I agree, and the Russians already claim that they had developed maneuverable warhead for their ICBMs to make it harder to destroy on reentry. So, theoreticly and most probably practicly it's possible to outfit SR/IRBMs with ASMs instead of regular HE (High Explosive) warheads. Also, as been noted on sinodefence forum treads, an EMP can mission kill entire CSG, even if it's location isn't precisely known.
The logical extrapolation of that system is a AGM-154 (JSOW) style weapon launched via short range BM. As noted before, it is simply an extension of the Ikara/ASROC system for ASuW.
The JSOW theorum fits all the criteria - glide weapon, good range from high altitude, capable of IR terminal guidance, and variety of warheads (from multiple-munition shaped charge, to large multi-stage warheads). All that is required is the initial position (anything from recon aircraft to a submarine can provide this information), and the know-how to place that platform into the BM. The weight of the JSOW is bang on the 500kg payload capacity of the DF-15, and IIRC the DF-21 payload weight is slightly bigger than that.
I discard the idea only based on the idea that an AEGIS system would be able to engage the payload once it had slowed down to a manageable speed for the guidance to work.
--
As for your EMP attack, the idea of a non-nuclear e-bomb in this day and age is a scary thought. Knocking out air-search and fire-control radars for a follow-up airborne attack is probably the most likely scenario, as they are a nice exposed piece of electronic equipment, although they are specifically designed for high-power applications - I'm not qualified to comment on that type of thing.
Other than that, due to hardening, Faraday cage effects and the difficulty of landing the e-bomb on a moving fleet, it would probably do some moderate damage, but it is also likely the effect would be similar to that of stirring up a hornet nest in the event of a failure.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The one thing that the article cited in the OP is that the US may have a carrier-based fleet in the vicinity, but flinging a couple of missiles at A CV battlegroup is a not-so-clever way to find a big ol' foot in the backside. A few score B-52's hitting PLA military targets a few days later is a pretty high price to pay for taking out a carrier battle group.
The United States have some pretty long arms with their carrier-based air wings and long-range strategic bombers. The PLA would potentially have to 'hold hostage' some of the region by threatening BM attacks on places like Hong Kong, Tokyo, Seoul and so on in an effort to stop US and Allied interference. This would not be wise, as Japan and South Korea are two of their largest and export and import markets, along with the US. Economically speaking, it would be suicide to do so.
The only other option is to threaten the age-old nuclear exchange, and this again opens up Pandoras Box.
I'm not sure what the original intent of the writer was, as the long term protracted outcome of such a
non-nuclear conflict would likely prove economically difficult for The People's Republic, coupled with a politically unenviable position and the issues of having opened the doors for the US to lay munitions on their own soil. The repercussions of a nuclear conflict of that type is not worth considering according to most countries - a unilateral condemnation of these types of actions is enough to make even a crazed despot re-think what ramifications that could entail.
This is not a "US beats China hands down, man" arguement; I am simply pointing out that the plausibility (or lack thereof) is far outwieghed in any normal circumstance by the sheer oppressive nature of the backlash, both red vs. blue AND on a global socio-economic scale.
