Re:As Much as You Ever Wanted to Know About 155M Artillery S...
by maxglute on Friday February 16, 2024 @03:16AM
(#39394468)
Realistically is US/PRC nuclear response is going to shift to launch on confirmation instead of warning against adversaries with credible capabilities to strike each others homeland. PRC certainly isn't going to be dissuaded from hitting CONUS if her homeland is struck or substantially degraded (via blockade) - PRC leadership would have domestic pressure to retaliate in way that satisfies the people, who are going to want US citizenry to go through the same food/energy shortage they are. And up until now the only thing preventing US adversaries from doing so is simply technical incapability which gives rise to this (somewaht hubris based) narrative that CONUS strikes leads to MAD. Meanwhile US is pursuing prompt global strike as well, because that's what it takes to win prolonged conventional wars - disrupt your adversaries homefront. Flip MAD fear around. Let's say US starts hitting PRC targets - how does PRC know they're not nukes and trigger MAD - almost every capable US platforms are nuclear capable.
For the actual process, I imagine it's going to be very communicated/coordinated affair to pace escalation. PRC: you stopped 40% of our energy imports, we're going to degrade 40% of your domestic energy infra if you don't stop in name of proportionality. First maybe via cyber, then via kinetic strikes, with warning ahead on list of facilities that are potential targets so they can evacuated ahead of time. Start with offshore rigs, then escalate to territorial targets. Launching X missiles at Y time at Z targets. US can either lift blockade, withdraw from PRC civil war, escalate to total war, or trigger MAD and both go back to stone age. Ideally this game theory gets played before hand, and there's no blockade or US intervention in first place - ability to hit CONUS is as much a deterrence function. But TLDR is PRC isn't going to sit back and take hits if they can dish hits as well. Meanwhile US expeditionary/military game theory has been based on fighting adversaries who can't really hit back. Which is why PRC is pouring so much resources into platforms that can.
For the actual process, I imagine it's going to be very communicated/coordinated affair to pace escalation. PRC: you stopped 40% of our energy imports, we're going to degrade 40% of your domestic energy infra if you don't stop in name of proportionality. First maybe via cyber, then via kinetic strikes, with warning ahead on list of facilities that are potential targets so they can evacuated ahead of time. Start with offshore rigs, then escalate to territorial targets. Launching X missiles at Y time at Z targets. US can either lift blockade, withdraw from PRC civil war, escalate to total war, or trigger MAD and both go back to stone age. Ideally this game theory gets played before hand, and there's no blockade or US intervention in first place - ability to hit CONUS is as much a deterrence function. But TLDR is PRC isn't going to sit back and take hits if they can dish hits as well. Meanwhile US expeditionary/military game theory has been based on fighting adversaries who can't really hit back. Which is why PRC is pouring so much resources into platforms that can.