A damning Pentagon report warns that the United States could lose a large-scale conflict with China over Taiwan unless it rapidly overhauls its military posture.
China considers self-ruled Taiwan as a renegade Chinese province and has vowed to unite it with the Chinese mainland, by force if necessary.
In fact, the Chinese PLA (People’s Liberation Army) forces routinely conduct military exercises simulating encirclement of the island state and a naval blockade aimed at cutting off the strait from external interference.
China takes its claims over Taiwan very seriously, rejecting all external support. This was recently demonstrated when a Japanese F-15J was targeted by a Chinese J-15 fighter, which intermittently locked its fire-control radar on the Japanese aircraft during an encounter southeast of Okinawa.
But more importantly, it appears to be a clear warning to Tokyo, and perhaps to all other Taiwan sympathisers, against challenging China’s actions in Taiwan.
U.S. Beats China To The Punch: Pulls Out F/A-18 Super Hornet & MH-60R Sea Hawk From South China Sea
Chinese President Xi Jinping has directed China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to be ready for a Taiwan invasion as early as 2027, framing it as an “historical inevitability.”
Whether the United States would intervene militarily if China invades Taiwan remains one of the most debated issues in US foreign policy.
Currently, the US officially maintains a policy of “strategic ambiguity”—neither admitting nor denying that it would directly protect Taiwan in such a circumstance, to discourage both Chinese invasion and Taiwanese declarations of independence.
However, military analysts predict that Washington could go to war with China if Taiwan were invaded.
Notably, both sides have been preparing for that kind of eventuality, as evidenced by the consistent shift in strategy, a sustained military modernization, and the many war games that have taken place over the last couple of years.
The Pentagon’s multiyear, confidential “Overmatch” brief, which was cited by The New York Times editorial board, examines US military weaknesses in the event of a major confrontation with China over Taiwan.
It highlights how the US’s long-standing military advantages are quickly disappearing and is based on comprehensive war games, simulations, and intelligence studies. The report was leaked and first detailed publicly in a NYT opinion piece on December 8, 2025.
The assessment warns that the United States will suffer catastrophic losses without significant reforms.
The Overmatch Brief Paints A Grim Picture
The “Overmatch” brief highlights China’s capability to destroy US satellites, large ships, and fighter aircraft, while also highlighting significant supply-chain weaknesses in the event of a potential conflict with the United States.
The document is prepared by the Pentagon’s internal think tank, called the Office of Net Assessment. When a top Biden national security official read the “Overmatch” brief in 2021, he became “pale” upon realizing that “every trick we had up our sleeve, the Chinese had redundancy after redundancy,” according to the NYT.
Further, the report highlighted that Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, said last November 2024 in the Pentagon’s war games against China, “we lose every time.”
The assessment purportedly emphasized that while adversaries use low-cost, scalable technology such as drones, hypersonic weapons, and cyber tools, the US military clings to costly, slow-to-produce, and vulnerable equipment.
This mismatch risks defeat in potential flashpoints like Taiwan, where simulations show consistent US losses, the NYT stated.
The latest US Navy aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford, which cost $13 billion to build and was inducted in 2022, was used as an example in the report.
Trump’s New Military Doctrine: Europe On Its Own, China Runs Asia, U.S. Dominates Western Hemisphere
The report said the carrier would not be able to withstand a Chinese strike even with the upgraded technologies, such as more sophisticated nuclear reactors. Even though the carrier could prove to be effective against weaker powers like Venezuela (where it has been deployed), it would be “fatally vulnerable to new forms of attack,” the NYT article stated.
In a 2005 war scenario, a US Nimitz-class carrier was hit by several torpedoes from Sweden’s Gotland-class diesel-powered submarine, which, the editorial stated, would have theoretically sunk the carrier.
In the same breath, it questioned why successive US administrations continued to adhere to the concept of depending on its fleet of super carriers and accompanying carrier strike groups (CSGs) when drones, threats to underwater cables, and Chinese spyware came to define new forms of warfare.
China could cripple key US assets before they even reach the theatre. Chinese hypersonic missiles could sink carriers “within minutes.”
The report also cautioned that the United States lacks the industrial capacity to manufacture weapons and ammunition at the volume and speed necessary for a protracted battle with a major power like China. It states that the US defense industrial base is hobbled by long timelines, aging shipyards, and about five dominant contractors, making a surge in production nearly impossible.
Since Washington “over-relies on expensive and vulnerable weapons,” it is lagging behind Beijing and Moscow in developing cutting-edge weaponry, it noted.
For perspective, China’s shipbuilding is 230 times the US scale, fuelled by lower costs and a wartime industrial footing, as previously acknowledged by US lawmakers.
In the past, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan had warned that in a conflict with China, the US would “rapidly run out of essential munitions” like artillery shells and anti-ship missiles.
Meanwhile, China boasts of large stockpiles of short-, medium-, and intermediate-range ballistic/cruise missiles, along with about 600 hypersonic missiles, which can be used to neutralize US assets from afar. These attacks could further be supplemented with attacks from drones, small robotic systems, and invasion barges.
China, on its part, has been preparing countermeasures to every US innovation, from satellite jamming to submarine evasion, according to the NYT.
The assessment states that the US could exhaust critical munitions, such as long-range anti-ship missiles, in as little as a week of intense fighting. For context, the US used about a quarter of its high-altitude interceptors defending Israel from a 12-day Iranian barrage in June 2025. This was also highlighted by defense analyst Seth Jones in an interview with Fox News Digital on December 9. Jones cautioned that the United States would run out of critical long-range missiles “after roughly a week or so of conflict” if war broke out.
Additionally, it highlights the risks posed by Cyber Warfare, noting that malware such as Volt Typhoon could cripple bases.
The editorial highlights Ukraine’s success against Russia as proof that newer technologies and doctrines can outmatch large conventional forces: Kyiv’s uncrewed surface vehicles crippled the Black Sea Fleet, while its drones destroyed many of Russia’s heavy bombers.
Thus, the editorial makes a case for a shift from high-cost platforms to low-cost disruptors, in line with evolving threats.
It assesses that the US must dump bespoke systems in favour of mass-producible ones like cheap drones, integrate Artificial Intelligence (AI), and surveillance; adopt a “wartime footing” with multiyear procurement, allied shipyard use, and streamlined contracting; increase spending beyond 3% GDP to match Cold War levels; pool resources with partners for joint production, reducing reliance on US solo efforts.
But more importantly, it states that the US must snap out of the traditional mindset that sophisticated equals superior, and keep up with the times.
The US military, Pentagon, and think tanks have conducted several war games and simulations in the past few years. One thing common to all these games is that the US would have no easy triumph in a conflict with China, and even if it manages to win, that victory would come at a very high cost.
The best time for the US to act on vulnerabilities against an ever-growing Chinese military threat was yesterday, but the second-best may be now.
- Contact the author at sakshi.tiwari13 (at) outlook.com
- Follow EurAsian Times on Google News
