I apologise, I wasn't clear. I meant that they wanted a war at the scale of the Franco-Prussian War. You are not wrong about the writings of the time, and indeed, the powers themselves believed that the mere threat of such a war would prevent the war from ever actually happening, but the concessions made without firing a weapon.

Imagine, a peace treaty without the actual war. This explains why Germany was trying to woe France out of going to war by suggesting that Germany would occupy some French bordering territory. Today, that would seem completely unreasonable for France to accept. But the thinking was that the economic interests between France and Germany was too important for France, that they would accept such a proposal.

As for the war between Austria and Serbia, it was actually Germany that pressed Austria for the war. At first, Austria was extremely hesitant. And even after the ultimatum was sent, Austria continued to hesitate. The lack of decisive action is what allowed France and Russia to position themselves clearly in the conflict. So much that Germany was beginning to regrets its decision to promise Austria its full support in a war.

And also why Germany decided to attack France and Russia first.

The idea was that a quick decisive war would solve the power imbalance in Europe. The war sort of did that. But it certainly was not quick and decisive. And come to think of it, it didn't actually solve the power imbalance in Europe.

A very interesting point. I wonder what was the flaw in the reasoning. It certainly seems unlikely that a major war would occur between the US and China. I believe this today: that it would just be so incredibly bad for business that it's an unlikely practical outcome.

Has the nature of international relations changed, or have we just gotten lucky? Certainly I think the international (and many-national) perspective on human rights and the rights of persons has evolved since then. A draft of soldiers would be perceived quite extremely in the modern day, and would face staunch and inexorable political pressure except in the face of something like total war. Furthermore, globalization has increased substantially since then. A total war with a breakdown of international trade could quickly result in famine in many areas of the world.

It seems more likely that modern warfare will occur through complex and subtle means like economic and financial sabotage (like the measures that have been used against Iran). Arguably this is going on between the US and China in some ways today, with the weakening of China's stock market, the recent US bans on Chinese products, and requirements imposed on foreign companies by China. However, to all the degree that they're add odds with each other, I fundamentally get the impression that US and China are too rational and self-interested to reach armed conflict with each other.

It's also interesting to consider how culture may have shifted over time. 60 years ago, the population might have had one particular perception about going to war with "the japs" (and Asian ethnic slurs). In the modern day, demonizing Asia feels somehow dated, and it's popular to demonize the Arab world instead. I don't know if this is underlying truth or just media spin, but even though there are significant ideological differences in some way (e.g., freedom of speech), it doesn't seem like USA or other conventionally western countries are somehow "at odds with" Asia, even though from a financial perspective that's far more the case than most parts of the world that area in the media a lot more. I suppose it relates to people chanting "death to the USA" and exploding bombs and things like that. Perhaps also it relates to the fact that there's been far less imperialism from the USA directed toward China and similar territories than toward other areas of the world. Who knows.

Wikipedia has something interesting to say about this: "The partnership between China and the United States, where each nation regards each other as a potential adversary as well as a strategic partner, has been described by world leaders and academicians as the world's most important bilateral relationship of the century. As of 2014, the United States has the world's largest economy and China the second largest. [...] China remains the largest foreign creditor of the United States,[4] holding about 10% ($1.8 trillion) of the U.S. national debt."

"China–United States relations have generally been stable with some periods of open conflict, most notably during the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Currently, China and the United States have mutual political, economic, and security interests, including, but not limited to, the prevention of terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons, although there are unresolved concerns relating to the role of democracy in government in China and human rights in both respective countries" - so, the things that we have a stake in are unlikely to lead us to war. The USA is not going to go to war with China over its civil rights issues.

"The two countries remain in dispute over territorial issues in the South China Sea. At the annual Strategic and Economic Dialogue in 2014, both countries confirmed that they wanted to improve their relationship. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry stated that the United States did not seek to contain China,[5] while Chinese President Xi Jinping stated that a confrontation between the two countries would be a disaster." - also unlikely to lead to war. It helps that both countries are essentially atheist states.

The most likely way that USA and China get drawn into war is through some kind of proxy situation with allies that they get drawn into. However, they are so much more powerful than their allied nations that I suspect each party enforces detente. All of this said, it seems plausible that there are tensions brewing on the horizon, with China having 1.3 billion people and USA 320 million. Human capital is an extremely valuable resource. Perhaps we are just fortunate to be in a calm period of history during recent times.

The difference is nuclear weapons. The us civil war/world war 1 model of total war is grinding down your enemy's economy into dust by killing soldiers in the field.

The post 1945 version of this is fighting by proxy, and scoping the fight with the escalation to nuclear annhiliation. Japan would have fought to a stalemate... Atomic weapons changed the rules of the game.

Human capital is valuable, but clearly not everything about it is encapsulated in pure population numbers. The Soviet Union was far more populous than the US, for example.

It might also do to compare spheres rather than the US and China individually.

Sorry I made the point too quickly. Humans are literally cannon fodder for nations in this type of war. Value is close to zero.

The thing that matters most is producing enough stuff to keep society held together and continue to supply weapons and other material to support the war effort. When nations approach the breaking point pre-nuclear weapons (ie. Soviet Union in 1942/3), they give you a hat, dump you off the back of a truck and suggest that you scavenge a gun. That isn't an option with industrial states post 1945.

The war will come when the US either refuses or cannot pay back that $1.8 trillion.