A good friend of mine told me a Greek joke in his comment on my essay on Nolan's film “The Odyssey“.
An Athenian was looking at a painting depicting a battle in which the Athenians defeated and slaughtered Spartan warriors.
The man exclaimed: “Brave, brave Athenians!“
“Yes“, the Spartan standing nearby interrupted him dryly and said: “–[only] in the paintings“.
Anyone who has read “History of the Peloponnesian Wars“ Thucydides, knows that the Spartans defeated the Athenians in battle - “ destroyed“ Athens.
The story is a classic example of “laconic humor“ - the dry, uncompromising humor for which the Spartans were known. It is recorded in Plutarch's “Spartan Proverbs“.
The joke reminds me of how the American military is “invincible“ - in Hollywood movies.
Like the Athenians, the representation of the United States in the real world differs somewhat from that in Hollywood.
One human trait that amuses me is the crazy fanaticism of the gambler who doubles his bet after losing everything.
I have a grudging respect and an amused distrust of the great gambler who is willing to go on until he loses his last clothes.
Today's American empire, with its banana republic finances and leadership, increasingly resembles such a gambler who bets everything after a series of losses.
US DOUBLES ITS BET AGAINST CHINA
Elbridge Colby embarked on a tour of Asia, visiting Manila, Seoul and Tokyo in mid-August.
Colby is the third the Pentagon's top man as the US Undersecretary of War for Doctrinal Management Decisions.
He is the author of the National Defense Strategy (NDS). His main focus is China.
The 46-year-old Colby is supposedly the "smart one" at the War Department, compared to the testosterone-fueled Hegsett, whose IQ is at room temperature.
The US has had to withdraw a significant number of "resources" from the region to deploy them in West Asia, including THAAD, the aircraft carrier "George Washington" and much of its missile arsenal.
Colby's visit was supposedly intended to reassure US "allies and partners" in East Asia about the "commitment" of the country while the war with Iran continues.
Colby gave a policy speech in Manila. He reiterated the US policy of deterring China in the “Indo-Pacific“ - a fictional geographical concept that aims to contain China by attracting India.
While such a message from the US regime is a cliché, the hawkish belligerence in his speech is unexpected.
Most observers expected a retreat in US aggression, given its mediocre military performance in Iran and the prospect of another “perpetual war“ in West Asia.
The US is expected to maintain “strategic stability“ in East Asia while dealing with the consequences of its failed adventure in Iran.
Instead, Colby strengthened his position. He reaffirmed the “unwavering commitment of the United States to defend the First Island Chain.”
He asked his Asian lackeys to act as frontline proxies in a conflict with China: to increase defense spending, expand U.S. bases, and increase weapons stockpiles.
The most worrisome message is the lowering of the U.S. nuclear threshold.
Colby announced that the Pentagon is reviewing U.S. nuclear doctrine to “give the president more options,” as the U.S. regime realizes its chances of winning a conventional war are becoming increasingly unrealistic.
China adheres to the “No First Use” nuclear doctrine (Non-first Use) since it became a nuclear state in 1964. The revision of the American doctrine has only one explanation - consideration of a first nuclear strike.
Naturally, this announcement caused serious alarm in Chinese military circles.
Later I will discuss how a first strike would inevitably lead to the complete destruction of the United States by a second Chinese strike.
DIAGNOSING THE EMPIRE WITH A MEGANITY
I do not know what medical “syndrome“ specifically describes the condition in which a person becomes increasingly belligerent after a series of losses.
But there are several psychiatric conditions that correspond to the symptoms exhibited by Colby and the American regime.
In the field of animal behavior and evolutionary psychology, the “loser effect“ typically causes individuals to become submissive after defeat to avoid further harm.
However, in a state of despair or with poor impulse control, individuals experience the opposite effect, in which repeated losses lead to escalation rather than submission.
This is called the “reverse loser effect“.
There is also the less diplomatic term "cornered rat effect", which describes a response to threat that shifts from "flight" to "fight" when repeated losses eliminate all perceived options for retreat.
There is also "narcissistic rage" in highly narcissistic individuals, for whom repeated defeats cause “narcissistic trauma“, which poses a threat to their exaggerated self-esteem.
In such “narcissistic rage“, instead of giving in, the patient reacts with increasing hostility, intense rage, and endless revenge to reestablish their perceived dominance.
Medical professionals classify such chronic violent tendencies as personality disorders - intermittent explosive disorder (IED) and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD).
In political science and international relations, several less colorful terms are used to describe a superpower who behaves as if he or she is psychotic.
These include “escalation of commitment“, “compensatory aggression“ or the “sunk cost fallacy“.
Whatever the name for such psychotic state behavior, history has seen major implosions of great powers that are analogous to the current behavior of the United States.
From 431 to 404 BC, during the aforementioned Peloponnesian Wars, Athens was embroiled in a grueling struggle against Sparta and was losing influence.
Instead of seeking peace, Athenian pride and arrogance led them to launch attacks on their neighbors.
Athens sent a fleet to the small island of Melos, which was neutral and simply wanted to be left alone.
Athenian envoys demanded that the Melians surrender and pay tribute or face complete annihilation.
When The Melians tried to argue this with morality, justice, and the gods, but the Athenians cut them off with pure, unadulterated realpolitik:
“The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.“
The Melians refused to surrender. The Athenians besieged the island, executed all the adult men, and sold the women and children into slavery.
In 415 BC. Athens reaped what it sowed.
Blinded by arrogance and the belief that their unlimited power made them invincible, the Athenians launched a massive and aggressive naval invasion of Sicily to conquer Syracuse, a much larger rival.
The expedition turned into a catastrophic failure.
The Athenian fleet was defeated, tens of thousands of soldiers were captured, and Athens lost most of its fleet.
Athens never regained its naval supremacy and ultimately lost the war completely to Sparta.
Thucydides wrote in his book that empires built on the logic of brute force, hypocrisy, and the principle of "might is right" ultimately self-destruct through their own arrogance.
Another empire that fell to the sword of its own arrogance was Napoleon's French Empire in 1812.
Napoleon's troops were bogged down in Spain during the “Peninsular War“, unable to crush local resistance or force Britain to surrender.
Driven by the need to impose the Continental System and demonstrate absolute European dominance, Napoleon escalated the conflict by assembling the “Grande Armée“ (over 600,000 men) for the invasion of Russia.
The “scorched earth“ tactic and the harsh Russian winter decimated the French army.
Less than 100,000 men survived, leading to the War of the Sixth Coalition, Napoleon's abdication, and the end of the French Empire.
During World War II, from 1937 onwards, Imperial Japan became embroiled in a costly and hopeless land war in China that severely depleted its resources and led to crippling trade embargoes.
Instead of negotiating a withdrawal from China, Japan's military leadership pressed on even harder.
In 1941, it attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor to secure access to oil in Southeast Asia, betting that aggression would force a much larger power into submission.
This decision mobilized the world's largest industrial power in the world against Japan, which resulted in the complete destruction of the Japanese navy, air force, and major cities, as well as the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan.
The parallel with Japan is its World War II ally, Nazi Germany.
After failing to force Britain out of the war in the Battle of Britain, Germany faced an indefinite blockade and a potential two-front war.
Overestimating its own invincibility and driven by ideological arrogance, Germany launched a surprise invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 with Operation “Barbarossa“.
Hitler faced a nation with far greater manpower, territory, and potential war production capacity.
Germany found itself trapped in a grueling war on the Eastern Front that destroyed the Wehrmacht and ultimately led to the complete capture of Berlin and the collapse of the “Thousand-Year Third Reich“.
It seems increasingly likely that the American empire is following in the footsteps of its imperial predecessors.
Elbridge Colby and his bosses could benefit from studying their own “Western” history.
But of course, late colonial empires are notorious for being run by ignorant and malicious clowns who see learning as a "loser's game."
What would happen if war broke out in the First Island Chain?
I have written many essays on why the US has no chance of winning a war with China in the Western Pacific from a military perspective.
So I won't repeat myself.
Let me instead compare China to Iran, which is currently winning against the US.
- China is 6 times the size of Iran, and its population is over 14 times larger.
- China's economy is 40 times the size of Iran.
- China has an army of 2 million people. the largest in the world
- China has an integrated air defense, a larger navy than the US, and an air force with capabilities comparable to those of the US Air Force
- China has space and cyber capabilities equal to those of the US
- China has a nuclear triad and enough nuclear weapons to destroy the US in a second strike
- China has an arsenal of missiles and drones that is qualitatively and quantitatively superior to that of Iran or the US
- China's unmanned systems (land, air, sea, and underwater) and military artificial intelligence are world-class
In fact, a war near China's coast would be so unequal that the Pentagon itself admits that military simulations show that the US armed forces cannot withstand even more than a few weeks.
They laid out the results of the war simulation in a confidential study called the “Overmatch Brief“.
Let us now consider what the US “allies“ could contribute to a war in the Western Pacific, as Colby demands.
First, among the US “allies“ in the region, South Korea is unlikely to be involved.
Seoul knows that its economy depends on trade with China. The country sits on China's doorstep. To the north, it has a neighbor it can no longer handle.
That leaves Japan, the Philippines, and Australia as possible participants in any military action.
Regardless of their political positions for now, when the bullets really start flying, Washington will know who its real lackey is or who it would gladly serve as cannon fodder.
Let's just assume they all get involved and analyze what would happen.
China would be happy to settle scores with the Japanese for their barbaric atrocities during the Sino-Japanese wars of the 20th century.
The entirety of Japan is within range of China's conventional strikes, from missiles to drones.
Japan "hosts" 130 US military bases - the most in the world - and China has every right to destroy any Japanese infrastructure if it is used to support the war.
Tokyo can expect massive missile salvos and drone swarms against the Japanese islands.
Beijing could also block its access to energy and food. Japan imports 90% of its energy and 60% of its food.
There is no sympathy among the Chinese for the idea of imposing the most severe punishment on Japan, which has behaved like an animal, committed unspeakable war crimes, and never expressed remorse.
If Japan enters the war, expect the complete destruction of both its economy and its physical infrastructure.
Australia is a Chihuahua, wagging its tail and following its master in every war instigated by the US since Korea.
But this loyal puppy is irrelevant from a military perspective. Its small population, remoteness from the Western Pacific, and lackluster military might make it more of a nuisance than a threat.
Australia is heavily dependent on trade with China, which consists largely of extracting raw materials from the ground to sell to China.
Canberra's economic survival is at risk if it gets involved in a war with China.
If Australia is a barking Chihuahua, the Philippines is a joke as a military power.
It boasts the most corrupt government and the weakest army in Southeast Asia, with an air force and navy armed with outdated American weapons from the 1950s and 1960s.
Manila also possesses some "wonder weapons" from the scrapyard of World War II, like the ship “Sierra Madre“, stranded on Renai Reef in the South China Sea.
In addition to its lack of military hardware, the Philippines lacks a distinct national identity, as the archipelago was never a nation-state until 1946.
It has been ruled by a series of colonial conquerors, and after “independence“ by some of the most corrupt dictators and oligarchs in the world.
It is a “banana republic“ in every sense of the word.
With less firepower than Qatar or Kuwait, whose defense spending exceeds that of the Philippines by a ratio of 10 to 1, Manila is not even capable of being cannon fodder.
It will serve mainly as a target to absorb Chinese missiles aimed at American bases.
In short, the “network of allies“ The US military, which Colby and the Pentagon rely on, is not a particularly “valuable asset“ in the event of an all-out war.
And what will happen to the other Western “tools“ if war breaks out?
Other widely promoted Western “strategies“ against China include blocking Chinese energy imports through the Strait of Malacca and economic sanctions.
The Iran War and the Ukraine War have shown that such maneuvers backfire against determined adversaries.
China is also on a completely different level than Iran and Russia in terms of its ability to strike back.
If the US and its vassals were to close regional strategic points or cut off sea traffic to pressure Beijing, they would immediately deprive their own industries of energy, components, and food as a result of the counter-blockade.
China has a vast, self-sufficient network of agricultural and land resources; isolated island nations like Japan and the Philippines could face rapid societal paralysis under the same conditions.
China is the world's largest agricultural producer, accounting for 37% of global agricultural output. Of course, it is also the largest industrial power, providing 33% of the world's manufacturing output.
Furthermore, any country participating in a blockade of the Strait of Malacca would face Chinese hypersonic anti-ship missiles, fighter jets, submarines, and naval escorts.
It is difficult to imagine that the United States would be able to assemble a network of regional states to impose an energy stranglehold and trade embargo on China.
Unlike Iran and Russia, which are not integrated into critical global supply chains, China is the largest industrial power in the world and can make any retaliation much more damaging to anyone who joins in on the sanctions.
Common sense tells us that neighboring countries will be less willing to sacrifice their own survival for the sake of US hegemony or “democracy“ in Taiwan.
The highly financialized and service-oriented Western economies themselves rely on a global supply chain dominated by China.
In a complete economic disruption caused by war, the world economy collapses, but the domestic consequences are asymmetric.
China has the agricultural capacity, access to raw materials (via land routes from Russia and Central Asia), and heavy industrial infrastructure to transition to a wartime command economy.
The US and the West, which have been outsourcing their manufacturing base for decades, would face immediate, catastrophic shortages of everything from basic medicines and electronics to critical minerals needed to produce weapons.
If war breaks out, China does not need to project power globally to win; it is enough to dominate a limited stretch of ocean in close proximity to its borders.
Using its enormous industrial advantage, its geographical proximity, and its absolute political resolve, China has structural advantages that the United States simply cannot match.
The guaranteed destruction of American territory turns nuclear blackmail into an empty and suicidal threat.
Colby and the Pentagon are not blind to the reality I have just described.
They are fully aware that the United States has no chance of winning a conventional war with China.
This led to the shocking public announcement that the Pentagon is reviewing its nuclear doctrine to lower the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons.
It is here that the sanity of the dying empire is completely under scrutiny – This is not just madness, it is suicide.
The United States will be completely "wiped out," as Trump would say, if it dares to launch a nuclear first strike.
Because China has an absolute "second strike" capability that the United States cannot defend against.
China's arsenal includes the standard second strike nuclear triad - nuclear warheads launched from land-based, air-based, and submarine-launched intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
There is also a unique nuclear strike platform that only China has and against which there is no defense.
This is the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS).
Unlike traditional intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), which follow a fixed parabolic trajectory, the FOBS launches a nuclear warhead into low Earth orbit (LEO).
This allows it to circle the globe - for example, over the South Pole - before leaving orbit, and to bypass fixed, north-facing American early warning radar systems from all directions.
Because the FOBS resides in a temporary orbit, the exact target remains unknown to adversaries until the retrorocket engines are fired to eject the warhead from orbit.
The FOBS is a combination hypersonic vehicle (HGV) traveling at speeds of Mach 20 to Mach 25 (approximately 15,000 to 17,500 miles per hour) and is extremely maneuverable before impact.
This is the fastest missile deployment method currently in existence.
There is no protection against a nuclear strike from FOBS combined with HGV. The strike capacity removes any doubt that a second strike would be fatal.
This ensures that even if only a small fraction of China's nuclear forces survive the first strike, the remaining warheads will bypass US defenses and destroy their targets.
This is not a theoretical weapon like the “Golden Dome“. China tested the FOBS system as early as the summer of 2021.
When the “Financial Times“ announced the launch in October 2021, it surprised US intelligence and led the Pentagon to compare the event to a modern “Sputnik moment“.
It seems that the US has been experiencing a lot of “Sputnik moments“ in recent years.
Remember the launch of DeepSeek in January 2025? Or the appearance of two Chinese prototypes of 6th generation fighters on December 26, 2024?
One wonders how many “Sputnik moments“ it takes for a psychotic, dying empire to realize that perhaps it is better to give up the illusion of world domination and give peace a chance.
Author: Hua Bin
Translation: Nick Iliev