Approximately 800 U.S. military senior generals from around the world have been ordered to return to Washington to participate in strategic seminars led by the Department of Defense. The Pentagon says the U.S. military must maintain a strategic advantage over China, but in the face of potential high-intensity conflict, the existing military-industrial capacity may be far behind, and there are radical plans to raise critical missile capacity to four times the current level. What is America doing? is it possible?

a

800 generals gather together

"China" has become an absolute keyword

The scale and specifications of this conference are not unusual.

In addition to core decision-makers such as the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense, About 800 active-duty generals from the Global Combatant Command gathered in Virginia, with such a wide coverage and high level that are rare in peacetime.

The opening of the conference was very symbolic, with the hosts shouting "China" three times in a row in a sharpened tone, and this intentionally emphasized ritual feeling is, to some extent, awakening the overall perception of the "primary strategic challenge".

The defense secretary¡¯s remarks were even more blatant, clarifying that the core task of the U.S. military was to ¡°keep a strategic advantage over China¡± and claim to be ¡°responding in real time to threats from China.¡±

From the National Security Strategy report defining China as the "most important geopolitical challenge" to the National Defense Strategy guidance explicitly calling for "prioritizing the challenges posed by China," the Pentagon's resource allocation, troop deployment and exercise training have all been tilted towards the Indo-Pacific region.

In fact, this meeting showed, The U.S. military is trying to unify the thoughts and actions of its global command system on the track of "competition with China", marking that strategic competition with China has entered a critical stage from policy declaration to comprehensive preparations for war.

But we should see, Behind this high degree of strategic focus, what reflects is not absolute self-confidence, but profound worries.Top U.S. military officials frequently mention the "rapid modernization" of China's military power, especially the regional denial/anti-access capabilities brought by the Rocket Force's "Dongfeng Express" series of missiles, and the "dumpling" construction speed of naval ships, which in fact can already explain the problem.

When ¡°China¡± becomes the only core theme of the conference, it also means that the pressure perceived by the U.S. military is rising dramatically.

second

Anxiety Production

Quadruple expansion plan and insurmountable supply chain gap

The most specific and striking operational needs revealed at the conference were plans for the urgent upgrading of military-industrial capacity. The Pentagon¡¯s Ammunition Acceleration Committee is pushing for a radical goal of quadrupling the production of missiles and 12 key weapons systems to current levels in the short term.

This priority list includes Patriot interceptors, Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles (LRASM), Standard-6 missiles, Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM) and Joint Air-to-Surface Anti-Zone Missiles (JASSM), which are consumables in high-end conflicts between major powers.

Among the "Patriot-3" missiles listed as the highest priority, the U.S. Army has awarded Lockheed Martin a contract of $10 billion and plans to produce about 2,000 in the fiscal year 2024-2026.

The Ukrainian battlefield has fully demonstrated the speed of ammunition consumption in modern warfare. General Flynn, commander of the US military's European Command, once calculated that the Ukrainian army consumes a large number of drones and artillery shells every day, and if the US military's existing missile inventory is used A high-intensity regional conflict may only last a month.

In addition, conflicts in the Middle East have also consumed hundreds of high-end interceptors provided by the US military, further hollowing out the already insufficient inventory.

But it should also be noted that quadrupling production capacity is by no means an easy task.

After years of integration, the U.S. military-industrial complex has a high concentration of main suppliers, a lack of redundant production lines, and critical parts supply chains that are fragile and partly dependent on overseas.

The shortage of skilled workers, the fluctuation of raw material prices and the uncertainty of congressional budget approval are all obstacles on the road to production expansion.

three

Technical gap and strategic confidence

The psychological game behind the imbalance.

In addition to the hard shortcomings in production capacity, another anxiety revealed at the meeting is more interesting, namely concerns about gaps in the technology field and the wavering of the United States 'own strategic confidence.

U.S. Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll's statement in a television interview is quite representative. On the one hand, he admitted that China has led the United States in certain fields of military technology, and on the other hand, he tried to save face. It claims that China "may rely too much on technology" and emphasizes that the training level of American soldiers can win the final contest.

This actually reveals a deep strategic uneasiness.

The top leaders of the US military have clearly realized that on some key tracks, traditional technological advantages are being lost. In the field of defense chips, China has been able to independently produce key components such as missile guidance chips that may have been stuck in the past. In contrast, some U.S. weapon systems are more dependent on cutting-edge but fragile global supply chains.

So, The Pentagon¡¯s four-fold capacity goal is more of a ¡°strategic gesture¡± for the interior and the exterior.Inside, it wants to stimulate the mobilization of the domestic military industry, pushing resources toward defense, and on the other hand, it is trying to show its allies and opponents the determination and ability of the United States to maintain military superiority.

But as we said earlier, Real constraints on the supply chain and industrial base make this goal highly variable.If strategic gestures cannot be translated into tangible capabilities, too much declarations may expose one's own weakness.

It is undeniable that this wave of operations by the United States is to clearly define China as its number one opponent and wants to bridge the perceived combat power gap through large-scale expansion of production. But whether this idea can be realized remains to be studied.

I hope the United States understands. The competition between the great powers is ultimately a match between comprehensive national strength and strategic endurance.The Pentagon needs to consider not only the specific issue of how to increase missile production, but also how to re-calibrate its own strategies in a multi-polar world.