5 ms·

China can't win. If there was any lesson nations of the world should have learned from WW2 is you need resources. Oil in particular for ships. China is an net i

by zdp7 2y ago

China can't win. If there was any lesson nations of the world should have learned from WW2 is you need resources. Oil in particular for ships. China is an net importer of oil. The US is a net exporter and the largest oil producer in the world. Second there is no defender advantage at sea. Defender advantage comes from built up defenses. The only thing you can do at sea is mine. That will be a problem for both sides. China also doesn't have the air power to win. Now the biggest problem for China is a population of around 1.4 billion people. This comes back to a resource issue. China is also a net importer of food. Ships aren't going to help. The Ukraine war has shown they are very vulnerable to cheap drones. I suspect the US doesn't see an investment in ships to be a high priority. Air power is what matters and they are behind.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Oil in particular for ships China is investing heavily in nuclear in part to counter this weakness.
- zdp7 2y ago
  I suspect they will need it to build ships. If you look at the Wikipedia page for the Three Gorges dam, you will find a graph showing that two thirds of annual electrical production is fossil fuel based. If the US is involved, I suspect very little oil will make it into China. I would also expect the vast majority of hydro power to be destroyed. I would doubt they could build many ships once war starts.
maxglute 2y ago
PRC is a continental sized power like US, they produce 4m barrels, not as much as US but enough domestic oil to sustain military multiple times current size on war economy with rationing (for reference US military uses ~250k barrles per day). Meanwhile other 10m barrels used energy and transportation is rapidly being electrified. They're also calorically self sufficient. Plenty of domestic coal for other energy use and to gassify into fertilizer. PRC's correlation of forces in region > US airpower, which likely won't be operational (both land and carrier) because PRC has magnitude more firepower bandwith that US posture in region simply not survivable. It's USN who has no defender advantage vs PRC's entire land based A2D2. Hence IMO correctly surmise US DoD lackidasical about fixing ship building - they see large surface combatants have little future. Also why DoD NGAD is a shit show, they see theatre aviation have little future (against PRC). Only thing US doing right and not fucking up procurement wise is B21s because they realize only survivable edge has to be based in CONUS or far outside of 1/2IC. PRC answer to that is long range strike via missiles/hypersonics, aka doesn't matter US can produce all the oil if CONUS refineries and LNG plants go boom. Air power is just a means, the ends is degrading adversary war fighting capability / surviving attrition in sustained total peer war. Current trend is US has increasingly little ability to degrade PRC mainland, while PRC's ability to degrade CONUS is increasing. US biggest problem is fortress America is over, and they're trying to match up against a adversary more productive than US ever was during the peak of US industrial output, which was only possible because prior tech made disrupting CONUS at scale impossible. Reality is, IndoPac war will turn 1IC and pacific into no mans land and boths sides will be flinging long range conventional strikes at each others critical homeland infra until someone has had enough.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  First, feel free to write in English, instead of... telegram-speak or whatever that was. Second, you think China has more ability to attack infrastructure in CONUS than the US does in China? That seems improbable.
  - maxglute 2y ago
    I'll feel free to write how I write. I said the _trend_ is PRC will increase ability to degrade CONUS from essentially zero pre modernization 10 years ago, i.e. US planners will have to factor in kinetic CONUS disruption and associated affects on US industry / primacy accordingly. Meanwhile, PRC military buildup / expansion of A2D2 in her backyard is decreasing US's ability to degrade mainland using forward positioned platforms that has been basis for US expenditionary force posture. If you follow the space, some are starting to acknowledge such CONUS vunerability this year (i.e. heard a few interviewees on Aerospace Advantage / Mitchell Insitute accept CONUS infra going boom is future US planners need to account for), will take time for it to migrate to mainstream discussion. Many proxy indicators (explosion of PRC rocketforce / productivity at TEL factories) comport with PRC telescoping they're pursuing rocket based conventional globle strike explicitly to target CONUS. And important to recognize PRC has infra for 4x more people, hence CONUS can be effected with proportionally less targets - a few hundred refineries and lng plants seperates US from stone age, meanwhile US may have to inflict more damage somehow for proportional reduction in PRC warmaking ability. All this happened within last few years, i.e. balance will flip faster than we think, likely ~2030s.
- zdp7 2y ago
  China produces 4M imports almost 12M barrels a day. If they lose any significant portion of that oil, their ability to manufacture will be impaired. Fuel for agriculture will also be impacted. I'd also expect major dams to be destroyed. I'm thinking that alone would destroy a huge amount of food production. All of this ignores that it won't be just the US fighting. China is antagonizing just about everyone in the South China sea. No ship will make it to US shores. They will be sunk long before they get there. ICBMs are the only option and that would be an excellent way to cause a nuclear retaliatory strike. Once anything intercontinental is launched the other has to assume it's nuclear. And I think the US will come out better on that, too.

by zdp7 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Oil in particular for ships China is investing heavily in nuclear in part to counter this weakness.

zdp7 2y ago
I suspect they will need it to build ships. If you look at the Wikipedia page for the Three Gorges dam, you will find a graph showing that two thirds of annual electrical production is fossil fuel based. If the US is involved, I suspect very little oil will make it into China. I would also expect the vast majority of hydro power to be destroyed. I would doubt they could build many ships once war starts.

maxglute 2y ago

PRC is a continental sized power like US, they produce 4m barrels, not as much as US but enough domestic oil to sustain military multiple times current size on war economy with rationing (for reference US military uses ~250k barrles per day). Meanwhile other 10m barrels used energy and transportation is rapidly being electrified. They're also calorically self sufficient. Plenty of domestic coal for other energy use and to gassify into fertilizer. PRC's correlation of forces in region > US airpower, which likely won't be operational (both land and carrier) because PRC has magnitude more firepower bandwith that US posture in region simply not survivable. It's USN who has no defender advantage vs PRC's entire land based A2D2. Hence IMO correctly surmise US DoD lackidasical about fixing ship building - they see large surface combatants have little future. Also why DoD NGAD is a shit show, they see theatre aviation have little future (against PRC). Only thing US doing right and not fucking up procurement wise is B21s because they realize only survivable edge has to be based in CONUS or far outside of 1/2IC. PRC answer to that is long range strike via missiles/hypersonics, aka doesn't matter US can produce all the oil if CONUS refineries and LNG plants go boom. Air power is just a means, the ends is degrading adversary war fighting capability / surviving attrition in sustained total peer war. Current trend is US has increasingly little ability to degrade PRC mainland, while PRC's ability to degrade CONUS is increasing. US biggest problem is fortress America is over, and they're trying to match up against a adversary more productive than US ever was during the peak of US industrial output, which was only possible because prior tech made disrupting CONUS at scale impossible. Reality is, IndoPac war will turn 1IC and pacific into no mans land and boths sides will be flinging long range conventional strikes at each others critical homeland infra until someone has had enough.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
First, feel free to write in English, instead of... telegram-speak or whatever that was. Second, you think China has more ability to attack infrastructure in CONUS than the US does in China? That seems improbable.
- maxglute 2y ago
  I'll feel free to write how I write. I said the _trend_ is PRC will increase ability to degrade CONUS from essentially zero pre modernization 10 years ago, i.e. US planners will have to factor in kinetic CONUS disruption and associated affects on US industry / primacy accordingly. Meanwhile, PRC military buildup / expansion of A2D2 in her backyard is decreasing US's ability to degrade mainland using forward positioned platforms that has been basis for US expenditionary force posture. If you follow the space, some are starting to acknowledge such CONUS vunerability this year (i.e. heard a few interviewees on Aerospace Advantage / Mitchell Insitute accept CONUS infra going boom is future US planners need to account for), will take time for it to migrate to mainstream discussion. Many proxy indicators (explosion of PRC rocketforce / productivity at TEL factories) comport with PRC telescoping they're pursuing rocket based conventional globle strike explicitly to target CONUS. And important to recognize PRC has infra for 4x more people, hence CONUS can be effected with proportionally less targets - a few hundred refineries and lng plants seperates US from stone age, meanwhile US may have to inflict more damage somehow for proportional reduction in PRC warmaking ability. All this happened within last few years, i.e. balance will flip faster than we think, likely ~2030s.
zdp7 2y ago
China produces 4M imports almost 12M barrels a day. If they lose any significant portion of that oil, their ability to manufacture will be impaired. Fuel for agriculture will also be impacted. I'd also expect major dams to be destroyed. I'm thinking that alone would destroy a huge amount of food production. All of this ignores that it won't be just the US fighting. China is antagonizing just about everyone in the South China sea. No ship will make it to US shores. They will be sunk long before they get there. ICBMs are the only option and that would be an excellent way to cause a nuclear retaliatory strike. Once anything intercontinental is launched the other has to assume it's nuclear. And I think the US will come out better on that, too.