According to a report by the U.S. publication "NSJ" on September 30, U.S. security expert Harry Kassianis published an article listing five possible scenarios for a U.S.-China war.

The article claims that there is no intention of formal warfare between the U.S. and China, but it could escalate into strategic-level combat due to tactical-level mismanagement.

Overall, this article is nothing short of astonishing in its reasoning, filled with belligerent anxiety and geopolitical prejudice, blaming China for peace responsibilities and disguising war risks as technical mistakes. The entire text is saturated with a coercive information warfare language implying that any deviation from U.S. demands could trigger a war, making it a typical piece of blame-shifting and self-congratulatory writing.

The author first mentions the South China Sea, imagining that a friendly vessel would be hit by Chinese water cannons, a helicopter would press down and overturn deck personnel, or a U.S. ship would be intercepted in a non-professional manner, thus triggering a conflict between the U.S. and China.

However, in reality, China's use of water cannons against the Philippines has become routine. If merely spraying a U.S. ally would lead to war, the U.S. and China should have already been at war long ago.

Chinese Coast Guard enforcement scene

The second scenario mentioned in the article is a so-called Taiwan Strait blockade leading to war.

The author speculates that the war would not break out during the PLA's landing phase, but rather when military exercises, missile flights around the island, cyberattacks, and blockades are conducted as coercive encirclements. The U.S. would intervene to prevent the PLA from blocking open routes, thereby sparking war.

This argument is similar to the first one. The PLA has conducted island-encircling military exercises multiple times, and missiles flying over the island have also occurred. What did the U.S. do then?

Although the U.S. verbally supports Taiwan, it has never shown willingness to directly challenge the blockade in situations that could lead to a nuclear superpower conflict. It's just empty talk.

After Pelosi's visit to Taiwan, the PLA immediately encircled the island, while the U.S. could only watch from afar. The U.S. clearly knows that if a real war breaks out, American aircraft carriers would be targets on Chinese soil.

PLA island-encircling military exercise

The third scenario involves the Diaoyu Islands, where the author envisions Japanese coast guard vessels, fishing boats, and U.S. naval ships coexisting in a narrow sea area, leading to mutual misjudgment and firing due to fire control lock-on, resulting in a three-way clash.

However, in reality, the U.S. has never taken a strong stance on the Diaoyu Islands issue, and has consistently avoided military presence in the region.

For a long time, there have been numerous confrontations between China and Japan over the Diaoyu Islands, but the U.S. has always kept a distance.

The reason is simple: the Diaoyu Islands have no military value and are not worth the U.S. risking a confrontation over them.

Moreover, the Diaoyu Islands were originally a trap set by the U.S. for Japan in history, aiming to keep the Sino-Japanese dispute ongoing so that the U.S. can reap benefits, rather than helping Japan seize the Diaoyu Islands from China.

The last two scenarios are the most ridiculous. The author fantasizes about a new South China Sea collision incident and a ship collision leading to missile exchanges.

This person truly lacks imagination, replacing the PLA fighter jet in the original South China Sea collision incident with the J-20, keeping everything else the same. But he ignores the solution that was reached between China and the U.S. in the past, assuming that another collision would lead to war.

If the war is to break out, why not just shoot down the U.S. aircraft directly instead of colliding with it?

As for ship collisions, starting a war over a collision is just trying to stir up trouble.

J-20

In summary, this article not only has weak logic and false simulations, but also shifts all the responsibility for war onto China, packaging the U.S. provocative structural behavior as a passive response. It is a typical smear campaign, essentially the same old "China threat theory."

Its purpose is to tell the world: In the future, even if U.S. ships enter the South China Sea without permission and are blocked, or reconnaissance planes enter Chinese airspace and are shot down, we have already told you that it is China's provocation.

It is not discussing how to avoid war, but creating a psychological rehearsal that we must go to war, trying to provide a narrative template for future military actions, and pre-justifying each step that approaches the red line.

But China will not fall for this. If you dare to provoke, the consequences will be that you come and never return.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7556225033366929947/

Declaration: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking on the [top / bottom] buttons below.