"War is the unfolding of miscalculations," as astutely described by the late American historian Barbara Tuchman.

She understood how seemingly insignificant infringements of political opponents may jointly compound and lead to disastrous consequences. A slight oversight, mere misstep or even a minor gaffe has the cataclysmic prospect to set off an unpredictable chain of events leading to conflict. And, once the steeds of war are unleashed, it’s difficult to turn the beast around – even if combatants are committed to ending hostilities.

After all, wars have their own logic altogether. As Barbara Gray and Jill Purdy argue, the increasingly complex, multi-stakeholder and inter-connected world has the potential to intensify the war, making it more difficult to resolve when interests collide. Such a frightening scenario is emerging in the South China Sea. The United States-China rivalry, in tit-for-tat military maneuvers, is edging ever closer to a clash that will undoubtedly engulf the globe.

The origins of the current state of affairs began with U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's controversial visit to Taiwan, which China considers part of its territory. Pelosi’s visit to the self-governing island was the first by a sitting House of Representatives Speaker in 25 years. Predictably, China aggressively condemned what they described as "seriously interfering in China’s internal affairs" and announced four days of military drills around Taiwan. Also, China’s Foreign Ministry announced it would suspend climate change talks, a major area of cooperation with the U.S.

Responding, the White House summoned the Chinese ambassador to the U.S., Qin Gang, and condemned China’s "irresponsible military activities." Things cooled for a couple of months and culminated in the much-hyped three-hour meeting between U.S. President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping during the G-20 summit in Indonesia’s Bali Island. Afterward, Biden described the talks as "open and candid," and there was hope that better sense prevailed. Then, in a dramatic escalation, China launched a series of aggressive war games on Dec. 25, 2022. Following that, on Dec. 28, 2022, Biden announced a 180 million military aid package to Taiwan. The intensification continued with the USS Chung-Hoon, a U.S. Navy destroyer, traversing the Taiwan Straits on Jan. 5, which led to China sending dozens of warplanes across Taiwan in a military drill. The back-and-forth military maneuvering was rapidly worsening tensions.

Days later, making matters worse, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) released a report by Cancian et. al. (2023) entitled "The First Battle of the Next War: Wargaming a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan." This report, following a series of simulations, predicts the "most likely" outcome of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Bluntly put, China loses. Of course, the report qualifies this by saying the U.S., Taiwan and Japan collectively confront China, and suffer heavy casualties. Indeed, a section of the report cautions the U.S. to avoid a "Pyrrhic victory," which means a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat. Yet, in the end, the heroic resistance of the Taiwanese against China is what turns the tide of war.

However, according to scholars Fang-Yu Chen, Austin Wang, Charles K.S. Wu and Yao-Yuan Ye, that is unlikely since a significant portion of Taiwanese society supports the status quo, and would lean to avoid war. What is so important to highlight is that the report admits to several assumptions. It assumes there will be no interventions on the Chinese side, even though Japan is heavily involved. The Taiwanese will unite against China, even though many would shun a war considering the devastation that it would bring. Another assumption is that the primary method of invasion would be amphibious and that an "air assault with helicopters is limited to the extreme west of Taiwan due to range considerations..." Yet, this is false. A typical helicopter may fly between 250-500 miles on a single tank, whereas certain military models can fly up to 1,000 miles. The distance between mainland China and Taiwan is merely 100 miles. In other words, there are serious drawbacks to this report.

Yet, most egregiously, the report's shortcoming is the manner it, inadvertently or otherwise, encourages war. It does so by presenting what it describes as a convincing methodology – albeit based on several assumptions, to conclude swift U.S. action against China, along with Taiwan and Japan, would result in victory. However, by putting together a rather fantastical scenario in which the stars align so perfectly for the military troika of Japan, the U.S. and Taiwan, it can be arguably accused of encouraging military adventurism. Strangely, the report does not comment on the role North Korea would play. How would it retaliate? What are the probabilities of it doing so? All of these questions remain unanswered.

In the preceding months, China has held several military drills near Taiwan and Japan. The U.S.-China fighter jets are constantly harassing one another, as are their navy ships. Recently, the USS Nimitz was patrolling in the Taiwan Straits and, in response, China resorted to aggressive military drills sending two of its own navy battleships to tail the destroyer. Now, the latest tale in this sordid escapade is that of the killer Chinese espionage balloon, which is being spun by buffoons who insist to drag all of us into war. This precarious situation is unsustainable. Both countries are walking a dangerous, fine line and the slightest of miscalculations can lead to a major confrontation that will certainly expand the theatre of war.

As the well-known African adage goes, "when elephants fight, it's the grass that suffers."