IMO they would for same reason US TLAMs via sea/air or other stand off attacks aren't distinguishable from nukes. US has nuke capable ordnances using just about

IMO they would for same reason US TLAMs via sea/air or other stand off attacks aren't distinguishable from nukes. US has nuke capable ordnances using just about every delivery method, but US adversaries have to plan game theory / retaliation according to mere existence of overlapping conventional capabilities and their use doctrine. Utlimately, PRC is not going to sit idly by while her SLOC is being choked without retaliating within her means, the distinction being PRC rocket force can technically, for first time in modern US history, bring retaliation/escalation conventionally to CONUS. The intent is to deter nuclear war by deterring conventional war between US/PRC in the first place. It is also setting the stakes for who is willing to fight existential conventional wars over what. With respect to TW, old nuclear consensus was PRC was more willing to trade Beijing for TW than US willing to trade Los Angeles for TW. US response at height of conventional military primacy was, if PRC wants TW than US, but we will impose crippling conventional costs in lieu of going nuclear. New conventional dynamic PRC is setting is, PRC wants TW more than US and if US tries to intervene then there will be existential costs on both homelands.