3 ms·

Which is why, if we decide we need to take out China, we'll sail over to the coast off Yemen, and stop any oil headed their way. They'll collapse within 6 month

Which is why, if we decide we need to take out China, we'll sail over to the coast off Yemen, and stop any oil headed their way. They'll collapse within 6 months. (Or so sayeth Peter Zeihan)

Tostino 3y ago
When I see statements like this, I try to think "what would they do in response that would change the calculus?" E.g. cutting off oil...not like that has ever led to unexpected outcomes (perl harbor). Countries generally react to mitigate your actions. What are some of the potential reactions you could see if the PRC perceived that as an existential threat?
- Sabinus 3y ago
  Belt and Road, String of Pearls, massive build-out of anti ship missiles and navy. And it's not enough, at least for the next ~decade. The ocean supply route is to large and too strung out for a navy lesser than the USN to defend.
JohnBooty 3y ago
He always seems to have such a strong handle on things, but I have absolutely zero idea whether or not he's completely full of crap.
maxglute 3y ago
Incoming Zeihan rant: That was fine strategy 10 years ago when he wrote Accidental Superpower / pre PLA modernization. This is the part where we circle back to developing PRC conventional hypersonics and potential to overwhelm US missile defense, and PRC increasingly able to strike CONUS at scale from mainland - PRC's version of prompt (conventional) global strike which they've been telegraphing development for years. A threat vector US planners are slowly acknowledging. Which means PRC can proportionally deny US energy by hitting critical infra like oil/LNG refineries, huge stationary targets with simple kill chain. Fortress America + shale autarky doesn't mean anything if you can't protect energy security (and by connection of fossil industrial inputs, food security), which is PRC's reverse UNO for the the entire blockading PRC oil strategy, except when applied to US, straight to extraction chain because can't blockade US from US. So next best proportional (even if escalatory thing) is just to make US as vunerable as PRC. All the resources in US sovereign soil is no good if they can't be extracted and made useful to sustain US hegemony. Saudi equipped US hardware learned that lesson when Houthis hit their refineries. Sure Us isn't incompetent like Saudi, but PRC isn't Houthis either, unless you think they actually replaced rocket fuel with water, and used said fuel for hotpot. Zeihan of skips over the politics in geoPOLITICS when convenient, i.e. US has most waterways, but PRC actually engineered significantly more and uses more internal waterways. US has deep coasts, but PRC dredged her to make way for half of worlds top 10 ports, the other half doesn't contain US. PRC has bad demographics, except PRC has the ideal demographics for geopolitical competition in the timelines relevant to us - set to produce and coordinate more high skilled talent in next 30 years (the cohorts that actually build national power) than US is projected increase population from all sources total, AND declining population of non productive peoples (old, unskilled, unproductive) aka less import dependencies. Declining cohort also has high home ownership and savings rate because frankly they don't expect big welfare net like west. Next 30 years, PRC swapping 50 million STEM talent (already born) with tier1 city earning potential for 100m farmers, migrant workers etc (old -> uneducated die first) that earn 1/10 that. IMO PRC demographic trend (if scrutinized beyond naive pyramid reading) is more pros than cons, especially considering PRC geographic/resource constraint - they don't need 3x more people than the US where only 1x can marginally compete with US and 2x are excess mouths to feed. Better off long term with 2x US population that PRC soil can sustain, where 1.5x can out compete US. Eitherway the point is frequently politics in geopolitics matter more. Fortress America has always been part geographic fortress and part artificial, technologic fortress. The entire reason US built/maintains the largest high tech expeditionary military is basically to stay on the front doors of any potential adversaries so they can't get close to CONUS. Let's not forget Continental Navy couldn't hold against out British blockade during revolutionary war without French Navy entering picture. CONUS was vunerable with 1800s tech, it's the technology (politics) part that made fortress america and it's the technology (military) that ensure two oceans are moats. High end missiles circumvents that, hence US unlikely to take out PRC without PRC taking out US unless US engages PRC directly. That's without considering PRC can drag US to fight near PRC home court by hitting JP/SKR/PH to trigger security obligation. Those are island with much worse self sufficiency that'll collapse in 2 months that US is treaty bound to defend. The TLDR is entire Malacca delima / SLOC blockade strategy operates on logic from 10 years ago when US can unilaterally fuck PRC at no _existential_ cost to herself (CONUS), once that logic breaks, blockade becomes unlikely / suicide pact. Question then is what will US/PRC commit suicide over.
- JohnBooty 3y ago
  PRC increasingly able to strike CONUS at scale from mainland - PRC's version of prompt (conventional) global strike which they've been telegraphing development for years. So let's say China sends some conventional missiles to CONUS. How does this not trigger MAD? The US has no way of knowing if the incoming missiles are conventional or nukes. Would the US wait for the missiles to land to figure out if they're nukes or not? Would the US not simply launch a retaliatory (presumably nuclear) counter-strike while China's initial missiles are en route? I honestly don't understand what value striking the CONUS would have for China. Seems like it would just instantly trigger MAD.
  - maxglute 3y ago
    Realistically is US/PRC nuclear response is going to shift to launch on confirmation instead of warning against adversaries with credible capabilities to strike each others homeland. PRC certainly isn't going to be dissuaded from hitting CONUS if her homeland is struck or substantially degraded (via blockade) - PRC leadership would have domestic pressure to retaliate in way that satisfies the people, who are going to want US citizenry to go through the same food/energy shortage they are. And up until now the only thing preventing US adversaries from doing so is simply technical incapability which gives rise to this (somewaht hubris based) narrative that CONUS strikes leads to MAD. Meanwhile US is pursuing prompt global strike as well, because that's what it takes to win prolonged conventional wars - disrupt your adversaries homefront. Flip MAD fear around. Let's say US starts hitting PRC targets - how does PRC know they're not nukes and trigger MAD - almost every capable US platforms are nuclear capable. For the actual process, I imagine it's going to be very communicated/coordinated affair to pace escalation. PRC: you stopped 40% of our energy imports, we're going to degrade 40% of your domestic energy infra if you don't stop in name of proportionality. First maybe via cyber, then via kinetic strikes, with warning ahead on list of facilities that are potential targets so they can evacuated ahead of time. Start with offshore rigs, then escalate to territorial targets. Launching X missiles at Y time at Z targets. US can either lift blockade, withdraw from PRC civil war, escalate to total war, or trigger MAD and both go back to stone age. Ideally this game theory gets played before hand, and there's no blockade or US intervention in first place - ability to hit CONUS is as much a deterrence function. But TLDR is PRC isn't going to sit back and take hits if they can dish hits as well. Meanwhile US expeditionary/military game theory has been based on fighting adversaries who can't really hit back. Which is why PRC is pouring so much resources into platforms that can.

Which is why, if we decide we need to take out China, we'll sail over to the coast off Yemen, and stop any oil headed their way. They'll collapse within 6 months. (Or so sayeth Peter Zeihan)

Tostino 3y ago

When I see statements like this, I try to think "what would they do in response that would change the calculus?" E.g. cutting off oil...not like that has ever led to unexpected outcomes (perl harbor). Countries generally react to mitigate your actions. What are some of the potential reactions you could see if the PRC perceived that as an existential threat?

Sabinus 3y ago
Belt and Road, String of Pearls, massive build-out of anti ship missiles and navy. And it's not enough, at least for the next ~decade. The ocean supply route is to large and too strung out for a navy lesser than the USN to defend.

JohnBooty 3y ago

He always seems to have such a strong handle on things, but I have absolutely zero idea whether or not he's completely full of crap.

maxglute 3y ago

Incoming Zeihan rant: That was fine strategy 10 years ago when he wrote Accidental Superpower / pre PLA modernization. This is the part where we circle back to developing PRC conventional hypersonics and potential to overwhelm US missile defense, and PRC increasingly able to strike CONUS at scale from mainland - PRC's version of prompt (conventional) global strike which they've been telegraphing development for years. A threat vector US planners are slowly acknowledging. Which means PRC can proportionally deny US energy by hitting critical infra like oil/LNG refineries, huge stationary targets with simple kill chain. Fortress America + shale autarky doesn't mean anything if you can't protect energy security (and by connection of fossil industrial inputs, food security), which is PRC's reverse UNO for the the entire blockading PRC oil strategy, except when applied to US, straight to extraction chain because can't blockade US from US. So next best proportional (even if escalatory thing) is just to make US as vunerable as PRC. All the resources in US sovereign soil is no good if they can't be extracted and made useful to sustain US hegemony. Saudi equipped US hardware learned that lesson when Houthis hit their refineries. Sure Us isn't incompetent like Saudi, but PRC isn't Houthis either, unless you think they actually replaced rocket fuel with water, and used said fuel for hotpot. Zeihan of skips over the politics in geoPOLITICS when convenient, i.e. US has most waterways, but PRC actually engineered significantly more and uses more internal waterways. US has deep coasts, but PRC dredged her to make way for half of worlds top 10 ports, the other half doesn't contain US. PRC has bad demographics, except PRC has the ideal demographics for geopolitical competition in the timelines relevant to us - set to produce and coordinate more high skilled talent in next 30 years (the cohorts that actually build national power) than US is projected increase population from all sources total, AND declining population of non productive peoples (old, unskilled, unproductive) aka less import dependencies. Declining cohort also has high home ownership and savings rate because frankly they don't expect big welfare net like west. Next 30 years, PRC swapping 50 million STEM talent (already born) with tier1 city earning potential for 100m farmers, migrant workers etc (old -> uneducated die first) that earn 1/10 that. IMO PRC demographic trend (if scrutinized beyond naive pyramid reading) is more pros than cons, especially considering PRC geographic/resource constraint - they don't need 3x more people than the US where only 1x can marginally compete with US and 2x are excess mouths to feed. Better off long term with 2x US population that PRC soil can sustain, where 1.5x can out compete US. Eitherway the point is frequently politics in geopolitics matter more. Fortress America has always been part geographic fortress and part artificial, technologic fortress. The entire reason US built/maintains the largest high tech expeditionary military is basically to stay on the front doors of any potential adversaries so they can't get close to CONUS. Let's not forget Continental Navy couldn't hold against out British blockade during revolutionary war without French Navy entering picture. CONUS was vunerable with 1800s tech, it's the technology (politics) part that made fortress america and it's the technology (military) that ensure two oceans are moats. High end missiles circumvents that, hence US unlikely to take out PRC without PRC taking out US unless US engages PRC directly. That's without considering PRC can drag US to fight near PRC home court by hitting JP/SKR/PH to trigger security obligation. Those are island with much worse self sufficiency that'll collapse in 2 months that US is treaty bound to defend. The TLDR is entire Malacca delima / SLOC blockade strategy operates on logic from 10 years ago when US can unilaterally fuck PRC at no _existential_ cost to herself (CONUS), once that logic breaks, blockade becomes unlikely / suicide pact. Question then is what will US/PRC commit suicide over.

JohnBooty 3y ago
PRC increasingly able to strike CONUS at scale from mainland - PRC's version of prompt (conventional) global strike which they've been telegraphing development for years. So let's say China sends some conventional missiles to CONUS. How does this not trigger MAD? The US has no way of knowing if the incoming missiles are conventional or nukes. Would the US wait for the missiles to land to figure out if they're nukes or not? Would the US not simply launch a retaliatory (presumably nuclear) counter-strike while China's initial missiles are en route? I honestly don't understand what value striking the CONUS would have for China. Seems like it would just instantly trigger MAD.
- maxglute 3y ago
  Realistically is US/PRC nuclear response is going to shift to launch on confirmation instead of warning against adversaries with credible capabilities to strike each others homeland. PRC certainly isn't going to be dissuaded from hitting CONUS if her homeland is struck or substantially degraded (via blockade) - PRC leadership would have domestic pressure to retaliate in way that satisfies the people, who are going to want US citizenry to go through the same food/energy shortage they are. And up until now the only thing preventing US adversaries from doing so is simply technical incapability which gives rise to this (somewaht hubris based) narrative that CONUS strikes leads to MAD. Meanwhile US is pursuing prompt global strike as well, because that's what it takes to win prolonged conventional wars - disrupt your adversaries homefront. Flip MAD fear around. Let's say US starts hitting PRC targets - how does PRC know they're not nukes and trigger MAD - almost every capable US platforms are nuclear capable. For the actual process, I imagine it's going to be very communicated/coordinated affair to pace escalation. PRC: you stopped 40% of our energy imports, we're going to degrade 40% of your domestic energy infra if you don't stop in name of proportionality. First maybe via cyber, then via kinetic strikes, with warning ahead on list of facilities that are potential targets so they can evacuated ahead of time. Start with offshore rigs, then escalate to territorial targets. Launching X missiles at Y time at Z targets. US can either lift blockade, withdraw from PRC civil war, escalate to total war, or trigger MAD and both go back to stone age. Ideally this game theory gets played before hand, and there's no blockade or US intervention in first place - ability to hit CONUS is as much a deterrence function. But TLDR is PRC isn't going to sit back and take hits if they can dish hits as well. Meanwhile US expeditionary/military game theory has been based on fighting adversaries who can't really hit back. Which is why PRC is pouring so much resources into platforms that can.