美国谈中美战争：发动闪电战将获得胜利，拖延则无一丝胜利可能

Group 1 - The core argument of the articles revolves around the implications of the U.S.-China trade tensions and military strategies, highlighting the ineffectiveness of U.S. tariffs and the rising economic resilience of China [1][8] - The U.S. imposed tariffs as high as 125% on Chinese goods, which led to significant domestic inflation and a loss of nearly $6.5 trillion in market value within two days [1] - China's internal demand contribution to economic growth has increased to 60.5%, reducing its reliance on U.S. exports to 14.7% by 2024, showcasing a strategic shift towards self-sufficiency [1] Group 2 - The U.S. military's strategy of a rapid victory in potential conflicts with China is challenged by geographical and logistical disadvantages, as U.S. forces require longer deployment times compared to China's rapid mobilization capabilities [3][4] - The reliance on allies such as Japan, South Korea, and Australia for military support is complicated by their economic dependencies on China, making full-scale confrontation difficult [4][6] - The potential for nuclear deterrence limits the U.S.'s options for engaging in a full-scale war with China, necessitating a focus on conventional warfare strategies [4][8] Group 3 - The U.S. military is adjusting its training to enhance joint operational capabilities in response to the complexities of potential conflicts with China, although current integration remains a challenge [6] - Historical precedents of U.S. military engagements suggest a pattern of overestimating the feasibility of quick victories, which could lead to prolonged conflicts [8] - China's advancements in military technology and its established anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities pose significant challenges to U.S. naval power in the Asia-Pacific region [8]