4 ms·

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

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.
- maxglute 2y ago
  4m is sufficient for industry, about current sector consumption. Other 12m is mostly used for combination of transportation and heating, again both being electrified at rapid pace. Really depends on rationing but TLDR is war economy PRC's domestic 4m barrles is enough for magnitude much larger military output then right now. >ignores No it accepts that US+co in region still produces less and has less firepower than PRC, i.e. PRC cruise missile giga factory churning out 1000 components a day = US can put every piece of hardware in region and a few weeks of factory going brrrt and they're all gone. US+partner force posture in region is weak relative to PRC, who doesn't need ships to reach US shores. Conventional prompt missiles strike enough to take out US infra... and if US hitting PRC dams... then US losing refineries, and lng plants. And "everyone" is really just Okinawa and a few bases in PH... it's nothing vs PRC mainland, which again outscales everyone else combined. People forget how small US coalition in region actually is, or that the region just shifted slighly more pro PRC than US in surveys this year. It's probably safer to assume no one US partners won't even allow US to operate in region knowing they'll be US missile sinks... see US inability to get JP to open up main islands for expanded basing. >major dams to be destroyed. Yes a war crime, which escalates to nuclear retaliation. Nevermind US has essentially no platforms that can deliver large dam busting munitions within PRC a2d2... none of the fighters can carry munitinos large enough to breech concrete infra at scale. Regardless, once we get to that level of civilian infra targetting, PRC will respond in kind with conventional icbms and IMO US will just eat stone age because that's preferable to MAD. Like it's American hubris to think only US can threaten homeland strike with nukes. Every US platform has some sort of nuclear capable delivery, i.e. there's no difference between US launching a cruise missile and PRC launching an ICBM, since both are nuclear capable. Ultimately, both sides will wait for launch on confirmation instead of launch on warning. And if US wants to escalate to nuclear then that's where it will go. Reminder PRC fought with every NPT nuclear state, several including US+UN before PRC had nukes herselfs. Historically, nuclear brinksmanship doesn't work with PRC. US strategic calculation and ability to bluff over nuclear use evaporates when CONUS is conventionally vunerable. That said there is current US nuke advantage, but gaps also closing fast, PRC has enough warheads for MAD with US, just not MAD several times over.

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.

maxglute 2y ago
4m is sufficient for industry, about current sector consumption. Other 12m is mostly used for combination of transportation and heating, again both being electrified at rapid pace. Really depends on rationing but TLDR is war economy PRC's domestic 4m barrles is enough for magnitude much larger military output then right now. >ignores No it accepts that US+co in region still produces less and has less firepower than PRC, i.e. PRC cruise missile giga factory churning out 1000 components a day = US can put every piece of hardware in region and a few weeks of factory going brrrt and they're all gone. US+partner force posture in region is weak relative to PRC, who doesn't need ships to reach US shores. Conventional prompt missiles strike enough to take out US infra... and if US hitting PRC dams... then US losing refineries, and lng plants. And "everyone" is really just Okinawa and a few bases in PH... it's nothing vs PRC mainland, which again outscales everyone else combined. People forget how small US coalition in region actually is, or that the region just shifted slighly more pro PRC than US in surveys this year. It's probably safer to assume no one US partners won't even allow US to operate in region knowing they'll be US missile sinks... see US inability to get JP to open up main islands for expanded basing. >major dams to be destroyed. Yes a war crime, which escalates to nuclear retaliation. Nevermind US has essentially no platforms that can deliver large dam busting munitions within PRC a2d2... none of the fighters can carry munitinos large enough to breech concrete infra at scale. Regardless, once we get to that level of civilian infra targetting, PRC will respond in kind with conventional icbms and IMO US will just eat stone age because that's preferable to MAD. Like it's American hubris to think only US can threaten homeland strike with nukes. Every US platform has some sort of nuclear capable delivery, i.e. there's no difference between US launching a cruise missile and PRC launching an ICBM, since both are nuclear capable. Ultimately, both sides will wait for launch on confirmation instead of launch on warning. And if US wants to escalate to nuclear then that's where it will go. Reminder PRC fought with every NPT nuclear state, several including US+UN before PRC had nukes herselfs. Historically, nuclear brinksmanship doesn't work with PRC. US strategic calculation and ability to bluff over nuclear use evaporates when CONUS is conventionally vunerable. That said there is current US nuke advantage, but gaps also closing fast, PRC has enough warheads for MAD with US, just not MAD several times over.