3 ms·

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 o

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?

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?