The doctrinal foundation of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is undergoing a profound transformation, shifting from a focus on “informatized warfare” to the more advanced concept of “intelligentized warfare”. This evolution signals that any future land confrontation will not be a traditional attrition-based conflict but a dynamic contest between two opposing “system-of-systems”. The PLA’s overarching operational goal, encapsulated in the concept of “systems destruction warfare,” is not the piecemeal destruction of U.S. forces but the induction of catastrophic failure within the U.S. joint force’s operational architecture. This paradigm is predicated on the seamless integration of artificial intelligence (AI), big data analytics, and autonomous systems into every facet of military operations.

Under this new doctrine, “human-machine collaborative decision making” is expected to become the operational norm, with AI-enabled systems augmenting and accelerating the command and control process. Unmanned platforms are envisioned to take a central role in combat, with human operators receding from the front lines to supervisory and command positions. Victory in this intelligentized environment is defined not by territorial gain alone, but by achieving and maintaining decision superiority through faster information processing, superior situational awareness, and a compressed decision-making cycle. The battlespace itself is expanding beyond the traditional physical domains of land, sea, and air to encompass the virtual and cognitive realms, creating what PLA theorists term a “brain battlefield,” where the will to fight and the cognitive capacity of commanders are primary targets. A U.S. military commander must therefore anticipate a multi-domain conflict where the PLA will leverage asymmetric strategies designed to paralyze U.S. command and control, saturate defenses, sever logistical lifelines, and fracture political resolve before the main battle is ever joined.

PLA Asymmetric Strategy	PLA Commander’s Intent	Key PLA Capabilities	U.S. Counter-Strategy	Key U.S. Enablers
Systems Destruction Warfare	Achieve decision dominance by paralyzing the U.S. C5ISR network.	Cyber Attacks, Electronic Warfare (EW), Anti-Satellite (ASAT) Weapons, Long-Range Precision Fires	Resilient, Distributed Command and Control (C2)	Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2), Proliferated LEO Satellite Constellations, Mesh Networks, Tactical Cyber Teams, AI-Enabled Decision Support
Multi-Domain A2/AD Saturation	Create an impenetrable fortress to deter or defeat U.S. intervention.	Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBMs), Hypersonic Weapons, Integrated Air Defense Systems (IADS), Submarines, Mobile Missile Launchers	Disintegrate the A2/AD System from Within	Stand-In Forces, Long-Range Precision Fires (PrSM, LRHW), Stealth Platforms (F-35, B-21), Submarines, Agile Combat Employment (ACE)
Unmanned Swarm Offensive	Overwhelm and saturate U.S. defenses with asymmetric, attritable mass.	Large-Scale Drone Swarms, Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T), AI-Enabled Autonomous Systems, “Drone Motherships”	Scalable, Layered Counter-UAS and Offensive Swarming	Replicator Initiative, Directed Energy Weapons (Lasers, High-Power Microwaves), Layered Kinetic Interceptors, AI-Driven Threat Recognition
Logistics Interdiction and Strangulation	Sever the trans-Pacific lifelines and induce logistical collapse of forward-deployed forces.	Long-Range Missiles, Submarine Warfare, Naval Mines, Cyber Attacks on Logistics Networks	Contested Logistics and Distributed Sustainment	Distributed Logistics Networks, Pre-positioned Materiel, Agile Combat Employment (ACE), Intra-Theater Sealift, Allied Host-Nation Support
Political Warfare and Cognitive Dominance	Fracture U.S. domestic and international resolve to win without fighting or on favorable terms.	“Three Warfares” Doctrine: Public Opinion (Media), Psychological, and Legal Warfare (Lawfare), Disinformation Campaigns	Narrative Competition and Psychological Resilience	Proactive Strategic Communications, Rapid Intelligence Declassification, Integrated Information Operations, Alliance Synchronization, Troop and Family Readiness Programs

I. PLA Strategy 1: Systems Destruction Warfare – Paralyzing the C5ISR Network

PLA Commander’s Intent

The primary objective of a PLA commander employing Systems Destruction Warfare is to achieve decisive operational advantage by blinding, deafening, and isolating U.S. forces at the outset of a conflict. The strategy is designed to induce systemic paralysis by targeting the Command, Control, Computers, Communications, Cyber, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C5ISR) network—the central nervous system of the U.S. joint force. This approach is the practical application of the PLA’s core operational concept of “Multi-Domain Precision Warfare” (MDPW), which is explicitly intended to “identify key vulnerabilities in an adversary’s operational system and then to launch precision strikes against those vulnerabilities”. The ultimate goal is not merely to degrade U.S. capabilities but to trigger a cascading failure that causes the entire operational system to “collapse”. By severing the links between sensors, decision-makers, and shooters, the PLA aims to shatter the U.S. military’s ability to coordinate a coherent response, thereby seizing the initiative and dictating the terms of the engagement.

Key Capabilities and Tactics

The execution of Systems Destruction Warfare relies on the tightly synchronized application of non-kinetic and kinetic effects across all domains. The conflict would likely commence with what can be termed an “invisible battle,” where decisive effects are achieved before the first missile impacts its target.

The initial salvo will be a non-kinetic onslaught. This will involve strategic and tactical cyber operations designed to penetrate and disrupt U.S. networks, corrupt critical data, and disable command systems. These cyber effects are not improvisational; they require extensive intelligence preparation of the battlespace and the pre-positioning of malicious code and access points, potentially years in advance of hostilities. Concurrently, the PLA Strategic Support Force (PLASSF) and other theater-level assets will unleash a barrage of electronic warfare (EW) attacks. These attacks will employ a range of ground-based, air, and potentially space-based platforms to jam satellite communications, deny access to the Global Positioning System (GPS), and disrupt the radar and communication systems upon which U.S. forces depend. The non-kinetic assault will extend into space, with counter-space operations targeting U.S. satellite constellations. These operations may range from reversible, non-kinetic effects like laser dazzling of optical sensors and jamming of uplinks and downlinks to kinetic attacks designed to permanently disable or destroy critical ISR, communication, and Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) satellites.

This multi-pronged non-kinetic attack will be seamlessly integrated with kinetic precision strikes. Using intelligence gathered over years, the PLA will employ its arsenal of long-range conventional ballistic and cruise missiles to physically destroy the key nodes of the U.S. C5ISR architecture. High-priority targets will include large, static, and difficult-to-disperse assets such as theater-level command headquarters, satellite ground stations, air operations centers, and critical undersea cable landing sites. The orchestration of this complex, multi-domain attack will be managed by the PLA’s own developing “intelligentized” command and control system. This system leverages AI and big data analytics to fuse intelligence from disparate sources, identify vulnerabilities in real-time, and coordinate cross-domain fires at a tempo designed to overwhelm U.S. defensive measures and decision-making processes. This is the essence of their doctrinal shift towards “intelligentized warfare,” where the speed and quality of decision-making, enabled by machine intelligence, becomes the decisive factor.

U.S. Counter-Strategy: Resilient, Distributed C2 via JADC2

The U.S. response to the threat of Systems Destruction Warfare is predicated on a fundamental architectural shift: moving from a highly efficient but brittle centralized C2 structure to a distributed, resilient, and agile model. This new approach is embodied by the Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) concept. JADC2 is not a single piece of hardware or software but rather a comprehensive approach to “sense, make sense, and act at all levels and phases of war, across all domains, and with partners, to deliver information advantage at the speed of relevance”. It represents the direct American doctrinal and technological counter to the PLA’s MDPW, acknowledging that the future of warfare lies in network-centric, data-driven operations.

The successful implementation of JADC2 relies on several key technological and tactical enablers. A primary line of effort is the move toward proliferated architectures, particularly in space. This involves transitioning from a reliance on a few large, expensive, and high-value satellites to deploying large constellations of smaller, cheaper, and more resilient Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites. The Space Development Agency’s National Defense Space Architecture is a prime example of this shift, aiming to create a layered network for communications and missile tracking that is far more difficult for an adversary to degrade. The strategic logic is to create a web of assets so numerous and redundant that attacking it becomes a “wasted and escalatory effort” for the adversary.

This proliferated hardware is supported by the development of resilient mesh networks. These networks are designed to be self-healing, capable of automatically rerouting data traffic when individual nodes or links are destroyed or jammed. This ensures that even in a degraded electromagnetic environment, essential command and targeting data can still reach the tactical edge. A key component of this is the development of gateways that can connect disparate legacy systems with modern networks, ensuring interoperability across the joint force. To manage the immense volume of data generated by this network, JADC2 heavily leverages AI and machine learning. These tools are not intended to replace human commanders but to serve as powerful decision-support aids, capable of rapidly sifting “through mountains of data” to identify emerging threats, correlate intelligence, and recommend optimal courses of action, thereby dramatically accelerating the commander’s decision-making cycle. Finally, this entire architecture is designed to empower commanders at the tactical edge. By pushing data processing and decision-making authority down to the lowest possible level, consistent with the philosophy of Mission Command, the joint force reduces its reliance on vulnerable, centralized headquarters and can continue to operate effectively even when communications with higher echelons are severed.

The fundamental contest in this domain is not merely a competition of technologies but a clash of decision-making cycles. The PLA’s concepts of “intelligentized warfare” and “systems destruction” are explicitly designed to attack and shatter the U.S. military’s OODA loop (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act). They seek to create so much chaos and uncertainty in the information environment that U.S. commanders are paralyzed, unable to form a coherent picture of the battlefield or direct their forces effectively. JADC2 represents the U.S. effort to construct a faster, more robust, and more resilient OODA loop that can function and adapt under the extreme duress of a multi-domain assault. The initial phase of any conflict will therefore be a high-stakes race. The PLA will attempt to achieve systemic paralysis of the U.S. C5ISR network faster than the U.S. can reconfigure its distributed network and adapt its decision-making processes. The victor in this “decision race” will seize an advantage that may prove decisive for the remainder of the conflict, demonstrating the true meaning of the PLA’s concept of the “brain battlefield”.

II. PLA Strategy 2: Multi-Domain A2/AD Saturation – Creating an Impenetrable Fortress

PLA Commander’s Intent

The PLA commander’s intent behind the Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) strategy is twofold: first, to deter U.S. intervention in a regional crisis, and second, failing deterrence, to make such an intervention prohibitively costly in terms of assets and personnel. The strategy is designed to create a layered, multi-domain fortress around China’s periphery. The “anti-access” (A2) component employs long-range capabilities to prevent U.S. forces from entering the operational area, primarily targeting carrier strike groups and forward air bases. The “area denial” (AD) component uses shorter-range systems to severely restrict the freedom of action of any U.S. forces that manage to penetrate the outer layers. This strategy is a direct and deliberate challenge to the foundational tenets of U.S. power projection, which has historically relied on the ability to establish and maintain air and maritime supremacy through the deployment of aircraft carriers and the use of large, forward-deployed bases.

Key Capabilities and Tactics

The PLA’s A2/AD strategy is built upon a massive and increasingly sophisticated arsenal of conventional missile systems, designed to saturate U.S. and allied defenses through sheer volume and technological complexity. The cornerstone of the anti-access layer is a formidable family of Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBMs). This includes the DF-21D, famously dubbed the “carrier killer,” and the longer-range DF-26, which has the reach to threaten key U.S. facilities in Guam, earning it the moniker “Guam killer”. These weapons are designed to hold high-value naval assets at risk from distances exceeding 1,500 kilometers. This threat is compounded by the introduction of hypersonic weapons, such as the DF-17 hypersonic glide vehicle and the rumored YJ-21 air-launched ballistic missile. The extreme speed and unpredictable flight paths of these systems present a severe challenge to current U.S. missile defense capabilities, drastically shortening reaction times and complicating intercept solutions.

This long-range ballistic missile threat is complemented by a vast and diverse inventory of Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles (ASCMs). Systems like the supersonic YJ-12 and the subsonic YJ-18 can be launched from a wide array of platforms, creating a multi-axis, high-volume threat that is difficult to defend against. These platforms include mobile land-based launchers that employ “hit and run” tactics—firing a salvo before retreating to hardened underground facilities to reload—as well as modern naval surface combatants like the Type 055 destroyer, a large fleet of conventional and nuclear submarines, and long-range bombers such as the H-6K.

To control the air domain, the PLA has constructed a dense and overlapping Integrated Air Defense System (IADS). This system layers long-range Russian-made S-400 and domestically produced HQ-9 surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) with medium- and short-range systems, all networked with an array of early warning radars. This ground-based network is integrated with the PLA Air Force’s growing fleet of advanced fighter aircraft, including the J-20 stealth fighter, to create a formidable no-fly zone. The entire A2/AD architecture is further supported by a growing naval presence, including a large surface fleet and an expanding network of militarized artificial islands in the South China Sea, which serve as persistent sensor outposts, airfields, and missile bases, extending the reach and resilience of the A2/AD network.

U.S. Counter-Strategy: Disintegrate the A2/AD System from Within

The U.S. strategic response to the PLA’s A2/AD challenge has evolved beyond the concept of a costly frontal assault to “punch through” the defensive bubble. The current approach is more nuanced, seeking to “invert” the A2/AD concept itself. This involves proactively deploying a distributed, resilient, and lethal network of U.S. sensors and shooters inside the contested zone. The objective is not to breach the wall, but to methodically dismantle it from within by targeting the critical nodes and dependencies of the PLA’s kill chain. This strategy aims to turn the PLA’s highly networked system into a liability by severing the connections between its sensors and its shooters.

This counter-strategy is enabled by several key operational concepts and technologies. The concept of “Stand-In Forces” envisions the forward deployment of small, mobile, low-signature, and relatively low-cost Marine Corps and Army units within the first island chain. These forces, equipped with their own sensors and long-range precision fires, can survive within the enemy’s weapons engagement zone. From these forward positions, they can provide critical targeting data for long-range strikes launched from outside the theater, conduct their own anti-ship and anti-air attacks, and generally complicate the PLA’s targeting problem, forcing the adversary to expend significant resources to find and eliminate them.

These Stand-In Forces will be a key component of a broader joint fires network that includes new ground-launched systems like the Army’s Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) and the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW). By deploying these systems on allied territory, the U.S. can hold key PLA A2/AD assets—such as airfields, ports, command centers, and sensor sites—at risk from dispersed and survivable land-based positions. The deep-strike mission will also rely heavily on undersea and air dominance. U.S. nuclear-powered submarines and advanced stealth aircraft, such as the F-35 and the future B-21 bomber, are critical penetrating ISR and strike platforms capable of operating within the most heavily defended areas to hunt down and destroy mobile missile launchers, air defense systems, and naval vessels.

To ensure the survivability of U.S. airpower, the Air Force is implementing the concept of Agile Combat Employment (ACE). ACE involves dispersing air assets away from large, vulnerable main operating bases to a network of smaller, more austere airfields across the theater. By moving and operating unpredictably, ACE complicates the PLA’s targeting calculus and increases the resilience of U.S. combat airpower, allowing it to continue generating sorties even after initial attacks.

The PLA’s A2/AD capability should not be viewed as a monolithic, impenetrable barrier, but rather as a highly complex, networked “system-of-systems.” Its greatest strength—the tight integration of sensors, command nodes, and weapons platforms—is simultaneously its greatest vulnerability. A successful U.S. counter-strategy, therefore, is contingent on the ability to execute “kill-chain decomposition.” The effectiveness of a weapon like the DF-21D is entirely dependent on a robust and uninterrupted C3ISR architecture to find, fix, track, target, and engage a moving U.S. aircraft carrier. This kill chain is a sequence of dependencies: satellites, over-the-horizon radars, maritime patrol aircraft, and other sensors must detect the target; data must be relayed to a command center for processing; and targeting information must be transmitted to the missile launcher. Instead of attempting the difficult and costly task of intercepting hundreds of incoming missiles, a more effective approach is to attack the “eyes” and “nerves” of the system. By employing a combination of stealth platforms, cyber attacks, electronic warfare, and distributed precision fires to blind the PLA’s radars, jam its data links, and destroy its command nodes, the U.S. can sever the critical connections between sensors and shooters. This approach renders the PLA’s vast and expensive missile arsenal effectively blind and incapable of striking mobile, high-value targets. The contest, therefore, is not a simple matter of missile versus missile defense; it is a comprehensive, multi-domain campaign to systematically disintegrate the PLA’s kill web.

III. PLA Strategy 3: Unmanned Swarm Offensive – Overwhelming with Asymmetric Mass

PLA Commander’s Intent

A PLA commander will employ unmanned swarm offensives with the intent to saturate and overwhelm the technologically superior, but often numerically inferior, defensive systems of U.S. forces. The PLA is aggressively pursuing the development of a “true swarm” capability, leveraging large quantities of low-cost, attritable, and increasingly autonomous unmanned systems (UxS). The core strategic logic is to invert the traditional cost-imposition ratio. By forcing the U.S. to expend expensive, high-end interceptors (such as a Standard Missile-6, costing several million dollars) to destroy cheap, mass-produced drones (costing only thousands of dollars), the PLA can deplete U.S. magazines and achieve battlefield effects at a fraction of the cost. This strategy reflects a significant doctrinal shift within the PLA, moving from “a human-centric fighting force with unmanned systems in support, to a force centered on unmanned systems with humans in support”.

Key Capabilities and Tactics

The PLA’s swarm capabilities are rapidly advancing from theoretical concepts to tested operational systems. State-owned defense contractors have demonstrated systems capable of deploying swarms of up to 200 fixed-wing drones at a time from a single ground-based launch vehicle. Furthermore, the PLA is developing aerial deployment methods, including the concept of a “drone mothership” like the Jiu Tian SS-UAV, a large unmanned aircraft designed to carry and release a hundred or more smaller loitering munitions or ISR drones from within the battlespace.

These swarms will be integrated with manned platforms through Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) concepts. For example, the two-seat variant of the J-20 stealth fighter, the J-20S, is believed to be optimized for mission management and the control of “loyal wingman” drones, which would fly alongside the manned aircraft to extend sensor range, carry additional munitions, or act as decoys. The application of these swarms is envisioned to be multi-domain. The PLA is actively exercising with drone swarms in scenarios relevant to a Taiwan conflict, including amphibious landings, island-blocking operations, and complex urban warfare. These exercises involve not only unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) but also unmanned surface vessels (USVs) and unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs), referred to as “robot wolves” in PLA media.

The effectiveness of these swarms will be magnified by increasing levels of AI-enabled autonomy. While the precise degree of autonomy currently achieved remains a subject of analysis, the PLA’s research and development efforts are clearly focused on this area. The PLA is exploring the use of reinforcement learning and other AI techniques to enable swarms to coordinate their actions, dynamically re-task themselves in response to battlefield events, and exhibit emergent behaviors without requiring constant, direct human control. These intelligent swarms will be employed for a variety of missions, including persistent ISR, electronic attack, acting as decoys to confuse air defense systems, and conducting coordinated kinetic strikes against land and sea targets.

U.S. Counter-Strategy: Scalable, Layered Counter-UAS Defense and Offensive Swarming

The United States cannot win a conflict against drone swarms by engaging in a one-for-one kinetic exchange; such an approach is economically unsustainable. The U.S. counter-strategy must therefore be based on a scalable, layered defense-in-depth that prioritizes low-cost-per-shot effectors, while simultaneously embracing the logic of asymmetric mass through initiatives like Replicator to turn the swarm dilemma back on the adversary.

A robust counter-swarm defense requires a layered approach around high-value assets, integrating multiple kill mechanisms to create a resilient defensive screen. The outer layer of this defense will consist of electronic warfare systems designed to jam the command-and-control links and GPS signals that less-autonomous swarms rely upon for navigation and coordination. The next layer will increasingly be composed of directed energy weapons. High-energy lasers and high-power microwave systems offer the promise of deep magazines and a near-zero cost-per-shot, making them ideal for engaging large numbers of incoming drones. For swarm elements that penetrate these initial layers, the defense will rely on a mix of kinetic interceptors, ranging from traditional air defense systems to more novel, low-cost interceptors (such as the Coyote system), all guided by AI-driven fire control systems capable of tracking and prioritizing hundreds of targets simultaneously.

However, a purely defensive posture is insufficient. The U.S. must also develop its own offensive swarm capabilities. The Department of Defense’s Replicator initiative is a direct response to this imperative. It is a signature effort to field “thousands of cheap autonomous drones across all domains”—including loitering munitions, ISR quadcopters, and unmanned surface and undersea vehicles—within an accelerated 18-to-24-month timeframe. The strategic goal of Replicator is not just to defend against PLA swarms but to impose the same targeting and cost-imposition dilemmas on them. By developing our own “attritable autonomous systems,” the U.S. can saturate PLA defenses, conduct distributed ISR, and execute precision strikes at scale, thereby neutralizing the PLA’s asymmetric advantage.

Underpinning both defensive and offensive swarm operations is the critical role of artificial intelligence. Defensively, AI algorithms are essential for analyzing sensor data from multiple sources to distinguish between potentially thousands of individual swarm elements, differentiate high-value targets (like a command-and-control drone) from simple sensors, prioritize threats, and automate engagement sequences at machine speed. Offensively, AI is the key to enabling U.S. swarms to operate with the level of coordinated autonomy needed to be effective in a complex and contested environment.

The emergence of drone swarm warfare signals a fundamental change in the character of modern conflict. It marks a shift away from a decades-long focus on exquisite, high-cost, and survivable platforms toward a new paradigm where mass, autonomy, and attritability become decisive attributes. This presents not just a tactical or technological challenge, but a profound industrial and economic one. The PLA is explicitly developing drone swarms to leverage an “asymmetric advantage” rooted in economics: a $10,000 drone can potentially disable a multi-billion-dollar warship or force the expenditure of a multi-million-dollar interceptor missile, a cost-exchange ratio that is unsustainable for the U.S. in a protracted conflict. The Replicator initiative is a direct acknowledgment of this economic reality. It represents a strategic admission that the U.S. cannot win this competition simply by building better and more expensive defenses; it must also compete and win in the game of “mass.” This requires a significant transformation of the U.S. defense industrial base, which has long been optimized for producing small numbers of highly complex and expensive systems. The future security environment will demand the ability to design, build, and deploy thousands of cheap, “good enough,” and autonomous systems at industrial scale and speed. In the long run, the nation that develops the more agile and scalable manufacturing and software development ecosystem will likely hold the decisive advantage in the era of swarm warfare.

IV. PLA Strategy 4: Logistics Interdiction and Strangulation – Severing the Lifelines

PLA Commander’s Intent

A PLA commander will seek to exploit what is arguably the U.S. military’s most significant strategic vulnerability in a potential Indo-Pacific conflict: the “tyranny of distance”. The PLA’s strategy for logistics interdiction is designed to attack and sever the long, fragile trans-Pacific supply chains and target the large, centralized logistical hubs upon which U.S. forces depend. The commander’s intent is to prevent the initial deployment and subsequent sustainment of U.S. forces in a protracted conflict, thereby causing a logistical collapse that renders forward-deployed units unable to fight effectively. By strangling the flow of fuel, munitions, spare parts, and personnel, the PLA aims to win a war of exhaustion, making it impossible for the U.S. to maintain a credible combat presence in the theater.

Key Capabilities and Tactics

The PLA will employ a multi-domain approach to interdict U.S. logistics. Kinetic strikes will form a major component of this strategy. The same long-range conventional missile arsenal developed for the A2/AD mission, particularly systems like the DF-26, will be used to target critical logistical nodes that represent concentrated points of failure. High-priority targets will include major ports such as those in Guam and Yokosuka, Japan, key airfields like Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, and large-scale fuel and munitions storage facilities. These strikes are designed to destroy infrastructure, disrupt operations, and create bottlenecks that paralyze the entire sustainment network.

Beyond fixed infrastructure, the PLA will actively target the sea and air lines of communication (SLOCs and ALOCs) that connect the U.S. mainland to the theater of operations. The PLA Navy’s large and growing fleet of conventional and nuclear-powered submarines will be tasked with hunting and sinking vulnerable military sealift and airlift vessels transiting the vast Pacific Ocean. This threat will be augmented by the potential use of naval mines to close off strategic chokepoints and harbor entrances, as well as long-range anti-ship missiles launched from aircraft and surface ships to hold transport vessels at risk from extreme distances.

The kinetic campaign will be complemented by non-kinetic attacks. The PLA will conduct sophisticated cyber attacks targeting the complex web of software and databases that manage the global U.S. logistics enterprise. By targeting Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems, order management software, and transportation databases, the PLA can sow chaos, corrupt data, and introduce crippling delays, effectively disrupting the highly efficient “just-in-time” delivery model upon which the U.S. military has come to rely. In addition, the potential use of PLA special operations forces (SOF) for reconnaissance, sabotage, and subversion against logistical infrastructure and supply chains within allied and partner nations cannot be discounted.

U.S. Counter-Strategy: Contested Logistics and Distributed Sustainment

The U.S. military is responding to this threat by acknowledging a new reality: logistics is no longer a benign, rear-area function but a deeply contested warfighting domain. The counter-strategy involves a fundamental paradigm shift away from the hub-and-spoke logistical model, which was optimized for efficiency in a permissive environment, to a new model of distributed sustainment that is optimized for resilience and effectiveness under persistent, multi-domain attack.

The core tenet of this new approach is distributed logistics. This involves breaking up massive, consolidated depots of fuel, munitions, and other supplies—such as the now-decommissioning Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility—and dispersing these stocks across a wide network of smaller, hardened, and geographically separated locations throughout the Indo-Pacific theater. This dispersal greatly complicates the PLA’s targeting problem, as there is no longer a single point of failure whose destruction could cripple U.S. operations. This strategy is coupled with an increased emphasis on pre-positioning critical supplies forward within the theater. By staging larger quantities of fuel, munitions, spare parts, and medical supplies in-theater before a conflict begins, the U.S. can reduce its immediate reliance on vulnerable trans-oceanic sealift during the initial, most intense phase of hostilities.

The concept of Agile Combat Employment (ACE) is as much a logistical strategy as it is an airpower one. ACE necessitates the pre-positioning of fuel, munitions, and support equipment at a network of austere airfields. It also drives the development of multi-capable Airmen who are trained to perform multiple functions—such as refueling, re-arming, and basic maintenance—allowing aircraft to operate from dispersed locations with a minimal logistical footprint and breaking the dependence on large, vulnerable main operating bases. To connect these dispersed nodes, the U.S. is investing in its intra-theater lift capabilities. This includes increasing the number and operational readiness of Army watercraft and other joint sealift assets that can move critical supplies between islands and coastal areas within the theater, providing a more resilient and redundant transportation network that is less susceptible to single-point interdiction.

Crucially, this entire strategy of distributed sustainment is dependent on deep integration with allies and partners. The U.S. is actively working to develop the necessary legal and logistical agreements with key allies like Japan, Australia, and the Philippines to leverage their ports, airfields, and industrial capacity for sustainment operations. This creates a more robust, multi-faceted, and resilient logistics network that is far more difficult for the PLA to disrupt.

The PLA’s strategic focus on logistics interdiction forces the U.S. military to re-learn the central lesson of the Pacific Campaign in World War II: logistics, not tactics, is the ultimate pacing factor in a conflict across the vast distances of the Indo-Pacific. This reality necessitates a “whole-of-government” approach to national security. For decades, the U.S. military has operated with the luxury of secure supply lines and uncontested logistical hubs, which fostered a culture of efficiency-based, “just-in-time” logistics. The PLA’s A2/AD and long-range strike capabilities directly threaten this entire model. The U.S. response—encapsulated in the concept of Contested Logistics—is a deliberate shift toward a resilience-based, “just-in-case” model. However, this model cannot be implemented unilaterally. Dispersing supplies requires physical locations to place them, which elevates the role of diplomacy to a critical warfighting enabler. The operational success of distributed logistics is therefore entirely contingent on securing the necessary basing, access, and overflight agreements with partners throughout the Indo-Pacific. In this new strategic environment, the strength of the U.S. logistical posture is inextricably linked to the strength of its alliances. A failure in diplomacy could precipitate a catastrophic failure in logistics, rendering the U.S. military unable to sustain a high-intensity fight.

V. PLA Strategy 5: Political Warfare and Cognitive Dominance – Winning Before the Fight

PLA Commander’s Intent

The PLA commander’s application of political warfare is guided by the ultimate strategic objective of shaping the operational environment to achieve victory before a major kinetic battle is fought, or, failing that, to ensure that any such battle is contested on terms that are overwhelmingly favorable to China. This approach is the modern operationalization of Sun Tzu’s timeless maxim of “subduing the enemy without fighting”. The intent is to attack the sources of U.S. strength that lie outside the purely military domain: its domestic political will, the cohesion of its international alliances, and the morale and psychological resilience of its service members. By targeting these cognitive and political centers of gravity, the PLA aims to paralyze U.S. decision-making, deter intervention, and undermine the U.S. will to sustain a conflict.

Key Capabilities and Tactics

The PLA’s primary tool for this strategy is its “Three Warfares” doctrine, which mandates the integrated application of public opinion warfare, psychological warfare, and legal warfare. These are not separate or ad hoc efforts but a coordinated, centrally directed campaign to dominate the information and cognitive environments.

Public Opinion (Media) Warfare is aimed at seizing control of the dominant narrative. The PLA will leverage its global, state-controlled media apparatus, sophisticated social media operations involving bots and paid influencers, and co-opted voices in international media and academia to shape perceptions of a crisis. In a conflict scenario, this will involve flooding the information space with disinformation designed to portray the U.S. as the aggressor, justify China’s actions, and amplify any U.S. setbacks or casualties to erode public and political support for the war effort at home and abroad.

Psychological Warfare directly targets the morale and cognitive state of U.S. military personnel, their families, and the civilian populations of the U.S. and its allies. Tactics will include tailored propaganda disseminated through social media, showcasing the PLA’s advanced military capabilities (e.g., videos of hypersonic missile tests) to create a sense of technological overmatch and futility, and exploiting existing societal, political, and racial divisions within the U.S. to sow discord, incite unrest, and distract national leadership. The objective is to fracture American confidence in their government, their military, and each other.

Legal Warfare (Lawfare) involves the manipulation of international and domestic legal frameworks to legitimize PLA actions while constraining U.S. operational freedom. For example, in a Taiwan scenario, China might declare a “quarantine” or a customs enforcement zone rather than a military blockade, using its coast guard and maritime militia to enforce it. This is designed to create ambiguity, frame any U.S. military response as an illegal act of aggression against “civilian” law enforcement, and generate legal and political debates within the international community that slow or prevent a decisive U.S. intervention. By operating in this “gray zone” below the clear threshold of armed conflict, the PLA uses lawfare to seize the initiative and dare the U.S. to be the one to escalate to overt kinetic action.

U.S. Counter-Strategy: Narrative Competition and Psychological Resilience

The U.S. must recognize that the information domain is not a supporting effort but a central and decisive battlefield. The counter-strategy must be proactive, seeking to seize the initiative in the narrative space, inoculate friendly populations and forces against manipulation, and maintain the cohesion of its alliances and the resolve of its people.

A core component of this counter-strategy is Proactive Strategic Communications. The U.S. and its allies must develop and disseminate a clear, consistent, and fact-based narrative about the nature of the PLA threat and U.S. intentions before a crisis erupts. This effort must be sustained and synchronized across all elements of national power. A key tactic to support this is a “declassify and disclose” approach to intelligence. By rapidly and publicly releasing intelligence that exposes PLA preparations for aggression, false flag operations, disinformation campaigns, or violations of international law, the U.S. can preemptively strip PLA narratives of their credibility and seize the initiative in the information environment.

To operationalize this, the U.S. military must field integrated Information Operations Task Forces. These task forces should bring together capabilities from cyber operations, psychological operations (PSYOP), and public affairs to actively contest the information space on a 24/7 basis. Their mission would be to identify and counter PLA propaganda and disinformation in near real-time and to amplify truthful narratives through all available channels, targeting audiences both at home and abroad. This effort cannot be successful if conducted unilaterally. Close synchronization with allies and partners is essential to present a united international front, jointly attribute and condemn PLA malign activities, and reinforce a shared narrative based on the principles of international law and a free and open global order.

Finally, the U.S. must invest heavily in the psychological resilience of its forces and their families. This requires robust training programs that educate service members on how to identify and counter enemy propaganda and influence operations. It also demands the strengthening of support networks for military families, who will be a primary target of PLA psychological operations designed to create anxiety and pressure on their deployed loved ones.

The “Three Warfares” doctrine is not a separate line of effort for the PLA; it is the strategic connective tissue that binds together all of its other military strategies. It prepares the political and psychological battlespace for kinetic action and is used to exploit the effects of that action. For instance, in a Taiwan contingency, lawfare is used to frame a blockade as a “quarantine,” creating legal ambiguity. Simultaneously, media warfare floods global channels with narratives of Taiwanese provocations and U.S. interference, while psychological warfare targets U.S. and allied populations with messages emphasizing the high human and economic costs of intervention. This coordinated campaign is designed to create hesitation, doubt, and division among U.S. policymakers and international partners, thereby delaying a coherent and timely response. This delay is the critical window of opportunity the PLA needs to achieve its kinetic objectives before the U.S. can effectively project power into the theater. Therefore, countering the “Three Warfares” is not an abstract intellectual exercise; it is an operational imperative. A failure to compete and win in this cognitive domain could lead to a strategic defeat, regardless of the tactical outcomes on the physical battlefield. It is a fight to preserve the political and psychological freedom of action necessary to execute all other military counter-strategies. Failure here could mean U.S. forces arrive too late, or not at all.

Conclusion: The Imperative of Adaptation and Decision Superiority

The analysis of the PLA’s top five asymmetric strategies reveals a coherent and holistic approach to modern conflict designed to exploit perceived U.S. vulnerabilities. The PLA’s warfighting philosophy is not focused on a linear, attrition-based campaign but on a multi-domain, system-level assault targeting the entire U.S. operational architecture—from its space-based assets and C5ISR networks to its trans-oceanic supply lines and, ultimately, its national political will. This comprehensive threat demands an equally comprehensive and adaptive response from the United States and its allies.

A common thread runs through all the necessary U.S. counter-strategies. Concepts such as Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2), Distributed Logistics, Agile Combat Employment (ACE), and the Replicator initiative all represent a fundamental shift away from the centralized, optimized, and often brittle force posture of the post-Cold War era. The new imperative is to build a force that is more distributed, resilient, agile, and capable of sustained operations under persistent attack. This transformation is not merely technological; it is doctrinal, organizational, and cultural. It requires empowering commanders at the tactical edge, fostering deeper interoperability with allies, and re-engineering the defense industrial base to produce not only exquisite platforms but also attritable mass.

In the emerging era of “intelligentized warfare,” where human-machine collaboration and AI-enabled decision-making will be central, the ultimate asymmetric advantage will not reside in the superior performance of any single platform or weapon system. Instead, victory will belong to the side that can most effectively sense, understand, decide, and act within the adversary’s decision-making cycle. The contest with the PLA is, at its core, a contest for decision superiority. The imperative for the U.S. joint force is clear: it must continue to adapt with urgency, embracing a new paradigm of distributed operations and resilient networking to ensure it can out-think, out-decide, and out-pace any adversary under the immense pressures of a multi-domain, cognitively-contested conflict.

---

If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something. If you’d like to directly donate to help fund our continued report, please visit our donations page.

---

Sources Used

1. PLA’s Perception about the Impact of AI on Military Affairs* – IIDA …, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.nids.mod.go.jp/english/publication/security/pdf/2022/01/04.pdf
2. The Path to China’s Intelligentized Warfare: Converging on the Metaverse Battlefield – The Cyber Defense Review, accessed October 3, 2025, https://cyberdefensereview.army.mil/Portals/6/Documents/2024-Fall/Baughman_CDRV9N3-Fall-2024.pdf
3. China’s New “Multi-Domain Precision Warfare” Operational Concept “Mirrors” US Strategy, accessed October 3, 2025, https://warriormaven.com/news/china/chinas-new-multi-domain-precision-warfare-operational-concept-completely-mirrors-us-strategy
4. China developing own version of JADC2 to counter US – C4ISRNet, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/it-networks/2023/01/05/china-developing-own-version-of-jadc2-to-counter-us/
5. China’s Military Employment of Artificial Intelligence and Its Security …, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.iar-gwu.org/print-archive/blog-post-title-four-xgtap
6. The Invisible Battle: Synchronizing Non-Kinetic Effects in Modern Warfare – SLDinfo.com, accessed October 3, 2025, https://sldinfo.com/2025/09/the-invisible-battle-synchronizing-non-kinetic-effects-in-modern-warfare/
7. Anti-access/area denial – Wikipedia, accessed October 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-access/area_denial
8. China’s Anti-Access/Area-Denial Strategy – TDHJ.org, accessed October 3, 2025, https://tdhj.org/blog/post/china-a2ad-strategy/
9. New Domain Forces And Combat Capabilities In Chinese Military Thinking – tradoc g2, accessed October 3, 2025, https://oe.tradoc.army.mil/product/new-domain-forces-and-combat-capabilities-in-chinese-military-thinking/
10. PLA Counterspace Command and Control – Air University, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/CASI/documents/Research/PLASSF/2023-12-11%20Counterspace-%20web%20version.pdf
11. China’s A2/AD strategy – Fly a jet fighter, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.flyajetfighter.com/chinas-a2-ad-strategy/
12. Summary of the Joint All-Domain Command and Control … – DoD, accessed October 3, 2025, https://media.defense.gov/2022/Mar/17/2002958406/-1/-1/1/SUMMARY-OF-THE-JOINT-ALL-DOMAIN-COMMAND-AND-CONTROL-STRATEGY.pdf
13. www.gao.gov, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105495#:~:text=Joint%20All%2DDomain%20Command%20and,%2C%20sea%2C%20and%20cyber%20domains.
14. In Final Speech, Hicks Touts Work to Thwart China’s A2/AD Strategy, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.airandspaceforces.com/hicks-pentagon-changes-china-a2-ad-strategy/
15. Joint All-Domain Command and Control – Wikipedia, accessed October 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_All-Domain_Command_and_Control
16. Agile Combat Employment – Joint Air Power Competence Centre, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.japcc.org/articles/agile-combat-employment/
17. People’s Liberation Army Navy Coastal Defense Force – Wikipedia, accessed October 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Navy_Coastal_Defense_Force
18. China’s New J-20A Stealth Fighter Has a Message for Any Air Force on Earth, accessed October 3, 2025, https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/chinas-new-j-20a-stealth-fighter-has-a-message-for-any-air-force-on-earth/
19. Dilemmas of Deterrence: The United States’ Smart New Strategy Has Six Daunting Trade-Offs | American Enterprise Institute, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.aei.org/research-products/journal-publication/dilemmas-of-deterrence-the-united-states-smart-new-strategy-has-six-daunting-trade-offs/
20. Distributed Logistics and Deterrence, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/September-October-2025/Distributed-Logistics/
21. The Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier: An American Response to the Chinese Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) Challenge – DTIC, accessed October 3, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD1023223.pdf
22. China Readies Drone Swarms for Future War | CNA, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.cna.org/our-media/indepth/2025/09/china-readies-drone-swarms-for-future-war
23. PLA CONCEPTS OF UAV SWARMS AND MANNED/UNMANNED …, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/CASI/Display/Article/4147751/pla-concepts-of-uav-swarms-and-mannedunmanned-teaming/
24. Drone Swarming Tactics Using Reinforcement Learning and Policy Optimization – DTIC, accessed October 3, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD1149672
25. Sustainment Challenges in the Indo-Pacific Theater | Article | The …, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.army.mil/article/277259/sustainment_challenges_in_the_indo_pacific_theater
26. 8 Strategies to Build A Disruption-Proof Supply Chain – FreightPOP, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.freightpop.com/8-strategies-to-build-a-disruption-proof-supply-chain
27. Supply Chain Challenges and How to Proactively Combat Them, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.amu.apus.edu/area-of-study/business-administration-and-management/resources/supply-chain-challenges/
28. Sustaining U.S. Army Operations in the Indo-Pacific: Potential Roles of Allies and Partners – RAND, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA2400/RRA2434-3/RAND_RRA2434-3.pdf
29. Three warfares – Wikipedia, accessed October 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_warfares
30. Political Warfare against Intervention Forces > Air University (AU …, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/4167178/political-warfare-against-intervention-forces/
31. Information at War: From China’s Three Warfares to NATO’s …, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.prosperity.com/media-publications/information-at-war-from-chinas-three-warfares-to-natos-narratives/