The 2024 presidential election is the first since the United States woke up to a double shock from China. China has shrugged off the hand of "engagement" extended by the United States and become our number one strategic competitor; Moreover, the United States faces a real risk of losing a war over Taiwan to China by 2027 or sooner. Dealing with these twin shocks from China is the top national security challenge facing the next president.
Yet the candidates have said surprisingly little about the topic. The topic was almost entirely ignored in the first Republican primary debate. There was only one question about China, and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum answered it. The discussion then turned to how to secure the southern border, before China was mentioned only in passing. But voters deserve to hear the candidates discuss China's military threat directly.
Start with Joe Biden.  This commitment is of great significance. But Biden has also sought to cut the defense budget, delay plans for naval shipbuilding and downplay the China threat.
During a visit to Vietnam last week, Biden asserted that China's economic woes made an invasion of Taiwan less likely. In June, he told donors: "Don't worry about China. I mean, worry about China, but don't worry about China. I'm not kidding. China faces real economic difficulties." In this year's State of the Union address, he said: "Autocracies have become weaker, not stronger.  Tell me one. Tell me one." That's what Biden always says. In 2019, he said, "Is China going to overtake us?" Come on... They don't know how to deal with the corruption in their own system... They don't compete with us."
Biden has taken important steps to compete with China, including adopting semiconductor export controls, introducing the Chip Act, and forging new security arrangements with U.S. Allies. But his rhetoric played down the China threat, and he did not seem to appreciate the weight of his promises to intervene militarily if China used force against Taiwan.
Underestimating China's risks has long been a strategic mistake for the United States. For decades, we have assumed that China is less powerful, less productive, less innovative, less stable, and less hostile to the United States. China faces internal challenges, including slowing economic growth, falling exports and high youth unemployment. But China is hostile and capable, and the US is ill-prepared to deal with it.
China's economic and technological power far surpasses that of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Since 1885, the United States has not faced a competitor or group of competitors whose gross domestic product (GDP) is equal to more than 40 percent of U.S. GDP. And China's economy is probably at least 75 percent the size of America's. In addition, China has a much larger navy (and a relatively larger navy deployed in territorial waters) and shipbuilding capabilities that far exceed those of the United States.
Republican candidates talk about China in speeches, opinion pieces and on the stump. But they have generally focused on issues such as trade, fentanyl and preventing companies linked to the Chinese government from buying American land. These are important, but they are not the same as preparing for deterrence or winning a war in the Taiwan Strait.
Here are some key questions:
Let's look at the attitudes of the Republican candidates.  Ron DeSantis has also been noncommittal. Chris Christie said he would use the U.S. military to confront China if it was unavoidable.  Vivek Ramaswamy's position has changed three times in two weeks. No one else's position is clearer.
The danger, however, is that abandoning Taiwan would increase the risk of a bigger war down the road, emboldening the Chinese government to attack other neighbors and intimidate a weakened United States.
How much should we spend on defense? During the Cold War, U.S. military spending as a percentage of GDP averaged 7.5%. Today, that share is about 3.1 percent. Defence accounts for just 12 per cent of the federal budget - a post-World War II low and less than half of what it was a decade ago, when the world was far less dangerous. The US government's desire for fiscal restraint is legitimate, but pointless if it leads to war and American defeat.
After the outbreak of the Korean War, Harry Truman tripled military spending (from about 5% of GDP to 14%). In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan raised military spending from 5.2% to 6.8% of GDP as he fought to win the Cold War. So far, only one Republican candidate, Mike Pence, has called for a floor on military spending of at least 3.5 percent of GDP. It would be more appropriate to double that to 6%, but even that would still be below the cold-war average.
Where is our "Navy of 600 ships"? In 1980, Reagan campaigned on a promise to build a 600-ship Navy, which is exactly the kind of good strategy and message we need today. The Navy currently has 299 ships (82 more are needed to meet its own needs), and since 2017, the actual number of ships purchased has fallen, on average, 10 short of the planned purchase. The commander of the U.S. Navy's Fleet Command has called for an increase in the number of shipyards from four to six. The Army plans to build just 22 tanks this year. The CEO of Raytheon recently made a shocking call to "find a way to get along with China" by pulling the U.S. supply chain out of China in the event of war. impractical .
The war in Ukraine's demand for industry and material is a cautionary tale. A study this year by a think tank found that the United States would lose more combat aircraft and ships in a matter of weeks in the event of a war over Taiwan than it has in the past half century. Today's Reagan-style programs can focus on developing missiles or other capabilities rather than ship numbers, but the key is to increase capabilities commensurate with the threat.
However, with the exception of Pence, none of the candidates on their websites has committed to specific increases in U.S. military budgets and capabilities. Any candidate seeking to follow in Reagan's (or Roosevelt's) footsteps should make a better promise to voters. Next week's debate could provide an opportunity.