美国智库众多，且富有创造性。最近的一个例子是与军方关系密切的兰德公司的三位学者出台报告《与中国开战，想不敢想之事》。报告长达116页，设定的时间是2015至2025年。报告认为美中之间的“战争并非不可想象”，并详细分析了战争的四种可能性，即短期低烈度、长期低烈度、短期高烈度、长期高烈度。报告的结论是，不论哪种情况，中国的损失比美国更大。

兰德公司是美国一家以军事为主的综合性战略研究机构。

兰德这份报告也不是偶然的，美国媒体上时不时地有人在谈论中美之间的战争，但像这样详细地进行设想却是第一回。这表明，美国一些人确实已经把中国作为美国今后一段时间的主要对手。

按照所谓“进攻性现实主义”的说法，一个崛起的国家和既有的霸权国家之间难免一战，这在历史上反复出现过。但把19世纪、20世纪的经验一成不变地搬到21世纪来是一个时空的错乱。毕竟时代不同了，人类在20世纪经历了两次世界大战灾难，不能容忍在新世纪重复这样的惨剧。中国是不想和美国打仗的。中国的现代化是要实现民族复兴，是要让全体老百姓都过上好生活，而不是要挑战美国在全球的霸权地位，也不是建立由中国主导的亚太秩序。中国也在搞国防现代化，发展自己的军事力量，但那是为了记取“落后就要挨打”的教训，是为了不挨打，而不是为了主动去打别人，是为了制止战争，而不是为了发动战争。中国历来不主张以军事手段作为解决国家间纷争的有效途径。

坦率地说，美国是一个比较爱打仗的国家，是一个比较喜欢炫耀武力和以武力相威胁的国家，因为它有超强的军事实力。但美国不傻，它把大国和小国分得清清楚楚。对于小国，美国说打就打，打你没商量，伊拉克战争是一个例子，利比亚又是一个例子。卡扎菲把核材料、核设施都给了美国，统统运到密苏里州去了，美国还是照打不误，反正你没有还手的力量。但对于大国情况就不同了。冷战时美苏之间多次到了战争边缘，两次柏林危机，尤其是古巴导弹危机，但美国决策者都是在千钧一发之际悬崖勒马。直到现在，还有学者在研究这些案例。兰德的报告说，如果美中两国开战，“应该是区域性的常规战争”。那可不一定。仗真的打起来，你打你的，我打我的，就不会像兰德学者设计的那样进行了。报告说，中国的损失会比美国大，那也不一定，中国军队从来都是以劣势装备打败优势装备的敌人的。

中美之间确实存在着不少分歧和竞争，但这些分歧还是可控的。就拿最近炒得沸沸扬扬的南海问题来说吧，美中双方不但唇枪舌剑，而且有大动干戈的架势，美国的战机来了，航母也来了，联合军演也进行了。尤其是仲裁结果出来后，双方都动员了国际舆论，南海一时间成了国际热点问题。但这个案件也还是可控的。7月下旬美国国务卿克里在老挝万象会晤王毅外长时以及记者招待会上都公开表示，“现在是时候把国际间紧张的这一页翻过去了，该开始寻求以各种外交手段”来解决问题了。他并且表示，在去菲律宾访问时他要鼓励菲律宾与中国“进行对话和谈判”。他在菲律宾访问期间也作了类似表态。这不是说美国不再向中国施加压力，克里仍然认为仲裁案是“有法律约束力的”。但美国在施压的同时也很清楚，中国不会屈服于美国的压力，争端还是要通过直接当事方的谈判来解决。看来奥巴马政府实行的是与中国相同的原则——“斗而不破”。

中美之间确实存在着不少分歧和竞争，但这些分歧还是可控的。

近来南海争议如同笼罩在中美关系上空的阴霾，把两国间的共同利益与合作面掩盖过去了，两国国内对于中美关系的悲观情绪都有上升趋势。实际上，中美两国在一系列问题上的合作仍在推进。自去年以来，伊朗核问题和应对气候变化的合作是两个突出亮点，更不要说两国经济上的深度相互依存，你中有我，我中有你了。最近，美国国家安全事务助理苏珊·赖斯还来华访问，为奥巴马总统出席9月初在杭州举行的G20峰会以及在峰会期间会晤习近平主席打前站。显然，中美两国将继续在G20框架内合作引领全球经济复苏和增长。

中美两国的分歧和竞争是客观存在，两国的共同利益和合作也是客观存在，两国之间的这种“竞合关系”还会继续下去。这就是中美关系的特殊性和复杂性，它与任何其他大国关系不同，因此人们才会有各种议论和预测。中美之间发生战争的可能性是存在的，唯其如此，中国方面提出的建设新型大国关系的第一条就是“不冲突，不对抗”，就是要避免这种可能性。但夸大这种可能性，活灵活现地渲染两国之间的战争，无疑是两国关系中的负能量。讲得越多，双方越往坏处想，彼此的战略互疑日多而互信日少，其结果就如有的美国学者说的，这种预测就会成为一种“自我实现的预言”。顺便说，这个报告是根据美国陆军部副部长办公室的要求，由兰德公司的三位学者撰写的。报告前面还说明，这不一定代表公司的意见，也不一定代表报告的雇主的意见。这仅仅是三个学者的看法，我们也不必太过重视。但它还是可能代表了美国政界、军界和学界一部分人的看法，我们也不能视而不见。美国智库的创造性应当用在多想想如何拓展两国合作，如何建设性地管控分歧上。在这方面能提出一些切实可行的点子来，那就给中美关系增加了正能量，善莫大焉！

中美关系需要更多的正能量。

Think tanks in the United States seem to be very creative. The latest example is a study by three researchers of the Rand Corporation, which is believed to have close relationship with the military. Titled “War with China: Thinking through the Unthinkable,” the 116-page report says that a war between China and the US in the next 10 years is “not unimaginable.” The study looked into four possible prospects of the war — short-term low intensity; long-term high intensity; short-term high intensity; and long-term high intensity — and concluded that whatever the case China's losses would definitely exceed that of the United States.

RAND Corporation is an American based comprehensive strategic research institute mainly focusing on military affairs.

Talks about the possibility of war have never ceased in the US media, but Rand was the first to discuss it in such a specific manner. This proves that some people in the US really have come to the understanding that China would be the US' archrival for quite a period in the future.

According to the theory of “aggressive realism”, war is unavoidable between a rising country and the current dominating nation, as was frequently seen in history. However, that stereotyped perception of the past two centuries would be an insane assumption in time and space if applied today indiscriminately. Having experienced two devastating wars in the 20th century, the human race cannot stand another one in the new century.China doesn't want to go to war with the US. Its modernization drive is to let its people live a happy life rather than challenge the US' hegemonic position in the world. It is not to establish a new Asia-Pacific order dominated by China. China is also modernizing its national defense and developing its military power but that is because it doesn't want to repeat the tragedy of being “bullied and beaten because of being less developed” rather than bully and beat others and because it wants to stop wars rather than wage one by itself. China never regards military actions as an effective way to settle disputes between nations.

Frankly speaking, the US is sort of fond of going to war. It loves to show its muscles and threaten other nations because it has an extraordinarily strong military power. Nevertheless, it is also wise enough to know the difference between big and small potential enemies. The US could spank any small country whenever it wants or thinks necessary to and it does so without leaving any leeway for compromise. Iraq and Libya were two examples. Muammar Gaddafi shipped all his nuclear material and facilities to Missouri but the US still launched military strikes on his country.A different story would ensue if the target were a big country. In the Cold War time, the US and Soviet Union came to the brink of a real war several times, but each time Washington pulled back before it was too late, such as during the two Berlin crises and the Cuba missile crisis. These have remained study examples for international relations scholars.The Rand report says, if a war breaks out between the US and China, it “would be a regional regular war.” This is not necessarily true. If war really happens, it may not necessarily proceed as the scenario suggested by the Rand scholars predicts, for each side would fight to its greatest advantage according to how things would actually go on in the battlefield. And the report's claim that China will suffer a greater loss than the US is also dubious. In its history the poorly armed Chinese army always ended up defeating a far better-armed enemy.

Differences and rivalry do exist between China and the US but they are controllable. Take the lately much hyped South China Sea issue. The two sides were not only engaged in heated verbal exchanges but also assumed a posture of engaging in a full-fledged war, with the US sending in military aircraft and carriers and China conducting naval drills. After the so-called international tribunal announced the award, both sides intensified the battle of words trying to win supports from the world opinion circles. But the situation is still under control.After meeting Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Vientiane, Laos in July, US Secretary of State John Kerry told a press conference that “the time has come to sort of move away from the sort of public tensions and turn the page and begin to engage in full measure of diplomacy.” He also said in his visits to Manila that he would “encourage President Duterte to engage in dialogue and in negotiation” with China. He made similar remarks during his visit in that country. It doesn't mean that the US would no longer exert pressures on China, for Kerry still claimed that the arbitration award is “legally binding”. Nevertheless, Washington clearly understands that China would not bow before the pressure and that the disputes in the South China Sea still have to be settled by the disputing parties themselves through negotiation. It seems that the Obama administration follows the principle of “engaging in struggle but keeping the ties (with China) unbroken,” a principle also followed by China.

Differences and rivalry do exist between China and the US but they are controllable.

The South China Sea dispute has cast shadows over the relations between China and the US, eclipsing the bright side of common interests and cooperation and giving rise to a pessimistic sentiment in both countries. However, the cooperation is still continuing on a number of issues. For example, the two countries cooperated pretty well last year on the Iranian nuclear issue and the global climate change. Recently US National Security Adviser Susan Rice came to China to prepare for President Barack Obama's participation in the G20 summit to be held in Hangzhou and for his scheduled meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the summit. Obviously the two countries will continue to lead the global economic recovery and growth under the framework of G20.

It is factual that difference and rivalry exist between China and the US; and it is also factual that they share certain common interests and need cooperation. This “rivalry plus cooperation” relationship will continue. And this is how the Sino-US relationship differs from other big-nation relations. Possibilities of war do exist between the two countries and that's why China lists “no conflict, no confrontation” as the top principle in its suggestions about establishing a new type of big-nation relationship. But exaggerating the war prospect will undoubtedly bring negative impact to the bilateral relations. The more such talks, the more mutual suspicion. Finally, such speculation would become “self-fulfilling prophesy” as suggested by certain American scholars.By the way, the report mentioned in this article was written by the Rand scholars at the request of the deputy secretary's office of the US Department of the Army. In its preface, the report states that it does not necessarily represent Rand's opinion, nor that of the client; it is only the opinion of the three researchers in the study. Though we need not attach too much importance to it, we should not forget that it still reflects the ideas held by some people in the US governmental, military and academic circles.Think tanks in the US should apply their creativeness more on helping promote cooperation and control differences with China and contribute more practical ideas in this regard. If so, they are positive energy added to the Sino-US relations.

China and the US need more positive energy in their relations.