The public sentiment towards the US-China trade dispute is predominantly negative, marked by criticisms of the US administration's approach, especially under President Trump. Commenters express skepticism about the effectiveness and sincerity of tariffs, fearing economic harm and international isolation. Many perceive that China is gaining leverage, strategically reducing its dependency on the US while forming new alliances. Sarcasm and mockery are prevalent, indicating a loss of confidence in leadership and highlighting frustration with perceived incompetence and self-interest in political strategies.

United States

China

Trump Administration

**/r/NeutralPolitics is a curated space.** 

In order not to get your comment removed, please familiarize yourself with our [rules on commenting](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comment_rules) before you participate:

1. Be courteous to other users.
1. Source your facts.
1. Be substantive.
1. Address the arguments, not the person.

If you see a comment that violates any of these essential rules, click the associated *report* link so mods can attend to it.

However, please note that the mods will not remove comments reported for lack of neutrality or poor sources. There is [no neutrality requirement for comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/wiki/guidelines#wiki_neutral-ness) in this subreddit — it's only the *space* that's neutral — and a poor source should be countered with evidence from a better one.

nosecohn

&gt; Is there historical precedent that offers insight into where this might lead?

I think we can look at past attempts at large scale tariffs and maybe draw some conclusions.
For example, maybe look at the [Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act) 

&gt; Intended to bolster domestic employment and manufacturing, the tariffs instead deepened the Depression because the U.S.'s trading partners retaliated with tariffs of their own, leading to U.S. exports and global trade plummeting. Economists and historians widely regard the act as a policy misstep, and it remains a cautionary example of protectionist policy in modern economic debates.

hurler_jones

&gt; Is there historical precedent that offers insight into where this might lead?

Yes. It's the [history of *Mercantilism*,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism#History) which is a whole economic theory based on using tariffs and other means to maintain balance of trade. It has its roots in Europe during the colonial era and lasted for centuries, but was largely abandoned by the late 1700s. Mercantilism is a form of [protectionism,](https://fee.org/articles/protectionisms-long-and-infamous-history/) which has an even longer history.

As others have pointed out, the US had a foray into this type of thinking again in the 1930s, and it did not go well.

Well according to a reliable article I found:

&gt;The escalating U.S.–China trade conflict resembles historical great-power economic rivalries, like the U.S.–Japan tensions of the 1980s, but the stakes now are higher due to deeper global interdependence and technological entanglement. While protectionism may offer short-term political wins, it risks long-term global fragmentation and economic inefficiency.

Here's a [link to my source](https://chatgpt.com/share/683d0521-3b28-800e-b3be-5064d00b4181). Cheers.

Maximiliano-Emiliano

Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.

To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the [Socratic Method](https://reddit.com/r/PoliticalDebate/wiki/socraticmethod/), which is briefly as follows:

**Ask Questions to Clarify**: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: *"Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"*

**Define Key Terms**: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: *"How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"*

**Probe Assumptions**: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: *"What assumptions are you making about human nature?"*

**Seek Evidence**: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: *"Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"*

**Explore Implications**: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: *"What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"*

**Engage in Dialogue**: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

Trump's efforts to project power through maximalist bullying are conspicuously failing.

The Chinese are already gloating about this.  They know that they are winning.  (They are more adept at maximalism than is Trump.)

During his first term, Trump failed spectacularly in his response to the Chinese crackdown on the Hong Kong protests.  So they already know that he is weak.

Trump wants to cut the US military budget and is actively destroying relationships with US allies.  

The PRC obviously wants Taiwan.  It is a matter of time before China makes a move, but Trump provides a possible opportunity for them to accelerate it.  It doesn't help to have a defense secretary who is clearly inept and unable to keep state secrets.

I405CA

It almost certainly already has. The era of empire building and mass global warfare ended after WW2 when we all decided to play nice together and build our economies based on international trade, rather than colonialism and resource extraction.

You don't go to war with your trade partners. The more trade partners we all have, the more peaceful the world becomes.

Jake0024

Trump tariffing china is the ultimate Karen boycott move.   LIke any other whiney boycott, either by conservatives or liberals, if the company still has buyers its a shit move.   China sells a LOT of things to a LOT of countries and are already making deals.   Losing the US market is a blow, though not critical or crucial.  China also has the benifit of not being beholden to its citizens.   If the trade war hurts chinese labrorers they dont have to care, a sitting president does.   At least that is my understanding of the situation between the two.

Fine-Assignment4342

I remember reading that last year was the greatest volume of military contracting and sales the US has ever done. Iirc, increasing by about 45% from the previous year. 

Keeping tensions elevated likely serves to boost those numbers. The US is running a wartime economy on a global scale, without officially declaring war.

Almost can’t avoid the idea of “Total War” at this point.

Van-garde

1. I don't think it is an outdated assumption. I don't want my trade partners to be bombed by anyone. Of course that doesn't mean that it will stop war, just makes it a dumber idea. There will always be some example of a provocation so great that the economic cost is deemed necessary, or some extreme desperation, or just plain stupidity, so it won't be an end to all wars, but it sure does help. 

2. He's just doing it for his base. His tariff strategy was say the economic order America set up for ourselves was unfair, raise tariffs, market went down, drop tariffs, market went up, and claim economic success. It's especially dumb with Canada BC he's the one that signed that "stupid" trade deal that he claims no one could be dumb enough to sign. Its literally his trade deal he's complaining about! 

3. Definitely. I don't see how it wouldn't weaken us. We maintain our position via the entire world being dependent on the us.

starswtt

1. History shows how mutually beneficial trade is good for global peace between major powers. It's not so much out-dated as it's being made irrelevant by misguided policy lead by Trump.  That being said, China is not innocent in this. They use their trade leverage to avoid any real international pushback against their extreme policies and single-party rule. With Taiwan, there's a lot keeping them from invading, not the least of which is Taiwan having "guns" pointed at mainland China (and self-destruction contingencies to keep their high tech manufacturing out of CCP hands). US support or not, the CCP is going to be very hesitant to move on that island (as much as they clearly want to). The best thing for China would be an economically isolated Taiwan and full control over the South China Sea (as in, US cedes the region by pulling out entirely). 

2. Trump's tariffs have already seen retaliation. There's no way to engage in this kind of economic hostility without provocation. If he weakens the military enough, that provocation could become violent. As in, people might try to take US assets by force. And realistically, the fallout from these tariffs will weaken the military (as will budget slashing, if they're honest about that which idk Republicans aren't historically effective at cutting budgets). As well as the dollar weakening further, which will hurt US international power. 

3. The biggest historical truth of the nuclear era that we need to fully comprehend is that it is entirely possible for two nuclear powers to engage in open warfare without the use of nukes. MAD becomes a deterrent solely to nuclear weapons, but not to war itself. Sure, a country like Russia tries using their nukes as a deterrent to invasion, but I think that's entirely a bluff. Especially given the risk of launching a nuke and having it shot down. Not only would you be on the hook for trying to nuke someone, it would be incredibly embarrassing and impotent. Not sure a country like Russia could handle any more of that. I think it's entirely possible for US et al. and China et al. to end up at war (who the others are, TBD) without nuclear weapons involved.

4. This is one of my largest concerns. I'm not sure how much the Trump administration will hurt the strength of our military, that's something that will take time and we're only like 3 months into this administration. The loose-lipped boozer currently parading as the Secretary of Defense certainly does not bode well. If things really deteriorate in the next few years, someone might try to take a bite out of the US, and Europe won't be there to help. And some of our current allies might wind up vulnerable, namely Japan. Without the omnipresence of the US military, and with the current rearming of Europe, things could get incredibly messy and unpredictable. I don't even know where to start. Possible EU fracture from historical cultural gripes, their relationships with Russia, China, and India shifting. India is a huge wildcard, and has their beefs with basically every neighbor. I think some people underestimate the stability US hegemony brought to much of the world (although at the expense of stability in quite a few places) just by centralizing the military deterrence with only one power you had to stay cool with. "Oh look, my neighbors can't attack me, but I can't attack them either, but w/e look at all this cool stuff we're buying." 

5. Can't really answer this one as I'm not a supporter. Their "no new wars" brag was hollow to begin with. Trump was president for four years. Pretty sure you can get a four year stretch in Obama's time where no new wars began. Even so, the wars largely had nothing to do directly with the US. Trump was lucky, the wars all started before he was in office. Not that he did jack to change it. Negotiated the surrender of Afghanistan to the Taliban, but didn't do much about any of the other myriad of wars going on elsewhere. Almost like they had little to do with the US. Like, Russia invading Ukraine wasn't because "Joe Biden was weak." He already knew the West's initial response was going to be to pull the elected government out of Ukraine and go from there. He did not anticipate Ukraine rallying the world behind them. He did not anticipate NATO in near-unison over their support for Ukraine. He expected Crimea 2.0, instead he's gotten three years of misery and death for his people. And Trump is struggling now to find "a deal" because the president of Ukraine is trying to get the best deal he can for Ukraine. Welcome to the art of negotiation; first time, Donnie?

Michael_G_Bordin

1. Economic interdependence between major powers like the US and China can indeed act as a deterrent to military conflict. The theory behind this is rooted in the idea that when two countries are economically tied, the costs of conflict become significantly higher than the benefits. For instance, both nations rely on each other for trade, investment, and supply chains. A military conflict could disrupt these economic ties, leading to severe repercussions for both economies, which would likely motivate leaders to seek diplomatic solutions instead of engaging in warfare. However, it's important to note that while economic ties can serve as a deterrent, they are not foolproof. Other factors, such as national security concerns, political ideology, and historical grievances, can still lead to tensions and conflicts despite strong economic relationships. Therefore, while economic interdependence can help reduce the chances of military conflict, it is just one of many factors that influence international relations.

2. Trump’s tariffs are disastrous and no serious economist disputes this. 

3. I would argue that the prelude to World War I and the economic tensions leading up to World War II. In both cases, trade disputes and economic rivalries contributed to rising tensions among nations. 

4. Yes, most certainly, and already is. 

5. It’s contradictory, though for anyone in the Trumpist cult, they’ll likely rationalize it and twist it in a way to suit their narrative just as they rationalized the Trump bombings in Somalia and Yemen recently.

Prevatteism

Apparently we're already anticipating way with China in 2027-2028 according to multiple cousins by Ryan Macbeth on YouTube.

djinbu

Unlikely. To put it simply the Chinese government is not stupid. They know that a war would be unrecoverable for them.

Spiritual-Jeweler690

No because the Chinese aren’t suicidal like individuals like Lindsey Graham and the rest of the Globalists in the Uniparty. The Chinese build bridges and ports, they are intelligent deal makers that embrace neutrality and non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other countries unlike the US, the US’s trade war with China just helps China, the Chinese will find another market and people to sell to, they’ll cut their losses and move on while Americans complain about why China is bad for acting smart.

CalligrapherOther510

Yes, certainly

Economic interdependence lowering the risk of violent conflict is one of the many many benefits of trade that we will continue to grow to appreciate only now that it is too late

CFSCFjr

Trump is not shrewd nor wise.   He is a clumsy, unprincipled buffoon who is destroying our most important policies and powers that made us great in the eyes of the world, and made us a world leader.   If he continues on this path he will isolate us, cause WWIII, and cause unprecedented worldwide turmoil and disaster.   Whether his policies with China will do it or something else he does will be the cause, is uncertain, but he is taking us down no matter.

Harbinger101010

Nah..Xi Jing ping is a little bitch. 

He's been threatening to invaded Taiwan for like a decade now and he doesn't have the balls. You think he has the balls to fuck with us military?

Please.

CantSeeShit

What is your basis for the "ASEAN Anti-China group"? As a Southeast Asian my guess is that we will not hard-align with either side.

[This](https://twitter.com/RQTurcsanyi/status/1606329446738399232?s=20&amp;t=qLS9aFt2Cz0wIDvTiH1C0w) is a recent survey of attitudes toward China. The survey was conducted by Europeans and reported on by western mainstream media. Note how 80% of Thais, 75% of Indonesians, 66% of Malaysians 63% of Singaporeans and 56% of Filipinos view China positively or very positively. Pretty consistent with my read on the ground - there are outspoken anti-China minorities, but collectively, the region is not anti-China.

This public opinion is reflected in policymaking - [here is a relevant speech by Singapore's foreign minister in November](https://youtu.be/KSudMqVi3r0?t=823): "Don't make us choose, we will refuse to choose". Similar statements have been made throughout the region.

jtcd

I think most would try to stay neutral, even many European countries. Other countries like Vietnam and Philippines would do everything to stay neutral. Why would they risk having their economies in total ruins and being bombed in exchange for nothing?
 
Japan and South Korea are tricky. Both trade so much with China that they would suffer tremendously. Japan follows the US in everything and is increasingly confrontational so they might go through at the end. South Korea on the other hand has literally nothing to gain as it's major concern is North Korea not China. They might even be willing to expell US pressence if they use their bases to strike China as this would mean retaliation.

Imo the most probably scenario is China vs USA, Taiwan, Japan, the UK and Australia(maybe). It will not evolve into a world war.

[deleted]

A war would involve, at a maximum, China fighting alone and with no allies, and the US only fighting with Taiwan, Australia, and Japan. Well near everyone else has been telegraphing their desire to be neutral in a war. The idea that Iran would, in any way, intervene in support of China is absurd since their interests are completely in different regions. China at this point has more invested in Saudi Arabia as well. Malaysia is at this point a Chinese "ally" in the region, but not a country that wants to enter the war either way. All the other ASEAN members, as well as South Korea and New Zealand, have loudly stated they want no part in a Sino-American War and would remain neutral. The EU and Russia are fighting their separate conflict, and neither of them have expressed any desire to get involved, economically or materially, in a conflict in Asia.

The only uncertain alignment is the Korean peninsula. South Korea has better relations with China at this point than North Korea does, and would not enter the war *unless* North Korea invades. North Korea might very well do this despite its diplomatic spiral with China since 2013, because it's a sinking ship and they might see a chance to reunify the peninsula by forcing China to intervene and do the job for them. As for whether China would actually do this, that is doubtful. The three possibilities are: 1) China intervenes on the side of North Korea and gives them their war-torn cake, 2) China stays out of it and there are two "parallel" conflicts in the Western Pacific: US-China and North-South Korea, or 3) China invades North Korea under cover of supporting a "coup" to stop the invasion, at which point a complicated diplomatic game begins where China is trying to trade Korean reunification under the South in exchange for the removal of US forces from Korea.

CynicalFrogfoot

No offence OP but I think Americans read way too much in trying to get allies to turn against China like its the avengers teaming up. Just a bit unrealistic imo.

AQ5SQ

Axis? ASEAN Anti-China group? Fucking _Georgia_? 

Is this what huffing paint feels like?

vistandsforwaifu

I have a strong suspicion if it comes down to a shooting war, no country other than the US will assist Taiwan militarily.  Japan and Australia may provide logistics/intel but I don't think they will risk personnel themselves.

Simian2

I'd say any war between China is unlikely until the 2040s. They're not stupid, they know they can't match the US at this time, but 2 more decades would bring them to parity in a lot of essential fields.

Nebraskan_Sad_Boi

Again with the west laying about China,just like they lied about arabs,people don’t know that almost all nations don’t trust or hate nato,there will be no win for the friendly countries around China that they will involve in such a thing,there is one country (in this time),and only one country that wnats to kill people and make wars,which is the usa,usa can say what ever it wants and it can try to stop China,it’s a free choice that they can have.

Quirky-Tomatillo5584

Others have explained it best, but under no circumstances would a Sino-US war blow up into a world war like this. 99% of these countries will not get involved when two elephants are thrashing around like that. There’s nothing to gain. OP, you really have to take a better look at the world, most countries are very hesitant to get themselves involved in a pissing match like this.

Walrussealy

lordavondale

MrMrOnTime

Are all these countries belligerents in the war or is t just the dark red and dark blue ones?
 
Frankly, the only thing that can lead to an open US-China war is a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Which I very much doubt that it will drag Europe, Russia, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East into it. The only ones I see directly intervening on the US side are the Quad members and maybe South Korea and the Chinese are by themselves. Everyone else are sitting that one out and probably just throwing sanctions and condemnations.

cipher_ix

If you take Russia away from that map China essentially has no powerful allies, as Pakistan is financially frail and gets Chinese jets and ships, while the US has the UK, France, Spain, Italy, South Korea and Japan and India slowly turning to the west. Also look at the Geography. China has close neighbors that they are not friendly with, such as Japan, South Korea, India and Australia. Then you look at the US side. No unfriendly neighbors at all and they have the Naval island chains. Hawaii, Guam, Philippines, SK and Japan. China has another problem. It has 1.4 billion people it needs to feed, while the US is only 350 million. Canada and Mexico is rich in natural recources for the US, as is Russia is for China, but the Chinese and the Russian self interests are so different the so called limitless cooperation comes into question.

DarkMatter00111

prizmaticanimals

The curbstomping of Serbia will be swift.

BiodegradableOffense

Why u guys still promoting war, do u have any clue when a war happens how it will end? Do you have clue how USSR fought with Nazi germany?   Chinese soldiers fought with Nazi Japan, soldiers ran toward enemy bare hand without weapons! They won those occasional wars because people were shocked how many they have killed with no weapons but more were coming still! American basically sitting outside the wwii and providing weapons if Japan’s didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor, they even not going to the war,but just earning money like right now, providing weapons to Ukrain, selling old version shit to Taiwan. And forced Holland not selling tech to China. Look back in 300years did China ever invaded anyone? Or outsource any revolution to other country? I don’t think China is innocent. But compare to US, sugar coated everything they have done, and calling themselves hero come on. Besides all these, look at Philippine , being “set free” by US see how good they are now? The whole country corrupted as fuck, people leaving home country for work, does US ever take care of them? Hell no! Hunting ben laden, but then side track raised war with Iraq, killing Hussein，then just left! That’s how ISIS became powerful , killing how many innocent people destroyed ancient landmark, and still so many countries support US politics?! Wake up and read some damn books please

Fit-Bobcat9379

I think it would correlate somewhat with figures 5 and 6 of the recent publication here: https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/publications/a-world-divided/

neuronexmachina

&gt;I’m open to being proven wrong, but I’m looking for objective, informed counterpoints, not ideological reactions.

Two things. First - if one was going to prepare for armed conflict, one would not be alienating all of one's closest allies. Trump alienating NATO doesn't make sense for collective responses. If an armed conflict arose with China, the US would need all of its bases including its NATO allies. But Trump and the people he has running things like the state department have been talking about unwinding military bases across the US.

More to the point - you certainly wouldn't want to alienate Japan and South Korea. But the US is doing that. I couldn't think of anything stronger in terms of counterpoint that the US would alienate key allies that would be instrumental in opening other fronts or even to stage attacks from.

Second - Trump calls it a "fiscal deficit" not a "trade deficit." Everything makes more sense when you realize that he doesn't know what a trade deficit is. Then you layer in that his chief advisor is Pete Navarro, who is out in left field on this issue. 

Trump chose him as an economic advisor because Trumps son in law liked the cover of his book. Incidentally, the experts that Navarro cites in his books is "Ron Vara" - a fictional person that is an anagram of "Navarro."

When you realize the source of Trump's understanding and Trump's chief advisor, then the moves make rational sense.

&gt;The center of gravity is shifting economically, militarily, diplomatically, toward preparing for a clash over control, access, and influence in Asia.

Yet, Trump's "America first" policies gives up control of Asia as well as the emerging markets wholly to China via isolating the US economically.

HazyAttorney

If the US is preparing for conflict with China and tariffs are a strategic move, how does tariffing your closest trade partners and pissing off all your allies fit into this strategy? 

Not only is the US pissing off China and imposing tariffs, it’s tariffing its allies and threatening the sovereignty of 2 of them. How is that useful?

couverte

I can’t speak to all the points, so I will specifically target 3 and 4. 

I think your argument for 3 (Tariffs give resilience later) could be true for SOME cases. However, the way the current administration has enacted tariffs has been TERRIBLE. We’ve tariffed our allies as well as our enemies. 
There are things that just CANT be made or done in the US. We don’t have as many raw materials as, say, Canada… yet we tariffed them making it harder to produce factories. Furthermore, we don’t have the skills in our general population to build things like batteries or even most manufacturing. To get these skills, we would have to make deals with allies and make it desirable for foreign experts to come to America… which we are now actively discouraging through so many ways (unsafe conditions for any immigrants, destroying goodwill with countries that have been historical allies, etc). 

This doesn’t even include the fact that the tariffs change so often that no one will invest in new factories until they know whether or not the tariffs are staying long term, meaning that the country is suffering for literally no reason.

Also, saying that wartime economies are built quietly is true. But applying that to the current administration is laughable. Nothing is quiet. 

For your number 4, the US economy wasn’t exposed. It was the leader of the world economy BECAUSE of our trade agreements with allies. We were the center of so many supply chains throughout the world, buying material, selling products, etc. Since WWII, we had propped up a system that put the US as the “leader of the free world,” through military power and economic power. Europe didn’t militarize, because the US had the massive military. We could use that fact in trades to get better deals to the point that we became the richest country in the world. Trump has dismantled all of that. Other countries are now militarizing because of our other actions. Other nations have started trading with china because of our actions. 

I think there is an argument to be had about tariffs being effective to prepare for war, but the way they are being enacted by the U.S. is doing the exact opposite.

BriefcaseBunny

But what if by engaging in tariffs you actually cause the Chinese to invade Taiwan?

Odd_Act_6532

What has Trump ever done that showed him capable of long term planning that benefits the United States? 

If this had been done without antagonizing our allies or by giving incentives to businesses to build factories here, this might be true.  However, it's not.  

One thing that we do have plenty of is the ability to manufacture arms.  Trump has impeded that by antagonizing our European allies.  Instead of continuing to use our weapons manufactures, they are turning to their own.

johnqpublic81

Preparing to move chip manufacturing to the US was something that started in the Biden administration.  I think that's a sensible move, to not have so much dependence on a critical resource in a country that is increasingly looking less stable in the long term.

But declaring tarriffs on Mexico, Canada, and the rest of the world, by (mis)using emergency powers in the middle of a non-emergency?

That ain't 4D chess.

jseego

You are bending over backwards to make this seem like a coherent strategy coming from the US. Just a week ago the Trump admin was proposing a 32% tariff against Taiwan which you are arguing the US wants to become it's greatest ally. Trump wants tariffs for tariffs sake. Have you considered that preparing for a war that never comes is unprepraring for peace and a waste of resources?

OmniManDidNothngWrng

A trade war is a form of war, and a state of cold war seems to be the unspoken reality.


Is your view about a hot war? Ie boots on the ground invasion? 


What kind of conflict are you actually envisioning here? 

Dry_Bumblebee1111


I think the strongest argument against your position is the ubiquity of these tariffs. To your point, Biden maintained tariffs on China specifically. Why is this strategically valuable for Trump to go back-and-forth on tariffs against every other trading partner we have? There’s nothing to suggest that this “strategy” for lack of a better word has any value in changing trade relationships as they pertain to China. In what way is it strategically advantageous to impose trade barriers to Canada? Mexico? How does it better position the US in regard to Taiwan to damage relationships with well established allies in the event of a coming conflict? 

Furthermore, the Trump administration’s position on Ukraine weakens the US in regard to a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan. In what significant way would that be different? The Chinese have consistently maintained an historical claim to the land much as Russia has with Ukraine. So what justification would the US have to intervene in Taiwan if they are actively arguing that our involvement in Ukraine is unjustified? 

Ultimately, if you presented your case in a vacuum wherein other trade policy and other foreign policy were not contextually valuable, it might suggest what you argue but in the wider scope it seems unlikely that there is any particular underlying strategy but rather a general incompetence in regard to trade dynamics and international relations.

ChazzLamborghini

So first of all, tariffs are just not the right way to safeguard industries important to national security: subsidies and public works programs are. That's why the US massively subsidizes the agriculture industry rather than enacting a tariff on food. That's why the US built a national interstate program, rather than using a tariff. That's why the US had, until recently, massively subsidized science and engineering funding relevant to the national defense, rather than enacting a tariff on foreign technology and weapons. Subsidies are the established way to achieve this resilience with a track record of success.

Secondly, any sensible wartime strategy must involve gathering allies. Tariffs on our allies that alienate us from them (and encourage trade with China rather than with us) make no sense as a wartime strategy.

yyzjertl

I think you are imagining the US admin is too clever.

Trump has been very clear. He wants tariffs because he wants to re-shore jobs back to the USA. It was a central tenet of his policy.

The only ulterior motive seems to be that he thinks he can use the threat of tariffs to extract concession. That’s kind of an obvious “zero sum game” theory. Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he lacks the ability to comprehend a “non zero sum” game

I see no evidence that deeper or more strategic thinking is occurring. He isn’t even really girding his followers for a conflict. He has repeatedly called out the leaders involved in conflict as “stupid”

PuckSenior

In the Art of War, a great portion of analysis goes into the preparations and strategies which give an army advantages over another. Let’s use The Art of War as a neutral 3rd party by which we can analyze Trump’s readiness for war.

1. “He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.”: To save 1,000 words, let’s put many of Sun Tzu’s specific ideas under the heading of this quote. A winning army often wins before the battle even begins.

China is more secretive and agile, since it can move unilaterally and without regard to political and command structures. While the US may have had the right idea to begin squeezing, China has already been on the battlefield, as you acknowledge. That means moving soundlessly to begin a counter assault of economic and diplomatic back stabbing may have helped us make up ground.

Instead, Trump’s brash actions—literal “Sabre rattling”—have put the “enemy” to full readiness. We may be prepared when the time comes, but we have warned China to be ready too. They escape year 1 of Trumps presidency with their head start in tact. China gets a W on “preparation”

2. Principle of the battleground: This will be a world war so let’s evaluate the battleground. Israel is a solid ally. Syria has been retaken. Taiwan and Japan are still with us, if confused. We barely have Europe. China has expanded into South America and Africa, but SA is probably a draw at this point. Canada and Australia are part of our “coalition of the unwilling”…for now. That leaves Ukraine/Russia; in your concept, the US is probably trying to swing Russia to our side of a potential conflict through appeasement. Putin will play all sides and help no one. Slight edge to the US here.

3. “Principle of the leader”: Trump is a zero in wisdom, integrity, trustworthiness, benevolence, or love. I’ll grant him a passing grade in courage and strategy just to be more than fair. Xi gets an incomplete on all categories. There is no fair, complete discussion of China in the public sphere. 

The US actually has a negative in having “a choleric leader” who can be easily “irritate(d)”. 

Ultimately, I award neither any points and may God have mercy on us all.

If the US had done anything quietly then I might see us as better prepared. If Trump had chosen a DOD leader with the values he lacks (battlefield experience, temperance, impassioned commitment to something bigger than themself) I might see us better prepared. If Trump had any ability to be a unifying force, I could see it. 

I don’t see any evidence that we are better prepared for a world war under his leadership. Alienating allies would be the LAST thing a country preparing for war would do. This isnt a nation preparing a new international strategy, it’s a mafia style bust out if a bunch of the store owners told you to GTFO when you tried to squeeze them for protection money.

rippa76

If anyone in the administration had an IQ above their age I'd consider it, but considering who these people actually are you'd have to first convince me there was some kind of dark puppet masters influencing policy towards these means. 

It just stinks of desperately trying to rationalize the unreasonable and illogical fumblings of incompetents.

Now let's give you the benefit of the doubt then one could argue that isolationist dictators around the world believe a collapse of the world community is inevitable so they are consciously decoupling and shoring up self sufficiency to survive post ww3 or global climate change or whatever.

If that's the case this is still the stupidest way possible to go about it.  A smart person makes plans and invests in the new home before he destroys his old home. This! What we see happening, is easiest to explain by shear stupidity and hubris.

apost8n8

OK - first of all, you said "don't say orange man bad" and then used a whole lot of words to suggest "orange man playing super strategic 3D chess" which seems a bit disingenuous.

*Tariffs now, resilience later: Yes, tariffs disrupt trade and raise prices. But they also force strategic independence. The U.S. is using them to push companies and investors away from Chinese supply chains and toward domestic or allied production.*

This is where your argument falls apart. There is no real push toward domestic production. What strategic moves are ensuring that factories are rapidly built here, other than semiconductors (which was something started by the Biden Admin, not orange man)?

What preparation was done before enacting tariffs to ensure that we had the supplies needed to jumpstart factory production? Where was the skilled worker training? 

Of the contracts ended by DOGE, 60%  were with US small businesses. How does this make us resilient? 43% of the SBA was laid off and now the SBA is supposed to administer student loans - how does that improve our manufacturing capability?

Also, what allied countries? We're literally going out of our way to piss off Mexico and Canada. We've pissed off big chunks of Europe. Pulling out of NATO helps us with a war with China how? I guess we're better friends with El Salvador but I'm not clear on how that's supposed to help us fight China.

The amount of stretching done to justify these tariffs is impressive.

MeanestGoose

If the goal was to push supply chains to domestic and ally nations then, why were they tariffs applied to friendly nations before the 90-day pause?

10luoz

I think you're on the right track, but being a little bit dramatic.

  
Tariffs and protectionism have historically been used to protect and safeguard geopolitical interests (such as having competitive industry on shore, for the say, production of naval ships)

  
This doesn't mean China and the USA are going to war-- but yes, decoupling is good for geopolitical independence-- and ironically, less reliance on one another also means going to war is a lot easier.

  
In a similar vain, I think you consider the Trump administration all too intelligent (you're overcrediting, per se). While the side effect of his policy is certainly good for geopolitical moves, you should consider that the exemption for high-tech goods is not aligned with this vision of a manufacturing, domestic, America.

ice0rb

If that true and trump really wants to bring Chinese type industrial labor to the US, why would he focus on deporting immigrants who make up a lot of the US physical labor force? Why would he also start a trade war with our two closest allies? Deporting your most sensible labor force is not sound when you want to bring heavy industrial jobs back to the US. Distancing yourself from your closest allies isn’t sound when you are planning to start a war with one of the most powerful countries in the planet.

WaterboysWaterboy

The fundamental problem is that you are assuming these tariffs have a **STRATEGY**.  That has been demonstrated to not be the case.  There has been no diplomacy.  No negotiations.  We turned them on.  Then we turned them off.  Then we put selective timers in place.  Then we gave some exemptions. At best, it has been unplanned, unilateral action that has DAMAGED the US.  At worst, it's actually just a ploy by the administration to be able to bully US corporations (like Apple).

The stock market is not king of all things, but we have seen \~$5 TRILLION dollars of value erased.  That is a reflection of future earnings and overall American corporate strength.  The Chinese stock market has lost money too - but not nearly as much.

You don't "prep for war" by damaging your economy. You also don't "prep for war" by isolating all of your allies. You don't "prep for war" by creating conflict on multiple fronts.  And this is not "partisan histrionics".  You don't "prep for war" by raging against the fed (and further damaging the market).  This is coming from a 20+ stock investor who has a 7 figure portfolio.

I am happy to debate the validity of tariffs.  And, there are places they can make strategic sense.  If Trump had came out and said, "We want to strengthen our partnership with Europe and other countries" while also saying "together, we will put pressure on China to compete more fairly/etc" along with gradual, planned tariffs - I would hail him as fighting the good fight.  In fact, this is exactly what Obama was trying to do with the Trans-Atlantic Partnership.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the US cannot compete with China alone.  This idea that America rules the world is DONE.  China has caught up.  They are owning the South Pacific and there is nothing we can do about it. The Chinese people are used to suffering.  The American people are not.  We will not have a "hot war" and we do not have the economic power to win a trade war unless we can create a strong alliance with countries that share our values.

RandomizedNameSystem

I don’t think the main goal of the tariffs are to boost domestic manufacturing, or if they are they are a poor strategy. 
If tariffs were a critical part of the strategy to bring back domestic production, why is Trump using them as a bargaining chip for trade deals or other political concessions? He’s already paused his tariffs several times.

Tariffs can incentivize domestic production. But it’s not a guarantee, in fact while tariffs can be a tool to protect existing industries, I’m extremely skeptical that it can ever bring back large scale industry that has already left. And certainly having a flat tariff on anything won’t promote any particular industries to return. Remember, it’s not just the buildings that are gone but also the labor talent, the supply and distribution lines, etc. It’s also very painful in the short term and comes with lots of other risks. Other factors, like a chaotic economy, trade wars (which lead to less exports and more difficult access to international markets) are going to discourage investors to avoid building factories in the US. Think about it…why would you invest in a factory in the US if you can’t sell your products in any other countries? 

Something like the bipartisan CHIPS act is a much better model. This is something that Trump has criticized…simply because it was a Biden initiative. 

I think the reason for the tariffs are much simpler and short term. Trump seems to be using them to 1) try and renegotiate these so call trade deals/deficits that he is so obsessed with and 2) fund his tax cuts and increased spending 3) they are the strongest economic tool he can use without going through Congress. 4) he can use them to manipulate the stock market for insider trading. I don’t agree with these policies either but they seem like the only consistent explanation for his actions.

sawdeanz

War is always likely.

Not that I mean with China, nor that I mean that tariffs are anything useful. But what I do mean is that I was in the military, mind you I served as a Chaplain and continue to be one. So, while I am not actually very political and nobody cared about my strategic views. I do know how the military works and I have been a place or two. 

Honestly, any war that would happen between the US and China in your scenario is unwinnable for either side. This would be the kind of war that everyone would lose. Two nuclear powers do not go to open war against each other and have a winner. Everyone loses that war.   
  
Kind of like the fever dream civil war dreams that get discussed on here. Nobody wins that kind of war either. Ask Syria.   
  
But on China vs USA in the fever dream 2025 matchup, two strong, nuclear capable countries going to war ends in a very large reduction in global population and a temperature spike. Thankfully we are no longer dealing with Hydrogen ordinance so the fallout wouldn't be exactly what is portrayed in movies, but we absolutely set the world back into the dark ages.   
  
Your more likely candidate for a war is Iran btw. Which would also pull in other countries but likely not a head on battle between two nuclear powers.   
  
Anyway, tariffs are stupid and so would be a war between the US and China.

yo-momma-joke-here

It makes sense that if all trade negotiation failed, and US economy goes into recession (which is already happening), there will be motivation for US to open a hot war to force China to open its financial&amp; trade market... but i just think the US can't afford it at this moment...

First of all, the US manufactory is very inefficient compare with china, it has been talked for years that US wants manufactory back, but in reality, very few business want to make it in USA, it costs too much, companies don't want to do it by themselves. Even with a high tariff with china, it will still take years to build factory and the supply chain in the US... if US open hot war with China at this point, and China stop supply goods with US completely, US economy will still be hit....

Secondly, if Russia is winning the war with Ukraine, China and Russia may work together to prevent US influence in Asia, it will cost US more...

by the way, I am from China, live in the US for a few years... i see the tension there, I believe only by a tough policy with China may lead to a trade deal...if there is no deal, there will be chaos on the US side...

ruanhaibing

China cannot project force beyond their current sphere of influence. They can build all the shitty ships they want, those ships will never make it halfway across the Pacific if a war was breaking out, our sub fleet will sink them all in a week. 

&gt; that war is highly unlikely

War is highly highly highly unlikely. The US can tee off on China from afar, and China cannot respond in kind. There is no way China starts a war with the US, and there is no *real* reason for the US to start one with China. War would be disastrous to both, but more so for China. 

&gt;these policies won’t actually improve U.S. readiness

These policies are currently alienating us from our historical allies. This alienation, and the growing calls to stop cooperating with the US on issues of international security are nothing but a detriment to US combat effectiveness.

destro23

Ka0tik10

4 exposed to what? We're the premier economy in the world with the de facto world currency. We planned the long supply lines, we sent the factories to China. This was all our idea. 

You know what I was financially exposed to last year?

20% returns. I just didn't know how bad I had it I guess

No_Bend_2902

I kinda think they want a war with China to lazily try and rally the country and distract us all from the fleecing they are doing to us right now.  Wag the dog if you will.

Problem is the military is VERY divided on Trump so sending troops fight might not work like he thinks this time.

I've only got hope... hope that someone sane will be in the driving seat before everyone thinks they're tooled up enough to win - whatever winning WWIII would look like.

HeronInteresting9811

2 pretty sure the administration cancelled CHIP act which was gonna bring those factories here. Not what is call a winning strategy.

You are right. Trump has been ham-handed in the way he has gone about doing this - but this is roughly right.

houstonrice

I really don’t think it’s that deep

This is just a stubborn narcissist with power and no regard for consequences surrounded by opportunistic sell outs

TheTragedy0fPlagueis

Americans can't stand any other country becoming bigger than them. Of course there will be war. I really hope China and Russia kicks their ass

IntelligentPipe4704

Makes perfect sense to project strength now. 
Trump is weak, and his treatment of partners and allies allows China to strengthen their position and influence. 

China may be bad, but at least they are a stable business partner - Trump is not. 

If I were Taiwanese, I would be very nervous.

Significant_Swing_76

This post highlights a recent statement from the Chinese Embassy in the U.S., signaling a strong and confrontational stance towards American economic and trade policies. The language used—particularly the framing of tariff and trade disputes as "war"—reflects the intensifying geopolitical tensions between China and the U.S. As economic competition and diplomatic conflicts escalate, such rhetoric raises concerns about the potential for further economic decoupling or even broader strategic rivalry. How should we interpret this message in the context of current U.S.-China relations, and what are the implications for global trade and stability?

MGumbley

All things aside, this is a badass statement.

China has the added advantage of it not being a democracy. They can stomach a bit of inflation that the US cannot. When the average American start feeling the pain of unnecessary trade wars, Trump‘s popularity will be over in no time.

Responsible_Tea4587

The chatter between the US and China is really like a couple who have been married for 50 years, absolutely despise each other but love their kids (aka the economy) and the kids still live at home.

TheJacques

xXRazihellXx

This is the result of trumps non logical nonsense attacks on friend and foe alike. China has realized they can’t rationally deal with the man. 


Trumps lack of mental abilities and going back on deals make it so now nobody wants to make a deal on tariffs.

PlutosGrasp

China might see the current situation as its window of opportunity. With the ongoing rift between the USA and its allies, and before the US has moved more military assets to the region, the risk of conflict is probably much higher now.

aventus13

If I’m Taiwan I’m nervous, trump has demonstrated he won’t show up for our allies

MrM1Garand25

China will have to find another place that's rich enough to buy it's output. Xi needs to keep people working otherwise idle minds tend to think and he doesn't want that with that large a populace. Their social contract is to give the CCP complete control and we'll let you share in the wealth.. well right now Xi has a young generation that can't find work, and worse yet, doesn't want to marry and have children. China can talk tough but Xi is really in a balancing act.

chi-Ill_Act_3575

China is like, "If we're going to do this, let's do this while the amateurs are in charge in the US."

blackbow99

There is a reason the US wants to leave Europe to the Europeans. It's to address Xi.

Former-Replacement43

US has a huge trade deficit with China. China will come out on top because of high tariffs and its the American consumers and corporations who will bear the burden of high costs.

AIM-120-AMRAAM

China will have to find another place that's rich enough to buy it's output. Xi needs to keep people working otherwise idle minds tend to think and he doesn't want that with that large a populace. Their social contract is to give the CCP complete control and we'll let you share in the wealth.. well right now Xi has a young generation that can't find work, and worse yet, doesn't want to marry and have children. China can't talk tough but Xi is really threading a needle.

Good. The EU should seek closer ties with China and start coordinating against the US.

DrKaasBaas

What is an example of a nation that was not ready to fight till the end?

a_day_with_dave

G00berBean

Should EU ally with China? Perhaps with some demands like Taiwan and Tibet safety? Not in terms of ideology, but in terms of live and let live and world peace - power projection and deterence for wars.

Bloody_Ozran

The US-China trade dispute has escalated with the US implementing new trade restrictions and tariffs, provoking a strong response from China. This development strains relations between the two largest global economies, impacting international trade and economic policies.

US-China Trade Dispute Escalation 2025

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want