Full Report
Strategic debate in Washington often focuses on the possibility of a future kinetic war over Taiwan, yet Midshipman Second Class Alejandro D. Tilley argues in a paper at the U.S. Naval Institute that the United States and China are already engaged in an ongoing multidimensional conflict. After defining the conflict, the paper introduces a series of game…
Analysis Summary
# Research: The (non-kinetic) war has already started
## Metadata
- **Authors:** Midshipman Second Class Alejandro D. Tilley
- **Institution:** United States Naval Academy / McCrary Institute at Auburn University
- **Publication:** U.S. Naval Institute (Proceedings / Analysis summary via Threat Beat)
- **Date:** April 17, 2026
## Abstract
This research challenges the conventional Washington focus on a future "kinetic" flashpoint over Taiwan by arguing that the United States and China are currently engaged in an active, multidimensional, non-kinetic conflict. By applying game theory and rationalist bargaining frameworks, the paper demonstrates how China uses cyber operations and proxy warfare to reshape the strategic environment, aiming to secure a "non-myopic" advantage that could preclude or decisively shape the outcome of a future physical confrontation.
## Research Objective
The study seeks to address two primary questions:
1. How do great powers make rational decisions regarding non-kinetic versus kinetic confrontation at different escalatory stages?
2. How does China’s current activity in cyber and proxy domains function as a cohesive strategy to influence the bargaining power of the United States?
## Methodology
### Approach
The researcher utilizes **Game Theory**, specifically a **Rationalist Bargaining Framework**. The methodology employs **backward induction**—a process of reasoning backward from the end of a scenario to determine a sequence of optimal actions—to explain current Chinese decision-making.
### Dataset/Environment
The research analyzes four critical case studies:
1. Chinese cyber operations targeting U.S. civilian critical infrastructure.
2. Cyber conflict focused on military technical networks.
3. Proxy warfare (benchmarked against the Russia–Ukraine conflict).
4. Contingency planning for a Taiwan invasion.
### Tools & Technologies
- Strategic modeling (Game Theory).
- Comparative political analysis.
- Conflict escalation modeling.
## Key Findings
### Primary Results
1. **Ongoing Conflict:** The U.S. and China are not in a pre-war state but are already engaged in a multidimensional war defined by non-kinetic domains.
2. **Strategic Accumulation:** China is following a "non-myopic" approach, meaning they are not focused on short-term gains but on accumulating incremental advantages that degrade U.S. response capabilities.
3. **Shaping the Bargain:** Current cyber attacks on civilian infrastructure are designed to weaken the U.S. domestic will and "bargaining" position before a kinetic shot is ever fired.
### Novel Contributions
- Integration of **backward induction** to explain why "low-level" cyber attacks are rational precursors to major geopolitical shifts.
- Redefinition of the Taiwan conflict from a "future event" to a "current campaign" taking place in military and civilian digital networks.
## Technical Details
The paper argues that China’s operations utilize a **Rationalist Bargaining Framework**. In this model, every cyber intrusion into civilian infrastructure acts as a "move" that changes the perceived costs of war for the United States. By demonstrating the ability to disrupt the American way of life via non-kinetic means, China seeks to shift the "bargaining range" in their favor, potentially making a kinetic U.S. intervention in Taiwan appear too costly to the American public and leadership.
## Practical Implications
### For Security Practitioners
- Recognize that "gray zone" activities (cyber espionage/infrastructure probing) are not isolated incidents but integrated components of a broader military strategy.
### For Defenders
- **Total Force Defense:** Defensive efforts must expand beyond military networks to include civilian critical infrastructure, as these are now primary theaters of strategic competition.
- **Resilience as Deterrence:** Hardening civilian targets reduces the adversary’s bargaining power, thereby increasing the threshold for kinetic conflict.
### For Researchers
- There is a need for further modeling on how "non-myopic" adversaries value long-term network persistence versus immediate exploitation.
## Limitations
- As a game-theoretic model, the findings rely on the assumption of "rational actors" and may not fully account for internal political volatility or irrational escalations.
- The summary focuses on high-level strategic models rather than specific technical exploits or zero-day vulnerabilities.
## Comparison to Prior Work
While prior research often treats cyber warfare as a supporting "enabler" for kinetic operations, Tilley’s work suggests cyber warfare is the **primary current theater**, positioning kinetic war as merely the final (and potentially avoidable) stage of an already active conflict.
## Real-world Applications
- **Policy Calibration:** U.S. strategic planners can use these models to better communicate the necessity of protecting domestic infrastructure as a "front line" of national defense.
- **Deterrence Strategy:** Implementing "deterrence by denial" by making civilian networks harder targets to shift China’s rational cost-benefit analysis.
## Future Work
- **Interpreting Proxy Dynamics:** How proxy conflicts (like Russia-Ukraine) influence China's timeline and risk tolerance regarding Taiwan.
- **Quantifying Non-Kinetic Impact:** Developing metrics to measure how much "bargaining power" is lost during specific scales of cyber-attacks.
## References
- Tilley, A. D. (2026). *The (non-kinetic) war has already started*. U.S. Naval Institute.
- Related Context: [https://threatbeat.com/adversaries/the-non-kinetic-war-has-already-started/](https://threatbeat.com/adversaries/the-non-kinetic-war-has-already-started/)