3 ms·

> You described… I don’t think so, because if China invades Taiwan or takes similar enough action, and the United States and Japan come to the defense of Taiwa

by ericmay 10mo ago

> You described… I don’t think so, because if China invades Taiwan or takes similar enough action, and the United States and Japan come to the defense of Taiwan, an attack on the continental United States would not just be disproportionally stupid, but it would be an escalatory mistake as well, because you’ve now just declared actual war on the United States versus your more ‘limited’ war with the aim of only taking Taiwan. You see the difference, right? But for China to attack Taiwan and the US and Japan to strike Chinese forces, it sort of requires China to then strike US and allied forces throughout the entire region. Attacking Kadena or even striking mainland Japanese industrial facilities, shipyards, &c. And then facing retaliatory strikes on Chinese industrial-military targets seems about to be fair game, and of course China doesn’t view the loss or usage of human capital in the same way that western countries do. I don’t think such a scenario here immediately results in nuclear war, even if the mainland is struck unless the US or Japan start targeting first/second strike capabilities or cause mass civilian casualties. The reason being, well, China would have struck US and Japanese bases first. And frankly if they don’t do that in the opening salvo of the war they’re stupid anyway. > Do they, or do they know they can dismantle USN ability to SLOC blockade, especially energy routes. They can’t. This is nonsense. > Yes, incidentally the 2025 Chinese conventional strike map covers Albertan oil infra to US... reminder US still imports 30% oil due to refinery mismatch. Sure, in the unlikely scenario that China also attacks Canada (might as well attack everyone at this point), yes US imports go down causing consumer harm, but China’s oil imports drop to 0. When you think about attrition you have to consider attrition for both sides, not just one. China has gone all-in on “green” tech precisely because they cannot win in a war in which they are dependent on oil - see US actions in Venezuela and the Middle East. > See PRC launching 100s of ISR sats last few years, SCS has persistent coverage already, but now rest of world has decent coverage by this point too. Either way context is 5-10 year mega constellation roll out by which time there very resilient and redundant will be global ISR / kill chain. Their space infra has already moved beyond backyard in last few years. Ok and the US does that too over the next 5-10 years (assuming capabilities don’t exist today, though they likely do). Now what? China hasn’t really gained an advantage here, launching missiles all over the world could be misconstrued as a nuclear attack and requiring a nuclear response. Is China going to launch missiles at Bahrain, UAE, Korea, the EU, and everyone else? Doesn’t seem realistic. > PRC isn't trigger happy, either way every year that passes PRC position in theatre gets stronger, but most importantly autarky and global strike capacity also increases. i.e. in about 10 years, coal to olefin (petchem) and EV penetration trend lines will make PRC close to oil independent, - their energy autarky will exceed US domestic oil who won't fix refinery mixmatch in same time period. Which circles back to CAN/US pipeline vulnerability. Energy autarky mismatch probably most important consideration, even if PRC can break USN SLOC blockade, as I mentioned, US has other tools to disrupt MENA energy flows. Other capabilities like mega constellation ISR increasing prompt global strike coordination, surging SSN and XXLUUV output, lots of reasons to wait and build up. Ideally build up so asymmetry so obvious US compelled to leave East Asian on her own. That's the ultimate prize, not just TW You’re right about two things: China will get stronger and more capable, and it will be less reliant as a country on oil, but you still can’t fly jet fighters with EV batteries and the wealthy markets (EU, US) are turning away from EVs as domestic policy and spending money securing rare earth refining capabilities. All the time you give to China also has to be given to other countries to react and plan too - which I think is often overlooked because western news rants about western failures all day but can’t speak mandarin and don’t have a clue about China’s issues as well. But I think what you’re wrong about here is the threat, precisely because you are providing a contradiction. There are two geopolitical things that matter here. One is Taiwan as part of the first island chain - I.e. good for US monitoring of Chinese naval activity, and second, the semiconductors. The longer China waits, the less important Taiwan is to the US. It can build other facilities, semiconductor manufacturing can be invested away from Taiwan too. And as you are asserting, I think, allows the Chinese navy to go and operate in the Pacific with impunity. Frankly I don’t know why they care if the US knows where their ships are anyway. What’s the point of the forces when we don’t have any interest in war in the first place? Does China want to spend this money and then launch missiles at Houthi rebels? Be my guest. But what exactly does that matter in the world you’ve described? For all of these things to happen on a longer timeframe, the US doesn’t have to “leave” Asia. What is China going to do if the US keeps a base in Japan or the Philippines? Bomb it? Ah ok, well now the US has also built hypersonic missiles and all of these capabilities (because we already have them today anyway) and now if they attack US forces the US gets to do the scary boogeyman thing that you’re asserting China can do and blow up all of their ships with indefensible missiles strikes because they know where all the ships are “because satellites”. I just do not find “China attacks everything the US has ever built and successfully destroys it and there is nothing the US can do” very convincing. Thanks for sharing the paper by the way. I’ll take a look. I have a book to finish and at 100 pages it’ll take me a little bit of time to peruse :)

maxglute 10mo ago
>disproportionally stupid Why assume PRC attacks US+co first? This 2015s talking point based on limited PLA modernization, use it or lose it force structure, so they would be smart to use first, then. 2025+ reality is PRC has survivable fires complex to dismantle 1/2IC anytime. They're in position to bait US+co into firing first if they want. BTW US coming to assist TW is already declaring full scale war over Chinese sovereignty / territory, there's no difference if US wants to limit (i.e. prevent landings) because TW scenario is full war scenario where PRC gets vote in escalation, western analytic conflation over limited/regional war is (mis)attribution to PRC previously not able to prosecute a broader war, but PRC will always prosecute the largest possible war relative to capability over TW, and now that includes CONUS. Sure PRC GAZAing JP/SKR, obviously JP/SKR will want to counter strike mainland, but that opens CONUS to attack and frankly that's a US alliance management problem, because ultimately broader war is net good for PRC strategic stretch goals - to kick US out east asia, that can really only be done by physically dismantling US basing in region, bonus if it deindustrialized JP/SKR who are peacetime competitors vs PRC, who again, is structured to retain more industrial base and reconstitute faster. >This is nonsense This is 2025, I mention 2025 DoD report for a reason. Look at the rocketry coverage - encompasses all SLOCs from PRC cost to MENA + 1500km, i.e. standoff carrier range. It's time to stop coping. USN surface fleet is on paper not survivable anymore, pentagon paper. Again once people accept reality of hemispheric hypersonic A2D2, everything about incompetent USN procurement makes sense. This has been obvious for years btw, those missiles exist pre 2025, the latest report just decided to acknowledge reality. >hasn’t really gained an advantage here Advantage is massive. First it closes disadvantage, US already has global strike expeditionary model. PRC equalizing = US losing advantage. PRC having more survivable and high-end fires = PRC can hit anywhere on earth globally within hour using purely mainland platforms not vulnerable to disruption, unlike US carriers/bombers with long logistics tail. This advantage potentially step down from rods from god. BTW US can have this too in SSGN with CPS, but we talking about a few 100 VLS tubes that needs days/weeks of prepositioning vs 10000s from PRC mainland. >going to launch missiles You know how US gets to simply bomb non nuclear countries with impunity. The answer is PRC gets that privilege too, if war vs US escalates, all global US military assets are on the table. Countries are going to weigh if US protection worth the risk and when they see US simply can't protect they have choices to make, yes this means US nuke umbrella gets will get tested. > oil imports drop to 0. > China’s issues as well > other countries to react and plan too What's PRC energy production composition? They make 4m+ million barrels, enough to cover all industrial use, i.e. they can run current industrial output on purely domestic oil alone. USN uses like 100k oil per day, PRC domestic production can sustain 40 USNs in perpetuity, they don't need to electrify 6gen. Most oil is used for transportation, of which really diesel is critical (freight). That's where their 1-2 million barrel of CTO equivalents, i.e. they can displace industrial oil with coal to maintain trucking fleet and ration consumer transport oil. How much transport disruption is function of EV penetration, right now a lot in 10 years, minimal. Reminder PRC is actually a continental size power with huge energy assets, not as much as US relative to population, but enough to prosecute forever war with PRC industrial base, i.e. the one that already outproduces everyone combined (as materially not value add). PRC is not Japan, PRC has functionally infinite resources and current mismatch is something that can and is being engineered around. PRC is also not west, because they have industrial base to build a lot of hammers, and eventually hammers get used. PRC is obviously not VZ/MENA who can't hit US back, while PRC can. IMO face PRC realities before fixating on PRC issues. As for other countries reaction/plan, it's factored in, reality is we know what level of infra expansion or acquisition west is capable of, we know PRC china speed trendlines, hence limit extrapolation to reasonable 10 year timeframe. > two geopolitical things that matter here > don’t have any interest in war in the first place US+co seems to have interest in intervening in Chinese civil war, which itself exists due to US support over last 70 years. There's a world where US facilitates peaceful reunification on PRC terms and maybe PRC can live with relatively benign US hanging around in east Asia. But if transition not peaceful, then there is every reason to simply kick US out of east Asia. This key distinction, TW is political goal, kicking US out of east asia is geopolitical / regional hegemony goal. That's the overarching geopolitics that matters. Spheres of influence and all that. > China attacks everything the US has ever built and successfully destroys it and there is nothing the US can do” very convincing. It's very convincing because the flip side is US can likely destroy PLAN as well. When I say surface fleet is dead, I include PRC / everyone. The problem is USN likes to launch missiles at Houthis, US global security posture is predicated on survivable expeditionary navy. PRC is not. After both sides lose their boats, US loses most strategic posture, while PRC can rebuild faster. The point is US posture is uniquely vulnerable, because of course it is, PRC spend last 30 years specifically dismantling US force structure. US force structure have been distracted by GWOT, procurement drama... and just geopolitical reality of PRC industrial base, has having difficulty doing the opposite.

by ericmay 10mo ago

maxglute 10mo ago

>disproportionally stupid Why assume PRC attacks US+co first? This 2015s talking point based on limited PLA modernization, use it or lose it force structure, so they would be smart to use first, then. 2025+ reality is PRC has survivable fires complex to dismantle 1/2IC anytime. They're in position to bait US+co into firing first if they want. BTW US coming to assist TW is already declaring full scale war over Chinese sovereignty / territory, there's no difference if US wants to limit (i.e. prevent landings) because TW scenario is full war scenario where PRC gets vote in escalation, western analytic conflation over limited/regional war is (mis)attribution to PRC previously not able to prosecute a broader war, but PRC will always prosecute the largest possible war relative to capability over TW, and now that includes CONUS. Sure PRC GAZAing JP/SKR, obviously JP/SKR will want to counter strike mainland, but that opens CONUS to attack and frankly that's a US alliance management problem, because ultimately broader war is net good for PRC strategic stretch goals - to kick US out east asia, that can really only be done by physically dismantling US basing in region, bonus if it deindustrialized JP/SKR who are peacetime competitors vs PRC, who again, is structured to retain more industrial base and reconstitute faster. >This is nonsense This is 2025, I mention 2025 DoD report for a reason. Look at the rocketry coverage - encompasses all SLOCs from PRC cost to MENA + 1500km, i.e. standoff carrier range. It's time to stop coping. USN surface fleet is on paper not survivable anymore, pentagon paper. Again once people accept reality of hemispheric hypersonic A2D2, everything about incompetent USN procurement makes sense. This has been obvious for years btw, those missiles exist pre 2025, the latest report just decided to acknowledge reality. >hasn’t really gained an advantage here Advantage is massive. First it closes disadvantage, US already has global strike expeditionary model. PRC equalizing = US losing advantage. PRC having more survivable and high-end fires = PRC can hit anywhere on earth globally within hour using purely mainland platforms not vulnerable to disruption, unlike US carriers/bombers with long logistics tail. This advantage potentially step down from rods from god. BTW US can have this too in SSGN with CPS, but we talking about a few 100 VLS tubes that needs days/weeks of prepositioning vs 10000s from PRC mainland. >going to launch missiles You know how US gets to simply bomb non nuclear countries with impunity. The answer is PRC gets that privilege too, if war vs US escalates, all global US military assets are on the table. Countries are going to weigh if US protection worth the risk and when they see US simply can't protect they have choices to make, yes this means US nuke umbrella gets will get tested. > oil imports drop to 0. > China’s issues as well > other countries to react and plan too What's PRC energy production composition? They make 4m+ million barrels, enough to cover all industrial use, i.e. they can run current industrial output on purely domestic oil alone. USN uses like 100k oil per day, PRC domestic production can sustain 40 USNs in perpetuity, they don't need to electrify 6gen. Most oil is used for transportation, of which really diesel is critical (freight). That's where their 1-2 million barrel of CTO equivalents, i.e. they can displace industrial oil with coal to maintain trucking fleet and ration consumer transport oil. How much transport disruption is function of EV penetration, right now a lot in 10 years, minimal. Reminder PRC is actually a continental size power with huge energy assets, not as much as US relative to population, but enough to prosecute forever war with PRC industrial base, i.e. the one that already outproduces everyone combined (as materially not value add). PRC is not Japan, PRC has functionally infinite resources and current mismatch is something that can and is being engineered around. PRC is also not west, because they have industrial base to build a lot of hammers, and eventually hammers get used. PRC is obviously not VZ/MENA who can't hit US back, while PRC can. IMO face PRC realities before fixating on PRC issues. As for other countries reaction/plan, it's factored in, reality is we know what level of infra expansion or acquisition west is capable of, we know PRC china speed trendlines, hence limit extrapolation to reasonable 10 year timeframe. > two geopolitical things that matter here > don’t have any interest in war in the first place US+co seems to have interest in intervening in Chinese civil war, which itself exists due to US support over last 70 years. There's a world where US facilitates peaceful reunification on PRC terms and maybe PRC can live with relatively benign US hanging around in east Asia. But if transition not peaceful, then there is every reason to simply kick US out of east Asia. This key distinction, TW is political goal, kicking US out of east asia is geopolitical / regional hegemony goal. That's the overarching geopolitics that matters. Spheres of influence and all that. > China attacks everything the US has ever built and successfully destroys it and there is nothing the US can do” very convincing. It's very convincing because the flip side is US can likely destroy PLAN as well. When I say surface fleet is dead, I include PRC / everyone. The problem is USN likes to launch missiles at Houthis, US global security posture is predicated on survivable expeditionary navy. PRC is not. After both sides lose their boats, US loses most strategic posture, while PRC can rebuild faster. The point is US posture is uniquely vulnerable, because of course it is, PRC spend last 30 years specifically dismantling US force structure. US force structure have been distracted by GWOT, procurement drama... and just geopolitical reality of PRC industrial base, has having difficulty doing the opposite.