PLAN Strategy in the Taiwan Strait

The Third TW strait crisis was not to take control of Taiwan, it was to discourage voting... It would be unlikely that another crisis will occur in the near future because China has such an overwhelming advantage over Taiwan, not just militarily but politically, in terms of isolating it from other countries.

whether the mainland "backs down" or not, and against what kind of opfor, depends what their motive is. If it's not very important like the 1996 crisis then they could very well back down against any number of american force.
If it's of utmost importance then you're looking at WWIII.

And I disagree -- talk about the varyag does not revolve around Taiwan at all. All Chinese carrier development is focused for situations beyond taiwan... that's not to say they wont' be useful for such a contingency however.

I do know that the USN has to have at least 2-3 carriers in the Persian Gulf at all times, which means there are only 4-5 carriers available for mobilization

Actually only one. But at this moment there are two. Enterprise & Vinson.

which means there are only 4-5 carriers available for mobilization (there are always a few going through scheduled maintenance and big-fixes, a few more have to be on alert for other areas other than the just Asia).

True. Usually three are four are ready for what the USN calls surge deployments. There is always one in the shipyard in Newport News VA under going a major overhaul.

The closest major military base that is big enough to pose a threat is guam, which is two and half thousand kilometres away. Naha is too small, barely have enough troops to pose a threat. The closest place in the Japanese main island is still 1,500 Km away.

You forgot the the US bases in South Korea. Including Osan AB. Not exactly an airstrip. By the way the USN perhaps in 10 years time may homeport a carrier in Guam or Hawaii. This was in discussion about 5 years ago.

Although we are all military and IR enthusiasts, we should be skeptical of predicting and scheming too much. International relations are really hard to predict. We know the broad outlines of policy if Taiwan moves toward independence: the Mainland will be pissed, Western countries will warn against independence, and the KMT will oppose it. But beyond that, accurate predictions are impossible. It would be a big time game theory move of bluffing, calling bluffs, expectations, and fears. IR is like Newton's Third Law: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

But as military and IR enthusiasts we can still think of scenarios. I'd like to raise one possible response by the PRC: launching nuclear weapons into the sea East of Taiwan in order to intimidate them into surrender. Consider the situation: a conventional sea invasion followed by land war would be long and costly. Even if the U.S. and Japan stay out, it will be ugly. If the United States navy intervenes China will certainly lose the war. China count on winning the war before the carriers get there. The American invasion of Iraq took three weeks to reach Baghdad, and that was possibly the most lopsided conflict in modern warfare, fought mostly in the desert. China will take at least that long to establish a defensive beachhead. Then they have to fight the Taiwanese army over mountains and jungles.

The alternative is a true shock-and-awe campaign: nuclear weapons first shot into the sea by ballistic missile, then into Taiwan's cities. It is exactly the same rationale for the American dropping of atomic bombs to end World War II. Nuke the cities to provoke immediate surrender and prevent a long, drawn out, and extremely brutal invasion. Taiwan would have practically no defense. The Patriot missiles could be taken out with dedicated cruise missiles. Or the nuclear warhead carrying--ballistic missiles could be mixed in with a wave of conventionally-armed missiles. Or China could put a warhead on the cruise missile. There is no way Taiwan could survive a nuclear attack or retaliate with its own. A nuclear strike accomplishes China's exact goal: quick surrender with minimal loss of life to itself.

But what about the international reaction? How could China get away with nuking itself? First of all, China has to anticipate angry international response if it lifts a finger against Taiwan. I don't think the response will be any worse than an invasion. Second, China could defend itself the same way America does its decision to drop the atomic bomb: it will end the war quicker and with less loss of life. Third, a war that ends quickly will be in China's long-term interest. China's economy is so big it can ride out any reflexive sanctions or asset seizures. A long war is the worst thing that could happen. It allows the propaganda war to set it, for humanitarian crises like starvation to set it and be well-publicized, and for the steady stream of war news to dominate headlines. People will begin to think about China only in terms of the war.

@Geographer
I understand your rationale from a strategic standpoint, but seriously nuking Taiwan!? Are you INSANE? Perhaps detonating above Taipei or KaoHsiung as an EMP but not an outright nuclear strike!

Even the mainlanders and pro-unification supporters like myself themselves would be in complete disgust. The CCP would lose all legitimacy in this blind genocide, Japan was a different matter, especially since hostilities began with their pre-emptive strike. People are willing to accept invasion and enforcing claim and sovereignty, but nuclear weapons will send a terrible precedent especially if done on one's own people as a Country With No First Use Policy.

China don't need nuke for the Taiwan problem. They are not in a hurry - right timing, right condition, right momentum and the job is almost done effortlessly. That nuke scenario is very ugly, and clumsy.

The Taiwan problem, the dispute with Japan, the south china sea dispute, the indian border dispute. They all partly rest on one main pillar. Currently they are more or less repressed issues, forcing an act on one of them will make the others alive.

As long as china does not push too hard, none of the other actors will be too outrageous - they don't want to be the first cannon fodder for others -The first fruite to bear is the first to rot. If no one moves and no one is incited, the status quo will stay and china will be stronger with passing time.

Originally Posted by no_name

China don't need nuke for the Taiwan problem. They are not in a hurry - right timing, right condition, right momentum and the job is almost done effortlessly. That nuke scenario is very ugly, and clumsy.

The Taiwan problem, the dispute with Japan, the south china sea dispute, the indian border dispute. They all partly rest on one main pillar. Currently they are more or less repressed issues, forcing an act on one of them will make the others alive.

As long as china does not push too hard, none of the other actors will be too outrageous - they don't want to be the first cannon fodder for others -The first fruite to bear is the first to rot. If no one moves and no one is incited, the status quo will stay and china will be stronger with passing time.

Taiwan will have no choice but to be close to China (or part of it). I believe in 20 years time .... China economy and military will be so big and Chinese living standard would be much better and perhaps approaching Taiwan on average AND China would be somewhat a democracy country (China version) ... so there is no reason won't be any re-unification in 20-30 years time

Seeing you guys are carrying on about nuking, I read over at WAB that Chinese missiles arent mated with their nuclear warheads, if not how long would the procedure take. and her subs dont go out on patrol with nuke missiles either.

So if the US decided on a nuclear attack the US could wait till those subs are out on patrol with no means of hitting back.

Originally Posted by bladerunner

Seeing you guys are carrying on about nuking, I read over at WAB that Chinese missiles arent mated with their nuclear warheads, if not how long would the procedure take. and her subs dont go out on patrol with nuke missiles either.

So if the US decided on a nuclear attack the US could wait till those subs are out on patrol with no means of hitting back.

I imagine that would be for older missiles, as warheads not on their delivery systems would kind of defeat the purpose of having highly mobile TELs... I don't think anyone here can say how long a it will take for a TEL to set up and fire, but for this Taiwan scenario time shouldnt' be a problem as they're not intending to blow anyone up.
And it's no question the US nuclear arsenal is far more capable at the moment, but any conflict between the two would almost result in armaegeddon. I think a similar discussion happened in the PLA ICBM power in 2016 thread a few weeks back. (But I don't see how what you posted was relevant to whatever was being said before? )

Who mentioned nuking Taiwan in the first place anyhow? It's one of the most ridiculous scenarios I've seen yet... jeez...
EDIT: Ah reading back, it was suggested as a shock and awe tactic... but I can't see what that will do apart from sanctions and dramatically heightened tensions in the region to which we've not seen since the second world war. In simple words I think using nukes against taiwan in any form is stupid, it sets a dangerous precedent and China will be the last country in the world to think of the nuclear option as the first course of action...

Useless thread. Political guessing about what will happen in the far future is pointless. Besides i bet that this thread will turn into a USA vs china thread.

Chinese mainland would never use nukes on Taiwan. They would even use it on Tibet and Xinjiang before using it on Taiwan. It is Han Chinese, as Chinese as a culture can be.... The idea of mainland nuking Taiwan would be like US federal government nuking Texas because it is seeking independence (believe it or not, there's actually such movement going on in Texas at the moment). This talk is absurd and would never take place.

I personally think this thread has nothing to do with military, but rather with politics, economics and culture. The use of violence is the last resort any Chinese leader would use on Taiwan, it is only an extension of political will when politics no longer work. But other than that, the use of force would never take place. If Taiwan reunites with mainland China, it would be just like Hong Kong and Macau. It would happen peacefully. An invasion by the mainland would just end up a mess like in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by Bltizo

. (But I don't see how what you posted was relevant to whatever was being said before? )

Who mentioned nuking Taiwan in the first place anyhow? It's one of the most ridiculous scenarios I've seen yet... jeez...
EDIT: Ah reading back, it was suggested as a shock and awe tactic... .

Now I will talk about something off topic briefly, just had to bring it to your attention. Friday Herald Re Chinese stuff Interview with Lincoln Tan> 15 lines from bottom of article.
"A survey found some Chinese rated loyalty to China as the most important trait a Chinese MP in NZ must have.


What a goofy thing to say and print in the nations leading Newspaper. thats more ammo for the Garth George's as to become a MP or vote? as a naturalised citizen of NZyou have to swear loyalty to NZ.

Originally Posted by kroko

Useless thread. Political guessing about what will happen in the far future is pointless. Besides i bet that this thread will turn into a USA vs china thread.

I hope not. I did start this thread.

Gents let's keep the discussion focused on how the PLAN operates in the Taiwan strait.For now and in the future. And stop discussing nuclear war.

I thought the thread title should be PLA strategy in the Taiwan Strait (rather than just PLAN, since the PLAAF and 2nd Artillery will be involved as well).

Anyway, the thing about PRC is that they have time. They are 1 of the world's oldest civilisation and they can afford to wait. Based on current trends:

1. PRC's economy continues to boom. This will allow the PLA budget to continue to increase every year and for the PLA modernisation to continue. The end result is that in years to come, they will be facing obsolete military hardware on the other side of the Taiwan Strait with their state-of-the-art hardware.

2. The US is looking at cuts in their military budget. How drastic the cuts are (or otherwise) remains to be seen. Bottom-line is that the gap between the PLA and the US military is closing because of simple economics.

3. RoC's economy is increasingly intertwined with PRC's economy. Thus, any move towards independence will hurt RoC's economy. A lot. That's livelihoods at stake in a democracy. In other words, political suicide.

Thus, PRC doesn't really need to unleash the PLA on Taiwan unless RoC tries to declare independence. They can simply wait until the disparity between PLA and RoC military and RoC's economic dependence on PRC is so great that RoC don't really have much of an option except to accept re-unification peacefully.

Regarding the suggestion on the use of nuclear weapons by PRC, that would be violating PRC leadership's often stated principle of "no first use". Hence, it is an extremely unlikely scenario.

Just to throw a spanner in the works though. PRC has not experienced any recession since the opening up of their economy in the 70s. Is this sustainable forever? If not, what will the effects of a recession be on the PRC and cross-strait relations? Personally, I suspect a severe recession in PRC may just result in the entire leadership changing. In such a situation, RoC may just try to push the limit on cross-strait issues.

Chinese mainland would never use nukes on Taiwan. They would even use it on Tibet and Xinjiang before using it on Taiwan. It is Han Chinese, as Chinese as a culture can be.... The idea of mainland nuking Taiwan would be like US federal government nuking Texas because it is seeking independence (believe it or not, there's actually such movement going on in Texas at the moment).

But China would rocket and bomb fellow Han Chinese? Of course they would, they've been doing it for thousands of years, and did it to great effect during the Chinese civil war. If the death toll and destruction of one nuclear weapon is equal to that of thousands of tons of conventional munitions--which is exactly what would the Mainland would have to inflict on Taiwan in order to win!!--what's the difference? And if one nuclear weapon can induce quick surrender and save lives in the long-run, why is that not advantageous?

I think many people have the unrealistic vision of a short, limited war with Taiwan. Noooo, it will be long and bloody. If the it gets too bloody, Japan and the United States may intervene, and then the Mainland will lose. Much of their strategy focuses on a quick victory but has no way to achieve it in the next two decades. I don't think the Mainland will ever have the ability to defeat Taiwan in a quick war, defined as under one month, using conventional means. Remember the Iraq War in 2003? In the open desert where the world's most advanced army crossed by land into a country wracked by sanctions, it took three weeks to get to Baghdad. How long do you think it will take China to land an invasion force on Taiwan and battle through the mountains and jungles against a modern army? I have no doubt that if Taiwan does not get foreign help they will lose, but it will be long and bloody. I'm not just talking about the combat, food will run low and basic services will break down.

If the Mainland is determined to retake Taiwan by force in the future, they would be wise to consider a nuclear strike rather than a conventional invasion.

However, I believe it will never come to that. I suspect Taiwan will eventually return to the Mainland ala Hong Kong as a Special Administrative Region with a guarantee of autonomy for 50 years.