Trump's "Empire Strikes Back" Gambit: A Long Shot at Best

Trump's talking up his China visit next year with all the enthusiasm of a dealmaker closing a big one. Fine. But the thing is: America's got to pick between two paths ahead. Either Washington works with Beijing to uphold a genuine international order—not the selective "rules-based" playbook the West loves to cite—or it rallies the old imperial gang for an "Empire Strikes Back" scenario across the Asia-Pacific.

Two days back, China's carrier Fujian slipped through the Taiwan Strait. First time since commissioning. The Fujian isn't just China's third carrier—it's the first one designed, developed, and built entirely in China, and it's got electromagnetic catapults. That's not just hardware. That's a statement.

Then, Washington green-lit $11.15 billion in arms sales to Taiwan—the biggest weapons package to the island in U.S. history. The Pentagon's spin? The sales "serve “U.S. national, economic, and security interests by supporting the recipient’s continuing efforts to modernize its armed forces and to maintain a credible defensive capability." China's Foreign Ministry didn't mince words today: U.S. arms sales to support (Taiwan) independence will only backfire on itself.

Okinawa Radar Games
Meanwhile, the U.S. and Japan are making their big moves. On December 15, Japan's Ministry of Defense signed a land lease deal to deploy mobile radar on Okinawa's easternmost island—all to track Chinese carriers and aircraft operating between Okinawa and Miyako islands. Beijing's spokesperson fired back with a pointed question: Is Japan creating incidents and engaging in close-range provocations to provide cover and excuses for its own military expansion? Is it following the track of right-wing forces down the evil and dead-end path of militarism?

Here's something worth to note: Japan's an old imperial power too. And it was once a major carrier nation.

Back in September, the U.S. military website Army Recognition broke the story that China's first nuclear-powered carrier, the 004, is already under construction. When foreign media pressed China's Defense Ministry on whether "China is building a fourth aircraft carrier and whether it will be nuclear-powered," the spokesperson played it cool: they "do not have specific information."

But as the saying goes: God is in the details. Expert analysis suggests the PLA's aiming to go toe-to-toe with America's supercarrier USS Gerald R. Ford. The 004 nuclear carrier is expected to displace somewhere between 110,000 and 120,000 tons with a length of 340 meters—outclassing the Ford-class at 100,000 tons and 337 meters. The 004's projected to carry over 90 aircraft, beating the Ford's roughly 75.

Twenty-Five Years, Three Carriers
What can you call a miracle? Everyone knows aircraft carriers were the domain of major industrial powers from the early 20th century, taking a full century of development to achieve dominance over the seven seas. Here's some context: China purchased the Varyag in 1999 and started refitting it at Dalian Shipyard on April 26, 2002. On September 25, 2012, it was officially renamed Liaoning and entered service. China went from zero to carrier capability in just 25 years. Are Chinese carriers really viable? That's the question many netizens keep asking—mainly the ones from Japan.

The great architect and Bauhaus pioneer Ludwig Mies van der Rohe summed up his life's work by pointing out that architecture lives in the details. "Precise details and vivid vitality can create a great work," he said. Flip side? Sloppy details destroy order and rules—as terrifying as the devil himself.

China's carrier success reflects its industrial achievements and excellent execution capability—rooted in outstanding historical traditions. Look at the infrastructure built during the “Spring and Autumn” and “Warring States” periods: the Qin Speedway, Dujiangyan, Zhengguo Canal, and the Great Wall. You'll quickly realize that Chinese culture goes way beyond mere "craftsmanship." What's the difference? Strategic vision combined with meticulous attention to detail.

Trump's Details Problem
Trump doesn't sweat the small stuff—but he can't establish himself through integrity either. Take the Nobel Peace Prize, for instance. Today's world isn't the world of 200 years ago. America's current situation looks exactly like Spain's futile attachment to the Americas back then. But perhaps it's even worse, and this comes down to details: U.S. carrier aircraft repeatedly lose wheels during takeoff, and there have been incidents of accidentally shooting down their own planes in the darkness.


Postscript: Don't know what you're thinking, Trump. But if you want to fight, you've got to get the details right first—especially quality control. A superpower can't be this sloppy and disorganized, yeah?

Deep Blue

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

Zhuque has silenced America. SpaceX's repeated successes in rocket recovery drove home one point: American business works. And China? How could a feat achieved by marshaling the strength of an entire nation possibly compare with a private outfit pulling off a mission impossible?

Cast your mind back. The Clinton boom, built on the information superhighway, delivered four consecutive fiscal years of budget surplus. From 2015 onwards, SpaceX achieved rocket recovery, putting American commercial spaceflight at least a decade ahead of China. What more could anyone say? Behold the splendor of America's overall national power!

At 7:35 this morning, the reusable Zhuque-3 Y2 carrier rocket lifted off smoothly. Its builder is LandSpace, a Chinese commercial space company founded, coincidentally, in that very same year of 2015. The mission report reads: "About 137 seconds after liftoff, the first and second stages separated. The first stage then began its return sequence. After key maneuvers including high-altitude attitude adjustment, deceleration and aerodynamic gliding, it made a successful soft landing at the Gansu landing pad at 7:43. The flight test was a complete success."

A few points are worth adding. First, the Zhuque-3 Y1 made its maiden flight on December 3, 2025. It successfully delivered a satellite into its designated orbit, though its first-stage vertical recovery test failed.

Second, eight months on, Zhuque-3 has delivered on its mission, a task of major significance. Zhuque becomes our country's second reusable rocket after the Long March 10B.

Third, mind you, the Long March rockets belong to the "national team."

Fourth, China's state and commercial space programs are setting sail like "twin dragons out to sea." America is feeling the competitive pressure.

SpaceX has made a blockbuster stock market debut. The world is counting on America, following the internet, to lead the globe once more through space technology. The hope is a replay of the Clinton-era golden age. SpaceX pulled off the first successful recovery of a Falcon 9 rocket, then industrialized the technology. Today it launches the Falcon 9 around 150 times a year, roughly three times a week. A single booster can be reused dozens of times.

Yet even before the successful recovery of the Zhuque-3 Y2, American think tanks were already worried. China, doing things the Chinese way, has achieved recovery in both state-run and commercial spaceflight, with equally precise touchdown points. China's "catch-up" is no longer out of reach.

What deserves attention is this: China's state and commercial sectors are advancing in tandem, while NASA has widely adopted the commercial model. In return-to-the-Moon programs such as Artemis, NASA has contracted out uncrewed lunar landers, precursor satellite launches and even rocket servicing and replenishment support to multiple private space companies. Commercial players such as SpaceX, Firefly Aerospace and Rocket Lab are the mainstays.

Two years ago, analyses weighed the relative strengths of the Chinese and American space programs. Commentators argued that NASA's shift from "designing and building in-house" to "commercial contracting" would push national scientific talent out of front-line positions. Over the long run, that would weaken the state's "deep control and independent assessment capability" over space technology.

And if complex spaceflight life-support systems or new space station designs were left entirely to private leadership, NASA would face the twin hazards of technology and risk. Boeing's Starliner saga, which stranded two American astronauts on the International Space Station for a full nine months, is in its own way the same tune as today's USS Abraham Lincoln incident. Go figure.

The pair finally left the station "smoothly" aboard a SpaceX Dragon on March 18, 2025. They landed safely back on Earth the next day. Trump sang Musk's praises for a job well done.

A quick explainer: history has seen a so-called "Sputnik moment." In truth, it was a "Sputnik" crisis for America. In 1957, the Soviet Union successfully launched Sputnik 1, humanity's first artificial satellite. The phrase has since come to describe the turning point when a nation suddenly realizes it is lagging a rival in technology or a critical field. That realization triggers an acute sense of crisis and an urgent drive to catch up.

President Kennedy led America out of the Sputnik crisis with the Apollo lunar landing program. Today, can America build a crewed Mars program to overtake its rival? Musk, this round is all on you. Stop firing off low-orbit satellites like crazy to rake in cash. The day a crewed Mars landing succeeds will be the ultimate MAGA moment. Let's keep at it, together.