By Alex Gratzek
In previous centuries, white elephants were a status symbol in Southeast Asia. Monarchs were keen on possessing white elephants because they symbolized the power and justness of his rule while also signaling that the lands were blessed with peace and prosperity.
Eventually, white elephants began to be given by monarchs to sideline their potential rivals. The elephant served as a mark of the monarch's favor but at the same time, the upkeep costs and time dedicated to maintaining the elephant meant the recipient had little time or money left for political maneuvering and scheming.
In more modern times, the term white elephant has come to mean an expensive project which fails to deliver or becomes very expensive to maintain.
I can't help but feel South Korea's decision to obtain an aircraft carrier will prove to be a modern day example of a white elephant. Before I delve into that, let's take a brief look in history for other examples.
Prior to World War I, there was a revolution in naval warfare with the advent of the Dreadnought class battleships in 1906. They became the mark of great powers and if you didn't have them, then you were "falling behind."
Well, sure enough, Austria-Hungary, a nation which was falling from the rank of great powers, spent heavily on Dreadnoughts to maintain appearances. During WWI, the Dreadnoughts accomplished naught for Austria-Hungary despite the enormous resources dedicated to building and maintaining the ships.
By World War II in 1939, Dreadnoughts, which required huge investments in technology, money, labor and men, were obsolete thanks to the advent of the aircraft carrier although battleships were still being built. At Pearl Harbor, the weakness of battleships was demonstrated because carrier-based planes could cripple much of the American Fleet while the Japanese carriers were hundreds of miles away.
Let's move on to the aftermath of WWII. Following the war, Great Britain emerged from the war battered but still standing. However, the resources devoted to defeating Nazi Germany meant that Great Britain was a "great power" only because the USSR and the U.S. treated it as such. In reality, its best days were behind it.
A British government document from the 1950s explained that without nuclear weapons "… we would sacrifice immediately and in perpetuity our position as a first-class power … have to rely on the whim of the United States for the effectiveness of the whole basis of our strategy."
The decision to obtain nuclear weapons was made and by 1952 the British possessed a nuclear capability, ostensibly giving it the freedom to act independently of the United States. However, the weapons did not prove as useful as anticipated as would soon be seen.
In 1956, Britain, acting in conjunction with Israel and France, seized the Suez Canal from Egypt. The British and French were forced to withdraw by American and Soviet pressure despite Britain being in possession of nuclear weapons.
I can't help but feel as if Korea's desire to obtain an aircraft carrier is more the result of a desire for national prestige rather than any overriding need. Specifically, with Japan commissioning two aircraft carriers in 2015 and 2017 while China has also been on a carrier building spree. Korea feels that without this symbol of national prestige, it will look weak.
However, this is not a race Korea should be entering. Simply looking at the size of Japan and China's economy and population when compared to South Korea should give it pause from entering the race. It's not an expense South Korea can bear as easily nor is it crucial to national survival.
Simply looking at geography should highlight the limited use of an aircraft carrier for Korea. Aircraft carriers are mainly used for force projection and are best used in the wide open expanses of the ocean where they can hide in the vastness. Korea has China to one side and Japan to the other ― these constricted waters are far from ideal for an aircraft carrier to operate in.
Furthermore, it's widely held that three carriers are needed for a viable carrier force. One to be cruising the oceans, one preparing to cruise the oceans and a third undergoing maintenance and repairs after its voyage.
Does Korea really want to expend resources on two more carriers which will have a limited usefulness when the primary threat South Korea faces is a land invasion from North Korea?
From my readings on the issue, it appears the intended role is for the carrier to provide a mobile platform in case of a surprise attack on South Korean air force bases by North Korea. To me, that seems a pretty weak reason. North Korea's economy can't support a long drawn-out war let alone knock out South Korea with a surprise attack.
Korea itself is essentially an unsinkable aircraft carrier. If Korea wants to ensure that its planes aren't knocked out at its known airbases, then it should look to utilize its mountainous terrain and take a page from the North Korean playbook on autarky.
North Korea has recognized its weakness and used complex tunnel networks in its mountains to protect its armed forces from bombing. A South Korean network of secret tunnels for its planes might not be a glamorous symbol of national prestige like an aircraft carrier but it's much more practical for South Korea.
When I studied in South Korea at Sungkyunkwan a decade ago, one of my professors introduced the Korean saying "when the whales fight, the shrimp suffers" to me. Korea should recognize its limitations and plan accordingly rather than attempting to swim with the whales.
An aircraft carrier might be a symbol of national pride but with the advent of anti-ship missile technology, the usefulness of aircraft carriers has diminished like the battleships of a previous era. I can't help but feel that South Korea should seriously re-evaluate its decision to acquire an aircraft carrier.
Alex Gratzek (ajgratzek@gmail.com) is an American who has lived, studied and worked in South Korea. Check his website at alexfromabroad.com. The views expressed in the above article are the author's own and do not reflect the editorial direction of The Korea Times.
 |
Eventually, white elephants began to be given by monarchs to sideline their potential rivals. The elephant served as a mark of the monarch's favor but at the same time, the upkeep costs and time dedicated to maintaining the elephant meant the recipient had little time or money left for political maneuvering and scheming.
In more modern times, the term white elephant has come to mean an expensive project which fails to deliver or becomes very expensive to maintain.
I can't help but feel South Korea's decision to obtain an aircraft carrier will prove to be a modern day example of a white elephant. Before I delve into that, let's take a brief look in history for other examples.
Prior to World War I, there was a revolution in naval warfare with the advent of the Dreadnought class battleships in 1906. They became the mark of great powers and if you didn't have them, then you were "falling behind."
Well, sure enough, Austria-Hungary, a nation which was falling from the rank of great powers, spent heavily on Dreadnoughts to maintain appearances. During WWI, the Dreadnoughts accomplished naught for Austria-Hungary despite the enormous resources dedicated to building and maintaining the ships.
By World War II in 1939, Dreadnoughts, which required huge investments in technology, money, labor and men, were obsolete thanks to the advent of the aircraft carrier although battleships were still being built. At Pearl Harbor, the weakness of battleships was demonstrated because carrier-based planes could cripple much of the American Fleet while the Japanese carriers were hundreds of miles away.
Let's move on to the aftermath of WWII. Following the war, Great Britain emerged from the war battered but still standing. However, the resources devoted to defeating Nazi Germany meant that Great Britain was a "great power" only because the USSR and the U.S. treated it as such. In reality, its best days were behind it.
A British government document from the 1950s explained that without nuclear weapons "… we would sacrifice immediately and in perpetuity our position as a first-class power … have to rely on the whim of the United States for the effectiveness of the whole basis of our strategy."
The decision to obtain nuclear weapons was made and by 1952 the British possessed a nuclear capability, ostensibly giving it the freedom to act independently of the United States. However, the weapons did not prove as useful as anticipated as would soon be seen.
In 1956, Britain, acting in conjunction with Israel and France, seized the Suez Canal from Egypt. The British and French were forced to withdraw by American and Soviet pressure despite Britain being in possession of nuclear weapons.
I can't help but feel as if Korea's desire to obtain an aircraft carrier is more the result of a desire for national prestige rather than any overriding need. Specifically, with Japan commissioning two aircraft carriers in 2015 and 2017 while China has also been on a carrier building spree. Korea feels that without this symbol of national prestige, it will look weak.
However, this is not a race Korea should be entering. Simply looking at the size of Japan and China's economy and population when compared to South Korea should give it pause from entering the race. It's not an expense South Korea can bear as easily nor is it crucial to national survival.
Simply looking at geography should highlight the limited use of an aircraft carrier for Korea. Aircraft carriers are mainly used for force projection and are best used in the wide open expanses of the ocean where they can hide in the vastness. Korea has China to one side and Japan to the other ― these constricted waters are far from ideal for an aircraft carrier to operate in.
Furthermore, it's widely held that three carriers are needed for a viable carrier force. One to be cruising the oceans, one preparing to cruise the oceans and a third undergoing maintenance and repairs after its voyage.
Does Korea really want to expend resources on two more carriers which will have a limited usefulness when the primary threat South Korea faces is a land invasion from North Korea?
From my readings on the issue, it appears the intended role is for the carrier to provide a mobile platform in case of a surprise attack on South Korean air force bases by North Korea. To me, that seems a pretty weak reason. North Korea's economy can't support a long drawn-out war let alone knock out South Korea with a surprise attack.
Korea itself is essentially an unsinkable aircraft carrier. If Korea wants to ensure that its planes aren't knocked out at its known airbases, then it should look to utilize its mountainous terrain and take a page from the North Korean playbook on autarky.
North Korea has recognized its weakness and used complex tunnel networks in its mountains to protect its armed forces from bombing. A South Korean network of secret tunnels for its planes might not be a glamorous symbol of national prestige like an aircraft carrier but it's much more practical for South Korea.
When I studied in South Korea at Sungkyunkwan a decade ago, one of my professors introduced the Korean saying "when the whales fight, the shrimp suffers" to me. Korea should recognize its limitations and plan accordingly rather than attempting to swim with the whales.
An aircraft carrier might be a symbol of national pride but with the advent of anti-ship missile technology, the usefulness of aircraft carriers has diminished like the battleships of a previous era. I can't help but feel that South Korea should seriously re-evaluate its decision to acquire an aircraft carrier.
Alex Gratzek (ajgratzek@gmail.com) is an American who has lived, studied and worked in South Korea. Check his website at alexfromabroad.com. The views expressed in the above article are the author's own and do not reflect the editorial direction of The Korea Times.
