The closed-door military meeting in 2020 has always been regarded by the outside world as a turning point in US strategic thinking. The focus of the meeting is no longer on the Middle East or Russia, but on China. All the participants were senior military officials, representatives of national defense enterprises, and several big coffee makers in the science and technology circle.
The atmosphere is not easy, because everyone understands that America is no longer the only superpower.
During the meeting, a general known as the "hawkish delegate" suddenly asked a blunt question: "How do we defeat China?"
This word came out, like a stone struck into the lake, the original tense scene instantly calmed down. no one rushed to respond, not no one wanted to talk, but this question in the end, too heavy, too difficult to answer.
At this point, Musk spoke, not speaking a bunch of professional terms, not painting a big cake, only saying four words.
It is not that no one understands it, but everyone knows, he said the problem is the main harm, but also broke the truth of the United States' years of strategic anxiety.
Who is the real problem?
Today's China is no longer the "world factory" it used to be. In recent years, China's progress in all aspects is visible to the naked eye. Not only is its economic aggregate increasing, but more importantly, its industrial capabilities, scientific research strength and international influence are rapidly improving. Whether it is science and technology, infrastructure, energy, or international cooperation, China is moving forward step by step, steadily and fast.
In the early years, the attitude of the United States towards China was actually to influence China through cooperation, but this method didn't have the expected effect in reality. Instead of following the rhythm of the United States, China has found its own development path.
This makes the United States very uncomfortable. The mentality that dominated global rules in the past naturally feels a lot of pressure when encountering China, a "new player" who does not play by the rules.
From the previous contact to the current competition, the attitude of the United States towards China has changed very obviously. Whether it's suppressing Chinese enterprises or speculating on regional security issues, the United States is trying to delay China's rise.
But the effect is not ideal. China has not been intimidated, nor has it stopped, but has become more and more calm. This kind of calmness is actually the most disturbing thing in America.
Therefore, the general's question, on the surface, is asking how to "defeat" China, but behind it, it actually admits the fact that China has become an opponent that cannot be ignored. The United States is unwilling to admit defeat, but it can't find a new direction. It can only constantly ask questions and try to find an answer that can reassure itself.
Musk's answer to why people are silent
Musk's "radical innovation" sounds like an old saying, but on that occasion at that time, the weight of what it said was different.
He did not deny China’s development, nor did he say that China could be easily overcome.Instead, his attitude is that if the United States still thinks of winning competition by the old methods, it is basically in vain.
He said that traditional arms investment, alliances, and sanctions alone cannot solve the problem. Because China's development does not rely on speculation, but on the cooperation of practical technologies, industries and systems.
You want to win, not by dragging others, but by riding on yourself to run faster.
The key point he mentioned was that real competition is not a surface game, but a deep competition between technology and institutions.
This kind of innovation is not simply to invest more money, but to dare to break the old interest structure, dare to trial and error, and even be willing to bear the risk of failure.
The U.S. military-industrial system is too large and interests so complex that it is almost impossible for them to accept a completely different set of ways to operate.
And the political environment in the United States is also increasingly unstable, and many major technology projects are not moving because of the struggle between the political parties.In order to radically innovate, you must first have an environment that can drive it, and the reality is that the American system itself is dragging back.
So after Musk finished speaking, the silence was not approval, but a kind of helplessness. Everyone knew he was right, but they also knew that no one could really follow suit. This is the most embarrassing part.
The trouble in the United States is not just that "others are too strong"
After hearing Musk's answer, many people are actually thinking about another question in their hearts: What if not China becomes stronger, but the United States itself?
In the past few decades, the United States' strong position in the world has largely relied on its institutional advantages, technological leadership and global voice. But now these advantages are gradually being weakened.
Domestic politics in the United States is highly polarized, with almost no consensus among political parties. Many things are overturned and restarted as soon as they change, making it impossible to maintain long-term strategies.
To make matters more troublesome, the American innovation system has also reached a deadlock. Big businesses are increasingly conservative, pursuing short-term profits and unwilling to take risks. Although the government's investment in scientific research is not low, its efficiency is not high, the approval process is complicated, the distribution mechanism is rigid, and many good projects can't be pushed out at all.
In this case, Musketi's "radical innovation" is actually a challenge to the entire system. His meaning is clear: not to develop some new technology, but to change a set of models from the root.
This is no different for military industry groups and scientific research institutions that rely on traditional models.
Even if someone is willing to do it, where does the money come from?U.S. social security, medical care, education has been under great pressure, and then a large amount of money to engage in scientific and technological investigation, it is easy to say, and it is certain that the controversy continues.
And the technological innovation cycle is long, the failure rate is high, the people are willing to wait, can they accept failure?
Back in China, people don't spend too much time worrying about "how to defeat the United States," but instead find their own rhythm in a down-to-earth manner and work hard. The United States is still meeting to discuss the "China threat," and China is already planning the next technology cycle. This gap cannot be made up by shouting slogans.
After calm down, who can really go far
Musk said that the day was not a “solution” but a “reality reminder”. he meant clearly that China is no longer on luck to take this step today.
The competition is no longer about who has more weapons and who draws more allies, but who can go further in future technology, institutions, talent and industries.
To win the future, what is needed is a system that can constantly evolve itself, not a country that is strong by remembering the past.
The biggest challenge facing the United States now is not that other countries are rising too fast, but that it is becoming too slow. Musk's words are actually reminding them: The problem you think is that others are too strong, but the real problem is that you are too weak.
After the meeting, no one raised the question of "how to defeat China" again. It's not because the problem has been solved, but because everyone understands a truth: this is not a life-and-death competition, but a contest of who finds a new way first.
Who the future belongs to is still uncertain. But one thing is certain: a country that only thinks about "defeating others" will never get far. What can really win is the country that is willing to constantly overthrow itself and start over. And this is the deepest meaning behind Musk's sentence of "radical innovation."
ended
Musk did not give any ambitious strategic blueprint that day, nor did he say any complicated arguments. he just put out with a word, naked, the feeling of powerlessness and confusion of the United States in the face of China at the moment.
That “radical innovation” is not an answer, but a mirror, a mirror of America that has to change but has no way to change.
China did not participate in the discussion, but became the core of the discussion.This itself explains the problem: the real strong people are not defined by others, but by themselves.
Musk's answer is actually a reminder to the United States and a warning to the future pattern. Whoever can drive the world forward has the future. And in this future, it will no longer be as simple as who defeats who.