Total War?

Over at The Victorious Opposition there is an interesting post presenting four hypothetical scenarios and asking whether or not readers would support "total war" in response. Total war is defined as,

a war in which our vital interests are at stake, we mobilize our full strength, the enemy commands a modern state, and the war has more of a global or hemispheric rather than a simply regional nature.

I wouldn't call that total war myself, just a major war. I think total war has other implications. But given that definition, here are the scenarios:

1. China attempting to overrun Taiwan?
2. Iran detonating a nuclear weapon in Israel?
3. North Korea sinking an American vessel (something small like a frigate) with a submarine?
4. Russia invading any ex-Soviet republic NATO member nation in the same way it did to Georgia?

In my opinion, only two of those scenarios would likely produce a truly major war of the type the writer is describing: numbers 1 and 4. Here are my answers.

1. It depends on the overall circumstances. In my opinion, China's overall power is grossly exaggerated by many vis a vis the United States. I do not believe China is capable of pulling off the type of massive amphibious assault that would be necessary to overrun Taiwan, with even minimal, largely deniable U.S. involvement. On the other hand, China is certainly capable of unleashing a devastating missile barrage in an attempt to pound Taiwan into submission. Should the U.S. go to war in a major way to save Taiwan? It's a difficult call, and I can't say for certain without more details of the overall picture. Taiwan is a a long-standing ally of the U.S. In my view, loyalty to allies who have been loyal to us is extremely important. We should certainly not sit idly by while China hammers Taiwan. But risking nuclear war for Taiwan is another matter.

2. If Iran detonates a nuclear weapon in Israel, I fully expect Iran to be devastated by an Israeli nuclear response. I don't see this scenario as a major war situation for the U.S. Compared to the United States, even an Iran armed with a some nuclear weapons is extremely weak. Even using conventional weapons, if the gloves were off, the U.S. could cripple Iran, while suffering only regional damage. Should Iran manage to pull off an amazing nuclear first strike that utterly destroyed Israel and its entire nuclear force, I would definitely support a massive retaliatory strike of either a conventional or nuclear variety. A third-rate power such as Iran could not be permitted to destroy a major U.S. ally and get away with it.

3. Again, I don't see this as a major war scenario of the type described -- unless China backed North Korea -- it's a major war, but a regional one. If North Korea dared openly sink a U.S. vessel, I would definitely support a declaration of war. I would also support a first strike with tactical nuclear weapons if necessary to ensure that North Korean nuclear weapons are not used against us. If they covertly sank a U.S. vessel, as with the South Korean one, I would opt for lesser but still violent measures, such as hunting down every North Korean submarine, and possibly bombing submarine bases.

4. I think this and number 3 are probably the most likely of the four scenarios, and this one is the most avoidable. I was not and am not a fan of expanding NATO to include small, weak former Soviet republics. Some allies are not worth having. It would be a disaster if one of these countries, places outside our vital interests, dragged us into a major war with Russia. Should such a scenario develop, I would try to get unified NATO support in an attempt to intimidate the Russians into backing down. If the rest of NATO goes wobbly, I would probably support some attempt to find a way for the U.S. to also weasel out of its treaty obligations.

More on Chinese Arrogance.

Yesterday I wrote a post called "Chinese Arrogance." And today I see an article in the Washington Post called, "China's strident tone raises concerns among Western governments, analysts." The article details the arrogant and outright obnoxious behavior of China toward other countries, and speculates on what it means for the future. 

The communist rulers of China, like most oligarchs & dictators throughout history, respect strength and see appeasement and compromise as weaknesses to be exploited. Some countries by virtue of their size, weakness, or proximity to China may have to tolerate Chinese bullying and intimidation. The U.S. does not and should not. The best way to make this clear to the Chinese is to give them a message in a language they understand. Chinese representatives should be told explicitly that the U.S. does not take orders from China, and that any attempts to sanction U.S. companies will be answered with retaliatory measures. Approve the F16 sale to Taiwan, and quietly let it be known to the Chinese, that their attitude and attempts at intimidation convinced us that the sale should go through. 

Chinese Arrogance

China is upset that the U.S. has dared to sell $6 billion in defense equipment to Taiwan against Chinese wishes -- as if the U.S. has to ask permission of China before concluding an arms deal with its allies. China is going so far as to make threats of retaliation.

the Chinese side has decided to suspend planned mutual military visits," Xinhua quoted the ministry as saying. The Foreign Ministry said China also would put sanctions on U.S. companies supplying the equipment. ... Beijing was "strongly indignant" about the arms sales to Taiwan and warned that they would have a "serious negative impact" on U.S.-China cooperation

China is even threatening to

sanction businesses in the districts of congressional lawmakers known to be backers of Taiwan.

Just about every time we talk to the Chinese about issues important to the U.S., such as human rights, specific concerns of U.S. business within China, intellectual property issues, and anything relating to the internet, we are told not to interfere in China's "internal affairs." They are completely uncooperative on other major foreign policy issues, such as the Iranian situation, and have been of minimal use with regard to North Korea. There's some evidence that they've been conducting cyber attacks against the U.S. They may be a major trading partner and financial investor in the U.S., but they need economic ties with America just as much as we need our connections with China. Nothing about our relationship requires that the U.S. put up with the obnoxious arrogance of the Chinese regime. Chinese protests about Taiwan should be met with the clear and unmistakable response that we will sell our allies whatever, and however many weapons we wish, and that China has absolutely no say in the matter -- they will not be permitted to interfere with our affairs. A good start would be the immediate approval of F16 sales to Taiwan.

The only silver lining for China in Friday's announcement was that it did not include the sale of 66 F-16 C/D fighters to Taiwan. But that does not mean the Obama administration has rejected Taiwan's request for the advanced fighters to replace its aging air force. The Defense Department is drawing up a report on the air power balance between China and Taiwan that could be used to push a decision.

Expedite the sale, and send China a message that arrogant attempts to intimidate the U.S. will only be counterproductive.