Two superpowers have emerged as a response to the Cold War. One, a beacon of international liberalism, the other, a power dominating in the Eastern region. The emergence of a bi-polar world tends to lend to the Realist concept of ‘balancing power’ in which states continuously exert their dominance to maintain hegemonic dominance. To date, both the US and China have the largest military spending in the world. 2021 statistics place the US as the frontrunner with a total of $778 Billion, with China falling behind at $252 Billion. Despite this significant difference in military spending, China currently has the largest active military personnel reaching 2.18 million. With these statistics in mind, we can begin to ask the question: what would a US/China conflict look like if fought on US terms? 

An Accidental War? 

A defensive Realist view of security would place the safety of the state as its main interest. This is often achieved through projecting power (notably military power) in a defensive manner. This was a critique of the traditional, offensive Realist perspective in which the goal for dominance would often lead to ‘unjust wars.’ Rationally, no state would initiate a war in which the odds were placed against them; military action is conducted on a rational level whereby a cost/benefit analysis is studied for all possible outcomes. As Clausewitz mentions – war is a ‘continuation of politics by other means.’ 

But when diplomatic tensions rise, do states stick to traditional International Relations theory? 

History points us in 2 directions in which unpredictable events lead to different outcomes. First is the Realist model of a ‘security dilemma.’ Both the US and China have been on a mission to expand their militaries. On a domestic level, justification for this would be to increase the nation’s defenses from outsiders. Yet, one state’s defence is an act of aggression to others. Therefore, as emphasised earlier, we can expect to see the continuous balance of power between both states. As China continues to develop defensive technology, the US is required to match this if it is ever forced to defend against unpredictable military advances.

Secondly we can use the real life example of the 2001 Hainan Island dispute to highlight the possibility of accidental military conflict. A US surveillance plane and a Chinese Shenyang J8-II interceptor collided, tragically killing the Chinese pilot. The US plane had to complete an emergency landing leading to an 11 day international dispute. 

Whilst no war commenced, given the state of US/China relations today, the unpredictable nature of military exercises could lead to conflict. 

Technological warfare – Who has more firepower? 

One indicator for a potential war is to consider both party’s military capabilities. This is their “ability to achieve a desired effect in a specific operating environment” as defined by the Australian Defence Force. One consideration is that the measure of military capability is a difficult measure, given the secrecy of both the US Government and the CCP. 

With the size of both militaries in mind, if the US wanted to fight on their terms, it can be assumed that boots to the ground conflict is not in the interest of the US. All modern conflicts have been defined by a blurred line between ‘homefront’ and ‘battlefront’ where conflict is fought regardless of territory.

One explanation for this can be brought back to post 9/11 foreign policy. The AUMF 2001 (Authorization for Use of Military Force) granted the President authority by Congress to deploy troops unilaterally without prior authorisation. Since the war in both Afghanistan and Iraq had ended, some claim the policy to be made redundant. Yet in recent years, the president has broadened its power to commit airstrikes as the authorisation did not account for both drone strikes and airstrikes. 

One main issue that the US would face is China’s mountainous terrain. This would result in greater strategic advantage for China. If the US or China were to go to war, it is safe to assume that air power is the greater indicator of a potential conflict.

Despite this, the US House Defence Policy Committee warned that the US F-35 air fighter systems may fail to keep up with Chinese air defence systems. Hinote told The National Interest – “We wouldn’t even play the current version of the F-35…It wouldn’t be worth it. … Every fighter that rolls off the line today is a fighter that we wouldn’t even bother putting into these scenarios.” in response to a question about a retaliation to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Prior to this, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 system was considered the pinnacle of national security, providing alliance based deterrence between 13 partnered states.  

The US being most famous for its stealth capabilities has given it the upperhand in many international conflicts. One could say that a higher military budget may lend itself useful to the US against Chinese developments. However, a 2018 report by South China Morning Post indicates that China is attempting to balance their aviation power using ‘metamaterials’ to allow their aircrafts to remain undetectable to most radar systems. 

The nuclear age

The final consideration for a potential conflict lends its hand to the Cold War. Nuclear power is arguably the main indicator of a state’s power. It is irrational to go to war with a country who possesses a greater number of nuclear capable defence systems. If traditional warfare is deemed too costly and ineffective at achieving dominance, a final resort is often nuclear annihilation. The Chinese have plans to double their nuclear weapons by the end of the decade – totalling 1000 by 2030. The rate in which these nuclear weapons have been developed has undoubtedly caused tensions within the Pentagon.  

Linking back to the security dilemma, nuclear weapons have traditionally been used as tools for deterrence – preventing enemies from intervening due to the possibility of attack. This can be considered a self-fulfilling prophecy. The use of nuclear weapons to deter potential threats ultimately creates more threats as states are forced to match that power out of fear.

Nuclear expert, Caitlin Talamadge says that China is not developing nuclear weapons to attack the US. Rather, it is an effort to create a ‘nuclear stalemate’ whereby neither country has a nuclear advantage. 

To Neo-Conservatives, the security dilemma is an inescapable reality. The anarchical structure of the world order where there is no overarching authority to limit the actions of countries, facilitates a struggle for power in which war is often the outcome. 

A war to end all wars? 

The South China Sea is one region in which a potential conflict could break out. China’s claim of sovereignty and dominance in the region has created diplomatic tensions between the West and East. As claimed by the US Secretary of State, any move from China to invade Taiwan would lead to terrible consequences. Whilst military intervention would be an ideal policy decision, Albeit, economic sanctions do seem the most likely (Consider the annexation of Crimea in 2014). A clear strategy by the US is needed to commit to the promise of defence against Chinese invasion. A minimum strategy of deploying soldiers is needed to assert influence and deter a potential intervention. 

Whilst the US has pushed NATO members (UK, France and Germany so far) to commit to navy patrols in the region, it remains clear that China is no longer accepting US Primacy. What we do know is that the US could not risk losing a war if it does not not adjust to the new geo-politcal climate of the Indo Pacific region.

For More foreign policy discussion, please check out my International Relations blog – joshbatejournalism.wordpress.com

Header Image Credit: US National Archives