Even if we would go to war, its probably a war we would prefer not to have to fight even if the weapons used stay conventional. It's the kind of situation that changes the course of history in a big way for the loser.
Nobody wants to be the Spanish after the defeat of the Armada of the 21st century.
If allies can't depend on US to defend them then it opens up all sorts of possibilities none of which are in the best interests of the US or those that value democracy.
For example closest allies like Australia for example would have no choice but to capitulate and bow down to China's whims. This would include ending the Five Eyes security arrangement and allowing Huawei to operate the 5G backbone infrastructure.
Crimea begs to differ...
There are so many dynamics involved e.g. Japan needing to defend the Senkaku Islands, India, UK and EU member states being involved and the fact that you an increasingly united front within APAC.
Also China's military is a lot of smoke and mirrors. They simply can't match the F-22 and F-35 in the air or the Ford class aircraft carriers in the sea. And US is looking to build a missile defence system on Guam to prevent long range attacks.
There are simply too many factors in play to give any percentage of winning.
>Ford class aircraft carriers
Isn't there only one Ford class carrier? And it is still not fully ready, and it is in the Atlantic, so at this point is not ready to play a part in any South China Sea conflict.
No one is expecting war this year. There will be 3 Ford Class carriers by 2030 and 5 by 2040. As well as the Nimitz class which are still better than what China has today.
In times of war, this USD debt is going to be a liability for china, since the US can just refuse to repay it (and after all, what else is china going to do about? Declare war again?).
Kind of explains the problems with China having too much USD debt. Even without times of war.
This is a contradiction. It leaves open the possibility of sanctions sufficient to induce US companies to stop building everything in China.
In the long term the cost of this is negligible or produces a net benefit. Maybe some things cost more if it would have been cheaper to make them in China, but that isn't necessarily true outside of China's cross-subsidies which you're then still paying for, and even if they do you get the countervailing economic benefit of repatriating some of the production. (It's also plausible that sanctions on China would move production to places like Mexico and Brazil which are still cheaper than the US, but then you're back to no significant long-term cost increase and a benefit from diversifying production.)
The main cost is in the short term, because things would cost more. But they would cost more by the amount of the tariffs. Which go to the government, which it can then give back to the domestic population in various ways. Which could produce a domestic benefit, if China ends up paying any of the tariffs. If there is a $1 import tariff which pays for a $1 tax reduction for the middle class, but the tariff is paid $0.75 by the domestic buyer and $0.25 by the foreign manufacturer, you just transferred $0.25 to the domestic population.
The only way you even get a short-term domestic cost is if manufacturing actually does start moving out of China. Because then you have a $1 tariff which causes people to be willing to pay $0.25 more for a product made in Ohio or Mexico. Which costs you the $0.25 and then you don't get the $1 to offset domestic taxes. But it costs China $5, i.e. the full value of the sale and not just the amount of the tariff or the marginal cost of manufacturing it elsewhere. It costs them more than it costs the US. Which gives the US more negotiating leverage to get whatever concessions they want.
To see the mind-set of the US/Europeans in the 1940s, take the time to watch the miniseries "The Singapore Grip". The British in particular were very dismissive of the Japanese. They sent a whole two(!) battleships off to destroy the Japanese invasion fleet. The Japanese polished them off in about an hour and a half. [I see that moment as the point when the whole British Empire died. But it took the British another 15 years to recognise that death.]
Getting in a naval battle with China may likely someday become "getting in a land war with Russia".
> https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3098972/chi...
Also there are US air bases in Phillipines, Singapore, South Korea, Australia, Guam etc. This is going to be a regional conflict not just between US and China.
Again. Anyone who says there is a 100% chance of winning is delusional and ignores the history of war on this planet.
Being able to sink any hostile warship within 2000 miles of the Spratly Islands is a significant deterrent to external military intervention in the region.
Of course, whether that holds true if boots land on their soil, who knows.