Are We Headed to War With China?

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine refueled our nightmarish Cold War memories of renewed European hostilities, dragging America into another nuclear standoff against old-school belligerents. Putin’s diminished conventional capabilities left the despot playing with fire as he leveraged his distorted realpolitik with nuclear blackmail and backchannel strongman tactics to bring the West to the negotiating table so he could solidify his meager gains in Ukraine’s eastern oblasts. With American military support languishing in Congress, Putin’s anaconda plan of bleeding Ukraine dry of its rapidly depleting stockpiles of ammunition is finally gaining traction, unlike his battalions of tanks and armored vehicles, which have become bogged down in the winter’s mud and infighting among personnel. No one knows how the war in Ukraine might end. Some military experts believe a situation akin to the divided Korean peninsula could be Europe’s best path to detente and de-escalation. Despite the protests of Democrats lobbying for increased aid to Ukraine, America’s joint chiefs of staff have now shifted their sights to the next looming threat: China.

Evaluating a Possible War With China

Following the build-up of China’s asymmetrical warfare capabilities, primarily its anti-access battery system in the first island chain of the South China Sea, the United States Department of Defense developed a comprehensive military doctrine designed to overcome these emerging technologies. China has made no secret of its plans to reunify Taiwan with the mainland, either by force or peaceful intervention, thus eliminating America’s strangulating containment of the communist party. To do so, China has developed thousands of anti-ship missiles they can launch from surface vessels, attack helicopters, fighter planes, and even from the shoulders of regular foot soldiers. The goal of this expansive anti-access weapon system is to negate America’s military superiority in the strait of Taiwan. In essence, China’s asymmetrical capabilities seek to eliminate the U.S. Navy’s ability to immediately respond to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, allowing the People’s Liberation Army to establish a fortified beachfront. To thwart these capabilities, the United States undertook a massive military conceptualized doctrine to thwart these developing technological advancements, known as AirSea Battle. ASB will likely look to bolster current American bases in the Pacific while funding the development of new rocket technologies, fighter planes, and even unmanned underwater vehicles. At worst, it appears America is again flexing its military muscle.

Is It All For Show?

Outwardly, Congress has given the American defense apparatus a blank check for continuous warfare preparation. To their credit, the Pentagon said any military spending for technological advances in the theater of war is paramount for protecting American interests abroad. But how much is enough? Those skeptical of the perceived “military-industrial complex” suggest the ASB concept is nothing more than a justification of lucrative contract procurement by contractors looking for their next big payday following the wind-down of the War on Terror. Due to the high-entry costs and scope of technological prowess required for the development of military technologies, America’s largest defense contractors hold a virtual monopoly or duopoly of all domestic defense weapons systems manufacturing. It’s no coincidence that American lawmakers who earmark certain defense contractors for favorable budget considerations also receive hefty campaign contributions from those same contractors. It’s essential to revisit the changing nature of American geopolitics and warfare to understand this nuance of spending. America’s conflicts in the Middle East were labor-intensive operations, with most overhead costs coming from troop salaries and support logistics. Any future conflict between the United States and China would require monumental interoperation between the Air Force and Navy. The need for expensive aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, and fighter jets would come with these massive operations. Guess which war would benefit the defense contractors making those weapons more financially?

Aggression or Assertiveness?

Many top American politicians claim continuous Chinese aggression in the Pacific as justification for the new buildup of arms in the Far East. But is assessment true or just hyperbolic brinksmanship? Despite only spending a third of America’s total defense budget annually, China is not short of creativity and innovation. To counter America’s buildup for forces of the island chains off it’s eastern coast, the PLA and Navy have begun building artificial islands in the area to challenge international territory jurisdiction of the waters. They have also challenged sovereignty of disputed shoals and other naturally occurring oceanic formations as an affront to the status quo of American hegemonic intervention in the area, as well as to presumably “bully” smaller island nations. Furthermore, China sidestepped international condemnation of these actions and belying issues of consent by referencing obscure legal loopholes, such as previous regional treaties, they say serve as precedent for their claims to the disputed areas. International criticisms decrying these actions have fallen on the deaf hears of the CCP, who point out to the hypocrisy of the United Nations. To date, each permanent member of the UN’s Security Council has violated similar encroachments worldwide.

Testing the Waters of War

Military and political experts believe China’s “aggression” is more akin to “assertiveness” as China continues to challenge the status quo by taking little pieces of disputed territory one at a time. Known as “salami tactics,” the unilateral annexation is troubling to international norms, but matters little in the grand scheme of power projection. Most of the artificial islands are duplications of existing Chinese power in the region and could be quickly overrun and marooned by invading forces. Moreover, China’s assertive doctrine is no different than other international players protecting their core interests and appears to be more of a reaction to what they see as tantamount to America’s containment policies. While these events could be troubling to the average American citizen, they should come with a caveat. No action against any foreign power will be made in a political vacuum. No two nuclear capable nations have ever squared off with one another directly, and we don’t see that likely taking place in the coming years. Still, protection is a powerful asset. While there’s little the average citizen can do to sway congress to spend less on national defense thus avoiding possible provocation, you can still protection your core interests at home. Our aboveground safe rooms can offer proven protection against nuclear, radioactive and biological attacks. Investing in steel-gauge protection can, at the very least, assuage frayed nerves, so you can focus more on what matters most: fortifying your home against possible invaders and foreign attacks.