Follow us on social

google cta
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
google cta
google cta

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

google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Panama invasion 1989
Top photo credit: One of approximately 100 Panamanian demonstrators in favor of the Vatican handing over General Noriega to the US, waves a Panamanian and US flag. December 28, 1989 REUTERS/Zoraida Diaz

Invading Panama and deposing Noriega in 1989 was easy, right?

Latin America

On Dec. 20, 1989, the U.S. military launched “Operation Just Cause” in Panama. The target: dictator, drug trafficker, and former CIA informant Manuel Noriega.

Citing the protection of U.S. citizens living in Panama, the lack of democracy, and illegal drug flows, the George H.W. Bush administration said Noriega must go. Within days of the invasion, he was captured, bound up and sent back to the United States to face racketeering and drug trafficking charges. U.S. forces fought on in Panama for several weeks before mopping up the operation and handing the keys back to a new president, Noriega opposition leader Guillermo Endar, who international observers said had won the 1989 election that Noriega later annulled. He was sworn in with the help of U.S. forces hours after the invasion.

keep readingShow less
Trump Central Asia
Top image credit: U.S. President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Senator Jim Risch (R-ID) attend a dinner with the leaders of the C5+1Central Asian countries of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., November 6, 2025. REUTERS/Nathan Howard

Central Asia doesn't need another great game

Asia-Pacific

The November 6 summit between President Donald Trump and the leaders of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan in Washington, D.C. represents a significant moment in U.S.-Central Asia relations (C5+1). It was the first time a U.S. president hosted the C5+1 group in the White House, marking a turning point for U.S. relations with Central Asia.

The summit signaled a clear shift toward economic engagement. Uzbekistan pledged $35 billion in U.S. investments over three years (potentially $100 billion over a decade) and Kazakhstan signed $17 billion in bilateral agreements and agreed to cooperate with the U.S. on critical minerals. Most controversially, Kazakhstan became the first country in Trump's second term to join the Abraham Accords.

keep readingShow less
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Golden Dome, mission impossible

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.