← Back to Blog

The Paper Dragon and the Sleeping Giant: Why China Inflates Its Power While America Doubts Its Own

November 5, 2025•22 min read•By Defender of the West BTH

The Most Dangerous Delusion:

China wants you to believe they're invincible. American media wants you to believe we're weak. Both narratives serve China's interests. The reality of US-China military balance is far different than either side admits—and understanding this truth could prevent the catastrophic war both nations claim to want to avoid.

The Dual Deception

Walk into any Washington policy seminar and you'll hear the same refrain: "China has more ships than the US Navy." "The PLA could overwhelm Taiwan in 72 hours." "American military dominance is over." Turn on Chinese state television and you'll see endless footage of DF-41 missiles rolling through Tiananmen Square, J-20 stealth fighters screaming across the sky, and Xi Jinping in military fatigues reviewing troops.

Both narratives are carefully constructed lies. And together, they create the most dangerous strategic environment since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

China systematically inflates its military capabilities to achieve strategic objectives without firing a shot.Psychological warfare, deception operations, and propaganda have been core to Chinese military doctrine since Sun Tzu wrote "The Art of War" 2,500 years ago. "All warfare is based on deception," he wrote. "When we are able to attack, we must seem unable."

America systematically underestimates its own power because defense contractors need threat inflation to justify budgets, media outlets need conflict narratives for clicks, and politicians need fear to mobilize voters. The result is a nation that possesses overwhelming military superiority but increasingly doubts its own strength.

This dual delusion could spark the exact war both nations claim to want to avoid—because China might miscalculate American resolve, and America might overreact to Chinese provocations out of fear rather than confidence.

Let's break down the reality.

Part I: The Paper Dragon—Why China's Military Power Is Vastly Overstated

The "Ship Count" Lie

The most repeated talking point in US-China military discourse: "China has the world's largest navy."

The reality: China has more hulls than the United States. They do not have more naval power.

When analysts say "China has 370 ships compared to America's 290," they're counting fishing trawlers equipped with machine guns alongside guided missile destroyers. They're comparing 500-ton coastal patrol boats to 100,000-ton aircraft carriers. It's like claiming someone with 20 Honda Civics has a more powerful vehicle fleet than someone with 10 M1 Abrams tanks.

Tonnage reality check:
• US Navy displacement: ~4.6 million tons
• PLA Navy displacement: ~2.1 million tons
• US Navy has more than twice the actual naval mass

But it's not just about size—it's about capability. The United States Navy operates 11 nuclear-powered supercarrier strike groups. China operates 3 carriers, only one of which (the Fujian) approaches modern capability—and it has never conducted actual combat operations. The Liaoning is a refurbished Soviet rust bucket from 1985. The Shandong is its slightly improved Chinese copy.

Each American carrier strike group includes:

Combined capability: Each carrier strike group can project more firepower than most nations' entire militaries. The US has 11 of them. China has nothing remotely comparable.

Combat Experience: Zero vs. Continuous

The People's Liberation Army last fought a war in 1979—a disastrous border conflict with Vietnam where Chinese forces suffered embarrassing casualties against a smaller, less-equipped opponent. In the 46 years since, the PLA has fired exactly zero shots in combat.

The United States military has been engaged in continuous combat operations since 1991:

This isn't just about "experience"—it's about institutional knowledge that cannot be replicated in exercises. American NCOs (non-commissioned officers) have more combat leadership experience than Chinese generals. US pilots have flown actual combat missions. Navy SEALs have conducted real hostage rescues, not training simulations.

The PLA conducts impressive-looking exercises. But exercises have scripted outcomes. Combat does not. China's military is completely untested against a peer adversary—and given their 1979 performance against Vietnam, there's substantial reason to doubt their actual combat effectiveness.

The Logistics Nightmare China Ignores

Amateurs talk strategy. Professionals talk logistics. And China's logistics capabilities for a Taiwan invasion are fundamentally inadequate.

The Taiwan Strait is 100 miles wide at its narrowest point—wider than the English Channel (21 miles) that took the Allies years to prepare to cross with total air and naval supremacy against an enemy (Nazi Germany) that was already fighting a two-front war against the Soviet Union and maintaining occupation forces across Europe.

China would need to transport hundreds of thousands of troops across 100 miles of contested water, establish beachheads on a heavily defended island, maintain supply lines under constant attack, and achieve all of this while:

China's amphibious assault capacity: The PLA Navy has approximately 40-50 amphibious warfare ships capable of transporting troops and equipment. Optimistic estimates suggest they could move 25,000-30,000 troops in the first wave.

Taiwan's defensive requirement: Defense analysts estimate China would need to land 200,000+ troops to successfully invade Taiwan, given the island's geography, defensive preparations, and mobilized reserve forces.

That means 6-8 waves of amphibious assaults across 100 miles of water while under attack from air, sea, and land. Each wave requires:

And that assumes zero losses to US submarines, air strikes, and Taiwanese missiles—which is delusional. Every wave would face catastrophic attrition. By wave 3 or 4, China's amphibious fleet would be decimated. The invasion would collapse.

China knows this. Which is why they invest so heavily in looking threatening rather than actuallybeing capable of invasion.

Technology Gap: Propaganda vs. Reality

Chinese propaganda loves to showcase J-20 stealth fighters, DF-41 ICBMs, and Type 055 destroyers. And yes, these systems exist. But their actual combat effectiveness compared to American equivalents is highly questionable.

Stealth Aircraft:

The engine problem: China has spent decades trying to develop indigenous high-performance jet engines and still relies on Russian imports. This is not a minor technical detail—it's a fundamental limitation that affects aircraft performance, reliability, and combat effectiveness. The US has manufactured world-leading jet engines since the 1950s.

Naval Systems:

China's Type 055 destroyer is often called the "most powerful surface combatant in the world." This is propaganda. Compared to the US Arleigh Burke Flight III destroyer:

Missiles:

China's "carrier killer" DF-21D and DF-26 anti-ship ballistic missiles get enormous press attention. They're impressive weapons—on paper. In reality:

Meanwhile, the United States has Tomahawk cruise missiles that have been fired in combat hundreds of times with proven accuracy, LRASM anti-ship missiles designed specifically to defeat Chinese defenses, and SM-6 missiles that can intercept aircraft, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles.

The Corruption Factor

In 2024, China's Defense Minister Li Shangfu vanished from public view, reportedly under investigation for corruption. He joined former Defense Minister Wei Fenghe and the entire PLA Rocket Force leadership in being purged for embezzlement and graft.

What does this tell us? That China's military is riddled with systemic corruption at the highest levels. Officers inflate capabilities to secure promotions. Defense contractors substitute inferior materials to pocket the difference. Equipment maintenance is neglected because repair budgets get embezzled.

Remember Russia's "second-best military in the world" that invaded Ukraine in February 2022? Western analysts predicted Kyiv would fall in 72 hours. Instead, Russian columns ran out of fuel 40 miles from the border because logistics officers had sold the supplies. Tanks broke down because maintenance had been faked. Encrypted radios didn't work so soldiers used unsecured cell phones.

Russia and China have the same corruption problem. Both are authoritarian systems where telling leaders bad news is career suicide. Both have opaque defense procurement with no civilian oversight. Both prioritize impressive-looking parades over actual combat readiness.

The PLA might look fearsome in propaganda videos. But if their Defense Minister and entire missile force leadership are corrupt, what are the odds that their carrier actually works? That their jets can fly sustained combat missions? That their missiles would hit their targets?

Part II: The Sleeping Giant—Why America Underestimates Its Own Overwhelming Superiority

The Threat Inflation Industry

American defense discourse is dominated by a perverse incentive structure: everyone benefits from exaggerating threats except the American people.

Defense contractors need threat inflation to justify larger budgets. If China is "10 feet tall and bulletproof," Congress will authorize another $50 billion for shipbuilding. If China is actually struggling with corruption, outdated technology, and logistical nightmares, that budget request looks less urgent.

Politicians use fear to mobilize voters and demonstrate "toughness." It's much easier to campaign on "I'll stand up to the Chinese threat" than "Our military already dominates and doesn't need much additional funding."

Think tanks get attention and funding by producing scary reports about American decline. "US maintains overwhelming superiority" doesn't generate headlines or donor contributions. "China could win war over Taiwan" gets you on cable news and cited in Congressional testimony.

Media outlets profit from conflict narratives. "US military dominance continues" is boring. "China's hypersonic missiles could sink our carriers!" drives clicks, engagement, and advertising revenue.

The result: America vastly underestimates its own military power.

The Numbers Don't Lie—America's Crushing Advantage

Let's examine actual capabilities, not propaganda:

Nuclear Weapons:

Aircraft Carriers:

Submarines:

Stealth Aircraft:

Global Basing:

Allies:

Defense spending reality:
• US defense budget (2024): $886 billion
• China defense budget (official): $230 billion
• China defense budget (estimated actual): $300-400 billion
• US spends 2-3x more than China, and gets far more capability per dollar due to technological superiority and lack of corruption

The Force Multiplier of American Innovation

But raw numbers don't capture America's most decisive advantage: innovation ecosystems that China cannot replicate.

The United States defense industrial base benefits from:

China has none of this. Chinese defense innovation is trapped in state-owned enterprises with bureaucratic procurement, lack of competition, and Party loyalty requirements that exclude the best talent. Private Chinese tech companies (Alibaba, Tencent, Huawei) are increasingly constrained by CCP control and brain drain as talented engineers leave for freer environments.

The result: American defense technology advances faster, adapts quicker, and solves problems that China is still struggling to understand.

Examples of American innovation advantage:

The Geographic Reality

Geography heavily favors American defense and Chinese aggression is inherently difficult:

First Island Chain: Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Indonesia form a natural barrier blocking Chinese naval access to Pacific. In wartime, US and allies can:

China's geographic nightmare: To break out into Pacific, China must either:

Meanwhile, the United States is protected by two oceans and has friendly neighbors (Canada, Mexico) who pose zero military threat. China is surrounded by rivals: India (hostile, nuclear-armed), Japan (US ally, increasingly militarized), Vietnam (fought war with China in 1979), South Korea (US ally), Russia (temporary partner of convenience who historically distrusts China).

In any sustained conflict, America can project power while remaining invulnerable at home. China must defend on multiple fronts while trying to project power across hostile waters.

Part III: The Ramifications of War—Why This Analysis Matters

Understanding the true military balance between the US and China isn't an academic exercise. Misperception of relative power is the most common cause of great power wars.

If War Comes: The Catastrophic Reality

If China invades Taiwan and the United States intervenes, the result would be the most destructive war since 1945. But it would not be the "close-run thing" that many analysts predict. It would be a catastrophic Chinese defeat that could collapse the CCP regime—at enormous cost to both sides.

Week 1: The Invasion Attempt

China launches amphibious assault across Taiwan Strait. Initial bombardment with missiles and air strikes attempts to disable Taiwanese air defenses and command infrastructure. PLA landing ships begin crossing.

US response:

Result: 40-60% of Chinese amphibious fleet destroyed in first week. Thousands of Chinese soldiers drowned. Landing attempts fail due to inability to establish beachhead under fire. Taiwan remains free.

Week 2-4: Escalation

Faced with military disaster, China has three options:

  1. Accept defeat: Ceasefire, regime collapse likely due to humiliation
  2. Escalate conventionally: Strike US bases in Japan, Guam, Philippines—brings more countries into war against China
  3. Nuclear escalation: Use tactical nuclear weapons—triggers US nuclear response, potential civilization-ending exchange

Most likely: China escalates conventionally. Missile strikes on US bases in Japan. This triggers:

Month 2-3: Chinese Defeat Becomes Clear

The human cost:

Why Strength Prevents War

The nightmare scenario above is preventable—but only if China understands it would lose decisively.

If Chinese leadership believes:

...then they might actually invade, triggering the catastrophe described above.

But if Chinese leadership understands:

...then invasion becomes unthinkable and deterrence holds.

Peace through strength is not a cliché—it's a proven strategy. The Cold War never went hot because the Soviet Union understood that NATO would fight and win. The Taiwan Strait has remained peaceful since 1979 because China understood the cost of invasion exceeded any potential benefit.

The danger today is that American self-doubt and Chinese propaganda might combine to create a false belief in Chinese leadership that they could win. That miscalculation would trigger a war that kills millions and accomplishes nothing except destruction.

The Economic Ramifications

Even a "short" two-month war between the US and China would trigger global economic catastrophe that makes 2008 look like a minor recession:

Immediate impacts:

Long-term economic restructuring:

The economic cost of war would be $5-10 trillion in direct costs, and $50+ trillionin lost global GDP over a decade. For reference, that's more than the entire US GDP.

Conclusion: Confidence Without Arrogance, Strength Without Aggression

The dual delusion—China inflating its power, America doubting its own—creates the most dangerous strategic environment in generations.

The truth:

But this reality must be clearly communicated to China through:

The goal is not war. The goal is deterrence so credible that war becomes unthinkable.

China's leadership needs to understand—with absolute clarity—that:

  1. Taiwan invasion will fail militarily
  2. PLA will suffer catastrophic casualties
  3. Chinese economy will collapse under blockade and sanctions
  4. CCP regime will not survive the humiliation of defeat
  5. There is no scenario where China "wins"

When China truly understands American strength, peace becomes possible. When China believes American weakness, war becomes likely.

The paper dragon must see the sleeping giant is actually wide awake—and utterly overwhelming.

That recognition prevents the catastrophic war that would serve no one's interests except those who profit from human suffering.

Further Reading: