I have no illusions about the national character of Americans and I understand full well the kind of fire I would be playing with if I were the one making these decisions. The question is whether Americans understand the kind of fire they're playing with - I said before that I consider MAD the second worst outcome. China losing is the worst outcome. I'll paraphrase Putin once again, what use is the world if China stays under the US's thumb?
I know plenty else about the Americans' character, including how much fear and self-preservation form their psyche.
This is all well and good, but my point has largely been predicated upon the fact that yes, the United States
does know what kind of fire it is playing with. It was around for the whole Cold War, and knows that nukes beget nukes.
Any analyst, officer, or really just about any uninformed civilian could tell you that if the US begins to conduct nuclear strikes on China, that China would (with ample reasoning) respond in kind. I'll personally never understand that, "Oh no we're losing this conflict... here! time to lose harder! (but with the bonus that other countries lose pretty hard too)" mindset. Ultimately if the choice is between backing down from Taiwan after somehow blundering the entire conventional campaign, or sentencing an overwhelming majority of the Chinese population to death and radiation sickness, I cannot see how one would prefer the latter.
Then the US can go to its half of the Pacific and stay planted there. You know the thing about the US completely and utterly losing a war in the western Pacific? You can still go home. Take that option while you still can, while you still have a home to go to.
China has no such luxury. China is home and your continued presence violates the sanctity of China's home. Before you start up a lecture about allies and "they want us there", don't. Your allies are little countries, their homes don't get any sanctity. Their lot in life is just to follow the strongest thug on the block - today that's you, we'll see what tomorrow brings.
If you want to bring this closer to your understanding and worldview, consider it China's Monroe Doctrine.
Well that's the thing, the US doesn't want "just its half" lol. It will fight to defend its current sphere of influence tooth and nail until the very moment it can no longer be held onto. Again, you're coming from a very "principles" centric position, whereas foreign policy is an awful lot more pragmatic. The US currently has control over the First Island Chain, and has no real desire to relinquish it, no matter how unfair it may be. It's as simple as that; there is no more to it.
I'm not sure why you think I'm anti-China lol. I actually have a great deal of respect for the nation and I'm time and time again impressed with the pace of development and the increase in standards of living that have come about in the past decade alone. I have no intentions of lecturing you, because as I said, I don't hold a moral stake in this argument. I couldn't really care less about painting china as the "bad guy revisionist" and the US as the "bulwark of rules based international order, defending free and democratic allies" or anything of that sort. I simply am stating that the US has a geostrategic position that it will fight to maintain, and this is true irrelevant of how much it grates against Chinese ambitions or how much it compromises China's national security. It is a simple matter of one nation wanting one thing and another nation wanting another.
There is no "world", there's just two giant countries and a gaggle of mid-sized and small ones. Like I said above, they just follow the strongest thug on the block, which is what this war is all about deciding. The strongest and freest of them, like Russia, will be able to maintain armed neutrality.
The EU is a pretty big entity, and it quite calmly lays in the US's lap for the most part. If China were to release "Nuclear Bombardment: The Sequel!" upon Japan, I think it's fairly safe to say that the EU would be absolutely apoplectic, and more than willing to work against the PRC. I don't really wish to discuss Russia, because unlike the PRC, I
do have some fairly unfavorable views on them, but that's a talk we can have some other time.
Then the ink on China's death warrant won't dry before America's gets signed. Once again, America faces two choices:
- Bring total annihilation down on itself.
- Go home.
Again, this is an extremely one-sided mentality. The US, if nuked, is put in a position where it
ABSOLUTELY MUST, AND ABSOLUTELY WILL respond with nuclear retaliation. This is the core, intrinsic, guiding principle of MAD. If the US nukes China, China hits back and everybody dies. If China nukes the US, the US hits back and everybody dies.
That is the strategic equilibrium that keeps the US from utilizing nuclear weapons, and hopefully the equilibrium that will keep the PRC from mistakenly doing the same. As it stands, the PRC has the capability to push us out of the first island chain, and in the next few years will be able to make the second into a practical no man's land. The US
will lose if the PRC chooses to conduct an operation to de-throne the US in the Pacific. While the US would most certainly do its best to inflict a heavy toll on the PLA in the process, and upon the PRC as a whole - it would not randomly kill itself by launching a first-use nuclear strike on the PRC and guaranteeing retaliation.
The exact same mentality can be applied in reverse as well. The US can wax about its free, liberal democratic values; and its acceptance and tolerance of all viewpoints, and can say that it abjectly refuses to step down in the face of a "genocidal expansionist dictatorship hellbent on erasing democracy and human rights from East Asia" and pledge that the PRC can either cease operations against Taiwan and Japan (and SK if it is pertinent) or it can face total nuclear annihilation. See how loony that sounds? It's because that mentality is the mentality of a suicide bomber. Sure the target might die, but the suicide bomber dies with them. If the goal of the nation is to ensure the welfare and prosperity of its people, then using them as the metaphorical dynamite in the explosive vest is counterproductive at best.
Who said? The US's nuclear policy is crystal clear: It will use them whenever it deems it needs to under any circumstance.
Yeah, and this is not one of those circumstances. Note how the US has never used nuclear weapons before (other than Japan, though I consider that a fairly special case, and not representative of the modern or cold war nuclear threat), even despite likely being able to do so with no major foundation-shaking repercussions. The "discretionary use" policy is meant to provide an escalation rung in the case of biological or chemical agents being employed, in the case of existential threat to the United States by an entity outright invading CONUS, or other types of situations along those lines. It is very much
not considered a "get out of jail free" card for when losing a major war.
They can do that just fine without stationing their military in the western Pacific.
They sure can, but they also can do that
while stationing the military in the Western Pacific. Until somebody does something about it, that's just the way it'll be. Again, just because it's mean or is threatening doesn't mean a thing. If the United States sees an advantageous position, it will attempt to take it. Similarly, if the WESTPAC provides the US with some advantage, then the US will continue to attempt to hold the WESTPAC. Yes, it's really that simple. Again, I'm not sure why you act as if it's just a given that the US is cool acting against their own interests.
