This should be an interesting perspective after having just read the following article by Graham Parsons, recently kicked out of Westpoint because of being a civilian in Hegseth’s new and improved Department of War. A quote:
“The United States does not have a problem with lethality on the battlefield. We have a problem understanding how our lethality affects the world and a tendency to think martial violence can solve complex problems. We need to be better thinkers, not better killers. We need more historical and cultural understanding, not better tactical skills.”
Well said. No one really knows this, but there was a time when I almost became a civilian instructor at the US Air Force Academy. The dumbing down of our service academies will have lasting negative impacts for generations.
Re: Strangling Taiwan. If the US reflagged tankers and supply ships, do you think the Chinese would attack them? If the US sends in transport aircraft loaded with supplies? Seems like that would be a big escalation to me. 🤔
Great question, Bender. Reflagging tankers or supply ships with the Stars and Stripes is not a small step; it’s a massive tripwire.
If a U.S.-flagged commercial tanker or logistics ship were attacked, that’s not “gray zone” harassment anymore; that’s a direct strike on U.S. sovereign property under maritime law. Washington would have no choice but to respond, because failing to would make every U.S. ship fair game worldwide. Historically, this is why reflagging has been used sparingly, like the 1980s “Tanker War” in the Persian Gulf, when Kuwaiti tankers were reflagged as American and escorted by the U.S. Navy. Iran tested the waters with mines and small boat attacks, and the U.S. smacked back hard with Operation Praying Mantis. The lesson: if you hit a U.S.-flagged ship, you’re going to get hurt. China knows that.
Transport aircraft would be even riskier. Shooting down a U.S. C-17 or C-130 stuffed with humanitarian aid or military supplies would be the equivalent of Pearl Harbor by choice. That single act would bypass all the debates about “red lines” and “strategic ambiguity” and immediately lock the U.S. and China into direct conflict. Beijing’s generals may be chest-thumping nationalists, but they are not suicidal. They want to peel Taiwan away without triggering a war with the United States that they are not ready to fight.
You’re right that it would be a huge escalation. Reflagging or using U.S. transports is a political signal as much as a logistical one. It says, “If you touch this, you are not just fighting Taipei, you are fighting Washington.” That is exactly why Chinese planners would think very carefully before pulling the trigger.
Excellent and thought provoking scenario development. I believe the blockade is the right approach for PRC planners, because it maximizes response ambiguity. One thing I worry about is the willingness of citizens in the United States to accept any sacrifices over Taiwan. If the war ever reaches a point where bases on the Chinese coast are attacked by US forces, there is a realistic chance that China will bring the war to the continental U.S., especially using local terror strikes (drones), cyber, and anti-satellite operations. Some sort of modern-day Pearl Harbor, using new warfare tools is not out of the question. I doubt our population has the stomach to tolerate much disruption, economic pain and terror. Debate in our fractured and increasingly isolationist political world will get ugly.
Agreed, but I'd suggest action could initially be less kinetic explosions, an engineered implosion may be as incapacitating. What has changed for USA since ww2 appears to be internal polarisation and massive financial debt. Some nudge strikes likely easier to deliver, conveniently deniable and could result in major internal focus or incapacitating strife opening windows elsewhere.
Could a whole country be excised from the net and deep faked as democratically voting for reunification? Maybe that is fanciful but so we're nukes at one point. The next war rarely looks like the previous ones.
The trump regime is working assiduously to widen China’s openings to finally dominate the western Pacific and take Taiwan. Outcome #2 is the mostly likely as the US shows less reliability every day. Just a couple days ago we were treated to India’s Modi literally holding hands with Putin and xi. There goes a key ally. Trump busy stabbing Ukraine in the back and shitting on our European allies has our pacific allies wondering if the US can be trusted to stand with them. Trump is bat shit crazy and getting worse. He believes in spheres of influence. Taiwan is in china’s, just as Ukraine is in Russia’s. A couple more years of this chaos and the US will be ready to bow out of any commitment to global stability.
About 80% of Australians dislike Trump specifically and AUKUS generally. If the US doesn't start acting like a sober, responsible, adult country again they might not be able to count on Australia being the perpetual deputy to the global sheriff of the USA.
The most pro-US member of the Australian cabinet, Richard Marles, is publicly despised for his smarminess and sneering, private school attitude. Combine that with 3 other influences - Chinese excursions in what has traditionally been part of the Australian sphere of influence, the Pacific Islands nations, the PRC being Australia's prime trading partner, and the huge percentage of Australian citizens who are Chinese born or one generation removed from that - then potential Australian ambiguity in such a conflict is possible. Doesn't help that weakman Trump, in seeking to show "strength" via threatening or imposing tariffs on partners and allies, then both weakens economically and alienates Australia, Japan, India, southeast Asian and the Pacific Islands Nations.
All a pity, and another nail in the coffin of global rules based order... all the result of the current administration's immature, FAFO approach to realpolitik.
Agree, Rob. In Australia, support for the US has gone from 74pc to 22pc since the US election, and falling. Elbridge Colby wants Australia to pay for its nuclear powered submarines but place them under US command
100% agree. Spheres of influence, and having a chummy relationship with his fellow autocrats in power.
I've watched him morph from a hawk on China to calculating how much money he could make doing business with Xi. I doubt trump sees much for him personally if the US supports Taiwan.
True, he is a massive buffoon. But I'm counting on his Sinophobia, racism, and need to protect the microchip market to compel him to get involved (if necessary).
Great article Wes, the allies can also make like very hard for China by blockading the Malacca strait. Hard to run a big country when you lose 2/3 of your energy supply
I am hoping that Taiwan has licenced Magura 5 and / or Sea Baby maritime drones from Ukraine. A couple of thousand of them would give the PLAN a nasty shock.
The newly developed aerial drone swarm technology also holds promise for defeating any attempted landing.
Agree! Strategic inspiration is already in play. Taiwan has begun developing its own naval drone fleet. In March 2025, CSBC unveiled the Endeavor Manta, a trimaran-hulled, 28-foot-long USV capable of firing torpedoes or ramming with explosives, loosely inspired by Ukrainian drones.
You have a major flaw in your reasoning. To think that in the current events NK and Russia would not take an active posture in this conflict or even start provocations before china acts against Taiwan is, imho, wrong and dangerous. China is wise enough to divert atentions and not get the full blowback alone. Taiwan will be a way broader conflict that you are describing here. But these are just my thaughts, i am no expert at all. Thanks for you content, i really love read an listen to your thougts. Slava ukraini.
“Flaw” is a little harsh. I have already written at great length how, in the next big war, all the opportunistic assholes would see the US preoccupied and shoot their shot. I encourage you to visit my Medium account where I have a half-dozen articles about WWIII
There are many, many possibilities and complications you are leaving unconsidered. This begins with the assumption that it would be 1 vs 5. I would not in the least be surprised if one or more of our 'allies' balks at a full-scale war with China. If North Korea sides with China is South Korea really ready to reap the whirlwind? What about the Russians?
To be honest I'm starting to think the US itself is having second thoughts about going all-in to defend Taiwan. There's plenty of profit in dominating the Western Hemisphere and we have no rivals in that domain, why not just make a deal with China and proceed to loot our neighbor's wealth with impunity? It's a real safe bet versus an all-in coin flip.
It seems like one of the underlying assumptions here is that the US submarine fleet is sufficiently large and sufficiently superior to be counted on to knock off Chinese surface ships and presumably Chinese subs as well. Is that indeed true? Would be interesting to learn more about exactly why that is. Nuclear vs Diesel ? Training?
I like to believe that China won't start a war at least not in my lide time. That said if there is a war between the US and China I hesitate to imagine the other wars of opportunity that start. Just for a start Russia crossing a few more boarders while US allies decide where to sent their resources.
Hi Wes, my apology. I didn't mean to be harsh. As a not native english speaker it's not always easy to express myself as in my natural language. I really like your thoughts but I am missing in quite a lot of defense and strategic analysts statements and articles that China would not be alone on this adventure. And I don't get why.Best regards and slava ukraini.
Interesting analysis. What I still haven’t seen is an analysis of drones vs ships. Russia is sending up to 800 missiles/drones in one day against Ukraine. It is rapidly increasing. China has far greater industrial capacity. Would a carrier withstand an onslaught of 1 000 missiles more or less simultaneously? 10 000 is probably less than a week of production in a 2027 perspective. What cost will China find strategically worth it to wipe out US ships. Will surface ships be a viable battle asset at all in the future based on projecting drone quality and quantity?
This is an excellent summary of the possible scenarios in a new Pacific War. Option 1 and 3 are most likely. Option 2 of a slow strangling blockade is unlikely because one side or the other will attempt to break out of a stalemate, and the blockade becomes option 1 or more likely option 3–General War without the nukes.
This should be an interesting perspective after having just read the following article by Graham Parsons, recently kicked out of Westpoint because of being a civilian in Hegseth’s new and improved Department of War. A quote:
“The United States does not have a problem with lethality on the battlefield. We have a problem understanding how our lethality affects the world and a tendency to think martial violence can solve complex problems. We need to be better thinkers, not better killers. We need more historical and cultural understanding, not better tactical skills.”
https://archive.ph/2025.08.29-204127/https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/08/13/opinion/pete-hegseth-military-national-security/
Well said. No one really knows this, but there was a time when I almost became a civilian instructor at the US Air Force Academy. The dumbing down of our service academies will have lasting negative impacts for generations.
Re: Strangling Taiwan. If the US reflagged tankers and supply ships, do you think the Chinese would attack them? If the US sends in transport aircraft loaded with supplies? Seems like that would be a big escalation to me. 🤔
Great question, Bender. Reflagging tankers or supply ships with the Stars and Stripes is not a small step; it’s a massive tripwire.
If a U.S.-flagged commercial tanker or logistics ship were attacked, that’s not “gray zone” harassment anymore; that’s a direct strike on U.S. sovereign property under maritime law. Washington would have no choice but to respond, because failing to would make every U.S. ship fair game worldwide. Historically, this is why reflagging has been used sparingly, like the 1980s “Tanker War” in the Persian Gulf, when Kuwaiti tankers were reflagged as American and escorted by the U.S. Navy. Iran tested the waters with mines and small boat attacks, and the U.S. smacked back hard with Operation Praying Mantis. The lesson: if you hit a U.S.-flagged ship, you’re going to get hurt. China knows that.
Transport aircraft would be even riskier. Shooting down a U.S. C-17 or C-130 stuffed with humanitarian aid or military supplies would be the equivalent of Pearl Harbor by choice. That single act would bypass all the debates about “red lines” and “strategic ambiguity” and immediately lock the U.S. and China into direct conflict. Beijing’s generals may be chest-thumping nationalists, but they are not suicidal. They want to peel Taiwan away without triggering a war with the United States that they are not ready to fight.
You’re right that it would be a huge escalation. Reflagging or using U.S. transports is a political signal as much as a logistical one. It says, “If you touch this, you are not just fighting Taipei, you are fighting Washington.” That is exactly why Chinese planners would think very carefully before pulling the trigger.
Thank you. I wasn't sure where that might fall in the levels of escalation.
Parsons sounds like Boyd's love child. Classic OODA loop.
Excellent and thought provoking scenario development. I believe the blockade is the right approach for PRC planners, because it maximizes response ambiguity. One thing I worry about is the willingness of citizens in the United States to accept any sacrifices over Taiwan. If the war ever reaches a point where bases on the Chinese coast are attacked by US forces, there is a realistic chance that China will bring the war to the continental U.S., especially using local terror strikes (drones), cyber, and anti-satellite operations. Some sort of modern-day Pearl Harbor, using new warfare tools is not out of the question. I doubt our population has the stomach to tolerate much disruption, economic pain and terror. Debate in our fractured and increasingly isolationist political world will get ugly.
Agreed, but I'd suggest action could initially be less kinetic explosions, an engineered implosion may be as incapacitating. What has changed for USA since ww2 appears to be internal polarisation and massive financial debt. Some nudge strikes likely easier to deliver, conveniently deniable and could result in major internal focus or incapacitating strife opening windows elsewhere.
Could a whole country be excised from the net and deep faked as democratically voting for reunification? Maybe that is fanciful but so we're nukes at one point. The next war rarely looks like the previous ones.
Good observations. The next war rarely looks like the previous ones. Absolutely true
The trump regime is working assiduously to widen China’s openings to finally dominate the western Pacific and take Taiwan. Outcome #2 is the mostly likely as the US shows less reliability every day. Just a couple days ago we were treated to India’s Modi literally holding hands with Putin and xi. There goes a key ally. Trump busy stabbing Ukraine in the back and shitting on our European allies has our pacific allies wondering if the US can be trusted to stand with them. Trump is bat shit crazy and getting worse. He believes in spheres of influence. Taiwan is in china’s, just as Ukraine is in Russia’s. A couple more years of this chaos and the US will be ready to bow out of any commitment to global stability.
About 80% of Australians dislike Trump specifically and AUKUS generally. If the US doesn't start acting like a sober, responsible, adult country again they might not be able to count on Australia being the perpetual deputy to the global sheriff of the USA.
The most pro-US member of the Australian cabinet, Richard Marles, is publicly despised for his smarminess and sneering, private school attitude. Combine that with 3 other influences - Chinese excursions in what has traditionally been part of the Australian sphere of influence, the Pacific Islands nations, the PRC being Australia's prime trading partner, and the huge percentage of Australian citizens who are Chinese born or one generation removed from that - then potential Australian ambiguity in such a conflict is possible. Doesn't help that weakman Trump, in seeking to show "strength" via threatening or imposing tariffs on partners and allies, then both weakens economically and alienates Australia, Japan, India, southeast Asian and the Pacific Islands Nations.
All a pity, and another nail in the coffin of global rules based order... all the result of the current administration's immature, FAFO approach to realpolitik.
Agree, Rob. In Australia, support for the US has gone from 74pc to 22pc since the US election, and falling. Elbridge Colby wants Australia to pay for its nuclear powered submarines but place them under US command
100% agree. Spheres of influence, and having a chummy relationship with his fellow autocrats in power.
I've watched him morph from a hawk on China to calculating how much money he could make doing business with Xi. I doubt trump sees much for him personally if the US supports Taiwan.
Why are we assuming that US, led by TACO Trump, will engage in the fight?
True, he is a massive buffoon. But I'm counting on his Sinophobia, racism, and need to protect the microchip market to compel him to get involved (if necessary).
Nothing, except his greed and his ego, ever compels him to do anything.
How would he benefit from getting involved ?
How would he personally suffer from China taking Taiwan ?
Great article Wes, the allies can also make like very hard for China by blockading the Malacca strait. Hard to run a big country when you lose 2/3 of your energy supply
Interesting analysis, thanks.
I am hoping that Taiwan has licenced Magura 5 and / or Sea Baby maritime drones from Ukraine. A couple of thousand of them would give the PLAN a nasty shock.
The newly developed aerial drone swarm technology also holds promise for defeating any attempted landing.
Agree! Strategic inspiration is already in play. Taiwan has begun developing its own naval drone fleet. In March 2025, CSBC unveiled the Endeavor Manta, a trimaran-hulled, 28-foot-long USV capable of firing torpedoes or ramming with explosives, loosely inspired by Ukrainian drones.
You have a major flaw in your reasoning. To think that in the current events NK and Russia would not take an active posture in this conflict or even start provocations before china acts against Taiwan is, imho, wrong and dangerous. China is wise enough to divert atentions and not get the full blowback alone. Taiwan will be a way broader conflict that you are describing here. But these are just my thaughts, i am no expert at all. Thanks for you content, i really love read an listen to your thougts. Slava ukraini.
“Flaw” is a little harsh. I have already written at great length how, in the next big war, all the opportunistic assholes would see the US preoccupied and shoot their shot. I encourage you to visit my Medium account where I have a half-dozen articles about WWIII
That being stated, it was not anywhere in this article.
There are many, many possibilities and complications you are leaving unconsidered. This begins with the assumption that it would be 1 vs 5. I would not in the least be surprised if one or more of our 'allies' balks at a full-scale war with China. If North Korea sides with China is South Korea really ready to reap the whirlwind? What about the Russians?
To be honest I'm starting to think the US itself is having second thoughts about going all-in to defend Taiwan. There's plenty of profit in dominating the Western Hemisphere and we have no rivals in that domain, why not just make a deal with China and proceed to loot our neighbor's wealth with impunity? It's a real safe bet versus an all-in coin flip.
It seems like one of the underlying assumptions here is that the US submarine fleet is sufficiently large and sufficiently superior to be counted on to knock off Chinese surface ships and presumably Chinese subs as well. Is that indeed true? Would be interesting to learn more about exactly why that is. Nuclear vs Diesel ? Training?
I like to believe that China won't start a war at least not in my lide time. That said if there is a war between the US and China I hesitate to imagine the other wars of opportunity that start. Just for a start Russia crossing a few more boarders while US allies decide where to sent their resources.
Hi Wes, my apology. I didn't mean to be harsh. As a not native english speaker it's not always easy to express myself as in my natural language. I really like your thoughts but I am missing in quite a lot of defense and strategic analysts statements and articles that China would not be alone on this adventure. And I don't get why.Best regards and slava ukraini.
Interesting analysis. What I still haven’t seen is an analysis of drones vs ships. Russia is sending up to 800 missiles/drones in one day against Ukraine. It is rapidly increasing. China has far greater industrial capacity. Would a carrier withstand an onslaught of 1 000 missiles more or less simultaneously? 10 000 is probably less than a week of production in a 2027 perspective. What cost will China find strategically worth it to wipe out US ships. Will surface ships be a viable battle asset at all in the future based on projecting drone quality and quantity?
This is an excellent summary of the possible scenarios in a new Pacific War. Option 1 and 3 are most likely. Option 2 of a slow strangling blockade is unlikely because one side or the other will attempt to break out of a stalemate, and the blockade becomes option 1 or more likely option 3–General War without the nukes.
Faster satellite launch or even armed ones, put that treaty to bed.