[opt-skept]

Could you add some more information about what steps of reasoning you find unsound, or what reasons you believe China would have to agitate for a conflict?

The "Thucydides Trap" and its application to Sino-American conflict is not something that I've made up or is a personal opinion. I've merely captured what US defense and security analyst perspective here for those wanting more context on the article. Namely China wants to avoid conflict because it is the weaker power, and the US wants to create conflict now while China is a weaker power, to prevent China from becoming a stronger competitor in the future.

There are certainly some US security analysts who argue against the "Thucydides Trap" being the right framework to analyze Sino-American relations. However most of those criticisms are just pointing out that conflict isn't inevitable - that there's nuance. For example the US might become distracted with other priorities (domestic political issues, for example), and never initiate a conflict. Or perhaps China will see a slow down in the growth of its own power, and the US will no longer perceive it as a threat (much the same happened with Japan in the 90's, when Japan was considered a top security threat).

[wumeow]

China needs to do two things to avoid war with the US: don’t invade Taiwan, don’t start fights with US allies in the Pacific. So far, they have been agitating for both of those things.

[opt-skept]

While I disagree with this on its own merit, its important to point out this does not address the question/topic.

Asked above was: (a) What steps of reasoning do you think are unsound? (b) What reasons do you believe that China has to agitate a conflict with the US?

You answered (c) here is how China could avoid a conflict with the US

I'm sure you have questions about why this is disagreeable. But could we first resolve the open questions (a) and (b)?

[wumeow]

Ok I’ll spell it out.

A) China is not infiltrating US infrastructure to prevent the US from “agitating” a war on China, they’re doing it to deter the US from coming to the defense of Taiwan or other allies or partners in case a war breaks out in the Pacific, a war overwhelmingly likely to be started by China.

B) They don’t want to directly, but they definitely want to with their neighbors to expand their borders, legitimize the ruling party, and project naval power into the pacific and South China Sea. They hope their large navy and cyber capabilities will deter a US response

[opt-skept]

Okay, so for (b) we agree that China does not want to agitate a war with the US; that it would like to avoid it.

For (a) you do not have an area of critique where you believe any chain of logic presented earlier in the thread in unsound. Instead for (a) you have an alternative theory that you would advance.

The reason I thought you had some critique of soundness in (a) is that you had commented earlier you thought there was wild mental gymnastics, which would imply that you thought there was some unsound/crazy/wild leaps of thought.

This I think leaves us to discuss (a). Your proposed alternative theory agrees on the premise that the US would be the one choosing to engage military with China - that China would not choose to attack the United States. The key difference in your theory is that the United States "begrudgingly" would be obligated to engage militarily with China such as due to a legal commitment. This is opposed to the characterization that I advanced, which is that the United States is "leaning into" reasons to engage militarily with China.

I can explain why I do not think that the US would "begrudgingly feel obligated" and instead is "leaning into reasons". This is quite simple (I will spare spilled ink).

The US established in 2009 that China was its primary rival (in 2009 the Obama Administration announces the "Pivot to Asia", which Wikipedia describes as "represented a significant shift in the foreign policy of the United States ... invest heavily and build relationships in [Asia] ... to counter [China's] rise as a rival superpower"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asian_foreign_policy_of_t...

Since that time the reasons for a potential US conflict with China have kept changing. Once it was because of "unfair trade practices". It became for a while "Uighurs". "Tibet". "Defense of India". "South China Sea". "Taiwan". The constant over time is the explicitly and carefully articulated reason given by the US government itself that it needs to counter China as a rising superpower. The areas of conflict have been, are, and will continue to be, subject to change.

The US had almost certainly has no legal obligation to intervene on part of its "allies" (the Philippines only unless you have other legal allies in mind?) nor does it have any obligation to intervene for Taiwan. From a legal perspective again the Mutual Defense Treaty with the Philippines (who I assume you refer to by "allies") was effectively dead (with US bases, soldiers, exiting the region by early 1990s). It was only in 2021 (!) long long after the US identified the need to confront China that the US renewed this treaty (after the Philippines suggest it be scrapped). Neither the Philippine's specious claims to the Spratly Islands the a BRP Sierra Madre scenario would obligate a US intervention.

I would add that the US even insisted on intervening on behalf of the Philippines even when the Philippines itself rejected the United States and called for it to not engage in the area. This is how desperate the US has been to try to engineer something here. (The new Philippine administration has been easier for the US to work with).

Indeed the United States has been accelerating its efforts to grow treaties, obligations, and military basing in China's near abroad. From the Compacts of Free Association to the Nuclear "AUKUS" to the Quad, to its quite scandalous attempt at the Trans Pacific Partnership, the US's foreign policy has attempted to constrain the growth of China and attempted to engineer plausible scenarios in which it might escalate tensions with China into a victory.

China's interest in the South China Sea? To prevent an existential economic blow severing its ability to trade, a la the blockade that occurred during the Anglo-Chinese War. (Interestingly, and an aside only, Taiwan agrees with the Republic of China on Qing and earlier Chinese historical rights to the area).

Regarding such a confrontation? What would a war scenario look like? It would involve much more than the defense of the Sierra Madre or the defense of the Taiwan strait. The US military's footprint and conflict plan escalation from where-ever a conflict may arise to a blockade and strikes into China, even if it is not operationally called for (to defend a littoral, or whatever).

The US and Taiwan? The US's policy since the inception of relations with the island (despite being legally obligated to recognize Taiwan as part of the Republic of China) has been "strategic ambiguity" - to be purposefully vague about whether it will come to the defense of the island in order to discourage the status quo from changing.

The US, only after identifying its grand strategic need to prevent the rise of its superpower rival, has changed this policy, explicitly stating the US will defend Taiwan (again, no legal obligation) to encourage it to declare independence (again - despite US legal recognition).

US President Trump - China hawk of China hawks - first action as president was to call the leadership in Taiwan, a protocol breaking and intentionally provocative move intended to signal the US's intention to rock the boat and agitate for conflict with China.

I submit to you the "Pivot to Asia". The US first identified the need to confront a rising China as a rising superpower competitor more than a decade ago, and has since found various potential plausible means by which a conflict might occur and the US might escalate to situation in which China's potential is diminished.

[wumeow]

Ok, your post is just pure gish galloping. Basically, you think that the US is forging alliances in the Indo-Pacific because it wants an excuse to go to war with China and crush it. In reality, the US is using its military, specifically it’s deterrence capability as a bargaining chip in alliances with countries who are fed up with China. Yes, it wants to counter China’s rise but it’s doing that through diplomacy. If China doesn’t like this, they are free to start acting like a good neighbor, but it seems that’s not their plan.

[opt-skept]

Today I learned "gish galloping". No, I am a wordy person and I apologize for that. I think you'll find it isn't an excessive amount of arguments, but an excessive amount of detail to a very straightforward argument. At least that is my hope.

> Basically, you think that the US is forging alliances in the Indo-Pacific because really it wants an excuse to go to war with China and crush it. In reality, the US is using its military, specifically it’s deterrence capability as a bargaining chip in alliances with countries who are fed up with China.

Yes in broad strokes. I'm trying to not add nuance now.

However I would disagree with the "countries that are fed up with China" - that's a very American narrative but based on polls and looking from the region, these countries are mostly looking for whoever will give them the best bargain and play both sides.

> Yes, it wants to counter China’s rise

Right, I'm glad we agree on that.

> but it’s doing that through diplomacy.

I don't see this as very possible in any case. What country could convince through diplomacy another country to e.g. stop growing its economy? Are there any such examples?

Do you have any examples of diplomatic missions or examples you think show the US as having done this?

Anyhow, I'm glad we started out with my doing mental gymnastics, but now we agree that the US wants to prevent China's rise and that China is trying to avoid military conflict with the US. None of this is super crazy / convoluted.

Regards for sticking with my verboseness.

[butterchaos]

Thucydides Trap is just the nonsense of historicism.

What rising power went to war with the hegem with a currency peg?

What rising power went to war with a hegem with a currency peg and its largest trading partner? A coalition that would include several of the top trading partners.

Like all points in history, the current moment is unique and pretending you can predict the future from the past is stupid.

[opt-skept]

The Belfare Center for Science and International Affairs has a nice report (https://www.belfercenter.org/thucydides-trap/case-file) indicating this is a good predictor for conflict (and lists examples that you can use).

Although, I'll definitely agree with you that all points in history are unique. Thucydides Trap shouldn't be understood as predicting the future using the past (that's absurd by definition). That would be a reductio ad absurdum, but it isn't what foreign policy scholars are actually arguing here.

Instead, it's a description of set of incentives that shape the relationship. What the individuals in power choose to do with those pressures/incentives on the relationship is absolutely a different question. The point the "foreign policy elite" in the United States are making is that it has strong incentives to agitate for a fight with China, before it becomes an competitor (as opposed to a "near peer competitor" or "pacing challenge" - the current language).

I suppose its worth clarifying. Do you deny that there are such structural elements of the Sino-American relationship? Or is your argument wrt Thucydides Trap that it isn't deterministic? Or something else?