In the 10 years since the end of the cold war, the US global strategy has been in constant adjustment.

The fundamental reason for the adjustment is the structural changes in the international system.

The “9 / 11” terrorist attack occurred when the power of the United States was at the peak of history.

It was also a major external blow to the United States after independence, which would have a profound and long-term impact on the national psychology, domestic political ecology and security threat assessment of the United States, thus affecting the adjustment of the global strategy of the United States.

The United States quickly responded to this, and its global strategy, especially in the security and military fields, has taken many major strategic steps.

From the perspective of its response, it can be said that the world is surprised.

Other countries and regions in the world are closely watching the trend and trend of the global strategic adjustment of the United States, and adjust their diplomatic strategies and strategies accordingly, which will fundamentally change the global strategic situation and security pattern. I. adjustment of the global strategic objectives of the United States from the four-year Defense Review Report and the Nuclear Posture Review report released by the United States after the September 11 incident and the actions and policies of the United States in combating terrorism, we can preliminarily see the clue of the adjustment of the global strategic objectives of the United States.

It should be said that the strategic objectives of the United States have two levels: the first is to meet the immediate security challenges and combat terrorism in the United States and around the world.

The second is to maintain and expand the comprehensive advantages, especially military advantages, between the United States and other regional powers, and use all means and weapons (including nuclear weapons) to pursue absolute security.

The ultimate goal is to establish a unipolar hegemonic order in which the United States controls the world.

The means and policies to realize this strategic ambition put more emphasis on unilateralism, militarism and interventionism, with a strong color of offensive realism.

(1) combating terrorism and ensuring the national security of the United States are the direct strategic objectives of the United States.

The threat of terrorism is a new security issue in the post Cold War era of globalization.

In the traditional concept of threat and security, there is no word of terrorism at all.

The threat to national security is mainly caused by the strength and policies of other countries.

The subjects of threat and security are external sovereign states.

The way of threat and security is basically symmetrical deterrence and military action between countries.

The subject of terrorist threat is terrorist organizations and individuals without fixed territory base.

It may launch sudden asymmetric attacks on any of your targets in various unexpected ways at any time, either abroad or within your national territory.

Although terrorist attacks will not attack cities and land like traditional national threats, or even destroy a country, it is difficult to effectively prevent and combat them because of their concealment, suddenness and asymmetry and diversity of means.

Moreover, due to the rapid dissemination of information and the extensive and in-depth concept of human rights in the era of networking, Terrorist attacks have dealt an extremely serious blow to the people’s sense of psychology, security and political belief.

The impact of the “9 / 11” incident has fully proved the seriousness of the harm of terrorist attacks to modern society.

The economic losses caused by this terrorist attack to the United States are difficult to estimate, but the most important thing is the blow to the American national psychology and belief.

Moreover, this blow is not one-off.

It haunts the American people like a nightmare.

After the “9 / 11” attacks, there was a wave of anthrax.

The warnings of terrorist attacks again and again, the recent dirty bomb incident, the aircraft alarm over the White House, and the intelligence of the terrorist attacks on the independence day of the United States, were true and false, which seriously hit the sense of security of the American people.

Facts have proved that terrorist organizations and individuals have targeted the United States, which has formed a serious new threat to the security of the United States.

In the face of this imminent security challenge, great changes have taken place in the security strategy of the United States.

For the first time since the independence of the United States, domestic security has been placed in the top priority of the national security strategy.

For the United States, first of all, it must absolutely ensure that there will be no more attacks on its territory, especially nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

(II) the United States took the “9 / 11” incident as an opportunity to advance its strategic goal of unipolar hegemony.

Henry Kissinger believes that the war on terrorism “is not just to hunt down terrorists”.

The most important thing is that it should become a “great opportunity to reshape the international system”.

As the only superpower in the world today, in the long run, its diplomatic strategy is far from limited to counter-terrorism.

The goal of maintaining its world leadership is doomed that the counter-terrorism strategy will not replace its global strategy.

This strategic goal reflects the continuity of us global strategic adjustment after the cold war.

The pursuit of American unipolar hegemony or “new world order”, “American Century” or “leading the world” was the consistent policy goal of the United States after the cold war, but the time was not ripe at that time.

This is mainly restricted by the domestic politics of the United States.

The rise of isolationism, the separation of powers and the two party political system in the United States have seriously hampered the full use of American power overseas.

However, the “9 / 11” incident dealt a serious blow to the isolationism in the United States and exacerbated the sense of insecurity in the United States, thus removing domestic political obstacles for the United States to pursue its strategic goal of hegemony.

The Bush administration, which is dominated by hardliners, took the opportunity to seize this rare opportunity to promote the strategy of the United States to control the world alone.

These two levels of US strategic objectives should be parallel and mutually reinforcing.

In the global fight against terrorism, it should be said that it has been raised to the height of security strategy by the United States for the first time.

This is a new content of U.S. strategic adjustment and a new security issue in the era of globalization.

It is an urgent and almost impossible task to eradicate terrorism in the long term.

In the view of the United States, the eradication of terrorism requires not only the global anti-terrorism alliance, but also the strong unilateral militarism of the United States.

Therefore, combating terrorism provides a lot of legitimacy or excuse for the United States to pursue its absolute advantage and control international affairs independently.

For example, taking advantage of the opportunity of combating terrorism, the United States took the opportunity to strengthen its geographical penetration into central and South Asia, more resolutely develop missile defense systems, resume nuclear tests, and so on.

On the other hand, the strategic goal of pursuing unipolar hegemony is relatively more fundamental and has long been the dream of the United States.

Perhaps the United States believes that only such a war can be achievedTo achieve this goal, the United States can fully open its hands and feet, fight terrorism at will, and achieve “peace under the rule of the United States” and a new world order. 2. Contents of the US global strategic adjustment.

From the above analysis, we can see that the recent strategic adjustment of the United States is relatively comprehensive and systematic.

It emphasizes not only domestic security, but also international and regional security.

It not only highlights the real threats, but also focuses on the potential challenges in the future.

It not only emphasizes the emerging asymmetric threat in the era of globalization, but also does not ignore the symmetric threat of traditional regional powers.

In fact, these problems are an organic whole, which is difficult to be completely separated.

It is mainly reflected in the following aspects: (1) domestic security first, build a strict network of anti-terrorism security institutions.

According to the traditional security concept, the United States should be the safest country in the world, and the American people have never worried about their own domestic security.

From the founding of the United States to more than 200 years before the September 11 incident, the mainland of the United States has never been subjected to large-scale invasion and attack by foreign enemies.

Therefore, homeland security has never occupied an important position in the security awareness of the American people and the national security strategy of the United States.

There are two reasons: first, the superior geographical location of the United States and the protection of the two oceans have protected the United States from aggression by other powers.

Second, over the past century, the United States has strong economic and military power.

However, the “9 / 11” attacks helped the United States recognize the vulnerability of its own domestic defense, thus changing the long-term outward security awareness and security strategic concept of the United States.

The new “Quadrennial Defense Review Report” clearly emphasizes at the beginning that domestic defense is the highest priority target of the United States, and the direct attack on the United States is identified as the highest priority realistic threat.

Compared with the past, this is an important part of the adjustment of the US security strategy.

In order to ensure the homeland security of the United States, the United States has taken a series of major steps and measures in setting up domestic institutions: shortly after the terrorist attacks, the Bush administration announced the establishment of a cabinet level “Homeland Security Agency” on September 20, which is responsible for coordinating the domestic security work of government agencies, including the Department of defense, the Department of justice, the Department of transportation, the Department of energy, the Central Intelligence Agency, etc.

Since the discovery of anthrax, the public health system has also been involved in safety work to prevent biological warfare.

State and local authorities have stepped up the establishment of their own coordination mechanisms to strengthen public security.

The fire brigade, the postal service, the coast guard, the National Guard and reservists all join the domestic security system.

On April 17, 2002, the U.S. Department of Defense announced the establishment of a new Northern Command, which will shoulder the task of defending U.S. airspace and sea areas, and will also be responsible for providing support to government departments in the event of major events such as “9 / 11”.

This new command is the first command established in the history of the United States to be fully responsible for the defense of the United States.

This is part of the overall adjustment of the organizational structure of the United States command.

Rumsfeld announced that the northern command would begin work on October 1.

The Ministry of defense has also decided to set up a special task force under the Northern Command, whose mission is to coordinate between the military and the government after a weapons of mass destruction incident.

In addition, the Pentagon plans to establish a new command to deal with other emergencies, including chemical and biological weapons attacks.

On June 7, 2002, President Bush announced plans to establish a department of homeland security, whose main function is to ensure the safety of citizens and prevent terrorist acts.

Department of homeland security personnel will also assume the function of monitoring border and strategic facilities.

The Department of homeland security has a staff of 170000, and staff from the CIA, the FBI and dozens of other agencies enter the Department with a budget of $37.

5 billion.

This is the largest government restructuring in the United States since the beginning of the 20th century.

(2) take all means to combat terrorism on a global scale.

In order to prevent another terrorist attack, the United States not only constructs a network of anti-terrorism institutions at home, but also carries out prevention and combat outside the United States, so as to completely eradicate terrorist organizations.

In order to achieve this goal, the formed Bush doctrine provides the strategic thought of active defense for American strategy.

The combination of temporary alliance and unilateralism has become the main mode of American anti terrorist war.

First, the strategic thought of active defense.

The Bush administration has been trying to find a new strategy, which is different from the past.

In fact, the containment theory and the dominant deterrence strategy during the cold war are no longer applicable to the world where the economy has no borders and the enemy has no country.

Today’s unconventional threats and “virtual enemies” pose an increasing danger, which is the main factor that urges US policymakers to weaken the role of deterrence and containment.

In his graduation speech at West Point on June 1, 2002, President Bush pointed out that “deterrence, that is, a possibility of large-scale retaliation against the state, has no effect on looming terrorist organizations without the protection of the state and citizens”.

Therefore, it can be said that the real Bush doctrine, which has been bred for a long time, has begun to show signs, that is, to replace the negative deterrence strategy during the cold war with a more action will and pre emptive active defense strategy.

The Bush Doctrine’s strategic thought of active defense emphasizes the characteristics of pre emption and will to act, which will inevitably lead to the expansion of the war on terrorism, the expansion of the scope of attack, and “forced entry” into the territory of other countries.

The Bush administration believes that the establishment of an organization like al Qaeda will take several years, require a lot of assets, and first of all, physical shelter.

Therefore, the most important thing to prevent al Qaeda from breeding again is to deny them a place to hide.

The US government will determine the nature of its relationship with a country based on its attitude and behavior towards terrorism.

If a country supports or harbours an organization that intends to attack the United States, or if it deliberately fails to take action against such an organization, the country is in a de facto state of war with the United States.

When it thinks the time and place are right, the United States will take action against both the organization and the country.

On September 21, 2001, President Bush officially announced at the joint meeting of the house and Senate: “from today on, any country that continues to host and support terrorists will be regarded as a hostile country by the United States.

”On January 29, 2002, President Bush put forward the concept of “axis of evil” in his state of the Union address.

He pointed out that Iran, Iraq and North Korea “constitute an axis of evil with their terrorist accomplices, whose purpose is to threaten world peace”.

“The government of the United States of America will never allow the world’s most dangerous regime to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.

” In fact, the war on terrorism soon went beyond Afghanistan.

President Bush was determined to “make all terrorists international fugitives, with no place to reorganize, no hiding place, no country willing to take them in, and even no place to sleep”.

The Philippines, Georgia, Yemen and other countries have become new battlefields in the US war on terrorism.

In the expansion strategy of the US war on terrorism, the most important goal is Iraq.

Although the United States has no evidence to prove the relationship between Iraq and the “9 / 11” incident and Al Qaeda, it is determined to get rid of Saddam Hussein’s regime from the perspective of preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Although the United States has been opposed by most countries in the world on this issue, it seems that the United States has been making all preparations for a military attack on Iraq since the war in Afghanistan.

In order to implement the Bush Doctrine of active defense strategy and prevent and combat terrorism in the world, “forced entry” into the territory of other countries is inevitable.

In terms of the confirmation of threat types, the new Quadrennial Defense Review Report includes “areas that reject the US military”, “incompetent or irresponsible governments” and “anarchists” in the category of asymmetric threats for the first time.

The new report proposes that in order to “eliminate the threat that the enemy is likely to pose in the future”, the United States should have the ability to “break” this state by considering the acts of rejecting U.S. military intervention and the areas rejecting U.S. military intervention as threats, The United States “must be able to deal a fatal blow to the enemy when necessary, including overthrowing the hostile regime or entering the territory of other countries until the strategic intention of the United States is fully implemented.

” At present, this kind of “forced entry” into the territory of other countries is most likely to occur in the war on terrorism.

In this way, the new military strategy of the United States has been unprecedentedly aggressive.

This shows that the United States wants to completely deny the basic sovereignty principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations, and begin to build a new international order supported by armed intervention, aggression and “freedom and democracy” between the United States and Britain and fully controlling world affairs.

This will inevitably lead to anarchy on an international scale and make the global situation more volatile and dangerous.

Second, the combination of temporary alliance and unilateral force attack.

After the “9 / 11” incident, the United States used the specific emotions at that time to establish a broad world anti-terrorism alliance.

This grand alliance includes all the major powers in the world, not only the allies of the United States, but also other countries that are not close or even hostile to the United States.

Richard Haas, director of the State Department’s Policy Planning Committee, believes that the United States has never imagined that it can defeat terrorism without international support.

The threat of terrorism is transnational, which requires coordination in intelligence, police cooperation and the flow of funds.

In fact, it is not the first time for the United States to establish a temporary alliance rather than a formal alliance.

During the Gulf War, the United States defeated Iraq by establishing a temporary alliance.

The United States opposes formal alliance, but is willing to establish a temporary alliance.

This is because in the temporary alliance, the United States, as a superpower, has unparalleled flexibility: when the United States believes that its interests are threatened, it looks for partners, rather than winning the support of other countries to oppose the common threat they believe.

As big as you want, as small as you want.

It can be established for specific goals and disbanded once the task is completed.

There is little red tape without the consent of Congress.

But at the same time, the United States does not want to be bound by alliances or international organizations.

It wants to maintain the freedom of unilateral action.

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of defense Wolfowitz believe that the United States must rely on strength to lead the world, and “regardless of the existing treaties or the objections of allies”, the United States should speak to the world in a strong interventionist tone.

The most important reason why the United States opposes the establishment of an alliance is the strength of the United States itself, especially in military technology.

In the Afghan war, the United States’ small number of ground special operations and light infantry, together with shipborne and long-range fighters, destroyed the will of the Taliban in a few weeks.

Especially in the field of aerospace, the United States is far ahead of other allies, so that science and technology actually hinders the effective military cooperation between the United States and its allies.

Despite the public talk of NATO support, the United States provided nearly 100% of the combat troops.

Cooperation with allies is a basic principle of U.S. foreign policy.

The United States cannot assume all responsibilities.

However, if it is difficult for allies to cooperate effectively, efficiently and safely, the United States will go it alone.

The flexible means of temporary alliance has produced such a serious tendency in the United States, that is, they refuse to sign any treaty that may bind their hands and feet.

It believes that most of the existing organizations emerged in the “cold war” period and completed the corresponding tasks.

Now the international community should not affect the foreign policy of the United States.

Therefore, the United States should not assume obligations to international institutions, which actually encourages and increases the willingness and behavior of the United States to unilaterally use force and gives the United States greater freedom of action.

(III) pursuing absolute military superiority and seeking world hegemony after the “9 / 11” incident, the United States issued the “four-year Defense Review Report” and put forward a new military guiding ideology, that is, shifting from dealing with “threats” to dealing with “capabilities”.

This “capability based” model focuses not on who the opponent may be or where the war may occur, but on how the opponent’s capabilities and how to fight.

This military guiding ideology focuses on the possible or developed and growing capabilities.

It tends to pursue an absolute security and eternal power advantage.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said in the preface of the nuclear strategy assessment report that when the US military now has “comprehensive advantages”, the reform of the US military “will maintain this asymmetric advantage of the United States until the future”.

The Quadrennial Defense Review report pointed out that the U.S. military should be equipped with equipment that “will enable other countries to dispel the idea of an arms race with the United States in the futureLong term presence in Central Asia to control the heart of the world.

Second, move the strategic focus further eastward to Asia and focus on preventing China.

First, it attempts to enter Central Asia for a long time and control the heart of Eurasia.

Kissinger, Huntington and Brzezinski all regard Eurasia as the “most important arena” for the United States to realize its hegemonic dream.

The latter even clearly declared that Eurasia is the “most important geopolitical goal” of the United States, and whether the United States can “control Eurasia permanently and effectively” has a direct impact on the United States’ domination of global affairs “.

From the perspective of geopolitical theory, the eastward expansion of NATO and the strengthening of the US Japan alliance after the cold war are nothing more than pushing forward from both ends of Eurasia to squeeze the geostrategic space of Russia and China.

Central Asia, located in the center of Eurasia, has a vast territory and an important strategic position.

It has always been a battleground for strategists.

After the cold war, it has become a battlefield for world powers to compete for its rich oil, natural gas and mineral resources.

Especially due to the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the weakening of Russian control and the spread of Islamic fundamentalist forces, this region has become a chaotic power vacuum.

After World War II, the United States completely replaced Britain in the world pattern, only because the powerful forces of the former Soviet Union had no chance to intervene in Central Asia.

Since the United States decided to launch a military attack on Afghanistan, it has successively established military bases in Central Asia.

So far, it has established 13 military bases in nine countries adjacent to Afghanistan, greatly expanding its military network in this region.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell told Congress that the United States will enjoy long-term interests and power in Central Asia, and its scale is far from unimaginable in the past.

It can be seen from the current signs that the United States will stay in Central Asia for a long time, so as to strengthen its control over the Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia, and also form a great restriction and threat to the Geopolitical Security Situation of China and Russia.

Second, the strategic focus has shifted to Asia, especially China.

(Quadrennial Defense Review Report) in terms of regional security situation, it is believed that Europe and the western hemisphere are basically in a state of peace, while the Middle East and Asia have many unstable factors.

For the first time, it puts forward the sequence of Asia, the Middle East, Europe and Northeast Asia, and holds that Asia is “gradually becoming a region vulnerable to large-scale military confrontation”.

The defense assessment report puts forward the concept of “East Asian coastal zone”, which ranges from “Bangladesh to the sea of Japan, Australia and New Zealand”.

It believes that this region and central and South Asia are sensitive areas full of challenges and “gradually becoming large-scale military conflicts”.

Therefore, the report believes that the U.S. base system in Northeast Asia should be maintained, and some land expeditionary forces in the Mediterranean will consider moving to the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf, extending the duty time of aircraft carrier battle groups in the Western Pacific, and studying the possibility of increasing aircraft carrier battle groups and deploying Cruise missiles.

With regard to Asia, the United States is most concerned about “the possibility of a military opponent with terrible resources”, and it is self-evident that its spearhead is against China.

Before September 11, an expert group headed by zalmi Khalilzad, special assistant to US President Bush and senior director of the US National Security Council, published a research report on the US new strategy for Asia on May 15.

The report said that the United States should shift the focus of its military forces in Asia to the Philippines and other potential hot spots closer to China in order to strengthen its containment of China.

The study report suggests that new arrangements should be made in Southeast Asia so that when the US military “attacks” Taiwan on the mainland, it can use the ports and airports in the region to provide military support to Taiwan.

Maintain traditional military ties with Japan and South Korea.

Guam, the territory of the United States in the Pacific Ocean, should be developed into a major base for the US Air Force and Navy, so that the US military can enter the South China Sea and other places in Southeast Asia from here.

The US military should strengthen security cooperation with the Philippines and station troops there in the form of shifts. III. evaluation of the global strategic adjustment of the United States.

As the United States is the only superpower in the international system, it has obvious advantages in all aspects of strength.

Especially in the military field, the military capability of the United States is far ahead of that of the generation of other major powers.

Therefore, the impact of the global strategic adjustment of the United States will be overall and structural.

It is not only related to the essential characteristics of the new world order, but also seriously affects the strategic adjustment of other major countries, thus determining the basic trend of international relations and the international community.

(1) the impact of the adjustment of the global strategy of the United States on the world pattern.

The cold war ended with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, leaving the United States as a superpower in the world.

The international system structure characterized by bipolar confrontation has changed.

At the same time, the process of Globalization has accelerated, global and regional international public issues abound, and the status and function of the international system have attracted much attention for a time, The role of multilateral coordination and cooperation has been strengthened.

At the same time, the relationship between major powers has been continuously adjusted.

Its basic feature is that the world’s power centers (including countries and national organizations) have basically established a “partnership” that is not aimed at third parties, and there are both struggle and cooperation between them.

The so-called “unipolar struggle” and the so-called “multipolar struggle” in the post Cold War world are the so-called short-term contradictions and the new international order.

The main contradiction and focus of the struggle is that the United States attempts to occupy a balanced advantage and even establish a new world order under the leadership and control of the United States, while other major powers and power centers pursue a multipolar balance and a more democratic international order and oppose the attempt of American unipolar hegemony.

Russia, the European Union (mainly France and Germany), China, Japan and even ASEAN and India all advocate the multipolar development of the world pattern, and establish various “partnerships” between them to carry out strategic and economic cooperation to check and balance the United States.

At the same time, they also strengthen and develop cooperative relations with the United States, especially Japan, the European Union and its important member states.

On the one hand, the United States makes use of its advantageous position and strong strength to rely on and develop various global and regional international organizations and mechanisms dominated by the United States.

On the other hand, by strengthening the existing alliance system, the United States strives to establish a new world order dominated and controlled by the United States.

It should be said that since the 1990s, in the competition between unipolar and multipolar, the United States has gradually gained the upper hand.

The momentum of the United States has soared with the long-term economic boom of the United States during the Clinton administration, while the efforts of other major powers to multipolarize have been frustrated.

The Bush administration abandoned the Clinton Administration’s policy of multilateralism and global cooperation, and the US foreign policyThe selfish “American interests” and unilateralism in the policy are strengthened.

In particular, with the outbreak of the “9 / 11” incident, the United States quickly organized a global anti-terrorism alliance as a victim.

Russia, China, the European Union, Japan and India joined one after another.

Their independence was damaged, which strengthened the United States’ control over the world, seriously weakened the efforts of multi polarization and further reversed the trend of multi polarization.

The adjustment of the global strategy of the United States aims at unipolar hegemony and is characterized by more reliance on military superiority and unilateral coercive means, which will inevitably lead to the vigilance and opposition of other major powers.

The global anti-terrorism alliance will be divided.

Under this background, major powers and power centers will start a new round of differentiation and combination, and its trend has begun to show signs.

(2) the impact of the adjustment of the US global strategy on international security the main content of the US global strategic adjustment this time is military and security.

The most fundamental change is that the guiding ideology of the US military strategy has changed from “dealing with threats” to “dealing with capabilities”.

By changing the nuclear weapons policy, preparing to resume nuclear tests, developing new types of actual nuclear weapons, promoting the establishment of a missile defense system and strengthening conventional military forces, we can establish a new “three in one” strike force system with a more deterrent and practical role.

Its ultimate purpose is to obtain the absolute security of the United States, That is, the United States should have the military advantage that it can be completely free from any terrorist organization and national conventional or nuclear attack, and can use force against any country and organization at will, and use this absolute and unilateral military advantage to obtain unipolar hegemony in controlling world affairs.

There is no doubt that other major powers will never be caught without their hands.

Russia and France will certainly step up the development of more advanced strategic weapons to a certain extent, which will trigger a nuclear arms race in Japan, India, Pakistan, Iran and other countries, and further lead the competition of strategic weapons to the field of space, This vicious circle will inevitably lead to the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, biological and other weapons of mass destruction, and the world will enter a more dangerous state.

Perhaps the most dangerous sign of the US strategic adjustment is that it will intensify the fierce competition among major powers in controlling space.

As early as the beginning of 2001, Russia was worried about the US policy on the military use of space, especially the US attempt to amend the 1972 ABM Treaty and establish a weapon defense system with space components.

Gavotti, director of the space agency of the general staff of the French armed forces and general of the air force, also published an interview with the essential elements of a big country: space is a strategic bet.

He believed that the U.S. national missile defense system plan would have a significant impact on France’s defense concept and the development of European space means, and came to the conclusion that acquiring the right to control space and its technology is an important strategic bet, It is also an element of the military policy of major powers.

Will the US missile defense program become a “Star Wars Program”? Many experts predict that China and Russia will probably deploy satellite attack weapons against the missile defense system.

In this way, the United States will develop weapons to deal with Russian Chinese satellite attack weapons.

If the missile defense program is further developed towards the “Star Wars Program” at that time, it will trigger an arms race in space.

Pinkov, a Canadian military commentator, said that GPS is an important symbol of truly dominating the world militarily.

At present, only the “global positioning system” of the United States and the “global navigation satellite system” of Russia have the ability to locate any target in the world.

In view of this situation, the EU decided to launch a total of 30 man-made satellites within five years, that is, by 2007, to build a “global positioning system”, in an attempt to form a tripartite trend among Europe, the United States and Russia.

In addition, China’s successful launch of the Shenzhou III spacecraft has attracted the attention of Western strategists and observers.

Some people believe that China has taken another step forward in its goal of catching up with and surpassing the United States in space weapons.

It “may one day challenge the dominant position of the United States in the militarization of outer space”.

(III) the development trend of the global strategic adjustment of the United States.

The “9.

11″ terrorist attacks show that sovereign states are facing new asymmetric threats in the context of globalization.

From the perspective of the current strategic adjustment of the United States, the strategic objectives of the United States have been diversified.

It should not only fully deal with the asymmetric threats of the world, including the United States, but also not give up its long-term ambition of dominating the world.

In fact, it is trying to combine this traditional threat with new threats, and take advantage of the opportunity of terrorist attacks to promote its strategic goal of world hegemony.

At the same time, establishing absolute strategic advantage is also its means to protect local security and unilateral absolute security.

This strategic adjustment of the United States will inevitably lead to more neglect of the role of the international system it has established since World War II, and its foreign behavior is more unilateralist, militarist and world police.

This will fundamentally undermine the international order that has long been based on the current international law and international system, and thus arouse the general opposition of the international community to the US policy.

Judging from the current trend, the strategic adjustment of the United States will not have great directional changes in the short term.

Terrorist attacks will not make the United States abandon its long-term aspirations, which is the result of the serious imbalance between American culture and the power balance of today’s international community.

However, this strategy of the United States will certainly encounter great resistance and will not go very smoothly.

The developments since the US war on terrorism have proved that the absolute military superiority of the United States can not guarantee the security of the United States, and terrorist organizations will launch new attacks on the United States at any time.

Military power is not an effective means to solve the problems of globalization, politics and diplomacy.

The global problems caused by globalization have gone beyond any national boundaries and the capacity of any single country in terms of its root causes, role, impact and governance.

The world has become more interdependent in the era of globalization.

In order to obtain security and prosperity, the United States must rely on the support and cooperation of other countries and international organizations.

Moreover, the convertibility of military power in the era of globalization is further reduced, and the United States cannot use nuclear weapons to deal with new threats such as terrorists and transnational crime.

Therefore, the unilateralism and militarism of the United States are essentially contrary to the background of globalization in today’s world, which is the basic constraint for the United States to realize its hegemonic strategy.

In addition, from the perspective of hegemonic transfer theory, history.