If Australia sleepwalks into a war with China, as many analysts fear is happening right now, then amid our strategic slumber we should at least ask one question: what would war with China mean for Australia?

Put bluntly, the repercussions of Australia joining the US in any war with China over the status of Taiwan – or any other issue – may have catastrophic consequences.

Of all the uncertainty and conflict in the world at the moment, for Australians this surely is one of the most important discussions we must have.

There are still hundreds of diplomats and politicians around the world – including in Canberra – working openly and behind the scenes to ensure tensions between China and the US never escalate into war.

Rising tensions or unforeseen circumstances that could lead to war, however, can sometimes overtake those working for peace.

So to contribute to this discussion, I’ve sought analysis from four of Australia’s most experienced military strategists and asked them exactly what Australia’s involvement in a war with China could look like. The four have more than 100 years of high-level military and strategic experience between them.

The analysts are:

Professor Hugh White, a former Deputy Secretary for Strategy and Intelligence in the Department of Defence

Admiral Chris Barrie, Australia’s most senior military leader as Chief of the Defence Force from 1998 to 2002

Allan Behm, a former head of the International Policy and Strategy Divisions of the Defence Department, and

Professor Clinton Fernandes, a former intelligence officer in the Australian military

All four analysts have held the highest security clearances that it’s possible to have. All have been involved in sensitive military operations. And all are watching with great interest as the drums of war beat in some quarters regarding a possible war with China.

They have different opinions on a range of issues, but one thing that is striking about the four is what they agree on. All agree, for example, that the United States – with or without Australia’s assistance – cannot win a war against China.

Hugh White, who is also Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies at the Australian National University, is clear in his analysis:

Any such war, he says, would primarily be a maritime conflict and would be on a scale unprecedented since World War II.

"Washington would expect Australia to contribute the full range of our air and naval forces to the maximum extent of our capability, including surface warships, submarines, F-18 and F-35 fighters, P-8 maritime patrol aircraft, airborne early warning aircraft and tanker aircraft.”

'War would impoverish us all'

Admiral Chris Barrie makes the point that it’s possible the impact on Australia of any war with China could be greater than any other participant because of Australia’s low population.

"The consequences for us would be very serious in terms of the Australian economy, the impact on the Australian people and the ravages to our way of life throughout the land,” he says.

He says that unlike the experience of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan that affected only the members deployed into the conflict and their families, a war with China would have an impact on all Australians – "economically, financially and personally it is likely to impoverish us all; it may even kill most of us if it goes nuclear".

Allan Behm, now head of the international and security program at The Australia Institute, says were the US and China to go to war over the next five to 10 years the best potential outcome for the US is a stalemate. He says given the rate at which Chinese forces are modernising and building capability and capacity "a Chinese victory over the US is the more likely outcome beyond 2035".

Behm says a war with China would be "profoundly and devastatingly different" from any other war Australia has participated in since World War II. He says Australia has a "fundamental strategic pathology – to support the interests of the US at the expense of our own".

Professor Clinton Fernandes is a former intelligence officer in the Australian military and now Professor of International and Political Studies at the University of New South Wales.

He believes a blockade of Taiwan by China is more likely than a cross-strait invasion. A blockade, he says, would mean 80 per cent of ships and aircraft would be unable to pass.

“China’s leaders could discreetly offer negotiations to Taiwan’s leaders during a blockade before the risky step of ordering an amphibious invasion,” Professor Fernandes says.

“It they think the blockade is failing they may declare victory by pointing to the damage already inflicted, or they might escalate to attacking US forces that are supporting Taiwan. Major combat against the US means two nuclear-armed states fighting each other.

"For China, the worst-case scenario is to have to conduct high-intensity operations against Taiwan, the United States, Japan and other US allies and partners simultaneously.”

Hugh White

Hugh White says a war between the US and China over Taiwan would "probably be the biggest and most disruptive war the world has seen since 1945".

"Because the stakes for both sides are so high, and both are so well armed, it would swiftly escalate into a full-scale regional maritime war," he says.

"No one can be sure how that war would play out, because there have been no major maritime wars since Japan was defeated in 1945, but by far the most likely outcome would be a costly stalemate in which both sides lost heavily but neither side could secure a decisive, war-wining advantage. 

"For Australia the conflict would be devastating whether we joined the fighting or not. Our economy would be paralysed as all trade with China and other major East Asian partners would stop dead and may not resume for a long time.

"If we joined the fight, or allowed US forces involved to operate from bases here, then there would be a clear chance that Australia would face direct attack from Chinese long-range forces."

Q: If Australia was to be in a coalition with the US, what particular roles would Washington be likely to ask from Australia?

“Any US-China war would be primarily a maritime conflict, and it would be, as we have seen, on a scale unprecedented since the Second World War. US forces would be fully committed to the maximum of their capacity, and they would expect and indeed demand the same of us.”

Q: We often hear suggestions that China may invade Taiwan – given Taiwan’s fortifications, would an invasion be a realistic prospect or would a blockade be more likely? 

"It is not clear how formidable Taiwan's defences would prove to be in the face of a Chinese invasion. The war in Ukraine reminds us of how uncertain these things can be – for both sides.  But it has always seemed to me that China, if it decides on military action to force "reunification" is more likely to mount a blockade than an invasion.

"This would be a far cheaper and less risky way to achieve its objectives. It would be relatively easy for China to establish a credible air and sea exclusion zone around Taiwan, and thereby put immense pressure on the Taiwanese to accept Beijing’s terms. 

"America would then have to decide whether to go to war to break the blockade."

Q: Given China’s air-defence systems, particularly in the south, would the US's or Australia’s air capabilities be rendered ineffective?

"China’s air defences are likely to prove formidable, but so are US and allied air capabilities. So it would be an even match.

"They would probably inflict a lot of damage on Chinese targets, but they would suffer very serious losses in the process. And, crucially, they would probably not be able to inflict enough damage to decisively defeat the Chinese. 

"That is one reason to expect a stalemate."     

Q: Obviously people die in wars. Would defence planners in Canberra have made assessments of the likely number of Australian casualties and what is your assessment of the number of casualties Australia may suffer in any war with China? 

"I do not know whether Defence planners in Canberra would have made such estimates. 

"In the past, when I was working in government, we sometimes offered ministers some indication of the possible cost in lives if things went badly in the kind of lower-level commitments that we made in the 1990s.

"But the prospect of war with China raises very different possibilities – including for example, the significant likelihood that aircraft, ships and submarines we committed would be destroyed, with the potential for very high casualties among the crews.

"There would thus be a high chance that involvement in a war with China would swiftly exceed the toll in casualties suffered in Vietnam and Korea."   

Q: I realise there are all sorts of qualifications and unknowns, but given current capabilities who would be expected to win a war with China on one side and the US and Australia on the other? 

"This is the critical question. I do not think there is any credible chance that America, with or without Australia's support, could win a war with China over Taiwan.

"The forces are relatively evenly matched, because US advantages in technology are balanced by China's advantages in geography – fighting close to home. But China has more at stake, because in the long run Taiwan matters a lot more to China than to America.

"Ultimately, I do not see how America could inflict enough damage on China to force Beijing to concede over Taiwan, without using nuclear weapons. And I cannot see America being willing to risk Chinese nuclear retaliation against the US homeland for Taiwan's sake. 

"That is why I think it would be a mistake for America, or Australia, to go to war with China over Taiwan."

Chris Barrie

Admiral Chris Barrie says that with all the "overblown rhetoric" about the possibility of war against China he thinks there is a danger of forgetting that war should only ever be taken as the last means of resolving insurmountable differences between nation states.

“The contemplation of war can only be justified after all other means of settling differences have failed, and we are a long way from reaching this position (over Taiwan)," he says. "I worry when politicians start to think it is acceptable to use the media to make threats about war. I draw here an important difference between politicians and statesmen.

Q: Has enough been done to avoid conflict?

“In Australia do these commentators truly believe what they have been saying or is it bluff? Do they think an all-volunteer defence force can do the job? If not, what steps have been taken to change our posture? I am sure that survivors of war may have a more considered view. Where are our statesmen?" 

"For my part Australians may be able to defend our nation because of our geographic good luck. No other country on the planet, save New Zealand, is better placed from a purely defensive perspective. In providing for our own defence we ought to be able to make sufficient and good quality plans provided we have the will to do so.