Is there any evidence this is about masks versus gatherings?
> the Geneva convention has a clause against going to war with a nation stricken by a pandemic
The U.S. would go to war with China if it invaded Taiwan, conventions or not. (I also believe the relevant text is with respect to medical personnel, not a general prohibition on armed conflict.)
Attack the Chinese mainland, perhaps not, at least not without plausible deniability. Sink Chinese ships in waters the international community considers international or Taiwanese and Beijing Chinese, absolutely.
Were China to retaliate by hitting an American ship, then yes, we would likely go to limited war against its port and missile facilities.
“Limited” as in not seeking unconditional surrender. As long as the U.S. doesn’t threaten the CCP’s existence, limiting its aims to thwarting Xi’s policy goals, i.e. taking Taiwan, it’s irrational for Beijing to escalate to nuclear Armageddon. But Xi is a dictator, and dictators do not make for rational states, so who knows.
What is clear: a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would meet with an American and allied military response. And the decisions around what that response looks like (or if it happens) would give zero weight to whether China says it’s in a pandemic.
I agree but I don’t think that is grounded in rational thought. Lol. Xi still has to go through a bunch of hurdles to get what he wants. He is not a real dictator.
Your idea of limited war is interesting. First attack on just a few objects in a limited scope. Then branch off onto other targets. Then full out war! There is no real limit in war.
Taiwan isn't worth ending the world over.
From a game theory perspective, being willing to end the world over Taiwan is ironically the best way to prevent the world from ending. Deterrence works.
If at all costs, you include hundreds of millions of corpses, no, absolutely not. It's not worth it. It's not remotely worth it, and it's insane (In the colloquial, 'madman with his finger on the button' way) to consider it. Burning down the village does not save the village.
> From a game theory perspective, being willing to end the world over Taiwan is ironically the best way to prevent the world from ending. Deterrence works.
That's a bait and switch. The only reason nuclear weapons can be tolerated is because they prevent war between empires. When your doctrine explicitly expects them to fail to do that, it puts the lie to the sole reason for why civilization-ending nuclear arsenals should be allowed to exist.
You can draw red lines that can't be crossed like 'an attack against our territory will be responded to dispropritionately', but you can't take a red sharpie to the entire map of the world. Nobody will actually believe you when you do.
Nobody is saying we should nuke China if they invade Taiwan. Just that our risk tolerance to Beijing escalating conventional engagement to all-out nuclear war cannot be zero.
We must be ready to sink Chinese ships and potentially hit port and missile facilities with conventional arms. Refusing to do so is the sort of appeasement that virtually guarantees a future, far deadlier conflict. That engagement risks nuclear escalation is an important consideration, but not a decisive one.
> puts the lie to the sole reason for why civilization-ending nuclear arsenals should be allowed to exist
We agree. This has been a lie for some time. Nukes are terrible. Between rationale regimes, they seem to reduce large-scale conflict. With dictators, the calculus shifts.
Were getting rid of them an option, I’d take it. Presently, the world is going in the opposite direction, with the normalisation of tactical nukes a likelihood in our lifetimes.
> you can't take a red sharpie to the entire map of the world
Nobody has done that. Taiwan has de facto American security guarantees. If China invades Mongnolia the world will be angry, but nobody will go to war.
Zero nuclear is failed policy. It’s lead to war in Ukraine and encourages appeasement with China. We need more flexible doctrine. I’m not sure what it is, but it can’t be no war at all ever with a belligerent nuclear power at all costs. (Conventional only, no sinking capital ships and no strikes on core territory or any civilians would strike me as reasonable, but that also plays to American strengths.)
That’s not the null. Null would be engagement as usual. Nuclear war can occur in both the null and zero nuclear policy states.