Recently, I've often seen U.S. media saying that the Obama administration missed an opportunity to use its naval superiority to dominate us. Is this really true?

First of all, whether "dominating" is reasonable or not is another question. Let's just say, was the U.S. Navy's advantage really capable of "dominating" us at that time?

Jun believes that the so-called "window period" mentioned by U.S. media essentially equates naval superiority with "being able to dominate whenever one wants," but they haven't done a calculation... At that time, the U.S. Navy looked strong, but how many actual forces were available?

During the Obama era, the U.S. had 11 active aircraft carriers, which sounds like a lot, but people who understand know that aircraft carriers need to rotate for maintenance and are in port for more than half the time. Between 2010 and 2017, there were at most 2 to 3 aircraft carriers deployed stably in the Asia-Pacific region, and even that includes occasional passers-by. With such a small force, could they really "dominate" us?

Moreover, China's response at that time was not unprepared.

At that time, the "DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile" had already been reported, and it was publicly unveiled in 2010 and conducted a live-fire test in 2013. What is this thing for? It's specifically targeting aircraft carriers.

The U.S. Navy knew about it. During the Diaoyu Islands dispute in 2012, the "Washington" carrier did move closer to Japan, but never dared to come within hundreds of kilometers of China's coastal waters... Why? Because it was afraid of being targeted! So, was this an opportunity missed by Obama, or was it the U.S. Navy lacking confidence?

There's also the issue of allies. If the U.S. wanted to suppress China, it couldn't do it alone, right?

At that time, it was pulling in Japan and the Philippines, but what help could these allies provide? The Philippines' main warships were still relics from decades ago, without even a decent anti-ship missile; the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force was restricted by the Peace Constitution, barely qualifying as an army, and would it be able to go on the front lines if something happened?

Before the South China Sea confrontation in 2016, the U.S. wanted the Philippines to take the lead, but the Philippines itself didn't dare to act... If the allies can't be relied on, how can the U.S. Navy "dominate" alone?

Speaking of which, the Obama administration didn't have too much energy focused on the navy.

After the 2008 financial crisis, the U.S. economy was in chaos, and military spending was being cut. In 2011, U.S. military spending accounted for only 3.2% of GDP, down nearly 1 percentage point from 2008.

They were also bogged down in the Middle East, with unfinished messes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and resources were being directed to the Army and Air Force. How much money could the Navy get? They wanted to build more "Zumwalt"-class destroyers, but costs went over budget, reducing the number from 32 to 3. They tried to develop the "Littoral Combat Ship," but later found it wasn't suitable... If the equipment couldn't keep up, how could there be any "advantage"?

Some people think that if Obama had mobilized all his naval forces to the Asia-Pacific at that time, maybe he could have dominated us.

But Jun guesses that even if he had done that, would China have sat idly by? After 2008, China's shipbuilding boom was obvious... From 2010 to 2017, China added about 80 new ships, the Liaoning was commissioned in 2012, and the first ship of the 052D destroyer was launched in 2014. This speed was forced, but it was also planned in advance.

Even if the U.S. had managed to dominate, China would have accelerated its efforts to close the gap. The so-called "window period" simply didn't exist.

There's another point rarely mentioned, which is the U.S. Navy's "use logic."

During the Cold War, the U.S. dealt with the Soviet Union by focusing on long-range confrontations, but China took a "area denial" approach, not competing with the U.S. in distant seas over the number of aircraft carriers, but focusing on a range of a few hundred kilometers near its own coast.

No matter how strong the U.S. Navy is, once it gets close to this range, it has to consider... The combination of DF missiles, land-based radars, and coastal ships forms a system, which isn't easily broken by just a few aircraft carriers.

The Obama administration didn't realize the power of this system, thinking that old methods could still work. This wasn't missing an opportunity, but a strategic miscalculation.

To be honest, the current U.S. media saying "missing the window period" is more of a way to justify themselves.

They don't want to admit that the U.S. Navy's advantage is gradually shrinking, not because they didn't act, but because China's strength is steadily growing. Now, China has three aircraft carriers, and the 055 large destroyers are coming one after another. The total tonnage of the Chinese Navy has long ranked second in the world... Even if the Obama administration had used the navy back then, what would it achieve now?

Great power competition is not about a temporary "window period," but about long-term strategic patience and the accumulation of strength.

The problem with the Obama administration was that it wanted to handle both the Middle East and the Asia-Pacific, spreading its strategy too thin, diluting its naval power. While China always focused on its own rhythm, gradually closing the gaps in its navy. Looking at this, it's not that the U.S. missed an opportunity, but that they failed to grasp their own strategic priorities.

Statement: To improve creation efficiency and reading experience, this article has used AI tools for assistance. Please distinguish carefully. As a self-media platform, we have always followed an objective and rational commentary on current affairs, avoiding extreme rhetoric and creating a positive atmosphere. The data in the article comes from publicly reported information from various media, but the information may be updated, and we cannot guarantee its accuracy. This article is not intended as any investment reference. Please read rationally.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7562104449619984950/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Welcome to express your attitude in the buttons below [upvote/downvote].