Repair-It

China isn't fine without a blue water navy. They have one; it's called the US Navy. The failure in many people's belief is that it makes sense to compare the United States to any other nation in the world. It doesn't.

Where many people fail in their understanding of US government spending on military expenditures is that they don't understand the purpose of the United States Navy. It doesn't exist simply so that we can beat all other potential combatants in a one-on-one exchange of fisticuffs. It can, but if that were its only mission, it could afford to play the game the same way all the others do.

In this case, the faulty assumption is that if we only focus on beating the Chinese, we'll still be ahead. The most logical way to do that then must be to eliminate the "useless" elements where we don't directly compete. China doesn't need it; why should we? This, however, ignores that the US isn't playing the same game as the Chinese. In fact, the military mission of the Chinese Navy isn't even in the same league as the Americans.

This logic fails because of the most crucial reason why the US Navy exists. It isn't just to beat the other guys. It's to provide economic security over global commons.

"The mission of the Navy is to maintain, train and equip combat-ready naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas" - Official Mission Statement of the US Navy

The United States is the only world power which has taken responsibility over all international trade lanes. Others are active participants, but absent a single global leader, their influence would be negligible. All other powers are regional and only enforce their strength locally, with the exception of only a few like the United Kingdom. The rest, nations like China, are focused on the creation and maintenance of green water fleets. They use their fleets not to secure global trade lane access for all nations, and the ability to take part in economic cooperation, but to enforce their own local agendas, pestering their neighbors and securing their own trade routes. They have no ability to benefit anyone elsewhere and little incentive to try.

This isn't important, however, because other nations have no reason to. That responsibility lies with the Americans because the rest of the world knows that if the trade lanes stop, the Americans would suffer from it, as well. They, therefore, have an interest in ignoring blue water operations so that they can pursue local goals, saving the money on an expensive global fleet while still making foreign trade and still gaining political leverage in their local spheres. The system has nothing but benefits for places like China, but it puts the burden of securing that prosperity on the United States.

What makes this situation even more complicated is that the United States can't leave this arrangement. If they did, the global economic house of cards comes crumbling down, not just for them, but for everyone else, as well. It's also certain that whoever takes their place would put the United States in a worse position than if they just stayed in control in the first place.

So your original premise is wrong. China doesn't do fine because they don't waste money on a blue water fleet. They do fine because America's blue water navy secures their access to global commons and the world trade market.

One of the unspoken truths of modern life: the US Navy contributes more to the world's peace and prosperity than any other organization.

Of course, we protect the world's sea lanes for our own purposes. As an American, it would still be nice to be thanked anyhow.

The problem with geopolitics is that you can never tell what a nation will do with power. When the British looked at Europe in the 1830s they saw France as a "nation of barracks" and the Germans as a good peaceful industrious people. Then the Germans became united and powerful and the roles were reversed.

We have had freedom of the seas since 1945 because of the overwhelming dominance of the U.S. Navy. Historically, sharing such dominance has never worked (except briefly in wars) - one of the most conspicuous examples being the Anglo-Japanese alliance, which was formed when Britain was the supreme naval power and Japan seemed to be a dependable up-and-coming power but ultimately paved the way for Japanese expansionism.

Saying the world has changed since 1945 is fine, but the question remains whether it has changed because of US naval power and whether it would change back if that power declined. Looking back at previous times where international trade boomed and people talked of the end of war, such as the Pax Britannica and Pax Romana, suggests to me that the end of the Pax Americana could only spell major instability.

The US dollar remains the world most important currency in part thanks to America's blue water navy presence in the seven seas. Its an insurance policy to the dollar.

How does the US go to Europe without a blue-water navy?

You see, geographically, the US is actually quite isolated. It needs a blue-water navy to go to all the major geopolitical areas. Compare the US with, say, Russia. Russia can just walk west, and she'll be in West Europe; She can walk south, and she'll be in Asia; She can walk south-west, and she'll be in the Middle-East, and from there to Africa. Russia doesn't need a blue-water navy because she can just walk to places. The US can't. The US needs a blue-water navy to go to places.

China does not have as open an access to the rest of the world as Russia does, but she's not as isolated geographically as the US either. Historically the south of China is blocked by impenetrable jungles, and to the west by the Himalayas and the Golbi desert. All past invasions of China came from the north and from the east coastline. So she's a sort of semi-closed, semi-open pocket. The problem for China is that most of her current large trading partners are most accessible through her east coast ports and not the land routes, (her westward trading routes are kinda blocked by those wild jihadists running around there, you know) so she's kinda happy that the US is keeping the peace across the oceans.