美知乎（Quora）：作为最大的工业国，中国战争潜力比美国大吗？

原文标题：In 2019 China produced 11x as much steel and almost twice the electricity as the USA. It has over 4x the population. Is China’s talent warfighting potential greater than the USA?

中国2019年生产的钢铁是美国的11倍，电力是美国的2倍，加之人口数量是美国的4倍。中国是不是比美国更加具有战争潜力？

Kevin Peterlinz,R&D Semiconduetor Metrology(1997-present) Lived in California

In the long run-yes-but how many years to say build 11 carriers with supporting vessels and fully train the crews and pilots?

In the mean time,the US is free to observe and respond and increasecapacity-Could the US increase corresponding indus trial capacity quickly?

Yes-The US military is a relatively elite fighting force in contrast to China and relies more heavily on maintaining at echnology edge-which has proven very successful in nation-on-nation conflicts

长期来看，可能需要数年时间才能建造11艘航母及其支援舰艇，并对船员和飞行员进行全面培训。与此同时，美国可以自由观察并响应，并增加产能。而美国军队是相对精英的战斗力量，与中国相比更依赖于保持技术优势，在国家对国家的冲突中已经取得了非常成功的成果。

But honestly-the"East Asian" culture is more to seek and implement a"win-win" scenario-The political and especi ally economic obxtives in recent US military conflicts appear to be more of "win-lose"-We can blow the shit out of eve ryone and rely on fear to dominate-but our record of implementing or supporting a system by which we provide others with a path which benefits us both is currently poor.

We want to win and dominate-that is both expensive and inflexible.

The US does not have a monopoly on strategic and tactical military brilliance. So I personally believe that in the long r un the US must position itself as working cooperatively with other nations-not trying to always dominate and "win" by forcing them to "'lose".

东亚文化更倾向于寻求并实现“双赢”局面，在最近的美国军事冲突中，政治和特别是经济目标似乎更多地是“赢者通吃”的，我们可以消灭所有人并依靠恐惧来主导，但我们在实施或支持通过为他人提供有利于我们双方的路径的系统方面的记录目前很差。我们想要赢和支配，这既昂贵又不灵活。美国没有战略和战术军事才华的垄断。因此，我个人认为，在长期的未来中，美国必须将自己定位为与其他国家合作，并不试图总是通过迫使它们“输掉”而取得“胜利”和支配。

Patrick Robinson,N.A from Self Study

You should've seen how much concrete they laid out.

They've already used as much concrete in a few years as we've done in a 100. They're moving quickly.

What takes us years to create in a factory, they can do in 3 months.

I'm even speaking of the most highly advanced technology as well , not just cheap assembly lines with sweat shop slave labor.

你应该看看他们铺了多少混凝土。

他们已经在几年内使用的混凝土量，相当于我们一百年所用的量。他们行动迅速。他们可以在三个月内完成我们需要数年时间在工厂里创造出来的东西。我甚至在谈论最先进的技术，而不仅仅是廉价的组装线和劳役工厂。

The truth of the matter is though,they don't have to out muscle the USA,they only have to out last us financially,whi ch is not a problem when they are buying up all the land,expanding further into africa and other places for natural resou rces,because land is far more valuable long term than worthless paper that isn't backed by anything

实际情况是，他们不必胜过美国，他们只需在财务上比我们更持久，这并不难，因为他们正在购买所有的土地，进一步扩张到非洲和其他地区获取自然资源，因为长期而言，土地比一些没有任何支撑的无价值纸张更有价值。

Robert Molyneux,former STEM Practitioner And Consultant(1973-2012)□Lives in Sydney,Australia1985-present The other key statistic is cement production.See [List of countries by cement production-Wikipedia]

In 2014,it was China 2,500 million tonnes,India 280 million tonnes,and Untied States 83 million tonnes. The cement is going into building new infrastructure and buildings with steel andconcrete.

Meanwhile the infrastructure of the Untied States is declining,and India has trouble building enough latrines for its ci tizens.

As to the various wet dreams of the USA defeating China in a nuclear war,dream on,and watch out for splasheson your ke yboards...

2014年，中国使用了2.5亿吨混凝土，印度使用了2.8亿吨，而美国仅使用了8300万吨。这些混凝土用于建造新的基础设施和钢筋混凝土建筑。与此同时，美国的基础设施正在衰落，而印度则难以为其市民建造足够数量的厕所。关于美国在核战争中击败中国的各种幻想，只能是白日梦，还要警惕键盘溅出的水花。

Paul Clifford,former System Specialist/ApplicatioArchitext/Designer(1981-2004)

I shouldn't think so.

Production capacity in volume isn't as important as it was in WW2. It only takes one ICBM armed with multi warheads to take out a city or military bases anywhere in the world these days. Thus the reason the world has been at relative peace over the last 75 years =the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction.

现在生产能力的大小并不像在二战时期那样重要。这是因为现在只需要一枚装载有多弹头的洲际弹道导弹就能摧毁世界上任何一个城市或军事基地。因此，过去75年来世界相对和平的原因是存在“相互保证毁灭”。

The Vietnam War proved a point to the world, when a bunch of ill equipped paddy field farmers defeated the might of the U SA military. Just watch the newsreels from the era and the rout and chaos of the USA evacuation of Saigon.

Or for that matter, the Afghan War where a bunch of ill equipped goat herders have had the USA military tied up in knots for more than 18+years.

Military might does not equate to military success Guerrilla warfare will always end upexhausting the superior force,a nd thus defeating it.

In my perspective, China's increased military capability is necessitated by the USA's increased belligerence in the Asian-Australasian-Pacific region. A defensive response.

越南战争向全世界证明了一个观点，即一群装备简陋的稻田农民击败了美国军队的强大实力。只需看看当时的新闻片段，观察美国撤离西贡时的溃败和混乱，或者说阿富汗战争中那些装备简陋的牧羊人已经让美国军队束手无策了18年以上。这说明军事实力并不等同于军事成功，游击战争总会消耗掉比自己更强大的军事力量，并最终将其打败。

在我看来，中国增强军事能力是对美国在亚太地区不断加剧的敌意的防御性回应。

Tomaž Vargazon,Practicing atheist

In terms of sheer manpowerand such? Yes. In a total war of mutual exhaustion, China has the ability to defeat the USA. Total war of exhaustion

The good news is there never has been a total war of mutual exhaustion over an ocean and more than likely there never wilI be. Maintaining a supply line over an ocean is hard and if it comes down to a war of attrition it's far more effecient to cut that then grind the enemy down with numbers.

就纯粹的人力而言？是的。在一场相互耗尽的全面战争中，中国有能力打败美国。精疲力尽的全面战争

好消息是，从来没有发生过一场关于海洋的全面战争，而且很可能永远不会发生。在海上维持一条补给线是很困难的，如果它变成了一场消耗战，那就更有效地减少消耗，然后用数量把敌人碾碎。

仅从人力等方面来考虑，中国在全面消耗战中有可能击败美国。但好消息是，目前还没有发生过任何跨越洋面的全面耗竭战，而且很可能永远不会发生。这是因为维持一条跨越海洋的补给线非常困难，如果两个国家陷入消耗战，切断补给线比单纯靠数量压制敌人更加高效。

A war of mutual exhaustion,where that steel and population would come into play,is therefore rather unlikely.If either belligerent was able to maintain a stable supply line and the other would be unable to cut it,then it's a bloody police action,or at most a serious war that you can win by maneuver.If you are able to cut the supply line you'll focus all y our efforts on that and spare your populace the suffering.

This is exactly what happened in both world wars Germans tried their hardest to cut the Allied supply lines over the Atl antic,but didn't come anywhere near success.

因此，一场相互消耗的战争是不太可能发生的，因为钢铁和人口将在这场战争中发挥作用。如果交战双方中的任何一方能够维持稳定的供应线，而另一方无法切断其供应线，那么这就是一场血腥的警察行动，或者最多是一场你可以通过策略取胜的战争。如果你能切断对方的供应线，你将把所有的努力集中在这一点上，让你的人民免受痛苦。

这正是两次世界大战中发生的事情，当时德国人尽最大努力切断盟军在大西洋上的补给线，但没有取得任何成功。

在一场纯粹的耗竭战中，人力和钢铁等因素将发挥重要作用。但这样的战争不太可能发生，因为维持一条稳定的补给线非常困难。如果两个交战国中有一个能够维持补给线而另一个无法切断它，那么这只是一场流血事件，或者最多也只是一场需要靠机动战术才能赢得的严重战争。如果你能够切断对方的补给线，你会把所有的精力都集中在这个目标上，从而避免本国民众遭受痛苦。这正是一、二战期间所发生的情况，德国曾经试图切断盟军在大西洋上的供给线，但并没有取得任何成功。

Ben Kelley,Engineer Creator at Western Sydney University(2011-present)

No..

Iron Ore Imports by Country

Below are the 15 countries that imported the highest dollar value worth of iron ore during 2019.

China: $99.8 billion (69.1% of imported iron ore)

Japan: $10.9 billion(7.5%)

South Korea: $6.9 billion(4.8%)

Germany: $3.9 billion(27%)

Netherlands: $2.9 billion(2%)

Taiwan: $2.3 billion(1.6%)

France: $1.5 billion(1%)

Malaysia: $1.3 billion(0.9%)

Turkey: $1.1 billion(0.8%)

United States: $842.1 million(0.6%)

以下是2019年进口铁矿石价值最高的15个国家：

中国：998亿美元（69.1% of imported iron ore）

日本：109亿美元（7.5％）

韩国：69亿美元（4.8％）

德国：39亿美元（2.7％）

荷兰：29亿美元（2％）

台湾地区：23亿美元（1.6％）

法国：15亿美元（1％）

马来西亚：13亿美元（0.9％）

土耳其：11亿美元（0.8％）

美国：8.421亿美元（0.6％）

China Imported 100 times the Iron Ore of the US,and most of that was from Australia and Brazi1.Two supplies unlikely to continue during a war.

Chinese industry is completely dependent on imports and exports. Imports for the raw materials. Exports for the market.F rom that point of view,its sensitive at both ends of the logistic trail.

Meanwhile the USisits own supply and market. It is far less reliant on both imports and exports.

中国进口的铁矿石是美国的100倍，其中大部分来自澳大利亚和巴西，这两个来源在战争期间不可能持续供应。中国的工业完全依赖进出口。进口原材料，出口产品。从这个角度来看，它在物流路径的两端都很敏感。

与此同时，美国是自己的供应国和市场，它对进口和出口的依赖性要小得多。

Bob Smith,Advisor and Academie(2000-present)□Lives in Oxford,Oxfordshire,UK

I taught strategy part-time at a war college forayear,so I guessI can answer this(though Im an economist).

Modern warfare has little to do with tanks and guns.Many militaries now have whole divisions of internet warriors.In th e nuclear age,military victory with or between superpowers likely mean all parties losing.China's military poweris defi ned by (just like in the US):

我在一所战争学院兼职教了一年战略，所以我想我可以回答这个问题（尽管我是一名经济学家）。

现代战争与坦克和枪支没有什么关系，许多军队现在都有了成建制的网军。在有核时代，与超级大国或超级大国之间的军事胜利可能意味着所有各方都将失败。中国的军事力量取决于（就像在美国一样）：

1-large-scale investments in Al and next generation computing(with military applications),

2-organized internet offensive capabilities and defence(who could doubt that wars are currently being waged online?), 3-finance-need I say more? Investments in making the RMB a global currency target national security as much as finance (payment systems should probably be on here as well),

4-space power! Investments in satellite technologies,patrolling compliance with the UN resolution demilitarizing space, amd reacting in case of breach,

1．大规模投资于人工智能和下一代计算机（军事应用），

2．有组织的互联网攻防能力（谁会怀疑战争会在网上进行？），

3．金融—我需要说更多吗？将人民币打造为全球货币，不仅是为了国家安全，也是为了金融安全（支付系统可能也应该在这里□□

4．太空力量！对卫星技术的投资，巡查遵守联合国关于太空非军事化的决议的情况，以及在有人违反决议的情况下作出反应□

5-partners'souls.Most superpowers now fight proxy wars(Saudis and Iran,increasingly Hindustan and Pakistan,ete).

China will need foreign partneTs willing to die for her..like the world's governments send their sons to die for the America ns.Can anyone doubt that Belt and Road is a first attempt to build the cultural capital and good will needed to do this? Ive been personally involved in projects to develop social capital as a military asset,

6-IP.Patents win wars,not steel.A military drone is just a flying collection of thousands of patents in the air.So a re next gen bombs.Super materials used for bullet proof vests and antimine technologies,and so forth,

7-Big Bad Data-data is the new oil,and software is eating the world.The net result is..imagine a foreign1 army having files on the entire military and civilian population of its rival? Could you doubt this is more useful than battles? The master general wins the war without firing a shot,

8-energy.No electrons,no fight Everything has computers in it China wants to be independent of oil exporters..like e veryone else.Decentralised electricity generation will certain help tip the odds in any war.

5．铁杆盟友。大多数超级大国现在都在打代理人战争（沙特和伊朗，印度斯坦和巴基斯坦也越来越像，等等）。中国需要愿意为她而死的盟友·····就像世界各国政府派他们的孩子为美国人而死一样。

6．P（知识产权）。专利能赢得战争，而不是钢铁。军用无人机只是数千项飞行在空中的专利的集合。下一代炸弹，用于防弹背心和防毒技术等的超级材料也是如此。

7．大数据数据是新的石油，软件正在吞噬世界。最终的结果是···想象一下，一支外国军队拥有其对手的全部军事和平民的档案？你会怀疑这比战斗更有用吗？可能不开一枪就赢得了战争，

8．能源。没有电力，就无法战斗。现在每样装备上都有电脑。中国像其他国家一样，希望独立于石油出口国····分散发电肯定有助于在任何战争中降低赔率。

Ive heard for decades that militaries are considering eliminating the rough physical training imposed on soldiers and off icers.No one argues for removing mental training The war of the 2st century will be fought with ideas.Every one of Chi na's recent development plans has implemented this idea And unlike with the Americans,the Chinese dont need to fund lose r technologies because of political lobbying Maybe that is its most important technology..

几十年来，我听说军队正在考虑取消强加给士兵和军官的艰苦的体育训练，但没有人主张取消智力训练。21世纪的战争将是智力上的斗争，中国最近的每一个发展计划都落实了这一理念。与美国人不同的是，中国人不需要因为政治游说而资助失败的技术，也许这是它最重要的优势···

Andrew Karam,lives in The United States of America(1961-present)

In World War II,hostilities lasted from 1938 until 1945 and the US was actively involved in the war from 1940-1945.We built tens of thousands of aireraft,we were launching a Liberty Shipevery day or so to carry supplies and materiel to Eu rope,and we were able to design,build,and put into combat new airplane and ship designs during the course of the war. There is no doubt that America's industrial capabilities were a tremendous asset during the war. But it also helped that

ships,airplanes,tanks,and other war materiel were(compared to today) fairly simple and could be built quickly.

在第二次世界大战中，敌对行动从1938年持续到1945年，美国从1940年到1945年积极参与了战争。我们建造了数万架飞机，我们每天下水一艘自由舰，向欧洲运送物资和军备，我们能够在战争期间设计、建造并把新飞机和新舰艇投入战争。

毫无疑问，美国的工业能力在战争期间是一笔巨大的财富。但这也得益于当时的船舶，飞机，坦克和其他战争物资（与今天相比）相当简单，可以迅速建造。

By comparison,today it takes over a decade-and closer to two decades-to design,test, and start to deploy a new airp lane or a new ship (I don't know about tanks or artillery).Not only that, but the last several wars have been either int ense and short or low-intensity and prolonged-I'm not sure that any country could keep up full-blown combat operations against an equally capable foe for longer than a few months because both sides would run out of ships,subs,tanks,and ai rplanes before the production lines could gear up to start cranking them out. In the first case,there's no time for indu strial capacity to make a difference;in the second case there's no need.

相比之下，如今设计、测试并开始部署一架新战机或一艘新军舰（我不清楚坦克或大炮）需要十多年的时间，甚至近二十年的时间。不仅如此，过去的几场战争要么激烈而短暂，要么持续时间长但强度很低—一我不确定是否有哪个国家能够在几个月内对同样有能力的敌人进行全面的作战行动，因为在生产线准备好开始生产之前双方就会耗尽舰艇、潜艇、坦克和飞机。在第一种情况下，没有时间让工业能力发挥作用；在第二种情况下，没有必要。

So,sure,China's capability can make them a very capable opponent-just as their population makes then a tough foe.Bu t if China decides that they want to make a massive effort to catch up to the US with sheer numbers then they're still lo oking at more than a decade for their industrial capabilities to make a substantial difference.

所以，中国的工业能力可以使他们成为一个非常有实力的对手，就像他们的人口使他们成为一个强硬的敌人一样。但是，如果中国决定他们想付出巨大的努力，在数字上赶上美国，那么他们仍然需要十多年的时间才能使它们的工业能力产生实质性的改变□

But it takes more than numbers- at the time I was in the Navy the Soviet unx had about three times as many submarines as we did,so we had to be able to sink at least three of them before they sunk us.But we were confident that we could do t hat because we went up against them all the time-tracking their boats,avoiding detection ourselves,learning how they t rained,getting acoustic profiles,and much more.We were fairly sure that our technological and tactical superiority woul d make up for our shortage in numbers.

但这需要的不仅仅是数字—我在海军的时候，苏联的潜艇数量是我们的三倍，所以我们必须在他们击沉我们之前至少击沉三艘潜艇。但我们有信心，我们可以做到这一点，因为我们一直在与他们对抗—跟踪他们的船只，避免自己被发现，学习他们如何训练，获得他们潜艇的声学剖面图，等等。我们确信，我们的技术和战术优势将弥补我们数量上的不足。

Unfortunately,the more capable a submarine,ship,or airplane is the longer it takes to design,build,and learn to use it effectively,So that means that today's industrial capabilities are even less important when thinking about trying to achieve a superiority that might not manifest itself for 20 years or longer.

Looking towards the future,yes-it makes a difference.But if we start to fight a war in the next few to several years, there won't be enough time for it to make much of a difference.

不幸的是，一艘潜艇、一艘轮船或一架飞机的能力越强，设计、建造和学习如何有效使用它的时间就越长。因此，这意味着，在考虑实现一种可能在20年或更长时间内不会显现出来的优势时，今天的工业能力就不那么重要了。

展望未来，是的，这会有所不同。但是，如果我们要在未来几年内开始打一场战争，就没有足够的时间让它发挥很大的作用。K Depaul,M.A. Medical Biotechnology

Steel and electricity?

These were the metrics used before WWII.The world has changed.War has changed. Modern Warfare is fought on different domains:

Land Air Sea

EM(Eleetro Magnetic spectrum) Space

Cyber Space

Currently China has only an advantage in numbers on the Land domain and may have an advantage in cyber warfare. In all ot her domains,the US has undisputed hegemony.

钢铁和电力？这些是二战前使用的度量标准。世界已经改变了。战争也改变了。现代战争在不同领域进行：陆地、空中、海洋、电磁（EM）光谱、空间和网络空间。目前中国仅在陆地领域拥有数量上的优势，并可能在网络战方面具有优势。在其他所有领域，美国都具有无可争议的霸权。

The next issue to consider is MAD,Mutual Assured Destrution.

China has enough nuclear weapons to obliterate all US major cities,although it has not nearly enough vector capability t o do so.On the other hand the US could reduce China to a wasteland with just its submarine based nuclear force. It is ag ame in which everybody loses.

下一个要考虑的问题是MAD，即相互保证毁灭。中国拥有足够的核武器摧毁所有美国主要城市，尽管它没有足够的载体能力来实现这一点。另一方面，美国只需凭借其潜艇基地核力量就可以将中国变成一片废土。这是一个人人都输的游戏。

However,none of these,in a real conflict,would make the difference.The difference in a potential conflict between the US and China will be made one of the oldest factors in warfare:geography.

The US has hit the Geostrategie jackpot,with open oceans on both sidea and no real threat from its land frontiers

然而，在真正的冲突中，这些都不会起作用。中美之间战争潜力的差异将是战争中最古老的因素之一：地理。

美国在地缘战略上大获全胜，它两边都是开放的海洋，陆地边界上没有真正的威胁。

China is afortress which is hard to invade,but extremely easy to siege. China has a dlouble dependency: energy imports d ependence(>70%)to funetion and export dependence(>35%) for its economy to be viable.All of these have to pass th rough few,easily blockaded choke points

中国是一个堡垒，很难入侵，但极易被围攻。中国具有双重依赖性：能源进口依赖（＞70％），使其社会能够运转。出口依赖（＞35％），使其经济能够生存。所有这些都必须通过几个容易封锁的咽喉点。

The US Navy could Choke off China's energy imports well outside the range of China's anti ship missiles.Moreover it cou ld do so even within that range by using submarine warfare.

Within months Chinese people would be without fuel,without a job and on a diet of rice and weath,while the whole globe plunges in thebiggest economic recession ever.

美国海军可能会在中国反舰导弹射程之外扼杀中国的能源进口。此外，它甚至可以通过使用潜艇战在这个范围内做到这一点。不出几个月，中国人就将没有燃料，没有工作，没有食物，而整个世界将陷入有史以来最大的经济衰退。

Nicholas Yoong,lives in Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia

Originally Answered:In 2019,PRC produced nx as much steel and almost 2x the electricity as the USA. Its population is over 4x larger.Is PRC's latent warfighting potential greater than the UJSA?

Way,way bigger.

You use steeI to build ships.The US had ten times the Japanese steelmaking capacity.It had 67% of the world's steel out put.

Today China has 11 times the American steelmaking capacity while the US imports steel from Chinaand Japan.Yes,Japan.

You're talking about US vs Japan ww2,except this Japan is half as strong and modern US is in the position of Japan.

岁月如梭，攻防逆转。

造船需要钢铁，二战时美国的钢铁产能是日本的十倍，它拥有当时世界钢铁产量的67％。如今，中国的钢铁产能是美国的11倍，而美国则从中国和日本进口钢铁。是的，日本。

你说的是第二次世界大战中的美国对日本，只不过这个日本的实力只有现在的一半，而现代的美国处在了当年日本的位置上。

Atila Flam

That would be true if this was world war II this is not you just don't build ships like they did in world war Il

you can't Mass produce them you need more than just steel you need computers you need high-end sophisticated electronic d evices you need radar you need precision machinery you have to have state-of-the-art ECM gear

如果还是处在第二次世界大战时期的话，那是真的。但现在无法像第二次世界大战期间那样造船了。

你无法大规模生产它们，是因为你需要的不仅仅是钢铁，你还需要电脑、高端精密的电子设备、雷达、精密机械以及最先进的电子控制设备。

Next you have to have trained naval personnel you have to have an logistic systems that can supply and support this massi ve fleet China has so little of this

no Nation but the United States as of right now has the ability to sustain and supply a modern war you can't project your Force if you can't supply it

most of China's Navy is coastal means it can't go on the blue water can't be supplied out at sea

we have over 60 nuclear attack submarines that are blue water capable China only has 9

下一步你必须拥有训练有素的海军人员，你必须有一个后勤系统，可以供应和支持这个庞大的舰队。中国在这方面没这么多。现在除了美国以外，没有一个国家有能力维持和支撑一场现代战争，如果你无法维持战争，你就无法部署你的军队。

中国海军大部分是近海海军，这意味着它无法在远海行动，也无法在海上进行补给。我们有60多艘核攻击潜艇，而中国只有9艘。

Nicholas Yoong

If you're attacking China,it doesn't really matter.

America has a superior American logistics force outside China.So what? China's biggest invention in history is closing down a whole city.That means supplying the city(and most probably a few more)with resources akin to wartime.

如果你在攻击中国，这些其实并不重要。

中国在中国境内或附近供应自己军队方面远胜于美国供应美国军队的能力。这就是区别。

美国在中国境外拥有一支强大的美国后勤力量。那又怎么样？中国历史上最大的发明是关闭一整座城市，这意味着向这座城市提供类似于战时的资源。

And yes,China is still able to mass produce ships if they want to.The US needs a defense production act CPC just has t o give orders and all the factories will start building ships and planes China can easily support a fleet 4 times the siz e of the entire US navy if they decided to do so,and all for their homeland defense.The US isn't going to send its entir e navy to China in the event of war. When wartime comes,that nine can easily become three hundred.

是的，如果他们愿意的话，中国仍然能够大规模生产船只，而美国需要一个国防生产法案。中国只要下达命令，所有的工厂就会开始建造船只和飞机。如果中国决定这样做的话，中国很容易就能支持一支规模相当于整个美国海军4倍的舰队，而且都是为了他们的国土防卫。一旦发生战争，美国不会把整个海军派往中国。当战争来临时，中国的那9艘核潜艇很容易变成三百艘。

Ezio Yao,M.S.Military,Nankai University(2017)□Lived in Iowa State University2008-2013 Simply put,no,the war potential of the United States is higher than that of China.

People who are familiar with me should know that my answersare all pro-China, but I am not blindly pro-China. Fora fore seeable period of time,China will not be able to challenge the United States militarily.And the war potential of the Uni ted States will be very strong

The United States has a unique geographical environment. In this environment,even if the United States is not the most p owerful country,the possibility of large-scale invasion is still very low.This kind of natural barrier is not available

in general countries No one can defeat the United States as long as it does not have civil strife.

简单地说，不，美国的战争潜力高于中国。

熟悉我的人应该都知道，我的回答都是亲中的，但我不是盲目亲中。在可预见的一段时间内，中国将无法在军事上挑战美国，美国的战争潜力非常强大。

美国有独特的地理环境。在这种环境下，即使美国不是最强大的国家，受到大规模入侵的可能性仍然很低。这种天然屏障在一般国家是没有的，只要美国没有内乱，就没有人能打败它。

The United States is known as "the arsenal of a democratic country",and its strong industrial capability can enable the United States to quickly produce super-scale weapons and equipment in a very short time, and quickly arm soldiers several times the current size.

The United States has the most advanced technology research and development capability.This R&D capability has been outstanding since the Cold War,However,at present,there is no rival in the United States that can fully confront and co mpete with it.Many weapons developed during the Cold WNar are still in use today,and more advanced weapons are used as re serves.

美国素有“民主国家的军火库”之称，其强大的工业能力能够使美国在极短的时间内迅速生产出超大规模的武器装备，并迅速武装出比目前规模多数倍的士兵。

美国拥有最先进的技术研发能力，这种研发能力自冷战以来一直很突出。然而，目前美国还没有一个对手能够完全与之对抗和竞争。冷战期间发展的许多武器至今仍在使用，更先进的武器则被用作储备。

The US's control over global resources is far beyond our imagination.Lack of resources can't support the war.The United States firmly holds the lifeblood of key resources

The US's deep involvement and grasp of global finance and its deep control of global public opinion are other manifestati ons of the US's war potential Finance is an industry that we come into contact with every day,and so is news.But the fi

nance and news we come into contact with are dominated by the US government SWIFT's strength is not only remittance but a clear understanding of all countries' funds, which is not only finance but intelligence. The news is even more terrible.

Westerners alvays say that Chinese people are brainwashed.However,how can Westerners think that they are not brainwashed ?The public opinion war is an important part ofmodern war,and the innate advantage of American public opinion war has b een strengthened and never declined.

美国对全球资源的控制远远超出我们的想象。缺乏资源就无法支持战争，而美国牢牢掌握着关键资源的命脉。

美国对全球金融的深度介入和掌控以及对全球舆论的深度控制，是美国战争潜力的其他表现。金融是我们每天都要接触的行业，新闻也是如此。但我们接触到的金融和新闻都由美国政府主导。SWFT的优势不仅在于汇款，还在于对所有国家资金的清楚了解，这不仅是金融，而且还是情报。新闻舆论则更可怕，西方人总说中国人被洗脑了。然而，西方人怎么能认为自己没有被洗脑呢？舆论战是现代战争的一个重要组成部分，美国舆论战的先天优势不仅从未衰落，而且还得到了加强。

The American people are generally a group with a high fighting will No matter whether they were pirates or cowboys,it i s undeniable that extraordinary courage is their common feature. If they don't have the courage,I don't think the US flag can be raised on Iwo Jima.

美国人民通常是一个具有强烈战斗意志的群体。不管他们是海盗还是牛仔，不可否认，非凡的勇气是他们的共同特征。如果他们没有勇气，我不认为美国国旗能在硫磺岛升起。

These are all expressions of potential.Potential is the ability that can't be seen at all at ordinary times but can be q uickly displayed when it is really needed. In the face of a major crisis,the United States has shown great war potential But precisely because of the American system,as long as it is not the total war,the performance of American war potenti al is often limited.

这些都是战争潜力的表现。潜力是一种平时根本看不到的能力，但在真正需要的时候却能迅速展现出来。面对重大危机时，美国会显示出巨大的战争潜力。但正是因为美国的体制，只要不是全面战争，美国战争潜力的表现往往是有限的。

Without the Communist Party of China,even today's China would still be unable to confront the United States.But precise ly because of the existence of the Communist Party of China,even if China can't defeat the United States,it will make th e United States defeat China extremely costly.The Communist Party of China has been operating the war potential and never stopped.

War potential looks at not only material,but the material is a very important part of winning or losing a war,but it is definitely not the most important part.

如果没有中国共产党，即使是今天的中国也无法对抗美国。但正是因为中国共产党的存在，即使中国打败不了美国，也会让美国为打败中国付出极大的代价。中国共产党一直在经营战争潜力，从未停止过。

战争潜力不仅仅看物质，物质是战争胜负的重要组成部分，但绝对不是最重要的部分。

The terrible thing about the Communist Party is that its current state is that of the American wartime state. In other wo rds,the Communist Party can intervene,mobilize,organize, and guide all people in this country,as long as the Communist Party has this need This situation will only occur when the United States enters a full-scale war.This is why China can complete the development path of the West in 200 years in 40 years.

中国的可怕之处在于，它现在的状态就是美国战时的状态。换言之，只要中国有这个需要，它就可以干预、动员、组织、引导这个国家的全体人民。这种情况只有在美国进入全面战争时才会出现，这就是为什么中国能在40年内完成西方200年的发展过程的原因。

Therefore,the Communist Party will become the US's most powerful opponent China's war potential is still inferior to th at of the United States today,but it does not mean that it will still be inferior to that of the United States in the fut ure.A political party with a strong organization and mobilization ability is terrible.

因此，中国共产党将成为美国最强大的对手。中国的战争潜力现在还不如美国，但并不意味着将来还不如美国。一个组织动员能力强的政党是可怕的。

Tudor Reece

I've never come across comments from even strongly biased China supporters that claim China can compete with the US mili tarily.

I guess Chinese people almost universally accept that the US military is still supreme.

我从来没有遇到过有强烈偏见的，声称中国可以在军事上与美国竞争的中国支持者。

我猜中国人几乎普遍接受美国军队仍然是最强的这一观念。

Ezio Yao

Yes,if we wanna seek the truth,we must accept the truth in the beginning. 是的，如果我们想寻求真理，我们必须在一开始就接受真理。

Stepan Serdyuk

The fact that Americans turn any argument into the warfighting measuring,makes me kind of nervous.

美国人把任何争论都变成了战争，这让我有点紧张。

Ezio Yao

Not only the US but also the UK,Australia,Canada,and New Zealand.

cn Five eyes aimed at the countries which have the ability or potential to challenge them.

The behaviors for Five eyes seemed to be self-protection,however,they are making the world more unstable. 不仅是美国，还有英国、澳大利亚、加拿大和新西兰，五眼联盟的目标是那些有能力或潜力挑战它们的国家。五眼联盟的行为似乎是为了自我保护，然而它们却让世界更加不稳定。

Peter Smith

According to structural realism view of international relations,every country eyes others with suspicion. Every country aims to improve its relative power.China is no different.Its challenge is that it inevitably has to upset the status quo in its ambition to become the regional hegemon in East Asia and eventually Southeast Asia.

根据结构现实主义的国际关系观点，每个国家都怀疑其他国家。每个国家都致力于提高其相对实力。中国也不例外。它所面临的挑战是，在追求成为东亚乃至东南亚地区霸主的雄心中，它不可避免地要打破现状。

Tristan Lin

That only works within a Western understanding of nation-states,where there exists an absolute hierarchy of nations. In most Asian understandings of the nation-state,there isn't an absolute hierarchy.China sees itself as the highest in its area,but it doesn't need to project influence into say India or the West The West will often engage in conflict simply t o assert supremacy,while Asian powers before the importation of Western ideas mainly engaged incivil conflicts where int ernal conspirators sought to gainpower.China has fought a lot of wars against itself,while Britain has fought against e very nation of the world.

在西方的国家观念中，国家之间存在绝对的等级关系，而在亚洲的国家观念中，这种等级关系并不是绝对的。中国认为自己是地区最高的国家，但它并不需要将影响力扩展到印度或西方国家。相比之下，西方国家常常会通过发动冲突来维持其至高无上的地位，而在引入西方观念之前，亚洲大国往往会陷入内部的权力斗争。中国曾经进行过很多内战，而英国则与世界上每个国家都打过交道。