China
American decline is not inevitable. It might not even be likely.
The Switch
Ten years ago if you wanted to be the smart, sane, rational person in the room, you would calmly explain to people that the threat from China is overblown. This is illustrated brilliantly in an episode of The Office where Oscar and Michael have a debate over the dangers posed by China. Michael represents the chicken little decrying the rise of China. He is armed with various facts and figures that demonstrate that China is a giant boogeyman, while Oscar represents the voice of reason. This represented a common conversational dynamic: the naive guy would say, “China is going to own all of us,” and the rational person would say, “It’s not as bad as it looks.”
But somewhere in the last ten years, these positions reversed. Nowadays if you want to be the smart person in the room, you explain that simultaneous American decline and Chinese ascendancy are inevitable. You use big political sciencey-sounding words like “multipolar” and “regional hegemon.” You quote the latest facts and figures that demonstrate that China is an invincible leviathan. And anyone who disagrees with this position and argues that America is and will remain the global superpower for the foreseeable future is looked down upon as some naive, reality-denying, Trumpian troglodyte.
Friends, I am here with a simple message: American decline is not inevitable. America is the only superpower on earth and it can remain the global superpower for the foreseeable future.
Board Game
If you were to transform the current world into a board game, like Risk, and you could choose to be any country in the game, who would you choose? If you wanted to win, you would clearly choose the United States of America—and it’s not even close. We have hundreds of bases and the strongest military in the world. We have strong and capable allies in every region of the world (what allies does China have?). We have the strongest and most resilient economy of any nation our size. And we have a government that, for the most part, works. Yes, there are threats and challenges, but when has a country never had those?
When I was at CGSOC, I had a group discussion about what kind of international political order we are living in: unipolar, multi-polar, bi-polar, or something else. I found it very odd that in a group of a dozen professional military officers, only I and a Polish officer were of the opinion that we were living in a unipolar world with the United States as the clear dominant power. The others in the discussion argued that the world is no longer unipolar, that the United States is not as dominant as it once was, and that the continued decline of US power is, essentially, inevitable.
What is this argument based on? Well, it was essentially based on the things that Michael was saying in the conversation with Oscar, with a particular focus on the missiles that can sink a US aircraft carrier 900 miles off the coast. But Oscar’s retort, “we have missiles, too” is actually a good point.
Ship Sinking Missiles
Technological advancement in war often occurs in response to a change in the conditions of the battlefield — “necessity is the mother of invention,” as the saying goes. Generally, a change occurs when technology adds to your own capabilities, not when your adversary develops a countermeasure. The tank changed the battlefield because of its ability to move firepower quickly across a battlefield, punch a hole in the enemy’s defense, and access the enemy’s rear. The anti-tank weapons developed in response to the rise of the tank also had an effect on the battlefield, but all it did was improve armor and force armor tactics to increasingly evolve into a combined arms maneuver. It would have been ridiculous to stop using tanks or to argue against their efficacy, simply because anti-tank weapons were developed.
You stop using a military technology when you develop a better technology, or when that technology no longer serves a purpose. You don't stop using a technology just because the enemy has developed a countermeasure.
However, a similar argument is often employed by those who argue against the importance of naval power in the modern world. The US has the world’s most dominant navy by any metric, although
might dispute that, and he has some ideas about how we can make it stronger. But many talk as though the Chinese anti-ship missiles are some kind of kryptonite that renders our vast naval power obsolete. Just as the creation and employment of anti-armor weapons did not end the use of armored formations, neither should the creation and employment of anti-ship weapons deter us from growing the size and power of our navy. We simply adapt. We may lose a carrier or other important ships, but that doesn’t render the entire US Navy worthless. The only way to make a navy worthless is to leave it in port like the Argentines did during the Falklands War.I am no naval expert, but I am pretty sure that if the US Navy met the Chinese Navy in the open waters of the Pacific, it is the US that would come out ahead (despite the recent difficulties the Navy has had). You’d have to really f*ck things up to go into battle with 14 US carriers against 2 carriers from the Chinese and lose.
Taiwan
Everyone looks at me like I am insane when I claim that China can’t successfully invade Taiwan, unless they literally leveled the place before landing troops. This is because of something I call the Pacman fallacy.
When you look on the Map, you see that China is this really, really big country. And then you look at tiny little Taiwan and you think, “how could that little thing stand up to the big thing?” The big Pacman that is China will just gobble up little Taiwan. I know it seems that way, but you have to zoom in to the details to see what’s actually going on.
Have you ever planned a contested river-crossing for an armored division? I have, and let me tell you, it ain’t easy. Getting a few hundred tanks and armored vehicles across a 200-meter river against even a small enemy is a huge undertaking for one main reason—logistics. Bridging equipment, fuel, ammunition, food, water, vehicle repair parts, and medical supplies are the real challenge. Getting across the river is one thing, establishing a defensive line on the other side is quite another.
Not to mention that you have to synchronize everything perfectly. You have to suppress the enemy at the right time and place. You have to deceive the enemy about where you are going to put your bridges in. You have to make sure your assault force shows up at the right place at the right time, etc. It all has to go almost perfectly to be successful.
Now imagine crossing 90 miles of the Taiwan strait against a tough and determined defender. First of all, the Chinese are going to need at least 1 million Soldiers. 1 MILLION! Why? Well, Taiwan has a pretty large active military, close to 300k, when you count the reserves, it’s over 1 million. And in a full-scale invasion, obviously all reserves will be activated. So the Chinese will need at least that many.
Let’s imagine that somehow the Chinese are able to mass 1 million soldiers (and all their tanks and vehicles) in Chinese ports without anyone seeing (which is impossible). Now let’s imagine they somehow mass the largest armada in the history of man in Chinese ports without anyone seeing (also impossible). Now let’s imagine they somehow land all these Soldiers on Taiwan and they start fighting against the determined Taiwanese. What happens when they run out of ammunition? What are these soldiers going to eat? Napoleon said something like “a soldier can go 3 days without food, but he can’t go three minutes on a battlefield without ammunition.” Where is the resupply going to come from? What happens when their tanks and vehicles run out of gas or need repair parts? Where is that going to come from? How are they going to treat and evacuate their wounded? How are they going to replace the batteries on their radios and other equipment? if they don’t have batteries, they can’t communicate. Landing 1 million soldiers is one thing. Landing the MASSIVE logistical tail to enable them to continue fighting for even a few hours is the real challenge.
American Leadership
Michael’s point at the end of the video clip sounds naive, but it might actually be the most realistic part. If we want to maintain our status as a superpower, that option is available, we just have to choose it. We are the ones that have the Chinese communists surrounded, not the other way around. The Indians are our friends, the Koreans, the Japanese, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Taiwan are all on the side of the US.
I know the news will tell you to be scared of China, and don’t get me wrong, they are our rival, and we should stay vigilant and prepared. But there is no reason to be scared of China because we are much stronger than they are. Our focus should be on strengthening our position in the Pacific (and elsewhere) to contain China and wait until their authoritarian regime ultimately collapses. The world should hope for a strong China! But a strong China that isn’t led by communist dictator and that does not want to remake the world in its own image.
Call me a neocon if you want but trust me, you do not want to see a world where China is the dominant power. I don’t think I will live to see that.
Epilogue
Stop being a defeatist. China should be taken seriously, but not feared.