4 ms·

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 capabl

by 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.
- ls612 2y ago
  A worry is that this kind of Chinese capability could quickly turn any conflict into a war for national survival on both sides. That’s how nuclear use starts to enter the table. A conventional war in the Pacific doesn’t threaten the survival of either state. But conventional bombing of mass civilian targets absolutely does. My assumption was always that the US would at most only ever target military targets on the mainland not civilian or industrial ones. But a Chinese escalation to civilian CONUS targets would imply total war.
  - maxglute 2y ago
    Any attack / effort to degrade PRC mainland will warrant proportional response on CONUS. This is PRC seeking reciprocal homeland disruption capabilities, which US currently frequently threatens against PRC in public facing writings and discourse (high level political/military figures), i.e the ENTIRE point of threatening CONUS at scale is to deter US by making potential conflict a fight for US national survival, not just current conception that it's an asymmetric fight for PRC survival while US can enjoy undisrupted CONUS resource autarky and serenity. Like what entire fixation over Malacca/SLOC blockade against PRC calorie/energy import but also an attack (blockade = legal war) on PRC civilians, and mainland ability to sustain war. IMO not possible to seperate military targets and civilian targets especially with respect to war industrial base in peer level attritional conflict. Merely PRC having CONUS strike capabilities means IT MUST BE used in response to PRC mainland strikes or efforts to degrade mainland i.e. PRC populous is simply not going to allow CCP to not attack CONUS if mainland attacked, knowing PLA has CONUS strike capabilities. It's basically locking in / predetermining likely escalation responses IF US attacks mainland (again, including SLOC disruption). The escalation game is, if US tries to degrade mainland PRC energy/calorie even via SLOC disruption, PRC will attempt to degrade CONUS energy/calorie. The proportionality isn't you sink my tankers, I sink your tankers which you are less reliant on, it's you take away X% of my energy, I take away X% of yours. And CONUS strike also gives PRC ability to ALSO escalate conventionally, it's asking is trading my J20 plant worth you losing F35 plants that underpins NATO air power... what about boeing, nvidia, facebook, apple, payment processor infra... there are all these hegemonic crown jewels US have that has disproportional value vs PRC losing comac, smic, huawei or wechat pay. Does US really want to put all that on the line for TW, for East Asia? Would US like to gracefully abdicate East Asia and settle just being a regional + atlantic hegemon? Or US can risk fight a proper existential war where both sides has high chance of getting reset to pre industrial conditions. And short of nuclear MAD who who will reconstitute faster. Who can rebuilt power plants, industries, shipyards, lay new naval hulls faster than the other. Upping the ante to existential national survival tier total war on BOTH sides instead of (currently commonly perceived) just PRC side is the goal. The goal is to make US planners / Americans worry as much as they think PRC planners / Chinese worry.

by ls612 2y ago

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.

ls612 2y ago
A worry is that this kind of Chinese capability could quickly turn any conflict into a war for national survival on both sides. That’s how nuclear use starts to enter the table. A conventional war in the Pacific doesn’t threaten the survival of either state. But conventional bombing of mass civilian targets absolutely does. My assumption was always that the US would at most only ever target military targets on the mainland not civilian or industrial ones. But a Chinese escalation to civilian CONUS targets would imply total war.
- maxglute 2y ago
  Any attack / effort to degrade PRC mainland will warrant proportional response on CONUS. This is PRC seeking reciprocal homeland disruption capabilities, which US currently frequently threatens against PRC in public facing writings and discourse (high level political/military figures), i.e the ENTIRE point of threatening CONUS at scale is to deter US by making potential conflict a fight for US national survival, not just current conception that it's an asymmetric fight for PRC survival while US can enjoy undisrupted CONUS resource autarky and serenity. Like what entire fixation over Malacca/SLOC blockade against PRC calorie/energy import but also an attack (blockade = legal war) on PRC civilians, and mainland ability to sustain war. IMO not possible to seperate military targets and civilian targets especially with respect to war industrial base in peer level attritional conflict. Merely PRC having CONUS strike capabilities means IT MUST BE used in response to PRC mainland strikes or efforts to degrade mainland i.e. PRC populous is simply not going to allow CCP to not attack CONUS if mainland attacked, knowing PLA has CONUS strike capabilities. It's basically locking in / predetermining likely escalation responses IF US attacks mainland (again, including SLOC disruption). The escalation game is, if US tries to degrade mainland PRC energy/calorie even via SLOC disruption, PRC will attempt to degrade CONUS energy/calorie. The proportionality isn't you sink my tankers, I sink your tankers which you are less reliant on, it's you take away X% of my energy, I take away X% of yours. And CONUS strike also gives PRC ability to ALSO escalate conventionally, it's asking is trading my J20 plant worth you losing F35 plants that underpins NATO air power... what about boeing, nvidia, facebook, apple, payment processor infra... there are all these hegemonic crown jewels US have that has disproportional value vs PRC losing comac, smic, huawei or wechat pay. Does US really want to put all that on the line for TW, for East Asia? Would US like to gracefully abdicate East Asia and settle just being a regional + atlantic hegemon? Or US can risk fight a proper existential war where both sides has high chance of getting reset to pre industrial conditions. And short of nuclear MAD who who will reconstitute faster. Who can rebuilt power plants, industries, shipyards, lay new naval hulls faster than the other. Upping the ante to existential national survival tier total war on BOTH sides instead of (currently commonly perceived) just PRC side is the goal. The goal is to make US planners / Americans worry as much as they think PRC planners / Chinese worry.