Preliminary
On October 18, a report from the US National Security Journal completely subverted the traditional perception of U.S. military power.
The article bluntly states that in the face of China's increasingly mature long-range strike system, the Asia-Pacific base that the US military is proud of may not survive the first 48 hours of war.
Why did the United States begin to seriously study "how to survive after being beaten"? How did this complete reversal of offensive and defensive trend happen?
The myth of hegemony collapsed overnight?
48 hours, two days, a weekend time.
This is enough to completely paralyze an empire's Asia-Pacific frontier forces.
This article in the American National Security Magazine is not so much an analysis report as a "critical illness notice" from the depths of the heart of hegemony.
It shocked the world, because the report predicted that if it went to war with China, the US military might face total paralysis within the first 48 hours.
Why did the once global superpower suddenly show such deep fear of a potential conflict?
This shift in mentality from “global police” to “survival seekers” indicates how the world pattern changes.
The answer was hidden in those tsunami missiles, hidden under those alarm lights that didn’t turn off all night long.
The US military's concerns are not groundless, but are based on a calm assessment of China's long-range strike capabilities.
They clearly know that China's attack is not a single fight, but a carefully woven "firepower net".
The exercise in the Eastern Theater Theater last October was the best proof. The H-6K flew into the distant sea with live ammunition. The Rocket Force fired missiles in multiple waves at the same time. After the attack, they could still fire in another place, and drones also flew along.
This "air-ground-no-people" link has just struck the pain point of the "saturated attack" most feared by the U.S. media.
What makes the US military even more unable to sit still is that China's unmanned combat forces are also rushing up and are used with missile systems, which is tantamount to adding pressure to the US military's defense.
The runway of a forward base in the Pacific Ocean was hit by multiple craters by missiles. Overnight, the fuel depot caught fire and the command communication was interrupted.
The aircraft could not take off, supplies could not be loaded, and air support could not be mentioned.
For the U.S. military, the aircraft is at the core of the "projection force", and if the take-off capacity is suppressed, the entire offensive rhythm will be disrupted.
This kind of damage cannot be repaired in a short period of time, and it even faces the risk of continuous high-frequency strikes, which cannot be recovered throughout the entire combat period.
In September last year, the Rocket Force launched an intercontinental missile into the Pacific Ocean and accurately hit the target with a simulated warhead. This proved that our long-range strikes are no longer just talk on paper.
High speed swords.
The answer is hidden in those flashes that break the sky.
They are unpredictable and uninterceptable, and they are the "nemesis" of traditional defense systems.
The American media "Theater of War" has analyzed it quite realistically. The characteristics of the Dongfeng-17 are simply a nightmare for traditional defense systems.
You know, the Dongfeng-17 can fly at a speed of Mach 5 to Mach 10, and it can also change its orbit at will in the sky. The "THAAD" and "Patriot" systems built by the US military at a lot of money were originally designed to focus on missiles with fixed trajectories. Encountering it is basically equivalent to being blind.
In the previous conflict between India and Pakistan, India's "BrahMos" missiles were able to blow up the top cover of the reinforced hangar. If they were replaced by Dongfeng-17, the so-called anti-strike facilities at the US military base may not be able to withstand a few strikes at all.
China's long-range strike system is no longer a simple weapons stack, but an efficient, reliable, and rehearsed combat system.
On September 25, 2024, the Rocket Force launched an intercontinental ballistic missile into the high seas of the Pacific Ocean according to the annual training plan, carrying a simulated warhead for training, and finally landed firmly in the predetermined area.
This is not only about testing whether the weapon is good or not, but also clearly telling the outside world that our long-range strike accuracy is already quite reliable.
What worries the US military most is the actual deployment of the Dongfeng series of missiles, especially the Dongfeng-17 hypersonic missile.
Its range has been covered from several hundred kilometers to tens of thousands of kilometers, many models, East Wind 21D can hit more than 2,000 kilometers, East Wind 26 can hit more than 4,000 kilometers, can also hit military ships.
It can be said that all targets of the US military within 4,000 kilometers of China are within the strike range.
It’s like you’re still studying how to use your shields to block your arms, and your opponent’s weapon has sounded.
Defense was a false proposition from the beginning.
Moreover, China’s strike is not a single weapon in battle, but a systematic “saturated attack.”
During the "Joint Sword-2024B" exercise conducted by the Eastern Theater in October 2024, several batches of H-6K flew to the distant sea with live ammunition with the support of early warning aircraft.
On the other hand, the rocket army followed the multi-wave simulated strike with multiple types of missiles, and after the strike could quickly change positions and strike again.
This joint approach of aerial plane assault and ground fire coverage just hit the pain point of "saturation attack" that the US media is most worried about.
More importantly, China's unmanned operational forces are also rushing up, equipped with missile systems to complement each other, which is equivalent to adding to the US military's defense pressure.
This is no longer a war, but a unilateral “technical cleansing.”
From "How to Win" to "How to Live"
The answer is hidden in the crowded facilities of the U.S. military base.
The US military's military deployment in the Asia-Pacific is fundamentally flawed. Not only are bases piled up, but most of them are within the range of missiles.
This is the biggest issue in the National Security Journal.
Guam is regarded as the core logistics center of the U.S. military here. It may seem quite far away from the East Asian continent, but in fact it has long been covered by the range of Dongfeng missiles.
What's even worse is that the facilities in the base are very crowded, and once you are attacked, it can easily have a chain reaction.
It's like the helmsman of a giant ship, changing from full speed forward to frantically looking for a life jacket.
To solve these problems, the U.S. military has gradually adopted a strategy of flexible operational deployment, dispersing the aircraft to various airports, no longer centralized deployment, requiring frequent mobility, filling ammunition under high pressure, which is seen as a way to survive.
During this year’s exercise in the Pacific, the U.S. military adopted this scheme to practice how to disperse radiation from a handful of key operational hubs to dozens of bases so that they can continue to export combat power when large bases are destroyed or paralyzed.
However, the content also pessimistically mentioned that decentralized deployment alone cannot protect Asia-Pacific power.
If the US military command system is paralyzed under the continuous attack of firepower, everything will be in vain.
China's opening action will not only hit runways and fuel supplies, but also focus on the "nerve center" of command and control, including satellites, data links, radar nodes, etc.
To this end, the US military needs to shift to a more resilient command and control system to avoid total paralysis in strikes and maintain normal command and combat capabilities.
This shift in strategic mentality is a more dangerous and fundamental signal than the backwardness of arms.
It marks the loss of an offensive mindset, which is the deepest sign of hegemony decline.
On one side is step-by-step, clear and measurable "China time"; on the other side is "American time" with testing delays, budget overruns, and allies wavering.
The clues of history are being silently restored.
Claiming that everything is under control externally, but receiving emergency reinforcements from F-15 internally, this split is the truest monologue of Empire Dusk.
The US military's concerns are actually a reflection of the change in the balance of power between China and the United States.
The days of relying on base advantages to control the Asia-Pacific region have long passed. China's long-range strike system is becoming more and more mature, and unmanned combat forces are on the rise again. The US military has to re-weigh the risks of fighting.
Those “thousand missile attacks” predictions that sound exaggerated are clearly the shortcomings of the U.S. military’s own clear defenses.
In the face of this systematic strike, those small and crowded bases, coupled with unrivaled defense systems, did not survive for the first 48 hours.
Winning the future with “certainty”
The answer lies in the new concept of “time short”.
In an era of rapid iteration of technology, what is more terrifying than the weapon itself is that the other party will always be in the dilemma of "falling behind as soon as it is built."
The U.S. military is also testing the old defense scheme, and new countermeasures have emerged in China, this gap that can not be followed by the ass, leaving the preparation of the U.S. forever sluggish.
The U.S. military has wasted billions of dollars on the defense of Guam, but the defense budget has to take care of the deployment elsewhere, and it is not possible to spend it all the time.
More importantly, China's military technology is updating too quickly, and at the Zhuhai Air Show in 2024, the J-35A fighter aircraft, Red-19 ground-to-air missiles and these new guys are all debuted for the first time, and each is refreshing the US military's perception of defense.
This has formed a philosophical confrontation between "certainty" and "uncertainty".
China launches missiles, exercises, and flight shows as planned, each step is clearly measurable.
The U.S. is plunged into multiple uncertainties: “Defense systems are uncertain when they can be used, opponents are uncertain how strong they are, and allies are uncertain how reliable they are.”
The real strength is not to challenge whom, but when the tide of the times comes, you can stand firmly at the tide, not be rolled away.
This is the answer China is writing with power.
Our advantages are hidden in the "resilience" of our land, industry and society.
Geographically speaking, China's terrain is large and deep, even if the coastline is hit, the factories and command centers in the Midwest are moving accordingly, and high-speed railways can still quickly deliver material and military force.
The industrial gap is even more obvious. China has all types of industries, ranging from screws to aircraft engines. During wartime, automobile factories can convert to armored vehicles, electrical appliances factories can build radars, and ammunition and equipment cannot be used up.
The most important thing is that society can bear it. China common people can twist into a rope when they encounter things. Earthquake relief and epidemic prevention and control can be seen.
But American society can't stand casualties. In the past, as soon as the casualties of wars rose, the anti-war * started to fight, and the government was under great pressure.
The US military is also accustomed to zero casualties. If the aircraft carrier is sunk, thousands of soldiers are killed or injured, the soldiers have no morale, and the country is in chaos first, it is hard to say whether the government can continue to fight.
In the face of this irreversible historical trend, we should remain strategically focused, win the initiative with "resilience", write the future with "development".
Do not be satisfied with the anxiety of the other person, do not embark on a temporary advantage, focus only on taking your own path.
This shift in strategic stance is not the normal trend of “who to challenge whom,” but “the world back to multipolarity.”
What the United States needs to accept is that the era of arbitrary bullying has passed, and China will not initiate conflict, but will never allow anyone to violate its core interests.
The anxiety of the U.S. military is not a reason to celebrate, but a motivation to move on.
We don't need to prove ourselves through war, but through sustainable development, we should make the shield of national defense stronger, make the foundation of the economy stronger, and make it clear to any potential opponent that being an enemy of China is doomed to be a choice that outweighs the gain.
conclusion
"48 Hours" is not only military time, but also historical time.It marks the turn of an era, a dawn of hegemony.
In the future, the world will move from monopolistic hegemony to multipolar balance.It is not who replaces who, but order returns to normal.
In the face of this irreversible trend, all we have to do is stay focused and do our own.