China: We Will Give You Any War You Want! By Charles Taylor and Chris Knight (Florida)
The escalating tension between the United States and China, as highlighted by a recent New York Post article:
stems from a fresh round of U.S. tariffs imposed on Chinese imports in March 2025. Under President Donald Trump, the U.S. doubled its initial 10 percent tariff to 20 percent on all Chinese goods, citing concerns like the fentanyl crisis, though the move also reflects broader economic protectionism aimed at curbing China's trade dominance. China's Foreign Ministry responded with a stark declaration, asserting its readiness for "any type of war" with the U.S.—be it tariff, trade, or otherwise—and vowing to "fight till the end." This rhetoric marks a significant escalation from Beijing, which quickly retaliated by slapping up to 15 percent tariffs on certain U.S. goods effective March 10, 2025, and imposing new export restrictions on American entities. Alongside this, China boosted its 2025 military budget by 7 percent, reaching approximately $245.5 billion, signalling a posture that blends economic defiance with military preparedness. Reports suggest U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth countered with claims of American readiness for conflict, further amplifying the stakes. Economically, China faces domestic headwinds like deflation and slowing growth, yet it targets a 5 percent growth rate for 2025, banking on internal markets and technological innovation to weather the tariff storm. For the U.S., the tariffs threaten to raise consumer costs, while China's retaliation could squeeze American businesses. Geopolitically, this spat is a microcosm of a larger rivalry spanning Taiwan, technology, and global influence, though analysts argue China's bellicose words are more posturing than an immediate call to arms. Still, the question lingers: if this tariff war spiralled into a kinetic military conflict, who would emerge victorious?
A kinetic war—direct military engagement—between the U.S. and China would hinge on their respective strengths, weaknesses, and the theatre of conflict. The U.S. boasts unparalleled global power projection, with over 750 overseas bases, including key outposts in Japan, South Korea, and Guam, allowing rapid deployment near China's doorstep. Its navy, with 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and advanced submarine fleets like the Virginia-class, dwarfs China's three carriers, only one of which is non-nuclear. In the air, stealth fighters like the F-35 and F-22, alongside the B-21 bomber, give the U.S. a technological edge in precision strikes. A defense budget nearing $850 billion in 2025 fuels this arsenal, far outstripping China's spending, while decades of combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan sharpen American tactics. Alliances with NATO, AUKUS, and Indo-Pacific partners like Japan and Australia amplify this advantage, offering logistical and military support. Yet, the U.S. isn't invincible. Fighting across the Pacific stretches supply lines, exposing them to disruption, and its digitised infrastructure invites Chinese cyberattacks. Public appetite for a costly, protracted war could also falter, limiting political will.
China, by contrast, holds a formidable home-field advantage. Proximity to its territory enables rapid mobilisation and shorter supply lines, bolstered by the world's largest active-duty force of over 2 million personnel. Its "carrier-killer" DF-21D and DF-26 missiles, plus hypersonic weapons, pose a lethal threat to U.S. naval assets in the Pacific, while advanced air defenses like the S-400 and naval mines create an anti-access/area denial bubble to repel invaders. Control over rare earth minerals and manufacturing could sustain its war economy, even under pressure. But China's reach is limited. Its navy, though expanding, lacks the U.S.'s global footprint, with only a handful of overseas bases like Djibouti. The People's Liberation Army hasn't fought a major war since its 1979 clash with Vietnam, leaving it untested compared to the battle-hardened U.S. Reliance on imported energy and food, vulnerable to American naval blockades, could choke its endurance, and its few allies—Russia and North Korea—pale beside the U.S.'s coalition.
The outcome depends on the scenario. In a regional clash, say over Taiwan, China might seize early gains with missile barrages and proximity, potentially overwhelming defenses before the U.S. fully mobilises. Yet, American naval and air counterattacks, backed by allies, could reverse this, albeit at steep cost. In a prolonged war, the U.S.'s deeper resources and technology likely prevail, as China's economy and morale buckle under sustained isolation. A nuclear exchange, with the U.S.'s 3,700 warheads against China's 500-plus, remains a grim wildcard, but mutual destruction deters its use absent desperation. The U.S. holds a strategic edge in a broader conflict, thanks to its alliances and staying power, while China excels in defensive, near-border warfare. Neither side wins cleanly—losses would be staggering, and economic ties argue against such madness, if the world was rational, which it is not.The real battle, for now, remains one of words and wallets, not bullets and bombs. But no doubt kinetic conflict is on the time track, perhaps sooner rather than later.
Comments