Yes we should pay attention, but I think the last thing China wants is to start a military war with the United States and its allies (e.g., NATO countries). I mean, we are literally talking WWIII here. If China is going to dominate, it will be economically. That is the currency the world deals in today. Military conquest and rule just doesn't work like it used to.
We can all war game and Monday Morning QB, so I am as guilty as the next here, but I think WWIII would be more of a regional low intensity conflict that flares up to something greater around the Middle East. A war with China would be a regional war, complete with the asymmetrical elements of cyber attacks, etc. Nuclear ability would remain a deterrence from all-out war outside of tactical smaller attacks, and we could obviously never win a boots on ground war with China on its home turf. China would only be interested in pushing us out of the area, rather than beating us to a pulp, facing much the same issues on our home turf. What I would call a very alpha male mission. It pretty much would be the same for the US, to keep shipping lanes and commerce open and to project power as the hegemon both regionally and abroad.
What scares me about China is the hyper nationalist sentiment coupled with demographic issues. I see some reasonable parallels with Japanese expansion in the early middle portion of last century. An overconfidence in ability will lead to an overconfident attack, al-la Pearl Harbor. The asymmetric warfare side also drastically lowers the barrier to entry into war. China's already proven it has no qualms about stealing any data or damaging a system. It's not a Red Dawn style attack (which interestingly enough saw pressure for the Chinese foes of the remake to be replaced by North Korea) with an EMP, but rather a cyber blitzkrieg that would see com systems, satellites, and weapons sabotaged or destroyed followed by quick strikes on carrier battle groups and other regional assets that would likely not miss the carriers out to sea like Pearl Harbor did (in what I believe was nothing but Divine doing). It may even be a few symbolic attacks on the American mainland, but that would significantly increase the chance of WWIII.
Why do you think we're now building a new
anti-missle and anti-aircraft system to upgrade the current Phalanx system? Precisely because this is the type of attack we'll get. Most of our status is derived from the ability to field a carrier armada which is currently larger than the remainder of the world's combined. China having 3 is not an immediate threat, but China having 5-6 coupled with abundant anti-carrier measures would be a threat, and ostensibly this is where they are going. If someone is building the exact weaponry to take you down and patrolling ships off the coast close to your traveling leader, then it has to be taken seriously.
If China is going to dominate, it will be economically. That is the currency the world deals in today. Military conquest and rule just doesn't work like it used to.
My response to this would be to read
Lord of the Flies. We keep repeating this "end of history" style narrative, but the reality is that two of say top 3 or 4 populated continents in the world experience almost constant warfare. Last century, it's estimated over a hundred million died (
this fairly reliable guy says 160 million) and like near a million already have this century. Needless to say, quasi-gov-orgs like IS(IS/IL) and AQAP continue to gain traction and ebb and flow. Economics undoubtedly help to entangle allies and enemies, but this is the same myth that civilization told itself first in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and then came the war to end all wars. I really do wish we'd get past this oversimplified narrative that the world was so much less connected than it is now and therefore unlikely (versus being less likely) to enter a conflict. That's undoubtedly true for things like the internet, but commerce has long taken place. Please try not to get caught up in this imperialist narrative that us civilized folk have it mostly figured out. We don't.
A few years back (actually around 50 some odd years) Kruschev and the USSR were sabre rattling, and figured the USA was ripe for invasion, but President Kennedy outstared him, and they actually became quite friendly on their red telephones...meanwhile USSR ally Mao Tse Tung of China disagreed with Kruschev saying give us fifty or one hundred years, and the USA will destroy themselves from within, and we can take over without any war...hmmm Do you think Mao was right?
And as the Visigoths began to ravage the countryside, I am pretty sure similar thoughts would have been voiced in the Roman world that it was just another barbarian horde to be put down. There is no reason to assume that any country is indefinite. We should not work ourselves into any kind of paranoia or pre-emptive frenzy, but asymmetric warfare has further changed the game from even 50-60 years ago. Kennedy also was partly to blame for the mess in the first place, having made his own blunders. It's the old story of two ships colliding in the night; that's what starts wars. Lucikly, cooler heads prevailed with the USA v USSR showdown.
