This South Korean expert is rather bold in his assertions. He claims that even if the United States were to muster all its military might to attack China—deploying all eleven aircraft carriers alongside every piece of advanced weaponry—the outcome would be singular: China's victory.

For the United States to wage war tens of thousands of kilometres from home is as arduous as relocating an entire household. China, however, is fighting within its own backyard. Every path and optimal defensive position is known to them.

More significantly, China has developed a multi-layered defence system right on its doorstep over recent years. From anti-carrier missiles specifically designed to counter aircraft carriers to various anti-ship cruise missiles, a dense network of firepower has been woven along China's coastline. American think tanks have conducted multiple simulations themselves, concluding that intervention by US forces in areas like the Taiwan Strait would indeed present formidable challenges.

Modern warfare is no longer merely a contest of who possesses more aircraft or larger warships. It resembles a physical confrontation between two individuals: one encumbered by heavy weaponry yet restricted in movement, the other lightly equipped but agile and nimble. The outcome remains far from certain.

China's strategic focus in recent years has been developing capabilities to render US military hardware ‘invisible and untouchable’ – employing soft-kill tactics like GPS jamming and command system disruption that can prove more effective than direct aircraft interception. In essence, China is striving to neutralise America's most prized technological advantages.

Moreover, warfare today extends beyond military forces alone. As the world's factory, China holds the card of economic countermeasures. Should hostilities escalate, the damage inflicted by economic sanctions could far exceed the losses incurred by a few warships on the battlefield.

A glance at the map reveals that for the US to engage in conflict in the Western Pacific, it must traverse the entire Pacific Ocean. Such vast distances pose immense logistical challenges; under wartime conditions, maritime supply lines stretching thousands of kilometres become prime targets.

Conversely, China, backed by the Eurasian landmass, possesses vast strategic depth. Should hostilities arise, it could swiftly mobilise troops and transport supplies via its extensive domestic transport network. This advantage of resting while the enemy tires has been proven time and again throughout history.

Indeed, the crux of discussing this hypothetical war scenario lies not in debating who would prevail, but in understanding the shifting international landscape.

The era of American hegemony is waning. This is no longer the time of the 1991 Gulf War, when the United States could wage war at will. The world is becoming multipolar, and it is unrealistic for any major power to act with impunity through military force.

The nature of great power rivalry has also transformed. The costs of full-scale conventional warfare are prohibitively high, rendering it unaffordable for all parties. Consequently, contests in the ‘grey zone’ – trade wars, technological rivalry, cyber warfare – have become the more commonplace options.

Crucially, astute great powers should recognise that true strategic masters do not focus on how to prevail on the battlefield, but on how to prevent war from erupting in the first place.

Frankly, I believe many who discuss this issue fall into a misconception, fixating on who would prevail in an actual conflict. In today's world, such thinking is fundamentally outdated.

Safeguarding national security is no longer merely about guarding borders. Can the economy achieve self-reliance? Will technological advancement be stifled? Is the financial system secure? These matters often carry greater weight than acquiring additional aircraft carriers. China's repeated emphasis in recent years on ‘balancing development with security’ encapsulates precisely this principle.

The truly astute do not wait for conflict to erupt before contemplating victory; rather, they ensure the adversary dares not act at all. China's development of ‘carrier killers’ is not primarily aimed at sinking American carriers, but at conveying a clear message: intervention would incur significant losses. Consequently, war becomes unviable.

Crucially, warfare between major powers has become increasingly unprofitable. Globalisation has intertwined our interests; victory would mean killing a thousand enemies while losing eight hundred of our own. Hence, despite the current Sino-American tensions, both sides are actively avoiding direct confrontation.

Returning to the South Korean expert's remarks, fixating solely on whether China can win a war is too superficial. His true point is that the world has changed: a nation's strength must be measured not just by aircraft carrier numbers, but by economic resilience, technological prowess, diplomatic acumen, and more.

Truly visionary nations should focus on creating an international environment where no one desires or can afford war. After all, the finest victory is one achieved without fighting.