Policy researchers from the Rand Corp. ponder the question: “How can the United States prevail in a limited war with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) while avoiding catastrophic escalation?”  Find their analysis and  scenarios here.  

U.S. Military Theories of Victory for a War with the People’s Republic of China

There is a narrow range of scenarios that can enable great powers to wage a protracted war without it becoming a nuclear war.

Summary

From the Rand website:  “A military conflict between the United States and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) would entail escalation risks that the United States has not seriously considered since the Cold War. The authors of this paper consider how the United States can prevail in a limited war with the PRC while avoiding catastrophic escalation.  The authors do so by considering theories of victory for the United States in a war with China. A theory of victory is a causal story about how to defeat an adversary: It identifies the conditions under which the enemy will admit defeat and outlines how to shape the conflict in a way that creates those conditions.

The authors consider five theories of victory and identify two as most viable: denial (persuading the enemy that it is unlikely to achieve its objectives and that further fighting will not reverse this failure) and military cost-imposition (using military force to persuade the enemy that the costs of continuing the war outweigh the benefits). The authors maintain that denial offers the best chance for delivering victory while avoiding catastrophic escalation, whereas military cost-imposition has lower prospects of success and higher chances for catastrophic escalation.

Overall, the report:

• Explores potential U.S. strategies and associated escalation risks in a conflict scenario with a nuclear-armed adversary;
• Aims to inform defense strategists and force planners on preparing for such a high-stakes conflict while managing the risks of escalation; 
• Outlines various U.S. theories of victory for a war with the PRC, categorizing them based on the level of escalation risk they entail. 

The central task in this context shifts from deterrence to compellence (the ability of one state to coerce another state into action, usually by threatening punishment) once a war begins, necessitating a different analytical approach to convince the adversary to cease fighting.  The analysis presented in the report is crucial for understanding how to prevail in a conflict with China while limiting the scope of escalation, providing valuable insights for future strategic planning and decision-making.  Specifically, The report delves into two scenarios: the prospects of success for military cost-imposition and denial strategies.

Scenarios

Scenario #1:  What Are the Prospects of Success for Military Cost-Imposition?

The PRC is highly suspicious of U.S. motives, and a painful cost-imposition campaign would not improve its image of U.S. intentions.

Military cost-imposition involves applying pressure points on the PRC without triggering unacceptable escalation, termed “the Goldilocks Challenge”.  This strategy faces difficulties in a war with the PRC due to the need for precise calibration. On the other hand, the denial theory of victory, focusing on preventing a PRC invasion of Taiwan, is seen as offering the best chances of success while avoiding catastrophic escalation.  The report underscores the importance of strategic empathy and coordination in U.S. actions to reduce the risk of uncontrolled escalation.  Overall, the report suggests that while military cost-imposition presents challenges, a denial strategy may hold better prospects of success in a conflict scenario with the PRC.

Scenario #2:  What Are the Prospects of Success for Denial?

The point of denial is to provide new information to Beijing that throws cold water on prewar enthusiasm about its ability to seize Taiwan.

Denial theory offers the best chances of achieving U.S. objectives while avoiding catastrophic escalation in a conflict with the PRC over Taiwan. It is considered the most viable approach compared to other theories like military cost-imposition. Denial theory focuses on preventing the PRC from achieving its objectives through a combination of military and strategic measures, aiming to deliver victory while minimizing escalation risks. Practicing strategic empathy and providing reassurances are highlighted as pragmatic measures to reduce the risk of uncontrolled escalation in such scenarios.

What Next?

The researchers offered the following conclusions and recommendations:

• Any conflict between the United States and the PRC has the potential for catastrophic escalation, and this requires the United States to think differently about how to fight and win limited wars than it has become accustomed to in the post–Cold War era. A denial theory of victory offers the best balance between the desire to maximize the chances of U.S. success and the imperative to manage escalation.
• Clearly understanding the range of potential theories of victory for future conflicts is critical, because today’s force structure decisions will shape the decision space for tomorrow’s president. If DoD does not build a robust denial capability, then a future president might have to choose among higher escalation risk options, such as military cost-imposition and brinkmanship. The different theories of victory imply different requirements for force planning and investments.
• General officers, flag officers, and senior civilian officials should prepare to discuss the risks of different theories of victory and the trade-offs between managing escalation risks and prevailing in a conflict. The United States has fallen out of practice with this kind of thinking after three decades of smaller regional conflicts. Shifting mindsets and once again becoming conversant in escalation dynamics is essential to providing the best possible advice to the president.
• That a denial theory of victory has lower escalation risks relative to the alternatives does not mean that it has low risks in absolute terms, so defense planners still need to think carefully about how U.S. operational plans to implement a denial strategy strike an appropriate balance between operational effectiveness and escalation risks.
• Once DoD is confident that it can implement a denial theory of victory effectively, it should then prepare for other theories of victory to provide a spectrum of options to future presidents. Future U.S. leaders might have a diverse range of preferences and face scenarios in which different theories of victory seem more or less appropriate.

Further OODA Loop Scenarios

It is imperative for both nations to engage in strategic dialogue, establish crisis communication mechanisms, and explore avenues for cooperation on shared challenges. The goal should be to manage competition responsibly, avoid miscalculation, and prevent escalation to open conflict.

The potential scenarios for a Great Power conflict between China and the United States, encompassing cyber, information, and kinetic dimensions, are both complex and multifaceted. Given the strategic imperatives and capabilities of both nations, we can anticipate a range of contingencies that might unfold in the event of escalating tensions or outright conflict.

It is crucial to recognize that these scenarios are not mutually exclusive and would likely unfold in a highly integrated and dynamic manner, with cyber and information operations serving as key enablers and force multipliers for kinetic actions. The interplay between these dimensions would significantly shape the course and outcome of any Great Power conflict between China and the United States:

In the cyber domain, China’s strategic posture and capabilities suggest a scenario where initial hostilities might involve significant cyber operations aimed at undermining U.S. military capabilities, disrupting critical infrastructure, and sowing confusion within the U.S. decision-making apparatus:  Such operations would likely leverage China’s advanced cyberattack capabilities, which have been honed over decades and are capable of causing disruptive and destructive effects ranging from denial-of-service attacks to physical disruptions of critical infrastructure 1 . This aligns with the broader strategic objective of shaping decision-making and disrupting military operations at the initial stages and throughout a conflict.

In the realm of information warfare, we can envisage scenarios where both nations engage in extensive campaigns to influence global and domestic perceptions, undermine each other’s credibility, and shape the narrative around the conflict:  China’s efforts might focus on sowing doubts about U.S. leadership, undermining democracy, and extending Beijing’s influence, particularly in East Asia and the western Pacific.   The United States, in, would likely leverage its own information capabilities to counter Chinese narratives, expose malign activities, and rally international support for its position.

Additional kinetic conflict scenarios could range from limited engagements, such as skirmishes in contested areas like the South China Sea, to more extensive military confrontations involving naval, air, and potentially ground forces:  The kinetic dimension would likely be characterized by attempts to control key maritime and aerial chokepoints, conduct precision strikes against military assets, and possibly enforce blockades or no-fly zones. The United States might focus on leveraging its technological and logistical advantages, while China would seek to exploit its regional proximity, numerical advantages, and anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities.

Given the gravity and complexity of these potential scenarios, it is imperative for both nations to engage in strategic dialogue, establish crisis communication mechanisms, and explore avenues for cooperation on shared challenges. The goal should be to manage competition responsibly, avoid miscalculation, and prevent escalation to open conflict.

NOTE:  This OODA Loop Original Analysis was partially generated with the cognitive augmentation of and in collaboration with ALTzero Project – MattGPT.

Additional OODA Loop Resources

The Network Swarm Attack on Israel and the Escalating Global Networked War:  Intelligence Failure? Black Swan? Gray Rhino? Systemic Failure? An entropic, sclerotic Israeli political system? The geopolitical and regional power context for the recent surprise, large scale and violent Hamas attack of Israel may prove to be “all of the above”. What is clear is the attack was designed as a large scale, kinetic and digital “network swarm” – which now opens up a new, “formal” kinetic front in the ongoing, global networked war in the Middle East. Swarm dynamics are a crucial mental model – which we apply here to the Hamas network swarm attack of Israel.

Russian Invasion of Ukraine: Russia’s aggression against Ukraine prompts global repercussions on supply chains and cybersecurity. This act highlights potential threats from nations like China and could shift defense postures, especially in countries like Japan. See: Russia Threat Brief

Israel and Gaza: The horrors of war in the region are also giving rise to uncertainty in markets, but for now it seems the war will not spread throughout the Middle East. There were many initiatives between Israel and Arab/Persian nations that have been stalled due to the war.

Economic Weakness in China: China’s economy faces dim prospects exacerbated by disasters, COVID-19, and geopolitical tensions. Amid limited financial transparency, some indicators suggest China’s economic growth is severely stunted, impacting global economic stability. See: China Threat Brief

Networked Extremism: The digital era enables extremists worldwide to collaborate, share strategies, and self-radicalize. Meanwhile, advanced technologies empower criminals, making corruption and crime interwoven challenges for global societies. See: Converging Insurgency, Crime and Corruption

Food Security and Inflation: Food security is emerging as a major geopolitical concern, with droughts and geopolitical tensions exacerbating the issue. Inflation, directly linked to food security, is spurring political unrest in several countries. See: Food Security

Demographic Time Bomb: Industrialized nations face demographic challenges, with a growing elderly population outnumbering the working-age demographic. Countries like Japan and China are at the forefront, feeling the economic and social ramifications of an aging society. See: Global Risks and Geopolitical Sensemaking

Geopolitical-Cyber Risk Nexus: The interconnectivity brought by the Internet has made regional issues affect global cyberspace. Now, every significant event has cyber implications, making it imperative for leaders to recognize and act upon the symbiosis between geopolitical and cyber risks. See The Cyber Threat

Embracing Corporate Intelligence and Scenario Planning in an Uncertain Age: Apart from traditional competitive challenges, businesses also confront external threats, many of which are unpredictable. This environment amplifies the significance of Scenario Planning. It enables leaders to envision varied futures, thereby identifying potential risks and opportunities. All organizations, regardless of their size, should allocate time to refine their understanding of the current risk landscape and adapt their strategies. See: Scenario Planning