In 1999, the United States led NATO’s high-tech blitz in Kosovo. When the operation ended without a hitch, the Pentagon didn’t rest on its laurels. Instead, it kicked off an ambitious military-transformation project: the Future Combat Systems (FCS), intended to morph a traditional, mechanized army into a full “informatization” force.
Yet two decades later, even the sharpest Pentagon experts and the most ardent amateur military buffs are still scratching their heads over what rolled down Beijing’s parade ground. After all, the “legendary” US FCS never progressed beyond PowerPoint slide decks—whereas the PLA’s own take on Future Combat Systems is said to be battlefield-ready.
Hollywood Scripts vs. Real-World Roadblocks
Back in 2003, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ordered the US Army to become, by 2030, a “new, information-age strategic response force capable of dominating across all environments and operations.” Ambitious? Absolutely. Feasible? The FCS’s ultra-avant-garde concepts ran headlong into technical hurdles so severe that some joked the program belonged on the silver screen rather than the battlefield.
Mainland military enthusiast Shi Lao—host of the popular show Shi Lao Hu Zhao—quipped that, had Rumsfeld witnessed Beijing’s September 3 parade, he’d be applauding the PLA. Picture US Army decision-makers dragging their feet while Rumsfeld’s own pet project remained stuck on PowerPoints, maybe flirting with selling its script to Hollywood, starring Tom Cruise as “the future warrior.”
The truth is, FCS was a DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) project in collaboration with the Army, born in pre-9/11 optimism—an era convinced that no foreign power could threaten America’s vital interests with conventional force. Then a single catastrophic event shattered that belief.
People say, “Bad luck comes in threes”. Its 2019 annual report noted that overly futuristic tech not only delayed FCS repeatedly but sent projected R&D costs spiralling. Between 2003 and 2004 alone, procurement budgets ballooned from US$91.4 billion to US$160 billion—doubly raising doubts about the programme’s viability. Furthermore,
Once the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq erupted, the US found itself mired in conflict. By early 2007, FCS funds were slashed to pay for urgent wartime acquisitions. Then the 2008 financial crisis blew a hole in government coffers, and in May 2009, the Department of Defense pulled the plug on FCS entirely.
Enter Fudan University’s Professor Shen Yi—Shi Lao’s co-host—who pointed to Beijing’s unveiling of “100 Tanks” as the living embodiment of America’s once-cherished FCS dream. According to Global Times, these 100 tanks and their 100 support vehicles boast high levels of automation and coordination: a next-generation armored assault force with exceptional manoeuvrability and breakthrough power.
Steel Sentinels on Parade—China’s FCS Realized
Shen paints the picture: steel sentinels advance on the enemy, engage targets they can destroy on the spot, and—if outmatched—don’t retreat. Instead, they relay contacts via communications; commanders, guided by satellite positioning, direct long-range fires to clear the threat. Once the battlefield is secured, the tanks and support vehicles press on—transforming a tide of steel into untamed, demonic beasts.
Imagining Rumsfeld’s spirit looking on, one can almost hear him say with a grin: “In my next life, I want to be Chinese!” or perhaps, “I’d rather not be American in my next life,” if you prefer.
Deep Blue
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
At the beginning of the new year, Donald Trump has single-handedly changed the United States, and the global landscape may also be reshaped. First, he declared that as Commander-in-Chief, the President’s authority is limited only by his own morality. Later, he posted an image on his social platform Truth Social with the caption “Acting President of Venezuela”. The New York Times directly questioned: “Does this mean ignoring international law and acting without any constraints to invade other countries?” Regarding international law, Trump stated, “I abide by it,” but made it clear that when such constraints apply to the United States, he would be the ultimate arbiter.
On January 7, 2026, the President signed a presidential memorandum ordering the United States to withdraw from 66 international organizations, including 31 United Nations entities and multiple major international agreements. This action is aimed at exiting organizations deemed by the White House to be “contrary to U.S. interests” and a waste of taxpayer funds. The UN bodies to be withdrawn from include UN Women, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the International Law Commission.
Clearly, Trump has a unique blueprint that serves only American interests. He might retort: “What era is this, still talking about international law and core values? Don’t you know the current state of the U.S.? Don’t you know that the U.S. has long been planning drastic actions?”
In April 2020, retired U.S. Marine Corps officer Mark Cancian proposed a bold strategy. The National Interest reported: “With a coastline of 9,000 miles and the world’s second-largest merchant fleet after Greece, including Hong Kong, China has over 4,000 ships. This is not an advantage but a vulnerability. The U.S. could effectively blockade China’s economy by launching a clever campaign, leaving it exhausted.” The suggestion was for the U.S. to emulate 16th-century Britain by supporting privateers—civilian organizations specialized in plundering Chinese merchant ships. Given China’s current military capabilities, it should be able to meet such challenges, so there’s no need to worry. Still, one can’t help but applaud the audacity of such an idea.
Back then, Biden paid no attention to this plan, as the Democrats were still refined and attached great importance to the cloak of universal values. At the same time, Biden, at least nominally, had to pay lip service to the United Nations, because ideology mattered. The U.S. had previously displayed a magical logic: attacking you to save your people, destroying your country to introduce democracy and freedom, imposing sanctions because you’re a dictatorship... Trump cannot be like ordinary advocates of universal values, who always cite international law and classical references. First, neither he nor his team possess such knowledge. Second, pretending to uphold morality can no longer maximize American interests. Third, former adversaries have “risen,” gradually establishing international moral authority. If the U.S. continues to preach benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and trustworthiness, it will only become a laughingstock. After all, Trump has already discarded America’s credibility like trash.
Retired officer Cancian’s plan is exactly the White House’s cup of tea. For context—in the 16th century, Britain supported privateers, civilian organizations that plundered rival nations’ merchant ships. This was essentially the legalization of piracy, with the British monarch issuing “letters of marque” to recruit outlaws for royal service, dubbing them “royal pirates.” These privateers helped Britain destroy the then-dominant Spain at sea, significantly boosting British power and laying the foundation for the Industrial Revolution.
In reality, Trump has already begun “highway robbery” operations, seizing multiple cargo ships in the Caribbean. The White House has also dropped the pretense. Foreign media reported that Deputy Chief of Staff Miller recently declared: “The only permissible maritime energy transportation must comply with U.S. law and national security.” This is no different from robbery—“This mountain is my domain, these trees are my planting; if you wish to pass, leave your toll.” The only difference is that the U.S. is not just a bandit but a pirate. Similarly, Trump and Cheng Yaojin from the Dramatized History of Sui and Tang Dynasties share the title of “Chaos Demon King.”
Next, following the “Trump Gold Card,” Trump could publicly issue “letters of marque,” auctioning them to the highest bidder, and even list them on Wall Street. Their valuation might surpass that of the “Seven Sisters” oil companies—who knows?
