"War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact." -1984

in 1984, war is strictly a distraction and an economic sinkhole to keep the masses occupied.

in China, it's likely about not setting precedent for sub states seceding, making the country less powerful because smaller, as well as making the "communist" setup look weaker/optional. Are these the same as 1984? I don't know.

What is war in the contemporary USA?

A way to keep a large industry fed, providing jobs which otherwise would be outsourced to low-wage countries. The same industry provides the politicians who get to decide over how public funds are to be spent with lucrative positions, enticing them to keep said industry on their side. People often hop from the industry into politics and vice-versa, a practice known as the revolving door between politics and industry.

In many ways this can be compared to the purpose of war in the feudal middle ages where land always needed to be conquered to be given as fiefs to up-and-coming nobility so that nobility would support the current king in his strive to remain in power. Things change but the basic tenet stays the same: those in power want to remain there and will use the means at their disposition to do so.

Well it's certainly nothing to keep the masses occupied. Our latest war got practically zero coverage. And it has nothing to do with secession of the states.

Wanna maybe expand on the point you're trying to make?

We need an excuse to maintain our massive defense budget.

it's strictly about money

Right now China doesn’t really have an outlet to the wider pacific in case of war. They are blocked by Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Russia and the whole of Southeast Asia. If they could control the whole SCS, or retake Taiwan, then their submarines would get out without assured detection.

So it’s not just national pride, there is a huge strategic element at play also.

> Right now China doesn’t really have an outlet to the wider pacific in case of war. They are blocked by Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Russia and the whole of Southeast Asia. If they could control the whole SCS, or retake Taiwan, then their submarines would get out without assured detection.

It's much more important than submarines. Their trade, and access to resources such as oil, goes through that territory controlled by others (the US especially).

I don't know why you're calling out russia and the CCP specifically for that. it seems to be an American thing too, and reasonably common everywhere to make ennemies so you can have distractions from misrule and corruption.

> With Putin's Russia and the CCP, there must always be enemies (both internal and external)

Let's not pretend this doesn't also apply to the UK, the US, Germany, France, etc.

Except that it doesn’t, or at least not in any significant quantity to merit mentioning.