Foreign media wrote today (October 1): "The U.S. Pentagon estimates that the inventory of nuclear and conventional missiles of the People's Liberation Army Rocket Force has increased by nearly 50% in four years, reaching about 3,500 missiles."

This "statistical result" from the Pentagon was deliberately released by foreign media on National Day, which is quite subtle.

It should be noted that it hasn't been long since the September 3rd military parade, during which the Rocket Force displayed real weapons. The DF-17 hypersonic missile, the DF-41 intercontinental strategic nuclear missile, and the conventional missile formation capable of precise strikes all reflected China's military confidence.

At that time, the Pentagon had already felt a bit uneasy. Now, they are bringing up the "3,500 missiles" again. Anyone can see that their anxiety is hard to hide.

The key issue lies in the "statistical criteria," what is the difference between conventional missiles and nuclear missiles?

Conventional missiles are essentially used for conventional warfare. For example, if external forces want to cause trouble around us or interfere with the Taiwan Strait or South China Sea, which are our core interests, conventional missiles can precisely strike military bases and equipment warehouses, emphasizing "precision, efficiency, and non-nuclear deterrence";

While nuclear missiles are the "stabilizing stone" at the strategic level. Our country has always adhered to the policy of "not using nuclear weapons first, and not using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries." The existence of nuclear missiles is more to prevent others from deterring us with nuclear weapons, serving as a "reassuring pill" to maintain global strategic balance.

One is a "wrench in the toolbox of conventional tools," and the other is a "key in the strategic safe." Their functions, purposes, and even deployment logic are completely different. The Pentagon deliberately combines them to calculate the total number, which is clearly trying to inflate the numbers and create the "China missile threat theory," isn't it?

Moreover, let's look back at how the United States counts its own missile inventory.

Their Tomahawk cruise missiles are typical conventional missiles. There are thousands just on the navy ships alone. While the Minuteman-3 intercontinental nuclear missiles have strictly controlled numbers, and every time they release public data, they clearly distinguish between them. They never say, "We have so many missiles, including both Tomahawks and Minuteman-3s."

So why does the Pentagon intentionally blur the boundaries when it comes to China? It's just to use the seemingly startling number of "3,500 missiles" to both ask the U.S. Congress for more military funding, saying that China's missiles have increased, so we need to quickly spend money to develop equipment; and also send messages to allies, saying that China's "threat" has increased, so you need to follow me to guard against it. This small calculation is so loud that it can be heard across the Pacific.

Why is the Pentagon so sensitive now? The rise of China's military power has broken their decades-old "fixed perception."

Previously, the United States always thought that in the missile field, especially in conventional precision strike and strategic nuclear deterrence, they were absolutely the "number one," able to dictate whatever they wanted.

But in recent years, the development of our Rocket Force has been too fast. The DF-17 can break through the existing anti-missile system, making it difficult for the opponent to defend. The range and accuracy of conventional missiles are increasing, covering key areas around us, making external forces dare not easily provoke. The reliability and deterrent power of nuclear missiles are also steadily improving, ensuring no one dares to think about "nuclear intentions" against us.

This practical progress has made the United States feel that their "superior position" is no longer as stable, so they resort to this "watered-down statistics" to find anxiety for themselves and create tension for others.

China's development of the Rocket Force has never been for hegemony with anyone, but to protect our home.

Our country is so large, with a long border, and the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea are key interests. Without sufficient military strength as a backing, others would be likely to provoke.

Moreover, in recent years, our manufacturing and technological levels have been continuously improving. Breakthroughs in aerospace technology, materials science, and precision processing naturally lead to improvements in missile technology, allowing us to build more advanced missiles. Essentially, this is a reflection of our industrial strength, normal national defense construction, and has nothing to do with "threats."

On the contrary, looking at what the United States has done in Asia-Pacific in recent years: deploying the THAAD anti-missile system in South Korea, increasing military bases in Japan, and organizing the "Quadrilateral Security Dialogue" with the US, Japan, India, and Australia, selling weapons and forming military alliances everywhere—this is really destroying regional security.

Now, they're doing all sorts of things themselves, yet they start criticizing China's missile inventory. Isn't this a typical case of "only the official can burn, but the people cannot light a lamp"?

In short, the essence of the "3,500 missiles" statement by the United States is an inadaptation to China's military rise, and an anxiety about their own hegemonic status being challenged.

They have become accustomed to being the "police" around the world, to suppressing others with military power. Now, they suddenly realize that there is a country that can catch up with or even surpass them in their area of expertise, and they begin to panic. All they can do is play "word games" to boost their courage and send wrong signals to the world.

However, we don't need to be misled by these statements.

China's defense policy has always been clear: a defensive national defense policy, which will never change; the determination to safeguard national sovereignty, security, and development interests will never waver.

We develop missiles to ensure we have the ability to protect our homeland, allowing the people to live peacefully and stably. It is not for competing with anyone or comparing strengths.

Original: www.toutiao.com/article/1844796825093129/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author.