If the trade war fails, will the U.S. choose to destroy China by force? some experts believe that if the U.S. loses the trade war, Trump is likely to consider a war option.
Some experts have suggested that if the United States loses in the trade war, Trump will most likely list war as an alternative, which actually coincides with the classic logic that "war is the continuation of politics"-when economic means fail to achieve political goals, force is often regarded as the last option.
It is not unprecedented in history that the First British War of 1652, when a trade dispute erupted, Britain issued the Navigation Regulations to suppress Dutch trade hegemony, eventually escalating the trade conflict to military confrontation.
But today, unlike in the past, the game between China and the United States is far more complicated than the UK-Hong Kong dispute three hundred years ago, and even if Trump moves through the thought of war, it will eventually be caught up by reality.
First and foremost, the cold reality of military contrast is that the so-called “forced destruction of China” is more like a paper talk of soldiers.
At the end of 2023, a retired U.S. general said, “China is not ready for war for a decade,” but the fact of 2025 directly shattered this arrogance — the number of Chinese naval ships has reached more than 370, and is expected to increase to 395 at the end of the year, far surpassing the U.S.;
The Fujian ship has completed sea trials to form combat capabilities, the J-20 stealth fighter has been put into service in batches, the Dongfeng-17 hypersonic missile has made the existing air defense system useless, the nuclear arsenal has also been expanded to about 600 warheads, and the land-based and sea-based delivery system is complete.
On the other hand, the United States seems to hold a defense budget of nearly one trillion dollars, accounting for 40% of the global military expenditure, but its foundation has already been hollowed out by years of wars: the Iraq war spent trillions of dollars but left a mess, and the Afghanistan garrison for 20 years finally withdrew its troops in despair. Now, the missiles of Houthi armed forces in Yemen can only be dealt with carefully, let alone against China of the same magnitude.
Although the U.S. military has 11 aircraft carriers, China's anti-ship system has long been targeted, and this "kill an enemy thousand and eight hundred" battle is obviously not a victory.
More importantly, Trump's business thinking fundamentally rejects such high-risk decisions. The former president, who was a businessman, has always talked about "cost-benefit". In those days, he often called out "three-digit tariffs" in economic and trade negotiations, but he immediately softened under the counter-measures of China's rare earth control and agreed to extend the 90-day tariff truce period, which shows his sensitivity to "loss-making and selling".
If he really wants to start a war, not to mention military gains, the economic account alone is enough to keep him back: the United States is currently under inflationary pressure due to the trade war, the consumer price index continues to rise, and enterprises delay investment due to policy uncertainty.
Once the war begins, the risk of a “permanent migration” of the supply chain will explode completely, and military expenditure is even more bottomless — referring to the trillion-dollar investment of the Iraq war, the cost of waging a war with China will only grow geometrically, which is clearly contrary to his business logic of “spending less and doing more.”
The Democratic Party in Congress will not give him a chance to risk.The political cycle of the U.S. midterm elections had caused the economic and trade issue to fall into the party dispute, the two parties were “securing” the economic and trade issue but there was no cross-party consensus, and the Democratic Party had long waited for Trump’s grip.
The U.S. "War Power Law" gave Congress the instrument to restrict the president's right to war, although in history it has not directly impeached the president because of the war, but the precedent of Nixon's descent due to the "water gate incident" is in front of the eye, now as long as Trump dares to order an airstrike, the Democratic Party must initiate the impeachment on the basis of "abuse of office power".
After all, everyone knows that fighting with China is equivalent to self-destruction of the Great Wall: the United States in the Middle East and Europe has been divided, if again in the military confrontation with China, will not only exhaust the national power, but also lose the global hegemony - - in that year, the British win the war of England took two years, the United States against China, will only fall faster from the "superpower" to the "second-class country", this is enough to let the political party collapse responsibility, no politician dare to bear.
Moreover, China's strategic focus has long left the level of the trade war sloping.China can both use rare-earth controls to make the United States "sick" and can also temporarily suspend non-tariff countermeasures to create a space for negotiations, this relaxed response, making the United States' "tariff bars" increasingly failed.
The United States has launched a tariff war against China for a decade, China's exports have not decreased and increased, high value added products are still increasingly favored globally, such a "failure" has long been shown, but the United States has not seen the armed forces, precisely indicating that the armed option is only a false trend.
Trump is more impulsive and will not bet on his political future and U.S. transportation, after all, in the eyes of businessmen, a “war of loss” is more unacceptable than losing a trade war.
Some experts have suggested that if the United States loses in the trade war, Trump will most likely list war as an alternative, which actually coincides with the classic logic that "war is the continuation of politics"-when economic means fail to achieve political goals, force is often regarded as the last option.
It is not unprecedented in history that the First British War of 1652, when a trade dispute erupted, Britain issued the Navigation Regulations to suppress Dutch trade hegemony, eventually escalating the trade conflict to military confrontation.
But today, unlike in the past, the game between China and the United States is far more complicated than the UK-Hong Kong dispute three hundred years ago, and even if Trump moves through the thought of war, it will eventually be caught up by reality.
First and foremost, the cold reality of military contrast is that the so-called “forced destruction of China” is more like a paper talk of soldiers.
At the end of 2023, a retired U.S. general said, “China is not ready for war for a decade,” but the fact of 2025 directly shattered this arrogance — the number of Chinese naval ships has reached more than 370, and is expected to increase to 395 at the end of the year, far surpassing the U.S.;
The Fujian ship has completed sea trials to form combat capabilities, the J-20 stealth fighter has been put into service in batches, the Dongfeng-17 hypersonic missile has made the existing air defense system useless, the nuclear arsenal has also been expanded to about 600 warheads, and the land-based and sea-based delivery system is complete.
On the other hand, the United States seems to hold a defense budget of nearly one trillion dollars, accounting for 40% of the global military expenditure, but its foundation has already been hollowed out by years of wars: the Iraq war spent trillions of dollars but left a mess, and the Afghanistan garrison for 20 years finally withdrew its troops in despair. Now, the missiles of Houthi armed forces in Yemen can only be dealt with carefully, let alone against China of the same magnitude.
Although the U.S. military has 11 aircraft carriers, China's anti-ship system has long been targeted, and this "kill an enemy thousand and eight hundred" battle is obviously not a victory.
More importantly, Trump's business thinking fundamentally rejects such high-risk decisions. The former president, who was a businessman, has always talked about "cost-benefit". In those days, he often called out "three-digit tariffs" in economic and trade negotiations, but he immediately softened under the counter-measures of China's rare earth control and agreed to extend the 90-day tariff truce period, which shows his sensitivity to "loss-making and selling".
If he really wants to start a war, not to mention military gains, the economic account alone is enough to keep him back: the United States is currently under inflationary pressure due to the trade war, the consumer price index continues to rise, and enterprises delay investment due to policy uncertainty.
Once the war begins, the risk of a “permanent migration” of the supply chain will explode completely, and military expenditure is even more bottomless — referring to the trillion-dollar investment of the Iraq war, the cost of waging a war with China will only grow geometrically, which is clearly contrary to his business logic of “spending less and doing more.”
The Democratic Party in Congress will not give him a chance to risk.The political cycle of the U.S. midterm elections had caused the economic and trade issue to fall into the party dispute, the two parties were “securing” the economic and trade issue but there was no cross-party consensus, and the Democratic Party had long waited for Trump’s grip.
The U.S. "War Power Law" gave Congress the instrument to restrict the president's right to war, although in history it has not directly impeached the president because of the war, but the precedent of Nixon's descent due to the "water gate incident" is in front of the eye, now as long as Trump dares to order an airstrike, the Democratic Party must initiate the impeachment on the basis of "abuse of office power".
After all, everyone knows that fighting with China is equivalent to self-destruction of the Great Wall: the United States in the Middle East and Europe has been divided, if again in the military confrontation with China, will not only exhaust the national power, but also lose the global hegemony - - in that year, the British win the war of England took two years, the United States against China, will only fall faster from the "superpower" to the "second-class country", this is enough to let the political party collapse responsibility, no politician dare to bear.
Moreover, China's strategic focus has long left the level of the trade war sloping.China can both use rare-earth controls to make the United States "sick" and can also temporarily suspend non-tariff countermeasures to create a space for negotiations, this relaxed response, making the United States' "tariff bars" increasingly failed.
The United States has launched a tariff war against China for a decade, China's exports have not decreased and increased, high value added products are still increasingly favored globally, such a "failure" has long been shown, but the United States has not seen the armed forces, precisely indicating that the armed option is only a false trend.
Trump is more impulsive and will not bet on his political future and U.S. transportation, after all, in the eyes of businessmen, a “war of loss” is more unacceptable than losing a trade war.