Paul Dibb, in hisrecentStrategistpost, writes that Americas strategic position in Asia would be fatally undermined if it didnt go to war with China if China attacked Taiwan, and that Australias alliance with America would be fatally undermined if we didnt then go to war with China too. The conclusion he draws is that, in the event of an unprovoked Chinese attack on Taiwan, America should go to war with China, and so should Australia.

I think Dibbs premises are correct, but his conclusion is wrong. Failing to come toTaiwans aid would seriously weaken and perhaps destroy Americas position in Asia, and our alliance with America would be seriously weakened if not destroyed if we failed to support the US. But it doesnt follow that either America or Australia should therefore go to war with China to defend Taiwan.

That depends on who would win the war. Such a war, like any war, would be a calculus of uncertainties, but at the very least one could say that a swift, cheap and decisive US victory over China would be very unlikely. Americas military power is very great, but Chinas military power, and especially its capacity to deny its air and sea approaches to US forces, has grown sharply, and is now formidable.

China also has big advantages of location and resolve: Taiwan is closer to China than to America, and it matters more to the Chinese. And any hopes that US nuclear forces would swing the balance back Americas way run up against Chinas capacity to retaliate in kind, and the risk of a nuclear exchange targeting US cities would at least have to be considered by US leaders in deciding to go to war.

These sombre facts would have to be taken into account in Washington and Canberra in any deliberations about war. They imply that the choice in both capitals would not be the simple one that Dibb suggestsa choice between going to war and preserving the US-led order in Asia or stepping back and destroying it. A long, costly and indecisive USChina war would destroy the regional order anyway, because Americas leadership in Asia wouldnt survive a war with China.

Most probably it would lead to Americas withdrawal from Asiajust as its long, indecisive but far less costly wars in the Middle East have led it to withdraw from that region. If so, Australias alliance with America would wither too. So the real choice Washington would face would be to abandon its position in Asia by fighting China, or by not fighting China. Given the cost and risks of war with a nuclear power, it is easy to see which America_should_choose, and I think probably_would_choose.

Dibbs counterargument is that America was willing to fight a nuclear war to save West Germany from the Soviets in the Cold War. Thats a compelling argument to the extent that Chinas ambitions today pose as big a threat to America as the Soviets did in the Cold War. It was the fear that the expansion of Soviet power would threaten the survival of America itself which drove US leaders and voters to accept the risk of nuclear war to make containment work. I dont think that China poses a similar threat today, which is why I dont think America should fight China over Taiwan.

But do Americans believe that China poses a similar threat today? Thats actually the big question that underlies the entire future of Americas position in Asia in the face of Chinas ambitions, and it deserves closer scrutiny. So far it seems not, because for all the tough talk from Vice President Mike Pence and others in recent months, no US political leader has tried to convince Americans that they should be willing to fight a nuclear war with China. Indeed, US policy as set out in the2018 nuclear posture reviewdoesnt even acknowledge Americas vulnerability to Chinese nuclear forces. Wed be wise not to assume that the Americans would risk a nuclear war with China until they say they are willing to do so.

If this is wrong and America chose war, I think its clear that Australia would be better off staying out of it. Iraq should have taught us that it makes no sense to support an ally in a war it cant win, and the stakes are much higher this time.

Finally, a minor point. Whether our commitments under the ANZUS treaty cover Taiwan is not quite as clear as Dibb suggests. No doubt Washington believes that it does, and clearly expects us to support the US in a conflict. To the contemporary policymaker this is what matters, which is why I agree with Dibb that failing to support America would be fatal to the alliance.

But that requirement is not evident in the text of the treaty itself, at least as interpreted by the foremost legal authority on the matter, J.G. Starke, in his book_The__ANZUS Treaty Alliance_. He says its clear from the context that Pacific Area in Article 4 doesnt include Taiwan, because Australia didnt want it to.

Hugh Whiteis emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University. .