USA Targeted Once More as APC Stalls on Directives
Auraa Lama Gurung and Palisha Tuladhar
China’s cyberattacks on Taiwan seemed to have only been the beginning.
This so-called “reunification of Chinese territory” appeared to be backed by nuclear threats should NATO become involved. Seizing the opportunity, North Korea deployed missiles near Japan, while Iran continued its assault on US troops in the Middle East.
The United States faced a critical dilemma: continue defending Taiwan and risk a nuclear war with China and its Russian backers, or withdraw and risk the collapse of trust among Indo-Pacific allies such as Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Australia.
As delegates attempted to respond, however, the situation worsened. India decided to side with China, transforming an already severe crisis into a full-scale global emergency. Once again, the U.S. became the focal point as Iran threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, jeopardizing nearly 20% of the world’s oil supply. This wasn’t just a warning — it was a war under the guise of deterrence.
The United Kingdom quickly pledged support to the U.S., anticipating a full-scale combat. Across the committee, the situation grew dire as countries all over the committee began deploying forces to control the crisis.
While multiple approaches were debated, one conclusion stood out: Pakistan needed to be involved to counter India’s alignment. As the committee worked towards drafting and amending a directive, a new set of dominoes seemed to fall, but not in the direction they wanted it to.
Before any resolution could be finalised, the committee received a cryptic message. The delegates spent valuable time attempting to decipher it, only to discover that it was meaningless, deliberately sent by ESB to delay decision-making. This allowed the crisis to accelerate and cause the situation to worsen.
By the time action was taken, China had captured Taipei. Despite a strong Western military presence, there was no counteraction. Power was present, but coordination failed. In Europe, Russia capitalised on NATO’s slow and divided response. The capital of Estonia, Tallinn, fell, the Suwalki gap was severed and sustained cyberattacks crippled Latvia’s infrastructure. Lithuania prepared for the worst as appeals for assistance outpaced actual reinforcements.
By the end of the session, the result seemed absolute. North Korea openly challenged the U.S. nuclear umbrella, demanding American withdrawal in exchange for restraint. What Pyongyang said aloud what enemies already believed: U.S. protection was no longer guaranteed.
The crisis didn’t escalate because leaders sought war, but because everyone assumed deterrence would hold. Deterrence, however, is not permanent — it requires speed, coordination, and decisive action. The real danger is not the miscalculation, but the fact that credibility can be deployed at will. Alliances are as strong as their ability to act when it matters the most. If crises continue to outpace the decision making, how long until the next conflict becomes a fire that no one can control?
