why would the U.S. go to war China in the near future?

I regard a war with China – hot or cold – as perhaps the greatest strategic blunder the United States could make, beyond those it has already made. The end result would be the same as that from the 20th century wars between Britain and Germany: it reduced both to second-rate powers. In the 21st century, the real victors would be the non-state forces of the Fourth Generation, who would fill the gap created by the reduction of both Chinese and American power.

Given my foreboding – in George W. Bush’s Washington, it seems the rule is that any blunder we can make, we will make – I was struck by the title of Robert D. Kaplan’s article in the June Atlantic Monthly, “How We Would Fight China.” Kaplan has written some excellent material on the breakdown of the state and the rise of non-state elements.

Here, however, I think he gets it wrong. Kaplan sees the 21st century being defined by a new Cold War between China and the United States, rather than the clash between states and non-state forces. I believe this phenomenon will be far more century-shaping than any conflict between states.

While Kaplan writes about how the U.S. could use naval power – subtly – to contain a rising China, within the framework of a Bismarckian Realpolitik that accommodates everyone’s interests, he recognizes the danger to all of a Cold War turning hot. He writes, “Only a similarly pragmatic approach (similar to Bismarck’s) will allow us to accommodate China’s inevitable re-emergence as a great power. The alternative will be to turn the earth of the twenty-first century into a battleground.”

Regrettably, there are influential voices in Washington that want a war with China, the sooner the better. The most likely cause is Taiwan. Few in Washington understand why China is so adamant about Taiwan remaining officially part of China. The reason is China’s history, throughout which her greatest threat has not been foreign invasion but internal division. China has often fractured, sometimes into many parts. Today, Beijing fears that if one province, Taiwan, achieves independence, others will follow. China will go to war, including with the United States, to prevent that from happening.

Correctly, Kaplan observes that China is not able to successfully fight a sea and air war with America:

China has committed itself to significant military spending, but its navy and air force will not be able to match ours for some decades. The Chinese are therefore not going to do us the favor of engaging in conventional air and naval battles, like those fought in the Pacific during World War II.

So how would China fight us? If we send some carrier battle groups to intervene in a war between China and Taiwan, I think China will do something Kaplan does not mention. She will go nuclear at sea from the outset.

When the Cold War ended, we found out that the Soviet Union planned to do exactly that (so much for Reagan Administration plans to send our carriers charging up to the Kola Peninsula). The Chinese might employ nuclear-armed anti-ship missiles and torpedoes, fired from submarines or surface ships, but I think her little surprise for us may be nastier. Kaplan briefly mentions that China “may eventually be able to lob missiles accurately at moving ships in the Pacific” from deep in Chinese territory. I think those missiles, ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads, may be ready now – perhaps with a bit of clandestine targeting assistance from a Russia whose sphere of influence the United States is aggressively invading.

The Chinese way of war is indirect. In most cases, that means China will engage us with “soft power,” as she is already doing on multiple fronts. But in the case of American intervention in a Taiwan crisis, what if a Chinese ballistic missile popped a nuke say, 100 miles from an advancing American carrier battle group? No one gets hurt, but the message would be loud and clear: keep coming and you’re toast.

If we kept coming anyway and the Chinese did nuke a carrier, we would immediately face an asymmetrical situation. How would we respond? By nuking a Chinese carrier? China doesn’t have any. If we drop a nuke on Chinese territory, we have initiated a strategic nuclear exchange. Is Taiwan worth Seattle or L.A.?

Not until the near end of world war three, when the leaders of Britain, USA and China will work together against the common enemy [probably one of the middle eastern countries they're always victimising]. They, like Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill, will be publicly allied but have deep animosity behind the scenes. Then, it'll be Russian [no pun intended] roulette between the powers, until one overreacts out of paranoia, and wipes the human race from the face of the earth. Or, maybe not. Whatever... haha

If you believe the hype of certain members of our government like Senator John McCain, China is increasing their military strength as their economy grows stronger and the US should do the same internationally. America has already has the strongest military in the world with the most overseas military bases in the world.

The current case for any military action against China revolves around Taiwan. Taiwan has long served as buffer for Communist China expansion for the US. Taiwan (which claims it is a democratic state) fears that China will annex it back under China rule.

China has about 1.3 billion people compared to the US population of 0.29 billion people. If China pushes for more economic and military power, there is not much the US can do to stop them unless America engages militarily in Asia early on.

Engaging in war with China would not benefit the US or the world. China is a nuclear power. China is dominant economic society with the potential to surpass the US in the next 15 to 20 years.

China has no claims for world domination but will gain more political and economic power as time moves on. Since both China and the US depend upon other nations to supply a large of portion of their energy (oil, coal, etc.) needs, the bigger China becomes the more they will threaten our supply of energy (especially OIL) from other nations.

War between competing capitalist nations is inevitable. The real cause of WWI and WWII was the pursuit of various nation's ruling elites for the redivision of the world's resources and markets.

Here is an article that I recently read that does a nice job of dissecting current world events.

Iran: Why does Bush invoke the threat of World War III?

Part 1: Iran’s strategic position

Part 2: Eurasian geopolitics and US threats against Iran

Part 3: Globalization, Iran, and the dollar crisis

By Alex Lantier

30 November 2007

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/nov2007/iran-n30...

The US will not go to war with China persay. US will though with Russia and China will get involed because China is in Bed with Russia. What that means is that if you mess withh Russia China will have its back and vice versa.

Because China has enough power to crash the world economy, which the U.S. is completely at China's mercy economically.

If our economy crashes, which it looks like it will, then the world economy won't be too far behind. This could easily be the start of WW3, if it hasn't already started.

Political Influence, competing for Resources, *** backwards treaties (Defense of Taiwan.) Lots of Reasons, but mainly when its more profitable to knock the other off the ledge than sell stuff to him.

Uhhh, maybe China wants to take over the world like the Germans.

there are an infinite number of reasons...their army is bigger, their economy is expanding like mad, still hold a communist government and the US imports a massive percentage from china.

they would go to war because china would put up a damn good fight if not win...

Maybe America will be led into war by an ignorant redneck who thinks god wants him to go to war.

Its happened before, thats for damn sure.