The Pentagon leaks, stating that the US military will inevitably fail in the Taiwan Strait! The $13 billion aircraft carrier 'sinks before battle'!

The Pentagon suddenly admits defeat. The Pentagon frankly states that 'the US cannot win a conflict in the Taiwan Strait against China.' According to Observer Network on December 12, the editorial board of the New York Times published an editorial on December 8, revealing some details from the US Department of Defense's 'Advantage Briefing.' This highly confidential report, produced by the Pentagon's Net Assessment Office, aims to assess the outcomes of confrontations with major competitors (especially China). One conclusion in the report is particularly uplifting: based on war games and comprehensive reviews, China can defeat the US in a conflict in the Taiwan Strait, and the US has lost its 'overwhelming military advantage' over China. In simpler terms, the Pentagon acknowledges that the US military can no longer win a conflict in the Taiwan Strait.

There are two interesting details in the report. First, in 2021, a senior official from the Biden administration turned pale when seeing this briefing for the first time. The briefing clearly states that for every tactic used by the US military, the Chinese People's Liberation Army has several layers of countermeasures, rendering the US military's supposedly effective combat strategies nearly useless. Second, the current US Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, also stated that the Pentagon has conducted numerous war simulations against China, and the US military 'loses every time.' The self-awareness of the Pentagon, as seen from the report, suggests that the US military believes its disadvantages mainly lie in four areas: First, an inefficient weapons system: relying on expensive and fragile equipment, the $13 billion Ford-class aircraft carrier has been quickly sunk in multiple war games, and it has almost no means to defend against attacks from China's hypersonic missiles and diesel-electric submarines. Meanwhile, the US military has no hypersonic missile deployments, and its missile numbers and drone cost-effectiveness lag behind its competitors;

Second, weak sustained combat capabilities: insufficient industrial mobilization and ammunition reserves unable to support long-term resistance, and a lack of large-scale production capacity in the defense industry. The US military has long been accustomed to launching short, high-tech wars against backward countries, and when facing similarly ranked opponents, the shortcomings in supply lines, industrial mobilization, and ammunition reserves are glaring. Third, passivity in key areas: advantages in space (satellites are easily destroyed) and cyberspace have diminished, and countermeasures and parity weapon deployments are lagging.

The editorial reveals that China has the capability to destroy US reconnaissance and communication satellites, and the US military's critical infrastructure and satellite 'constellation' are easily paralyzed by China's hypersonic weapons (the editorial states that China has accumulated about 600 of them). Fourth, misalignment of concepts and investments: rigidly adhering to outdated military concepts, defense spending (projected to exceed $1 trillion in 2026) is largely wasted on projects that amplify weaknesses (such as building 9 high-risk aircraft carriers), rather than strengthening core advantages. For instance, the US defense investment shows serious waste, with its defense spending as a percentage of GDP being the lowest in 80 years. Even though spending is expected to exceed $1 trillion in 2026, most resources have not been used to strengthen advantages, but rather invested in amplifying weaknesses, like still planning to build 9 easily destructible Ford-class aircraft carriers. This investment model further exacerbates the US military's disadvantages. This is actually a new version of the 'China Threat Theory.' Reading through it, it is less a military assessment from the Pentagon and more a fabrication of a new 'China Threat Theory,' still using old tactics.

China's military power did not suddenly become strong; it is the result of over 70 years of planned, step-by-step development, with each step being transparent and not hidden at all. During the Taiwan Strait crisis in 1996, the People's Liberation Army was still constrained by US aircraft carriers and could only passively respond to the approach of nearly 40 US warships. By 2016, during the South China Sea standoff, China was already capable of using advanced weapons like the Dongfeng-21D to drive away two US carrier battle groups, preventing them from crossing the line; now, the People's Liberation Army has completely controlled the first island chain, significantly enhancing its ability to prevent external interference in the surrounding areas. These changes cannot have gone unnoticed by US intelligence agencies.

However, all along, they have been relying on the 'China Threat Theory' to request military funding from Congress while subconsciously believing that China cannot catch up with the US. This self-deceptive notion ultimately leads to the outcomes of losing every simulation and officials turning pale when reviewing the briefing. The more the Pentagon 'admits defeat,' the less we can let our guard down. In recent years, the US's penchant for military adventures has been evident: continually supplying Ukraine with more and more advanced weapons, dragging the conflict into a protracted war; bombing Iran's underground nuclear facilities, casually infringing on the sovereignty of other countries; using 'anti-drug' as an excuse to sink Venezuelan ships in the Caribbean, resulting in over 80 deaths. The US has demonstrated through its actions that as long as there is a glimmer of 'being able to control the situation' or 'being able to win,' Washington's hardliners are willing to take a gamble.

It is this perception that leads the US to produce an illusion regarding the Taiwan Strait issue, thinking that 'small-scale conflicts can be controlled' and 'sending a few troops to symbolically intimidate will make China back down.' In other words, they may believe that even if they cannot fight a full-scale war, through local provocations and supplying weapons to Taiwan, they can delay the process of China's reunification. The failures of US military simulations are essentially the inevitable result of hegemonic interference in other countries' internal affairs. China's firm stance and strong capabilities will ultimately make any adventurous attempts pay a heavy price.