Power Politics 55Figure 4-1: Comparison: Land warfare vs. Sea warfare^2
LAND WARFARE SEA WARFARE
Capital vs. manpower Manpower intensive Capital intensive
Significance of technological
edge
Modest (limited by terrain
and vegetation cover)HighSignificance of power
disparities
Modest: even small nations
have chance to prepare
strong defenseHighGeographical embeddednes Extreme
(via logistical demands)
Relatively low (larger vessels
and submarines can operate
without need for supply for
extended period of time)
Horizontal organization Large number of small
evenly distributed units
Small number of larger, unitsRegional setting
If we focus on the regional setting, two main factors must be considered:
(i) the balance of power within the region and (ii) the regional
geographical configuration. As far as the first issue is concerned, it is
possible to claim that in the economic realm (which can be equated to
potential power), there are currently two major powers–China and Japan
(see table 2). However, it is important to note that Chinese economic
growth is outstanding (for data see IMF database) and it is possible to
expect that within ten years the gap between China and Japan will become
more pronounced.^3
Nevertheless, economic power represents only crude potential for
power competition in international politics. According to realists, it is
military power which remains the cornerstone of power competition (for a
realist critique of this conceptualization of power see Schweller 2011). As
far as distribution of military power is concerned (see figure 4-2), China is
the clear leader in the region. The military expenditures of the next nation–
Japan–reach barely 36 % of China’s military expenditures. On the other
hand, one has to remember that smaller powers like South Korea and
(^2) Source: author.
(^3) It is however important not to over-estimate sustainability of high rates of
Chinese economic growth, see Bobones (2011).