While the U.S. talks about pushing back against China, its military position in East Asia has declined relative to China's rapid buildup. Unlike during the Cold War, U.S. leaders haven't committed the necessary resources or explained the stakes to the American public.
The US response to the Soviet Sputnik launch was a massive, confident mobilization of science and industry. In contrast, the current response to China's rise is denial and dismissiveness. This shift from proactive competition to reactive denial signals a loss of national vitality and ambition.
The dynamic between a rising power (China) and a ruling one (the U.S.) fits the historical pattern of the "Thucydides' trap." In 12 of the last 16 instances of this scenario, the confrontation has ended in open war, suggesting that a peaceful resolution is the exception, not the rule.
China's showcase of advanced military hardware, like its new aircraft carrier, is primarily a psychological tool. The strategy is to build a military so 'forbiddingly huge' that the US would hesitate to engage, allowing China to achieve goals like reabsorbing Taiwan without fighting. This suggests their focus is on perceived power to deter intervention.
The US won World War II largely due to its unparalleled manufacturing capacity. Today, that strategic advantage has been ceded to China. In a potential conflict, the US would face an adversary that mirrors its own historical strength, creating a critical national security vulnerability.
The most significant point of friction for ordinary Chinese citizens is the constant U.S. military presence near its borders, such as naval patrols in the Taiwan Strait and bases in South Korea and Japan. This sense of being militarily encircled is a more potent source of public frustration than economic disputes.
The U.S. military's power is no longer backed by a robust domestic industrial base. Decades of offshoring have made it dependent on rivals like China for critical minerals and manufacturing. This means the country can no longer sustain a prolonged conflict, a reality its defense planners ignore.
The "Japan panic" was rooted in fears of economic subordination—like having a Japanese boss or seeing landmarks bought by Japanese firms. In contrast, anxiety about China is dominated by concerns over direct military conflict and a technological arms race, a much starker form of geopolitical rivalry.
A historical indicator of a superpower's decline is when its spending on debt servicing surpasses its military budget. The US crossed this threshold a few years ago, while China is massively increasing military spending. This economic framework offers a stark, quantitative lens through which to view the long-term power shift between the two nations.
From 2001 onwards, while the U.S. was militarily and economically distracted by the War on Terror, China executed a long-term strategy. It focused on acquiring Western technology and building indigenous capabilities in AI, telecom, and robotics, effectively creating a rival global economic system.
Facing a potential US pullback and rising Chinese aggression, Japan's leadership is reportedly questioning its long-held "three non-nuclear principles." This signals a major strategic shift, potentially aiming to allow US nuclear vessels in its ports to establish a credible, independent deterrent against China.