美论坛：如果贸易战失败，美国会不会选择用武力摧毁中国？

Group 1: Trade War Overview - The U.S.-China trade war began in 2018, with both sides imposing tariffs on a wide range of goods, aiming to limit Chinese products in the U.S. market and weaken China's manufacturing advantages [1][3] - China responded with "reciprocal countermeasures," focusing on enhancing domestic demand and diversifying foreign trade markets, which has led to a growing market presence [1][3] Group 2: Impact of Tariffs - Tariffs have a dual impact; while intended to punish China, they also harm U.S. consumers who face rising prices on imported goods such as electronics and clothing [4][5] - The burden of tariffs primarily falls on U.S. consumers, as the increased costs are passed down from retailers [5][7] Group 3: Resilience of Chinese Industry - China's industrial chain has shown resilience due to its tightly integrated supply chain, allowing for adjustments in response to external shocks [11][12] - The trade war has accelerated China's industrial upgrades, enhancing overall competitiveness through technological advancements [12] Group 4: Military Considerations - The discussion of military action in response to trade war losses is deemed unrealistic due to the high costs and complexities involved, including legal and institutional constraints [14][16] - Modern warfare requires strong industrial and financial support, making military solutions less viable [16][18] Group 5: Economic Cooperation - Economic cooperation between the U.S. and China is presented as the optimal solution to trade disputes, emphasizing the importance of stable expectations for multinational companies [20][22] - Reducing tariffs through negotiations could reignite capital spending and market activity, benefiting both economies [22][24] Group 6: Long-term Implications - The trade war has resulted in a "lose-lose" scenario, with U.S. consumers and small businesses bearing the brunt of the costs while China has made significant advancements in market diversification and industrial capabilities [24][26] - The notion of military action is viewed as an emotional response rather than a practical solution, highlighting the need for rule-based negotiations to manage uncertainties [25][26]