The U.S. military plans a 'Hellscape' to deter China from attacking Taiwan

I've read enough things that suggest a "blockade" is much more likely than an "invasion" that I can't really make sense of this article. Here's an example I find persuasive: https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/content-series/atlantic-coun...

I don't see how this "hellscape" would be useful against a non-kinetic blockade. It would seem to involve the US pre-emptively declaring war on China, which seems likely to lead to a nuclear war we don't want. Is the described approach actually effective against something the Chinese will portray as an "quarantine"?

Or have I been misled, and a full scale sneak invasion across the strait is what we should expect?

If China were to successfully invade Taiwan, where would they attack next? I think America would put a lot more force toward defending South Korea or Japan than Taiwan (especially if chip manufacturing gets reshored out of Taiwan). India, which they have border disputes with, is on the other side of the Himalayas and has nuclear weapons, which would make a full-scale war difficult. Mongolia was formerly part of China, but China hasn't seemed to be very interested in directly annexing it. Russia, which holds former Chinese territory in Outer Manchuria, is semi-allied with China as well, so unless they collapse it's not very likely that China would go after that.

Broadly speaking, this is a strategy to make the asset cost of a seaborne landing untenable. The strategy needs iron dome class technology to supplement it because a humongous amount of stand-off weaponry will be deployed pre-invasion but in substance this makes the attrition on the beach and LZ too high to tolerate. And before hand, if ROV smart subs are out there.

I have beleived for a long time that nobody inside the Chinese senior hierarchy wants the level of megadeath implicit in nuclear assets. But a step or ten down the ladder is the rivers of blood being live-streamed home. This would be the generation of the one-child policy, who have a massive belief in their investment in the future and watching their offspring die on the beaches would be very very unpopular. They don't really have an appetite for this either.

I therefore believe the constant rhetoric is misleading. People say things, but its posturing inside the tent around future roles when the current leadership pass on. That point of change is when stupidity might break out, in the meantime nobody is willing to talk peace because its a sign of weakness. But they are also not willing to manage the inevitable letter-home flow saying "we're dying here"

-Patriotism has limits basically. Russia is different, there is a persisting Nihilism which I cannot fathom, the signalling of "die for the motherland" is quite bizarre to me, but appears to work (within limits) inside that culture. I do not think this is true in China, at large. The PLA is a mass employment scheme and not actually designed to die for some committee outcome.

Doesn't mean "do nothing" is a tolerable defence, but I continue to believe an invasion is less likely, as long as Xi remains in control. When he dies, things will get sticky but I also believe his replacement cohort realize their future is bleak if they launch this attack.

Frankly, it would be cheaper in manpower and materiel to seize some former USSR land.

L(MAO)