This "domestic audience already on fire" are aware that China could bomb Taiwan to rubble without harming a hair on Pelosi's head, right?
Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis
- Thread starter sndef888
- Start date
- Status
escobar
Brigadier
Yes I can't believe there are some still believing CN has thousand on nuke hidden lol
I think a good way to estimate PLA's response to Pelosi's visit is to critically examine a few assumptions, I think that can enable a much more informed and reasonable discussion on this matter.
A few assumptions that may suggest China will not go kinetic this time around:
1. China will not initiate forceful reunification because it is not ready militarily at its current state
2. China's response to such matter is always calculated and rational, with the focus on internal stability and long term economic benefits over temporary loss and gain, there is no reason to suspect that this pattern of behavior will change (verbal protest but not respond forcefully)
3. The Pelosi visit does not fundamentally change the status quo, and given that China has reaffirmed its commitment for peaceful reunification in recent years and has not brought force reunification on formal agenda, it is unlikely that this will result in any new response
4. China believes time is on their side so there is no need to go kinetic right now, as a later time would be better (perhaps 2025 - 2030)
A few assumptions that suggest China will go kinetic this time around:
1. The upcoming party congress determines if Xi will stay a 3rd term, if this leaves a bad political outcome it will negatively impact the party congress. meaning China must respond forcefully if Pelosi lands in Taiwan
2. CPC, PLA, and Xi's legitimacy is dependent on the Taiwan matter and if it is not resolved in a satisfying way it may result in internal turmoil
3. It is a good time-window to reunify right now with the Russia-Ukraine situation, inflation in Western nations, and heavy dependence on Chinese manufacturing, there is little US can do to retaliate short of all out nuclear war
4. China tend to mark clear red lines on vital issues and once those are broken, a response is usually given
Now let's briefly examine them. starting with assumptions that China would not go kinetic.
For 1 the are plenty of past cases where China respond forcefully to a much stronger opponent. The Korean War started in June of 1950, China did not want to get involved, but warned the UN troops to not cross the 38th, they did, so China responded and the PVA launched the first offensive against the UN troops in Oct 25th of 1950 - bear in mind the PVA was supposed to be supported with Soviet equipment and air support but Stalin did not provide them, Mao still sent PVA regardless. The skirmish with USSR in 1969 over Zhenbao Dao is a similar situation, USSR was way stronger than China then but that did not stop the PLA from fighting the Soviet army. In 1979, the PLA was in a crappy situation coming out of the cultural revolution, but Deng still fought Vietnam. At that time, Vietnam and USSR signed a military treaty in that if Vietnam were to be attacked USSR will come to aid, but Deng went ahead regardless (although with the back of the US and the West) with the 1979 campaign, but stationed a lot of troops in the north in case of a USSR response, he also and continuously fought Vietnam from the 80s into early 90s with all fighting stopped around 1991. In 1996, Jiang was ready to reunify Taiwan with force but was forced to give up because a high ranking PLA general defected and leaked the campaign plans to Taiwan which resulted in US intervention. In all 4 such cases, China, under 3 separate leaders, were not hesitant to initiate kinetic conflict with much stronger opponent (maybe you can argue for Jiang as the campaign was abandoned, but still). US's military capability may be greater than China's at a global level, but not at a regional level within West pacific, and PLA is very likely to emerge victorious from a armed conflict with the US over Taiwan, as that has been what PLA has been preparing for for at least the past 2 decades after 1996.
Thus, I don't think the degree of military preparation is a factor that would stop the PLA from going kinetic, because PLA is militarily ready to take on the US in Western pacific, and even if it is not, they may still go ahead and initiate forced reunification.
Let's talk about 2 now. Chinese philosophy to war differs from Western war philosophy. The focus on political and psychological impact of warfare is emphasized much more in Chinese war philosophy. Henry Kissinger sharply points out in his analysis that modern China has a habit of only fighting wars that will end all subsequent wars - PRC fights wars in such unpredictable and swift manner that the psychological shock brought to the enemy will ensure decades of peace until, well, 2 -3 generations later that no one actually lived to remember what it was like fighting the Chinese. Korean War is a great example, PVA's performance shocked the USSR and the West (this war actually contributed, in part, the formation of military industrial complex within the US). USSR immediately began efforts to assist China with industrialization, and the US took China seriously as an opponent and regional player, so much so that during the Vietnam war 15- 20 years later, the US obeyed the Chinese red line of not crossing the 16th parallel (If i remember correctly) and not send foot solders into North Vietnam. The 1962 campaign against India was a similar deal, Mao prepared for the campaign for 2- 3 years and launched the attack during the Cuban missile crisis. This war left such a huge impact on India, that it destroyed Nehru's political ambitions to industrialize India. 1969 skirmish with USSR is of a similar mindset, it was used as a signal to the US that China is a valuable partner to have against the USSR in the Cold war - if this did not happen would Nixon send Henry Kissinger to China in 1971? The 1979 campaign against Vietnam was of a similar deal, it was not only about Vietnam but also about the USSR, this is why Vietnam and China only stopped fighting and normalized relationships after the dissolution of the USSR.
So, China has been peaceful and soft for the past 40 years because the fruition of Mao and Deng's war had paid off; the political and psychological impact left on China's adversaries allowed China to have unprecedented level of peace (with except for the US) that does not grant the need for forceful military action. But now, it is increasingly obvious that China may need to fighter another war that will end all wars to secure its safety for the next couple of decades
I'll continue in subsequent posts..(SDF does not allow you to write to much in each post)
A few assumptions that may suggest China will not go kinetic this time around:
1. China will not initiate forceful reunification because it is not ready militarily at its current state
2. China's response to such matter is always calculated and rational, with the focus on internal stability and long term economic benefits over temporary loss and gain, there is no reason to suspect that this pattern of behavior will change (verbal protest but not respond forcefully)
3. The Pelosi visit does not fundamentally change the status quo, and given that China has reaffirmed its commitment for peaceful reunification in recent years and has not brought force reunification on formal agenda, it is unlikely that this will result in any new response
4. China believes time is on their side so there is no need to go kinetic right now, as a later time would be better (perhaps 2025 - 2030)
A few assumptions that suggest China will go kinetic this time around:
1. The upcoming party congress determines if Xi will stay a 3rd term, if this leaves a bad political outcome it will negatively impact the party congress. meaning China must respond forcefully if Pelosi lands in Taiwan
2. CPC, PLA, and Xi's legitimacy is dependent on the Taiwan matter and if it is not resolved in a satisfying way it may result in internal turmoil
3. It is a good time-window to reunify right now with the Russia-Ukraine situation, inflation in Western nations, and heavy dependence on Chinese manufacturing, there is little US can do to retaliate short of all out nuclear war
4. China tend to mark clear red lines on vital issues and once those are broken, a response is usually given
Now let's briefly examine them. starting with assumptions that China would not go kinetic.
For 1 the are plenty of past cases where China respond forcefully to a much stronger opponent. The Korean War started in June of 1950, China did not want to get involved, but warned the UN troops to not cross the 38th, they did, so China responded and the PVA launched the first offensive against the UN troops in Oct 25th of 1950 - bear in mind the PVA was supposed to be supported with Soviet equipment and air support but Stalin did not provide them, Mao still sent PVA regardless. The skirmish with USSR in 1969 over Zhenbao Dao is a similar situation, USSR was way stronger than China then but that did not stop the PLA from fighting the Soviet army. In 1979, the PLA was in a crappy situation coming out of the cultural revolution, but Deng still fought Vietnam. At that time, Vietnam and USSR signed a military treaty in that if Vietnam were to be attacked USSR will come to aid, but Deng went ahead regardless (although with the back of the US and the West) with the 1979 campaign, but stationed a lot of troops in the north in case of a USSR response, he also and continuously fought Vietnam from the 80s into early 90s with all fighting stopped around 1991. In 1996, Jiang was ready to reunify Taiwan with force but was forced to give up because a high ranking PLA general defected and leaked the campaign plans to Taiwan which resulted in US intervention. In all 4 such cases, China, under 3 separate leaders, were not hesitant to initiate kinetic conflict with much stronger opponent (maybe you can argue for Jiang as the campaign was abandoned, but still). US's military capability may be greater than China's at a global level, but not at a regional level within West pacific, and PLA is very likely to emerge victorious from a armed conflict with the US over Taiwan, as that has been what PLA has been preparing for for at least the past 2 decades after 1996.
Thus, I don't think the degree of military preparation is a factor that would stop the PLA from going kinetic, because PLA is militarily ready to take on the US in Western pacific, and even if it is not, they may still go ahead and initiate forced reunification.
Let's talk about 2 now. Chinese philosophy to war differs from Western war philosophy. The focus on political and psychological impact of warfare is emphasized much more in Chinese war philosophy. Henry Kissinger sharply points out in his analysis that modern China has a habit of only fighting wars that will end all subsequent wars - PRC fights wars in such unpredictable and swift manner that the psychological shock brought to the enemy will ensure decades of peace until, well, 2 -3 generations later that no one actually lived to remember what it was like fighting the Chinese. Korean War is a great example, PVA's performance shocked the USSR and the West (this war actually contributed, in part, the formation of military industrial complex within the US). USSR immediately began efforts to assist China with industrialization, and the US took China seriously as an opponent and regional player, so much so that during the Vietnam war 15- 20 years later, the US obeyed the Chinese red line of not crossing the 16th parallel (If i remember correctly) and not send foot solders into North Vietnam. The 1962 campaign against India was a similar deal, Mao prepared for the campaign for 2- 3 years and launched the attack during the Cuban missile crisis. This war left such a huge impact on India, that it destroyed Nehru's political ambitions to industrialize India. 1969 skirmish with USSR is of a similar mindset, it was used as a signal to the US that China is a valuable partner to have against the USSR in the Cold war - if this did not happen would Nixon send Henry Kissinger to China in 1971? The 1979 campaign against Vietnam was of a similar deal, it was not only about Vietnam but also about the USSR, this is why Vietnam and China only stopped fighting and normalized relationships after the dissolution of the USSR.
So, China has been peaceful and soft for the past 40 years because the fruition of Mao and Deng's war had paid off; the political and psychological impact left on China's adversaries allowed China to have unprecedented level of peace (with except for the US) that does not grant the need for forceful military action. But now, it is increasingly obvious that China may need to fighter another war that will end all wars to secure its safety for the next couple of decades
I'll continue in subsequent posts..(SDF does not allow you to write to much in each post)
I know that. But I would hardly call such passages as innocent.
It's entirely in your head.
Many here are afraid of US and it's 10 feet tall. It's entirely within your capacity to shit talk about PLA and political shit posts and some more.
It's a sign of weakness to assign blame and stay in paralyzed state, like an old woman in a shock.
Some of us here have full confidence PLA would discharge their duties to their fullest abilities, that's the morale.
They have always supported it. Biden is a lying sack of shit. There is no doubt the Neocons are planning something between now and 2025 before Trump comes in with a wrecking ball.
6 new DF-5C silos are completed, visually confirmed.
Even at existing estimated stockpiles of Pu there's sufficient for up to 1300 new weapons.
It's consistent with existing foreign (low ball) estimates.
Also doesn't account for dismantling old DF-4s and repurposing in smaller MIRVs, and recent reprocessing.
Source?
This is not true. Isotope separation works on any element.
Americans built and tested a nuclear warhead made from fissile material extracted from nuclear waste.
The main reason would be it would give the Russians information on how many warheads China has. If the Russians know, it's likely chance the CIA knows.
- Status