I went down a shallow rabbit hole about this event. The man who survived the Fu-Go Balloon Bomb event in Oregon, Reverend Artchie Mitchell, went on to be captured, as a Christian missionary, by the Viet Cong in 1962 and he was never seen again. Given enough time lightning strikes the same spot more than once, I guess.
Which was censored until after war because the idea that CONUS is vunerable to JP attacks is itself significant. Media spasms around PRC balloons reflect that. Except with current capabilities, it won't be 9000 primitive balloons with single digit % arrival rates and ineffective incendiary payloads but 100,000s of modern balloons with high chance of arrival and potential to deliver guided bombs. Possibly sufficient to satuate CONUS defenses and loiter around to hit strategic targets of opportunity. The unspoken narrative behind PRC sending cheap balloons over CONUS is PRC sending thousands of cheap bombs over CONUS. The conniption over PRC hypersonics was also over US homeland vunerability, but the balloons IMO represent a new type of vunerability both in scale and economics of defense.
US warplanners considers sending 100,000s of bombs on PRC mainland targets in case of TW scenario all the time. Is that 10D thinking? It's basic escalation dynamics of recipricating homeland attacks with home land attacks, the difference is up until recently CONUS has been shielded from both precise and volume of long range strikes from her adversaries, largely due to technologic limitations, enabling US to project power with impunity. This is PRC incrementally establishing mutual homeland vunerability to deter US from messing in her back yard. It's trying to deter US from intervening in TW by raising costs to CONUS, just like US is trying to deter PRC from moving on TW by raising cost to PRC mainland. Except until recently, only PRC had to factor in homeland attacks due to asymmetric US power projection capabilities. More and more, and for the first time since revolutionary war, US now has to factor in serious homeland attacks with respect to PRC. Demonstrating CONUS is vunerable, especially if it influences public thinking, is as strategic as it gets. Lots of Americans are still operating off the notion that Fortress America is impervious and US mil actions abroad stays abroad, and generally that's true, until it's not.
Ability to generate simultaneous bandwith of 100,000s of fires is also significant, most conventional long range strike / projection platforms are severely limited in how much fire they can deliver / unit of time. It's not feasible to sortie past limit of carriers or air bases, but the amount of balloons (or land based missiles) that can be delivered is much easier to scale, which means it's easier to satuate defenses. At the end of the day PLA is going to have very limited traditional methods of projecting power to CONUS (lack of carriers, or local basing), so they're going to latch onto any asymmetric platforms that can reliably bring war to CONUS. TBH I was not really anticipating mass balloons, and PLA planners probably weren't either. But the idea of hitting strategic targets with expensive long range missiles (i.e. prompt global strike) is something PLA is pursuing, now I imagine PLA planners are likely going to explore the virtues of cheap balloons that can scale more economically than missiles.
If you send 100,000 bomb-balloons at your nuclear-triad-possessing enemy you have telegraphed the world’s worst sneak attack. You’d better get it over with and try your first strike after launching your balloons because your enemy will probably initiate one against you.
Balloons won't be used for sneak attacks, hypersonics might. Regardless, nuclear powers also don't launch on warning post second strike, PRC has no first use, US has launch on attack, both postures has built in allowances for conventional war. PRC isn't going to nuke US for homeland strikes and vice versa until things get existential. And the greater purpose is in deterrence - give PRC option to move on TW with relative military impunity like RU on UKR or US in middle east.
I think this is a neat idea in theory, but for any long term value to be gained, a military power would need to practice generating at least medium-scale sorties many times to know if this strategy was really viable, and specifically, since this strategy is so reliant on scale and weather - you would need to also test launching at some scale at your actual target (even with dummy payloads) prior to the real attack (i.e.: what if once you get to a wave that's 10k/100k strong, they start to mess with your weather projections?)
Basically, I think this is a strategy that's effective at scaring the US citizenry, but it is such a bad idea in practice no good adversary would choose this instead of the usual nuclear deterrent.
US seems invested in interceding in PRC-TW scenario, nuclear deterent will set ceiling of escalation but conventional deterrent raises floor of US particapation. PRC needs credible conventional CONUS vunerability to deter US conventional intervention in first place instead of relying on nuclear to limit scope of conventional war that current US admin/blob still thinks can be fought.
A bunch of incendiary balloons in a dry windy summer on the west coast would be rather messy for a rather large area. We've already had a million+ acres per year burning as it is. Wouldn't be hard to burn 10M+ acres that way. That said, I do believe we'd consider that an outright act of war if it wasn't in a middle of a war.
Of course on all things relate to fire it seems like the US has been about dumb as possible. 99% Invisible podcast episode 'built to burn' goes over this rather well.
