A war with China would be an unmitigated strategic catastrophe

The United States, too, often suffers from historical amnesia and technological hubris. One notable example proves this point.

Since the end of World War II, America has lost every war it has started. Yes, America has lost every war it has started, including Vietnam, Afghanistan, and the Second Iraq War. And I didn’t start winning the Cold War.

Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 provoked an overwhelming response from a large U.S.-led international coalition.After September 11, the United States invaded Afghanistan to destroy al-Qaeda and kill Osama bin Laden. There is no longer any need to invade. After all, where was bin Laden killed? In Pakistan, not Afghanistan.

Today, the United States continues to make these major misjudgments in its national security and defense strategic thinking and planning. Since President Barack Obama strategically pivoted to Asia, both the Trump and Biden administrations have followed suit. As a result, the United States now has a military force designed to probably fight a single war with China at a cost of about $900 billion a year.

And this is a war that the United States cannot and cannot win for many reasons. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was right to warn that anyone considering a ground war in Asia “needs to examine their own hearts.” What does victory or victory mean in this case? Not yet defined or undefined.

Moreover, considering the potential arms spending in the event of a war with China, the United States, like Ukraine, has about a month’s worth of production capacity before its inventory runs out. The most discussed scenario is the so-called Battle of the Taiwan Strait, which would defeat a Chinese military invasion and attack on the island. This needs to be carefully reconsidered.

Based on actual past invasions in World War II and Korea, particularly Normandy in 1944 and Okinawa a year later, more than 5,000 ships and small vessels and hundreds of thousands of soldiers and Marines were destroyed. It becomes necessary. In the short term, China will no longer have this capability.

But suppose China launches an invasion or bombards Taiwan with large-scale air and missile attacks. How will the US protect Taiwan? Today, detecting a target allows its destruction. Whatever the countermeasures, if a carrier strike group were to approach Taiwan within, say, 1,000 miles, they would be targeted and likely attacked by Chinese missiles. U.S. submarines have a limited magazine capacity and will be forced out of combat once their weapons are exhausted.

If the US attacks mainland China, why doesn’t China attack Guam, Hawaii, or the US mainland? In the latter case, would NATO Article 5, which states that “an attack against one is considered an attack against all”, be invoked? NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time since 9/11. What would NATO do in this case?

Given that China is the “pace” or primary threat, what happens if the war in Ukraine and Gaza and efforts to protect the Red Sea from Houthi attacks intensify? Does America’s war-by-game, China-biased military strategy prepare for other contingencies? If not, is it time to reconsider that strategy?

A war with China would be a strategic disaster. The United States has not explained how such a war could be fought and won. The economic impact will be dire. And how would such a war end? Can anyone answer these questions?

Strategic solutions are so obvious that no one notices them. The United States needs to shift its focus from assuming the burden of “competing, deterring, defeating, or winning” specific adversaries as outlined in the National Defense Strategy to working together through NATO and Asian allies. be. To prevent war and its spread.