Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis

[Michaelsinodef]

His only source is this: he hope

Pretty sure it got confirmed in the ballistics missiles thread, or at least I vaguely remember reading about it within the last 1-2 months?

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

This is not true. Isotope separation works on any element.

There's a difference between what's physically possible and what can be feasibly engineered. If it's been done with plutonium, show me a public demonstration of when, where, and how it's been done.

Americans built and tested a nuclear warhead made from fissile material extracted from nuclear waste.

Why didn't they build all their weapons in this way? Why go through the trouble of producing plutonium at high purity when all that's needed is reactor junk?

 

[siegecrossbow]

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)

Thank you for written a coherent response and analysis while everyone else is just mud slinging and venting.

 

[clockwork]

The numbers per TEL is unknown with estimates for MIRVs per DF-41 ranging from 2 to 10. A 5x margin of error means they don't actually know jack shit.

It is also very hard to track TELs. US couldn't find Iraqi SCUDs despite 100% territorial AWAC coverage and a ground invasion. Russia can't track Ukrainian Tochka TELs. FAS in their 2019 to 2020 report changed from 300 to 350 warhead estimate and introduced DF-41 which apparently didn't exist until they went on parade and they included only the number that showed up on parade.

*Count* not track in combat. It's easy to see how many there are at each base on satellite in peacetime.

The FAS increase you're talking about I'm pretty sure is just from another 094 entering service.

 

[escobar]

Pretty sure it got confirmed in the ballistics missiles thread, or at least I vaguely remember reading about it within the last 1-2 months?

It is confirmed DF-5C is operational? when?

 

[manqiangrexue]

I wouldn't pay voyager's ranting too much mind, but there is something to be said about the anemic military spending at this time. Yes, China went from Soviet hand-me-downs to building stealth fighters, but it has (at the most generous estimate) 150 of those fighters vs. 800 F-35s. Now, I'm a believer in the J-20, but I can't believe that one of them is worth more than five F-35s.

It's certainly reasonable to argue that in the recent past China needed to dedicate the overwhelming bulk of its effort to closing the technology gap with the US, but those gaps have been closed in all but a handful of areas. The challenge now is to scale China's technology and build a large number of weapons and train the personnel to use them. That needs direct military spending.

Finally, as good as the CPC undoubtedly is, no one is good enough to be above learning. China's well-wishers hope and advocate that the government learn the correct lessons from this situation.

I don't think there are really any lessons here. We all know that China does its best to grow and develop as quickly as possible. We all know that in order to grow sustainably, you need to develop economy before technology and technology before military (under a robust nuclear deterrence of course). And we all know that the US would be very unhappy to see China challenge and/or surpass it and use brinksmanship just to be an asshole even if it does nothing useful. We're just watching something that was anticipated as a part and phase of the Sino-US competition. Just because it makes us angry does not mean that it was a surprise or that things are not going according to the big plan.

The build-up of the military is reliant on technological development; if you build too many of a design while a better one is clearly and quickly on the way, you waste money and resources ending up with a less effective force. As long as China's nuclear forces defend us against existential threat, China's leadership can safely optimize the time and strategy for when to bring the final aspect, our military, into the spotlight to surpass the US in all aspects. This shouldn't be rushed and it shouldn't be made with errors as the result of an emotional response to an otherwise useless provocation. I have full faith in the ability of the CCP to govern, to analyze, and to evolve to every threat.

 

[Michaelsinodef]

The political crisis will get stronger to the side of Taiwanese secessionist as time goes by because the most vocal of them (the liberal intellectual class) actually even see Chinese including the ROC as an illegal occupier of Taiwan. According to their understanding, Japan hasn't formally given/ceded back Taiwan to China since Japan won the Taiwanese territory from China as a concession and not merely a military occupation.

"The Treaty of Shimonoseki, concluded after the First Sino-Japanese War, transferred sovereignty of Taiwan to Japan. The handover of Taiwan to Japan was a territorial cession and not merely a military occupation.


The United States appointed Chiang as a proxy occupant, with Chiang acting as an agent of the American principal. Following the principle that military occupation does not transfer sovereignty, however, the declaration of “Taiwan Retrocession Day” was null and void. Instead of the beginning of the Republican Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan, Retrocession Day marked the beginning of Chinese occupation, as Japan retained de jure sovereignty over Taiwan.

Legally, the retreat should be interpreted as the exile of an occupying power into occupied territory, with Japan as the host state."
​

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And this line of thinking becomes more mainstream in Taiwan, the peaceful transfer of power between China would become very difficult and challenging to say the least as the old guard (those who longed for unification) in Taiwan dies off and replaced by the new patriots of Taiwan. It's not hard to foresee a possibility that by the time China is ready to reunify the island it would have lost the people of that island to the sort of thinking illuminated, pushed forth by America without the necessity of bloodshed and or extermination of these separatist ideology that's become a sense identity to the young people in Taiwan.

Is time really China's side when it comes to Taiwan? Or that place is a lost cause when it comes to it's inhabitants that even if and when the island is reunified firmly back to China that it may have permanently lost the people completely to a separate Taiwanese independence spirit.

I am of the belief the longer this Taiwan issue is delayed then the sooner the island is lost because what's the point of having a land back when the very people that lives on the land hate and despises you?

Nah, those extremist thinking Taiwan should be part of Japan can in the bigger picture be ignored.

On the other hand, the longer that Taiwan doesn't come back to China, the 'stronger' the separatist/independence movement/feeling will become which is actually gonna be a problem and can't so easily be ignored.

Which is why I believe that Taiwan will be taken back this decade, which also lines up with the messaging from various chinese sources as well.

It is confirmed DF-5C is operational? when?

No, but his original comment said it was visually confirmed that 6 DF-5C silos were finished, which I believe did come up in the ballistics missile thread (so one can go over and go through the pages there, should be within the last 1-2 months, could be older, but I don't think so)

 

[HereToSeePics]

Unless the PLAAF gets shot at first, all the talk about shooting down Pelosi’s plane or bombing the runway is a bit outrageous in my opinion. If not only for the sake that it’s just not Pelosi on the flight, but dozens of crew and staff who will also die on the flight. This will also lead to an instant market melt down across both US, Asian and European stock markets as well as sever economic consequences to multiple economics in both short and long term.

Just as people in the US have called her trip to Taiwan high risk, low reward - killing her and dozens of other people onboard is an even higher risk with arguably even lower rewards for China. There are countless ways China can respond to Pelosi’s potential visit with force and resolve without shooting anyone down such as giving China opening it needs to conduct fly overs of Taiwan and establish permanent air presence over the island. Unification is bound to happen, but it would be more preferable for China to set
the time and terms of when that happens, rather than be forced to play it’s hand now

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Source?

My mistake, 4x.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1537820634012700674

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

I don't think there are really any lessons here.

I think a crucial lesson is that 1.4% isn't enough. I don't know precisely what number is, but I know it isn't that.

you need to develop economy before technology and technology before military (under a robust nuclear deterrence of course)

This line of thinking was correct in the 1990s, but China has reached the cutting edge in a number of areas. The Type 055 is the most powerful destroyer in the world, there's no reason not to crank out 2x the number being built now. The J-20 is already a very capable design, there's no reason not to double the number of factories that produce it even if a ramp up in unit numbers isn't intended until after the WS-15 is available. The WS-15 being built in large numbers on day one is also something China needs. All of this costs money.

Most importantly of all, a robust nuclear deterrent is something China barely has now if it even has it at all. Building more nuclear weapons, delivery systems, LoW architecture, and training the personnel to operate them also costs a lot of money. China can't get there on the cheap.

The build-up of the military is reliant on technological development; if you build too many of a design while a better one is clearly and quickly on the way, you waste money and resources ending up with a less effective force.

I gave the Type 055 as a world-leading design China should build as quickly as possible. More military spending also means more money spent on R&D which will bring more capable systems online sooner.

As long as China's nuclear forces defend us against existential threat

I question China's current nuclear arsenal's ability to perform this task, which is why I advocate that the highest priority in a military expansion should be much faster growth of the strategic nuclear arsenal. China should not have triple its number of warheads by 2030, it should have > 10x.