> The issue is probably availability
I imagine every undersea cable would be cut in the first week of a US-China conflict, regardless of who built it.
I imagine every undersea cable would be cut in the first week of a US-China conflict, regardless of who built it.
An example of what limited conflict looks like is the Sino-Indian war which was kept confined to a limited geographic area. Its not a forgone conclusion that a conflict has to become "total".
most likely at sea
An oceanic conflict in the Pacific is going to ruin air traffic, and with both air and sea lanes compromised, you see the beginnings of blockades and economic business as usual encounters entanglements all over.
If big expensive ships start sinking, and the projection of air power changes, everything else heats up very quickly, because replacing military fleets (and the sailors to match) is a slow process, and any major setback could prove permanent and lasting.
Don't expect a naval limited war to stay limited for long.
I don't think you're thinking like a military person.
I mean, if it's total war? Well, sorry, but it's total war.
I wouldn't count on too many undersea cables not being cut.
A China-US conflict means dozens of nuclear weapons dropped on populous cities across the world in a matter of hours.
How anyone seriously entertains this idea is unreal.
Given the manoeuvring requirements for the orbiting explosives, and the requirement to launch them with enough plausible deniability for it not to be obvious "there's a bunch of commercial satellite killers!" - I wonder if they could build and launch 60 of them for less than SpaceX paid to get the first 60 Starlink birds in orbit?
Nevertheless, this is such a terrible idea, I hope this is not the future.
Very very big...