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
** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **
Who’s not coming, and why
Twenty-six foreign heads of state and government have been invited to attend the 9/3 Victory Day military parade in Beijing. One feature stands out: not a single “great power” will show up. And in the past few days, European outlets have zeroed in on the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in Tianjin, asserting that “Xi Jinping is turning China into the centre of a ‘new anti‑Western order’.”
“The main countries of Europe and America are collectively absent, and Japan and South Korea are not on the list either. Japan even urged other countries to stay away from these events, underscoring the geopolitical divide.” Taiwan’s Central News Agency added: “Friction between China and Western countries over trade, technology, the Russia–Ukraine war and human rights issues may lead those countries to opt out of such high‑profile political commemorations.” Note: Slovakia is the only EU member state in attendance.
Is attendance the point?
Do the “great powers” need to show up at a pageant that symbolises the end of 300 years of Western hegemony? Deutsche Welle reported that Russian President Vladimir Putin, at the SCO summit in Tianjin, called for a reordering of global politics, saying “the Europe‑centric, trans‑Atlantic‑centric model has run its course.” Agence France‑Presse said that when Xi Jinping met leaders in Tianjin, he lambasted bullying in the current world order, with the aim “to underscore Beijing’s central role in regional affairs.” Earlier, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs told reporters that “the Global South is no longer the silent majority or a vast, backward expanse – it represents an awakened new force and a new hope in a once‑in‑a‑century transformation.”
If the “great powers” won’t go to Beijing, so be it – there’s no need to force it. But to spin “no Western leader attended” as China’s embarrassment is, frankly, putting the wrong hat on the wrong head.
The Trump–Yalta fantasy
Some pundits had speculated Trump might attend the event, and that if a US–China–Russia trio actually materialised at the Beijing parade, the symbolism would rival the Yalta Conference – in February 1945 the leaders of the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union met in Yalta to design the post‑war order.
That talk is just froth – not worth a second look. To borrow an analogy, Trump fancies himself the Son of Heaven of the Zhou (the Emperor of Zhou Dynasty) – though he most resembles the last of them, Emperor Nan. That said, America’s sway still holds. Didn’t the “seven European powers” previously – together with Zelenskyy – march into the White House to pay homage to Washington? And the United States announced that, before the September UN General Assembly, it had revoked visas for members of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority.
Nine Tripods, UN visas, and debt
The UN is headquartered in the United States. With a word, Washington can refuse visas and deprive anyone of the right to petition the UN for justice. All this is the very aura of the Nine Tripods in the hands of the Son of Heaven – and, to be fair, the comparison to Emperor Nan is actually not a bad fit.
Emperor Nan of Zhou – personal name Ji Yan, also called Chengjun – is best known for being “buried under a mountain of debt.” He borrowed from his subjects: “but, unable to repay, could only climb a high podium to hide from his creditors. The people of Zhou named the podium the Debt‑Dodging Terrace. Dependent on others for shelter and ashamed of his evasion, he was called “Nan”, the Blushing Emperor .”
Baidu Baike also records this: “In the fifty‑ninth year of Emperor Nan of Zhou – 256 BCE – the Son of Heaven allied with the lords to attack Qin, but was no match and lost. After defeat he offered up all the cities. That same year Ji Yan died, and Qin took possession of Zhou’s Nine Cauldrons – symbols of the heavenly authority. Seven years later Qin destroyed Eastern Zhou, and the Zhou dynasty perished.”
Any resemblance is purely coincidental. The United States owes more than US$37 trillion in public debt. Trump may not fear “default” – borrow long, roll it over and let size make it too big to fail. That said, voices in the Russian parliament once proposed moving the UN headquarters to China or Brazil – tantamount to stripping the United States of its Nine Cauldrons.
Looking back at reports from a decade ago, the Russian made its case plainly: “America’s global influence has declined significantly, and its behaviour and image are becoming ever more aggressive. We should therefore discuss moving the UN headquarters out of New York.”
Anyone with common sense would agree – I back it one hundred percent!
