If the US insists on the doctrine of quick victory, they increase the likelihood of China resorting to nuclear weapons first.
In reality, US military planners face an intractable dilemma: the obsession with a "quick victory" increases with certainty the chances of a pre-emptive nuclear response from Beijing.
This appears decisive and reassuring on the surface, but in reality, it constitutes a dangerous fantasy, according to an analysis by Modern Diplomacy. Not only is it inconsistent with the current military, industrial, and political status of the US, but it also obscures the risk of a nuclear escalation and a protracted conflict that the US cannot sustain.
If they prepare for a long war of attrition, the crucial question is: do the US possess the industrial, military, and political capability for such a conflict? The realistic answer: no—at least not on the scale that many American officials imagine.
However, such an attack on critical systems could lead Beijing—under unprecedented pressure—to "vertical escalation," meaning the early use of nuclear weapons to maintain its deterrence.
China, although possessing a smaller nuclear arsenal, is rapidly strengthening it. Estimates suggest that by 2040, it may possess 600 operational warheads compared to approximately 3,700 for the US. This may push Beijing towards a dangerous stance: the early use of nuclear weapons before that option is lost.
Most Chinese missiles are dual-use. A US strike on DF-21 or DF-26 launchers could easily be interpreted as an attack on China's nuclear deterrent capability, and could trigger a nuclear response.
Recent Pentagon war games have caused alarm: in many simulations, US anti-ship weapons are exhausted within days and long-range assets within two weeks.
Even in scenarios where the US and Japan "win" in favor of Taiwan, the cost is catastrophic: dozens of sunken ships, hundreds of destroyed aircraft, and thousands of American casualties—numbers that are politically unacceptable.
In a long war, national will matters as much as technology and weapons. Without unity, industrial strength, and social resilience, technological superiority means nothing.
The US must recognize that technological superiority does not automatically equate to strategic dominance. If they are truly serious about defending Taiwan, they must now reconstitute their industrial base, expand ammunition production, and speak openly to the public about the reality of such a war.
Concurrently, diplomacy and crisis management must return to the forefront, aiming to reduce the risk of error between Washington and Beijing.
The capacity for war is measured not only in missiles and ships, but also in political wisdom, economic strength, and a realistic perception of reality—elements in which the US is lacking in its confrontation with China.
It is time for Washington to wake up from its reassuring delusions before it is too late.
www.bankingnews.gr
A dangerous strategic fantasy
In recent years, war scenarios and analyses from Washington have focused on a familiar but misleading image of the future: the absolute reliance on technological superiority, precise initial strikes, and the illusion that a "quick victory" can serve as a magic solution to crises such as a Chinese attack on Taiwan.This appears decisive and reassuring on the surface, but in reality, it constitutes a dangerous fantasy, according to an analysis by Modern Diplomacy. Not only is it inconsistent with the current military, industrial, and political status of the US, but it also obscures the risk of a nuclear escalation and a protracted conflict that the US cannot sustain.
The US dilemma: Quick victory or long-term war?
If the US insists on the doctrine of quick victory, they increase the likelihood of China resorting to nuclear weapons first.If they prepare for a long war of attrition, the crucial question is: do the US possess the industrial, military, and political capability for such a conflict? The realistic answer: no—at least not on the scale that many American officials imagine.
War options that may lead to nuclear escalation
Most Pentagon plans emphasize cyberattacks and long-range strikes against Chinese command centers, communications, logistics, and missile bases, aiming to paralyze China within a few days.However, such an attack on critical systems could lead Beijing—under unprecedented pressure—to "vertical escalation," meaning the early use of nuclear weapons to maintain its deterrence.
China, although possessing a smaller nuclear arsenal, is rapidly strengthening it. Estimates suggest that by 2040, it may possess 600 operational warheads compared to approximately 3,700 for the US. This may push Beijing towards a dangerous stance: the early use of nuclear weapons before that option is lost.
Most Chinese missiles are dual-use. A US strike on DF-21 or DF-26 launchers could easily be interpreted as an attack on China's nuclear deterrent capability, and could trigger a nuclear response.
Warnings from war games
Recent Pentagon war games have caused alarm: in many simulations, US anti-ship weapons are exhausted within days and long-range assets within two weeks.Even in scenarios where the US and Japan "win" in favor of Taiwan, the cost is catastrophic: dozens of sunken ships, hundreds of destroyed aircraft, and thousands of American casualties—numbers that are politically unacceptable.
The industrial and social weakness of the US
A truly effective strategy must be based on a country's actual industrial, economic, and social capabilities. The US has drastically reduced its defense production and is increasingly dependent on foreign supply chains. The war in Ukraine showed that even moderate support to allies can deplete stockpiles quickly. In a protracted war with the world's second-largest economy, thousands of miles away, the pressures would be suffocating.Absence of political consensus in the US
Domestically, there is no social and political consensus for the defense of Taiwan. The cohesion of the Cold War era does not exist. How will the American public opinion accept tens of thousands of casualties for a distant island?In a long war, national will matters as much as technology and weapons. Without unity, industrial strength, and social resilience, technological superiority means nothing.
The road to realistic power
The solution is evident, but political will is lacking:The US must recognize that technological superiority does not automatically equate to strategic dominance. If they are truly serious about defending Taiwan, they must now reconstitute their industrial base, expand ammunition production, and speak openly to the public about the reality of such a war.
Concurrently, diplomacy and crisis management must return to the forefront, aiming to reduce the risk of error between Washington and Beijing.
Final warning
If the US continues to live with the illusion of a quick and inexpensive victory, it may not only be defeated on the field but also lead the world to the brink of nuclear catastrophe.The capacity for war is measured not only in missiles and ships, but also in political wisdom, economic strength, and a realistic perception of reality—elements in which the US is lacking in its confrontation with China.
It is time for Washington to wake up from its reassuring delusions before it is too late.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών