16 ms·

PRC increasingly able to strike CONUS at scale from mainland - PRC's version of prompt (conventional) global strike which they've been telegraphing de

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.

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.