6 ms·

Preemptively striking USN/USAF bases and forces in the first island chain is on one hand game-theoretically correct for the Chinese side as their goal is to win

by ls612 2y ago

Preemptively striking USN/USAF bases and forces in the first island chain is on one hand game-theoretically correct for the Chinese side as their goal is to win fast. On the other hand though, the one way to well and truly wake up the sleeping giant and unite it against you like nothing else can is to kill thousands of sailors and airmen on Day 1, as Japan learned the hard way. And much like Japan, the PRC can be strangled in a long drawn out naval conflict from outside of its A2AD bubble. China is not food or energy independent, imports most of its base metals for production uses, and Russia can only provide so much over land. There is no substitute for middle eastern oil or Australian and Brazilian iron for the PRC. All plausible scenarios of PRC victory in a Pacific escalation scenario have the flaw of the Chinese side assuming "We blow up all the US military assets in the region and the USA gives up". As soon as the US starts to fight back and move its economy to a war footing China will face the same crushing resource shortages that ruined Imperial Japan, while conversely there is little to nothing they can do to prevent the US from continuing to import every raw material it needs to fight and win a war.

maxglute 2y ago
> game-theoretically correct I think it maybe game theoretically correct after certain conditions met (points below), but it also opens all sorts of pyrrhic/pyrrhic conditions vs trying to convince US+co to giveup via making intervening in East Asia pyrrhicly difficult in first place. > PRC can be strangled ... > flaw US can increasingly be comparably strangled with conventional icmbs/prompt global strikes hitting US energy infra. People conflate expeditionary naval+air with the generalized goal of force project which is to degrade adversary homeland serenity, which PRC is going to increasingly do with missiles. People conflate resource autarky with resource security, realisitically vs PRC with conventional prompt global strike, US security exposure is basically Saudi - can have all the resources in the ground, but doesn't matter if it cannot be protected. Blockading ships or hitting energy producing infra is just disrupting warmaking on different points in supply chain. The biggest flaw in US strategic thinking, assuming PRC does not, and will not have CONUS strike options. Reality is once they do at scale (and they are pursuing this), US ability to intervene limited because they have to game theory loss of CONUS serenity and all the hegemonic benefits that entails, and whether that's worth it for TW, or east asia security presence. IMO that's PRC's medium term deterrance buildup/gametheory: 1. Build nuclear parity for conventional faceoff 2. Build out rocket based prompt global strike 3. Wait for US to accept there's little chance of winning IndoPac, and trying risks US homeland serenity at scale 4. Aim for regional hegemony -> slowly push US out of TW intervention then JP/SKR/PH etc
- ls612 2y ago
  If the only CONUS strike capability the PRC has are conventional ICBMs (which btw they do not currently possess, all PRC ICBMs are currently only nuclear capable) then I will sleep well at night. The accuracy of ICBMs is not great and while that doesn’t matter for nuclear weapons it sure as hell matters for conventional warheads. Trying to target CONUS energy or industrial infrastructure with modified ICBMs mounting conventional large warheads is an even worse shot exchange problem than trying to yeet Kinzhal hypersonic missiles at Ukrainian civilian targets. The math very much does not check out launching 8 figure rockets with a CEP in the 100s of meters with conventional warheads even at stationary targets. And killing US civilians in the CONUS with missiles is even more guaranteed to ensure that the US public will support total war mobilization. At least the Kinzhal is somewhat accurate if a patriot battery doesn’t shoot it down. And this is completely ignoring the nuclear risks inherent in the idea of using conventional ICBMs (which is a whole can of worms I don’t want to open now).
  - maxglute 2y ago
    We do not really know what PRC possesses in terms of icbm global prompt conventional strike at the moment, only they've written in 2020 Science of Military Strategy that it's strategic priority, and inherent in assumption of useful of global prompt strike is 10s meter level CEP accuracy. They may very well have global conventional prompt strike with 10s meter level CEP by now, but unveiled and acquisition scale uncertain, which PLA tends not to do until systems proliferate. For which many of their rockets are still dual use/comingled, i.e. can be conventional/nuclear. But what they say is important in strategic writings generally translates in short/medium term capabilities, if they indicated need for global strike in 2020, with rocketry where they actually have substantial tech/industrial base, then record is they more likely have it / will have it in 5-10 years, at scale ~10+ years, then vs not having capability. Hence I tend to have prediction buffer on this topic of now-2030s when they'll stand up this capability at scale. Other things we know PLA test more missiles than anyone else, the TEL factories are ramping up, and a lot of writings on R&D are talking about sensors/algos to hit small targets, i.e. even moving targets (like tankers awacs, even vehicles), so large fixed target infra like refineries, lng plants, server centres, aviation plants, large surface combants + harden bomber hangers are probably doable/forgone. Areas of active research suggest they're way past 100s of meter CEP. Besides, there's no technical reason ICBM limited to 100m+ CEP, just there was less reason to pursue more accuracy given nuclear payload. Hence the math very much checks out for PRC yeeting 2-3 figure 10s meter CEP prompt strike icbm, disrupting energy / production infra with knock on affects in trillions or general wartime attrition. A bunch of ICBM TELS hidden in 1000s of tunnels on 100,000km of roadways is much cheaper than US force projection model with epensive carriers/bomber platforms + logistics of foward basing. Which themselves are subject to PRC global strike. Arguably easier for global strike missiles to take out / degrade US projection model which can leave asymmetry in homeland strike capabilities. Imagine scenario where US carriers can't get close enough to sortie, regional airfields can't be kept up, strategic bombers go boom soon after they undergo maintenance, that is after most of the tankers planes, replenishment ships have been taken out because they stood still for 30 minutes to stock up. Meanwhile PRC has a stockpile of ICBMs in some mountain to continue CONUS strikes. Which is the better global strike model? For nuclear risk and civilian mobilization, it's the same can of warms as US threatening to hit PRC with ANY conventional weapon since all US delivery platforms are nuclear capable and PRC has no way of confirming conventional unless launch on confirmation. Which US planners/public officials threaten all the time (mainland strikes) when talking about US/PRC war. Which ultimately circles back to deterrence value of conventional global strike, especially when proliferatted in public consciousness like MAD. Except now Americans have to ask themselves if they're fine with conventional MAD, being revereted to preindustrial age because food and power cannot be taken for granted. This is PRC's integrated deterrence against US - making US gen pop understand cost of being as vunerable as anyone else, and whether that cost is worth it for TW or East Asia.

by ls612 2y ago

maxglute 2y ago

> game-theoretically correct I think it maybe game theoretically correct after certain conditions met (points below), but it also opens all sorts of pyrrhic/pyrrhic conditions vs trying to convince US+co to giveup via making intervening in East Asia pyrrhicly difficult in first place. > PRC can be strangled ... > flaw US can increasingly be comparably strangled with conventional icmbs/prompt global strikes hitting US energy infra. People conflate expeditionary naval+air with the generalized goal of force project which is to degrade adversary homeland serenity, which PRC is going to increasingly do with missiles. People conflate resource autarky with resource security, realisitically vs PRC with conventional prompt global strike, US security exposure is basically Saudi - can have all the resources in the ground, but doesn't matter if it cannot be protected. Blockading ships or hitting energy producing infra is just disrupting warmaking on different points in supply chain. The biggest flaw in US strategic thinking, assuming PRC does not, and will not have CONUS strike options. Reality is once they do at scale (and they are pursuing this), US ability to intervene limited because they have to game theory loss of CONUS serenity and all the hegemonic benefits that entails, and whether that's worth it for TW, or east asia security presence. IMO that's PRC's medium term deterrance buildup/gametheory: 1. Build nuclear parity for conventional faceoff 2. Build out rocket based prompt global strike 3. Wait for US to accept there's little chance of winning IndoPac, and trying risks US homeland serenity at scale 4. Aim for regional hegemony -> slowly push US out of TW intervention then JP/SKR/PH etc

ls612 2y ago
If the only CONUS strike capability the PRC has are conventional ICBMs (which btw they do not currently possess, all PRC ICBMs are currently only nuclear capable) then I will sleep well at night. The accuracy of ICBMs is not great and while that doesn’t matter for nuclear weapons it sure as hell matters for conventional warheads. Trying to target CONUS energy or industrial infrastructure with modified ICBMs mounting conventional large warheads is an even worse shot exchange problem than trying to yeet Kinzhal hypersonic missiles at Ukrainian civilian targets. The math very much does not check out launching 8 figure rockets with a CEP in the 100s of meters with conventional warheads even at stationary targets. And killing US civilians in the CONUS with missiles is even more guaranteed to ensure that the US public will support total war mobilization. At least the Kinzhal is somewhat accurate if a patriot battery doesn’t shoot it down. And this is completely ignoring the nuclear risks inherent in the idea of using conventional ICBMs (which is a whole can of worms I don’t want to open now).
- maxglute 2y ago
  We do not really know what PRC possesses in terms of icbm global prompt conventional strike at the moment, only they've written in 2020 Science of Military Strategy that it's strategic priority, and inherent in assumption of useful of global prompt strike is 10s meter level CEP accuracy. They may very well have global conventional prompt strike with 10s meter level CEP by now, but unveiled and acquisition scale uncertain, which PLA tends not to do until systems proliferate. For which many of their rockets are still dual use/comingled, i.e. can be conventional/nuclear. But what they say is important in strategic writings generally translates in short/medium term capabilities, if they indicated need for global strike in 2020, with rocketry where they actually have substantial tech/industrial base, then record is they more likely have it / will have it in 5-10 years, at scale ~10+ years, then vs not having capability. Hence I tend to have prediction buffer on this topic of now-2030s when they'll stand up this capability at scale. Other things we know PLA test more missiles than anyone else, the TEL factories are ramping up, and a lot of writings on R&D are talking about sensors/algos to hit small targets, i.e. even moving targets (like tankers awacs, even vehicles), so large fixed target infra like refineries, lng plants, server centres, aviation plants, large surface combants + harden bomber hangers are probably doable/forgone. Areas of active research suggest they're way past 100s of meter CEP. Besides, there's no technical reason ICBM limited to 100m+ CEP, just there was less reason to pursue more accuracy given nuclear payload. Hence the math very much checks out for PRC yeeting 2-3 figure 10s meter CEP prompt strike icbm, disrupting energy / production infra with knock on affects in trillions or general wartime attrition. A bunch of ICBM TELS hidden in 1000s of tunnels on 100,000km of roadways is much cheaper than US force projection model with epensive carriers/bomber platforms + logistics of foward basing. Which themselves are subject to PRC global strike. Arguably easier for global strike missiles to take out / degrade US projection model which can leave asymmetry in homeland strike capabilities. Imagine scenario where US carriers can't get close enough to sortie, regional airfields can't be kept up, strategic bombers go boom soon after they undergo maintenance, that is after most of the tankers planes, replenishment ships have been taken out because they stood still for 30 minutes to stock up. Meanwhile PRC has a stockpile of ICBMs in some mountain to continue CONUS strikes. Which is the better global strike model? For nuclear risk and civilian mobilization, it's the same can of warms as US threatening to hit PRC with ANY conventional weapon since all US delivery platforms are nuclear capable and PRC has no way of confirming conventional unless launch on confirmation. Which US planners/public officials threaten all the time (mainland strikes) when talking about US/PRC war. Which ultimately circles back to deterrence value of conventional global strike, especially when proliferatted in public consciousness like MAD. Except now Americans have to ask themselves if they're fine with conventional MAD, being revereted to preindustrial age because food and power cannot be taken for granted. This is PRC's integrated deterrence against US - making US gen pop understand cost of being as vunerable as anyone else, and whether that cost is worth it for TW or East Asia.