![](https://bharatshakti.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/LT-BSI-Defence.gif")
Preface
This is the 10th year of BharatShakti being operational. Along with a host of other engrossing activities that we have initiated on our platform, we are also reproducing a series of old nuggets that we had published as Opinion pieces in these intervening years. They recall our objective at BharatShakti of providing you a deep insight and intellectually enriching reading on issues that are of strategic import for our defence and its core strength- the defence and aerospace industry. We do hope you will read and relish this journey
This article was first published on July 5, 2025
………………………………………………………………………………….
A U.S. Marine Corps University report has warned that the Department of Defence (DoD) is ill-prepared to respond to the threat of economic warfare, particularly in the event of a Chinese attack on Taiwan that includes a maritime blockade.
The report highlights this scenario as a critical test case, arguing that China would likely deploy economic tools in parallel with conventional forces to disrupt global markets, isolate Taiwan diplomatically, and apply coercive pressure on countries supporting U.S. intervention.
The report, titled “PLAN B: A Service-framed Examination of Economic Warfare”, was authored by John Atherton and Jonathan Slapin and published by the Marine Corps University Press. It contends that America’s adversaries—including China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea—have already embraced economic statecraft as an integral part of their national security strategies. However, the U.S. military establishment lacks a formal doctrine or integrated operational concept to deter or counter these non-kinetic threats.
The report defines economic warfare as “the employment of state-controlled or state-directed economic means to achieve national strategic objectives.” These may include manipulating trade flows, controlling access to energy and key resources, applying financial pressure through sanctions or currency policy, and leveraging debt or investment dependencies. Unlike legitimate economic competition, economic warfare is characterised by the intent to impose costs, deny access, or coerce behavioural change.
Atherton and Slapin argue that while economic warfare has long been part of conflict history, today’s globalised economy, digital finance infrastructure, and state-controlled markets have made these tools more accessible and more potent. Yet the U.S. defence community continues to view such threats as falling outside the traditional warfighting spectrum.
The Taiwan Scenario
The authors use a hypothetical blockade of Taiwan as a case study to illustrate how economic warfare might be integrated into a major power confrontation. In such a scenario, the report suggests that China would not only deploy naval and air power to isolate Taiwan but also take steps to create “massive economic ripple effects” globally—disrupting semiconductor supply chains, restricting access to rare earth minerals, and using market volatility to apply indirect pressure on U.S. allies and partners.
“In this case,” the report states, “the economic domain becomes the lead element of the campaign rather than a supporting tool.” The intent would be to undermine U.S. readiness, fragment allied cohesion, and delay any military or political response by threatening economic consequences.
The report emphasises that such coercive tactics would likely be accompanied by diplomatic and information operations, further complicating a coordinated U.S. and allied response.
A central argument of the report is that the Department of Defence has no comprehensive approach to anticipate or address economic coercion. While other parts of the U.S. government—particularly the Departments of State, Treasury, and Commerce—play roles in sanctions, trade policy, and financial regulation, the military remains largely absent from this aspect of strategic planning.
The report states that economic threats are not currently integrated into war-gaming, operational planning, or military education. “There is no standing doctrine, concept of operations, or resource framework dedicated to understanding or countering economic warfare,” the authors write. “The absence of this framework prevents the military from contributing to whole-of-government strategies.”
This, they argue, is a serious vulnerability, especially as adversaries use non-kinetic tools below the threshold of war to erode U.S. influence, weaken alliances, and reshape the international order.
Plan B: Building a Response Framework
The report calls for the development of a new defence planning framework—termed “Plan B”—that treats economic warfare as a distinct threat requiring its own doctrine, capabilities, and integration into broader deterrence architecture.
Key recommendations include:
- Doctrinal recognition of economic warfare as a warfighting domain, including the identification of adversary capabilities and intent.
- Scenario-based planning, including incorporation of economic disruption into tabletop exercises and joint operational planning.
- Interagency integration, with mechanisms for coordinating military, diplomatic, and economic tools of statecraft in response to coercion.
- Education and training, including development of military education curricula that address the intersection of economics and national security.
The authors propose adapting the Joint Planning Process (JPP)—a standard military framework used for campaign and contingency planning—to include structured assessments of economic risk and potential response options. They also urge the DoD to expand partnerships with civilian economic and intelligence agencies to improve situational awareness.
Importantly, the report does not recommend militarising the U.S. economic toolkit or launching offensive economic actions. Instead, it stresses the need for resilience, coordination, and foresight in the face of adversarial moves. “Economic warfare is already underway,” the authors write, “but the United States remains doctrinally unarmed in this domain.”
The report concludes that as strategic competition intensifies, economic disruption may not be a secondary or supporting tactic, but rather “the first salvo in conflict.” The Taiwan scenario is presented as a timely reminder that 21st-century warfare may begin not with a missile launch, but with the closure of a port or the suspension of a critical export.
Ramananda Sengupta
In a career spanning three decades and counting, I’ve been the foreign editor of The Telegraph, Outlook Magazine and the New Indian Express. I helped set up rediff.com’s editorial operations in San Jose and New York, helmed sify.com, and was the founder editor of India.com. My work has featured in national and international publications like the Al Jazeera Centre for Studies, Global Times and Ashahi Shimbun. My one constant over all these years, however, has been the attempt to understand rising India’s place in the world.
I can rustle up a mean salad, my oil-less pepper chicken is to die for, and it just takes some beer and rhythm and blues to rock my soul.
