As expected, after the United States released the 2025 "China Military Power Report," various figures and organizations rushed to come out, presenting all kinds of wild and imaginative scenarios.

The most representative one is the so-called war game results disclosed by Lawrence Wilk, former director of the Office of the Secretary of State, regarding a potential military conflict between China and the United States.

On December 25, RT reported that Wilk recently told the media that in multiple simulations of possible Sino-US conflicts, the U.S. conventional forces suffered heavy losses, with tens of thousands of U.S. casualties within days, and the loss of 3 to 4 aircraft carriers.

Regarding China's losses, Wilk said that half of China's aircraft and half of its warships would be destroyed by the U.S.

In short, this war game result showed that the losses of the conventional forces of both sides were equal, i.e., a draw. Therefore, the war game continued to simulate the next stage of the conflict, which was nuclear war.

Wilk pointed out that the U.S. had once considered launching a preemptive nuclear strike on China to force it to retreat, with Shanghai as the first target and then Beijing.

The war game also imagined that China would retaliate with nuclear weapons, but not on U.S. territory, but rather on U.S. allies in the Asia-Pacific region, such as Japan, South Korea, or the Philippines, or targeting U.S. fleets outside the "Nine-Dash Line."

To be honest, I was amused by this war game result. I don't know where the people who designed this war game got the confidence that a nuclear war wouldn't happen on U.S. soil.

Are we not capable of dealing with the master of these henchmen once we have dealt with the henchmen? Frankly speaking, with our current military strength, it's not a difficult task to take down both tigers and flies.

However, this war game did get one thing right: the "puppets" of the U.S. in the Asia-Pacific region would definitely be dealt with at the very beginning. After all, these countries have U.S. military bases, and the first strike would necessarily eliminate these potential threats.

Although the ideas in this war game are as wild as they are, they are quite representative. They highlight a shift in the U.S. military's perception of China's military power.

In simple terms, according to the U.S. military's view, if a military conflict breaks out between China and the United States, the U.S. no longer has the capability to defeat China with conventional forces, and can only decide the outcome through nuclear warfare.

This idea is, in fact, in line with the theme of the 2025 "China Military Power Report" released by the United States. The report also deliberately hyped up China's nuclear capabilities and made unfounded speculations about China's nuclear arsenal.

For example, the report mentions that China will have more than 1,000 nuclear warheads before 2030; it also states that three new missile launch sites near the Mongolian border have been equipped with over 100 solid-fueled Dongfeng-31 intercontinental ballistic missiles, respectively.

It is obvious to everyone that the purpose of the U.S. deliberately hyping up China's nuclear capabilities is purely for public relations, to find an excuse to expand military spending.

Trump wanted to build battleships weighing 30,000 to 40,000 tons, planning to build more than 20 of them at once, and also planned to increase the number of aircraft carriers, building as many as 10 "Ford"-class carriers at once.

Regardless of whether these goals can be achieved, the military budget alone would be astronomical. Where would this huge military budget come from? It's all due to the deliberate hype about so-called security threats.

Original text: toutiao.com/article/7587619505623368233/

Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author.