Preliminary

The real situation of the US military in the Asia-Pacific is far more miserable than the appearance.

A recent report in the US magazine "National Interest" made it clear: If the US military conflicts with our country, the Asia-Pacific base will face the risk of being quickly paralyzed within the first 48 hours, and logistics supplies will likely be "cut in half."

This is not alarmist, but the collective anxiety of the US military repeatedly pushed back.

Americans speak firmly, but they know best in their hearts that they don't have many trump cards. Especially in recent years, my country's military capabilities have improved rapidly, which has made every step of the US military in the Asia-Pacific become shocking step by step.

Know that there are not many trump cards

The old US military bases in the Asia-Pacific region, such as Guam, Okinawa, and South Korea, appear to be hubs for the United States '"global delivery", but in fact they are targets locked by modern long-range weapons.

In particular, the long-range fire and hypersonic missiles that my country has invested heavily in over the years have turned the U.S. base defense system into a "paper tiger."

Tell a story. Guam was once the most confident rear supply point for Americans. Anyone who dared to move in the past would immediately rise to the "red line" level.

But now, even the American media admit that Guam is just a frequent visitor to Dongfeng Express. The US military itself has said that if a conflict does break out and the first wave of missiles rains, the entire base may not even have a chance to take off. Think about it, who can be afraid of this kind of "living target" mentality?

What is even more embarrassing is that it is not that the US military has not thought of a solution. In recent years, they have continued to "decentralize bases", breaking up large bases, building a bunch of small airports, and even renting civilian airports and ports of allies, hoping to give themselves more survival.

But it's not that effective. my country's long-range strike capabilities cover the entire Western Pacific, and the strike area is faster than the US military's dispersion. The front base cannot hold on, and the supply line is ridiculously long. If there is a problem in the seven to eight thousand kilometers of supply chain, the front line will run out of food and bombs.

Over the years, the logistics problems of the US military have been criticized by our own people. The top military officials themselves admit that in the Asia-Pacific region, casualty evacuation, equipment maintenance, and ammunition transportation are all "huge challenges."

The U.S. military is accustomed to global strikes and global deployments, but in the face of opponents like my country with strong zone denial capabilities, the vulnerability of the supply line is clearly exposed. Just saying "the strongest in the world" is not enough.

When it comes to equipment, I really don't mean to brag. The US Air Force is now facing the dilemma of aging aircraft fleet, shrinking size, and low combat readiness. The fleet during the Cold War is about to be retired, new equipment has not been replenished, training cannot keep up, and maintenance pressure is great. The US military veterans themselves shake their heads.

What's even worse is that the US military has been addicted to counter-terrorism over the past two decades and has fought local wars with "technical crushing". Commanders have formed an inertia of thinking. But now when encountering systematic opponents, the old routine does not work at all.

On the one hand, equipment is aging, and on the other hand, resources in the theater are diluted. The three major war zones in the world in the United States have limited budgets, and various services are scrambling for resources.

The so-called "joint combat system" sounds nice to say, but in reality it is often independent, united on the surface, but each has its own thoughts inside. The ideals are full, but the reality always makes people helpless.

It is not that the US military does not want to transform. In the past few years, they have continuously emphasized "confrontational logistics," focusing on the theme of "goofing if you can." They have worked hard to build airstrips and temporary warehouses. They have also engaged Japan and Australia to enter into trilateral agreements, hoping to rely on allies to make up for their shortcomings.

However, is it reliable at critical times? The ammunition stocks on the front line are limited, and the problem of reloading the fleet's missiles has not yet been solved. If we really want to fight continuously, how long it will last is a question mark.

Faced with this situation, the US military still spoke hard. While shouting "effective deterrence," senior officials had to admit that the high casualties and high risks made them uncertain.

He talks about "deterring China," but in fact, what he fears most is that the situation gets out of control. Allies are not stupid. When they see that the US military has no confidence, who will really dare to follow suit?

The United States likes to shirk the blame most. It insists on letting its allies share problems that cannot be solved by itself. For example, the so-called "porcupine transformation" will allow Asia-Pacific countries to spend more money and buy more weapons, and deploy more on the front line.

But this approach, apart from making the situation more tense, will not help solve the fundamental problem at all. On the contrary, it gives my country more reason to strengthen countermeasures, making the regional security dilemma more complex.

America's anxiety and passivity

Having said that, I have to talk about my country's response. In fact, in recent years, my country's home court advantage in the Asia-Pacific has become increasingly obvious.

Whether it is long-range strikes, information awareness, home logistics and rapid mobilization, our country has gradually established a systematic defense network. The US military's traditional bases, supplies, and fleet suppression methods have gradually lost their power in the face of the new system.

my country's countermeasures are also very targeted. Faced with US suppression and sanctions, my country has gradually gotten rid of its dependence on the United States and enhanced its independent capabilities through various means such as export controls, technological innovation, and industrial chain upgrading.

For example, rare earth export controls not only maintain industrial security, but also create a lot of pressure on the United States. The United States wanted to rely on technology and raw materials to get stuck, but found that our country was already ready.

More importantly, my country has always adhered to the principle of self-defense and never taken the initiative to provoke trouble, but it is never afraid of trouble. On issues of core interests such as Taiwan and the South China Sea, the bottom line is clear and the attitude is firm.

If the US military wants to use these issues to test our country's response, it will only find that our country's response is more decisive. The past routine of "extreme pressure" in exchange for compromise has completely failed.

What is interesting is that while the US military is shouting for "cooling down", it is constantly increasing the so-called "deterrence." In fact, this contradictory statement just exposes their strategic anxiety and passivity.

No matter how beautiful they are, reality puts them in a dilemma. Allies can see clearly that more and more countries are choosing to strengthen cooperation with our country. This is the general trend of regional stability.

One point must be admitted that external pressure will only make my country more united and more determined in the pace of independent development. No matter how the external environment changes, my country's determination to safeguard national interests remains the same. If the U.S. military still hopes to turn the situation around with the old routine, it will only become increasingly passive.

In fact, looking back at the United States '"Asia-Pacific layout" over the years is more like a game of self-limiting.

He tore down the east wall to pay the west wall, dispersed the base, wooed allies, and put more pressure on him. In the end, he discovered that his real opponent was no longer the China that was twenty years ago.

Our country is no longer an outsider to be manipulated, but holds the key to the regional pattern.

In the final analysis, the US military's Asia-Pacific dilemma is a contradiction between strategic inertia and realistic capabilities. The United States still wants to use the Cold War mentality, old equipment, and alliance system to maintain hegemony, but reality no longer gives them the opportunity.

You can be stubborn for a while, but you can always feel guilty. Will the United States continue to be trapped in its own maze to comfort itself, or will it take the initiative to admit reality and seek win-win cooperation? This question is probably even more difficult to answer than they imagined.

Summary in one sentence: All the "toughness" of the US military in the Asia-Pacific is actually its own inner anxiety and passivity.

Who is the real defender of regional stability and who is using practical actions to protect peace is obvious to all.

If the United States still refuses to come to its senses, it will only eventually let its own dilemma sink deeper and deeper. Perhaps it should be asked, how long will the old thinking and inertia drag the U.S. military down?

Reference: US media says the first 48 hours of war with China will be very tragic-China.com