Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis

[Bellum_Romanum]

Yes, because that's what victory demands.

Your concept of victory is vastly different than what the folks in the country want when their emotions are revved up due to the constant, almost non-stop provocations from America.

Decisions, any decisions for that matter big or small are not free from emotional input. Relationships make or break depending on two people's emotional stability.

Besides, we act and think like our grandiose plans can proceed accordingly able to anticipate every possible hiccups along the way, and magic bazillion nukes are ready, 12 aircraft carriers are made unimpeded, and the Chinese economy allowed to grow by the impotent west helplessly from afar finally accepting that their time and place has been set aside for the Dragon.

But, I hope you're proven to be correct, for China's and all our sake.

 

[jwnz]

Now without saying what you WANT to happen .

I want to ask the esteemed members here as to how many of you here genuinely believe that China WILL take Kinetic measures?

As im observing that increasing no. of members here are predicting China to let this pass and take a short term L for the long term W. If that makes any sense.

As I said before, there will be consequences for this stunt if Pelosi does go to Taiwan, but IMHO there will not be a hot conflict over this.

Joe will make the phone call to call it off, that's my prediction.

If not, the consequences will be economic to the US making them wishing they had not tried this stupid stunt.

 

[Bellum_Romanum]

The tweet speaks for itself

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1554045776166551552

 

[5unrise]

I agree that a rational, predictable response by China is to use any available measures other than lethal force, for the simple reason that one does not want to risk a war over Taiwan. I get that this is the sensible, optimal response on paper. However, I also think a discussion of the more extreme, aggressive, or even lethal measures should not be dismissed as outlandish or impossible, because it would portray that China is willing to do things that go far beyond what would make sense in order to safeguard its sovreignty.

The problem with only strictly rational and sensible decisions is that they makes your moves far too predictable and easy to react to. If the US know that a cautious player like the PRC will not risk sparking a conflict, then it can go far to test or even breach China's red lines. An element of irrationality is necessary to make your threat to defend your red lines credible, in the context of a geo-economic environment where it does not necessarily make first-best sense to enforce it.

In some ways, US diplomatic and military capabilities have teeth precisely because their decision-makers are not fully rationale, due to the need for politicians to appeal to domestic audiences, who have voting power but not enough of it individually to make labour-tensive yet informed decisions worthwhile. US adversaries need to account for the possibility of US strategiests to make first-order irrational decisions, such to please their domestic audiences. This includes having Pelosi fly to Taiwan, and to risk war with Russia over Ukraine while locked in a geopolitical contest with China, so on and so forth. If the US was a one-party state with stable leadership, such unpredictability would be lost to a large degree. Basically, madman theory is still relevant in a game theoretic sense.

It is tempting to dismiss discussions of China using lethal force as unconstructive. But I think there may be a good case for China to drop its usual caution, and make escalatory moves that may raise the risk of conflict, but make the defence of its red lines credible in the long-term.

 

[plawolf]

@plawolf. I have lived and worked in the U.S. and China, and dealt with the U.S. military and the PLA. These people are sane. I also understand the U.S. political system. I don't know how this will play out, and perhaps there is an element in me that hopes sanity will prevail. But military people, that have some influence in U.S. political decision-making apparatus, know what conflict will mean and absolutely don't want it to happen.

I have zero doubts that the US military has sane, rational and reasonable leaders, but the US military does not call the shots on US foreign policy do they?

The sad fact of the matter is things would not have escalated remotely as far as even today had US political leaders listened to the advice of their military leaders.

But here we are at the end of the day. So forgive me if I do not hold much faith in the likes of Milley being able to talk some sense into Pelosi at this late stage. So unless he is willing and able to do his own little coup, Mark Milley can do little more than what he has already done. So the only off-ramps I can see are if Biden makes his call, or if Pelosi’s nerve breaks before the PLAAF’s patience.

Edit, I suppose, upon reflection, there is a 3rd possible way to avoid this. Which is if Mark Milley is a true patriot and man of honour. He could do what he promised during Trump’s time, which is issue standard orders to the pilots of Pelosi’s plane that they are to wave off and vacate the area immediately if they are locked on by fire control radar, and tell the PLA that.

The PLA listens and locks Pelosi’s plane, pilots follow order and take her home no matter what she says or wants. MSM condemns China for being dangerous, both Biden and Pelosi gets to live to in-fight another day. Only loser would be Mark Milley, we will be done for treason.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

As im observing that increasing no. of members here are predicting China to let this pass and take a short term L for the long term W. If that makes any sense.

I think we should define clearly what the "L" and "W" here are:

The L is Nancy Pelosi visiting Taiwan. China's red lines are Taiwan declaring de jure independence, Taiwan obtaining nuclear weapons, and Taiwan basing foreign troops. None of these lines are crossed and none of them will be crossed. Anything other than crossing them is theatrics and the proper response to theatrics at this time is other theatrics. They can and should be very dramatic and escalatory theatrics, like an atmospheric nuclear bomb test near Taiwan.

The W is not just China taking Taiwan, or even China expelling the US from the western Pacific, it's China reducing the US to the geopolitical position it held in the 19th century - a power in its hemisphere and nothing more.

So, yes, that's worth the wait and the suffered indignities. Because China is going to make all of them pay; every last one of them is going to pay dearly.

 

[eprash]

An invasion of Taiwan will trigger anti-China sanctions in the West very similar to the current anti-Russian sanctions. This is exactly what America wants.

Maybe shooting down Pelosi would be the lesser evil if it only triggers a conflict with the US.

China should export Nukes and ICBMs to resource rich countries in the Global south then, Imagine how destabilising it would be for the current world order if Iran,Saudi,Nigeria,Venezuela and Brazil were to be suddenly capable of hitting them back really hard all the way back to their courtyard and start charging proper cost for access to their minerals without having to worry about interventions or color revolutions

 

[Bellum_Romanum]

I agree that a rational, predictable response by China is to use any available measures other than lethal force, for the simple reason that one does not want to risk a war over Taiwan. I get that this is the sensible, optimal response on paper. However, I also think a discussion of the more extreme, aggressive, or even lethal measures should not be dismissed as outlandish or impossible, because it would portray that China is willing to do things that go far beyond what would make sense in order to safeguard its de jure sovreignty over Taiwan.

The problem with doing what is rational and sensible is that it makes your moves far too predictable and easy to react to. If the US know that a cautious rational player like the PRC will not risk sparking a conflict, then it can go far to test or even breach China's red lines. An element of irrationality is necessary to make your threat to defend your red lines credible, in the context of a geo-economic environment where it does not necessarily make first-best rational sense to enforce it.

In some ways, US diplomatic and military capabilities have teeth precisely because it is not fully rationale, due to the need for politicians to appeal to domestic audiences, who have voting power but not enough of it individually to make labour-tensive yet informed decisions worthwhile. US adversaries need to account for the possibility of US strategiests to make first-order irrational decisions, such to please their domestic audiences. This includes having Pelosi fly to Taiwan, and to risk a war with Russia over Ukraine while locked in a geopolitical contest with China, so on and so forth etc. If the US was a one-party state with stable leadership, such unpredictability would be lost to a large degree. Basically, madman theory is still relevant in a game theoretic sense.

It is tempting to dismiss discussions of China using lethal force as unconstructive. But I think there may be a good case for China to drop its usual caution and predictability, and make escalatory moves that may raise the risk of conflict, but make the defence of its red lines credible in the long-term.

In other words, China must act irrational for it to be treated rationally. Reminds me of the famous book on Behavioral science book, Predictably Irrational: Irrationally rational by Dan Ariely.

 

[Sardaukar20]

I still don't think it will go hot though. As we all know it's a bait and trap.

PLAAF will send fighter jets to shadow Pelosi but nothing crazy.

China will recall her ambassador in Washington and even expel the US ambassador to China who's a fucking tool anyway.

Then trade war 2 will begin. Or as someone has suggested, demand Yuan for rare earths.

China has waited for so long, no need to fall for this trap.

Now, what can the CPC do to teach Veg English a lesson, I'm not sure.

I kinda agree.

In my view, China is not aiming to fight a war with the US now, unless they shoot first. This Pelosi visit have actually given China all the excuses it needs to stage it's military for a Reunification War. China os preparing to fight the US, but it will avoid doing so. China's eyes should be laser focused, squarely on Taiwan itself. The US is not it's primary target. The prize is Taiwan, not Pelosi's corpse.

Remember that China didn't say how or when exactly it would respond. It does not necessarily mean that China would immediately respond when Pelosi visits Taiwan.

If Pelosi doesn't visit Taiwan, then nothing happens. And then things could go back to business as usual.

But if Pelosi really does visit Taiwan, my guess is that the PLAAF could harrass and buzz her flight entourage at most. But there should be no shoot down attempts. They might get to do some mock dogfights with US fighter pilots. But no lethal force unless fired upon but the US side.

It is in my opinion that China could allow Pelosi to land on Taiwan and go home physically (but not mentally) unscathed. Off course there will be severe non-kinetic repercussions for Pelosi and the US. Those US forces deployed near Taiwan would actually be more useful for protecting Pelosi, than for any dream of protecting Taiwan from invasion. The DPP and the West can do their victory laps during the visit. But the real question is, what happens to Taiwan after that? China's red lines have already been crossed. China could now make their move. Their forces are gonna be in position, exercising, warming up for the real deal. Just like what Russia's troops did prior to invading Ukraine. The PLA could now strike at any time.

This is important. A Chinese reunification war with Taiwan after Pelosi goes home safely means that China will be dealing only with Taiwan. It'll give the US an escape route out of a direct war with China. It'll avoid pushing the US into a corner to go to war with China. China would be calling America's bluff this time over it's commitment to protect Taiwan. Yes, America could still intervene, and then its game on for WW3. Or America could chicken out like it had always done. My gut feeling is that the US will chicken out on Taiwan too. And they'll do it in a way that makes it sound like a victory.

America and the West will be placed in a very difficult position this time. If they chicken out of the fight and impose the mother of all sanctions on China, it'll be the last blow that their own shaky economies and tainted image could take. If they go WW3, then the outcome is the same too, only quicker.

Another reason why I think China has no intentions to start the war at this very moment. Historically, most wars don't start from a standoff. They tend to start with one side suddenly attacking, often to the surprise of the defenders.

But then again, these are just my two cents. I don't claim to know everything.

 

[Abominable]

If we are talking about killing Pelosi, then let's play this out logically. It would instantly galvanize the US population, congress for certain will respond with both economic and military retaliations. China responds accordingly.
Then their birds go up, China's birds go up, and you have the start of the Taiwan war. This is exactly what the US doesn't want because maintaining the status quo benefits the US. So yes, I agree US needs a way out of this Pelosi fiasco without losing too much face. Democrats are already under political pressure at home due to failing economy.

But China doesn't want to start a war either by killing Pelosi. Do that you might as well go all the way and retake Taiwan due to reasons stated above.

So what happens if Pelosi decides to fly into Hong Kong without permission? Or any other part of China? Where do you draw the line?

Again, I doubt this will happen, but once Pelosi's plane is shot down it'll be up to America to continue the path of escalation. During the Cold War both sides understood that any limited encounter would quickly escalate to full scale nuclear war.

What's more likely is after the initial skirmish, Americans will realise this and fall back to what happened whenever there was a flare up during the Cold War. Diplomatic talks and international mediation.

On that front, Americans have no leg to stand on. Taiwan is recognised as Chinese territory not only by the UN, but but 99% of countries in the world, including the US. No international court or mediation will find America in the right on this, they are 100% in the wrong.

The only game plan I can think about them having is pretending to allow Pelosi to go to Taiwan and at the last minute offering to cancel it in return for diplomatic concessions. That could be China agreeing to sanctions on North Korea, Iran or Russia, or agreeing to some sort of nuclear treaty.