[maxglute]

> is not an insane course of action?

No? Flat out arming proxies is literally the point of overt proxy warfare. Sometimes one tries to to be deniable and source other weapons, but other times it's just, enjoy quagmire, cry about it. It's like suggesting PRC going to start blowing up Lockheed plants if they ever lose anything to US munitions.

[carlosjobim]

Yes, if mainland China is successfully invaded by a country being supplied with American military equipment and having their fixed infrastructure destroyed - like described in the article - you can be dead sure that they will try to destroy American military plants.

None of the super power countries will ever accept defeat in their homeland and being conquered without using all means possible to hinder it. That's why the USA has strong opinions on how the Ukraine uses long range weapons in the war with Russia.

[maxglute]

That's borderline nonsense scenario. Superpowers aren't going to be existentially invaded via lesser proxy. We're talking about being quagmired in war of choice where proxys being supplied. Lots of escalation rungs up the ladder that run before looping into superpower vs superpower peer conflict.

[XorNot]

The scenario being unlikely doesn't make the OP's point irrelevant: the situation you see today is because that scenario doesn't happen, and it doesn't happen because countries are relatively circumspect about the way in which their military aid is deployed for exactly this reason.

[maxglute]

I'm not questioning relevancy, but escalatory logic. CONUS vulnerability is going to increase with mid/high end missile/drone proliferation. But skipping over proxy fight vs lesser adversaries with limited CONUS strike capabilities vs peer adversaries with significant CONUS strike capabilities is not particularly sound. Now it may get there if existential, but that's far from first run on escalation ladder.

[carlosjobim]

That's the scenario of the article. He suggests putting all US infrastructure in tunnels, bunkers, and in space, to protect it from Chinese drones. I say, how about bombing the drone factories. Which idea do you think is more realistic? Have you started digging?

[maxglute]

Obviously the former, hint: that's what PRC is doing, basically Third Front 2.0. The retardation of the second is instead of fighting an underpowered proxy with limited CONUS strike you fight a peer power with enhanced CONUS strike, see latest China Power report that suggests all west coast is open to PRC conventional global strikes. In the mean time, PRC IS hardening and digging, (and distributing) - corollary to that is they aren't sunk cost in US naval/airforce model that requires physical sanctuary and can in fact build out entire survivable underground prompt global strike complex with high end rocketry, i.e. you can shelter TELs but not carriers (maybe b21s).

The real answer is of course, do as much of A as feasible and simply accept/recognize technology has made fortress America increasingly obsolete. CONUS vulnerability is baked into the medium term tech stack and will increasingly constrain US expeditionary model. Nevermind PRC drone factories, irbms and shaheed tier poverty moped drones that can hit CONUS is well within Monroe countries industrial capabilities, and the techstack is only going to get more commoditized with time. It's not just PRC US has to worry about, it's general global tech uplifting/proliferation. So what can US do to protect CONUS... harden CONUS at extreme cost... and restrain itself because blowback 10-20 years from now is not some terrorist attack on CONUS soil but PADD3 refineries going boom.