You jumped from resisting imperialism straight to nuclear war though, surely there are steps in between?
There are and China is taking them, that’s why US power is visibly fading on the global stage.
We celebrated it as a genious move of superior and successful Chinese diplomacy. It turned out that was extremely wrong in hindsight as the US called everyone’s bluff, put Saudi back on a leash and now maneuvered into a checkmate into the region.
Ah yes, Saudis are back on the leash restoring relations with Iran, moving towards the BRICS, and planning to sell oil outside the dollar. Yup, totally makes sense.
Assuming everything China does is a one way path to war is not justifiable at all and no American brainworms is not an answer, if it is then we’re back to why is the US not even fighting in Ukraine let alone WW3. You have no answer for why libs were wrong on Ukraine yet you use the same argument.
I’m not sure how you can draw any meaningful comparisons with Ukraine here to be honest.
Meanwhile, those aren’t the papers I was talking about. The paper in question is this one which actively advocates for a war with China and hand waves the use of nuclear weapons as unlikely suggesting that if US did use nuclear weapons that China somehow wouldn’t retaliate directly:
It is unlikely that nuclear weapons would be used: Even in an intensely violent conventional conflict, neither side would regard its losses as so serious, its prospects so dire, or the stakes so vital that it would run the risk of devastating nuclear retaliation by using nuclear weapons first. We also assume that China would not attack the U.S. homeland, except via cyberspace, given its
minimal capability to do so with conventional weapons.
The paper calls for a preemptive strike to be on the table. The editorial itself argues that a preemptive strike would result in a protracted conflict that would be ruinous both in terms of fatalities and economic costs, but proposes an unprovoked attack nonetheless.
As its military advantage declines, the United States will be less confident that a war with China will conform to its plans. China’s improved military capabilities, particularly for anti-access and area denial (A2AD), mean that the United States cannot count on gaining operational control, destroying China’s defences, and achieving decisive victory if a war occurred.
The unstated conclusion here is that a war with China must be fought sooner rather than later.
Furthermore, The Federation of American Scientists provides a useful analysis of the Pentagon’s tilt toward nuclear use as a regional deterrent. https://fas.org/publication/lrso-mission/
Tactical nuclear warfare is undeniably a priority for the Air Force, not only in its selection of weaponry but also in its strategic doctrine. The US believes that there exists a tactical nuclear use phase of war-fighting, which curiously differs from a full-scale nuclear war. This specific context is deemed ideal by the Air Force for deploying tactical nukes without provoking an immediate strategic retaliation against the US.
There are and China is taking them, that’s why US power is visibly fading on the global stage.
Ah yes, Saudis are back on the leash restoring relations with Iran, moving towards the BRICS, and planning to sell oil outside the dollar. Yup, totally makes sense.
I’m not sure how you can draw any meaningful comparisons with Ukraine here to be honest.
Meanwhile, those aren’t the papers I was talking about. The paper in question is this one which actively advocates for a war with China and hand waves the use of nuclear weapons as unlikely suggesting that if US did use nuclear weapons that China somehow wouldn’t retaliate directly:
The paper calls for a preemptive strike to be on the table. The editorial itself argues that a preemptive strike would result in a protracted conflict that would be ruinous both in terms of fatalities and economic costs, but proposes an unprovoked attack nonetheless.
The unstated conclusion here is that a war with China must be fought sooner rather than later.
Furthermore, The Federation of American Scientists provides a useful analysis of the Pentagon’s tilt toward nuclear use as a regional deterrent. https://fas.org/publication/lrso-mission/
US Air Force developed the B61-12 guided nuclear bomb with dialable yields up to 50 kilotons that can be delivered by a stealth fighter https://www.revealnews.org/blog/risky-u-s-nuclear-bomb-gets-green-light/
US is also developing a stealth cruise missile with dialable yield, also capable of carrying a conventional as well as nuclear payload that can be dropped off a stealth bomber https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/FY_2022_SARS/LRSO_SAR_DEC_2022.pdf
Tactical nuclear warfare is undeniably a priority for the Air Force, not only in its selection of weaponry but also in its strategic doctrine. The US believes that there exists a tactical nuclear use phase of war-fighting, which curiously differs from a full-scale nuclear war. This specific context is deemed ideal by the Air Force for deploying tactical nukes without provoking an immediate strategic retaliation against the US.