China having military capability to fight the US does not mean that China should want to fight the US. A war would be incredibly costly for everyone involved, as we can see in Ukraine right now. What possible benefit is there in provoking conflict with an unhinged nuclear power?

You jumped from resisting imperialism straight to nuclear war though, surely there are steps in between? In my initial comment I said nothing about instigating conflict. Please, things like the capitalist financial incentives have nothing to do with nuclear war! I merely commented on Chinese concessions to US imperialism at home and abroad as unecessary and I maintain that.

Besides the elephant in the room is it remains unclear how China investing into Israel in 2015 or giving weapons to Saudi Arabia in 2022 is appeasing conflict at home. With Israel it was the US that had to step in and push both of them apart as Chinese influence from investments was growing.

Did Trump and Biden put Xi on a nuclear gunpoint and say you must aid our imperialist puppets or else? Come on you know the reason why, rather they thought Palestine would head to a two state solution at best and the region was stabilizing e.g see Saudi-Iran deal.

We celebrated it as a genious move of superior and successful Chinese diplomacy. It turned out that was extremely wrong in hindsight as the US called everyone's bluff, put Saudi back on a leash and now maneuvered into a checkmate into the region.

The Genocide shows the failure of Chinese ideals, no you can't be friends with everyone unless you're ideologically compromised.

The fact that anybody would think avoiding war is a mistake is absolutely insane to me.

Assuming everything China does is a one way path to war is not justifiable at all and no American brainworms is not an answer, if it is then we're back to why is the US not even fighting in Ukraine let alone WW3. You have no answer for why libs were wrong on Ukraine yet you use the same argument.

Fucking Xi wont stop on Taiwan, he wants global domination! Its exactly why the US must launch 100 nukes!

I'm so very glad people with your mindset are nowhere near levers of power in China.

Instead we have cowards and grifters, literal enemies of the global south arming our enemies while delusional westerners say nothing but hail Xi as the Comunist party shakes hands with Hitler during the hollocaust.

If only Stalin had fucking J-20s and hypersonic missiles huh? Fuck off the personal attack wasn't necessary.

If you're going to quote RAND at least understand they're not hawkish on nuclear war at all, on the contrary they're analysing potential paths for war while managing escalation.

Next time post your source.

Paper 1

Avoid making U.S. long-range strike capabilities an attractive target for a limited Chinese nuclear strike.

Avoid long-range strike missions that could accidentally or inadvertently engage a nuclear armed third-party, such as Russia or North Korea.

Avoid extemporaneous responses to dangerous moments by preparing communication strategies and responses to Chinese nuclear signaling or use ahead of time.

Avoid peacetime training of conventional missions that appear most likely to trigger Chinese nuclear use, such as large-scale cost-imposition, leadership decapitation, or counterforce.

Paper 2

History suggests that U.S. political leadership might not authorize U.S. kinetic strikes on mainland China during a future conflict.

In Taiwan scenario wargames, U.S. long-range strike is linked to multiple undesired or unintentional escalation dynamics.

In most Taiwan scenario wargames, the initial aim of U.S. conventional long-range strike is operational defense (pure denial) to stop an amphibious assault against Taiwan.

Paper 3

DoD should prepare responses to potential Chinese nuclear deterrence signaling. These responses could vary from very publicly shaming nuclear weapon use to limited but intentionally observable increases in U.S. nuclear readiness, such as initiating continuous airborne alert for the U.S. airborne command posts or moving bombers to alert positions and bringing air crews back to ensure a sustainable day-to-day alert posture (as opposed to immediately raising the defense readiness condition).

Paper 4

There are many pathways to possible nuclear escalation; nuclear use might result from one that seems far-fetched, so even implausible pathways deserve consideration.

If fully committed to fighting and winning a war with China, the United States must be prepared for nuclear escalation and place more emphasis on managing these risks.

None of these 4 papers advise or approach it from the angle of US first use, on the contrary they're specialy concerned with managing escalation while being open to raising it which is entirely expected.

You can't jump from this to "the US will nuke China first if it loses" unless you can mention another source.