PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

[Zhejiang]

Denying fuel is not a war crime!

Denying fuel can be a war crime considering how it’s used given that civilians also need fuel if denial of fuel is for every fuel including hospitals then it is a war crime if it’s denial for military use then it’s not a war crime.

 

[RedMetalSeadramon]

I think destroying all their fuel supply and fuel reserves is a massive war crime, I just don’t people realize that. I’m not asking for a lot, I’m saying the correct opition isn’t to bomb every single fuel depot or cut off the fuel supply because it greatly effects civilians and while China doesn’t want resistance in their reunification punishing civilians so they don’t deal with resistance is also a war crime and doesn’t stop resistance it can actually make it stronger. The best option is a blockade and to bomb some of the fuel stations but not to bomb every one.

Ill put an inverse of the scenario.

1. Slower strategy, PLA takes 5000 dead but have an 70% chance of success
2. Aggressive strategy, PLA takes 25000 dead but have an 95% chance of success

In that scenario, I would still advocate for strategy 2. There has to be a focus on the objective: victory and reunification. Its better to suffer a bit more for a greater guarantee than to not suffer and fail, have this drag on for another 80 years.

I expect the same from PLA soldiers and Taiwan civilians. Soldiers would like to wait until enough DFs have saturated ROCA, but the chances of success is greater if the coup-de-main is pressed earlier and in greater strength, in spite of the casualties. Likewise, its probably better if civilians are not significantly harmed in the process, but the advantage of denying enemy roads by bombing bridges and crossings, destroying electrical power and transmission, destroying communications, and even hitting civilian farm sheds because they can be used to conceal heavy equipment cannot be denied.

You make choices based on the greater strategic situation, certain things have to be sacrificed. During operation Market Garden, they lost sight of the strategic objectives, certain airborne forces did not focus on bridges despite that being the entire point of the operation. The Air Force did not want to do a single drop and chose a landing zone too far away because they did not want to risk the pilots and planes, and was slow to offer air support for the same reason. In retrospect its better to have sacrificed 200-1000 airman for the 8000 paratroopers and ending the war months early, but they held back and lost focus.

This must not happen for reunification. No one want more PLA casualties and no one want dead civilians, but reunification must succeed.

 

[Zhejiang]

Ill put an inverse of the scenario.

1. Slower strategy, PLA takes 5000 dead but have an 70% chance of success
2. Aggressive strategy, PLA takes 25000 dead but have an 95% chance of success

In that scenario, I would still advocate for strategy 2. There has to be a focus on the objective: victory and reunification. Its better to suffer a bit more for a greater guarantee than to not suffer and fail, have this drag on for another 80 years.

I expect the same from PLA soldiers and Taiwan civilians. Soldiers would like to wait until enough DFs have saturated ROCA, but the chances of success is greater if the coup-de-main is pressed earlier and in greater strength, in spite of the casualties. Likewise, its probably better if civilians are not significantly harmed in the process, but the advantage of denying enemy roads by bombing bridges and crossings, destroying electrical power and transmission, destroying communications, and even hitting civilian farm sheds because they can be used to conceal heavy equipment cannot be denied.

You make choices based on the greater strategic situation, certain things have to be sacrificed. During operation Market Garden, they lost sight of the strategic objectives, certain airborne forces did not focus on bridges despite that being the entire point of the operation. The Air Force did not want to do a single drop and chose a landing zone too far away because they did not want to risk the pilots and planes, and was slow to offer air support for the same reason. In retrospect its better to have sacrificed 200-1000 airman for the 8000 paratroopers and ending the war months early, but they held back and lost focus.

This must not happen for reunification. No one want more PLA casualties and no one want dead civilians, but reunification must succeed.

I do agree it must succeed but China also must take steps to avoid widespread civilian harm, and bombing civilian targets because they can be used for military use is a war crime, I’m fine with China bombing dual use stuff that’s not my problem my problem is if it becomes everything that’s dual use because that creates widespread civilian harm. China should find a balance between the least casualties for both soldiers and civilians not just one

 

[HighGround]

Uhh the only reason more Palestinians didn’t starve was because of the politics. Taiwan, unlike Gaza, is also an island so once the buildings and infrastructure start getting destroyed the siege effects will be much worse.


What are you talking about…Gaza City had 4x the urban density of Taipei and Taiwan is kinda infamous for how old most of their buildings are. Have you never been?

Not to be pedantic but Palestinians did starve. The situation is still really fragile.

And yeah Taiwan is an island, but it is also, presumably, much more institutionally robust. So I don't think it's safe to assume they're automatically more vulnerable.

 

[vincent]

Just because PLA soldiers might die doesn’t justify the harm caused to civilians by doing what you suggest what will greatly harm civilians like hospitals effecting treatment, water, and food. Do you think harming civilians is the correct option?

圣母情怀. Forcing a surrender will result in far fewer civilian deaths than going through MOUT grinding like in Ukraine.

 

[latenlazy]

Not to be pedantic but Palestinians did starve. The situation is still really fragile.

And yeah Taiwan is an island, but it is also, presumably, much more institutionally robust. So I don't think it's safe to assume they're automatically more vulnerable.

Institutional robustness doesn’t really matter much when your material systems are destroyed and can’t be regenerated. People who are used to an upper global income life probably aren’t adapting better to a siege condition than people who’ve lived for decades in lower global income apartheid conditions for decades.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

I doubt the government will care about the people there but China finishing Taiwan in a month or less is highly optimistic and the best case scenario I personally a think more realistic case is 3-5 months or more depending on what tactics Taiwan uses. And destroying every fuel depot and store fuel, every power station and transformer is unlikely and would be a war crime and cause great amounts of harm to the civilians what I doubt China wants.

What is a war crime? Everything is a war crime if you lose. Nothing is a war crime if you win.

 

[FriedButter]

The best option is a blockade and to bomb some of the fuel stations but not to bomb every one. My RoE is mainly just don’t commit massive war crimes that greatly harm civilians im not saying don’t bomb fuel depots or power stations but I’m saying don’t bomb every one given how important they are to civilian way of life.

I do agree it must succeed but China also must take steps to avoid widespread civilian harm, and bombing civilian targets because they can be used for military use is a war crime, I’m fine with China bombing dual use stuff that’s not my problem my problem is if it becomes everything that’s dual use because that creates widespread civilian harm. China should find a balance between the least casualties for both soldiers and civilians not just one

The reality is that fuel depots and reserves are valid military targets. The ROC imports 95-98% of their energy and that fuel will be requisitioned for military purposes. Scarce resources will be reserved and allocated for military purposes. None of it will go towards pure civilian usage. If you blockade the island, then the counter reaction will be to seize all necessary resources to sustain the military ability to conduct operations over a prolonged period of time.

 

[HighGround]

Institutional robustness doesn’t really matter much when your material systems are destroyed and can’t be regenerated. People who are used to an upper global income life probably aren’t adapting better to a siege condition than people who’ve lived for decades in lower global income apartheid conditions for decades.

But it is a multiplier. A lot of humanitarian aid is wasted because Hamas does not have the capacity to distribute aid adequately and retain control over the various militias/gangs in Gaza.

From a material standpoint, a lot will depend on how quickly Taiwan's leadership manages existing resources/assets and organizaes rationing/stockpiling. Now your point about people being used to first-world living conditions is relevant, but what we're discussing is starvation/mass deaths/etc. Even if the majority of the population decides they don't want to suffer anymore, that's really a question of Taiwan's institutional capacity to maintain control over its citizenry, not how many people starve or how fast. Though certainly, there is an eventual... "convergence" point where the State can no longer ignore the material conditions of its constituency.

 

[drowingfish]

I do agree it must succeed but China also must take steps to avoid widespread civilian harm, and bombing civilian targets because they can be used for military use is a war crime, I’m fine with China bombing dual use stuff that’s not my problem my problem is if it becomes everything that’s dual use because that creates widespread civilian harm. China should find a balance between the least casualties for both soldiers and civilians not just one

But taking out the fuel depot does serve the purpose of minimizing civilian harm, because it may induce its government to surrender. More harm can be brought to the civilians if DPP determines that they have enough of everything to drag this out. you deny them fuel, the populace know they are screwed in about 30 days, and who is the only entity that is able to supply them with everything they need？ it is the PRC. lack of fuel and food can become a legitimate reason to surrender, which minimizes harm.