If we were to condense the essence of U.S.-China rivalry, it would probably be a seemingly unavoidable 'century confrontation,' trapped in a situation where no one truly wants to press the button to start a war. In the turbulent standoff in the Pacific, the U.S. and China seem to be playing an endless game of chess. From the military intelligence reports of the Rand Corporation to the military plan controversy involving Musk, America's confident yet false predictions are truly amusing, and the deeper logic hidden behind this is far more exciting than mere rhetoric.
Americans like to hypothesize about war. Across several Pacifics, think tanks and media on the other side of the ocean almost wage war on paper every year. As early as 2016, the Rand Corporation released a 116-page report that could be considered a textbook on 'U.S.-China Confrontation Delusion.' They predicted in dramatic language that a war between the U.S. and China was not only unavoidable but would also be an unprecedented 'conventional war.' The battlefield envisioned by these 'experts' is in East Asia, primarily in the form of naval and aerial combat, with missile trajectories even planned as math problems. But curiously, they forecast that U.S. GDP would lose 5%-10% due to war, while China's economic decline could be more than three times that of the U.S. Is a war where they lose less and others lose more really what they are hoping for?
Why does this 'war delusion' occur? A little understanding of the recent U.S.-China game pattern can provide the answer. From the Trump administration's trade war with China to the so-called Asia-Pacific rebalancing, the U.S. attitude toward China reflects deep-rooted anxiety. China's rise is too rapid, catching the Americans somewhat off guard. Particularly, China's 'anti-access/area denial' system is gradually improving, causing headaches for the once arrogant U.S. military. What is 'anti-access'? Simply put, it means keeping the U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups further away from China's coastline, even further. This anti-access capability has formed an 'asymmetric deterrence' against the U.S. military.
This sense of threat often keeps Americans awake at night, but the more troublesome issue seems to be that the problems are not just external threats, but internal concerns as well. The U.S. military strategy is not as glamorous as it appears on the surface. Although the defense budget is terrifyingly high, how much efficiency is guaranteed in military spending allocation? The rhetoric of 'going to war with China in 2025' has sparked a huge public outcry, even forcing the Pentagon to hurriedly clarify that those radical statements only represent personal opinions. Even the U.S. high-level officials cannot coordinate their voices, let alone unify actions.
These 'threat theory' style panics exist not only among think tanks. More interestingly, this year's 'Musk War Plan Hearing' event directly became an annual 'black humor.' The story is that (according to the New York Times) the U.S. Department of Defense is preparing to disclose a military plan targeting China in 2025, and Musk was surprisingly invited to participate. As soon as the news broke, public opinion was in uproar. Some said this was a dangerous signal released by the Pentagon, while others mocked Musk for striving to become the Silicon Valley war god. In any case, in order to calm the situation, the U.S. government even deployed top-level firepower to extinguish the flames, with Trump directly calling it an 'absurd rumor.' He not only issued a statement but also collaborated with Musk's wave-making statement, 'I look forward to suing those who leaked the information.' This really echoes the saying that one intended to intervene in the war situation, but ended up 'performing a ritual in a conch shell.'
Facing reality, what would it really be like if a war broke out? The official and civilian attitudes in the U.S. sometimes show serious misalignment. Some military experts and media frequently make predictions like 'the PLA won't last an hour in combat,' which on the surface exudes abundant confidence but in reality seems more like a psychological comfort. Because anyone with a bit of military knowledge knows that modern warfare is never a simple contest of 'who has the harder fist.' China's military strength is no longer as poor as it was in the past. The PLA has undergone a complete transformation in regional defense systems, naval capabilities, and strategic logistical support, while the political burdens and regional allies dragging down the U.S. military are an open secret.
Beneath the seemingly calm surface, a whirlpool has long been swirling. The U.S. frequently throws out the 'Indo-Pacific Strategy,' trying to unite allies to contain China, but this 'strategic partner group' is not reliable. ASEAN countries are heavily dependent on China's economy, and although Japan and South Korea may appear to lean towards the U.S., they are not necessarily willing to take on the frontline role. The U.S. Asia-Pacific layout resembles an old ship that has been patched up over the years, and may not withstand severe storms.
What truly prevents loss of control is actually restraint on both sides. Regardless of how fiercely the military capabilities of the U.S. and China are compared, war means enormous losses for either side. Economic turmoil, social issues, and weakened international status are all difficult-to-digest aftereffects. Although the Rand Corporation's predictions were obviously biased, the truth remains: 'In a U.S.-China war, there are no winners in the world.'
Some say that war is initially the result of strategy but ultimately a disaster catalyzed by negative consequences. Regardless of how U.S. think tanks promote it, and regardless of how the military and political high-level tensions between the two sides argue, as long as the bottom line remains rational, then the war game will forever just be a game.
