PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

[xmupzx]

But the U.S. economy was not cut off from the rest of the world, not to mention the US was 100% self sufficient in all industrial goods at that time. Should a war break out over Taiwan, expect at least a trade embargo by U.S., EU, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, and some ASEAN countries. It would have all its assets in above mentioned countries frozen or seized. China would be fighting whilst isolated and cutoff, but its adversaries won’t be. Worse, countries like India could become opportunistic and start attacking Chinese merchants in the Indian Ocean. Of course, a victory over Taiwan could alleviate these isolations, but most Chinese citizens would kiss goodbye to whatever is left of China’s trade with richest countries in the world. It would probably take decades before western countries would come to terms with a unified China.

The capital of India is even within the striking range of the PLA's long-range rocket artillery. Unless the Indian leader is completely insane, he would not dare consider sinking Chinese merchant ships. It's the U.S. warships that are more likely to do such things.
As for Europe, gosh, these guys can't even shake off their dependence on Russian raw materials.
Let's see where BASF recently moved their factories to? Oh, China, what a surprising result!

 

[Almond98]

I absolutely agree with you that China would indeed churn out the most weapons and munitions so long as the war remains conventional. China will likely win most of the military engagements at its near abroad in the Western Pacific and South China Sea. But what remains unresolved would be China’s isolation by U.S. and EU following such military victories. Chinese manufacturers would be locked out from the most lucrative markets for decades to come even after such victory.

That could forced Beijing into a dilemma: accept unreasonable demands (very costly geopolitically) from rich white men to partially regain market access, or keep the engine of war humming by embarking on imperialism/hyper nationalism/militarism to capture more markets and resources the old pre-1945 Social Darwinian way. The second method would work well so long as it doesn’t trigger a nuclear war, but there is no guarantee.

Europe is already divided due to russian war. What do u think will happen if america lose war against china?

 

[Michaelsinodef]

When Napoleon marched on Paris, a newspaper ran headlines over the following days:
Day 1: "The Corsican Monster Lands at Port-Jouan"
Day 2: "The Man-Eating Devil Advances on Grasse"
Day 3: "The Usurper Enters Grenoble"
Day 4: "Bonaparte Captures Lyon"
Day 5: "Napoleon Approaches Fontainebleau"
Day 6: "His Majesty Will Arrive Today in His Faithful Paris"
I think Westerners still have this mindset today.

Lmao, this is like the same thing that happened in China as the KMT retreated in the civil war.

Like, in many KMT controlled cities very similar to what you had written actually played out.

 

[manqiangrexue]

I absolutely agree with you that China would indeed churn out the most weapons and munitions so long as the war remains conventional. China will likely win most of the military engagements at its near abroad in the Western Pacific and South China Sea. But what remains unresolved would be China’s isolation by U.S. and EU following such military victories. Chinese manufacturers would be locked out from the most lucrative markets for decades to come even after such victory.

That could forced Beijing into a dilemma: accept unreasonable demands (very costly geopolitically) from rich white men to partially regain market access, or keep the engine of war humming by embarking on imperialism/hyper nationalism/militarism to capture more markets and resources the old pre-1945 Social Darwinian way. The second method would work well so long as it doesn’t trigger a nuclear war, but there is no guarantee.

What markets? The markets of Europe and the US are, at a fundamental and instrinsic level, worthless to China. Saying you need to sell to them is like saying you need me to loot your house every week and leave you an IOU slip, which you squirrel away to pretend that collecting them gives your life meaning. But when you break these shackles and realize that those slips are worth nothing, that you should keep your things to use them to make your life better, then I am the one at a loss because I am no longer able to trade freely written notes for real goods. If the West doesn't open its markets to China, it will be like your drug dealer cutting you off so you can kick the habit. China will have to make a transition to working less and consuming more. The West will have to make a transition to working to produce everything they consume. It will increase the quality of life in China and decrease it in the West. China makes real goods and the West prints useless money; don't forget that as the primal core economic balance.

 

[FriedButter]

Worse, countries like India could become opportunistic and start attacking Chinese merchants in the Indian Ocean. Of course, a victory over Taiwan could alleviate these isolations,

That wouldn’t happen in the first place or more specifically there wouldn’t be a chance for India to do such a thing. In the event of a war conflict, Chinese ports and waters would be closed for national security reasons. You don’t want a bunch of civilians obstacles and potential enemy assets in the same area. Raw materials and energy will be sourced from Russia in the meanwhile.

Of course, a victory over Taiwan could alleviate these isolations, but most Chinese citizens would kiss goodbye to whatever is left of China’s trade with richest countries in the world. It would probably take decades before western countries would come to terms with a unified China.

But what remains unresolved would be China’s isolation by U.S. and EU following such military victories. Chinese manufacturers would be locked out from the most lucrative markets for decades to come even after such victory.

The “richest countries” won’t be rich post victory for China. They will be in great depression 2.0 on steroids. If a conflict break out in the region then global supply chains implode and thus plunging the entire world into an economic freefall. As the western powers and their allies are in no economic condition to deal with the industrial, financial, and societal shock that will come.

The depletion of fiscal and monetary tools combined with the lack of industrial alternatives will plunge them into a severe crisis. Likewise, everyone else including China will be dealing with the total rebalancing of the global economy and severe economic conditions. The only difference is China is in a position to bounce back quicker due to the financial tools and industrial capabilities at their disposal.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

I absolutely agree with you that China would indeed churn out the most weapons and munitions so long as the war remains conventional. China will likely win most of the military engagements at its near abroad in the Western Pacific and South China Sea. But what remains unresolved would be China’s isolation by U.S. and EU following such military victories. Chinese manufacturers would be locked out from the most lucrative markets for decades to come even after such victory.

That could forced Beijing into a dilemma: accept unreasonable demands (very costly geopolitically) from rich white men to partially regain market access, or keep the engine of war humming by embarking on imperialism/hyper nationalism/militarism to capture more markets and resources the old pre-1945 Social Darwinian way. The second method would work well so long as it doesn’t trigger a nuclear war, but there is no guarantee.

Do they want to give up their comfortable lives to spite China?

And if the answer is yes then they should remember: if everyone is bombed back to the Middle Ages, China was one of the most successful medieval empires while North America was a barren wasteland before industrialization since most American resources are inaccessible without motorized machines. All native American civilizations were in Latin America and the Spanish started there for a reason.

 

[RoastGooseHKer]

That wouldn’t happen in the first place or more specifically there wouldn’t be a chance for India to do such a thing. In the event of a war conflict, Chinese ports and waters would be closed for national security reasons. You don’t want a bunch of civilians obstacles and potential enemy assets in the same area. Raw materials and energy will be sourced from Russia in the meanwhile.




The “richest countries” won’t be rich post victory for China. They will be in great depression 2.0 on steroids. If a conflict break out in the region then global supply chains implode and thus plunging the entire world into an economic freefall. As the western powers and their allies are in no economic condition to deal with the industrial, financial, and societal shock that will come.

The depletion of fiscal and monetary tools combined with the lack of industrial alternatives will plunge them into a severe crisis. Likewise, everyone else including China will be dealing with the total rebalancing of the global economy and severe economic conditions. The only difference is China is in a position to bounce back quicker due to the financial tools and industrial capabilities at their disposal.

If the supply chain shock as a result of a Taiwan war (especially with US intervention) leads to a complete economic collapse in the West, especially the US, wouldn’t Washington have more incentives to “go nuclear,” meaning Washington would gamble to escalate to de-escalate in hoping to gain a somewhat favourable outcome before time, troops, and political will for war run out?

 

[RoastGooseHKer]

Europe is already divided due to russian war. What do u think will happen if america lose war against china?

The problem with America is that if if Pacific Fleet faces utter devastation, Washington would have every incentive to escalate to de-escalate with nukes. The book 2037 is pretty good a feeling the American hegemonic mindset. If you forcefully take away my dominance in war, I dare to gamble with nukes so you won’t take away my status in subsequent settlement. Unfortunately, once the nuclear threshold were crossed, there won’t be any guardrails toward full nuclear exchange. And it is the losing party that usually dares to take such risks near the end of its conventional defeat.

 

[vincent]

If the supply chain shock as a result of a Taiwan war (especially with US intervention) leads to a complete economic collapse in the West, especially the US, wouldn’t Washington have more incentives to “go nuclear,” meaning Washington would gamble to escalate to de-escalate in hoping to gain a somewhat favourable outcome before time, troops, and political will for war run out?

Why do you think China is increasing her nuclear arsenal?

 

[FriedButter]

If the Americans want to escalate into a full nuclear war. Then it shall be nuclear war. Taiwan is an existential redline for China. The loss of Taiwan means the end of China and the balkanization of China. The loss of Taiwan for the Americans does not spell the end of their existences. Neither does it for the Europeans or Japanese.