他说,“我认为我们有办法削弱”中国的攻击。 “我只是认为你必须重塑你的力量才能做到这一点。” The U.S. Is Not Yet Ready for the Era of ‘Great Power’ Conflict
waging war By Michael R. GordonFollow Updated March 6, 2023 11:54 am ET SAVE SHARE TEXT 204 RESPONSES
Listen to article Length (18 minutes) Queue Clint Hinote returned from a deployment in Baghdad in the spring of 2018 to a new assignment and a staggering realization. A classified Pentagon wargame simulated a Chinese push to take control of the South China Sea. The Air Force officer, charged with plotting the service’s future, learned that China’s well-stocked missile force had rained down on the bases and ports the U.S. relied on in the region, turning American combat aircraft and munitions into smoldering ruins in a matter of days. “My response was, ‘Holy crap. We are going to lose if we fight like this,’” he recalled. The officer, now a lieutenant general, began posting yellow sticky notes on the walls of his closet-size office at the Pentagon, listing the problems to solve if the military was to have a chance of blunting a potential attack from China. “I did not have an idea how to resolve them,” said Lt. Gen. Hinote. “I was struck how quickly China had advanced, and how our long-held doctrines about warfare were becoming obsolete.” Mammoth shift Five years ago, after decades fighting insurgencies in the Middle East and Central Asia, the U.S. started tackling a new era of great-power competition with China and Russia. It isn’t yet ready, and there are major obstacles in the way. ADVERTISEMENT Despite an annual defense budget that has risen to more than $800 billion, the shift has been delayed by a preoccupation with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the pursuit of big-ticket weapons that didn’t pan out, internal U.S. government debates over budgets and disagreement over the urgency of the threat from Beijing, according to current and former U.S. defense officials and commanders. Continuing concerns in the Mideast, especially about Iran, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine have absorbed attention and resources. Lt. Gen. Clint Hinote discussed a drone with colleagues at Fort Irwin, Calif., in November. PHOTO: PHILIP CHEUNG FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Corporate consolidation across the American defense industry has left the Pentagon with fewer arms manufacturers. Shipyards are struggling to produce the submarines the Navy says it needs to counter China’s larger naval fleet, and weapon designers are rushing to catch up with China and Russia in developing superfast hypersonic missiles. When the Washington think tank the Center for Strategic and International Studies ran a wargame last year that simulated a Chinese amphibious attack on Taiwan, the U.S. side ran out of long-range anti-ship cruise missiles within a week. The military is struggling to meet recruitment goals, with Americans turned off by the long conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, potentially leaving the all-volunteer force short of manpower. Plans to position more forces within striking range of China are still a work in progress. The Central Intelligence Agency, after two decades of conducting paramilitary operations against insurgents and terrorists, is moving away from those areas to focus more on its core mission of espionage. The U.S. military’s success in the Mideast and Afghanistan came in part from air superiority, a less well-equipped foe and the ability to control the initiation of the war. A conflict with China would be very different. The U.S. would be fighting with its Asian bases and ports under attack and would need to support its forces over long and potentially vulnerable supply routes. If a conflict with China gave Russia the confidence to take further action in Eastern Europe, the U.S. and its allies would need to fight a two-front war. China and Russia are both nuclear powers. Action could extend to the Arctic, where the U.S. lags behind Russia in icebreakers and ports as Moscow appears ready to welcome Beijing’s help in the region. ADVERTISEMENT This article is the first in a series examining the challenges faced by America’s military as it enters a new international era. The U.S. military is still more capable than its main adversaries. The Chinese have their own obstacles in developing the capability to carry out a large-scale amphibious assault, while the weaknesses of Russia’s military has been exposed in Ukraine. But a defense of Taiwan would require U.S. forces, which are also tasked with deterring conflict in Europe and the Middle East, to operate over enormous distances and within range of China’s firepower. The threat is mounting. Beijing has in recent years shifted the security terrain in its favor in the areas around China. In the South China Sea, it has built artificial islands and fortified them with military installations to assert control over the strategic waterway and deny the U.S. Navy freedom to roam. Decades of ever bigger military budgets, including a 7% boost in spending this year, have improved the lethality of China’s air force, missiles and submarines, and better training has created a more modern force from what was once a military of rural recruits. China is developing weapons and other capabilities to destroy an opponent’s satellites, the Pentagon says, and its cyberhacking presents a threat to infrastructure. The CIA said President Xi Jinping has set 2027 as a deadline for the Chinese military to be ready to carry out a Taiwan invasion, though it said Mr. Xi and the military have doubts whether Beijing could currently do so. Structures on the artificial island in Cuarteron Reef in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, shown in October, part of China’s effort to control the strategic waters. PHOTO: EZRA ACAYAN/GETTY IMAGES Chinese military vehicles carrying the DF-17 hypersonic weapon system in a parade in Beijing in 2019. PHOTO: XINHUA/EPA/SHUTTERSTOCK A China in control of the South China Sea and Taiwan would hold sway over waters through which trillions of dollars in trade passes each year. It would also command supplies of advanced semiconductors, threaten the security of U.S. allies such as Japan and challenge American pre-eminence in a part of the world it has dominated since World War II. In its efforts to meet the new challenge, the Pentagon has expanded its access to bases in the Philippines and Japan while shrinking the U.S. military footprint in the Middle East. New tactics have been devised to disperse U.S. forces and make them less of an inviting target for China’s increasingly powerful missiles. The Pentagon’s annual budget for research and development has been boosted to $140 billion—an all time high. The military is pursuing cutting-edge technology it hopes will enable the military services to share targeting data instantaneously so that U.S. air, land, sea and space forces, operating over thousands of miles, can act in unison, a current challenge. ADVERTISEMENT Many of the cutting-edge weapons systems the Pentagon believes will tilt the battlefield in its favor won’t be ready until the 2030s, raising the risk that China may be tempted to act before the U.S. effort bears fruit. A conflict in the Western Pacific might also give Russia’s military, which has been badly battered in Ukraine, the confidence to carry out President Vladimir Putin’s goals of reviving Russian power in what it believes to be its traditional sphere of influence in Central and Eastern Europe. “This is a massive problem to dig out of,” said Eric Wesley, a retired Army lieutenant general who served as the deputy commanding general of the Army Futures Command, which oversees that service’s transformation. “We are in a vulnerable period where we are pursuing this deterrence capability and their time is running out.” Chris Meagher, a top Pentagon spokesman, said that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was directly overseeing the implementation of the U.S. defense strategy to counter China and that the department’s forthcoming spending request would advance the effort. “The challenge posed by the PRC is real, but this Department is tackling it in historic ways with urgency and confidence,” he said, referring to the People’s Republic of China. “Our strategy drove last year’s budget request and is driving our soon-to-be released budget, which will go even further in matching resources to our strategy. We are continuing our work developing new operational concepts, deploying cutting-edge capabilities, and making investments now and for the long term to meet the challenges we face.” The Stratolaunch Roc, which is designed to launch hypersonic test vehicles, during a flight in October in Mojave, Calif. PHOTO: PHILIP CHEUNG FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL F-35 fighter jets, which have advanced stealth capability, at a training exercise at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., in 2019. PHOTO: ROGER KISBY FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Unassailable U.S. A little more than a generation ago, the U.S. looked unassailable. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the rapid success of the U.S.-led Desert Storm campaign to evict Saddam Hussein’s troops from Kuwait in 1991 demonstrated Washington’s ability to wage a new type of war, using precision-guided munitions and stealth technology to vanquish regional dangers. President George H.W. Bush declared a “new world order” with the U.S. as its anchor. In 1995, Beijing began a series of aggressive military exercises near Taiwan to underscore its objections to a visit to the U.S. by Taiwan’s president. The Clinton administration responded with the largest display of American military might in Asia since the Vietnam War, sending U.S. ships through the Taiwan Strait and positioning two aircraft carrier battle groups in the region the following year. ADVERTISEMENT Strategists at the Pentagon’s in-house think tank nonetheless saw trouble ahead. By using long-range missiles, antisatellite weapons and electronic warfare, Beijing could turn the tables on Washington by attacking the bases and ports the U.S. relied on in the western Pacific to project power, potentially keeping the Americans far from the conflict. Guided by his defense advisers, candidate George W. Bush proposed to skip a generation of technology and move to advanced tools, such as long-range weapons, sensors and data-sharing technology to counter Beijing’s “anti-access” strategy. Then the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks changed the threat, and the Pentagon’s mission. “There was a moment when we thought ‘Huzzah, the transformation of the force is actually going to happen,’ ” recalled Jeff McKitrick, who worked at the Pentagon think tank and is now a researcher with the Institute for Defense Analyses, a Pentagon-supported research center. “Then 9/11 came and everybody focused like a laser beam on the global war on terror.” U.S. Army soldiers from the 10th Mountain and the 101st Airborne units disembark from a Chinook helicopter in 2002 at Bagram airfield in Afghanistan. PHOTO: JOE RAEDLE/GETTY IMAGES U.S. Marines in an M1A1 tank from Task Force Tarawa in 2003 near Al Kut, Iraq. PHOTO: JOE RAEDLE/GETTY IMAGES Soon this became the mission of Lt. Gen. Hinote, then a major, as well. He was known by the call sign “Q,” after the fictional character in the James Bond stories who runs the spy service’s gadget lab, because of his skill in programming the radars and sensors of fighter jets. At the outset of the 2003 Iraq war, he was assigned to a squadron of “stealthy” F-117 fighter jets. He helped plan the operation to strike at military targets in Baghdad and disable the air defenses of Saddam Hussein’s forces. “We had a really good plan for taking down the Iraqi communications infrastructure, leadership infrastructure and what we thought were the weapons of mass destruction,” he said. “China learned from that.” As the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan dragged on, the top U.S. Air Force officer in Japan warned that China’s air defenses were becoming impenetrable to all but the most sophisticated U.S. fighters. ADVERTISEMENT In 2009, Robert Gates, defense secretary from 2006 to 2011, limited the procurement of F-22 fighter jets to 187 to free up funds for other weapons programs. The Air Force’s Air Combat Command said at the time that would leave the service nearly 200 short of the premier air-to-air fighter jets it previously sought for potential conflicts with China and Russia. Such air-to-air combat experience was limited: The June 2017 shootdown of a Syrian Su-22 jet by a Navy FA/18 over Syria was the first time a U.S. fighter pilot had blasted an enemy plane out of the sky since 1999. Mr. Gates said he sought to hedge against future threats while also focusing on the war on terror. “My concern as secretary was all about balance,” he said, in an email response to questions. “The need to prepare for future potential large-scale conflict with Russia and China while properly funding the long-term ability to deal with smaller-scale conflicts we were most likely to face in the future.” Mr. Gates said both Presidents Bush and Obama saw cooperation with China as possible and thought a conflict “was low probability.” He said that changed when Mr. Xi came to power in 2013. The Chinese president has backed a stronger Chinese military and a more assertive foreign posture as part of his campaign to expand Beijing’s global clout. In 2011, Congress and the White House agreed to multiyear spending limits known as sequestration to curb the federal deficit. The move forced a series of across-the-board cuts and hampered initiatives to transform the military, including on artificial intelligence, robotics, autonomous systems and advanced manufacturing. “With the grinding wars in the Middle East taking $60 billion to $70 billion a year, and service chiefs worried first and foremost about declines in force readiness, we simply didn’t have the necessary resources to cover down on all of the more advanced threats like hypersonics,” said former Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work. “The U.S. responses to China and Russia’s technical challenges were therefore delayed—and when it did respond, its choices were constrained by sequestration.” Taiwan in focus ADVERTISEMENT 系统提示:若遇到视频无法播放请点击下方链接 https://www.youtube.com/embed/https://c6de0af0be9029169bc3e393fb1b4001.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-40/html/container.html In 2018, the Pentagon issued a National Defense Strategy saying the U.S. would prepare for a new world of “great power competition.” Deterring China from invading Taiwan, a longstanding U.S. partner that Beijing claims as Chinese territory, defines the challenge. Allowing China to take Taiwan, just 100 miles from the Chinese mainland, and then trying to wrest it back, Pentagon officials concluded, would involve the U.S. in a protracted fight and might spur China to escalate to nuclear weapons. The U.S. needed to demonstrate it could prevent Beijing from seizing the island in the first place—a requirement included in the Biden administration’s National Defense Strategy issued in 2022. A more recent wargame conducted by the Pentagon’s Joint Staff showed the U.S. could stymie a Chinese invasion of Taiwan and force a stalemate if the conflict was fought later in the decade, although high casualties on both sides would result. That simulation assumed that the U.S. would have the benefit of new weapons, tactics and military deployments that are currently being planned at the Pentagon. To prepare for the future, the Marine Corps has gotten rid of its tanks and is reinventing itself as a naval infantry force that would attack Chinese ships from small islands in the western Pacific. A new Marine littoral regiment, which operates close to the shore and will be equipped with anti-ship missiles, is to be based in Okinawa by 2025. In an exercise in May 2021, the Marines lugged a 30,000-pound Himars missile launcher across a choppy sea to the Alaska shoreline, loaded it into a mammoth C-130 transport plane and flew it to a base in the wilderness. The purpose was to rehearse the sort of tactics the Marines would employ on islands in the western Pacific against the Chinese navy. The Army, which saw its electronic warfare, short-range air defense and engineering capabilities atrophy amid budget pressures and the previous decades’ wars, is moving to develop a new generation of weapons systems that can strike targets at much longer ranges. It is planning to deploy a new hypersonic missile in the fall though its utility against Chinese forces will depend on securing basing rights in the Pacific. The Navy, which is confronting budget pressures, personnel shortages and limits to American shipbuilding capacity, is currently planning to expand its fleet to at least 355 crewed ships, a size still smaller than China’s current navy. In the near term, the U.S. will have around 290 ships. Military personnel secured a Himars rocket launcher into an aircraft during a training exercise at Fort Greely, Alaska, in 2021. PHOTO: ASH ADAMS FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL Military personnel in training at Fort Greely in 2021. PHOTO: ASH ADAMS FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL The Air Force, which has one of the oldest and smallest inventory of aircraft in its 75-year history, has rolled out the first B-21 bomber and is pursuing the capability to pair piloted warplanes with fleets of drones. It has tested a new hypersonic missile that will be fired from fighter aircraft, and developed plans to disperse its planes among a wider range of bases in the Pacific. Decades-old B-52s are being refurbished to fill out the bomber fleet. The service has decided to buy the E-7 command aircraft—originally produced by Australia—and is procuring advanced weapons to attack Chinese invasion forces. At times, the pace has been slower than Lt. Gen. Hinote would have liked. “As we began to push for change, we lost most of the budget battles,” he said. “There is more sense of urgency now, but we know how far we have to go.” The general has pushed to equip cargo planes with cruise missiles to boost allied firepower, the use of high-altitude balloons to carry sensors and electric “flying cars” to carry people and equipment throughout the Pacific island chains—ideas that have led to experiments but so far no procurement decisions. He thinks a future Air Force could rely more on autonomous, uncrewed aircraft and deploy fewer fighters. “When push comes to shove and you have to decide if you are going to field unmanned vehicles, or keep flying old aircraft, we’ve never made that decision,” he said. “I think we’ve got a recipe for blunting” a Chinese attack, he said. “I just think you have to reinvent your force to do it.”
”他们说习定了目标,在2027年进攻台湾,拭目以待吧。“ 就算土共不想干仗,老这么撺掇,是不是土共最后不得不干仗? 这个目标时间不会是美国给土共设的吧? To do list: conquer Taiwan deadline: 2027 developer: China product manager: USA product owner: China and Taiwan
五角大楼的一次机密兵棋模拟了中国控制南海的行动。 这位负责规划该军种未来的空军军官了解到,中国储备充足的导弹部队已经如雨点般袭击了美国在该地区所依赖的基地和港口,几天之内,美国的战斗机和弹药就变成了冒烟的废墟 .
“我的回答是,‘天哪。 如果我们这样战斗,我们就会输,’”他回忆道。
这名军官现在是一名中将,他开始在五角大楼壁橱大小的办公室的墙上张贴黄色便利贴,列出如果军方有机会削弱来自中国的潜在攻击需要解决的问题。
“我不知道如何解决它们,”日野中将说。 “令我震惊的是中国的进步速度之快,以及我们长期以来奉行的战争学说如何变得过时。” 五年前,在与中东和中亚地区的叛乱进行了数十年的斗争之后,美国开始应对与中国和俄罗斯大国竞争的新时代。 它尚未准备就绪,并且存在重大障碍。
尽管年度国防预算已增至超过 8000 亿美元,但由于对伊拉克和阿富汗战争的全神贯注、对高价武器的追求没有成功、美国政府内部对预算的辩论,这一转变被推迟了 据现任和前任美国国防官员和指挥官称,双方对来自北京的威胁的紧迫性存在分歧。 中东地区的持续关注,尤其是伊朗问题,以及俄罗斯入侵乌克兰问题吸引了人们的注意力和资源。
美国国防工业的企业整合使五角大楼的武器制造商减少了。 造船厂正在努力生产海军称其需要对抗中国更大的海军舰队的潜艇,而武器设计者正急于赶上中国和俄罗斯开发超高速高超音速导弹的步伐。
当华盛顿智库战略与国际研究中心去年进行了一场模拟中国对台湾两栖攻击的兵棋推演时,美国方面在一周内就用完了远程反舰巡航导弹。
军队正在努力实现招募目标,伊拉克和阿富汗的长期冲突让美国人望而却步,这可能导致全志愿军人手短缺。 将更多部队部署在中国打击范围内的计划仍在进行中。 中央情报局在对叛乱分子和恐怖分子进行了 20 年的准军事行动后,正在远离这些地区,更多地关注其间谍活动的核心任务。 美军在中东和阿富汗的成功部分归功于制空权、装备较差的敌人以及控制战争爆发的能力。 与中国发生冲突将大不相同。 美国将在其亚洲基地和港口受到攻击的情况下作战,并且需要在漫长且可能脆弱的补给线上为其部队提供支持。
如果与中国的冲突让俄罗斯有信心在东欧采取进一步行动,那么美国及其盟友将需要打一场双线战争。 中国和俄罗斯都是核大国。 行动可能会延伸到北极,美国在破冰船和港口方面落后于俄罗斯,因为莫斯科似乎准备欢迎北京在该地区提供帮助。
本文是研究美国军队在进入新的国际时代时所面临挑战的系列文章中的第一篇。
美国军队仍然比其主要对手更有能力。 中国人在发展大规模两栖攻击能力方面有自己的障碍,而俄罗斯军队的弱点在乌克兰已经暴露无遗。 但保卫台湾需要美国军队在远距离和中国火力射程范围内开展行动,美国军队还肩负着遏制欧洲和中东冲突的责任。
威胁越来越大。 北京近年来在中国周边地区改变了对它有利的安全格局。 在南中国海,它建造人工岛并用军事设施加固,以控制战略航道并阻止美国海军自由航行。
几十年来不断增加的军事预算,包括今年增加 7% 的开支,提高了中国空军、导弹和潜艇的杀伤力,更好的训练从曾经的农村新兵军队中培养出了一支更现代化的军队。 五角大楼表示,中国正在开发武器和其他能力来摧毁对手的卫星,其网络黑客行为对基础设施构成威胁。
美国中央情报局表示,中国国家主席习近平已将 2027 年定为中国军队准备入侵台湾的最后期限,不过它表示,习近平和军方怀疑北京目前是否可以这样做。
一个控制南中国海和台湾的中国将控制每年有数万亿美元贸易通过的水域。 它还将控制先进半导体的供应,威胁日本等美国盟友的安全,并挑战美国在其自二战以来主导的世界部分地区的优势地位。
为了迎接新的挑战,五角大楼扩大了对菲律宾和日本基地的访问,同时缩小了美国在中东的军事足迹。 已经制定了新的策略来分散美军,并使他们不再成为中国日益强大的导弹的诱人目标。
五角大楼的年度研发预算已增至 1400 亿美元,创历史新高。 军方正在寻求尖端技术,希望能使各军种即时共享目标数据,以便在数千英里范围内作战的美国海陆空部队能够协同行动,这是当前的挑战。 五角大楼认为将使战场向有利于它的方向倾斜的许多尖端武器系统要到 2030 年代才能准备就绪,这增加了中国可能会在美国的努力取得成果之前采取行动的风险。
西太平洋的冲突也可能给在乌克兰遭受重创的俄罗斯军队带来信心,以实现总统弗拉基米尔普京的目标,即在它认为是其在中欧和东欧的传统势力范围内复兴俄罗斯的力量。
“这是一个需要解决的大问题,”退役陆军中将埃里克韦斯利说,他曾担任陆军未来司令部的副司令,该司令部负责监督该军种的转型。 “我们正处于一个脆弱的时期,我们正在追求这种威慑能力,而他们的时间已经不多了。”
五角大楼高级发言人克里斯·米格 (Chris Meagher) 表示,国防部长劳埃德·奥斯汀 (Lloyd Austin) 正在直接监督美国针对中国的国防战略的实施,国防部即将提出的支出请求将推动这项工作。
“中华人民共和国带来的挑战是真实存在的,但本部门正在以历史性的方式紧迫和自信地应对它,”他说,指的是中华民国。 “我们的战略推动了去年的预算请求,并正在推动我们即将发布的预算,这将进一步将资源与我们的战略相匹配。 我们正在继续我们的工作,开发新的运营概念,部署尖端能力,并在现在和长期进行投资,以应对我们面临的挑战。”
仅仅一代人之前,美国看起来是无懈可击的。 1991 年,苏联解体以及美国领导的沙漠风暴行动迅速取得成功,将萨达姆侯赛因的军队逐出科威特,这表明华盛顿有能力发动新型战争,使用精确制导弹药和隐身技术来消除地区危险 . 总统 George H.W. 布什宣布建立以美国为支柱的“世界新秩序”。
1995 年,北京在台湾附近开始了一系列咄咄逼人的军事演习,以强调其反对台湾总统访美。 克林顿政府以越南战争以来美国在亚洲最大规模的军事力量展示作为回应,派遣美国舰艇穿越台湾海峡,并于次年在该地区部署了两个航母战斗群。
尽管如此,五角大楼内部智囊团的战略家们还是看到了麻烦。
通过使用远程导弹、反卫星武器和电子战,北京可以通过攻击美国在西太平洋投射力量所依赖的基地和港口来扭转华盛顿的局势,从而有可能使美国人远离冲突。
在他的国防顾问的指导下,候选人乔治·W·布什提议跳过一代技术,转向先进的工具,如远程武器、传感器和数据共享技术,以对抗北京的“反介入”战略。
然后 2001 年 9 月 11 日,恐怖袭击改变了威胁,也改变了五角大楼的使命。
“有那么一刻,我们认为‘Huzzah,部队的转型实际上将会发生,’”杰夫麦基特里克回忆道,他曾在五角大楼智囊团工作,现在是五角大楼国防分析研究所的研究员 - 支持的研究中心。 “然后 9/11 来了,每个人都像激光束一样关注全球反恐战争。”
很快这就成为了日诺特中将的使命,当时他也是一名少校。 他以詹姆斯邦德故事中的虚构人物“Q”为人所知,他负责管理间谍服务的小工具实验室,因为他在战斗机雷达和传感器方面的编程技能。 2003 年伊拉克战争开始时,他被分配到一个“隐身”F-117 战斗机中队。
他帮助策划了打击巴格达军事目标并摧毁萨达姆侯赛因军队防空系统的行动。 “我们有一个非常好的计划来摧毁伊拉克的通信基础设施、领导基础设施以及我们认为是大规模杀伤性武器的东西,”他说。 “中国从中吸取了教训。”
随着美国在伊拉克和阿富汗的战争一拖再拖,驻日本的美国空军高级官员警告说,除了最先进的美国战斗机外,中国的防空系统正变得无懈可击。
2009 年,2006 年至 2011 年担任国防部长的罗伯特·盖茨将 F-22 战斗机的采购量限制在 187 架,以腾出资金用于其他武器项目。
美国空军空战司令部当时表示,该部队将比其此前寻求的主要空对空战斗机少近 200 架,以应对与中国和俄罗斯的潜在冲突。 这种空对空作战经验是有限的:2017 年 6 月,一架海军 FA/18 在叙利亚上空击落了一架叙利亚 Su-22 喷气式飞机,这是自 1999 年以来美国战斗机飞行员首次将敌机击落。
盖茨先生说,他试图对冲未来的威胁,同时也将重点放在反恐战争上。 “作为秘书,我最关心的是平衡,”他在回复问题的电子邮件中说。 “需要为未来与俄罗斯和中国的潜在大规模冲突做好准备,同时适当资助长期能力,以应对我们未来最有可能面临的小规模冲突。”
盖茨先生说,布什总统和奥巴马总统都认为与中国合作是可能的,并认为发生冲突“的可能性很小”。 他说,2013 年习近平上台后,情况发生了变化。作为扩大北京全球影响力运动的一部分,中国国家主席支持更强大的中国军队和更自信的外国姿态。
2011 年,国会和白宫同意实行多年支出限制,即所谓的自动减支,以遏制联邦赤字。 此举迫使一系列全面削减并阻碍了军队转型的举措,包括人工智能、机器人技术、自主系统和先进制造。
“随着中东地区激烈的战争每年耗费 600 亿至 700 亿美元,军种首长们最担心的是部队战备状态的下降,我们根本没有必要的资源来应对所有更高级的威胁 就像超音速一样,”前国防部副部长罗伯特·沃克说。 “因此,美国对中国和俄罗斯的技术挑战的反应被推迟了——当它做出反应时,它的选择受到了封存的限制。” 2018年,五角大楼发布国防战略,称美国将为“大国竞争”的新世界做好准备。
阻止中国入侵台湾是美国的长期合作伙伴,北京称其为中国领土,这定义了挑战。 五角大楼官员总结说,允许中国占领距离中国大陆仅 100 英里的台湾,然后试图将其夺回,将使美国卷入一场持久战,并可能促使中国升级为核武器。 美国需要证明它可以首先阻止北京夺取该岛——这是拜登政府 2022 年发布的国防战略中的一项要求。
2019 年,Hinote 将军利用他在空军未来战争办公室的新权力组织了另一场机密兵棋推演。 该模拟假定中国对台湾发动攻击,并评估了两支美军在对抗中的表现:一支完全由美国远程轰炸机和导弹组成的“外部力量”,以及一支由飞机、舰船和部队组成的“内部力量” 将在中国飞机和导弹的射程内作战。
结论是这两种方法都不会单独成功。
“我们需要一个组合来保护台湾和日本,”他说。 “从那以后,我们一直在通过游戏、模拟和试验来确定这种组合。”
五角大楼联合参谋部最近进行的一次兵棋推演显示,如果冲突在十年后的后期发生,美国可以阻止中国入侵台湾并迫使双方陷入僵局,尽管双方都会造成大量伤亡。 该模拟假设美国将受益于五角大楼目前正在计划的新武器、战术和军事部署。
为了为未来做准备,海军陆战队已经摆脱了坦克,并将自己重塑为一支海军步兵部队,可以从西太平洋的小岛上攻击中国船只。 到 2025 年,一个新的海军陆战队沿海团将在靠近海岸的地方行动,并将配备反舰导弹,驻扎在冲绳。
在 2021 年 5 月的一次演习中,海军陆战队拖着 30,000 磅重的 Himars 导弹发射器穿过波涛汹涌的大海到达阿拉斯加海岸线,将其装载到一架庞大的 C-130 运输机上,然后飞到荒野中的一个基地。 目的是演练海军陆战队将在西太平洋岛屿上针对中国海军使用的战术。
由于预算压力和过去几十年的战争,美国陆军的电子战、近程防空和工程能力萎缩,目前正在着手开发新一代武器系统,以打击更远距离的目标。 它计划在秋季部署一种新的高超音速导弹,尽管它对中国军队的效用将取决于确保在太平洋的基地使用权。
海军正面临预算压力、人员短缺和美国造船能力的限制,目前正计划将其舰队扩大到至少 355 艘船员,这一规模仍小于中国目前的海军。 短期内,美国将拥有约 290 艘舰船。
美国空军在其 75 年的历史中拥有最古老和最小的飞机库存之一,已经推出了第一架 B-21 轰炸机,并正在寻求将有人驾驶的战机与无人机机队配对的能力。 它已经测试了一种将从战斗机上发射的新型高超音速导弹,并制定了将其飞机分散到太平洋更广泛基地的计划。
数十年历史的 B-52 正在翻新以充实轰炸机机队。 该服务已决定购买最初由澳大利亚生产的 E-7 指挥机,并正在采购先进武器来攻击中国入侵部队。
有时,步伐比 Hinote 中将希望的要慢。 “当我们开始推动变革时,我们输掉了大部分预算战,”他说。 “现在有更多的紧迫感,但我们知道我们必须走多远。”
这位将军推动为货机配备巡航导弹以增强盟军的火力,使用高空气球携带传感器和电动“飞行汽车”在整个太平洋岛链上运送人员和设备——这些想法已经进行了实验,但 迄今为止没有采购决定。
他认为未来的空军可以更多地依赖无人驾驶的自主飞机,并部署更少的战斗机。 “到了紧要关头,你必须决定是部署无人驾驶车辆,还是继续使用旧飞机,我们从来没有做出这样的决定,”他说。
他说,“我认为我们有办法削弱”中国的攻击。 “我只是认为你必须重塑你的力量才能做到这一点。”
The U.S. Is Not Yet Ready for the Era of ‘Great Power’ Conflict
waging war By Michael R. GordonFollow
Updated March 6, 2023 11:54 am ET
SAVE
SHARE
TEXT 204 RESPONSES
Listen to article Length (18 minutes)
Queue Clint Hinote returned from a deployment in Baghdad in the spring of 2018 to a new assignment and a staggering realization. A classified Pentagon wargame simulated a Chinese push to take control of the South China Sea. The Air Force officer, charged with plotting the service’s future, learned that China’s well-stocked missile force had rained down on the bases and ports the U.S. relied on in the region, turning American combat aircraft and munitions into smoldering ruins in a matter of days. “My response was, ‘Holy crap. We are going to lose if we fight like this,’” he recalled. The officer, now a lieutenant general, began posting yellow sticky notes on the walls of his closet-size office at the Pentagon, listing the problems to solve if the military was to have a chance of blunting a potential attack from China. “I did not have an idea how to resolve them,” said Lt. Gen. Hinote. “I was struck how quickly China had advanced, and how our long-held doctrines about warfare were becoming obsolete.” Mammoth shift Five years ago, after decades fighting insurgencies in the Middle East and Central Asia, the U.S. started tackling a new era of great-power competition with China and Russia. It isn’t yet ready, and there are major obstacles in the way.
ADVERTISEMENT
Despite an annual defense budget that has risen to more than $800 billion, the shift has been delayed by a preoccupation with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the pursuit of big-ticket weapons that didn’t pan out, internal U.S. government debates over budgets and disagreement over the urgency of the threat from Beijing, according to current and former U.S. defense officials and commanders. Continuing concerns in the Mideast, especially about Iran, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine have absorbed attention and resources.
This article is the first in a series examining the challenges faced by America’s military as it enters a new international era. The U.S. military is still more capable than its main adversaries. The Chinese have their own obstacles in developing the capability to carry out a large-scale amphibious assault, while the weaknesses of Russia’s military has been exposed in Ukraine. But a defense of Taiwan would require U.S. forces, which are also tasked with deterring conflict in Europe and the Middle East, to operate over enormous distances and within range of China’s firepower. The threat is mounting. Beijing has in recent years shifted the security terrain in its favor in the areas around China. In the South China Sea, it has built artificial islands and fortified them with military installations to assert control over the strategic waterway and deny the U.S. Navy freedom to roam. Decades of ever bigger military budgets, including a 7% boost in spending this year, have improved the lethality of China’s air force, missiles and submarines, and better training has created a more modern force from what was once a military of rural recruits. China is developing weapons and other capabilities to destroy an opponent’s satellites, the Pentagon says, and its cyberhacking presents a threat to infrastructure. The CIA said President Xi Jinping has set 2027 as a deadline for the Chinese military to be ready to carry out a Taiwan invasion, though it said Mr. Xi and the military have doubts whether Beijing could currently do so.
Many of the cutting-edge weapons systems the Pentagon believes will tilt the battlefield in its favor won’t be ready until the 2030s, raising the risk that China may be tempted to act before the U.S. effort bears fruit. A conflict in the Western Pacific might also give Russia’s military, which has been badly battered in Ukraine, the confidence to carry out President Vladimir Putin’s goals of reviving Russian power in what it believes to be its traditional sphere of influence in Central and Eastern Europe. “This is a massive problem to dig out of,” said Eric Wesley, a retired Army lieutenant general who served as the deputy commanding general of the Army Futures Command, which oversees that service’s transformation. “We are in a vulnerable period where we are pursuing this deterrence capability and their time is running out.” Chris Meagher, a top Pentagon spokesman, said that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was directly overseeing the implementation of the U.S. defense strategy to counter China and that the department’s forthcoming spending request would advance the effort. “The challenge posed by the PRC is real, but this Department is tackling it in historic ways with urgency and confidence,” he said, referring to the People’s Republic of China. “Our strategy drove last year’s budget request and is driving our soon-to-be released budget, which will go even further in matching resources to our strategy. We are continuing our work developing new operational concepts, deploying cutting-edge capabilities, and making investments now and for the long term to meet the challenges we face.”
Strategists at the Pentagon’s in-house think tank nonetheless saw trouble ahead. By using long-range missiles, antisatellite weapons and electronic warfare, Beijing could turn the tables on Washington by attacking the bases and ports the U.S. relied on in the western Pacific to project power, potentially keeping the Americans far from the conflict. Guided by his defense advisers, candidate George W. Bush proposed to skip a generation of technology and move to advanced tools, such as long-range weapons, sensors and data-sharing technology to counter Beijing’s “anti-access” strategy. Then the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks changed the threat, and the Pentagon’s mission. “There was a moment when we thought ‘Huzzah, the transformation of the force is actually going to happen,’ ” recalled Jeff McKitrick, who worked at the Pentagon think tank and is now a researcher with the Institute for Defense Analyses, a Pentagon-supported research center. “Then 9/11 came and everybody focused like a laser beam on the global war on terror.”
ADVERTISEMENT
In 2009, Robert Gates, defense secretary from 2006 to 2011, limited the procurement of F-22 fighter jets to 187 to free up funds for other weapons programs. The Air Force’s Air Combat Command said at the time that would leave the service nearly 200 short of the premier air-to-air fighter jets it previously sought for potential conflicts with China and Russia. Such air-to-air combat experience was limited: The June 2017 shootdown of a Syrian Su-22 jet by a Navy FA/18 over Syria was the first time a U.S. fighter pilot had blasted an enemy plane out of the sky since 1999. Mr. Gates said he sought to hedge against future threats while also focusing on the war on terror. “My concern as secretary was all about balance,” he said, in an email response to questions. “The need to prepare for future potential large-scale conflict with Russia and China while properly funding the long-term ability to deal with smaller-scale conflicts we were most likely to face in the future.” Mr. Gates said both Presidents Bush and Obama saw cooperation with China as possible and thought a conflict “was low probability.” He said that changed when Mr. Xi came to power in 2013. The Chinese president has backed a stronger Chinese military and a more assertive foreign posture as part of his campaign to expand Beijing’s global clout. In 2011, Congress and the White House agreed to multiyear spending limits known as sequestration to curb the federal deficit. The move forced a series of across-the-board cuts and hampered initiatives to transform the military, including on artificial intelligence, robotics, autonomous systems and advanced manufacturing. “With the grinding wars in the Middle East taking $60 billion to $70 billion a year, and service chiefs worried first and foremost about declines in force readiness, we simply didn’t have the necessary resources to cover down on all of the more advanced threats like hypersonics,” said former Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work. “The U.S. responses to China and Russia’s technical challenges were therefore delayed—and when it did respond, its choices were constrained by sequestration.” Taiwan in focus ADVERTISEMENT
系统提示:若遇到视频无法播放请点击下方链接
https://www.youtube.com/embed/https://c6de0af0be9029169bc3e393fb1b4001.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-40/html/container.html
In 2018, the Pentagon issued a National Defense Strategy saying the U.S. would prepare for a new world of “great power competition.” Deterring China from invading Taiwan, a longstanding U.S. partner that Beijing claims as Chinese territory, defines the challenge. Allowing China to take Taiwan, just 100 miles from the Chinese mainland, and then trying to wrest it back, Pentagon officials concluded, would involve the U.S. in a protracted fight and might spur China to escalate to nuclear weapons. The U.S. needed to demonstrate it could prevent Beijing from seizing the island in the first place—a requirement included in the Biden administration’s National Defense Strategy issued in 2022.
A more recent wargame conducted by the Pentagon’s Joint Staff showed the U.S. could stymie a Chinese invasion of Taiwan and force a stalemate if the conflict was fought later in the decade, although high casualties on both sides would result. That simulation assumed that the U.S. would have the benefit of new weapons, tactics and military deployments that are currently being planned at the Pentagon. To prepare for the future, the Marine Corps has gotten rid of its tanks and is reinventing itself as a naval infantry force that would attack Chinese ships from small islands in the western Pacific. A new Marine littoral regiment, which operates close to the shore and will be equipped with anti-ship missiles, is to be based in Okinawa by 2025. In an exercise in May 2021, the Marines lugged a 30,000-pound Himars missile launcher across a choppy sea to the Alaska shoreline, loaded it into a mammoth C-130 transport plane and flew it to a base in the wilderness. The purpose was to rehearse the sort of tactics the Marines would employ on islands in the western Pacific against the Chinese navy. The Army, which saw its electronic warfare, short-range air defense and engineering capabilities atrophy amid budget pressures and the previous decades’ wars, is moving to develop a new generation of weapons systems that can strike targets at much longer ranges. It is planning to deploy a new hypersonic missile in the fall though its utility against Chinese forces will depend on securing basing rights in the Pacific. The Navy, which is confronting budget pressures, personnel shortages and limits to American shipbuilding capacity, is currently planning to expand its fleet to at least 355 crewed ships, a size still smaller than China’s current navy. In the near term, the U.S. will have around 290 ships.
🔥 最新回帖
這個 27年前 有來美的 非世襲菁英 跟我講 人民民主專政 有多麼偉大 可以提供 最頂尖的非世襲菁英 努力往上爬 為人民服務的管道
然後 習近平 把 這樣的偉大菁英的代表人物 胡錦濤 給拖出去了
看到 黨 世襲貴族 對待 非世襲菁英 如此的不屑一顧
非世襲菁英的粉 就 轉黑了 黑化了
我說這 我27年前就看出來啦
專政體制必將導致世襲固化
人民民主專政的 非世襲菁英只能存在於 帝國初期 人才需求強大的時候
當帝國進入了 如日中天 轉入西垂 的時候 黨 世襲貴族就不再想跟你這堆 出身微寒甚至出身農門的 非世襲菁英 坐一張桌子 看一份檔案 拖出去吧
鄧小平的 隔代指定
其實是
黨世襲貴族 與 非世襲菁英 東家與管家
東管交代 算是在 中國封建世襲思想 與 人民民主專政非世襲菁英 中
找到平衡點
東家與管家 起了 西歐兩黨制政治 的作用
如果能維持下去 既可以確保 黨 世襲貴族代代相傳 又不影響 人民民主專政非世襲菁英經營國家富強的努力
其偉大程度 不亞於 當年 德川幕府的 參勤交替
關鍵還是 東 管 互相尊重
剩上 連三任 東家不交代給管家
竟然還 拖出胡錦濤 踩扁了 管家的面子
破了東管交代的規矩
正是
主義至尊 馬鬣屠龍 號令地球 莫敢不從 錦濤不拖 誰與爭鋒
国内全党贪污,黑社会横行,中国主要经济支撑是血汗工厂的时候,你是小粉红。 习上台了,你粉转黑了。 你到底粉的是什么?
假以时日吧,中国现在的人力成本已经没啥优势了。
老百姓的今天不光是美国遏制吧? 疫情期间人为的伤害比较一下吧,多少人倾家荡产失去工作? 不好意思,我全程都在,非常有发言权。美国是为了国家利益,中国是为了某些阶层利益哈哈。
🛋️ 沙发板凳
这个是真的,那个时候开始电视新闻里天天拿“中国制造”说事儿,抱怨美国到处都是中国制造的东西,引导大家不用中国制造的东西,或者是让大家觉得中国制造的东西质量特别差。。。现在好多东西都不是中国制造了,质量更差了,也没人说什么,很多地方的review还在说中国制造的东西质量差。。。衣服这种大家就只说几年前十几年前的东西质量好,不说现在东西质量差是因为换了制造商。。。
后面执政党换了,中国加入WTO,中美处于蜜月期。至少二十年前美国在技术和经济上还没有现在这么恐慌。
战狼 习帝 2025 厉害了我的国
不用不负责么?
宣传都是打嘴仗自嗨,朝鲜要是没搞出核弹,美国啥时候担心过朝鲜?
原来america first 贸易战 实体清单 "生存之争",都是因为中国先挑衅呀。
中国太坏了!要不是中国输出无神论,美国早就全美禁止堕胎了!
再说白一点,台湾政府不可能让中国有理由开战,台湾人不是乌克兰人,如果总统要宣布独立,下面的人肯定就反水了,包括民进党。
这篇文章通篇讲的,难道不是美国战狼吗?
这就是网络著名核弹梗 2003年 美国: 伊拉克有核弹原料,可以生产核弹和大杀器,我们要代表联合国灭了他
伊拉克萨达姆:hell no.我绝对没有核弹原料,没有大杀器。
美国:no, you have.我们说你有,你就是有。 萨达姆,卒
2016年 北朝鲜: 诶,美国,我们有核弹了。我们还有导弹哦。 美国: hell no,你没有。我们说了你没有就是没有。 不久之后,金正恩会面川普大统领。
这就是美国和中国的不同,美国,商业资本可以左右美国的政治。从国内到国外。即使不能转向,也能稍微拨弄拨弄,延缓,失效都有可能。 中国不行。党性党务是关键。所以美国注定会被中国给逼退皇位的。
看看中国的战狼外交,看看习近平的集权,看看中国人民受到的各种压制,难道中国不应该被遏制吗?
中国目前做的都是在倒行逆施,逆转了邓小平的所有改革开放路线,这种政权难道不应该受到唾弃吗?
得了吧?美国遏制中国,完全不是因为中国怎么糟糕,而是因为中国让美国看起来没那么好了。
打起来挺好的
下次我们用石头木棍,互殴
看看伊拉克,阿富汗,中东各地20年遭的罪,你他么居然说的出这种话,真是洗脑洗的满脑子屎。
至于美国的反中宣传,那时还是很小部分右翼团体,在提出警告,担心。但他们人数较少 不能影响主流。后来中国开始在南海群岛上建立军事设施,这样引起更多美国军方,和 安全机构组织的担心,和警告。真正引起美国大部分国会议员反中是中国在新疆的政策, 到后来香港的反送中的事,那是完全引起欧,美一致反中了。但那时川普还是想跟包子谈贸易 的 deal,所以对中国有些政策还是不错的。可是后来赵立奸的战狼言词,那完全改变了 川对中国的态度。
啥评论啊,战狼出动?
肯定是赚钱的。
你这不瞎扯淡么?20多年前,前有南斯拉夫使馆被炸,后又南海军机对撞事件,你难道要中国和台湾对台积电一样宣传,美国能有什么坏心思呢?
更何况2011年的阿拉伯之春更是让人看清了美国是如何利用互联网统治优势来煽动颠覆政府的。
台湾人认为支那猪过来是殖民,不认同我们该滚。 同时台湾人认为自己杀番夺田食蕃膏,大言不惭说自己的方言是台语,就不该滚。
中国如果不被遏制而最终做大,台湾必将起战火,在美华人也会被连累遭殃。
如果中国被遏制,经济下滑,最终导致政府收敛或垮台,将不会有台海战火,在美华人也可以免遭牵连。这个道理难道不清楚吗?
其实就是这样,一片祥和那军方怎么要钱要物要人?
欧美老百姓被洗脑跟风就算了,你在这里拿新疆香港说事儿能挣一分钱吗?
所谓中国的战狼外交这事可以另说 - 究竟啥是因啥是果,还不好说呢。。。
但您后面的话,逻辑就比较混乱了。。。 中国人民受到了压制,所以中国该被遏制?那么当年日本侵华的时候中国人民受到的,可比“压制”还严重,是不是那时候中国就该被消灭才对?
二战后老美都挑了多少战争了,还总能站在世界警察的位置上指指点点
所以中国更没有任何理由把美华当自己人。那个签证贴还一堆美华口口声声中国政府怎么这样对待自己人。事实上呢,美华希望的是中国被美国遏制,经济下滑,最终垮台,中国十几亿人生活在水深火热中。以后不要抱怨中国及中国人怎么看待美华,更别舔着脸质问中国为什么不给美华行方便了。
不好说,国内矛盾太多,可能会用战争来吸引注意力,用nationalism团结分裂的势力,实现军管加强集权
嗯,梅花为了让白皮对自己好点,14亿中国人就该去吃屎?
首先,中国“做大”,不代表台湾必将起战火。
其次,您的帖子意思显然是希望中国经济变差,认为这样对您自己好。
虽然说您为您自个儿好,这个我可以理解啊,不过咱这儿都至少曾经是中国人,您这种直言自个儿就是希望中国差的言语,我反正是不好意思说的。
对于在美华人,遏制中国试图武力入侵台湾是我们的最大利益点所在。我觉得每个华人都应该认识到这点。
中国重回邓小平的路线将让中国重回富裕振兴之路。现在的道路是直奔北韩的吃屎之路,任何有脑子的都应该看到这点。
你这种美华其实连累了很多希望中美都好的美华,但没办法,一勺屎能搅了一锅汤
为啥试图让台湾被中国不使用武力就直接合并,就不能是最大利益呢?因为您不想?
至于中国如何振兴,您这个希望中国经济变差的主儿,就不用多扯了吧?
就算土共不想干仗,老这么撺掇,是不是土共最后不得不干仗? 这个目标时间不会是美国给土共设的吧? To do list: conquer Taiwan deadline: 2027 developer: China product manager: USA product owner: China and Taiwan
的确是。
台湾人民已经有了一个民主体制,人民安居乐业,有全民医疗保险,人均GDP直逼发达国家,为什么要被别人吞并,而且被一个独裁直逼北韩的政权吞并?难道就是为了圆历代的帝王的统一梦?
你还有没有一点基本的良知?
中国以后面临的是一个终身执政的帝王和他的子孙,信不信,我们拭目以待。如果中国人民不反抗,北韩便是他们的明天。
您前面谈的是“在美华人也可以免遭牵连”,我只是跟着您的逻辑说,告诉您,那也是能满足您这个要求的一个选择,我并没有说这就是我的希望,请您不要歪曲我的话。
另外,如果您要谈其他的,比如,良知之类的(我很难理解一个希望中国经济烂的,曾经的中国人,好意思说这个词。。。),请先说明。如果要真谈良知,很简单,我虽然特别不圣母,比如,虽然我不关心谁谁是不是安居乐业。。。但我至少不会像您那样,直接就说希望哪个国家(其实还是您曾经的母国)经济变差。您这希望人家不安居乐业的,咋好意思说我这个仅仅是不在乎别人是不是安居乐业的人呢?
梅华只要换不了皮,再反华,走在街上都可能被打。
赵美心还被怀疑忠诚度呢!以为舔白人,就能融入的华人,不是做梦吗?
唯一的办法,是和白人结婚,后代继续和白人结婚,几代以后的后代能够伪装成白人。
可惜美国日薄西山口袋不深了,庞大的军事预算想在全球都插一脚都纳入自己的势力范围,只会把自己陷在穷兵黩武军事杯赛的泥沼里,加剧没落的步伐。
中国的崛起是趋势和未来。如果逆历史潮流而动,吃亏的是自己。老美何时能懂这个道理?这需要一个大智慧的美国领导者,真正学会做一个有历史的大国,而不是暴发户,急功近利自以为是。
其实美国知道的很清楚。。。 你的想法就象公司里的老中,我要搞技术,把事情做好做漂亮。为公司的事业添砖加瓦。。。 可是美国就象公司里的烙印,公司的事业算个屁,只要我个人会忽悠,能搅屎能忽悠能升官加薪就行,搞垮了这个公司不要紧,还能去那个公司接着忽悠。。
“至于美国的反中宣传,那时还是很小部分右翼团体,在提出警告,担心”
估计你不看美国新闻,所以不知道那个时候根本不是什么小部分右翼团体在担心。。。那时候已经声势浩大了。。。一有什么事就说是中国造成的。。。
它多半是拿了菜蝇闻钱的症屁flg
美国把中国定性为敌人的情况下,中国大利发展军备才是有效制止战争的办法,有足够大的军事力量,中国才能防止美国任意发动战争,就像在伊拉克战争和阿富汗战争一样
一个多极,平衡的世界,远比只有一个霸权的美国要安全的多
其实是跪久了,看别人站着心理不爽
把自己这边一堆烂事儿,先收拾了吧
我的天,这种洗地真是洗得颠覆三观。
台湾有会有战火,是因为中国做大了?台湾如要保命,必须中国被掐死?
还觉得这个道理很清楚?
我很奇怪你是台湾人还是美国人,中国和台湾是你死我活的关系?在美华人要不遭殃,必须中国亡台湾活?到底什么地方洗脑把你洗成这样儿的?
哈哈,排华法案的时候中国还能再弱? 让在美华人受到伤害的不是中国政府,而是一定要牵连华裔的“美国人”,和根本无视这个“模范民族”会受到伤害的美国政府,这个道理我以为小学不毕业也能拎的清楚啊LOL
抑制中国两党历来没有分歧,只是那时候美国没估计到中国会在短短二十年就能够威胁到美国地位了。
真是呢,一个自私到极致的台独战狼,还自以为是为美华好。
有些人脑子里不知是什么东西?要墨别有用心。否则实在无法理解。日本人的实实在在的例子,非得掩耳盗铃。
另外,还有从”巴统" 到 “瓦森纳协定”,持续了70多年的技术封锁。
你正搞反了。中共发展不了内部就会打台湾转移矛盾。历史一直都是这样,一站二战都是这样打起来的。 所以说台湾人特傻,不如祈祷中国好好发展,发展的好顾不上打仗,也不值得。
纵观中国共产党历史,有个规律,共产党只要吃了几天饱饭,就搞运动。
中国最近几年只所以出了这么多幺蛾子,就是因为经济太好了,经济垮了,共产党也就消停了。不只世界会太平些,中国人民的受到管制也会松些。
为了世界和平,中国最好垮了,中国老百姓最好吃不上饭对不LOL
她最好中国变得跟非洲一样穷,台湾可以反攻回去解放受压迫的人们。LOL
你错了。。 搞文革的时候正好是60年大饥荒之后,吃不饱饭,只好搞搞运动。。。 以后经济发展了,运动自然没人搞了。。 再以前,哪次农民起义,不都是天灾人祸,人吃不饱饭,才起来闹事的?
台湾人也不想想,整天憋着劲希望中国完蛋。。 岂不知,要是中国真的输到一贫如洗了,还不趁机搞一把台湾? 输了反正也没啥损失,要是赢了还能捞一笔。。。 只能说台湾人的脑子不太好使。。。
该吃药了
除非中国自愿倒退30年 而且承诺永远以美国马首是瞻 不然美国反华是不会停的 反华是因台海战争是果 你完全搞反了
是啊,政府垮了上台的肯定是手握军权的人,军方的人多是鹰派,并且转移矛盾,拉拢人心最好的方式就是和台湾开一战。港真对想要独立的台湾人来说,中国经济崩溃了,内乱到分裂成几块,或者文化国家人民全消失最符合利益,但是这可不符合中国大陆人的利益,拿中国崩溃的梦想说服自己可以理解,说服或多或少都有亲友在国内,不希望国内混乱的一般人来舍己为台,认真是智商有问题,思路和美国一定会为台湾开战一样愚蠢又自恋,开战了台湾就没有做棋子的价值了,当年干脆利落的台湾断交,今天会不惜和核大国开战,就为了保护台湾?LOL
苏联,日本,欧盟,中国。。。谁是老二就搞谁。
你真是无知啊。搞运动是因为转移矛盾,中国最穷的时候,打越战韩战也是一穷二白的时候。今天跟印度都不想多冲突。
美华先己后美再华,中国国策会把你利益优先级放在哪里?
真是愚不可及。
美国快散架了??你上级告诉你的??
我是到现在也没想明白兔子援助金家搞出核弹是为了啥,为了社会主义情谊?
说到丛林规则,我这两天忽然发现社会主义的“不劳动者不得食,多劳多得,少劳少得”其实蛮恐怖的。按照这个规则,婴儿和失去劳动能力的成年人都得活活饿死,因为不劳动者不得食。
志愿军入朝是投名状,对越自卫也是投名状,只不过投奔的山寨不同了。
美国都散架多少年了,上个世纪五十年代开始,厉害国就赶英超美了。
你错了 运动不是农民起义 反右 大跃进 文革都是经济好转几年之后搞得,本质是产党内部的夺权斗争
当时美国推出一个计划:重返亚太
不过后来发生了911,
为了让中国大陆配合美国反恐,
只好放弃了打击中国大陆的计划
20年前美国工业界的热点是outsource,70%以上的公司都考虑外包。口号是”No outsource, no business". 所以所谓20年前美国想遏制中国的说法并不真实。想压榨一下中国赚更多钱倒是真的。
噗嗤
穷才做打手,富豪需要去做打手吗?
总统记错了
不过奥 巴马提出重返亚太战略,现在还能搜到
遏制的是中国政府吗?遏制的是中国老百姓吧,贸易战,企业制裁,供应链转移,造成无数老百姓失去工作,受伤害的全部是中国老百姓,政府官员一点影响都没有
历史从哪儿学的。 小布什那时候就想对中国有一定的压制,然后发生了911,美国重心就去中东反恐了,这一反就是二十年,给了中国相当充足的崛起时间。 奥巴马上台后,是想经济上遏制中国,然后赶上了08年次贷危机,中国算是帮了美国一把,即便如此,美国度过危机之后,也立刻组建了TPP试图压制中国的经济,之后就是特朗普退出TPP,中国把RCEP谈好,基本上搞定了东南亚,如果这几年把南海行为准则搞定了,美国在南海的影响力会暴跌。
说的太对了,小布什上台就想猛搞中国,南海撞机后两国关系非常差,911发生美国战略重大转移,当时很多人都说拉灯帮了中国给中国人十年机会,实际是差不多的,中美都有明白人,但美国战略随形式发展没有办法精力集中到中国,结果现在是时候了但想遏制发现难了,所有什么人权南海新疆西藏台湾贵庚到底都是为美国战略服务的,包括撮合日韩和解放日本发展武器,拜登现在有条不紊一步步的搞。至于板上的某些想搞垮中国的老中,我现实中也见到过,我以前买房找过一个agent老抱怨中国发展太快,日子过的太好了,国际上应该给美国做狗,我听后再没找他了,同时警告同胞不要找他
说什么新疆的政策基本可以说是被美国媒体洗脑洗得不轻。
全球化美梦破碎,以后美国人就只能勒紧裤腰带,吃土豆。 其实对身体健康很好。
而且
剩上 也很配合啊
要打南海打南海
要放氣球放氣球
中美兩國 軍費一起指數增長
这也没办法。作为美国如果不遏制中国发展,中国会变得更有钱。军费更多。会在更多的地方搞事, 像建立南海军事设施之类的。当然遏制中国发展必然会伤害中国百姓。他们的工作,收入都会受 影响。但最后政府官员也会受影响,军费开支也会受影响。
想想如果中国军事实力是 70 年代,会有整天吵着要武统吗 ?中国武统最终为了什么 ? 还不是为了我档的统治。 当年为什么蒋经国可以让李登辉这个想搞民主的人上台。 在中国这是不可能,甚至不允许。中国现在走的政治道路基本上就是陈云说的让他们的后代 来掌权。红后代的几十个家族一直世袭着统治权。那跟封建社会有什么差别 ? 猪头再 统治下去就是个大号朝鲜。他很有可能会让他的私生子做他的接班人。看着吧。
盖茨先生说,布什总统和奥巴马总统都认为与中国合作是可能的,并认为发生冲突“的可能性很小”。 他说,2013 年习近平上台后,情况发生了变化。作为扩大北京全球影响力运动的一部分,中国国家主席支持更强大的中国军队和更自信的外国姿态。
你这是穿越了吗?那是克林顿/布什时代😅