The US vs China (war game debate)

End Game and De-briefing: It seems that my hopes of war-gaming a scenario version of China vs the US was a non-starter. This may offer us a hopeful sign that nuclear war is less likely than we might have feared; it is difficult to initiate, even in games. Planning for such a conflict is beyond the scope of even the famously arrogant war-planners in Washington. In this hypothetical face-off between the two nuclear powers, we have reached the very final round and still have yet to begin the launches that were once thought to be key to the scenario. This can help to educate readers (as well as we debaters) on how much uncertainty, propaganda, unverified claims and hesitation can impact an outcome in combat. Here, even if many distractions are removed, it remains a difficult decision. It has often been pointed out that the development of nuclear weapons have been a great contributor to world peace. The close study of these devices is sobering, and creates a rapid maturation of the childish war-monger into a cautious and respectful diplomat. This debate has given evidence to that. This finding, supported by the results of this debate, is not proven absolutely, unfortunately. The fact is that nuclear armed governments have been in a state of near constant war since the early 1950's. Thanks to the "Truman Doctrine" of indirect conflict against nuclear regimes, the United States has fought the USSR and China across the globe, in Cambodia, Laos, Iran, Vietnam, and Korea, as well as many other regions. Nuclear weaponry simply outsources these wars from the nation that possesses them to those poor nations that do not. Such is the true face of nuclear war.China's final moves I would very much like to develop the requisite role-playing rules that will allow a more enlightening wargame to happen. This discussion simply illustrated the "Fog of War" where one side makes a claim that is dismissed by the other. Without the actual combat, everything is speculative. This phenomenon closely mirrors reality, as those who watched Saddam Hussein and the Allies bloviate in the lead-up to the Iraq Invasion can attest. Clearly, my final move is to follow the momentum described above. If no attack occurs, then a Chinese version of the Cuban Missile Crisis has happened here. We go back home. If a strike comes, we counter. This ContestDespite the anticlimax, I want to express a high degree of happiness and excitement at the idea of debates such as this one. (Once perfected.) I want to thank again Wrich for agreeing to this experiment, and for so patiently playing along. If Wrich, or anyone else would like a partner for role-playing debates that will analyze this type of subject matter, I hope that my name would come up. That said, I think a close reading of the results that we were able to produce here would reveal important behaviours that are anything but unimportant to understand.In a serious confrontation with the US:-China would bluster, and make great claims of how dangerous an opponent it is (I tried to remain faithful to the Wiki, but I would expect China to ....exaggerate.) -American military planners (as played here) would deny that China has any counter-strike capabilities at all-China would mobilize, and begin defensive measures-America would study the situation, and deliberate until the crisis had spent itself, while continuing to deny any military challenge from China would occur-Both sides would declare the draw to have been a triumphant victory for their own sideIt is interesting to note that this is very close to what actually has happened in the lead up to every American war that I studied as I researched this debate. America steadfastly denied any real martial risk from Korea, Vietnam, The Iraq war and the War in Afghanistan. War planners constantly claimed that these would be quick and painless wars, that would see us hailed as liberators or heroes. If there is a useful takeaway from this debate, it is that promises of easy victories should be taken as a dangerous warning sign that real war is imminent. This, more than "anger talk," or "saber-rattling" is a far more certain indication that planners are serious about causing a war. Alternatively, bravado could be seen as a sign that a nation is eager to avoid a fight. Another uselful takeaway might be that the US and China will continue to fight wars in the same manner that we saw in Cambodia and Laos and Vietnam. That is, indirectly, by proxy. Personally, I would expect the coming war with China to be economic, political and diplomatic.