Just a few weeks ago, the Atlantic Council posted a caustic headline that bleated, “In a war against China, the US could quickly exhaust its weapons.” Their solution is “A new Indo-Pacific defense initiative.” 

Sadly, the Atlantic Council is only half correct. 

Indeed, had you been reading anything I’ve written for the last three years you’d already know about the staggering drain of critical weapons stores the U.S. military has been made to endure (due to increased demand being met with a hopelessly sclerotic national defense industrial base). 

No more multilateral bureaucracies, please

The solution, contrary to what the bureaucrats in DC think, is not to create more multilateral regional bureaucracies. Already, the attempt to create a “NATO of the Indo-Pacific” in things like the much-ballyhooed Quadrilateral (Quad) partnership consisting of the United States, India, Japan, and Australia or the meandering Australia-United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS) nuclear submarine construction consortium has floundered.

In fact, these attempts at regional defensive alliances, while admirable, are looking as wasteful as the old Southeast Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) alliance that the Americans crafted during the Cold War.

America’s problem is not a lack of allies in the region. Nor is its problem a lack of multilateral bureaucracy that mirrors the byzantine (and outdated) NATO alliance in Europe. The quandary America faces is simple: its defense industrial base, especially its military shipyards, is broken. Pouring more money into the industrial base is not the solution. We’re so far beyond that, it’s not even funny. 

Washington needs to ask itself: why, precisely, was the United States able to create all these complex, multilateral regional alliances in the previous century? 

Restoring America’s dying industry and failing economy must be the priority

It was industrial might and economic heft. America’s industries today are, as noted, shells of their former selves. Shipyards cannot keep up with existing demand, let alone meet the increased demand of wartime that would inevitably occur within a few weeks of any major great state conflict. 

More importantly, the overall industrial base cannot reliably keep the U.S. military (or its allies) supplied under present conditions. Should a general war erupt between the United States and a near-peer competitor, such as China, the Americans will be gutted. 

With a new administration set to take power soon, regardless of which candidate wins this Tuesday, the new government in Washington must prioritize getting its industrial base in order—no matter the burden or the cost. 

At the same time, with the rise of the so-called “BRICS” bloc (it’s really just a Chinese-led Eurasian geoeconomic counterweight to the United States), with the U.S. economy sputtering along, and a Greek-style debt crisis appearing to be at hand (regardless of who wins the White House), the U.S. economy is nowhere near as attractive as it was a century ago when things like NATO were founded. 

Even if the United States can somehow avoid a massive debt crisis in the next decade, the BRICS challenge to the U.S. dollar is real. And that means America’s massive debt—as well as its profligate deficit spending—is enough to weaken the American ability to attract allies in their bid to counter China.

Here’s why nuclear war is a real threat

What this means is that, as the Chinese and Americans inch closer to war, with America’s conventional strength waning and China’s rising, the prospect of nuclear war increases exponentially.

For example, the United States will find itself likely boxed out of the critical strategic area of the South China Sea under current conditions. Whatever may happen in the long run, the Americans will be hard-pressed to break into any region that China is contesting due to Beijing’s relative military superiority in that area of operation.

And should China be foolish enough to open any potential war on Taiwan with a series of surprise attacks on U.S. military facilities throughout the Indo-Pacific (such as Guam) or by attacking, and possibly sinking, U.S. aircraft carriers, the chance for uncontrolled escalation into nuclear warfare is very real, particularly due to the aforementioned limits of America’s conventional forces today.

If, however, the Chinese can contain their rage and keep things just below the threshold of war, the prospects of nuclear warfare diminish. Neither Donald Trump nor Kamala Harris will risk war with China, especially nuclear war, if U.S. assets are not attacked by Chinese forces. This is why a blockade against Taiwan is China’s most likely move. It delays and stymies the American military response while giving Beijing’s forces escalation dominance in the near term. 

The way forward (not war)

Instead of building more and more alliances, the Americans should spend the next decade engaged in realistic diplomacy while doing whatever it takes to enhance the country’s defense industrial base, its indigenous human capital base, its ailing infrastructure, its domestic industries, and restoring trust as well as confidence in its failing institutions. 

Once that is achieved, the Americans will again be on top of the world, as there is simply no other regime out there capable of competing with a restored America governed according to its constitution.

To better defend Taiwan and defeat China, America must nation-build at home.

Brandon J. Weichert, a National Interest national security analyst, is a former Congressional staffer and geopolitical analyst who is a contributor at The Washington Times, the Asia Times, and The-Pipeline. He is the author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His next book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine, is available for purchase wherever books are sold. Weichert can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

Image: Shutterstock.