Now for the differences. China is a savvier competitor than the Kaiser’s Germany ever was. Like Berlin, Beijing has applied limited resources to procure ships and weaponry that extend its reach throughout nearby seas. Unlike Berlin, it has refrained from frittering away resources on faraway, expensive imperial adventures. Waste not, want not. Chinese leaders are better stewards of national treasure than the mercurial Wilhelm II.

Furthermore, China is situated far from the reigning sea power, whereas Germany had the misfortune to inhabit the same neighbourhood with its chief antagonist. The People’s Liberation Army is turning sheer geographic distance to its advantage, imposing stresses on the US Navy that never beset the Royal Navy. British commanders never had to worry about reaching the combat theatre from bases in the British Isles. Any fleet action between the Royal Navy and short-legged German dreadnoughts would take place in the North Sea or elsewhere along the British periphery. By contrast, US forces might well have to fight their way into the Western Pacific from bases in Hawaii or even the US West Coast. The Chinese military has designed ‘anti-access’ strategy and forces to exploit geography. In short, China holds a pronounced home-field advantage near its own coasts despite trailing the United States in economic and military power. German leaders would have envied China its strategic circumstances.

That Chinese leaders have confined their efforts to maritime Asia, husbanding resources for contingencies close to home, proves only that they are more prudent than Kaiser Wilhelm and his lieutenants and more attuned to their strategic surroundings. Prof. Nye is correct: conflict isn’t predestined in maritime Asia. Nevertheless, Beijing promises to be a tough competitor by the German standard.