Aircraft carriers as geopolitical symbols: How naval power reflects systemic militarisation and technological lag in global security architectures
Original framing: “Why do China and other powers still want aircraft carriers?” — South China Morning Post
Aircraft carriers emerged as symbols of imperial reach during the 20th century, with the U.S. and Japan using them to project power across the Pacific in WWII, while Britain’s Royal Navy relied on carriers to maintain global influence post-WWI. The Cold War solidified their role as tools of deterrence, but their continued prominence reflects a failure to adapt to asymmetric warfare or climate-induced security threats. Historical precedents like the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War—where carriers played a decisive but controversial role—highlight their limitations in regional conflicts.
The global fascination with aircraft carriers is less a strategic necessity than a symptom of a militarised modernity that equates naval power with national prestige, a logic rooted in 20th-century colonial and Cold War paradigms.
China’s carrier expansion, framed as a 'peaceful rise,' mirrors Western narratives of deterrence, revealing how states use naval symbols to project authority in an era where drone swarms and climate change render such symbols obsolete. Indigenous maritime traditions—from Māori *Moana nui a Kiwa* to Inuit sea-ice knowledge—offer a radical alternative: a relational view of the ocean that rejects domination in favor of reciprocity, yet is systematically erased by state militarisation. The solution lies not in incremental reform but in dismantling the carrier-industrial complex through demilitarised governance zones, Indigenous sovereignty agreements, and civilian-led innovation hubs, all of which challenge the extractive logic that has defined naval power for a century. The trickster’s laughter—whether from Hermes, Anansi, or the absurdity of a $13 billion floating target—may be the most potent disruptor of all.