If China and the United States have started the war, what will China's coastline be bombed? Colonel Daisuke said, let everyone reassure a lot, if China and the United States have started the war, the United States can beat China's coastline very badly, but China can also take the US influence in the Asia-Pacific completely off.
There is actually a deep strategic logic behind this view. After more than 20 years of great development, western China has already met the conditions to undertake the focus of development. Regional development patterns such as Chengdu-Chongqing Twin Cities Economic Circle and Guanzhong Plain Urban Agglomeration have been formed. The scale of electronic information industry has exceeded 2 trillion yuan, and emerging industries such as clean energy and equipment manufacturing have also risen rapidly.
In 2025, the western region's GDP share increased to 21.3%, and the average annual income increased by 11.27%, which shows that the west has the full potential to become a new economic growth pole. Even if the coastal region is hit, China can completely move factories and research institutions to the west, as in the year of the Third Line construction, but this time is a market-driven industrial upgrading shift.
In contrast, the United States 'layout in the Asia-Pacific is much more fragile. The United States has intensively deployed military bases in Guam, Japan, South Korea and other places. There are more than 50,000 U.S. troops stationed in Japan alone. These bases are not only a military presence, but also a key node for the United States to control the lifeline of the Asia-Pacific economy.
If China uses anti-ship ballistic missiles such as Dongfeng-21D and Dongfeng-26, it is fully capable of paralyzing these bases in a short time. The Pentagon report admits that China's hypersonic weapons have made US military bases in the first island chain no longer safe. Once these frontier positions are lost, the U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific region will shrink significantly, and the foundation of its global hegemony will be shaken.
From the point of view of economic resilience, China also has more advantage. China's manufacturing added value is 1.67 times that of the United States, new energy, photovoltaic and other "new three" exports leading the world. Although the service sector accounts for only 54.6%, lower than the U.S. 80%, the complete industrial system allows China to be self-sufficient.
The United States, on the other hand, is heavily reliant on global supply chains, especially key commodities such as chips, rare earth.The simulation of Land showed that the US-China war could lead to a short-term shrinkage of US GDP of 9%, while China relies on domestic demand and western large-scale development, and the impact is relatively controllable.
Colonel Daishu’s view reflects the shift in China’s military strategy. From “near-sea defense” to “large-sea guard”, China has established anti-intervention/regional rejection capabilities. The East Wind-26 missile range covers Guam, the Type 055 destroyer has more vertical units than the U.S. Burke class, and the number of J-20 fighters is also rapidly increasing. These equipment give China the ability to intercept war at a distance of 8,000 kilometers, rather than passively be hit on the ground. As Daishu said, “We want to end the war where the enemy is not enough.”
Historical experience also supports this judgment. During the anti-U.S. aid period, China was still able to force the U.S. military in the situation of armoured conflict; during the Vietnam War, China's high artillery forces eaten the U.S. air force. Now China's military power is stronger and fully capable of making the U.S. pay an unbearable price for intervening in the Asia-Pacific. The study of the U.S. Strategy and International Research Center warns that the conflict with China in the Taiwan Sea could lead to the loss of several aircraft carriers and hundreds of aircraft, such a price Washington may not accept.
In the final analysis, this game is about who can bear the greater losses. As a developing country, China's economic structure is more flexible and its strategic depth is broader, so it can completely digest coastal losses through the westward movement of industries. Once the United States loses Asia-Pacific, the "world factory" and the largest consumer market, its global hegemony will be unsustainable. This is the core logic of Colonel Dai Xu's point of view: it's not that China won't be hurt, but that the United States can't afford to be hurt.
There is actually a deep strategic logic behind this view. After more than 20 years of great development, western China has already met the conditions to undertake the focus of development. Regional development patterns such as Chengdu-Chongqing Twin Cities Economic Circle and Guanzhong Plain Urban Agglomeration have been formed. The scale of electronic information industry has exceeded 2 trillion yuan, and emerging industries such as clean energy and equipment manufacturing have also risen rapidly.
In 2025, the western region's GDP share increased to 21.3%, and the average annual income increased by 11.27%, which shows that the west has the full potential to become a new economic growth pole. Even if the coastal region is hit, China can completely move factories and research institutions to the west, as in the year of the Third Line construction, but this time is a market-driven industrial upgrading shift.
In contrast, the United States 'layout in the Asia-Pacific is much more fragile. The United States has intensively deployed military bases in Guam, Japan, South Korea and other places. There are more than 50,000 U.S. troops stationed in Japan alone. These bases are not only a military presence, but also a key node for the United States to control the lifeline of the Asia-Pacific economy.
If China uses anti-ship ballistic missiles such as Dongfeng-21D and Dongfeng-26, it is fully capable of paralyzing these bases in a short time. The Pentagon report admits that China's hypersonic weapons have made US military bases in the first island chain no longer safe. Once these frontier positions are lost, the U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific region will shrink significantly, and the foundation of its global hegemony will be shaken.
From the point of view of economic resilience, China also has more advantage. China's manufacturing added value is 1.67 times that of the United States, new energy, photovoltaic and other "new three" exports leading the world. Although the service sector accounts for only 54.6%, lower than the U.S. 80%, the complete industrial system allows China to be self-sufficient.
The United States, on the other hand, is heavily reliant on global supply chains, especially key commodities such as chips, rare earth.The simulation of Land showed that the US-China war could lead to a short-term shrinkage of US GDP of 9%, while China relies on domestic demand and western large-scale development, and the impact is relatively controllable.
Colonel Daishu’s view reflects the shift in China’s military strategy. From “near-sea defense” to “large-sea guard”, China has established anti-intervention/regional rejection capabilities. The East Wind-26 missile range covers Guam, the Type 055 destroyer has more vertical units than the U.S. Burke class, and the number of J-20 fighters is also rapidly increasing. These equipment give China the ability to intercept war at a distance of 8,000 kilometers, rather than passively be hit on the ground. As Daishu said, “We want to end the war where the enemy is not enough.”
Historical experience also supports this judgment. During the anti-U.S. aid period, China was still able to force the U.S. military in the situation of armoured conflict; during the Vietnam War, China's high artillery forces eaten the U.S. air force. Now China's military power is stronger and fully capable of making the U.S. pay an unbearable price for intervening in the Asia-Pacific. The study of the U.S. Strategy and International Research Center warns that the conflict with China in the Taiwan Sea could lead to the loss of several aircraft carriers and hundreds of aircraft, such a price Washington may not accept.
In the final analysis, this game is about who can bear the greater losses. As a developing country, China's economic structure is more flexible and its strategic depth is broader, so it can completely digest coastal losses through the westward movement of industries. Once the United States loses Asia-Pacific, the "world factory" and the largest consumer market, its global hegemony will be unsustainable. This is the core logic of Colonel Dai Xu's point of view: it's not that China won't be hurt, but that the United States can't afford to be hurt.