Follow us on social

Is China's military the Goliath it's portrayed to be?

Is China's military the Goliath it's portrayed to be?

A new report details how the conventional wisdom about the challenges posed by the PLA is often incomplete and unpersuasive.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

In recent years China’s military has become not only stronger and more capable, but also in a variety of areas, including the South China Sea and the Taiwan Straits, more assertive. In this light, it is only prudent that the United States remain engaged in the region and, along with its allies, maintains robust military capabilities.

At the same time, decisions about where, when and how to respond to the challenge posed by China, and particularly its military capabilities, should rest on a clear and dispassionate understanding of that challenge built on thorough and rigorous analysis. Unfortunately, along too many critical dimensions, such analysis by the U.S. national security community is currently lacking.

These shortcomings include the unsettling degree to which assessments of the Chinese military challenge have devoted enormous attention to various Taiwan contingencies and, by comparison, remarkably little attention to the Chinese military’s capacity — or lack thereof — to directly conquer or coerce any of the major powers in the region, such as Japan, India, Australia, South Korea, and Indonesia.

Worse yet, current assessments have increasingly equated defending Taiwan, and other relatively small nearby economies, with preventing Chinese regional hegemony. In fact, and as I detailed in a recent brief for the Quincy Institute, surprisingly little analytical effort has gone into exploring, let alone convincingly making, this case. Conversely, there is substantial evidence suggesting the enormous difficulties the Chinese military would face in attempting to defeat or coerce other major powers in the region.

While the Indo-Pacific today is roughly comparable to Europe during the 20th century in terms of its relative economic importance, it is composed of a far vaster area. Much of the economic power of the region outside of China is separated from that country by seas and ocean often measured in distances of hundreds or even thousands of miles. Advances in technology, including precision-guided munitions, have greatly increased the difficulty — if not essentially eliminated the possibility entirely — of invasion and physical occupation as a plausible means for China to pursue military conquest in at least the distant essentially maritime areas of the region.

Moreover, most open-source analysis suggests that Taiwan — a relatively small (in terms of population, wealth, and size) island lying only roughly 100 miles off the coast of mainland China — would, at least with assistance from the U.S. military, likely be able to defeat an attempted seaborne invasion by China, or alternatively, withstand an attempt to coerce Taiwan through blockade or bombardment.

If so, it is difficult to credit the Chinese military with the capacity to successfully execute such strategies against, comparably assisted, much larger and wealthier countries in the Western Pacific located many hundreds or thousands of miles from China. It is also worth noting that a major war in Western Pacific would likely pose a serious danger to the Chinese economy — which is hugely dependent on seaborne trade — as well.

Of course, not all the major powers in the Indo-Pacific region that might, in theory, fall prey to Chinese military aggression are relatively distant maritime powers. Most obviously, India shares a long land border with China. However, India is largely separated from China by a broad and inhospitable mountain range, has a formidable military, including a substantial nuclear arsenal, and an economy that by 2050 may be as much as three-quarters as large as China’s.

Perhaps for these reasons, few U.S. assessments of the Chinese military challenge focus on the possibility of such a conflict. And, yet, if China’s ability to use its military power to coerce India is, indeed, severely limited, it becomes far more difficult to imagine a realistic scenario in which China is able to use its military power to establish regional hegemony.

In short, the Chinese military certainly represents a complex challenge for the United States and its friends and allies in the Indo-Pacific. But the notion that China is on a path to establishing itself as a regional hegemon through military conquest and intimidation, and that Taiwan is the lynchpin in preventing such dominance, rests on a weak analytical foundation.

This does not mean that the United States should turn a blind eye to Chinese aggression in the region. There may well be situations in which, for example, the defense of Taiwan or other minor countries in the region, or at least active assistance short of direct military support, represents a prudent choice. But the policy responses chosen should rest on a clear-eyed and dispassionate understanding of the strategic situation, and what is and is not at stake.

Unfortunately, at present the conventional wisdom falls well short of supporting U.S. policymakers with such an understanding.


humphery / Shutterstock.com

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
US Marines
Top image credit: U.S. Marines with Force Reconnaissance Platoon, Maritime Raid Force, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, prepare to clear a room during a limited scale raid exercise at Sam Hill Airfield, Queensland, Australia, June 21, 2025. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Alora Finigan)

Cartels are bad but they're not 'terrorists.' This is mission creep.

Military Industrial Complex

There is a dangerous pattern on display by the Trump administration. The president and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth seem to hold the threat and use of military force as their go-to method of solving America’s problems and asserting state power.

The president’s reported authorization for the Pentagon to use U.S. military warfighting capacity to combat drug cartels — a domain that should remain within the realm of law enforcement — represents a significant escalation. This presents a concerning evolution and has serious implications for civil liberties — especially given the administration’s parallel moves with the deployment of troops to the southern border, the use of federal forces to quell protests in California, and the recent deployment of armed National Guard to the streets of our nation’s capital.

keep readingShow less
Howard Lutnick
Top photo credit: Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on CNBC, 8/26/25 (CNBC screengrab)

Is nationalizing the defense industry such a bad idea?

Military Industrial Complex

The U.S. arms industry is highly consolidated, specialized, and dependent on government contracts. Indeed, the largest U.S. military contractors are already effectively extensions of the state — and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is right to point that out.

His suggestion in a recent media appearance to partially nationalize the likes of Lockheed Martin is hardly novel. The economist John Kenneth Galbraith argued for the nationalization of the largest military contractors in 1969. More recently, various academics and policy analysts have advocated for partial or full nationalization of military firms in publications including The Nation, The American Conservative, The Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP), and The Seattle Journal for Social Justice.

keep readingShow less
Modi Trump
Top image credit: White House, February 2025

Trump's India problem could become a Global South crisis

Asia-Pacific

As President Trump’s second term kicked off, all signs pointed to a continued upswing in U.S.-India relations. At a White House press conference in February, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke of his vision to “Make India Great Again” and how the United States under Trump would play a central role. “When it’s MAGA plus MIGA, it becomes a mega partnership for prosperity,” Modi said.

During Trump’s first term, the two populist leaders hosted rallies for each other in their respective countries and cultivated close personal ties. Aside from the Trump-Modi bromance, U.S.-Indian relations have been on a positive trajectory for over two decades, driven in part by mutual suspicion of China. But six months into his second term, Trump has taken several actions that have led to a dramatic downturn in U.S.-India relations, with India-China relations suddenly on the rise.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.