Recently, it is worth noting that a senior U.S. *** revealed an important detail to **: the United States is considering establishing a so-called "missile launch notification framework" with its potential adversary, China, which will ensure that the two countries can notify each other of strategic missile launches in advance to avoid unnecessary risk escalation caused by information misunderstandings and miscalculations.
In addition, the U.S. also said that the U.S. hopes to hold bilateral talks with China on arms control in the near future, and this notification framework is one of the possible options they are discussing, and it is also seen as a new need for the U.S. on the issue of relations with China.
Although this news has not been officially confirmed, given the current international tension and the intensifying military competition between China and the United States, we have reason to pay attention and think about the deeper meaning. First of all, from a technical point of view, there is a real need for such a notification framework.
After all, with the rapid development of missile technology, it is particularly important to obtain accurate and timely key information on missile launches, which is a necessary measure for any country to safeguard its own security interests. However, this does not mean that building such a system will solve the problem completely.
In the field of missile defense, how to balance defensive and offensive nature has become the focus of attention of all countries. If one country tries to monitor another country or interfere with its missile program by establishing a similar notification framework, such actions can easily lead to controversy and even conflict.
Therefore, in addition to the technical aspects, the formulation and implementation of such frameworks need to fully respect the overall situation of regional peace and stability and abide by international laws and norms.
In the case of the U.S. scenario, for example, if it turns out to be a clear threat or interference, the Chinese side is likely to strongly oppose and ** such a proposal.
Similarly, as a major power in the world, the United States should undoubtedly uphold an open, transparent, and cooperative attitude in national defense construction, work with other countries to strengthen the ways to build a missile defense system, and conduct in-depth research on how to achieve a balance between defensive and offensive aspects.
The report pointed out that the United States is inclined to use a similar bilateral agreement signed between the United States and Russia as a template for discussing with China the establishment of a framework for missile launch notifications. Formally signed in the context of the Cold War in 1988, the agreement established the responsibility of the United States and Russia to inform each other of their strategic missile launch plans, thereby ensuring that the missile launch was not a nuclear surprise against the other side. Despite the rapid deterioration of U.S.-Russian relations and the difficulty of further advancing the INF Treaty, the framework for launch notifications has been able to operate smoothly, demonstrating its critical value in avoiding miscalculations and preventing unexpected reactions.
At the same time, China and Russia established a "ballistic missile launch notification mechanism" as early as 2009. The United States observed at the time that this meant that both China and Russia were aware of the need for this notification mechanism and were interested in maintaining it in order to achieve a stable effect. The United States could then use this as a basis to try to establish a convention of the same nature with China.
If we look at it rationally, China has always been resolute and responsible on the issue of effectively controlling and reducing the global nuclear threat. We have always pledged to "never be the first to use nuclear weapons," and at the same time, we have kept the number of our nuclear weapons at a relatively low level for a long time, so as to meet only the needs needed for basic self-defense. Therefore, such a "missile launch notification framework" with a positive impact does not completely deviate from China's development direction.
However, ballistic missile launches are a core secret of a country, and mutual trust is the most important thing if mutual notification is to be carried out. If hostile countries obtain relevant information, it cannot be ruled out that they will take the opportunity to carry out sabotage activities or even interception operations. Therefore, the key to the success of the notification framework lies in whether the US side can show sufficient sincerity. However, it is clear that the United States today needs to be more sincere than ever.
First of all, the United States not only has a huge nuclear stockpile, but also continues to promote the modernization process of nuclear weapons, and even withdrew from the "Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty" and the "Iran Nuclear Deal" out of anger, and at the same time categorically refused to continue to implement the "New START Treaty" with Russia.
All of these measures have contributed to the escalation of the global nuclear arms race, fueled the fire, undermined the foundations of the global arms control system, and accelerated tensions and mistrust between China and the United States.
Second, the United States has hyped up the "Chinese nuclear threat" as a pretext, not only speculating that China may have more than 500 usable nuclear warheads, but even predicting that this number may double by 2030. There are two main points for this kind of baseless hype: First, to exonerate the United States from the guilt of expanding the scale of nuclear power and upgrading nuclear performance;The second is an attempt to confuse the public, so that the world will have a heated discussion on the "China threat", and then transfer the "nuclear proliferation" problem caused by the United States to China.
For these reasons, although both sides said that the meeting was positive and constructive at the USMC dialogue held in November, it is regrettable that the dialogue did not reach any substantive consensus, especially on a range of key and sensitive issues, especially when it comes to a range of key and sensitive issues.
The United States, for example, has deliberately put pressure on China to increase its information disclosure, while expecting China to keep its total nuclear arsenal within a range that does not pose any real threat to the United StatesThe Chinese side once again reiterated that China has always adhered to the concept of self-defensive nuclear policy, and believes that the United States should take the lead in drastically reducing its nuclear weapons before the United States exerts various high-pressure and threatening measures on China, so as to create a foundation for the two sides to build mutual trust.
Ironically, however, the United States has turned a deaf ear to China's appeals. The Pentagon continues to hype up the topic of China's development of intercontinental missiles, claiming that China's move is actually intended to attack important US domestic targets when the United States intervenes in the so-called "Indo-Pacific" region.
More seriously, Chad Sbragia, a former senior Pentagon officer for China, even asserted that even if inviting China to participate in arms control talks does help reduce the risk of military conflict, such an approach may also give China the weight to negotiate deals with the United States, becoming a "double-edged sword" that poses a threat to the United States.
It can be seen that this hostile posture on the part of the United States makes it difficult for people to believe that they are indeed willing to commit to arms control, and not just to find an excuse to suppress and contain China's development.
However, it is worth affirming that China's principles and positions in the field of arms control remain firm and inclusive. We will resolutely defend our nuclear rights and interests, while at the same time not hesitating to contribute to the cause of global arms control.
However, returning to the original topic, even so, we still have to point out that the US has not only ignored the appeal of the international community, but has never reflected on the impropriety of its own actionsThey have even exerted constant pressure on other countries to pursue their own hegemony regardless of the consequences. There is no doubt that such a move by the United States will not be able to build a truly peaceful environment. The various historical events that have taken place in the past have amply demonstrated that unilateral oppression cannot achieve lasting peace.