Now flip the question. Will the US strike PRC mainland targets in a TW scenario, or will be deterred from doing so because PRC can hit CONUS? That's the point o

Now flip the question. Will the US strike PRC mainland targets in a TW scenario, or will be deterred from doing so because PRC can hit CONUS? That's the point of deterrence, it figures as much in making plans as preventing plans of adversaries. PRC is as committed to counter striking American soil as the US is committed to striking PRC soil in what is legally an ongoing Chinese civil war. Which is to say, with proper deterrence in place, hopefully not very committed. > not all innovations work out in war PRC tests 100s of advanced missiles every year for more advanced targets, more than the rest of the world combined and has a sophisticated space program. At the end of the day, hitting large fixed targets like a refinery or power plant or data warehouse, all you need is sub 100m CEP - basically 80s technology. It’s maybe rocket science but not hard or innovative rocket science like hitting a moving ship at sea with all of the countermeasures and no way comparable to WW2 tier midget subs and unguided balloon bombs. Even Tom Clancy wouldn't make that comparison. >expect normal shipping Depending on scenario, if no outside intervention, then likely yes, TW ability to disrupt has relatively little window to counter strike PRC ports or ability threaten PRC shipping after being defanged. Probably just Xiamen has to be redirected, otherwise it's hard to overstate levels of force overmatch between PRC and TW. Like even the most ardent TW porcupine advocates don’t expect TW to put up a fight outside the island. Bay of Pigs disrupted the US minimally / not at all, because the US could simply prevent Cuba from hitting back. >would drop quality of life Question is by how much and who bears what cost? PRC exports to the west whose most likely to sanction is like >10% of GDP and decreasing, assuming all trade ceases, which it likely won't because supply chains at that scale aren't as fungible as energy. Also keep in mind PRC trade:GDP is lowish (35% trending down from 65% high), not US low (25% down from 30% high), but low enough that trade disruptions don't impact it as much as actual trade dependent actors (over 60%). Host of western countries fit that bill and would hurt more sanctioning PRC. It’s one reason why US can fuck around the world with relatively little domestic impact. Will QoL drop, sure, but the goal is to prevent scenarios where QoL will spiral, which assuming broader war is deterred, is possible. There’s also considerations that breaking TW will cause others QoL to drop more, i.e. west is going to suffer much more without high end TW semis where they get disproportionate value capture that’s already being denied to PRC. While reality is complicated, half the reason people worry about TW scenarios AND trying to build up costs/deterrence is because conceivably, PRC can eat the cost. Like if Xi is offered to prosecute TW without US intervention in exchange for cutting off all trade with the west, he’d probably take it. E: Over post limit, leaving this thread now. >how the general population reacts to war See how PRC gen pop reacted to HK protests / riots. Narcissism of small differences / manufacturing consent against related peoples is much easier than one thinks. In the end IMO a battle over TW is conditional based, not capability based, IMO PRC wouldn’t move against TW even if she has ability to, at least not for another 20 years. Trigger will be either TW moves towards independence in which case narrative writes itself, or US intervenes in which case protracted conflict is even easier to justify. After all, US intervention was why the civil war remains unresolved all these years. I think gen pop anywhere doesn't want war, but cross strait dynamic has always been averting resumption of war that could (and have) popped off several times in the last 70 years. Anyone over 50 in PRC knows the history, that includes anyone in senior leadership in the foreseeable future.