> Our economic incentive to entangle ourselves in Taiwan is even greater, but the stakes of military confrontation with China would be more dangerous. > How mu

> Our economic incentive to entangle ourselves in Taiwan is even greater, but the stakes of military confrontation with China would be more dangerous. > How much would you pay to avert such a conflict -- or worse, to avert the consequences of acquiescing to China's expansionism? These are questions easier to answer than what most people think. There are countless unclassified defence studies with very good estimates of how much would USA loose in case of an all out war with a nuclear state for worst, medium, best scenarios. I'll encourage readers to check them themselves. Washington defence planners are most well aware of these things. The later question is much more important, and with more real world relevance. > consequences of acquiescing to China's expansionism? There is no limit on on how much "acquiescing" you can do before such states will come up with more claims. Remember "Finlandisation" precluding the WW2, and how it ended. Giving the most minimal concessions to such opponent will instantly lead to them wanting more, and more, until you will have to retaliate, but now against much stronger enemy. There is no "strategy," no political trick that works against opponent planning to attack you from the start no matter what. All treaties, political manoeuvres, compromise moves, even overt tribute payments will be only delaying the inevitable encounter in cul de sac. In Russia, people gave a simple way to characterise behaviour of such people: "A guy who wouldn't stop until punched in the face."