Absolutely false. Worse case is dollar going down. Interest rates are exogenous and controlled by the fed who can buy all the treasuries in the world at a moment's notice. The treasury securities held by China are their problem . Not the US's.
China owns 2.1% of the total outstanding US debt. If you include their holdings through Belgium and Luxembourg it is maybe 5%. That is something but nothing that should make you lose sleep over.
Japan owns about 3.1% of the US debt as comparison.
The fact is that weapons kill people. Treasuries are just promises. China cannot dump treasures without hurting its own economoy at least as much as they are hurting the US.
They would be incinerating their own foreign exchange reserves just to cause a spike in US interest rates and/or inflation.
Neither Russia nor China has ever deployed nuclear weapons against civilian populations, a distinction held solely by the United States. Their reasons for restraint diverge significantly, rooted in distinct strategic and cultural priorities, yet China’s rising global influence positions it as a greater long-term threat to the United States than Russia, despite Russia’s more overt aggression.
Russia’s behavior, exemplified by the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, reflects an aggressive posture driven by a desire to counter NATO’s eastward expansion and maintain regional dominance. However, its economic challenges sanctions, energy export dependence, and a GDP of approximately $2.1 trillion in 2023 (World Bank) constrain its global reach, rendering it a struggling, though resilient, power. With the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, Russia’s restraint in nuclear use stems from a pragmatic focus on national survival. Its actions prioritize geopolitical relevance over a quixotic pursuit of Soviet-era glory, but its declining economic and demographic strength limits its capacity to challenge the United States on a global scale.
In contrast, China’s non-use of nuclear weapons aligns with its cultural and strategic emphasis on economic expansion over territorial conquest. Through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative, which has invested over $1.2 trillion globally since 2013, China has built a network of economic influence. Its military modernization, backed by a $292 billion defense budget in 2023 (SIPRI) and a nuclear arsenal projected to reach 1,000 warheads by 2030, complements this economic dominance. While China’s “no first use” nuclear policy, established in 1964, reflects a commitment to strategic stability, its assertive actions such as militarizing the South China Sea and pressuring Taiwan signal a willingness to use force to secure economic and territorial interests. Unlike Russia’s regionally focused aggression, China’s global economic leverage, technological advancements, and growing military capabilities pose a more systemic challenge to U.S. primacy, particularly in critical domains like trade, technology, and Indo-Pacific influence.
Worse than five paragraphs of information? Yes. If there's something wrong with the content, discuss that. OP claims below anyway that no LLM was used, and that reply is only necessary because of this kind of witch hunt spam, so it becomes overall more noise than just one comment anyway.
I didn't use an LLM to craft my retort, and in my opinion, I certainly didn't change the subject either. Why on earth bother fretting over hypotheticals that are never going to happen? Ten nuclear bombs dropping is precisely as consequential as none at all, since it's not happening, and there's zero historical precedence for such nonsense anyway.
If China would decide to sell US treasuries, it will be more devastating to the US economy than effect of 10 nuclear strikes.