PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC

[tphuang]

Why are you so sure of that? The chances in that context go down, sure, but I'd say there's still like a 50% chance. Most Americans are pro Taiwan independence and I'm pretty sure most would support military intervention even in that case.

You said you're 100% sure the US *would* intervene otherwise, and I don't think the difference between 100 and 0 is the exact trigger of the conflict..

IIRC, the current polls for US intervention in Taiwan hovers around 40 to 50%. And I'm pretty sure the current inflation issues is not pushing your average American to get in a war with China.

Keep in mind the rationale for US defending Taiwan is that they will loose all credibility in APAC if they do not defend Taiwan in an unprovoked invasion by mainland.

 

[Blitzo]

We're on the same page regarding the "trend," however the US government is very much not willing to let Taiwan realize its complete "de-jure" independence at this time. In future that may change, but right now I'm absolutely confident that something of that scale (especially out of the blue) is viewed as too far to have our backing.

Agreed that about out of the blue declaration of de jure independence is unlikely.

But my concern over the last few years, is that by pushing the boundary (and allowing Taiwan to push the boundary), the US may misinterpret what the PRC's red line is in terms of what "de jure independence is quantified as".


At the end of the day, it is the relationships, status among other nations, legal and military relationships that de jure independence enables or disallows, which is of significance. The title itself is important, but it is ultimately a title -- and imo it is not the title which the PRC sees as the red line, but everything else that goes with it.

 

[vincent]

If China is going to attack US/Japan, that better be as part of plan to take over Taiwan. PLA isn't going to destroy China' economy without gaining Taiwan. Why would you do a surprise landing on Diaoyu? It offers no value in a war. Now, it actually would make sense after the initial phase to do a landing in Okinawa and then use the base there for the rest of the conflict.

I think he want to use the landing as a trigger for war

I'd be curious to hear from others on the wisdom of attempting a landing on Okinawa in the first couple of weeks of a war assuming they have neutralized the air/naval assets there.

It is retarded to attempt take over Okinawa without destroying majority of American and Japanese forces. PLA doesn’t have the force projection to contest the battle space in the Ryukyu Islands.

 

[vincent]

We're on the same page regarding the "trend," however the US government is very much not willing to let Taiwan realize its complete "de-jure" independence at this time. In future that may change, but right now I'm absolutely confident that something of that scale (especially out of the blue) is viewed as too far to have our backing.

To build on what @Blitzo said. PRC is the one who defines what ”de-jure” independence is, such as having the Speaker of the House visiting the island in her official capacity. The US is seriously risking pushing the line too far unintentionally.
The current situation is probably graver than many Americans realize. PRC is probably deadly serious at taking military action over Pelosi’s visit but it is very difficult for the American to back down now after PRC’s threat is publicized.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Ok I just say this kind nihilistic talk is too disturbing to me. This is not a great direction to go, just my opinion.

I think the best thing we can hope is that the DC elites understand how terrible a war with china is and back off from that. Because their recent behavior suggests that they think a war between the two countries is only destructive to china.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

 

[Abominable]

Ok I just say this kind nihilistic talk is too disturbing to me. This is not a great direction to go, just my opinion.

I think the best thing we can hope is that the DC elites understand how terrible a war with china is and back off from that. Because their recent behavior suggests that they think a war between the two countries is only destructive to china.

I don't think that's a policy China can count on long term. As America continues its decline into civil war, it'll look for an enemy to "unite" against.

Better to keep them busy with Russia, al-Qaeda, etc.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Sink them all. What can the African and West Asian non-existence navies do?

I said in my earlier post. With China eliminated, no one will have the ability to challenge the Hegemon in the next millennium given the current structure of world economic order. The Hegemon can continue to print god-smacking amount of money and the rest of the world will gladly accept them in exchange of their goods and servitudes.

this is a total mismatch between capability and wishes though. the only way to actually win against China in the long run is regime change and even then it's not a sure thing. Just see how Russia is still a pain in the ass and can inflict significant damage even with just a relatively small conflict, and they were successfully regime changed. Otherwise even a total naval blockade and total sanctions doesn't do anything, in the long run markets will reorient around Russian natural resources.

but they don't have the capability to impose regime change because that requires fighting a ground war which could escalate into total WW3 involving Russia and North Korea as well. In that situation even if they "win", their homeland becomes a charred cinder and they'll have to really redefine what it means to "win". If they lose a ground war without escalation they'll be humiliated, tons of POWs will be taken and instead of a political win, it'll be a political draw at best.

The worst they can do without a ground war and regime change or nukes is sinking entire navy, seizing Taiwan and maybe bombing a little infrastructure. That's not something that ends a government because China already experienced that before: 1st Sino Japanese War. Qing didn't even fall from that despite decades of prior weakness and humiliation, so why would PRC fall from that?

In addition they should consider the potential losses. Let's say they win the naval war but are mauled badly in the process, losing 5-6 CBGs and several forward bases. They decide to call it quits by just seizing Taiwan. What now? Any terms outside of seizing Taiwan can just be refused because they lack the ability to impose it. Unlike 1st Sino-Japanese War, China isn't importing ships, it still would have shipyards. All they can do that Japan couldn't in is impose total sanctions which would be ignored by Russia and tons of countries. They can't maintain an indefinite blockade on China, even GWOT strained their logistics and ship maintenance schedules, and that's without losing half their CBGs.

So even a "win", is at best a "draw".

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

Again, this is only for the time being - in the future this may (and honestly, probably will) change, but at this moment, we will not militarily back that sort of move.

Why would it change in the future? If America doesn't want that smoke with China now, why would it want it in the future when the balance of power shifts even more in China's favour? If you think things look bleak for America in a war with China now, they're absolutely abysmal against a China with a thousand(s?) nuclear warheads, 6+ CBGs, advanced SSNs, stealth bombers, an order of magnitude more stealth fighters, a massively expanded PLARF inventory with who knows what kind of vehicles, etc.

If the people you work for had a functioning neuron to go between them, they'd find some diplomatic kludge to defuse this while they still can. But they can't do that - not only are they arrogant to the point of delusion, they have too much face tied up in it. Saving face, as we all know, is absolutely essential in American culture.

 

[vincent]

this is a total mismatch between capability and wishes though. the only way to actually win against China in the long run is regime change and even then it's not a sure thing. Just see how Russia is still a pain in the ass and can inflict significant damage even with just a relatively small conflict, and they were successfully regime changed. Otherwise even a total naval blockade and total sanctions doesn't do anything, in the long run markets will reorient around Russian natural resources.

but they don't have the capability to impose regime change because that requires fighting a ground war which could escalate into total WW3 involving Russia and North Korea as well. In that situation even if they "win", their homeland becomes a charred cinder and they'll have to really redefine what it means to "win".

The worst they can do without a ground war and regime change or nukes is sinking entire PLAN, seizing Taiwan and maybe bombing a little infrastructure. That's not something that ends a government because China already experienced that before: 1st Sino Japanese War. Qing didn't even fall from that despite decades of prior weakness and humiliation, so why would PRC fall from that?

Destroy all PLAN’s major combatants and all Chinese shipyards. Bomb all infrastructures along the coast line.

 

[OppositeDay]

If China is going to attack US/Japan, that better be as part of plan to take over Taiwan. PLA isn't going to destroy China' economy without gaining Taiwan. Why would you do a surprise landing on Diaoyu? It offers no value in a war. Now, it actually would make sense after the initial phase to do a landing in Okinawa and then use the base there for the rest of the conflict.

I'd be curious to hear from others on the wisdom of attempting a landing on Okinawa in the first couple of weeks of a war assuming they have neutralized the air/naval assets there.

If they do a full blockade of Taiwan where Taiwan goes a month without internet, gas, oil and face food shortage and are constantly terrorized by UCAVs. I would be surprised if Taiwan does not surrender if both US/Japan cannot successful mount a counter by then. That's a long time to be denied of hope.

Landing on Diaoyu is about setting a concrete war goal so it's less likely to spiral to a total war. The landing itself is symbolic. Put some armed PLA robotic dogs on it to show control. Diaoyu islands are good because the stake is just right. It's not high enough for the public to call for a total war. But its symbolic enough that a failure to recover the islands from Chinese control will shaken the US-Japan alliance to its core. So they will have to substantively engage. The point of the war is to demonstrate PLA military superiority in order to coerce a Taiwanese surrender without inflicting casualties on Taiwan to keep it more governable after reunification. That's why I set the possible date for executing such a scenario well into the future (I said 2040s). The assumption is that US and Japan will never ever back off supporting Taiwan for both domestic and geo-political reasons even after PLA gaining substantive military superiority in Western Pacific, and will maintain an information bubble so civilian populations in US, Japan and Taiwan will continue to believe in PLA inferiority.

For the blockade option, remember intentionally starving a population is a war crime. Cutting off internet is impossible post-Starlink without cutting off electricity completely. Taiwan has nuclear power and renewables even without gas and oil. Are we going to bomb every rooftop solar panel? Are we going to bomb civilian nuclear sites? Renewable and nuclear energy will make China more resilient toward Western sanction/blockade, but the same advantages will be offered to Taiwan too. Yes Taiwanese economy will tank, but Ukraine didn't surrender even though its economy collapsed after Russian invasion. Conflicts, once starts, may well harden a population's resolve to withstand misery just to deny the opponents a victory.