This is crazy.
First the Muslim concentration camps, now this.
Why won't the Western world impose any serious sanctions against China?
We have invaded others countries for less
We have invaded others countries for less
It's almost as if "democracy" wasn't the real reason for those invasions.
And the OP is cynical, it takes a lot for the US to mount a proper. Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, and post 9/11 Iraq part 2 + policing actions in Afghanistan are relatively big deals.
For the most part, there's no reason for the US and China to 'go to war'. What would they go to war over? The sheer physicality doesn't provide the opportunity.
Except for Taiwan - which China will go to great lengths to nab, and the US/West may or may not go to great lengths to defend. Even then I don't see war.
China will is not going to otherwise mount a military invasion of anything, it would be too costly. Their version of 'invasion' is called the 'Belt and Road' and it's ensuing corruption.
But both of those reasons would also align with an intervention in China. The true answer to why we haven't intervened is both mundane and terrifying: China has nuclear weapons.
You dont to sanctions to countries that provide most of your goods without a viable alternative. Sanctionning Iran does not change your daily life. Sanctionning China would suddenly make a large impact as to what you can actually buy and at what price.
Beijing would be forced into a very difficult position - attack US forces in Taiwan, leading to massive military escalation, or lose face by allowing the US and Taiwan to call Beijing’s bluff
No it's not.
That China has nukes is not relevant because there's no impetus for the US to be 'invading' China whatsoever.
Other than of course a standoff in Korea 60 years ago, the US and China are not military adversaries.
China absolutely is a geopolitical rival with militaristic and global hegemonic ambitions, and they have already committed to actions that we have gone to war over in the past. And they are on the cusp of a handful of actions that would have triggered a world war if they were done in the past. But nothing will happen to China for the same reason that nothing happened to Russia during the cold war. Because they have nukes.
Yet NBA players now bow to China and Hollywood goes to great length to make their movies as little offending to China as possible.
Countries that didn’t have nuclear weapons and ICBMs
It is like asking why the US never invaded the Soviet Union. There was a window in the second half of the 1940s it might have been achievable without global thermonuclear war, albeit a war-weary world that had just endured the biggest war in human history didn’t have the appetite for that
We've only really seen Russian systems in action and they've mostly failed, however it's very easy to argue this is due to poor training. One notable (alleged) engagement in Syria involved a Russian operated s400 battery (the latest and greatest) attempting to shoot down some of the 70+ tomahawks trump launched. Whilst some didn't make it to their targets there's no evidence the s400 hit them rather than them operationally failing. It's unlikely anyone would be better trained than the Russian military itself so if this indeed did happen it is damning for currently fielded IADS's.
Another reason for the apparent ineffectiveness of IADS's could be the west's proficiency at dealing with them:
Jets like the EA-18 growler are designed purely to entice systems to reveal their position (switching on their radar) so another jet can launch an anti-radiation air to ground missile (AGM) at it.
It's very likely the B2, f35 and f22 can't even be targeted by any IADS due to their low radar cross section.
Stand off weapons give the ability to destroy targets without being inside the range of any IADS. These could be used to strike important targets before the IADS is down or to pick the IADS apart itself (if you know where its assets are).
Given all this information I still can't say an anti aircraft system wouldn't be effective.. but I think the fact China is investing heavily into its air force implies that they have the same concerns about IADS effectiveness that I do.
Sorry that was so long, had a Pringles moment!
Those countries don't have nukes.
Going further with sanctions only make sure sanctions will no longer work, for there is nothing valuable to sanction with.
The US is the only entity that can stand toe to toe with China, as China can splinter any UN or EU response. Ultimately to get some other countries on board, they have to believe the US has their back full-stop. Such that when China starts throwing an inevitable response tantrum, the US will be there to lend unconditional, unflinching support. Who trusts the Trump government's erratic behavior enough to believe that at this point? You have to bet your nation's economic well-being on believing that his administration will have your back if you join the restrain-China coalition. Most countries will naturally avoid taking that risk and will attempt to hedge or dodge the matter. The West will only be able to mount a serious long-term plan once Trump is gone. The powermongers in DC love this style of great power bipolar struggle, a return to the cold war, a very clearly defined giant enemy to focus on; but they can't effectively do anything until Trump is gone, there's too much chaos in the system.
It'll look like this: US + EU + Japan + Britain + South Korea + Canada + Australia + New Zealand + South Korea (along with a few others) working in closer unison, running a program. It's the only approach that can work, China is too big for anything else at this point. China does a thing, the group responds. Huawei is a haphazard trial run; the team is going to have to get into fighting shape, because China isn't messing around, they want the global hegemony crown and total dominance over Asia.