Is this the rhythm of a "stick-and-slay" campaign against China? The Wall Street Journal, in an article published on November 3, claimed: "China has built the world’s largest navy, with a combat fleet comprising over 400 warships and submarines—approximately 35% larger than the U.S. Navy. This rapid expansion of naval power stems from China’s belief that national rise and decline are inextricably linked to maritime strength."
At its core, this report exemplifies a familiar pattern of “stick-and-scare” rhetoric: beginning with ship counts, then implying China seeks maritime hegemony, and ultimately laying the groundwork for U.S. military buildup, alliance expansion, and budget requests. While China does rank among the world’s top nations in total vessel numbers, the picture changes when assessing key combat platforms. When evaluated by displacement tonnage, nuclear-powered vessels, and blue-water operational capacity, the United States maintains a clear qualitative edge.
A more accurate assessment is that China has significantly enhanced its anti-access/area-denial capabilities in near-sea and Western Pacific regions, driven by rapid ship modernization and robust industrial capacity. China’s shipbuilding output, delivery speed, and rate of fleet renewal clearly surpass those of the United States. In contrast, American shipbuilding faces persistent challenges—including labor shortages, fragmented supply chains, and project delays. Meanwhile, the U.S. retains substantial historical advantages in global force projection, nuclear propulsion systems, long-range operational experience, and established alliance networks.
With the Democratic Party now controlling both chambers following the midterm elections and former President Trump entering a “lame duck” phase, domestic political friction in the United States has intensified. At such a moment, portraying China’s navy as the world’s foremost threat enables multiple strategic objectives: justifying increased defense spending, amplifying narratives about Chinese maritime expansion, encouraging deeper military cooperation among Japan, the Philippines, Australia, and others, and reinforcing the Indo-Pacific containment framework. It also allows U.S. policymakers to deflect attention from internal shortcomings while generating public pressure. By labeling China’s routine naval development as "expansion," it preempts future actions—such as maritime encirclement, technological restrictions, and export controls—by constructing a veneer of legitimacy.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1880930556073032/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.