To borrow from Carl von Clausewitz, armed conflict is a trial of resolve and arms waged through the medium of the latter -- i.e., through the medium of physical force. Many are the instances in history when the weaker contender prevailed. That's because one side typically wants its goals more than the other. Political leaders balk at hazarding the nation's entire military in an all-out slugfest unless their political aims command surpassing value.

Risking it all raises the possibility of losing it all -- and exposing the nation to worse things in the future. Better to conserve resources, hedging against the unknown. The strong, consequently, may pull their punches for political reasons. Clausewitz observes that a weaker combatant need not win an outright military triumph to win politically -- the only kind of winning that matters. It can dishearten a muscle-bound adversary, or drive up the costs of victory so high that the adversary concludes it can't win at an acceptable price. Relative apathy bestows opportunity on weaker but resolute antagonists.

So to rifle through the pages of Jane's Fighting Ships, project the victor in a naval clash, and pronounce other possibilities irrational is to rule out human ingenuity, human fallibility, and the vagaries of war. Worse, it rules out politics. Japan only needed a small-scale triumph over imperial China to fulfill its aims in 1894-1895. It saw no need to overthrow the Qing regime, occupy China, or even vanquish the entire Qing navy. Today, likewise, China need not utterly defeat American arms to achieve modest goals. Capability sufficient to Beijing's purposes may soon fall within the PLA's grasp. Heck, it may already be within reach.

Take your prophecies, with a pinch of salt.

James Holmes is Professor of Strategy at the Naval War College. The views voiced here are his alone.

Image Credit: Creative Commons. 

This first appeared in 2014 and is being reposted due to reader interest.