Shooting wars between nuclear powers have happened before - 1969 between China and Sov Union and in 1999 between Pakistan and India.

China/US would be the 3rd such example and would likely be similarly limited in scope.

In a China/Taiwan conflict it is likely Taiwan itself that will prevent China from taking over. Wargame scenarios tend to indicate extreme losses on China's side as their invading ships and submarines are sunk and troops on Taiwan's beaches are slaughtered while Chinese coastal cities (where most of the population, wealth and industry are) are pummeled by missiles.

Even if they "win" the outcome will look more like the Soviet invasion of Finland where a Red Army general remarked "we have won just enough land to bury our dead" than a glorious victory.

In such a situation if the US got involved at all it would likely choose to swoop in and mop up after a bruised and battered China retreats, maybe presuming that the CCP has lost moral authority and the leadership could be couped.

The fact that wargamed invasions of Taiwan are so costly for PRC is probably why they resort to saber rattling and economic pressure. It's cheaper.

The other thing is that China is unlike any other peer oponent the US has geared up to fight. They aren't only high-tech, they are also assymetrical. If the US builds another massive carrier strike group, the Chinese will build two hundred antiship hypersonic missiles (whether ballistic or otherwise). If the US builds 100 bombers to deliver a thousand stealthy cruise missiles, the Chinese will use their satellites to detect them taking off and retreat their ships to within range of mainland air defences and integrate the ships air defences to form an air defence system far surpassing anything else outside of Russian (the Chinese use basically the same air defence systems on their ships and on land). Good luck overwhelming the equivalent of 50 air defences brigades all working together. The US spends a hundred billion dollars on super stealthy submarines? No problem, build ten times as many small drone submarines and put high powered sonars at the bottom of the sea beyond the reach of any torpedoes and use active sonar as much as you want without risking any sailor or high value equipment, then keep your ships behind this perimeter. If the US is going to fly advanced stealth fighters, you don't meet them with your own plane for plane, you build super long range missiles and high altitude stealth interceptors to lob them at support aircraft before they can be detected, then bomb the shit out of wherever they took off from before they can re-arm, while blunting the first strike with an air defence system they'll take days to disable.

Because China is only going to fight in its backyard it doesn't have to fight ship for ship and plane for plane like the Soviets or the Germans. It wants to bring the US to fight it in the worst possible place and then beat it assymetrically using every conceivable advantage.

There were no wars like WW1 or WW2 fought before them. It's a horrifying thought but not an implausible one on a long timescale. Eventually a society goes batshit (Nazis, Trumpers, etc) and goes all in on the idea.

Generalizing "war" to mean "competition" robs it of any independent meaning - and once you have done that, you need another word or term to use whenever you need to refer to what "war" actually means.

> Even in WW2 that was not the case, there were huge swats of land where people were living as if there was nothing going on.

Isn't that overstating it? I'm aware of swathes without fighting, but wasn't trade pretty disrupted? Wasn't it pretty apparent in port towns if not elsewhere?

That war will only last until China will recover in areas they are behind US, such as in semiconductors. After that China can kill US tech sector by selling at below the cost.

I think that in 10 years we can reach that point.

That's what's going on right now. China is building ships at rates unprecedented since after WWII. It's concerning. My feeling is they have a window of a decade or two during which they can make a grab for Taiwan. After which it may become relatively more difficult with demographics against them, increased defenses in Taiwan, and increased cooperation and perhaps commitment among its allies.

We invested heavily in nuclear weapons with the intention of never using them. Sometimes it really is about deference. Taiwan isn't arming because they want to fight China.

Historically, a lot of people in the early 20th century thought that war wouldn't (or couldn't) happen because it would be too unimaginably destructive. The first world war was called the war to end all wars, and despite later usage originally it was not meant ironically.

There is some selection bias as well - if they didn't invest heavily in military then the wars would not qualify as major barring other major imbalances highly unlikely to occur, such as "Conquistador Scenarios".

If both were big and deterred no major war.

If one was overwhelming then they either were the 800 pound gorilla sitting where it wants or the war was short by definition. Even if impactful it is the occupation which would gain focus of history.

If both were limited in military strength they would find there was too much "friction" to do more than shift borders a bit even after handfuls died in skirmishes - they would be unable to hold big gains.

>US going to war with China (whether it is an economic war, a classic war or a hybrid war ) is US falling into Thucydides Trap. It is one war they aren't going to win. The only winning stance would to not go to war at all.

The problem with national security, is its peacetime leverage is only as effective as your actual willingness to fight a war, even if both sides lose.

Ideally, then both players jointly avoid war.

But in the real world and history, surprising dynamics, contradictory local politics, or miscommunication, can all quickly or slowly lead to wars both countries lose.

The alternative, is consolidation in one country with effectively guaranteed national peace.

Which game do you choose, because in the real world, there is no game where both countries agree to never go to war credibly and solve everything with dice matches, or single handed combat between leaders.

Countries that seem to be reliable allies are almost always on the same side in a leverage battle with another entity. Friends become competitors quickly when there is no shared enemy. And old enemies can also suddenly become fast friends, when circumstances change.

It won't be a total war. The only disputed area is Taiwan and the surrounding seas. There is no benefit to China to take anything else.

Thank you Joshua!

Zero wars? Not exactly. We've had no more direct conflicts between superpowers but still a lot of proxy wars, local conflicts, genocides. We still have a long way to go as humanity.

And I think it's only a matter of time before someone crazy enough to use them gets their hands on nukes. Even countries like North Korea have them now. Despite his appearance KYU is not that crazy but maybe this successor is.