Directed-energy weapons (DEWs) are starting to attract serious interest as a new breed of armament by which to gain the advantage in future conflicts. While personal laser guns are still relatively distant, other forms of direct-energy weapons are being seriously treated as plausible weapons of war with the power to achieve decisive tactical outcomes.
The Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act explicitly calls for the development of directed-energy systems, a category that encompasses not just laser devices, but also sonic and electromagnetic weapons. The open acknowledgement of research into these devices is the culmination of an interest that dates back to at least the 1990s, possibly even earlier. DEWs are now viewed as potential ways to incapacitate enemy electronics, disable both ballistic and cruise missiles, and shoot down unmanned aerial vehicles. Recent developments are beginning to show the feasibility of these goals. Lockheed Martin, for instance, has already demonstrated a working capacity to shoot down drones using a laser weapon. The use of these devices in combat settings is likely not far off.
However, the introduction of these weapons to the battlespace poses serious complications. Successful development of directed-energy missile defense systems, for example, might give naval commanders increased confidence in their ability to survive missile attacks and other area-denial systems. Armed with this feeling of invulnerability, decision-makers are likely to feel more cavalier when making calculations about navigating into areas within range of anti-ship weapons systems. Such maneuvers might even be ordered by policy-makers as a gesture of strength or commitment to regional allies. With such increased posturing comes an increased risk of violent — and possibly lethal — confrontation.
Such an occurrence is a frighteningly real possibility in the South China Sea, where tensions between the US and China remain high and both sides continue to signal displeasure with each other through the use of naval maneuvering. These maneuvers don’t always happen at a distance. A recent encounter resulted in a Chinese warship coming within 45 yards of a US destroyer. In such a tense security environment, even the slightest shock could disrupt the delicate balance of peace, and the introduction of any new weapons systems increases the risk of upsetting the increasingly fragile status quo.
Imagine a future scenario in which a Chinese surveillance drone flies over a US Naval patrol in contested waters and is shot down by an autonomous weapons system. How would the Chinese to react to the usage of a new weapons system against them so close to their territory? An increase in naval and drone activities could be expected, but retaliation could also come in the form of cyberattacks against US companies by declared-unknown actors, increased harassment of allied naval assets in the region, a clampdown on rare earth mineral exports, or any number of other approaches.
Such a sequence of events need not play out in such a drastic fashion, but nonetheless the global implications to escalated hostilities in the South China Sea are considerable. $3.37 trillion USD in trade from all over the world transits its waters, and it is located next to one of the most important industrial belts on the planet. Any escalation in tensions between the US and China increases the likelihood of disruption to industries such as shipping, fishing, commodities, mining, auto-making, oil and gas, and consumer electronics, all of which rely on a safe and secure maritime environment.
What is likely to prevent any serious upheaval is China’s own economic reliance on the South China Sea. In 2016, $1.47 trillion USD in Chinese trade passed through the region and in the same year 80% of Chinese oil imports came through the Strait of Malacca passageway alone. The biggest loser to any trade disruptions would be China itself and so it would be a self-inflicted wound to allow tensions to escalate to the point of affecting normal trade activity.
Nonetheless, the introduction of new weapons always adds an element of uncertainty, and allows for the possibility of unprecedented misunderstandings. This dynamic will be heightened if weapons systems (directed-energy or otherwise) capable of effectively countering Chinese ballistic missiles are successfully developed and deployed. On top of this, China’s development of overland trade routes will change the economic balance by reducing Chinese reliance on sea lanes. Over time, these developments will alter the potential upsides and downsides of heightened conflict. For now, necessity dictates that the situation in the South China Sea will remain stable, if tense. The trends as they stand, however, indicate a slow progression towards a future in which every incident is more and more likely to be the spark that starts a roaring fire.
