PGIM's Daleep Singh argues that the risk of mutually assured destruction prevents direct military conflict between nuclear powers. This channels confrontation into the economic sphere, using tools like sanctions and trade policy as primary weapons of statecraft.
Politicians predictably declare initiatives for domestic production of critical goods like munitions or rare earths when dependencies are exposed. However, these declarations rarely translate into effective action, suggesting we must learn to manage economic entanglement as a form of mutual deterrence rather than wish it away.
The concept of 'weaponized interdependence,' highlighted by China's use of export controls, is driving Asian nations like Japan, India, and South Korea to implement economic security acts. This shifts investment toward domestic supply chains in critical minerals, semiconductors, and defense, creating state-backed opportunities.
Modern global conflict is primarily economic, not kinetic. Nations now engage in strategic warfare through currency debasement, asset seizures, and manipulating capital flows. The objective is to inflict maximum financial damage on adversaries, making economic policy a primary weapon of war.
As economic tools like sanctions become primary weapons in global competition, the U.S. should develop a formal doctrine with limiting principles, similar to military rules of engagement, to govern their use and prevent a destructive "race to the bottom."
China's showcase of advanced military hardware, like its new aircraft carrier, is primarily a psychological tool. The strategy is to build a military so 'forbiddingly huge' that the US would hesitate to engage, allowing China to achieve goals like reabsorbing Taiwan without fighting. This suggests their focus is on perceived power to deter intervention.
Unlike the old Cold War with Russia, the U.S. and China's deep economic interdependence prevents open conflict. The current "Rice War" is like water polo: while business and diplomacy occur on the surface, a covert intelligence and influence war rages underneath.
China demonstrated its significant leverage over the U.S. by quickly pressuring the Trump administration through a partial embargo on rare earth metals. This showcased a powerful non-tariff weapon rooted in its control of critical mineral supply chains, which are also vital for defense applications.
Trump's 'hokey pokey' with tariffs and threats isn't indecisiveness but a consistent strategy: make an agreement, threaten a severe and immediate penalty for breaking it, and actually follow through. This makes his threats credible and functions as a powerful deterrent that administrations lacking his perceived volatility cannot replicate.
Each time the U.S. uses financial sanctions, it demonstrates the risks of relying on the dollar system. This incentivizes adversaries like Russia and China to accelerate the development of parallel financial infrastructure, weakening the dollar's long-term network effect and dominance.
After WWII, the U.S. used its naval dominance to guarantee global trade. In exchange for writing its allies' security policies, it allowed open access to its market. This economic "unfairness" was the strategic cost of building a global coalition against the Soviet Union, effectively bribing nations into an alliance.