America’s economic reliance on China won’t prevent a Sino-American War. Indeed, it might even make a conflict more likely.

In recent weeks, several Western historians and analysts have argued that the economic relationship between the United States and China will make a war between the two superpowers less likely. The two nations need each other, the thinking goes, and can’t afford a war. Bleak forecasts concerning the Chinese economy have helped propel this argument.

Niall Ferguson, a Harvard professor and history author, recently claimed that a Sino-American War would bring about "mutually assured financial destruction." Ferguson noted that the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the U.S. never became a "hot war" due, in part, to both countries possessing the ability to destroy each other with nuclear weapons. In a recent Hoover Institution podcast , Ferguson argued that the economic interdependence between the U.S. and China similarly reduces the likelihood of conflict. He suggested that Washington and Beijing both possess the means to devastate each other financially. Another renowned historian, Margaret MacMillan, has also argued that close economic ties might prevent war.

History tells us otherwise.

On the eve of World War I, prominent thinkers like Norman Angell argued that growing economic interdependence made a great power conflict between Germany and Great Britain unlikely. Angell’s 1910 book, The Great Illusion, posited that war would become too costly, with nations now relying on each other more and more for trade. Indeed, both Berlin and London were top trading partners — until they went to war.

The key is what happens when economics are a secondary concern.

The Chinese Communist Party has long coveted Taiwan. Shortly after the CCP seized power in 1949, Mao began eyeing the island nation. The CCP has held steadfast to this objective for decades, irrespective of China’s own economic condition. When CCP head Mao Zedong devastated his country with government-induced famine and chaos , starving millions during the Great Leap Forward, Beijing still lusted for Taiwan. Top line: Ideology often trumps common sense.

History aside, Ferguson’s argument is guilty of what the late commentator Charles Krauthammer called the "mirror image fallacy." This is the idea that our opponents think like we do and share our motivations. But the CCP doesn’t subscribe to Western ideas of rationality. CCP head Xi Jinping , is fiercely ideological. Under Xi, the CCP embraced its "Zero-COVID" policy at great economic cost. Xi’s China has alienated neighbors and former friends with its newfound bellicosity. For Xi and the CCP, ideology comes before practicality. As Ian Easton highlighted in his 2022 book, The Final Struggle: Inside China’s Global Strategy, Xi has long believed that war with the capitalist West is inevitable. A new era of socialism with Chinese characteristics, Xi believes, will triumph.

Worse still, America’s dependence on China gives the CCP leverage. The U.S. relies on China for various essentials, including key pharmaceuticals and rare earth metals . Beijing has threatened to use this reliance against the U.S. before, doing so during trade  disputes during the Trump administration. There is little doubt that they would employ economic coercion in the event of an invasion of Taiwan. Further, China’s status as the manufacturing hub for much of the world would reduce both the impact and likelihood of possible sanctions.

Rather, an old Roman adage offers the best hope of preventing a Sino-American conflict: Si vas pacem, para bellum, "If you want peace, prepare for war."

Sean Durns is a Washington, D.C.-based foreign affairs analyst.