Mate hypersonics with conventional warheads, which is within current PLA rocket force posture. On the deterrence/political layer, build nuclear deterrence to parity (see massive silo build outs) and maintain NFU while communicating that CONUS is subject to conventional strikes.
It's basically just US PGS program that US dropped decades ago because US has/had massive conventional platform lead and can project conventional fires using cheaper weapons with carriers or long range bombers so it wasn't worth increasing destability.
PGS wasn't/isn't game changer for US because they already possess cheaper capabilities for conventional fires supported by global basing. For PRC, it will take decades to build out carrier and long range bomber force that can threaten CONUS with additional difficulty of securing forward basing that makes US posture relativety economical. So short/medium term it's feasible to build out rocketry, simply because that's the only option.
No worries, currently PLA rocket force deliberately entangles nuclear with conventional capabilities for deterrence - hard for PRC adversaries to math the cost of striking rocket force because can't know if launchers mated with nukes or not. That'll probably change once PRC builds up sufficient nuclear deterrence.
Sidenote: Entire PRC PGS talk is where PLA literature and strategic posture is trending towards - they're short/medium term future capabilties with little open source info other than PRC is doing 100s of missile tests and year and pouring massive resources into hypersonics. IMO there's a reason US reaction to PRC GFOBs demonstration was much louder than those of carrier killer missiles. The former is designed to hit fixed targets CONUS that are hard to disrupt/defend, the latter on carrier groups with difficult kill chain and many counter measures.
It's basically just US PGS program that US dropped decades ago because US has/had massive conventional platform lead and can project conventional fires using cheaper weapons with carriers or long range bombers so it wasn't worth increasing destability.
PGS wasn't/isn't game changer for US because they already possess cheaper capabilities for conventional fires supported by global basing. For PRC, it will take decades to build out carrier and long range bomber force that can threaten CONUS with additional difficulty of securing forward basing that makes US posture relativety economical. So short/medium term it's feasible to build out rocketry, simply because that's the only option.