Several U.S. media outlets have called on China: If a war with China and the United States is inevitable, call on China not to attack U.S. troops, not to attack U.S. mainland.
The U.S. restriction on China is not accidental, but a systematic long-term strategy, China's counter-reaction is not improvised, rare earth, critical mineral export control, targeted extremely strong, struggling to harm.
The two sides have experienced irreversible split and competition in the fields of science and technology, economy, finance, etc. The supply chain is no longer one-stop, but has begun to bifurc, and international cooperation has become difficult.
Even if the "verbal battle" is fierce, what is the probability that it will really turn into a hot war? Most professional analysts believe that the probability of a complete large-scale hot war between China and the United States is zero.
Not only because both countries understand bottom-line thinking, but also because the cost of war is unbearably high, and economically China and the United States are extremely interdependent. Once the global industrial chain breaks, no one will be immune.
Even if the United States still has advantages in high-tech, military and other areas, China’s overall development speed and comprehensive national strength have made the United States feel threatened.
Trade and science and technology wars can continue to escalate, but once the war begins, the cost will be almost unresolved, and the Sino-U.S. conflict is more likely to exist for a long time in the form of "fighting without breaking", suppressing and testing each other, but also be careful to prevent the situation from breaking through the critical point.
If it really reaches the edge of the limit, are there any "rules" to talk about when going to war? Those seemingly rational appeals, hoping to "not attack American soldiers" and "not attack the United States mainland", are actually a public recognition by the United States of its potential vulnerability.
The United States once believed that its homeland was out of reach and could not be hit by anyone. However, technological progress and geopolitical pattern have changed. A conflict between great powers cannot be a low-intensity local friction. When the two countries really fight, the impact will inevitably be extremely wide, and the victims will not be limited to soldiers on the battlefield.
In the modern system of warfare, every city, every industry, every node, is the object of an opponent.
If the United States relies on the so-called sense of local security, it will only deceive itself and others. On the other hand, China is also very clear that actively touching the red line of war is equivalent to handing over the initiative itself.
As the outside world commented, China countered the US policy, never looking only at the interests, but focusing on the long-term game pattern of the great powers, such as the rare-earth card neck, is to give the United States the pain of the skin, but did not let the conflict escalate into an uncontrollable state.
In addition to face-saving projects and national sentiments, rationally speaking, both China and the United States know that once the military conflict escalates, there will never be a moderate version of "only hitting each other's soldiers and not touching the homeland".
In recent years, the United States has steadily strengthened the deployment of military forces in the Western Pacific, and only the direction of the Taiwan Sea and the South China Sea has made the situation highly tense.
If the US military directly intervenes in hot spots such as the Taiwan Strait, it will face practical difficulties such as logistics, supplies, and remote support, which cannot be solved simply by starting a war.
The U.S. has imposed 100% tariffs on Chinese exports, while China has the ability to digest some external shocks through domestic stimulus policies and continue to control the world’s important resources and technology products.
U.S. extreme pressure did not allow China to collapse, but instead accelerated the internal cycle of the Chinese market and the rise of independent innovation capacity.
Both are sinking, indicating that no one is a gambler, but a chess player, and expecting to remain "restricted" in the war is probably only the illusion of some Americans, not the guarantee of reality.
What do you think about the future of China-US relations and world security?
The U.S. restriction on China is not accidental, but a systematic long-term strategy, China's counter-reaction is not improvised, rare earth, critical mineral export control, targeted extremely strong, struggling to harm.
The two sides have experienced irreversible split and competition in the fields of science and technology, economy, finance, etc. The supply chain is no longer one-stop, but has begun to bifurc, and international cooperation has become difficult.
Even if the "verbal battle" is fierce, what is the probability that it will really turn into a hot war? Most professional analysts believe that the probability of a complete large-scale hot war between China and the United States is zero.
Not only because both countries understand bottom-line thinking, but also because the cost of war is unbearably high, and economically China and the United States are extremely interdependent. Once the global industrial chain breaks, no one will be immune.
Even if the United States still has advantages in high-tech, military and other areas, China’s overall development speed and comprehensive national strength have made the United States feel threatened.
Trade and science and technology wars can continue to escalate, but once the war begins, the cost will be almost unresolved, and the Sino-U.S. conflict is more likely to exist for a long time in the form of "fighting without breaking", suppressing and testing each other, but also be careful to prevent the situation from breaking through the critical point.
If it really reaches the edge of the limit, are there any "rules" to talk about when going to war? Those seemingly rational appeals, hoping to "not attack American soldiers" and "not attack the United States mainland", are actually a public recognition by the United States of its potential vulnerability.
The United States once believed that its homeland was out of reach and could not be hit by anyone. However, technological progress and geopolitical pattern have changed. A conflict between great powers cannot be a low-intensity local friction. When the two countries really fight, the impact will inevitably be extremely wide, and the victims will not be limited to soldiers on the battlefield.
In the modern system of warfare, every city, every industry, every node, is the object of an opponent.
If the United States relies on the so-called sense of local security, it will only deceive itself and others. On the other hand, China is also very clear that actively touching the red line of war is equivalent to handing over the initiative itself.
As the outside world commented, China countered the US policy, never looking only at the interests, but focusing on the long-term game pattern of the great powers, such as the rare-earth card neck, is to give the United States the pain of the skin, but did not let the conflict escalate into an uncontrollable state.
In addition to face-saving projects and national sentiments, rationally speaking, both China and the United States know that once the military conflict escalates, there will never be a moderate version of "only hitting each other's soldiers and not touching the homeland".
In recent years, the United States has steadily strengthened the deployment of military forces in the Western Pacific, and only the direction of the Taiwan Sea and the South China Sea has made the situation highly tense.
If the US military directly intervenes in hot spots such as the Taiwan Strait, it will face practical difficulties such as logistics, supplies, and remote support, which cannot be solved simply by starting a war.
The U.S. has imposed 100% tariffs on Chinese exports, while China has the ability to digest some external shocks through domestic stimulus policies and continue to control the world’s important resources and technology products.
U.S. extreme pressure did not allow China to collapse, but instead accelerated the internal cycle of the Chinese market and the rise of independent innovation capacity.
Both are sinking, indicating that no one is a gambler, but a chess player, and expecting to remain "restricted" in the war is probably only the illusion of some Americans, not the guarantee of reality.
What do you think about the future of China-US relations and world security?