3 ms·

... But how many missiles would be used to take down a massive wind farm vs taking down a single nuclear reactor? Regardless of whether the enemy has lots more

... But how many missiles would be used to take down a massive wind farm vs taking down a single nuclear reactor? Regardless of whether the enemy has lots more missiles, they still have a finite number of them. Those missiles cost money. War is as economic as it is kinetic. Using those missiles to disable power generation means they can't be used on other targets. Overuse of ammunition eats into stockpiles or forces early resupply, which takes time. Time matters in war.

doodlebugging 3y ago
Very valid points. Those who have to conduct the war must consider these things - supply chain issues, production bottlenecks, existing stockpiles - and prioritize targets accordingly. Choosing between potentially causing a nuclear disaster and disabling power generation from cleaner sources is a no-brainer for me. I'd leave the reactor intact and re-evaluate the sensibility of that decision daily in case something changes. There are so many higher value targets available that would have a noticeable effect on the adversary's ability to continue waging war that those higher-value targets should get a higher priority. It's a lot like WWII where Allied aerial bombardment campaigns tried to target oil refining, ball bearing production, railroads and critical transportation infrastructure like bridges, factories where tanks, planes, and other vehicles were manufactured, and rocket launching facilities. Those targets, if you can keep hitting them so that they never come back to full capacity will give a tangible advantage.
- thefurdrake 3y ago
  I'm not sure there are too many higher-priority targets than a modernized nation's capacity for generating and supplying electricity when it comes to that nation's ability to resist invasion. There's a reason modern wars involve targeting electrical infrastructure as a strategic priority... That and industrial manufacturing (which China has motivation to keep intact), but even industrial targets are contingent upon an electrical supply. The military can run off fossil fuel generators for only so long.
- dirtyid 3y ago
  With respect to potential TW conflict the TLDR is PRCs ongoing massive distributed renewable rollout at PRC scale is very much part of strategic energy security in event of war. Issue in TW conflict limited to TW and PRC is scale of asymnetry too large and growing - TW unable to stockpile enough survivable fire power to meaningfully degrade PRC energy production let alone long term, especially massive PRC MIC located inland. PRCs tangible advantage is her industrial base too large to be disrupted at scale and for long. For reference medium term nuclear as % of energy mix will go from 5% to 10% (2035) which is enough to ration around during war. Long term 2050+ still "only" 20-25%. Consider scale of PRC's current distributed renewable rollout efforts is enough to power all residential use this year and likely substantial % of industrial use in coming years. Hence PRC coastal nuclear still most enticing targets even if that's warcrime territory (queue blowing up 3 gorges meme). Ultimately if TW tried to hit PRC nuclear they better commit to massive preemptive strike on reactors with their entire inventory since substations/transformers (which PRC makes indigenously) can be rapidly replaced. There's no opportunity for TW to reevaluate since PRC has stockpiles to disrupt TW completely and prevent followup strikes in retaliation and TW can't be meaningfully resupplied let alone reconstruct under motivated PRC attack. And if PRC preempts, TW options even more limited. It's a matter of who can rebuild infra and out attrite, which overwhelmingly favours PRC. WW2 strategic bombing worked for US because adversaries couldnt disrupt CONUS logistics. Even that is increasingly challenged if US commits to total war with PRC in TW scenario since PRC is boostering global strike capabilities which will hopefully limit scope of war due to mutual homefront vunerability (between PRC and US at least).
PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
c.f. "pebble drone swarms" from "The Ministry for the Future" by Kim Stanley Robinson (in short, as I understand it: lots of cheapass drones each carrying a small rock, insignificant by itself, converging on the target from every direction, only coming together as a lethal weapon at the very last minute)

doodlebugging 3y ago

Very valid points. Those who have to conduct the war must consider these things - supply chain issues, production bottlenecks, existing stockpiles - and prioritize targets accordingly. Choosing between potentially causing a nuclear disaster and disabling power generation from cleaner sources is a no-brainer for me. I'd leave the reactor intact and re-evaluate the sensibility of that decision daily in case something changes. There are so many higher value targets available that would have a noticeable effect on the adversary's ability to continue waging war that those higher-value targets should get a higher priority. It's a lot like WWII where Allied aerial bombardment campaigns tried to target oil refining, ball bearing production, railroads and critical transportation infrastructure like bridges, factories where tanks, planes, and other vehicles were manufactured, and rocket launching facilities. Those targets, if you can keep hitting them so that they never come back to full capacity will give a tangible advantage.

thefurdrake 3y ago
I'm not sure there are too many higher-priority targets than a modernized nation's capacity for generating and supplying electricity when it comes to that nation's ability to resist invasion. There's a reason modern wars involve targeting electrical infrastructure as a strategic priority... That and industrial manufacturing (which China has motivation to keep intact), but even industrial targets are contingent upon an electrical supply. The military can run off fossil fuel generators for only so long.
dirtyid 3y ago
With respect to potential TW conflict the TLDR is PRCs ongoing massive distributed renewable rollout at PRC scale is very much part of strategic energy security in event of war. Issue in TW conflict limited to TW and PRC is scale of asymnetry too large and growing - TW unable to stockpile enough survivable fire power to meaningfully degrade PRC energy production let alone long term, especially massive PRC MIC located inland. PRCs tangible advantage is her industrial base too large to be disrupted at scale and for long. For reference medium term nuclear as % of energy mix will go from 5% to 10% (2035) which is enough to ration around during war. Long term 2050+ still "only" 20-25%. Consider scale of PRC's current distributed renewable rollout efforts is enough to power all residential use this year and likely substantial % of industrial use in coming years. Hence PRC coastal nuclear still most enticing targets even if that's warcrime territory (queue blowing up 3 gorges meme). Ultimately if TW tried to hit PRC nuclear they better commit to massive preemptive strike on reactors with their entire inventory since substations/transformers (which PRC makes indigenously) can be rapidly replaced. There's no opportunity for TW to reevaluate since PRC has stockpiles to disrupt TW completely and prevent followup strikes in retaliation and TW can't be meaningfully resupplied let alone reconstruct under motivated PRC attack. And if PRC preempts, TW options even more limited. It's a matter of who can rebuild infra and out attrite, which overwhelmingly favours PRC. WW2 strategic bombing worked for US because adversaries couldnt disrupt CONUS logistics. Even that is increasingly challenged if US commits to total war with PRC in TW scenario since PRC is boostering global strike capabilities which will hopefully limit scope of war due to mutual homefront vunerability (between PRC and US at least).

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago

c.f. "pebble drone swarms" from "The Ministry for the Future" by Kim Stanley Robinson (in short, as I understand it: lots of cheapass drones each carrying a small rock, insignificant by itself, converging on the target from every direction, only coming together as a lethal weapon at the very last minute)