4 ms·

>1,2,3 IMO American hubris to assume PRC would leave US basing alone, especially in region. In event of PRC blockade (war), it's all fair game and JP/SKR much

>1,2,3 IMO American hubris to assume PRC would leave US basing alone, especially in region. In event of PRC blockade (war), it's all fair game and JP/SKR much more vunerable to external dependencies and in terms of industrial base and resources, PRC sheer size can survive attrition better vs SKR and JP. Attacking these forces result in US entering first island chain, which is better than the alternative of trying to break blockade where US is strongest. Ultimate PRC stretch goal goal is to eradicate US east asian security architecture, so there's more reason to hit these bases than not. Either US comes to rescue of allies in region where they are weakest or they lose credibility. >Which they won't do More likely they will, it's spelled out in doctrine in latest PRC Science of Military Strategy. Again it's US hubris to assume only US can strike PRC mainland targets with impunity. Keep in mind US short/medium range strike platforms are all nuclear capable, but no one thinks PRC will retaliate with nukes to US tomahawks. Assured second strike exists because no one will trigger hairstring immedidate retaliation if they know adversary capable of conventional strikes. Hence PRC work on hypersonics, because realistically it's the only conventional platform that can hit CONUS, while simultaneous building up nuclear forces and maintaining No First Use to setup posture for conventional CONUS strikes. I think we're in for serious shits if US planners assume only they can strike PRC mainland and expect no retaliation. >US intelligence will see movement of Chinese forces Hypothetical PRC PGS can preempt strike with ICBMs (again doctrine for long time, though less likely) without any pre-position or visible signalling. Roll out TEL from tunnel and any target around globe can be hit within an hour. Even if discovered immediately it would take longer for ships pull out of port. Also most of US ships especially support aren't nuclear, which means they need continuous replenishment tail which are extremely vunerable. Hence point about taking out fast combat support ships (which exist in single digits) basically cripples all of USN. Escorts of CSG underway can't sail for long and become stationary single use VLS platforms assuming they can make it in theatre at all. >This doesn't make sense for a few reasons ... > attack on the continental United States It makes perfect sense for PGS use case, that's the entire rational behind PGS for US as well. There's no survivable shelter (except maybe bombers / SSNs) for strategic assets because every platform needs to stay still at some point for maintanence. Again the goal is to establish mutual conventional vunerability to deter US by making attacking mainland PRC as risky as attacking CONUS. It only doesn't make sense from US exceptionalism lens that no country in the world would dare to hit CONUS. That's historically true due to technologic limitations that prevented accurate (non nuclear) fires against Fortress America that's geographically isolated. But assumption will not hold when PRC (and eventually others) acquires accurate PGS capabilities. > don't dock at the same time No but they all dock eventually and will be therefore subject to attrition and become single use assets that can't sustain power projection. It's logical extension of PLA systems destruction warfare that targets AWACs and other critical subelements that would cripple US warfighting capability. The caveate being that PRC can bunker away enough survivable ICBMs for the weeks/months US ships can stay out at sea, and that's assuming kill chain for hitting moving ships at sea is dud. > cyber PRC will anticpate US retaliation, but functionally it enables PRC to dish proportional damage. Again, it's about mutual vunerability. The broader point being that we are in era of conventional MAD in other domains. Having a massive blue water navy isn't going to save US society from existential damage unlike in analogue era. US always had conventional capablities to hurt PRC and others with CONUS impunity, but they maybe deterred if PRC can hit US conventionally or via cyber as well. > US has shored up allies US tried/trying to, but so far there hasn't been any meaningful movement in region except words. Certainly nothing substantial like IRBMs or AGILE basing that makes US assets survivable and that's among US allies. Surprisingly no one wants to be PRC missile sinks for US. Everyone else is neutral / hedging. The crowning achievement is AUKUS that establishes new US capabilities all the way out in west AU which is farcry from initial US blob hopes of having IRBMs in every ASEAN country. Alas no taker because PRC aggressive diplomacy works. Regardless, doesn't change the fundemental changing force balance - trend is PRC will simply have more forces in theatre than US + co can hope to aggregate over time. > no chance of reunifying now Not peaceful no, but that's inevitable nature of demographic/cultural shift between different political systems. Status quo preferrable but TW/US stirring up status quo or at least reverting it to less stable arrangement (PRC is one content with 92 consensus charade). As for taking TW, if US deterred, PRC can simply turn the island into Yemen/Palestine and drag out capitulation without single boots on ground. No amount of porcupining can prevent that. I think UKR/RU and past US excursions has shown massive loss of life quickly tolerable. At end of day, it's an ongoing civil war with US playing offshore spoiler for last 70 years with no simple ending except force. It's not preferrable, but it's what's left if TW/US doesn't play ball.

ericmay 4y ago
> IMO American hubris to assume PRC would leave US basing alone, especially in region. It's based on "what probably makes sense" and how escalatory a war becomes. Various scenarios suggest that an intense Chinese strike against American assets may be enough. On the other hand scenarios suggest that such an intense strike would provoke an intense, escalatory backlash. All of a sudden we have a legit war between China, the United States, Japan, Korea, and Australia. Certainly China has the capability to strike some number of US + Allies assets in various countries, but you have to prepare to do that which will be noticed (not to mention just spies in general who can report such things), in which case the US can relocate many assets before or during an actual attack. > US east asian security architecture, so there's more reason to hit these bases than not. IF your goal is a large scale, potentially nuclear war versus the US + Allies, then yes you'd attack these bases and try to force the US to withdraw. But it's a very risky gamble, especially since attacking bases in countries like Japan and South Korea will be very problematic internationally. > Hypothetical PRC PGS can preempt strike with ICBMs > PRC will retaliate with nukes to US tomahawks. I already explained why this doesn't make any sense. Also, a tomahawk cruise missile isn't the same thing as an ICBM. If you're assuming that China thinks it makes sense to go into a full-scale war against the United States I just disagree. Also these posts turn into a lot of "well they'll just do this" as if adversaries can't react or haven't thought of the same scenario that us armchair generals are talking about. > Status quo preferrable but TW/US stirring up status quo Well, now let's not pretend that there is one "bad" side here and one "good" side here. > At end of day, it's an ongoing civil war with US playing offshore spoiler for last 70 years with no simple ending except force. It's not preferrable, but it's what's left if TW/US doesn't play ball. Well you can just stop having a civil war. Especially when Taiwanese companies operate and employe people in China, for example. The only way it's a continued "civil war" is because the CCP needs something to rattle sabers at. It's like "the War on Terror". Ultimately, China would be way better off without the CCP, America could use some reconfiguration and getting out of some of these alliances too.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  It's not about PRC wanting full-scale war, but PRC wanting to deterring full-scale war via mutual vunerability. PRC would like nothing better for to intervene on TW without US intervention. Comment chainw as in response to your original comment that US can blockade PRC and somehow not escalate to full-scale war when blockade is already act of war and it makes perfect sense to escalate to redirect fight within PRC favour. Just consider US has full command of SKR military in times of war, notion that PRC would allow herself to be blockaded assymetrically and not retaliate on such US threats in region during war is not sensible. As for international sentiments, I dont think PRC cares about opinions of those who looks unkindly to PRC hitting legitimate US military targets during war. For repositioning assets, in post PRC PGS world, all that does is buy some time. Replenishment fleet needed to sustain fleet beyond days for high tempo operations, once they're docked and gone USN is left with some CVNs with limited sorties that has to outrun her empty fuel escorts for anything productive. Or ships becomes relegated to CONUS litoral use due to systematic logistic disruption. >tomahawk cruise missile isn't the same thing as an ICBM. Cruise missiles are nuclear capable platforms, as are even gravity bombs from long ranger bombers. The distinction is nuclear vs conventional capable and calculations will converge when ICBMs have viable conventional tip heads that will force strategic thinkersto treat new capability and integrate threat model accordingly. ICBMs simply seen differently _so far_ since ICBMs have been exclusively nuclear. And on balance cruise missiles are perhaps MORE destablizing than ICBMs because they're harder to detect and can be stealthed. >let's not pretend that there is one "bad" side here and one "good" There's sides pursuing their interests but one side's interest is drifting from the stable 92 consensus. It's not about moralizing, it's just what it is with nature of DDP idpol populism. >well you can just stop having a civil war No you can't. Civil war that end in potential loss of territory, especially one that could be strategically exploited by adversaries doesn't end until all the blood that can be spent has been. Doesn't matter what TW companies does during current detente, if TW and PRC gov can't settle politically then war will resume eventually. It will continue until formal armstice to legally declare the end is signed, like US civil war not War of Terror. It's how wars actually terminate. TBH any successor PRC gov that's not CCP will still pursue TW reunification and regional hegemony. It's baked into PRC mythos by this point.

ericmay 4y ago

> IMO American hubris to assume PRC would leave US basing alone, especially in region. It's based on "what probably makes sense" and how escalatory a war becomes. Various scenarios suggest that an intense Chinese strike against American assets may be enough. On the other hand scenarios suggest that such an intense strike would provoke an intense, escalatory backlash. All of a sudden we have a legit war between China, the United States, Japan, Korea, and Australia. Certainly China has the capability to strike some number of US + Allies assets in various countries, but you have to prepare to do that which will be noticed (not to mention just spies in general who can report such things), in which case the US can relocate many assets before or during an actual attack. > US east asian security architecture, so there's more reason to hit these bases than not. IF your goal is a large scale, potentially nuclear war versus the US + Allies, then yes you'd attack these bases and try to force the US to withdraw. But it's a very risky gamble, especially since attacking bases in countries like Japan and South Korea will be very problematic internationally. > Hypothetical PRC PGS can preempt strike with ICBMs > PRC will retaliate with nukes to US tomahawks. I already explained why this doesn't make any sense. Also, a tomahawk cruise missile isn't the same thing as an ICBM. If you're assuming that China thinks it makes sense to go into a full-scale war against the United States I just disagree. Also these posts turn into a lot of "well they'll just do this" as if adversaries can't react or haven't thought of the same scenario that us armchair generals are talking about. > Status quo preferrable but TW/US stirring up status quo Well, now let's not pretend that there is one "bad" side here and one "good" side here. > At end of day, it's an ongoing civil war with US playing offshore spoiler for last 70 years with no simple ending except force. It's not preferrable, but it's what's left if TW/US doesn't play ball. Well you can just stop having a civil war. Especially when Taiwanese companies operate and employe people in China, for example. The only way it's a continued "civil war" is because the CCP needs something to rattle sabers at. It's like "the War on Terror". Ultimately, China would be way better off without the CCP, America could use some reconfiguration and getting out of some of these alliances too.

dirtyid 4y ago
It's not about PRC wanting full-scale war, but PRC wanting to deterring full-scale war via mutual vunerability. PRC would like nothing better for to intervene on TW without US intervention. Comment chainw as in response to your original comment that US can blockade PRC and somehow not escalate to full-scale war when blockade is already act of war and it makes perfect sense to escalate to redirect fight within PRC favour. Just consider US has full command of SKR military in times of war, notion that PRC would allow herself to be blockaded assymetrically and not retaliate on such US threats in region during war is not sensible. As for international sentiments, I dont think PRC cares about opinions of those who looks unkindly to PRC hitting legitimate US military targets during war. For repositioning assets, in post PRC PGS world, all that does is buy some time. Replenishment fleet needed to sustain fleet beyond days for high tempo operations, once they're docked and gone USN is left with some CVNs with limited sorties that has to outrun her empty fuel escorts for anything productive. Or ships becomes relegated to CONUS litoral use due to systematic logistic disruption. >tomahawk cruise missile isn't the same thing as an ICBM. Cruise missiles are nuclear capable platforms, as are even gravity bombs from long ranger bombers. The distinction is nuclear vs conventional capable and calculations will converge when ICBMs have viable conventional tip heads that will force strategic thinkersto treat new capability and integrate threat model accordingly. ICBMs simply seen differently _so far_ since ICBMs have been exclusively nuclear. And on balance cruise missiles are perhaps MORE destablizing than ICBMs because they're harder to detect and can be stealthed. >let's not pretend that there is one "bad" side here and one "good" There's sides pursuing their interests but one side's interest is drifting from the stable 92 consensus. It's not about moralizing, it's just what it is with nature of DDP idpol populism. >well you can just stop having a civil war No you can't. Civil war that end in potential loss of territory, especially one that could be strategically exploited by adversaries doesn't end until all the blood that can be spent has been. Doesn't matter what TW companies does during current detente, if TW and PRC gov can't settle politically then war will resume eventually. It will continue until formal armstice to legally declare the end is signed, like US civil war not War of Terror. It's how wars actually terminate. TBH any successor PRC gov that's not CCP will still pursue TW reunification and regional hegemony. It's baked into PRC mythos by this point.