Submitted by Taps Coogan on the 6th of September 2018 to The Sounding Line.
Enjoy The Sounding Line? Click here to subscribe for free.
Amid increasing US-China tensions over trade and geopolitics, Geopolitical Futures‘ founder and Chairman George Friedman recently challenged the idea of China’s military expansion, particularly the growth of its Navy and its ambitions in the South China Sea.
Mr. Friedman notes:
“One area that they (China) have to control is the South China Sea. For ten years they have been building this navy that was going to sweep everybody away and they still don’t control the South China Sea… They have a navy. It now has one aircraft carrier. The United States has lots of aircraft carriers. So yes, they have increased the number of aircraft carrier infinitely from zero to one, but you can’t imagine the Chinese Navy challenging the American or the Japanese Navy. The newspapers who don’t understand a military balance will look at China and say ‘my God they’ve got a huge Naval program.’ So let’s ask a stupid question. What are they building? When will they build it and who will command it? The most important question about a navy is not the ship, it’s about the admiral.”
If you would like to be updated via email when we post a new article, please click here. It’s free and we won’t send any promotional materials.
Would you like to be notified when we publish a new article on The Sounding Line? Click here to subscribe for free.
Hmm something is inconsistent between George Friedman’s opinion and what these links below say. IMO the two armies are comparable in strength, also in navy. The US has more carriers, but then China has ore submarines. Thinking scissors rock I think submarines are quite good against carriers. Probably the problem is in my head, no idea.
—
https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=united-states-of-america#navy
—
https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=china#navy
The Chinese submarines are probably not comparable to US ones on a one to one basis. Friedman may be overstating the US advantage, but the underlying point is still interesting to consider. Also one has to wonder the about the likelyhood of a conventional naval engagement to begin with.
I agree that a naval engagement is unlikely. The fact is that the US is trying to maintain its superiority and hegemony across the Earth but once regions find the US to be their common enemy, the game will end. The US is not stronger anymore than everyone else combined. Even the NATO is not necessarily stronger than everyone combined. China’s naval capabilities might be weaker than that of the US but if China gets Russia on their side then US will need its allies and the whole thing will develop very quickly. In a way I believe the reason… Read more »
Interesting points. As I said, I agree that Friedman is overstating, as he often does. Nonetheless, the point he is driving at is that China’s very hyped economic and military advances are not all that meets the eye and perhaps not as inevitable as they are made out to be. I hesitated to post the interview because it’s not the most insightful he has done but I thought it was worth while nonetheless.
> I hesitated to post the interview because it’s not the most insightful he has done but I thought it was worth while nonetheless.
Sure, I do not complain, I just pointed out some inconsistencies from what I knew. In a way (in my head) I was arguing with him, not you 🙂
Thanks for sharing and the work you put into your site!