....because the possibility of an early embarrassing tactical losses of US forces would prompt the inclination to use or threaten to use tactical nuclear weapons. Even if the US was successful in early stages of a military conflict with China, it would only be round one.
Fighting over Taiwan is a very bad idea. Lyle Goldstein, a Naval War College instructor with expertise in Chinese military capabilities, thinks the Chinese are in a superior position with respect to a potential conventional war over Taiwan. So does retired Admiral Bill Owens. Consequently they recommend a more thoughtful diplomatic approach which doesn't seem to be in vogue here in the US.
Goldstein and Owens have pointed out that the US can’t win a conventional war over this Chinese matter, therefore they should stop poking China in the eye over it. Goldstein argues it isn’t a matter of US strategic interest, so why would you start what could escalate into a general war over it? Owens former Deputy JCS argues the whole thing is negotiable. In fact, we had reached an understanding with the Chinese and maintained strategic ambiguity over the defense commitment, and of late, appear to have abandoned that approach, destabilizing the situation. The real issue here are the “roll back” advocates at the Pentagon and on the Hill that have the poorly informed view that the US is in a position to dictate to China. It’s a delusion. It is curious to me that roll back people who resemble conservatives from the cold war period who fought to a draw in Korea, and suffered a loss in Vietnam, think they'll fair much better with a much stronger China.
With respect to US operations close to China, the Chinese reaction is to conduct substantial military operations after US and allied forces leave the area. The Art of War presents the principle that the one who fights at extended ranges is at a disadvantage. It doesn’t really matter what conventional force multiplier one imagines that one has. “The one who first knows the measure of far and near wins.” “So when the front is prepared, the rear is lacking, and when the rear is prepared the front is lacking, preparedness on the left, means lack on the right, preparedness on the right, means lack on the left. Preparedness everywhere means lack everywhere.” So the Pentagon budget is never enough. I think the operational and budget impulse here is to try to aim at a continuous substantial US military presence close to China.
= new reply since forum marked as read
