
How the U.S. Could Lose a War with China - spking
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/07/china-us-war/594793/
======
redis_mlc
As an amateur military historian (specializing in WW2 in the Pacific), the
salient things are:

\- WW2 was a contest to the death of ideologies that happened after the USA
became isolationist and weak (Dr. Hansen)

\- today, the USA is not overtly isolationist, however their loyalty to
Taiwan, HK, etc. is suspect. The USA is weak on aircraft inventory - the F-22
fleet rounds off to zero, same with the F-35. Way to go, military procurement
officers!

\- The CCP is brittle - they may go nuclear if facing a loss since they never
back down or take no for an answer

\- Taiwan could plan to defend itself. It already has enough F-16s (unless
surprise-striked), it just needs to give every citizen a MANPAD and a rifle.

\- Although CCP is building a navy to rival the USA, the USA is ready today
and could blockade China and overwhlem the 9-dash islands with cruise missiles
or ICBMs.

\- the one advantage of a war with China is that the USA would have a free
pass to rain missiles on North Korea

Interesting times!

~~~
speedplane
While the U.S. may have been able to completely dominate another country in
WW2, I don't see how that could happen today. Even assuming the U.S., with
their military might, could take control of the Chinese government, I don't
believe it would last. When the U.S. beat Japan, they were able to control the
messaging and media for years, effectively training the newer generation that
this was all in their best interest. With the internet and the pourus
information walls, rebels could easily organize and be a never-ending
challenge to any lasting dominance.

~~~
OtterEcho
>>When the U.S. beat Japan, they were able to control the messaging and media
for years

"Look at what happened after the war. Douglas MacArthur ordered the divine
emperor to quit being God, and he did, making a speech saying he was just an
ordinary person. So after 1946 he wasn't God anymore." \- Haruki Murakami, in
Kafka on the Shore

------
naval-gazer
The US and Taiwan don't have military alliance. The Taiwan Relations Act is
carefully worded to avoid any commitment and maintain strategic ambiguity and
keep both sides in check. The strategic interest of the US is limited in terms
of the cost of defending Taiwan.

The article and many articles like it fail to explain the big picture. The US
has indirect way to counter Chinese aggression. Sea blockade from distance
where the US has military advantage would cut almost all sea traffic to China
and isolate it from the world economy. Chinese are well aware of their
position as a logistic cul-de-sac. The Belt and Road Initiative can be seen as
long term strategic plan to go around this problem. It loses money but Chinese
need it to work so they do it anyway.

~~~
PhilWright
No doubt the US could blockade China. But given a big percentage of their
trade is with the US, it involves a lot of pain and certain recession for the
US as a consequence. It would hurt the US just about as much as China. A Pyric
victory?

~~~
simonblack
Blockading a country on the 'world-island' is a pointless task.

The US is a sea-power, China is a land-power. As a land-power already situated
on the 'world-island' China has no need of a huge SEA-going Navy. All it needs
is a bunch of anti-ship missiles.

Meanwhile, the US that lives on the peripheral 'americas-island' is powerless
without a means to reach the 'world-island' where all the action is.

See Mackinder and GeoPolitics.

------
speedplane
This is such a wacky headline. How on earth could the U.S. successfully
dominate China? Even if we threaten them with tons of nukes, kill millions,
and dominate them for a short time, there's no way that is sustainable. If
small groups of rebels in Afghanistan can successfully resist U.S. dominance,
it's almost ridiculous to believe that we could do so in China.

