9 ms·

> There is no realistic scenario where the US and China go to war. How many wars have been preceded by everyone believing they can't happen.

adrianN 5y ago
Not that many in recent history I think. If my history knowledge is not wrong, major wars have always been preceded by heavy investment in the military. Why would countries invest in their military if they believed that war can't happen?
- eloff 5y ago
  That's what's going on right now. China is building ships at rates unprecedented since after WWII. It's concerning. My feeling is they have a window of a decade or two during which they can make a grab for Taiwan. After which it may become relatively more difficult with demographics against them, increased defenses in Taiwan, and increased cooperation and perhaps commitment among its allies.
  - nebula8804 5y ago
    Once they open that door there is no going back. They would need to act at a moment where the US is extremely weak. It might happen if(most likely when) Trump gets elected again. Man I don't even wanna think what happens if that Pandora's box is opened.
    - MarcoZavala 5y ago
    - elzbardico 5y ago
      As much as I hate trump, as a foreigner I fail to see how the US could look weaker than right now. Admiration is a different thing from respect. I might have thought bullies were ridiculous specimens of the human race, and yet, I never dared to cross them. edit: typo
      - oblio 5y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_... You were saying? :-)
        elzbardico 5y ago
        Having the largest military is useless if high command is shit.
        oblio 5y ago
        Bold assumption that the other big militaries have top notch high commands.
        AussieWog93 5y ago
        I think he was comparing the US today to the US in the recent past. Given the humiliating failure in Afghanistan as well as political instability at home, I don't think it's an unfair statement.
        gampleman 5y ago
        Before the start of WW2, the US army was smaller than the army of Portugal, ranked #19 in the world. This was probably part of the reason Hitler foolishly declared war on the US. Of course, what was perhaps somewhat surprising at the time was the US ability to massively and quickly expand that military force under a generally still prosperous wartime economy. Just saying... :-)
        frockington1 5y ago
        Hitler and Hideki both thought the US population would immediately roll over under pressure. Even then, I still don't understand the logic in adding the US as an adversary, land mass alone would make it near impossible to physically conquer.
      - nebula8804 5y ago
    - DeathArrow 5y ago
      >It might happen if(most likely when) Trump gets elected again. Trump was the first to assert that China represents a danger to US.
      - AussieWog93 5y ago
        That statement is a little bit misleading. Many world leaders, including Trump, started viewing China as a threat to global stability and peace during 2016-2018 or so, in response to domestic power plays and foreign policy and diplomacy changes initiated by Xi.
      - nebula8804 5y ago
        Yes he gets a cookie for reading the tea leaves and telling the country what they wanted to hear. Thats his signature move if you haven't realized. Where he gets a lump of coal is following through. His state department totally botched the attempt to rein in China starting the with ZTE and Huawei debacles. If you are going to fire the shot you better not miss. He has hurt the US so much by not taking that issue seriously and doing things strategically. Those consequences have spilled over into the Biden years and will continue to harm the US long after Trump's first administration have moved on. When Obama was under the same situation with Russia in the early 2010s, one can argue that he put more effort into coming up with a viable strategy to punish them for their actions.
  - DeathArrow 5y ago
    I don't think they will invade Taiwan soon. The economic and political costs will be huge, regardless of military costs. I think they intend to pressure Taiwan into surrende, by economic and diplomatic means. That will be a very long term goal. But China is good at executing ambitious long term plans and having long term strategies.
- simonh 5y ago
  We invested heavily in nuclear weapons with the intention of never using them. Sometimes it really is about deference. Taiwan isn't arming because they want to fight China. Historically, a lot of people in the early 20th century thought that war wouldn't (or couldn't) happen because it would be too unimaginably destructive. The first world war was called the war to end all wars, and despite later usage originally it was not meant ironically.
- Nasrudith 5y ago
  There is some selection bias as well - if they didn't invest heavily in military then the wars would not qualify as major barring other major imbalances highly unlikely to occur, such as "Conquistador Scenarios". If both were big and deterred no major war. If one was overwhelming then they either were the 800 pound gorilla sitting where it wants or the war was short by definition. Even if impactful it is the occupation which would gain focus of history. If both were limited in military strength they would find there was too much "friction" to do more than shift borders a bit even after handfuls died in skirmishes - they would be unable to hold big gains.
ozim 5y ago
People who think that are thinking about "all in war, people running with guns everywhere". Even in WW2 that was not the case, there were huge swats of land where people were living as if there was nothing going on. US is already at war with China on the trade. There is full blown cyberspace and intelligence war going right now. So that you are not running twice a day to a shelter does not indicate there is no war.
- DeathArrow 5y ago
  That war will only last until China will recover in areas they are behind US, such as in semiconductors. After that China can kill US tech sector by selling at below the cost. I think that in 10 years we can reach that point.
  - Bayart 5y ago
    At the current pace, it would take China 50 years to catch up in semi-conductors. It won't happen unless they seize Taiwan and its tech with it, or leapfrog the rest with a completely different tech.
    - Teever 5y ago
      Where do you get 50 years from? If we take that number literally than you seem to be implying that China is 50 years behind in semiconductors which would pit their feature size in the micron range or about comparable to what Sam Zeloof is doing in his home lab.
      - imtringued 5y ago
        No he means that China won't have the state of the art technology in 50 years. They will be behind a few generations.
      - Bayart 5y ago
        They're not fifty years behind, they're a bit over a decade behind. And they're pacing to catch up two years of lag every ten years.
DeathArrow 5y ago
US going to war with China (whether it is an economic war, a classic war or a hybrid war ) is US falling into Thucydides Trap. It is one war they aren't going to win. The only winning stance would to not go to war at all.
- Nevermark 5y ago
  >US going to war with China (whether it is an economic war, a classic war or a hybrid war ) is US falling into Thucydides Trap. It is one war they aren't going to win. The only winning stance would to not go to war at all. The problem with national security, is its peacetime leverage is only as effective as your actual willingness to fight a war, even if both sides lose. Ideally, then both players jointly avoid war. But in the real world and history, surprising dynamics, contradictory local politics, or miscommunication, can all quickly or slowly lead to wars both countries lose. The alternative, is consolidation in one country with effectively guaranteed national peace. Which game do you choose, because in the real world, there is no game where both countries agree to never go to war credibly and solve everything with dice matches, or single handed combat between leaders. Countries that seem to be reliable allies are almost always on the same side in a leverage battle with another entity. Friends become competitors quickly when there is no shared enemy. And old enemies can also suddenly become fast friends, when circumstances change.
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  Thank you Joshua!
- theskypirate 5y ago
  It won't be a total war. The only disputed area is Taiwan and the surrounding seas. There is no benefit to China to take anything else.
ThinkBeat 5y ago
US vs China would be a war that has never been fought before. Two nuclear powers trying to kill each other. I will also be the first time, in a direct war, that the US homeland is directly in danger. If the US invades or bombs mainland China it might be game over, the consequences could be enormous. Like Joshua said: "The only winning move is not to play". Since WW2 the US has been at war (oh sorry "military conflict" / "police action") nearly constantly in one form or another. In all cases they have fought an enemy that was completely inferior. In Afghanistan, the US used B1 bombers, Drones, Cruise missiles, attack helicopters, an F35, Warthogs and whatever else they used. Against an enemy that primarily had AK47, some bazookas and various equipment they stole from the allies. China is inferior to the US in a military sense, but far less so than the other countries they have fought since WW2. China may be able to take out an aircraft carrier with supersonic missiles (maybe not), may be able to fight the F35 (less so the F22). The other major problem for the US is that Taiwan is 200km off mainland China. China can bring nearly an unlimited supply chain going. The US is far away and transporting equipment, soldiers, military hardware etc will be expensive, slow and prone to Chinese submarine attacks. If China reunites Taiwan by force, it will not take long, and there is is really nothing the world can do, that is sane, except yell, scream, sanctions and so on. Nobody wants to find out what that war would look like.
- staplers 5y ago
  There were no wars like WW1 or WW2 fought before them. It's a horrifying thought but not an implausible one on a long timescale. Eventually a society goes batshit (Nazis, Trumpers, etc) and goes all in on the idea.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - 1_player 5y ago
    There will probably be a thermonuclear war in our future timeline, but is it worth, for us the people, to think or prepare for it? When or if it happens, there'll be nothing left. We can just assume it'll never happen and fight any war outside the physical battlefield (with economical or cyber wars), while trying to spread to other planets.
quickthrowman 5y ago
> How many wars have been preceded by everyone believing they can't happen. Since 1945, when nuclear weapons were invented? Zero.
- _abox 5y ago
  Zero wars? Not exactly. We've had no more direct conflicts between superpowers but still a lot of proxy wars, local conflicts, genocides. We still have a long way to go as humanity. And I think it's only a matter of time before someone crazy enough to use them gets their hands on nukes. Even countries like North Korea have them now. Despite his appearance KYU is not that crazy but maybe this successor is.
  - quickthrowman 5y ago
    “by everyone believing they cannot happen” was the qualifier on the statement about war I was replying to, nobody is shocked by proxy wars and local conflicts. It’s how humans have acted as long as we have history and probably before. Most people believed direct conflict with the USSR by the US cannot happen due to the nuclear weapon risk, and it didn’t. Since the end of WWII, no nuclear powers have been in a war directly with each other. I agree with you that someone will eventually use nukes in anger, I’m really surprised it hasn’t happened yet, actually.
    - GekkePrutser 5y ago
      Ah I understand now. Sorry for misunderstanding your post.

adrianN 5y ago

Not that many in recent history I think. If my history knowledge is not wrong, major wars have always been preceded by heavy investment in the military. Why would countries invest in their military if they believed that war can't happen?

eloff 5y ago
That's what's going on right now. China is building ships at rates unprecedented since after WWII. It's concerning. My feeling is they have a window of a decade or two during which they can make a grab for Taiwan. After which it may become relatively more difficult with demographics against them, increased defenses in Taiwan, and increased cooperation and perhaps commitment among its allies.
- nebula8804 5y ago
  Once they open that door there is no going back. They would need to act at a moment where the US is extremely weak. It might happen if(most likely when) Trump gets elected again. Man I don't even wanna think what happens if that Pandora's box is opened.
  - MarcoZavala 5y ago
  - elzbardico 5y ago
    As much as I hate trump, as a foreigner I fail to see how the US could look weaker than right now. Admiration is a different thing from respect. I might have thought bullies were ridiculous specimens of the human race, and yet, I never dared to cross them. edit: typo
    - oblio 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_... You were saying? :-)
      - elzbardico 5y ago
        Having the largest military is useless if high command is shit.
        oblio 5y ago
        Bold assumption that the other big militaries have top notch high commands.
      - AussieWog93 5y ago
        I think he was comparing the US today to the US in the recent past. Given the humiliating failure in Afghanistan as well as political instability at home, I don't think it's an unfair statement.
      - gampleman 5y ago
        Before the start of WW2, the US army was smaller than the army of Portugal, ranked #19 in the world. This was probably part of the reason Hitler foolishly declared war on the US. Of course, what was perhaps somewhat surprising at the time was the US ability to massively and quickly expand that military force under a generally still prosperous wartime economy. Just saying... :-)
        frockington1 5y ago
        Hitler and Hideki both thought the US population would immediately roll over under pressure. Even then, I still don't understand the logic in adding the US as an adversary, land mass alone would make it near impossible to physically conquer.
    - nebula8804 5y ago
  - DeathArrow 5y ago
    >It might happen if(most likely when) Trump gets elected again. Trump was the first to assert that China represents a danger to US.
    - AussieWog93 5y ago
      That statement is a little bit misleading. Many world leaders, including Trump, started viewing China as a threat to global stability and peace during 2016-2018 or so, in response to domestic power plays and foreign policy and diplomacy changes initiated by Xi.
    - nebula8804 5y ago
      Yes he gets a cookie for reading the tea leaves and telling the country what they wanted to hear. Thats his signature move if you haven't realized. Where he gets a lump of coal is following through. His state department totally botched the attempt to rein in China starting the with ZTE and Huawei debacles. If you are going to fire the shot you better not miss. He has hurt the US so much by not taking that issue seriously and doing things strategically. Those consequences have spilled over into the Biden years and will continue to harm the US long after Trump's first administration have moved on. When Obama was under the same situation with Russia in the early 2010s, one can argue that he put more effort into coming up with a viable strategy to punish them for their actions.
- DeathArrow 5y ago
  I don't think they will invade Taiwan soon. The economic and political costs will be huge, regardless of military costs. I think they intend to pressure Taiwan into surrende, by economic and diplomatic means. That will be a very long term goal. But China is good at executing ambitious long term plans and having long term strategies.
simonh 5y ago
We invested heavily in nuclear weapons with the intention of never using them. Sometimes it really is about deference. Taiwan isn't arming because they want to fight China. Historically, a lot of people in the early 20th century thought that war wouldn't (or couldn't) happen because it would be too unimaginably destructive. The first world war was called the war to end all wars, and despite later usage originally it was not meant ironically.
Nasrudith 5y ago
There is some selection bias as well - if they didn't invest heavily in military then the wars would not qualify as major barring other major imbalances highly unlikely to occur, such as "Conquistador Scenarios". If both were big and deterred no major war. If one was overwhelming then they either were the 800 pound gorilla sitting where it wants or the war was short by definition. Even if impactful it is the occupation which would gain focus of history. If both were limited in military strength they would find there was too much "friction" to do more than shift borders a bit even after handfuls died in skirmishes - they would be unable to hold big gains.

ozim 5y ago

People who think that are thinking about "all in war, people running with guns everywhere". Even in WW2 that was not the case, there were huge swats of land where people were living as if there was nothing going on. US is already at war with China on the trade. There is full blown cyberspace and intelligence war going right now. So that you are not running twice a day to a shelter does not indicate there is no war.

DeathArrow 5y ago
That war will only last until China will recover in areas they are behind US, such as in semiconductors. After that China can kill US tech sector by selling at below the cost. I think that in 10 years we can reach that point.
- Bayart 5y ago
  At the current pace, it would take China 50 years to catch up in semi-conductors. It won't happen unless they seize Taiwan and its tech with it, or leapfrog the rest with a completely different tech.
  - Teever 5y ago
    Where do you get 50 years from? If we take that number literally than you seem to be implying that China is 50 years behind in semiconductors which would pit their feature size in the micron range or about comparable to what Sam Zeloof is doing in his home lab.
    - imtringued 5y ago
      No he means that China won't have the state of the art technology in 50 years. They will be behind a few generations.
    - Bayart 5y ago
      They're not fifty years behind, they're a bit over a decade behind. And they're pacing to catch up two years of lag every ten years.

DeathArrow 5y ago

US going to war with China (whether it is an economic war, a classic war or a hybrid war ) is US falling into Thucydides Trap. It is one war they aren't going to win. The only winning stance would to not go to war at all.

Nevermark 5y ago
>US going to war with China (whether it is an economic war, a classic war or a hybrid war ) is US falling into Thucydides Trap. It is one war they aren't going to win. The only winning stance would to not go to war at all. The problem with national security, is its peacetime leverage is only as effective as your actual willingness to fight a war, even if both sides lose. Ideally, then both players jointly avoid war. But in the real world and history, surprising dynamics, contradictory local politics, or miscommunication, can all quickly or slowly lead to wars both countries lose. The alternative, is consolidation in one country with effectively guaranteed national peace. Which game do you choose, because in the real world, there is no game where both countries agree to never go to war credibly and solve everything with dice matches, or single handed combat between leaders. Countries that seem to be reliable allies are almost always on the same side in a leverage battle with another entity. Friends become competitors quickly when there is no shared enemy. And old enemies can also suddenly become fast friends, when circumstances change.
GekkePrutser 5y ago
Thank you Joshua!
theskypirate 5y ago
It won't be a total war. The only disputed area is Taiwan and the surrounding seas. There is no benefit to China to take anything else.

ThinkBeat 5y ago

US vs China would be a war that has never been fought before. Two nuclear powers trying to kill each other. I will also be the first time, in a direct war, that the US homeland is directly in danger. If the US invades or bombs mainland China it might be game over, the consequences could be enormous. Like Joshua said: "The only winning move is not to play". Since WW2 the US has been at war (oh sorry "military conflict" / "police action") nearly constantly in one form or another. In all cases they have fought an enemy that was completely inferior. In Afghanistan, the US used B1 bombers, Drones, Cruise missiles, attack helicopters, an F35, Warthogs and whatever else they used. Against an enemy that primarily had AK47, some bazookas and various equipment they stole from the allies. China is inferior to the US in a military sense, but far less so than the other countries they have fought since WW2. China may be able to take out an aircraft carrier with supersonic missiles (maybe not), may be able to fight the F35 (less so the F22). The other major problem for the US is that Taiwan is 200km off mainland China. China can bring nearly an unlimited supply chain going. The US is far away and transporting equipment, soldiers, military hardware etc will be expensive, slow and prone to Chinese submarine attacks. If China reunites Taiwan by force, it will not take long, and there is is really nothing the world can do, that is sane, except yell, scream, sanctions and so on. Nobody wants to find out what that war would look like.

staplers 5y ago
There were no wars like WW1 or WW2 fought before them. It's a horrifying thought but not an implausible one on a long timescale. Eventually a society goes batshit (Nazis, Trumpers, etc) and goes all in on the idea.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- 1_player 5y ago
  There will probably be a thermonuclear war in our future timeline, but is it worth, for us the people, to think or prepare for it? When or if it happens, there'll be nothing left. We can just assume it'll never happen and fight any war outside the physical battlefield (with economical or cyber wars), while trying to spread to other planets.

quickthrowman 5y ago

> How many wars have been preceded by everyone believing they can't happen. Since 1945, when nuclear weapons were invented? Zero.

_abox 5y ago
Zero wars? Not exactly. We've had no more direct conflicts between superpowers but still a lot of proxy wars, local conflicts, genocides. We still have a long way to go as humanity. And I think it's only a matter of time before someone crazy enough to use them gets their hands on nukes. Even countries like North Korea have them now. Despite his appearance KYU is not that crazy but maybe this successor is.
- quickthrowman 5y ago
  “by everyone believing they cannot happen” was the qualifier on the statement about war I was replying to, nobody is shocked by proxy wars and local conflicts. It’s how humans have acted as long as we have history and probably before. Most people believed direct conflict with the USSR by the US cannot happen due to the nuclear weapon risk, and it didn’t. Since the end of WWII, no nuclear powers have been in a war directly with each other. I agree with you that someone will eventually use nukes in anger, I’m really surprised it hasn’t happened yet, actually.
  - GekkePrutser 5y ago
    Ah I understand now. Sorry for misunderstanding your post.