3 ms·

>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, s

by 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.

ericmay 10mo ago
> Why assume PRC attacks US+co first? … Because the US has no interest in a war with China? Actually attacking the US is literally the worst possible idea for China though. They can win a short, high-intensity war over Taiwan and leverage US political chaos and dysfunction to achieve their goals, but attacking the actual United States would quickly, and cohesively force the United States to get its shit together. I don’t have any illusions about American Exceptionalism, but China’s strengths in manpower and manufacturing capacity don’t have the leverage that you think they do when a land-oriented power (China) has to engage in warfare with a naval and air-based power. China middling oil production would be destroyed by US missiles and it would be unable to import more oil. That’s a big problem that a land-based power isn’t going to be able to easily overcome. But I guess as you say “China has missiles, China blow up all US forces everywhere” or something like that. And even winning a war doesn’t “kick” the US out of East Asia. They can just maintain existing bases and naval forces. What’s China going to do about it? Are you going to bomb Japan and Korea? Launch missiles at Saudi Arabia since they aren’t selling you any more oil? The scenario you are fantasizing about which is effectively “China rains down missiles on everything and nobody can do anything about it” is really just not realistic and you keep assuming that other countries don’t have missiles or capabilities or the ability to cause significant harm to Chinese interests. If you really believe that China launching an invasion of Taiwan (I don’t care if it’s an internal affair or not, China takes action against the US and we just sell Taiwan weapons and take actions against China and so forth) legitimizes striking the continental United States none of this technology you’re talking about matters because your argument is basically “everything escalates to nuclear war” so what does anyone care about how much the US or China wastes on military assets? But China doesn’t have any intentions of seeing its civilization destroyed, nor does the US, so once you take nuclear war off the table, you have to manage escalation to avoid nuclear war, which is why China is building so many surface ships. > 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. The PLAN doesn’t know how to fight a war. The GWOT and similar operations are done so the United States can continue to make sure everything works, logistics concerns are ironed out, and more. There are other reasons for these engagements, of course. I don’t really accept your theory the Chinese military will just launch missiles and blow up all USN ships, which I think is a fundamental disagreement here and I am not convinced by your writing to change my mind. > US+co seems to have interest in intervening in Chinese civil war, which itself exists due to US support over last 70 years. China overplayed its hand with the seizure of Hong Kong, restricting rare earth exports from Chinese refineries, and so-called wolf warrior diplomacy. It had a very easy path to assimilate Taiwan without bloodshed but now it’s going to have to fight over it do no real good reason. The US and Americans in general don’t really care too much about Taiwan, and had China just continued to be a good partner and showed kindness toward Taiwan it would have won the long game and convinced Taiwan to rejoin peacefully. It’s really unfortunate. The US and China don’t need to fight, but I think Xi Jingpin specifically and China’s posture generall has caused the US to have to support Taiwan instead. There are a long list of grievances both sides can legitimately levy at each other, but I think China was the one to rekindle the issue while the US was thinking hey let’s all just trade and get along. I know you’ll disagree but I’ve reviewed enough of the history of both countries and the region to know that this is the case.

ericmay 10mo ago

> Why assume PRC attacks US+co first? … Because the US has no interest in a war with China? Actually attacking the US is literally the worst possible idea for China though. They can win a short, high-intensity war over Taiwan and leverage US political chaos and dysfunction to achieve their goals, but attacking the actual United States would quickly, and cohesively force the United States to get its shit together. I don’t have any illusions about American Exceptionalism, but China’s strengths in manpower and manufacturing capacity don’t have the leverage that you think they do when a land-oriented power (China) has to engage in warfare with a naval and air-based power. China middling oil production would be destroyed by US missiles and it would be unable to import more oil. That’s a big problem that a land-based power isn’t going to be able to easily overcome. But I guess as you say “China has missiles, China blow up all US forces everywhere” or something like that. And even winning a war doesn’t “kick” the US out of East Asia. They can just maintain existing bases and naval forces. What’s China going to do about it? Are you going to bomb Japan and Korea? Launch missiles at Saudi Arabia since they aren’t selling you any more oil? The scenario you are fantasizing about which is effectively “China rains down missiles on everything and nobody can do anything about it” is really just not realistic and you keep assuming that other countries don’t have missiles or capabilities or the ability to cause significant harm to Chinese interests. If you really believe that China launching an invasion of Taiwan (I don’t care if it’s an internal affair or not, China takes action against the US and we just sell Taiwan weapons and take actions against China and so forth) legitimizes striking the continental United States none of this technology you’re talking about matters because your argument is basically “everything escalates to nuclear war” so what does anyone care about how much the US or China wastes on military assets? But China doesn’t have any intentions of seeing its civilization destroyed, nor does the US, so once you take nuclear war off the table, you have to manage escalation to avoid nuclear war, which is why China is building so many surface ships. > 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. The PLAN doesn’t know how to fight a war. The GWOT and similar operations are done so the United States can continue to make sure everything works, logistics concerns are ironed out, and more. There are other reasons for these engagements, of course. I don’t really accept your theory the Chinese military will just launch missiles and blow up all USN ships, which I think is a fundamental disagreement here and I am not convinced by your writing to change my mind. > US+co seems to have interest in intervening in Chinese civil war, which itself exists due to US support over last 70 years. China overplayed its hand with the seizure of Hong Kong, restricting rare earth exports from Chinese refineries, and so-called wolf warrior diplomacy. It had a very easy path to assimilate Taiwan without bloodshed but now it’s going to have to fight over it do no real good reason. The US and Americans in general don’t really care too much about Taiwan, and had China just continued to be a good partner and showed kindness toward Taiwan it would have won the long game and convinced Taiwan to rejoin peacefully. It’s really unfortunate. The US and China don’t need to fight, but I think Xi Jingpin specifically and China’s posture generall has caused the US to have to support Taiwan instead. There are a long list of grievances both sides can legitimately levy at each other, but I think China was the one to rekindle the issue while the US was thinking hey let’s all just trade and get along. I know you’ll disagree but I’ve reviewed enough of the history of both countries and the region to know that this is the case.