by ericmay | 2025-12-30 18:15:36+00:00
> 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.