An Arms Race With China Won't Make Us Safer

Forbes

3 days ago

WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 21: U.S. Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth listens as U.S. President Donald ... More Trump delivers remarks in the Oval Office of the White House on March 21, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump announced the Next Generation of Air Dominance (NGDA) program, the F-47, the sixth-generation high-tech Air Force fighter to succeed the F-22 Raptor. (Photo by)
Fretting about – and exaggerating – the military threat posed by China is a cottage industry in official Washington. Whether it is performing mathematical contortions to explain how a country that spends two and one-half times less than the United States is in fact surging ahead, or bad mouthing America's manufacturing and science prowess relative to China, the message is the same – the United States needs to spend more and do more if it is to match China militarily in the years to come. But in reality, '[a]
Meanwhile, a recent piece in the Wall Street Journal offered a bracing look at the relative economic prowess of the two superpowers, suggesting that Beijing has the lead – or soon will – in shipbuilding, basic manufacturing, industrial robots, and essential raw materials. The conclusion: 'If the U.S. faced a major conflict, it would need to reorient industries and workers, as it did in the two world wars of the 20th century.'
But security isn't all about production capacity. For example, it doesn't mean much when it comes to reducing the risk of a nuclear conflict. The United States has an estimated stockpile of 3,700 nuclear warheads, versus 680 possessed by China.
It's true that China has been building up its nuclear arsenal in recent years, but building more nuclear weapons in response would be a dangerous misuse of scarce funds. A 2022 study led by climate scientists at Rutgers University found that even a modest nuclear exchange, involving as few as 100 nuclear weapons, could so damage the planet's ability to grow food that it could result in over 5 billion casualties over time.
The key to human survival is not piling up nuclear weapons, it is finding diplomatic means to prevent such a world-ending conflict from ever coming about. Given this stark reality, the Pentagon's quest to build a new generation of nuclear weapons is misguided.
As for waging a conventional arms race with China, at immense cost, the question is, for what purpose? A U.S.-China war over Taiwan would be a disaster for all concerned, even if it did not escalate to the nuclear level. There would be heavy losses on each side, and a huge blow to the global economy in general and Taiwan's economy in particular.
And there is no guarantee that a war between two nuclear-armed powers would not escalate into a full-blown nuclear confrontation.
Washington needs to spend less time preparing for a war over Taiwan, and more time figuring out how to prevent one. That means coming to a common understanding with China on the potential future status of Taiwan and how that might be achieved. Just such an understanding undergirds the 'one China policy' that has kept the peace in the Taiwan strait for five decades.
If there are concerns about China's relative production capacity, the answer is to invest in the overall strength of the U.S. economy, not to waste talent and resources on a narrowly focused arms race that will further drain talent and funds that are needed to address existential challenges like climate change and potential pandemics.
Dealing with the non-traditional global threats cited above will require cooperation with China, not confrontation. Washington and Beijing don't need to be the closest of friends, but they do need to come to an understanding on how to protect their respective populations from the most urgent threats we face, threats that cannot be solved by building more nuclear weapons, or aircraft carriers, or robotic weapons.
We need a fresh approach to relations with China, not a policy that harkens back to the Cold War, much less World War II. There's too much riding on the outcome to be bound by outdated notions that will only make war more likely.