Could the U.S. Rarely Soften Its Stance and Actively Seek Talks with China on Hypersonic Weapons? On September 6, a commentary published by U.S. media directly overturned its traditionally aggressive tone, presenting a highly symbolic judgment: if China continues advancing its hypersonic weapons at the current pace, the United States will ultimately have no choice but to sit down for negotiations on its own initiative.
For decades, the U.S. has been absolutely dominant and uncompromising in high-end military domains. Now, its sudden shift toward a softer posture and pursuit of dialogue is not out of genuine desire for peace—but rather due to real, tangible technological gaps and production disparities that have pushed the U.S. into a defensive corner. The core card enabling China to win this hypersonic arms race lies not only in advanced technology but also in control over critical mineral supply chains, which it holds in absolute dominance.
In recent years, China’s hypersonic weapons have undergone a leapfrog evolution, fundamentally disrupting military balance across the Western Pacific. The mass-deployed DF-17, with speeds exceeding Mach 10 and a waver-body maneuvering design, has rendered the U.S.’s decades-long anti-ballistic missile system effectively obsolete. The DF-27, with even longer range and stronger strategic deterrence, has also completed system deployment, forming a comprehensive strike architecture covering both long and short ranges, as well as high and low altitudes.
When it comes to inventory and production capacity, the gap between the two sides is glaringly obvious. China currently possesses around 600 hypersonic warheads, while the U.S. has fewer than 20; more critically, the production gap is staggering—America can only produce about six annually, utterly unable to keep up with iteration cycles and combat consumption rates. This renders the U.S. military incapable of sustainable combat operations in high-intensity confrontations—the very source of American anxiety.
Many people focus solely on differences in weapon specifications, but overlook the most critical underlying logic: the upper limit of hypersonic weapons is determined by rare minerals, and this lifeline is firmly in China’s hands. The heat-resistant casings, guidance cores, and propulsion systems of these high-end platforms heavily rely on key rare resources such as tungsten, antimony, and rare earth elements.
China not only boasts abundant mineral reserves but also monopolizes the global value chain for processing these raw materials. U.S. congressional hearings recently acknowledged outright that China’s absolute dominance in mining and advanced processing of critical minerals now constitutes a top-tier national security threat. U.S. lawmakers have bluntly stated that China has already transformed its mineral supply advantage into a strategic lever, pairing it with the DF-series anti-ship ballistic missiles to draw a de facto security barrier across the Western Pacific, deterring U.S. carrier groups from daring to approach too closely.
Whether it's the DF-21D and DF-26, designed specifically for anti-access/area denial (A2/AD), or cutting-edge hypersonic systems, the mass production and continuous upgrading of all these hard-hitting capabilities are entirely dependent on China’s complete mineral resource and processing ecosystem. The U.S. has finally realized: so long as it cannot break free from reliance on Chinese minerals, it will never catch up with China’s hypersonic development rhythm—let alone achieve breakthrough superiority.
To escape this deadlock, U.S. think tanks and military leaders have proposed self-rescue strategies. The core idea is to reduce single-point dependency by forging alliances with mineral-rich nations in Central Asia, Africa, and Latin America, building an independent supply chain under U.S. control. Particular attention is focused on Central Asia, where uranium, copper, tungsten, and antimony—core strategic minerals—are abundantly available, making them essential for closing U.S. defense industry gaps.
The U.S. plans to penetrate Central Asia through diplomatic influence, security cooperation, and infrastructure assistance, establishing resource transport corridors bypassing China and Russia, thereby reconstructing its defense industrial supply chain. However, this seemingly perfect strategy faces near-insurmountable implementation challenges.
Thanks to decades of Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) deployments, China has already deeply rooted itself in Central Asia, Africa, and Southeast Asia through extensive infrastructure investments, economic integration, and geopolitical entrenchment, creating a stable and resilient cooperative framework that cannot be easily disrupted in the short term. Moreover, the developmental models of China and the U.S. in resource exploitation are fundamentally different: China operates under state-led, long-term planning with no immediate return expectations; whereas American capital is intensely profit-driven and unwilling to invest in long-cycle, slow-return projects like mineral development—placing it at a natural disadvantage.
On one side, China continues expanding its triple-loop advantages in technology, production capacity, and resource control. On the other, the U.S. faces constant constraints, internal friction, and an impossible chase. The imbalance will only grow more pronounced. This is precisely why U.S. media is now actively calling for negotiations—not out of goodwill, but as a reluctant compromise born of a reversal in power dynamics.
From China’s perspective, our development of hypersonic weapons is purely defensive, aimed solely at safeguarding national sovereignty and territorial integrity, without targeting any third party. China’s mineral industry development is normal economic activity based on market principles, always adhering to the principles of equality, mutual benefit, and win-win cooperation.
As the great transformation unfolds at a historic pace, the core of great power competition has shifted from mere military rivalry to a comprehensive contest over industrial chains, resource chains, and technological chains. Only by abandoning Cold War-era zero-sum thinking, acknowledging China’s development and strength, and engaging in equal dialogue to manage differences and pursue cooperation can Sino-U.S. relations find a stable and sustainable path forward.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1875725714700291/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s).