PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

[solarz]

Then you misunderstand the situation completely. The DPRK is safe from America not just because it has a handful of nuclear weapons but because it's worthless. America losing one city to snuff out North Korea is not an exchange worth making. North Korea is not worth destroying, China is. If an American president had the option of annihilating China forever and losing three or four major cities in a meagre retaliatory attack, what makes you think he wouldn't take that opportunity? That's an excellent exchange in the US's favour.

For a Chinese leader to not understand this and persist with minimal deterrence is monstrous negligence. The statement that China is worth defending should not be controversial.

On what basis are you making this claim that China can only destroy three or four major US cities with its nukes? Even with the Western reported number of 300 nukes, that's enough to wipe out all major US population centers, and make the rest of the continent a living hell with the ensuing fallout.

 

[solarz]

After reading all that has been discussed, the few things we could agree on is:

1) The longer China can defer any military conflict with the US, the better it is for China.

2) The earlier the US can force a military conflict with China, the better it is for the US.

What we do not agree on is whether China should respond with military force to the US provocation this time.

But if going by our concensus, why in the world would the US give China the luxury of preparing itself "for just a few more years"? Why not forcing a military confrontation now? Why would the US, knowing that its window of opportunity to put China down for good is closing down by the months, would just let it pass?

Not saying that China should absolutely react militarily now, but I don't think there is anything anyone can do if America decides that, that's it, let's do it now.

I do not think China should shoot down Pelosi' plane or anything of that nature. I think China has a lot more retaliatory cards to play. The Russia-Ukraine war is an obvious one.

To answer you other question about why the US would not want to force a military confrontation now, we can take a look at the calculus:

If the US starts a war with China right now:

- US WIN: huge loss of American lives, no possibility of occupying Mainland territory, Chinese navy rebuilds in a few decades. Maybe Taiwan declares independence, but that won't prevent China from continuing its intention to retake it by force.

- US LOSS: complete loss of confidence in US security guarantees in the region, possibly in the world. US is pushed out of west pacific, SK and Japan falls under Chinese influence. Possible collapse of US federation as the loss exacerbates domestic problems.

If the US doesn't start a war with China right now:

- China eventually reunifies with Taiwan, but US retains influence with SK and Japan. US military containment strategy falls back to the second island chain.

 

[plawolf]

I'm surprised by the level of emotions Pelosi visit is generating here, but I guess it goes to show how important the Taiwan issue is to many here and on the mainland. This is just an outsider observation.

I'm extremely confident behind all the public charades, the head of US military forces Mark Milley will talk to his counter Li Zuocheng (if that's him, I'm not entirely familiar) to ensure nothing major happens.
Mark Milley will even share with Li Pelosi's flight plan, path and time to make absolutely sure there's zero room for miscommunication between forces like he did when it came to Trump and nukes. I mean he told Li, he will personally let him know if US was about to nuke China.

There are adults on both sides on the Pacific and they will stay up all night and day (time zone difference) to make sure this doesn't result in a hot conflict. Biden and Xi recent call was to make sure the adults were in charge. Now the underlings will make sure this dog and pony show Pelosi started doesn't get out of hand.

The biggest risk to all of this is what I termed early in my post about possible response from the PLA.

US will scramble fighters if they think PLAAF is intending on intercepting her. It will certainly force her to cancel her trip but it might create a mini-skirmish or even a mock air battle between forces. This is the most risky scenario which is why I believe whatever PLA does, it will be after Pelosi has landed in Taiwan and will continue after she leaves.

PLA won't act while she's in the air since that will be the most dangerous moment in all of this.

Looking at this holistic, it will be extremely idiotic if a war started over this especially when PLA hasn't even attained their full maturation in many critical areas (SSN, SSBN, 5th gen fighters, VLO bombers, CATOBAR carriers, etc) and China hasn't fully emerged economically. If ever in the future, it comes to war on Taiwan, China should assume it will be fighting not just US but Japan as well. US can't fight China without Japan so you know Japan will be a participant. PLA needs to be ready for both forces + Taiwan. It should also expect the backlash Russia has recieved economically which is why it needs to be ready to sustain its economy in some fashion at that time (access to resources and markets, etc).

It's like cooking. You don't eat while the food is still boiling on the stove. You finish preparing the meal and then serve it up neatly on a plate with drink and extras sides or snacks. Then you take a seat and enjoy.

China starting a war over this is like eating directing from the hot pot while it's still on the stove. It will be an inconvenient since the PLA dish is not done yet. You can taste it while it's still cooking which I guess will be like PLA showing the world some extreme snap drills like crossing the median line or launching ballistics near Taiwan.

Edit: You also have to understand Pelosi mindset. Old and frail, she's about to retire from her long corrupt-free (this is sarcasm) public service. She wants to put on her long resume as having visited the infamous Taiwan island while she was in office. This is more of a photo-shoot than anything. Imagine starting a war over this.

The fundamental problem with your reasoning is that you are buying the western party line narrative that it’s China who is starting the war.

China’s view is that it’s not them going all the way to the other side of the world to purposeful stir shit up and piss on the biggest red line there is.

Given the steady stream of American salami slicing and provocations on this and other matters in recent years, it is entirely reasonable for Beijing to conclude that this trend won’t stop here if left unchecked. Why should Xi take the personal political hit to swallow this latest escalation when it is all but certain he will only be ‘rewarded’ more and bigger provocations later?

China has said enough is enough and drawn a line in the sand and said you shall not cross. If you cross that line, it’s the act of crossing it that is the issue, not what you step on once on the other side.

It is a stupid hill to die on, but Pelosi is absolutely determined to march up it.

It was actually mentioned in a podcast recently that one of the signs to look out for is just how much assets the PLAAF deploy once the showdown. If the PLAAF only sends a small force, then there is a good chance some sort of understanding was reached behind the scenes.

The US will send a fighter escort which will hand over to a RoCAF fighter escort some distance from Taiwan and the US fighters will withdraw. China will wait until Pelosi’s flight has entered RoC airspace before splashing the RoCAF escorts and give Pelosi’s plane one last chance to turn back, which it will and both the US and China comes out of this with enough of a win to now need to escalate further. As for Taiwan, well they can pick up the butcher’s bill so America doesn’t have to and fuck their feelings and wants, it’s not like Pelosi even asked them if she was even welcome in the first place.

 

[Biscuits]

Then the U.S. would have lost whatever advantage they may have diplomatically and even under international law. Any attempt they make to legimatize their action in the U.N. or to cobble support from their usual European allies would be very difficult without coming across as a massive HYPOCRITE to the global world and most importantly to their own woke population.

If that ever happens, Russia will be joined by China in Ukraine and the world will be thrown into WWIII

Something which isnt said enough is that US successfully invading Taiwan will not solve their real problems in the long term. China will always scorched earth Taiwan's actual resources (mostly only semiconductors) if US make their way in.

Aside from dick measuring ability that they now own a Chinese province which never directly contributed to the Mainland before anyways, there isn't much that can be gained except military strategic advantage by controlling Taiwan. However, we all know if US ever invade the mainland itself, China will just glass the US homeland if they lose the conventional war.

Stationing military forces around the USSR worked due to how unsustainably high the USSR military spending was. It doesn't work against China which has a low spending and largest economy in the world.

The comparison with Crimea is pretty apt. Taking Crimea was strategically important for Russia, but it hasn't improved Russia's core development woes even 1 bit. And while Russia at least could use Crimea to build for the Donbass war, China has nukes unlike Ukraine, so Taiwan itself cannot be used as a platform for further invasions. Many Crimeans actually want to be part of Russia, while US has shaky ties at best to ruling Taiwan province, so its doubtful any development will be able to take place, especially as China probably will still blockade the new US client state.

So it isn't rational for US to desire Taiwan. US could likely improve its national strength far more by investing in sweeping education and anticorruption reforms, fixing the national base so the young generation and the next generation can enjoy a legal framework that actually works and will bring back industries to America.

But USA can't be trusted to act rationally. Taiwan is tempting because it offers a quick route to potential short term victory.

 

[zhangjim]

Why do you dislike Xi? Was there any policy changes made or introduced that you're very negative about?

It would be nice to know to understand the context of your opposition against the current leader of the country. Is your opposition ideological or personal or both? If so, why? Please explain.

Since he took office, there have been many exaggerated compliments, which is very uncomfortable.
Amending the law to extend the term of office is a controversial move, which will give a bad impression of power hunger.
The restoration of the lifelong leadership system, which was ruthlessly abolished in the past, is undoubtedly a serious setback, and he must come up with a convincing reason. You know, before the NPC, there were reports abroad that he was going to amend the constitution.

For me, these leaders are mysterious and difficult to observe. Considering his origin, people are generally worried that power will be seized by the nobility of the new era.Some people ridicule that bureaucrats have formed a de facto reproductive isolation from the public and become a new caste class, so his origins will inevitably be resented.

I didn't check the files in Panama.It's hard to tell whether those things are true or false, and I don't want to think too bad.
Therefore, my current attitude is cautious. I will not over trust and support this suspicious leader, but I will not oppose him with indistinguishable rumors.

It is more important to care about what he has done, but unfortunately, parts other than military reform are not very ideal.He took over a country that was coming to the end of a period of high growth and had accumulated many problems.
Problems caused by past negligence and policy mistakes have exploded during his tenure.Part of the problem was solved, but the situation has not been fundamentally improved.
Those entrepreneurs, or capitalists, are becoming more and more greedy,their ability to exploit workers and stifle the vitality of the cultural market is amazing.And the government seems to show a bad tendency to co-rule the country with entrepreneurs，this led some patriots in the past to question the current regime: does the regime have the attribute of proletariat? If so, why does the status of entrepreneurs seem more noble than that of workers?

People have to face the serious gap between the rich and the poor and the serious recession of spiritual culture (it is very profitable, but it is all garbage).The current management shows a serious conservative tendency, simply pursuing "safety" and "no problem", which allows leaders not to see some unpleasant news, but does not help solve the problem. They show an attitude of not trusting anyone.

The data indicators seem to be perfect, and the news praising the prosperous age is spreading everywhere in the streets, but the social fragmentation is intensifying, and only the crooked neck man may be enjoying this false prosperity.

Some say China is much better than the US, but I would expect to see some progress rather than a slower decline than anyone else.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

On what basis are you making this claim that China can only destroy three or four major US cities with its nukes? Even with the Western reported number of 300 nukes, that's enough to wipe out all major US population centers, and make the rest of the continent a living hell with the ensuing fallout.

That's assuming that 300 nukes (or whatever China has, which on the most generous estimates is a small fraction of what America has) survive the first strike, have zero malfunctions, and all get through the America missile defenses. I'm not familiar with how damaging the radiation from nuclear weapons is, but I'm not comfortable assuming a few tons of fission products dispersed over a continent is enough to make it a "living hell." If you have a reliable study about that, I'd like to read it.

The safest and most responsible posture China can take is to sprint toward parity. Ironically, that will also make the US safer since it will remove any temptation it has to start a war.

You're assuming a country that can't even properly occupy Afghanistan or dares to send a volunteer army to Ukraine is capable of essentially waging total war against the entire world minus some EU countries who will be neutral. That is delusion.

No, that's sound planning. Assuming the worst case scenario and still being able to prevail is how planning is done. I'm not going to trust in divine intervention to sort out America for China. As for Afghanistan, the US could have just smacked it with a few nuclear bombs and been done with it, that it had unachievable political goals is its own folly and China shouldn't count on that continuing. Failing to plan is planning to fail.

With what millions are US gonna invade the whole Middle East to stop oil to China?

With an aircraft carrier parked in the Indian Ocean threatening any oil tanker sailing east.

Are they also gonna invade Russia using another million man army to actually stop China's oil lifeline?

Bold of you to assume Russia would continue supplying China with oil, especially given the lukewarm support (at best) China is giving Russia now. China shouldn't count on it. And why invade Russia when a B-2 raid could destroy critical pipeline nodes like pumping stations.

What part of US not having infinite B2s and pilots to be sacrificed in high risk raids do you not understand?

The part I understand is the US having > 0 B-2s and China having 0 H-20s.

Cities like Chengdu and Xian where China is producing its VLO platforms are just as out of reach to US as Washington D.C. is to China.

Bold claim. I don't buy it.

It isn't economically feasible for either side to hit the other side's industry enough for it to matter, therefore China draws ahead due to having several times higher development in that area. Simple as that.

Not so simple, I'm afraid. It's perfectly feasible for the US to continue hitting China indefinitely until China is completely worn down with China having no response except escalating to strategic nuclear use, which given current warhead counts it would suffer far more from than the US even if every single one of its warheads strikes its target.

Just having arable land doesnt help if your economy is collapsed and people can't buy any produce nor have any consumer goods.

I don't care what is likeliest to happen to the US economy, I care what the worst case scenario from China's perspective is. I don't care what the US will do, but what it can do.

China isnt gonna start a war actively. But if US starts one, China will finish the war. As long as the status quo empowers China more and more, its better to wait for USA to internally disintegrate, like the USSR.

Exactly what I advocate (whether or not the US disintegrates is irrelevant, what matters is that China builds the strength to crush it), but quite a few people here are getting their panties in a twist and want to start a war prematurely because some US politician is visiting Taiwan.

America's win condition is destroying enough of the Navy fast enough, then land on Taiwan in numbers larger than PLA can repel and declare a takeover

No, that's completely arbitrary. The US has several win conditions, including the far blockade and harassment campaign I outlined while completely writing off Taiwan.

 

[supersnoop]

What if the "nuclear" weapon was something like banning Apple products or Tesla?
That would probably send shockwaves through the stock market...

 

[Biscuits]

That's assuming that 300 nukes (or whatever China has, which on the most generous estimates is a small fraction of what America has) survive the first strike, have zero malfunctions, and all get through the America missile defenses. I'm not familiar with how damaging the radiation from nuclear weapons is, but I'm not comfortable assuming a few tons of fission products dispersed over a continent is enough to make it a "living hell." If you have a reliable study about that, I'd like to read it.

The safest and most responsible posture China can take is to sprint toward parity. Ironically, that will also make the US safer since it will remove any temptation it has to start a war.

No, that's sound planning. Assuming the worst case scenario and still being able to prevail is how planning is done. I'm not going to trust in divine intervention to sort out America for China. As for Afghanistan, the US could have just smacked it with a few nuclear bombs and been done with it, that it had unachievable political goals is its own folly and China shouldn't count on that continuing. Failing to plan is planning to fail.

With an aircraft carrier parked in the Indian Ocean threatening any oil tanker sailing east.

Bold of you to assume Russia would continue supplying China with oil, especially given the lukewarm support (at best) China is giving Russia now. China shouldn't count on it. And why invade Russia when a B-2 raid could destroy critical pipeline nodes like pumping stations.

The part I understand is the US having > 0 B-2s and China having 0 H-20s.

Bold claim. I don't buy it.

Not so simple, I'm afraid. It's perfectly feasible for the US to continue hitting China indefinitely until China is completely worn down with China having no response except escalating to strategic nuclear use, which given current warhead counts it would still suffer far more than the US even if every single one of its warheads strikes its target.

I don't care what is likeliest to happen to the US economy, I care what the worst case scenario from China's perspective is. I don't care what the US will do, but what it can do.

Exactly what I advocate (whether or not the US disintegrates is irrelevant, what matters is that China builds the strength to crush it), but quite a few people here are getting their panties in a twist and want to start a war prematurely because some US politician is visiting Taiwan.

No, that's completely arbitrary. The US has several win conditions, including the far blockade and harassment campaign I outlined while completely writing off Taiwan.

I'll keep it short since we don't have too different visions of the path China should take ahead, only I believe you're wildly unrealistic about US capability.

US smacking Afghanistan with nukes is ridiculous as it would lead to them becoming an international pariah.

China can take oil deliveries through land as well. And parking aircraft carrier in Indian ocean then declaring war on every oil producer in the middle east, they'll also automatically cut off supply to US and anyone friendly to them. So guess both sides aren't getting oil now, except the smaller amounts China get from land delivery.

Thinking Russia wouldn't get involved is also stupid and wildly unrealistic. Russia has a huge vested interest in China not being destroyed, if US threatens the Chinese mainland, then it means they will also threaten Russian home territory. Assuming they don't get involved is like thinking Canada wouldn't help USA in a total war scenario.

When ww2 started, Japan had 1000s of A6M fighters with generational advantage over the USA who had 0 fighters of the same level. Now look at what the air forces looked like at the end of ww2.

You know what a bold claim is? That a B2 can fly more than 1000kms deep into the most defended airspace in the world and then survive the return trip. Which is what would take to attack Xi'an. Let alone pure pipe dreams like attacking pumps in the middle of siberia.

Current warhead count just means apocalypse for both sides if it ever came to nuclear war. Even ages ago China threatened to destroy the USSR mutually if they attacked to defend Vietnam. That's a whole lot more ground than all of the USA, and America's high command knows this. China wouldn't just be nuking the US mainland with about a thousand warheads, but any older warheads that can't fly that far can be used on Japan, Australia etc meaning the end of human civilization. And then there's Russia who will spit everything they have on what remains of NATO afterwards.

Nuclear discussion is a dead end. Even the mere idea that US could win a nuclear war against the other superpowers is a pipe dream only the most stupid US nationalist would believe. If US had that capability, it would try to use it.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

I'll keep it short since we don't have too different visions of the path China should take ahead

Indeed. You count on everything going China's way, I plan for everything going against it.

 

[manqiangrexue]

Since he took office, there have been many exaggerated compliments, which is very uncomfortable.
Amending the law to extend the term of office is a controversial move, which will give a bad impression of power hunger.
The restoration of the lifelong leadership system, which was ruthlessly abolished in the past, is undoubtedly a serious setback, and he must come up with a convincing reason. You know, before the NPC, there were reports abroad that he was going to amend the constitution.

50/50; it's your opinion and fear but it's not shared by me although I don't deny the legitimacy of the concern. Absolute power corrupts absolutely is an American concept; in general, the more competent your leader, the more beneficial it is to give him more power. And the less effective he is, the more useful limits are. Genius computer techs are hindered by Windows and can excel with Linux but basic users with no computer knowledge must use Windows because they will f everything up trying to use Linux. Due to the CCP's achievments, I feel like they are very well-suited for the Linux model, or the more power/control model, though it doesn't exclude the possibility of a rotten apple coming to power in the future requiring limits, AKA the Windows model.

For me, these leaders are mysterious and difficult to observe. Considering his origin, people are generally worried that power will be seized by the nobility of the new era.Some people ridicule that bureaucrats have formed a de facto reproductive isolation from the public and become a new caste class, so his origins will inevitably be resented.

In every country, the politicians/ruling class are a separate caste of some sorts that are not completely in touch with the people. It's all relative; American politicians don't know how much it takes to ride the subway and the president thinks you need ID to buy food at the supermarket.

I didn't check the files in Panama.It's hard to tell whether those things are true or false, and I don't want to think too bad.
Therefore, my current attitude is cautious. I will not over trust and support this suspicious leader, but I will not oppose him with indistinguishable rumors.

Panama?

It is more important to care about what he has done, but unfortunately, parts other than military reform are not very ideal.He took over a country that was coming to the end of a period of high growth and had accumulated many problems.
Problems caused by past negligence and policy mistakes have exploded during his tenure.Part of the problem was solved, but the situation has not been fundamentally improved.
Those entrepreneurs, or capitalists, are becoming more and more greedy,their ability to exploit workers and stifle the vitality of the cultural market is amazing.And the government seems to show a bad tendency to co-rule the country with entrepreneurs，this led some patriots in the past to question the current regime: does the regime have the attribute of proletariat? If so, why does the status of entrepreneurs seem more noble than that of workers?

People have to face the serious gap between the rich and the poor and the serious recession of spiritual culture (it is very profitable, but it is all garbage).The current management shows a serious conservative tendency, simply pursuing "safety" and "no problem", which allows leaders not to see some unpleasant news, but does not help solve the problem. They show an attitude of not trusting anyone.

Well, this is a structure that results from rewarding exceptional talent/ability and contribution. It is inevitable that we move in this direction in order to cultivate innovation and growth. No country in the world can be cutting edge while favoring mediocrity, inflating the blue collar share of the pie at the expense of those who innovate and create. These are force multipliers while workers are linear contributors. Force multipliers must be favored in order to cultivate and attract them because they are the key to modernization and evolution. A society that is too heavy on linear workers moves too slowly and inefficiently to be competitive. That is why it is more noble to be an entepreneur/innovator than it is to be a worker; it is the same all over the world. Anyone who fights this natural trend will stop technological and economical progress in its tracks.

Your view needs to evolve to fit the new times. They are old-school, the attitude that you have is what prevailed in China when China was just a large North Korea. To open a business hoping to get rich was evil greed and that caused China to stagnate for decades. Now, to be a modern competitor, China has evolved how it thinks and how its society is structured and rewarded.

The data indicators seem to be perfect, and the news praising the prosperous age is spreading everywhere in the streets, but the social fragmentation is intensifying, and only the crooked neck man may be enjoying this false prosperity.

The standard of living for everyone in China, most notably the poor (via the poverty eradication drive) has improved substantially and continues to do so. Having more people get rich is only a problem if they are getting rich by making others poor; China's rich are not strengthening due to wealth redistribution favoring them and robbing the working class but because everyone is getting richer, just that the rich are doing it faster. They are doing it in due to incredibily fast wealth generation instead that has no negative effect on the blue collar class.

Some say China is much better than the US, but I would expect to see some progress rather than a slower decline than anyone else.

You mean a decline in traditional old school communism? That had to happen because that system didn't work; China had to evolve it into China's modern system and that's not a decline. China's progress in economics, technology and military are all undeniably the fastest in the world and growth of hard power is what matters. As long as that is being delivered, my support of the CCP will be unwavering.