The power of the status quo must be dealt with as it is

Americans do not realize the dangers of confrontation with “nuclear” China

  • US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan defended, in a recent interview with the "Lowy Institute" for research, a breakthrough with China.

    Getty Images

  • Anthony Blinken said that America and the allies would "take action" if Taiwan was invaded or if any change to the status quo was made by force.

    Reuters

  • China's nuclear power is growing steadily.

    dad

  • Arming Taiwan's army will not prevent China from attempting to occupy it.

    dad

picture

Are Americans aware of the cost to them if they plunge into a war with a nuclear-armed superpower like China?

Dr. Sumantra Maitra, an expert on national security affairs at the Center for National Interest, researcher Dr. Sumantra Maitra, says in a report published by the American “National Interest” magazine, that the US National Security Adviser, Jake Sullivan, defended, in a recent interview with the Lowy Research Institute, for a breakthrough with China.

Noting that America realizes that China will be a player in the international system for the foreseeable future, Sullivan said that there should be effective and healthy competition with China.

He added, "We are not seeking a new cold war, and we are not looking for conflict. What we are looking for is effective competition, with barriers and risk reduction measures, to ensure that things do not descend into conflict, and with the ability to work with China as well." Coexistence is necessary, and Maitra says he is right.

"Taiwan" password

Maitra, who is also a non-resident fellow at the James J.

Martin" and an elected historian member of the "Royal Historical Society" in the United Kingdom, that what was not touched upon in Sullivan's speech and subsequent conversation, even once, is the word "Taiwan", and coincidentally, on the same day, news reports spoke of visiting members of the The US Congress of the island.

Even more surprisingly, a day after Sullivan spoke, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said the US and allies would "take action" if Taiwan was invaded, or if any change in the status quo was made by force.

This is not surprising, as Maitra says that China has been a subject of discussion everywhere he has gone, over the past few months, a topic that divides not only the foreign policy community in general but realists in particular, and everyone agrees that the rise of China is an important factor, and the rise of Chinese hard power will lead to some retaliation abroad.

Maitra adds that what ultimately appears to be a growing disconnect between the goal of the United States and the subject of the goal, so it all starts with some key questions, first: Is China a reactionary power, or the strength of the status quo?

Do we have enough information to decide on a grand strategy?

The fact that China is a de facto power means that it has a higher position in the balance in Asia and the Pacific, and given the rise in China's GDP, China's interests will expand, as well as its military power, but as long as China wants to work within the established framework, it should not represent That's a problem, unless the United States does its best in an initial grand strategy.

The greatest danger

But the greater danger is the transformation of the United States from a status quo force into a revolutionary power that seeks to export its ideologies across Asia, which will surely mean, not only alienating potential partners such as India, but creating conflict with China.

The second question, then, relates to the ultimate goal that America seeks, and if this goal is to take precedence over any price, there is no chance for coexistence, no matter how defense Sullivan is, since any growth, even a small, of Chinese power constitutes a threat to the balance that needs to be remedied at any cost, This will mean destroying Chinese power if the need arises.

And the third question: What does the United States mean by destroying Chinese power in Asia?

Does that mean working for the collapse of the Chinese government and the Communist Party, and defending or strengthening democracy?

Or does it entail containing Chinese power and changing it with a series of alliances surrounding China, without any effort to roll back Chinese power?

The first would lead to the outbreak of war, especially with regard to Taiwan. As for the second, there would be no problem in the event of Taiwan falling into the hands of China, as long as that means China falling into a quagmire for 20 years to pacify a rebellious region.

The final question is whether Americans know the full cost of sliding into a great-power war with a nuclear rival, especially on land barely miles away from China's coastal missile batteries. Most Americans don't realize how limited nuclear war can destroy civilization.

As an example, the total casualties of the war on terror over 20 years, including the September 11 attacks, amounted to about 12,000 dead and several thousand wounded, but the number of victims of the sinking of an aircraft carrier in the first hour of a full-blown battle would be greater, and this is not even a result Half a day of fighting, in one specific area, not to mention air force and missile attacks, or even a nuclear standoff.

In conclusion, Maitra wonders, are the Americans willing to go to war over Taiwan and risk such numbers of casualties?

• The total casualties of the war on terrorism, over the course of 20 years, including the September 11 attacks, amounted to about 12,000 dead and several thousand wounded, but the number of victims of the sinking of an aircraft carrier, in the first hour of the full engagement battle, will be greater, and this is not even a result Half a day of fighting, in one specific area.

Not to mention air force and missile attacks, or even a nuclear confrontation.

• The fact that China is a de facto power, means that it has a higher position in the balance in Asia and the Pacific, and given the rise in China's GDP, China's interests will expand, as well as its military power.


The greater danger is the transformation of the United States from a status quo force into a revolutionary power seeking to export its ideologies to various parts of Asia, which will surely mean, not only alienating potential partners such as India, but creating conflict with China.


supersonic missile

Washington ■ AFP /

The Wall Street Journal reported, last Monday, that China tested, last summer, a hypersonic missile, capable of launching a projectile into the air, a technology that neither the United States nor Russia currently possesses.

And information published by the Financial Times, a day before, confirmed that the American daily reported that China conducted an experiment, in July, that included “a complex maneuver during which a projectile was launched from a hypersonic missile while it was in the air.”

The Wall Street Journal added, quoting unidentified US officials, that this step shows that China's capabilities are greater than what is known so far.

The Financial Times reported that "experts at DARPA, the Pentagon's research agency, do not know how China was able to launch a projectile from a vehicle flying at hypersonic speed," more than five times the speed of sound.

These experts also do not know the nature of the projectile that fell into the sea, according to what the British newspaper quoted people with access to information from the intelligence services, and some experts believe that the projectile is an air-to-air missile, while others believe that its function is camouflage to protect the hypersonic missile in case it is exposed to threaten.

In October, the Financial Times reported that Beijing launched a hypersonic missile in August, which flew into orbit around the Earth, before descending towards its target, which it missed by a few kilometers. Beijing denied at the time that it was a missile test, and said it had tested a reusable spacecraft. .

But the Chief of Staff of the US Army, General Mark Milley, spoke a few days later of "a very important test of a hypersonic weapon system", without specifying the date of the test.

He likened it to the Soviet Union's launch of "Sputnik", the first artificial satellite, in October 1957, which surprised the United States and represented the starting point for the race to conquer space.

Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news

Keywords: