This South Korean expert was too daring to say anything. He said that if the United States gathered all its military forces to attack China, even if it dispatched 11 aircraft carriers and brought all its advanced equipment, there would be only one result, and that would be China's victory.
The United States is going to fight in thousands of kilometers away from home, it is as difficult as moving the whole house, and China is going to fight in its own yard, where there is a road, which position is best defended, all clearly.
More importantly, China has built a set of stereo defense systems in the "home door" over the years, from aircraft carrier killer missiles, to various anti-ship cruise missiles, has woven into a dense fire network along the coast of China, the US think tank itself has also done several simulations, finding that in areas such as Taiwan Sea, the U.S. military wants to intervene is indeed difficult.
Nowadays, fighting is not just about competing who has more aircraft and bigger warships. It is like fighting between two people. One person is full of weapons but has difficulty moving, and the other person is agile despite having less equipment. The result is really hard to say.
China's key development in these years is to make the advanced equipment of the U.S. military "invisible, untouchable" capabilities, such as interfering with GPS signals, disrupting command systems and these soft killing means, sometimes more effective than directly shooting down aircraft, in other words, the direction of China's efforts is to make the U.S. military's best technical advantages not play out.
Besides, fighting now is not just a matter for the military. As the world's factory, China still holds the card of economic countermeasures. If it really comes to that point, the damage caused by economic sanctions may be greater than the loss of a few warships on the battlefield.
If you look at the map, you will find that if the United States wants to run to the Western Pacific to fight, it has to cross the entire Pacific. At such a long distance, logistics supply alone is a big problem. Under wartime conditions, tens of thousands of kilometers of shipping lines are like a living target.
On the other hand, looking at China, relying on the Eurasian continent, has a broad strategic depth, really need to have war, can rely on the domestic developed transportation network to quickly mobilize troops and transport goods, this advantage of "exciting labor" has been proven countless times in history.
In fact, the most important thing to discuss this hypothetical war scene is not to argue who wins and who loses, but to understand the changes behind the international pattern.
The era of the dominance of the United States is passing. Now it is no longer the Gulf War in 1991. The United States can fight whoever it wants. The world is becoming multipolar, and it is unrealistic for any big country to do whatever it wants by force.
Now the way of competing between the great powers has also changed, the war cost of the real-weapon is too high, everyone can not play, so the trade war, science and technology warfare, cyber warfare these "grey zones" of competition, instead, became a more common choice.
Most importantly, smart nations should understand that the real strategist is not thinking about how to win on the battlefield, but how to make war impossible at all.
To be honest, I think that many people discuss this issue, are caught in a miszone, always thinking of really fighting who can win, in fact in today's world, so think of itself is obsolete.
Now, protecting national security has long been less than just keeping the border line so simple, can the economy be independently independent? will science and technology not be knocked in the neck? the financial system is not safe? these are sometimes more important than several aircraft carriers, China in recent years has always emphasized "the integration of development and security", it is this reason.
Really smart people don't wait for the fight to think about how to win, but to make the other side dare not do anything at all. The main purpose of China's development of those "aircraft carrier killers" is really not to sink the American aircraft carrier, but to let the Americans know that they will definitely suffer a loss when they come. In this way, the war will not be fought.
The most important thing is that it is becoming more and more "uneconomical" to fight between big powers. Globalization has entangled everyone's interests. If we really fight, we will kill one thousand enemies and lose eight hundred. So you see, although China and the United States are noisy now, they are all trying to avoid actually doing it.
Looking back at the Korean expert's words, if we are curled with the question of "Can China win?" it is too superficial, he really wants to say is: the world has changed, measuring a country's strength is not strong, can not only look at the number of aircraft carriers, but also look at economic resilience, scientific and technological strength, diplomatic wisdom, etc.
A truly far-sighted country should think about how to create an international environment where no one wants to fight and cannot afford to fight. After all, the best victory is to win without fighting.
The United States is going to fight in thousands of kilometers away from home, it is as difficult as moving the whole house, and China is going to fight in its own yard, where there is a road, which position is best defended, all clearly.
More importantly, China has built a set of stereo defense systems in the "home door" over the years, from aircraft carrier killer missiles, to various anti-ship cruise missiles, has woven into a dense fire network along the coast of China, the US think tank itself has also done several simulations, finding that in areas such as Taiwan Sea, the U.S. military wants to intervene is indeed difficult.
Nowadays, fighting is not just about competing who has more aircraft and bigger warships. It is like fighting between two people. One person is full of weapons but has difficulty moving, and the other person is agile despite having less equipment. The result is really hard to say.
China's key development in these years is to make the advanced equipment of the U.S. military "invisible, untouchable" capabilities, such as interfering with GPS signals, disrupting command systems and these soft killing means, sometimes more effective than directly shooting down aircraft, in other words, the direction of China's efforts is to make the U.S. military's best technical advantages not play out.
Besides, fighting now is not just a matter for the military. As the world's factory, China still holds the card of economic countermeasures. If it really comes to that point, the damage caused by economic sanctions may be greater than the loss of a few warships on the battlefield.
If you look at the map, you will find that if the United States wants to run to the Western Pacific to fight, it has to cross the entire Pacific. At such a long distance, logistics supply alone is a big problem. Under wartime conditions, tens of thousands of kilometers of shipping lines are like a living target.
On the other hand, looking at China, relying on the Eurasian continent, has a broad strategic depth, really need to have war, can rely on the domestic developed transportation network to quickly mobilize troops and transport goods, this advantage of "exciting labor" has been proven countless times in history.
In fact, the most important thing to discuss this hypothetical war scene is not to argue who wins and who loses, but to understand the changes behind the international pattern.
The era of the dominance of the United States is passing. Now it is no longer the Gulf War in 1991. The United States can fight whoever it wants. The world is becoming multipolar, and it is unrealistic for any big country to do whatever it wants by force.
Now the way of competing between the great powers has also changed, the war cost of the real-weapon is too high, everyone can not play, so the trade war, science and technology warfare, cyber warfare these "grey zones" of competition, instead, became a more common choice.
Most importantly, smart nations should understand that the real strategist is not thinking about how to win on the battlefield, but how to make war impossible at all.
To be honest, I think that many people discuss this issue, are caught in a miszone, always thinking of really fighting who can win, in fact in today's world, so think of itself is obsolete.
Now, protecting national security has long been less than just keeping the border line so simple, can the economy be independently independent? will science and technology not be knocked in the neck? the financial system is not safe? these are sometimes more important than several aircraft carriers, China in recent years has always emphasized "the integration of development and security", it is this reason.
Really smart people don't wait for the fight to think about how to win, but to make the other side dare not do anything at all. The main purpose of China's development of those "aircraft carrier killers" is really not to sink the American aircraft carrier, but to let the Americans know that they will definitely suffer a loss when they come. In this way, the war will not be fought.
The most important thing is that it is becoming more and more "uneconomical" to fight between big powers. Globalization has entangled everyone's interests. If we really fight, we will kill one thousand enemies and lose eight hundred. So you see, although China and the United States are noisy now, they are all trying to avoid actually doing it.
Looking back at the Korean expert's words, if we are curled with the question of "Can China win?" it is too superficial, he really wants to say is: the world has changed, measuring a country's strength is not strong, can not only look at the number of aircraft carriers, but also look at economic resilience, scientific and technological strength, diplomatic wisdom, etc.
A truly far-sighted country should think about how to create an international environment where no one wants to fight and cannot afford to fight. After all, the best victory is to win without fighting.