? The US has never invaded a country for the stated purpose of 'Democracy'. Moving an occupied nation 'on the path of liberalisation and democracy' has always been a 'side goal' but obviously not achievable in most contexts. Like Kuwait. But it obviously was in Korea, Japan, most of Eastern Europe.
And the OP is cynical, it takes a lot for the US to mount a proper. Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, and post 9/11 Iraq part 2 + policing actions in Afghanistan are relatively big deals.
For the most part, there's no reason for the US and China to 'go to war'. What would they go to war over? The sheer physicality doesn't provide the opportunity.
Except for Taiwan - which China will go to great lengths to nab, and the US/West may or may not go to great lengths to defend. Even then I don't see war.
China will is not going to otherwise mount a military invasion of anything, it would be too costly. Their version of 'invasion' is called the 'Belt and Road' and it's ensuing corruption.
We have never invaded any countries for purely human-rights oriented reasons. There is always a larger element of preservation of power structures and capture of wealth.
But both of those reasons would also align with an intervention in China. The true answer to why we haven't intervened is both mundane and terrifying: China has nuclear weapons.
The US and Hussein's Iraq were not military adversaries until Iraq invaded Kuwait.
China absolutely is a geopolitical rival with militaristic and global hegemonic ambitions, and they have already committed to actions that we have gone to war over in the past. And they are on the cusp of a handful of actions that would have triggered a world war if they were done in the past. But nothing will happen to China for the same reason that nothing happened to Russia during the cold war. Because they have nukes.
Even without the nukes, there is no practical way for the U.S. to project enough force to China to compel it to do anything. The Chinese people would not likely thank us for doing so if we tried. Not only that, it would be grossly disproportionate considering there are hundreds of millions of people in dozens of countries living under authoritarian rule elsewhere. All those states combined would probably make a softer target than China. So as long as we are planning to cure the world's ills with our guns let's start in Eritrea or something.
What would happen if the US redeployed troops to Taiwan, and announced it was recognising it as an independent state?
Beijing would be forced into a very difficult position - attack US forces in Taiwan, leading to massive military escalation, or lose face by allowing the US and Taiwan to call Beijing’s bluff
You'd think? The US is the only nation that is in a position to do anything about it. While sanctions won't compel the CCP, it could hurt them enough to prevent further cementing their hegemony.
> Just try US sanctions and pushing the EU, Australia, Japan, Canada not to conduct any business with China.
You dont to sanctions to countries that provide most of your goods without a viable alternative. Sanctionning Iran does not change your daily life. Sanctionning China would suddenly make a large impact as to what you can actually buy and at what price.
The way to do that is to simultaneously open up trade with anybody else. Literally offer a free trade agreement with anybody that also sanctions china.
Taiwan can't compare with China in terms of production capabilities right now. And other countries in Asia don't produce the same goods as China either.
Economic force is a completely different matter. It's basically orthogonal to nukes. Tbh I doubt that would work either, and it would hurt the West tremendously. But it's at least something that is not totally absurd on its face.
Countries that didn’t have nuclear weapons and ICBMs
It is like asking why the US never invaded the Soviet Union. There was a window in the second half of the 1940s it might have been achievable without global thermonuclear war, albeit a war-weary world that had just endured the biggest war in human history didn’t have the appetite for that
Countries with nukes and 2M+ man armies? Besides, too much is at stake by our corporate overlords to put military action or sanctions on the table. Sadly, Hong Kongers need to steel themselves for some tough struggle sessions.
Airplanes are so expensive and non survivable these days that IMO the next war will be a massive air battle with whoever loses unable to replenish and therefore forced to surrender or be picked apart from the air or escalate. America currently has 10x the aircraft China has and the logistics to back them up (China is catching up). A 2m man army will likely be irrelevant except for fighting regionally, if their enemy has air superiority they will not be very effective.
Looking from a defense perspective. Won't an anti aircraft system be effective here? It is cheaper to build an anti aircraft system that can be deployed everywhere vs the aircraft itself.
Yes this is one line of thinking. However integrated air defence systems (IADS) have not shown themselves to be effective so far.
We've only really seen Russian systems in action and they've mostly failed, however it's very easy to argue this is due to poor training. One notable (alleged) engagement in Syria involved a Russian operated s400 battery (the latest and greatest) attempting to shoot down some of the 70+ tomahawks trump launched. Whilst some didn't make it to their targets there's no evidence the s400 hit them rather than them operationally failing. It's unlikely anyone would be better trained than the Russian military itself so if this indeed did happen it is damning for currently fielded IADS's.
Another reason for the apparent ineffectiveness of IADS's could be the west's proficiency at dealing with them:
Jets like the EA-18 growler are designed purely to entice systems to reveal their position (switching on their radar) so another jet can launch an anti-radiation air to ground missile (AGM) at it.
It's very likely the B2, f35 and f22 can't even be targeted by any IADS due to their low radar cross section.
Stand off weapons give the ability to destroy targets without being inside the range of any IADS. These could be used to strike important targets before the IADS is down or to pick the IADS apart itself (if you know where its assets are).
Given all this information I still can't say an anti aircraft system wouldn't be effective.. but I think the fact China is investing heavily into its air force implies that they have the same concerns about IADS effectiveness that I do.
Thank you for the reply. I found it interesting. I was under the impression that anti aircraft missile is very advanced that it basically can just tail any aircraft there is, but it's not that simple.
Why isn't the Middle East on fire with protest over Xinjiang, given the response to eg Abu Ghraib. It's a similar reason: 1) they know China doesn't care and will disregard their protests or moral condemnations; 2) most countries are terrified of China, in multiple regards; 3) in much of the world, people only respond to events when they're told to - allowed to - by authorities (to protest against China in the Middle East for example, it must be sanctioned by the government or similar controlling power, and no government in the Middle East dares). What about the West, surely Germany or France can stand up to China, right? That's covered by #2, they're afraid of what China will do to them economically, so they limit their criticisms and actions toward China. Suddenly no more BMWs or Mercedes for sale in China. Accordingly mostly what you get is some furious hand waving and stern finger pointing by the UN or EU. As with SARS-CoV-2, in which absolutely nothing will happen to China as a result of what they did.
The US is the only entity that can stand toe to toe with China, as China can splinter any UN or EU response. Ultimately to get some other countries on board, they have to believe the US has their back full-stop. Such that when China starts throwing an inevitable response tantrum, the US will be there to lend unconditional, unflinching support. Who trusts the Trump government's erratic behavior enough to believe that at this point? You have to bet your nation's economic well-being on believing that his administration will have your back if you join the restrain-China coalition. Most countries will naturally avoid taking that risk and will attempt to hedge or dodge the matter. The West will only be able to mount a serious long-term plan once Trump is gone. The powermongers in DC love this style of great power bipolar struggle, a return to the cold war, a very clearly defined giant enemy to focus on; but they can't effectively do anything until Trump is gone, there's too much chaos in the system.
It'll look like this: US + EU + Japan + Britain + South Korea + Canada + Australia + New Zealand + South Korea (along with a few others) working in closer unison, running a program. It's the only approach that can work, China is too big for anything else at this point. China does a thing, the group responds. Huawei is a haphazard trial run; the team is going to have to get into fighting shape, because China isn't messing around, they want the global hegemony crown and total dominance over Asia.
We have invaded others countries for less