Contrary to what Mr. Biden said, I don't think the US can fight on 3 fronts at the same time.
The US no longer has the same capabilities as it did in the Second World War. In fact, China's industrial capacity is greater than that of the USA and its allies combined.
It is important that the USA devote maximum resources to deterring China.
To do this, Europeans need to devote more resources to their defense. In fact, Europeans have more than enough resources to deter Russia. If they are willing to make the effort.
Allowing the USA to devote sufficient resources to the Indo-Pacific.
Does this mean the US should abandon NATO? Absolutely not.
The real question is whether Americans are ready for the government to devote more economic resources to their armies and to the Indo-Pacific?
In view of the isolationist sentiments brewing in the American public, is the American public ready to make the necessary efforts to dissuade China?
One quick modification - the US economy is still larger than the Chinese economy. The main problem is that - much as you would expect in free market theory - is that the US economy is moving upscale and is therefore more service and less manufacturing oriented. (There being more profits in the service sector.)
Also, the Chinese military is outspending the US military and therefore - at the moment - has more assets, particularly naval assets, than the US armed forces. That said, this is coming at enormous cost to the Chinese economy with significant parallels to the Soviet-USA competition in the Cold War. Put simply, we've been here before.
Indeed, that has been the experience though most of the USA's history since the 20h century. The Central Powers - in World War I - and the Axis Powers - in World War II - and the USSR - in the Cold War all had economies smaller than the USA. However, they had the initial advantages in that their economies were mobilized and on a full war footing. The USA, on the other hand, had not.
This gave the USA's opponents the initial advantage. However, once the USA fully mobilized, their opponents were overwhelmed and the USA and its' allies emerged triumphant.
As to the rise in isolationist sentiment, here too, the USA has been here before. As a nation separated from most of the world by two wide oceans, east and west, and two friendly (and weaker) neighbors, north and south, the natural inclination of the American public is to want to ignore the rest of the world. However, a sparking event - see the Zimmermann Telegram, see Pearl Harbor, see the Berlin Blockade and the Korean War - tends to shock the public from its' complacency and mobilize public opinion for action.
To be sure, history seldom repeats itself exactly. However, something as shocking as a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would likely have a similar impact. No for sure, but if history is any guide, the pattern would not surprise.
One caveat - nuclear weapons. Unlike in the world wars, though to some extent like the Cold War, the danger of a nuclear exchange might change the pattern. However, the paradox is that the danger of a nuclear exchange makes it far less likely that China would attempt a unilateral action.
The real danger is war by miscalculation. That danger, of course, can never be ruled out and the domestic politics of all the parties involved will play a part in that scenario.
That all said, if history is any guide, the USA will not be ready to fulfill its' obligations - until it is. The USA has certain fundamental strategic and historical interests that it will not ignore, but its' awareness of those interests sometimes must be galvanized by events.
Further, the populist phase of American politics that is spurring a resurgent isolationism will also - if history is any guide - not last. Example: The populism of the 60s and 70s led to the relative stability of the 80s and 90s - U. S. victory in the Cold War to follow.
So while there is much here that the questioner is right to raise, care must be be taken not to overdraw conclusions reached by a particular interregnum in history. No great power endures forever, but at least so far, there is nothing to suggest that the USA is ready to walk away from its' strategic interests in a fit of populist isolationism.
To be sure, such isolationism complicates things. However, based on history, there is nothing to suggest that it is definitive and final.
I know that the USA has a larger economy than China and even a bigger military budget than China. Although some politicians believe that the Chinese are not truthful about the budget they allocate to their military.
The major challenge is the following: The USA has a high-tech economy, but in the case of a prolonged war, it is production capacities that enable one to win a war. Considering American production capacities compared to Chinese production capacities, it is quite concerning. In fact, the latest figures show that even the USA and its most important allies do not reach Chinese production capacities.
And production capacities cannot be rebuilt overnight; it takes time.
Secondly, it is important to note that it costs China less to manufacture, for example, a warship, even for equivalent technology.
Of course, in case of war, for now, the USA is predicted to win because the USA possesses mass and high technology.
However, specialists agree that the longer time passes, the more the USA's advantage diminishes, and if it is a prolonged war, it would not be a good position for the USA if their production capacities have not changed.
This is a significant difference from World War II and the Cold War. Because even if before World War II, the USA had not mobilized its forces for its army, the figures clearly showed that the USA was the country with by far the greatest production capacity.
So yes, for now, the USA is predicted to win; they have the mass and the high technology. But it is not more accurate to say that the USA could fight against Russia in Europe, China in Asia, etc. The USA must now prioritize the resources they allocate to the different theaters.
Right now, the Chinese military budget is actually bigger than the American budget. Again, not too unusual. See also the Cold War and world wars as precedent. In the latter two, it being the USA's ability to mobilize its longer term resources and direct them to defense spending.
Indeed, even in the Cold War. During the 1970s the USA's defense budget fell and the USSR was able to overtake the USA for a time. It was only when the Reagan defense budget increases began that the pressure on the USSR began to increase until they reached breaking point. (Of course, there were other factors at play, but here I limit comments to the defense budget changes that occurred over the aforementioned timeframe.)
Actually, I do not disagree that the USA likely could not handle China and Russia at the same time. Both are continental powers that can bring enormous - though aging - populations and natural resources to bear against the USA. The latter itself a continental power, but with no comparably sized allies except - potentially depending on events - India.
What the USA needs as it had - and I say this as no fan of the former President - under Mr. Trump a realpolitik diplomacy that seeks to exacerbates the divides between Russia and China. The latter two are NOT natural allies, but Mr. Biden's bumbling diplomacy has helped bond them together.
Suffice to say, as much as the military budget, the conduct of foreign policy will help to shape the USA's capacity to manage the international arena. The problem at the moment is that an isolationism, in part ironically engendered by the USA's complacency - the Japanese called in "victory disease" post-Pearl Harbor - in the wake of its' Cold War victory, has managed to unite two continental powers against the USA.
Suffice to say, it is doubtful that the USA could muster the resources in any military situation to meet that threat.
That's not exactly what I've read about US and Chinese military budget figures.
Anyway I share with you this article by Elbridge Colby
"It is increasingly common to hear from Americans that we must focus more on China and Asia and less on Europe. Unsurprisingly, this perspective is not always welcomed. Commentators often charge that such counsel is rooted in 'isolationism,' 'weakness,' or the personal agendas of given leaders.
It is not. It is rooted in deep structural realities. The fact is that the US will have to prioritize China and Asia over Europe in the coming years, regardless of who is in charge. The primacy of Asia and the rise of a superpower China compel it.
Many opponents of a refocus towards Asia like to wrap themselves in the legacy of the Cold War. But while the logic of Cold War strategy—namely to prevent any potentially hostile power from dominating the most important industrialized region of the world—used to lead America to Europe, today it indicates America must concentrate on Asia.
Moreover, the most important American rival is itself in Asia: China. While the Chinese economy is smaller than America's in dollar-denominated terms, it is comparable, if not larger, in more geopolitically relevant purchasing power parity terms. China's military has grown at a breathtaking pace while the country is competing at the forefront of key military and dual-use technologies.
No one knows what Beijing will decide, but China seems to be doing almost everything consistent with preparing for a war with America. It is attempting to sanction-proof its economy and is conditioning its population to be ready for stormy weather ahead.
Any responsible administration must therefore prepare for the possibility of a war with China. US policy should seek to deter conflict with the manifest ability to deny China a successful invasion of Taiwan. Unfortunately, that ability is not something that can be assumed. Indeed, credible sources indicate America is on track to lose such a war.
America should still be able to provide the bulk of the defense for its allies in both Asia and Europe. But this is simply not realistic. It is a fact that the US does not have a military large enough or appropriately designed to fight two major wars, especially should fighting break out simultaneously with China and Russia. And there is very significant overlap between the needs for a fight over Taiwan and one in Europe, not enough resources to go around, and an urgent demand for the US to make up lost ground in Asia.
Unfortunately, these deficits cannot be remedied quickly or easily. So what is the right strategic response?
Despite stirring rhetoric from leaders in Congress and the press, a foreign policy of US primacy is simply not possible. We do not have the military for it, and even if the budget were available, we could not field one in sufficient time. Meanwhile, there is growing concern about the size of America's deficits, and many are warning about increasing our already high debt load. So primacy is not a serious option.
Nor, though, is isolationism. Pulling back to our own shores and allowing the chips to fall where they may would almost certainly lead to a Chinese-dominated Asia, with grave consequences for the American economy.
Our interests in Europe and the Middle East would fare no better. The answer lies between those two extremes, in strategic prioritization: grappling with the reality of scarcity and the need for hard choices, focusing resources and willpower where America's most important interests are endangered—Asia. But this does not mean abandoning Europe. Rather, it involves inducing our European allies to take primary responsibility for their own defense. In 1988, West Germany alone boasted an army of 12 active and three ready reserve divisions. If we are serious about following the Cold War example, then European rearmament is the way.
The best way forward is to face reality, recognize Europe must take the lead for its own defense and transition together as part of a reformed but more sustainable NATO. Unfortunately, this will involve vulnerabilities—the US must withhold forces from Europe that may be needed for Asia, even in the event of Russia attacking first. This is because if the US ties down or loses key forces for a defense of Taiwan in a less significant European fight, it is asking for China to attack. But this does not mean abandoning Europe; it means working together on a plan to manage these vulnerabilities as best we can.
Is this a perfect solution? No. But we are not in a world of perfect solutions. Those who pretend that we are may be the most dangerous of all. Better to face reality and implement strategies for it. That's the only responsible course."
correct the voters do not want us fighting in taiwan. congress will probably go to war if china started shooting rockets at taiwan or... as i call it the real china "roc". dissuade won't happen. they will attack taiwan. Biden is wrong, you are correct US can't fight on 3 fronts at the same time. not even 2: taiwan and ukraine same time. 3rd in baltic states further from possible. still china industry is having economic problems called "deflation" and even china war industry is weaker than u. s. alone... if we not sending stuff to ukraine. despite that u. s. could shift more industry to war stuff. with japan and south korea helping u. s., we can fight china at the same time as helping ukraine. but deterring china won't work. china will attack i do not know when. i predict the same grinding as in ukraine, will repeat on taiwan mountains.
as American javelin missiles etc. destroy the warplanes warships and vehicles of china leaving piles of bodies like ukraine. if i were china that is not worth it... but they have over a billion people to "lose" just to have the same population as u. s. like on a calculator machine 1,300,000,000 - 1,000,000,000 will still have 300 million like u. s. so in the end i agree with jen "we and taiwan are screwed"
Industrial capacity doesn't matter when the USA can effectively strike China's factories from long range and China can't do the same in return due to the usa's anti-missile system that actually works, unlike the Russian anti-missile system that China relies on which already failed Iran on just a very small scale missile attack. Taiwan would likely take heavy casualties, but the USA would not.
Also, if trade stops between USA and China, Americans would miss out on entertainment, but much of China's population would starve without food from America. On top of that, since the Russian/China anti-missile system is ineffective, the USA can destroy transportation networks between Russia and China so China won't have enough oil/fuel for their military vehicles to operate.
China has a very large, poorly trained, and vulnerable military. The USA has a large, well trained, moderately equipped, but quite experienced military due to frequent wars/conflicts that the USA has been involved in.
The way China can do the most damage is from within the USA by attacking infrastructure with the people that illegally entered the USA under Biden's poor policies. They can also hack many of the power grids which would cause economic damage, and some Americans would panic when products aren't replenished quickly and rob and attack others for resources.
There is support for the pacific from NATO and Australia.
AUKUS is ongoing with pillar one and pillar two is very likely to include Japan. The latter are also part of the next gen Tempest Program.
The US are not actually alone out in the pacific and Australia is likely to purchase 5 Virginia class submarines before the next Gen submarines arrive.
the one who wins a war in the long term is the one who has the most production capacity.
The USA has a high-tech economy, but it "s not this type of economy that enables the production of munitions, ships, weapons etc.
For the moment, the Wargame is giving the USA the upper hand because of its superior technology and mass, but if the war drags on as it is, the USA and its allies will clearly not have the upper hand.
Now the US can rebuild a solid industrial, at least military base, and can devote sufficient resources to the Indo-Pacific. But will the USA do this soon enough?
But then again, other NATO members don't have the necessary capabilities. Look at the actions and not the speeches of European leaders on the situation in Ukraine. They all proclaim that the security stakes are considerable with what is happening in Ukraine, yet their aid is largely insufficient.
So if you're counting on substantial Nato aid for the Pacific, it's an illusion. It's even more of an illusion when you consider that the power projection capabilities of Europe's largest armies are almost non-existent.
The Japanese are in the process of moving 1 and soon to be 2 carriers to the US for them to operate F35 aircraft, these are the first Japanese carriers since WW2. A NATO strike group will be established out there from 2025. The entire region is dominated by the pacific, it’s a submarine hunting ground. There is no real requirement for your typical land armies, it’s about force projection, the US and Uk did it in WW2, it still holds true now. If you blockage China, where is it actually going to go?
I look at the figures, and they are alarming. The United Kingdom no longer has the same capacity as it did during the Second World War, and neither does the United States. The United Kingdom's and even France's projection capabilities are limited.
And the combined production capacities of these countries still can't match China's.
Relying too much on nato, and therefore on Europe, is illusory, given the real capacities of these countries.
On the other hand, we can help the USA by devoting sufficient resources to our own continent.
I think you miss the point, the pacific area is a rather large body of water. It is a submarine hunting ground, the UK and the US are the best in the world with submarines. You want to move an army, it goes by sea, it gets interdicted. Exclusion zones work, especially when enforced by submarines backed up by carrier strike groups. The key resource required are Torpedos and TLAMs, neither of which are used in Europe. The US can readily manage in the pacific on their own, however with support the Chinese do not have a chance and they understand that,
You're missing the point You too. Look at the considerable increase in China's maritime capabilities, and therefore its submarines. So much so that the highest ranks of the US military are worried. Which is set to increase to over 80 submarines by 2035. It's true that you're going to talk about technological quality. But mass is crucial too.
And once again, in a long-term war, whoever has the most production capacity wins. And don't forget that it's much cheaper for China to manufacture weapons than for the USA.
Imagine, moreover, that China has access to Russian resources, which is the scenario that most worries the Americans, and that will give you an idea of the considerable challenge it will represent.
Above all, you're forgetting one important thing: Taiwan is very close to China, and China will be able to project a powerful strike force very quickly, not the USA, let alone the UK. It's going to be a while before the USA can unleash its full strike force, even if they have bases nearby.
Once again, for the moment, the USA is the winner against China, but the more time goes by, the less this is the case, given China's capabilities.
Now, of course, if the US does the right thing, it can largely dissuade China, but will it?
You seem to assume that it will be easy. It's really an illusion, given the réality.
Don't get me wrong, I don't totally disagree with you in the sense that the US still has the mass and the high technology. That's why, for the time being, the US would be the winner.
However, let's face reality. The USA's capabilities are limited, they're not what they were during the Second World War and the Cold War.
China's industrial and other capacities are considerable. These figures are alarming. And clearly, a long-term war, given the current situation, would not be good for Western capabilities.
Now, the USA has ample means to rectify its weaknesses, which will give it a significant industrial capacity as well as high-tech capabilities that China doesn't have.
Chinese submarines are noisy, they have 6 SSN’s, the rest are Diesel electric boats.
Again you miss the entire moving to a war footing, if the US had to do this, then entire areas would be turned into manufacturing for war and not commercial goods.
Also the US is anything but isolated, it’s just that France and Germany are not invited. Italy, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, are all supporting the US and or each other.
You seem to have forgotten that China has modern submarines, and will be able to increase their number. What's more, even in this field, production capacity is what makes it possible to win - see also the example of the Second World War.
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that the production capacities of the USA and its allies are inferior to those of China.
Once again you are deluding yourself about NATO. I would like you to explain to me how European countries, which are in demographic decline, which do not even devote sufficient resources to their own security in Europe, would do it for Taiwan, and especially with what real capacity? No, it's simply illusory.
Just like thinking that China is going to stick to this type of submarine without building other types, and that it's not going to try to outnumber its adversaries anyway, thanks to these production capacities.
Because the other European nations are not needed in the pacific. The Germans, French, Spanish, etc have not been invited. It’s basically UK, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the US, the Italians are tagging along as part of Tempest. AUKUS is an active Tri nation sub programme With Sweden, Finland now in NATO the northern flank is pretty deep in defence. It all goes back to Fulda, no change there.
First of all, France doesn't need to be invited; we have our own islands in the region and over a million inhabitants.
Secondly, the UK's production and projection capabilities are absolutely incomparable to China's. As for the Italians, they don't even devote enough to their own security in Europe. Which doesn't really change the situation.
As for Australia, it has serious doubts about American promises on submarines, as the Australian government stated in March. And with good reason: the American naval industry - in this case General Dynamics and Huntington Ingalls Industries - is struggling to meet demand, due to insufficient production capacity, a shortage of skilled manpower and problems in supply chains.
In any case, this doesn't change Australia's industrial weakness compared to China.
The problem for American submarines is far from solved. As for the British, they'll never be able to replace the U. S. Their demographics, economies and projection capabilities are limited. on a global scale, the UK is a very powerful army.
It’s not about replacing anyone, it’s about working together, historically it’s a group that worked together in the past at various times. There is a lot of technology, capability and manufacturing capability on tap. The Japanese are moving to a military stance with more fleet capabilities. There mil budget is $53billion, the US are also looking at South Korea and Japan shipyards to assist with production.
The USA are not ready to give Australia what they promised for moment , so I'm not interested in public declarations, and I'd rather concentrate on concrete actions and real capabilities.
Indeed, there is high technological value etc, but that doesn't change anything. British actions can only be limited, because of its demography, its economy, and its real capacity. South Korea has a smaller population than the UK, and a smaller economy.
Japan has a better economy, but compared with China it's absolutely incomparable, and even less so when you compare production capacity.
In short, you've got the USA, well the others who can help in a marginal way, which doesn't mean it's useless. But don't expect miracles from them.
I think you fail to realize the actually scope of our military prowess and what is actually going on in the south China sea by the USA. We are definitely determined to deter them look at where our fleets are and the amount of personnel in Japan Korea and Australia.
Ukraine and Israel is mostly a monetary thing, actually mostly political. Make no mistake though the NDS openly states we're focused on China as the near peer adversary.
Unlike Ukraine and Israel we have a written agreement to defend Taiwan. Whether Americans like that or not, Biden has doubled down recently saying the US will honor it's agreement. I do not see that changing anytime soon
17.3K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
“No longer has the capabilities as it did in WW2?” Our economy and army is like five times larger since then. Lol
But yes isolation will only allow China to get their hands on resources in Africa before they starve themselves. Not saying we let that happen but having control over some of their resources could save the kids in the sweatshops.
Home > Society & Politics > Questions > In view of the isolationist sentiments brewing in the American public, is the American public ready to make the necessary efforts to dissuade China?
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
