3 ms·

> 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 becom

> 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
  > that US can blockade PRC and somehow not escalate to full-scale war Which is only possible by starting a war... by doing something like, idk, invading Taiwan?? > cruise missiles are nuclear capable platforms, as are even gravity bombs from long ranger bombers. It's not nuclear capability that is the issue, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up. The issue with ICBMs come down to range - if a country launched an ICBM you have minutes before it lands somewhere. You don't know where, and you can't intercept it, and you don't know what the payload is. So if a country launched an ICBM you would assume it's a nuclear weapon and launch your ICBMs toward strategic targets located from the launch source. A cruise missile can be equipped with nuclear capabilities, but the range is limited (~1,000 miles or less), otherwise it would be an ICBM. Use of cruise missiles so far has been strictly conventional, and if the CCP is under the assumption that invading Taiwan would result in the US and allies using cruise missiles which may or may not be nuclear tipped and then their response would be to use nuclear weapons, well, that's kind of their own problem isn't it? The clear answer here is to not really try and find out. Conversely you can just argue that we don't know what the CCP has equipped their missiles with, ergo we would use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional attack just in case. The whole scenario is really stupid. If the US and allies used nuclear cruise missiles, China could just use nuclear weapons in response. > There's sides pursuing their interests but one side's interest is drifting from the stable 92 consensus. I don't think that's clear in any way. Hong Kong is an example. > No you can't... It's baked into PRC mythos by this point. Well then war it'll be. There's no other alternative here. Maybe the US should launch a nuclear first strike just in case. I mean afterall you have suggested that China would attack the US mainland in the event of an attempt at invading Taiwan. Might as well get it over with, right?

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
> that US can blockade PRC and somehow not escalate to full-scale war Which is only possible by starting a war... by doing something like, idk, invading Taiwan?? > cruise missiles are nuclear capable platforms, as are even gravity bombs from long ranger bombers. It's not nuclear capability that is the issue, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing that up. The issue with ICBMs come down to range - if a country launched an ICBM you have minutes before it lands somewhere. You don't know where, and you can't intercept it, and you don't know what the payload is. So if a country launched an ICBM you would assume it's a nuclear weapon and launch your ICBMs toward strategic targets located from the launch source. A cruise missile can be equipped with nuclear capabilities, but the range is limited (~1,000 miles or less), otherwise it would be an ICBM. Use of cruise missiles so far has been strictly conventional, and if the CCP is under the assumption that invading Taiwan would result in the US and allies using cruise missiles which may or may not be nuclear tipped and then their response would be to use nuclear weapons, well, that's kind of their own problem isn't it? The clear answer here is to not really try and find out. Conversely you can just argue that we don't know what the CCP has equipped their missiles with, ergo we would use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional attack just in case. The whole scenario is really stupid. If the US and allies used nuclear cruise missiles, China could just use nuclear weapons in response. > There's sides pursuing their interests but one side's interest is drifting from the stable 92 consensus. I don't think that's clear in any way. Hong Kong is an example. > No you can't... It's baked into PRC mythos by this point. Well then war it'll be. There's no other alternative here. Maybe the US should launch a nuclear first strike just in case. I mean afterall you have suggested that China would attack the US mainland in the event of an attempt at invading Taiwan. Might as well get it over with, right?