are capable of performing very effective bombing of land targets because of this superior launch weight capacity. In contrast to this the smaller Chinese carriers really only provide air defense for other warships.
China is now building the first of a new carrier class which looks to be not quite as good as the US super-carriers, but is comparable. Similar flight deck length and some form of catapult. The Chinese "Type 003" version is weaker with only 2 instead of 3 flight lifts and 3 instead of 4 catapult assisted launch runways.
Mercouris goes on to claim that China's focus has been on securing its coastal seas. The vast majority of its naval power is targeted at having a very strong defense for naval interactions in the seas or straights off its coast. Of course, in these waters, it can bring to bear all of its land based military assets. Notably, its air force and missile offense, including hyper-sonic anti-ship missiles, stand ready.
Nuclear Robots
Next is the new Russian submarine class. Like all things on the nuclear weapons front this scares the hell out of me, and I am with every non-nuclear thing in the world. I believe that nuclear weapons, from the smallest to the largest should be completely internationally banned. Same for biological weapons, chemical weapons and using the weather as a weapon. As I mentioned recently, I am also for humans in the military to be required to be in close proximity to any non-human autonomous systems. I digress.
The new Russian subs can launch a drone. I thought that this drone would be controlled and get "closer" to some location and then launch a nuclear missile. I had completely missed the point. The crafty Russians had come up with a "less" dangerous nuclear weapon. The problem with nuclear weapons, ignoring all of the nuclear fall out, is the likelihood of a nuclear winter. If the weapon explodes on the ground you get tonnes and tonnes of dirt, dust, and other fibers thrown into the atmosphere. If you detonate above ground this happens to a lesser degree but you set the mother of all super-fires and you end up with some of the former and tonnes of soot in the atmosphere. Due to weather patterns this spreads, the skies are darkened and the planet cools rapidly for years until the dust and soot is cleared. How long? Nobody knows. It depends on how many weapons, their strength and where and how they were detonated. But, say, 10 years of temperatures too low to grow crops. Billions of people die.
The sneaky Russians asked how a nuclear weapon can be used and not cause this problem. That robot-sub does not "launch" a nuclear weapon, it IS a nuclear weapon and explodes under water to cause tsunamis the likes of which haven't been seen since the dinosaurs got wiped out. Okay, that’s a bit of an over statement, but certainly bigger than any in our recorded history. One creates absolute devastation in coastal areas and avoids the nuclear winter. But, this strikes me as downgrading an absolute catastrophe into just a serious catastrophe. What happens to the marine life? I'm not a marine biologist or ecologist, but I image you would create collapses of ecosystems and this would effect much of the worlds migratory fish, which is a lot of the fishes, my friend.
Enough scary. Here's the geo-political strategic analysis.
Playing Poker with Carriers
Why would China risk creating a naval arms race in the eastern Pacific? Their efforts, with Russia and others, to create the BRI insulates China a little from a suffocation of sea based trade, or it may as they complete major sections of it. At that point, they have the production capacity and resource supply to maintain production, so they may be able to "keep up" with an arms race. But, Mercouris suggests, and I concur, that this is not the core strategy. That strategy is to engage in a naval arms limitation treaty. How this would come about is hidden behind a lot of soot in my crystal ball. I have however seen very careful strategic play from both Russia and China in their alignment and geopolitical efforts.
I could mumble on about the comparative strengths of the bureaucracies behind the Russia-China alliance and the NATO counterpart, but shall refrain. (Note to self: I really should look up the graduate numbers in politics, political-economy and history between the blocks).
Building one aircraft carrier close to but below the capability of a US super-carrier is a shrewd move. It shows capability, and a little threat. Then you show mock plans for two more, but this time nuclear powered, and closer to US capability and the gears start moving.
Game Mode
I recall playing the board game Risk as a young man. It was great fun. One of the unwritten rules was that you can’t control Asia, which had the largest number of armies to be earned per turn when you controlled the entire continent. It was able to be attacked from every other continent except South America. Thus, if you tried to hold it other players would gang up on you in mutual interest to prevent your control. This, of course, echoes Mackinder's "one world island" theory of geopolitical dominance. What we are seeing is a consolidation of Asia via the China-Russia alliance and the BRI. Of course, they have their eyes on Europe, Africa and Oceania too.
There are two game modes for Risk, world domination or strategic objective. Which game do the current players think they are playing?
Sources
China's Aircraft Carriers and Warships Challenge US Naval Mastery in Pacific, Alexander Mercouris
China’s New Super Carrier: How It Compares To The US Navy’s Ford Class, Naval News
Progress Report on China’s Type 003 Carrier, Center for Strategic and International Studies
Culture
Eric Clapton[70] 09. Driftin' Blues, at The Royal Albert Hall 2015, uploaded 2016-02-07.