The strategic competition between China and the United States has gradually become the focus of global attention, and the Asia-Pacific region seems to have become the main battlefield of this competition.
Recently, the United States conducted an exercise that simulated a military conflict between China and the United States, revealing the vulnerability of the defense of U.S. military bases in the Indo-Pacific region.
The results of the exercise showed that in a potential Sino-US conflict, the PLA's rapid response could lead to the destruction of up to 90 percent of the US warplanes on the ground, a scenario that has aroused widespread concern and in-depth discussion in the United States.
Recently, 13 members of the U.S. Congress signed a letter to U.S. Secretary of the Navy Toro and Secretary of the Air Force Kendall, expressing their deep concern about the defense capability of U.S. military bases in the Indo-Pacific region.
They warned that the U.S. military's base defenses are particularly weak in the face of the so-called "Chinese missile threat," a situation that could lead to massive losses of U.S. warplanes in a potential conflict.
To improve the situation, they urged the military to take immediate action.
Why, then, did these parliamentarians come to such conclusions? They are based on the results of the simulation exercises described above.
During the exercise, the U.S. military found itself in the Indo-Pacific region with bases that were extremely vulnerable to PLA missile attacks.
Although the U.S. military has the most advanced air defense and anti-missile systems in the world, "relevant analysis shows that China has ample weapons to counter these defense systems."
Therefore, these lawmakers believe that the US military needs to adopt a more passive defense strategy, such as strengthening anti-aircraft bunkers, building underground bunkers, and improving the maintenance capacity of fast runways.
However, it is not difficult to see that there may be a deeper intention behind the statements of these parliamentarians.
They seem to be using the opportunity to exaggerate the "China threat" as an excuse to ask Congress for more military spending.
In addition, they may also try to co-opt Western allies to jointly confront China and further suppress and contain China's development.
This argument also suggests that the United States has seen the Asia-Pacific region as a potential conflict zone with China, which has undoubtedly increased tensions between China and the United States.
We should keep a sober mind and make objective judgments about the hype of these US congressmen.
First, China has always adhered to the path of peaceful development and has never taken the initiative to provoke or infringe on the interests of other countries.
Second, China's military power has been gradually increased by the need to safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity, not to threaten other countries.
Finally, cooperation between China and the United States far outweighs competition, and the two sides should resolve differences and problems through dialogue and consultation.
Returning to the discussion within the U.S. military about how to strengthen defenses. While the Pentagon agrees with the "Chinese missile threat," it prefers to maintain the aircraft's ability to take off quickly rather than take more reactive defensive measures.
This approach seems to be based more on strategic flexibility and rapid response considerations.
In the Pentagon's view, instead of spending huge sums of money on stationary defenses that could be destroyed by missiles, resources should be invested in improving the rapid response and survivability of fighters.
In addition, the Pentagon is aware that in modern warfare, purely passive defense is no longer sufficient.
As a result, they are more inclined to adopt an active defense strategy, using means such as intelligence gathering, early warning systems, and electronic warfare to detect and destroy enemy missile attacks in advance.
This shift in tactics also reflects the changing shape of modern warfare and the U.S. military's understanding and preparation for future wars.
However, there are also some problems and challenges hidden behind such strategic competition and military exercises.
First, excessive military competition could lead to an arms race and an escalation of regional tensions. This will not only consume a lot of resources and funds, but may also pose a threat to regional peace and stability.
Secondly, military means are not the master key to solving all problems.
With regard to differences and problems between China and the United States, the two sides should seek peaceful solutions through dialogue, consultation, and cooperation, rather than relying on force or the threat of use of force.
Overall, the words and deeds of both US politicians and the military have invisibly exacerbated tensions between China and the United States.
And this over-exaggeration of the "China threat" exposes the bias and hostility held by some people in the Pentagon and the US government.
In order to maintain regional peace and stability and the common interests of China and the United States, the two sides should remain calm and restrained, resolve differences and problems through dialogue and consultation, and refrain from taking drastic actions that may lead to further deterioration of the situation.
At the same time, we should also realize that the competition between China and the United States is not a pure zero-sum game.
The two sides have extensive space for cooperation and common interests in the fields of economy, trade, science and technology, and culture. By strengthening exchanges and cooperation, China and the United States can achieve mutual benefit and win-win results and contribute to global peace and prosperity.
We should also take a rational view of the US congressman's proposal to strengthen passive defensive measures such as anti-aircraft bunkers.
While these measures can improve the defense capability of US military bases to some extent, they are not a panacea.
In modern warfare, the development of science and technology and the innovation of tactics make it difficult for any single means of defense to completely resist the enemy's attack.
Therefore, while strengthening passive defense, the US military should pay more attention to enhancing its overall combat capability and strategic flexibility.
It is also worth noting that there are also differences of opinion within the United States on military strategy and defensive measures.
This reflects the game and competition between different interest groups and strategic factions.
Against this backdrop, the U.S. government and military need to be more prudent in formulating and adjusting their military strategies and policies to avoid over-militarization and unnecessary tensions.
Finally, it should be emphasized that strategic competition and military exercises between China and the United States should not be the whole content of the relationship between the two countries.
The two sides should persist in resolving differences and problems through dialogue and consultation, and promote the development of bilateral relations in the direction of stability and cooperation.
At the same time, the two sides should also strengthen cooperation and coordination on global issues, jointly address global challenges and issues, and contribute to world peace and prosperity.
In this era of deepening globalization, China and the United States, as the world's largest economies and important international powers, have the responsibility and ability to maintain world peace and stability through cooperation and dialogue.
Only through mutual respect, consultation on an equal footing, and mutual benefit can we promote the healthy development of China-US relations and contribute to global prosperity and progress.