China's Choice: Peace Through Strength, Not Hegemony

Let’s set the record straight and revisit what really happened in China.

It was on September 30, 75 years ago, the second year of the new China, Premier Zhou Enlai sent a clear and solemn message to the world: "The Chinese people enthusiastically love peace, but in order to defend peace they never have been and never will be afraid to oppose aggressive war." He put the United States on notice, stating unequivocally, "The Chinese people absolutely will not tolerate foreign aggression, nor will they supinely tolerate seeing their neighbours being savagely invaded by imperialists."

A Calculated Defense, Not a Love for War

When war broke out, was it because China has a penchant for conflict? Absolutely not. On October 27, 1950, Mao Zedong laid out the strategic reality with stark clarity. He explained that if China simply ignored the Korean issue, it would be a critical error, warning that American imperialism would inevitably press its advantage, following the same aggressive path Japan had taken against China, but potentially with even greater ferocity.

Mao vividly described this as America's attempt to stick three sharp knives into China—one at its head via Korea, one at its waist via Taiwan, and one at its feet via Vietnam. Therefore, he reasoned, China's decision to resist America and aid Korea was a necessary defensive move, aimed squarely at preventing this strategic encirclement from succeeding.

In an interview with American journalist Anna Louise Strong on August 6, 1946, Mao was asked if there was hope for a peaceful solution. His answer was direct: "As far as our own desire is concerned, we don't want to fight even for a single day. But if circumstances force us to fight, we can fight to the finish." When pressed about the atomic bomb and a potential US attack on the Soviet Union from bases in Iceland, Okinawa, and China, his perspective remained firm.

Calling America's Nuclear Bluff

For the United States, the atomic bomb was a tool of mass slaughter, and the moral dilemma of "nuclear war casualties" was never a serious concern. Just weeks into the War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea, the US Congress was already pushing to consider nuclear strikes on cities in Korea and Northeast China. The BBC even reported that "On 9 December 1950, MacArthur formally requested the authority to have the discretion to use atomic weapons."

This is where Mao Zedong’s famous declaration that "all reactionaries are paper tigers" proved prophetic. He argued, "The atom bomb is a paper tiger which the U.S. reactionaries use to scare people. It looks terrible, but in fact it isn't.” As for the atomic threat, he added: “Of course, the atom bomb is a weapon of mass slaughter, but the outcome of a war is decided by the people, not by one or two new types of weapons."

And history bore him out. A BBC report from the time noted that by 1951, a Soviet military buildup in the Far East, particularly bombers and submarines, had Washington spooked. Britain had also grown fearful that an American nuclear attack would turn US military bases in the UK into targets for Soviet retaliation. Although Truman sent nuclear-capable B-29s to Guam in March 1951 and reconnaissance flights scouted targets over Northeast China and Shandong, the administration ultimately backed down. They concluded a nuclear attack on China was "too risky" and withdrew the bombers a few months later.

Having seen China’s resolve in Korea, the US changed its strategy. It pivoted to the Cold War tactic of "Containment" hoping to ensnare China in the same trap that eventually brought down the Soviet Union. While America’s wishful thinking is a key reason for the absence of major power wars in recent decades, it inadvertently gave China a crucial window of peace to focus on its own progress.

A New Era of Benevolent Power

Mencius once said, "He who uses force while feigning benevolence is a hegemon, and a hegemon must have a large state; he who rules by practicing benevolence is a true king, and a true king does not depend on a large state." In other words, a power that relies on military might while only pretending to be virtuous is a hegemon, needing a large territory and population to dominate. But a true leader who rules through morality and genuine benevolence can achieve greatness without needing to be a large state.

So, will a stronger China become a hegemon and replace the US on the world stage? This question looms large, especially for its smaller neighbors. But today's China, with its vast territory and population, is focused not just on serving its own people but on building a "community with a shared future for mankind." While true kingship doesn't require a large state, it's also undeniable that a large state can achieve it through benevolence.

Today's China is not the same as the states of the ancient warring periods. It is a nation built on five thousand years of history and culture, armed with advanced science and technology. China's peaceful rejuvenation isn't just a slogan—it's a reality in the making.

Deep Blue

** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **

The “decapitation” hype just hit fever pitch. Here’s the bold new chatter: Japan’s defense officials told local media that if the Fujian carrier ever enters the Taiwan Strait, Japan’s Self-Defense Forces should team up with the US military and put sinking it at the top of their to-do list.
  
This is what some war games lay out: If China ever expands its strikes from Kyushu and Okinawa all the way down to the Nansei Islands—plus every US base along the chain—Japan would recoil into defensive mode. And then, Taiwan has no choice but to do the same, as well as the US. Suddenly Tokyo, Taipei, and Washington are all in the same foxhole. The old “defend Taiwan” story morphs into an East Asia mega-battle, where there’s zero daylight between countering threats to Taiwan and threats to Japan.
 
That’s why, as Taiwan commentator Lai Yi-chung pointed out back in July 2023, everyone needs ironclad, three-way security channels—whether defending Taiwan, Japan, or America.
  
Solid logic, the old Russian doll theory: If Taiwan’s in trouble, so is Japan, so is the US. Back under Abe, nerves in Tokyo were already frayed, serving the right wing a golden opportunity. When COVID still stalked the world in 2022, Japan mapped out a plan for 1,000 anti-ship missiles—that’s three for each of China’s 300 warships (now nearly 400, more than even America fields). Their message was clear: Chinese carriers are to be sunk before they ever manage to sail. Taiwan’s mainstream loved it. Double insurance from both the US and Japan, island stability—no need for unification nor independence. Case closed.
  
Then came reality—the Fujian carrier entered service, and shattered this stack of Russian dolls to dust. America sobered up first. The others? Not even worth a footnote.
  
Punchline to the War Game
Last weekend, China Central TV pulled back the curtain: “2 Seconds, 20+ Years—The Untold Grit Behind Fujian’s Launch.” Here’s the money quote from the expert: “Sure, our carrier jets can blast off in two seconds. But getting to that moment took more than 20 years of grit. At the start, plenty doubted. Foreign giants spent decades and still fell short. Could China pull it off? Turns out, yes we can.”
  
The narrative’s heart-tugging, but the real story is buried in the specs. Qiao Jia, who led the Fujian’s construction, spells it out: Unlike Liaoning or Shandong, the Fujian is China’s first homegrown, catapult-equipped aircraft carrier. And it doesn’t just use any catapult system—it’s the world’s first with a conventional-power electromagnetic catapult. Every inch of that tech pushed China’s engineers to the brink, and they didn’t blink.
 
Here’s the cold, hard takeaway: Don’t just stare at the Fujian in awe, or obsess over the road China traveled to get here. The killer fact is, after more than 20 years of grinding, China now owns this tech—and its world-class manufacturing machine means the next Fujian-level carrier could roll out in two years, one year, half a year, or even just two months.
  
No Magic, Just Muscle
Why should anyone take China at its word? Are the claims real—or just bluster? Against nonstop foreign skepticism and a wall of Western tech barricades, CCTV lays it bare: “We started from zero. No playbook. No shortcuts. Real power tech isn’t handed down or bought in a back room. Only by blazing new trails, daring to outdo the world, grinding in silence, and refusing to quit can we keep smashing ceilings—and locking core tech in Chinese hands.” In short, that “Made in China” label? It’s the one thing no rival can beat.
 
Let’s cut the magic act—there’s no David Copperfield here. Think Japan’s top brass wants to wait for a Trump comeback to “sink Fujian”? By all means, keep waiting. If you’ve got the nerve, then step up and show us.