China resolutely lights up the sword and asks the United States to withdraw its nuclear bombs abroad, knock the door to the US fate, and fall into a difficult situation.

At the UN General Assembly, Ambassador Xi Jinping made three clear demands to the United States to stop the deployment of global missile defense systems, withdraw from the Asia-Pacific missile system, and in particular withdraw all nuclear weapons deployed abroad.

In fact, behind this wave of operations, is not a mere diplomatic statement, can be said, This is a textbook-level "conspiracy". Whether the United States withdraws or not is a dilemma. What is going on?

How do the three requirements hit the U.S. strategic lifeline?

These three requirements are by no means isolated diplomatic rhetoric, but are systematically targeted at the three pillars of the United States 'global military strategy, with every blow directed at the heart.

Demands to stop the deployment of the global missile defense system are to dispel the United States 'illusions of "unilateral and absolute security." Over the years,The United States has been committed to building an anti-missile network composed of Aegis system and Standard-3 missiles in Eurasia, extending from Romania to the Sea of Japan.

The surface of the system is a defense shield, in essence a "attack defense tool" that seeks to break the strategic balance, and may even induce the United States to produce the wrong judgment that can initiate the first nuclear strike without retaliation, thereby greatly reducing the threshold of nuclear war.

Demanding the withdrawal of land-based navigation systems deployed in Asia is to a certain extent to counter the U.S. “front-side counterbalance.”

The deployment of medium-range missiles capable of carrying Tomahawk cruise missiles by the United States in Japan, the Philippines and other places is equivalent to bringing sharp knives close to the gateway of China. The security guarantee of the eastern coastal core of China is a problem. This is by no means a purely defensive deployment.

By pointing out this point, we want to tear off the United States 'disguise of "maintaining regional security" and force the United States to make a choice in front of international public opinion: whether to withdraw its weapons to show sincerity for peace, or continue to deploy and fulfill its role as a "military adventurer."

Demanding the withdrawal of nuclear weapons abroad, abandoning the "nuclear sharing", strikes the heart of U.S. nuclear hegemony.

This is the most subversive requirement. The United States deploys tactical nuclear weapons such as the B61-12 in non-nuclear-weapon states such as Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey, and implements a "nuclear sharing" policy. In essence, it is spreading nuclear weapons in disguised form and allowing personnel from non-nuclear countries to have the opportunity to contact and drop nuclear bombs.

Is this operation consistent with the spirit and provisions of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons?

What is more ironic, The United States itself has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, but it obstructs sanctions on the right of other countries to peacefully use nuclear energy. Isn't this a naked double standard?What we are doing now is to tear off the mask of hypocrisy of the United States.

second

Why is it said that the United States is in trouble "withdrawing or not withdrawing"?

We have constructed an almost unsolvable strategic paradox, which makes any response by the United States likely to bring negative consequences. This is the essence of "conspiracy".

Suppose the United States is forced to pressure to “choose to withdraw.”

Intuitively, this is bound to cause a devastating blow to the global hegemonic system of the United States. The carefully constructed "extended deterrence" strategy of the United States will collapse immediately. Europe's NATO allies, especially the eastern members that rely on the U.S. nuclear umbrella, will fall into deep security anxiety, At that time, NATO’s cohesion will likely disintegrate.In the Asia-Pacific, the security confidence of allies such as Japan and South Korea is likely to be severely compromised, and the US-dominated alliance network cannot still exist.

For the United States, this is tantamount to abolishing its own martial arts and voluntarily giving up key strategic tools to maintain global leadership, resulting in the loosening of the cornerstone of hegemony.

This road does not go.

The reality may be that the United States "refuses to withdraw."

This is exactly what China’s strategic design expects.

Once the United States has clearly said “no,” it will completely become a “lone-family widow” in the international moral arena, and its label of “nuclear proliferation perpetrator” and “destroyer of the international nuclear order” will be firmly applied.

This will inevitably give China, Russia and other countries threatened by its nuclear threat an absolute moral advantage, and provide sufficient justification for China to take all necessary countermeasures in the future.

Coupled with maintaining overseas nuclear bases around the world, updating tactical nuclear weapons, and bearing the huge costs of "nuclear sharing" and the risk of nuclear accidents, it is itself a financial black hole and strategic burden that continues to consume U.S. national strength.

To hold on is to "swollen your face and pretend to be fat" and accelerate the internal loss of the United States, not to mention the moment when the American economy is so bleak.

Thus, the Chinese side’s goal is by no means to the concrete outcome of the immediate “de-nuclear” withdrawal, but to step by step put the United States in the position of “moral dirt” and “strategic passivity”.

three

The strategic background and vision of order behind the conspiracy

To say that we are so low in what we are, the biggest reason is because China has met the historic rise of comprehensive national and military strength.

We all know that in key areas such as high-speed weapons, drone combat systems, naval modernization, space warfare, cyber warfare, we have made great progress and even achieved partial leadership.

This has led to a significant weakening of the conventional military superiority of the United States in the Asia-Pacific region, and a relatively reduction in the bargaining chips they rely on for strategic blackmail against China.

The Pentagon’s internal assessments also acknowledged that confrontation with the Liberation Army in the Asia-Pacific is becoming increasingly difficult.

It is against this background that the United States relies more on its nuclear superiority as its final pillar of deterrence. Our direct challenge to the nuclear policy of the United States is tantamount to taking a drastic step.

This also reflects, to a certain extent, China’s shift from a “rule recipient” to a “rule-shaper.”

It can be seen clearly,China is no longer satisfied with responding within the framework of issues set by the West, but dares to actively set the core agenda related to global strategic stability in multilateral arenas such as the United Nations. In fact, this is also in line with China's image as a responsible big country committed to maintaining global strategic stability and reducing the risk of nuclear conflict.

Obviously, China has begun to seize the initiative in the game of great powers.This wave of operations can further force the United States to re-examine its outdated hegemonic logic, and the international community will also have a clearer understanding of who is the true defender of global peace and stability and who is the troublemaker.

The next pressure has been completely dumped on the United States. How to deal with this difficult problem of questioning the foundation of its hegemony tests Washington's political wisdom.