PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

Ringsword

Junior Member
Registered Member
The messaging on HK is such ridiculous. The fact that “crackdown” and “draconian” are still the popular belief makes me feel like living in the West is like a giant cult-world. (Charming and charismatic leader USA, “inner circle” NATO, leader is always right “rules-based international order”, etc.)

Cops in the US basically kill 2 - 3 people on a regular day, but some how HK is “brutal” despite killing zero people during days of consecutive mass demonstrations.
Some of these masked morons were actually- imported into HK-Ukrainian trash-hooligans(slashing Hk senior citizens-setting an old man on fire with lighter fluid)Hope these Ukrainian trash-hooligans all die on new Eastern Front.
BTW I am still a "new member" when do I get to be PFC-RingSword??
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Not sure if this has been posted already but it seems the US and its puppets in Taiwan are rushing to put this in place

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Btw, this is not a policy that has been adopted, so I'm a little annoyed people on this thread are acting like it has already happened. More importantly, using an Indian source for something this serious is probably a bad idea.

It's not America's policy to provide nuclear umbrella to its allies for conventional attacks. In fact, none of the American war planners have considered using nuclear weapons in a westpac scenario based on what some reliable sources explained to me.

As such, I would suggest that people on this forum stick with conventional scenarios.
 

huhwhat

Just Hatched
Registered Member
Btw, this is not a policy that has been adopted, so I'm a little annoyed people on this thread are acting like it has already happened. More importantly, using an Indian source for something this serious is probably a bad idea.

It's not America's policy to provide nuclear umbrella to its allies for conventional attacks. In fact, none of the American war planners have considered using nuclear weapons in a westpac scenario based on what some reliable sources explained to me.

As such, I would suggest that people on this forum stick with conventional scenarios.
Is this a hard suggestion meaning that anyone caught violating it would suffer a warning or a ban? Or would sharing some public, non-Indian sources that I hope forum members would think is as reliable as anonymous "reliable sources" with regards to Washington's internal policies be an exception?

First, Global Times, a more hawkish Chinese tabloid that, while not representative of official CPC policy, publishes opinions the party considers acceptable. The author is an assistant professor at the School of International Studies, Nanjing University. The author believes that a nuclear umbrella over Taiwan is wishful thinking, but he does not completely discount the possibility. He claims strong opposition from China is a deterrence to the policy being implemented, but Biden undoing Blinken's state visit within a day by insulting Xi shows how little respect America has for China's concerns.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Some recent remarks by Joseph Wu, leader of the external affairs authority of the Taiwan region, have added fuel to these ongoing debates. Wu suggested last week that the authorities of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) had been in communication with "good friends" regarding the possibility of placing the Taiwan island under US nuclear umbrella.

Nevertheless, if the US attempts to put Taiwan into its nuclear umbrella, it would be likely viewed by the Chinese mainland as a complete abandonment of the "one China" policy.

With that being said, neither does the US have legal basis for putting Taiwan into its nuclear umbrella nor could it ignore strong opposition and reactions from the Chinese mainland as a nuclear power.

Now, for a Taiwanese source.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Diplomat is basically used to gauge public opinion over potential Western Pacific policies Washington and/or its lackeys hope to implement. The two authors are Legislative Assistants in the Legislative Yuan, Republic of China (Taiwan). They, like the GT article above, confirmed that Joseph Wu indeed have discussed including Taiwan under its nuclear umbrella. That such a policy is even brought up for discussion, in my opinion, is dangerous. The authors quoted Mearsheimer, who everyone else loves to quote on the issue of Ukraine due to his supposedly dovish and realist opinions.

In his article titled “Say Goodbye to Taiwan,” John J. Mearsheimer suggests that in order to prevent a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, two options are available: Taiwan must either be included under the U.S. nuclear umbrella or have nuclear weapons of its own. By choosing either option, the possibility of Chinese aggression would decrease, he argues. The United States has rejected the latter option, but it must commit to the former in order to alleviate any doubts regarding U.S. support for Taiwan.

While providing Taiwan with nuclear weapons may not be practical, including Taiwan under the U.S. nuclear umbrella is a practical alternative. As Taiwan approaches its presidential election season, this firm nuclear guarantee would be the best way to dispel any doubts about U.S. support for Taiwan’s security and prosperity, and eliminate the possibility of China driving a wedge between the two.

Finally, an American source.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The author holds the Jessica T. Mathews Chair and is co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Unlike the two previous articles that were published in 2023, this was published in 2017, when U.S.-China relations were still good. In fact, the relations were very good compared to how far they have deteriorated since.

This article calls for peace and for the United States to take a less aggressive posture towards nuclear weapon use. However, if people actually read the actual details of this proposed plan, they will find that this less hawkish policy still calls for a nuclear umbrella over Taiwan, even during nonnuclear conventional warfare. Also, since the plan is supposed to be less aggressive, this implies that the hidden or unspoken clauses within the U.S. 'strategic ambiguity' policy towards Taiwan, even back in 2017, was more aggressive than the plan.

The United States should pledge not to employ nuclear weapons except to defend itself, its allies or its partners from threats to their very existence.

Most significantly, China may achieve conventional superiority in the West Pacific in the not-too-distant future. If it does and if the United States wishes to continue to uphold its commitment to regional allies—Taiwan, in particular—then Washington will have little choice but to rely on threats of nuclear first-use.

A no-first-use policy is, therefore, not a viable option for the United States right now—although Washington can and should take steps to promote it. The United States should, for example, seek to work cooperatively with both Russia and China to achieve a durable balance of conventional forces in key theatres so that both sides feel secure. Of course, making progress on this agenda—let alone achieving it— will be exceptionally challenging. But, such challenges need not prevent other adjustments to declaratory policy in the near future.

Specifically, the United States should pledge not to employ nuclear weapons except to defend itself, its allies or its partners from threats to their very existence. In articulating this policy, the United States should emphasize that, because of the possibility of escalation, it considers that any use of nuclear weapons against itself, its allies, or its partners would constitute an existential threat. But, because existential threats are not limited to nuclear use, this declaratory policy would allow the United States to employ nuclear weapons to defend allies from the most extreme nonnuclear threats.

The U.S. nuked Japan. General Douglas MacArthur wanted to nuke China but was ultimately stopped. People may argue that because MacArthur was stopped, the U.S. would similarly shirk from a nuclear commitment towards its Western Pacific lapdogs. However, the U.S. today is not the U.S. of the Cold War era. Henry Kissinger, who counseled against NATO expansion to the east, is now seen as too peace-loving, despite Kissinger engineering the collapse of the Soviet Union and indiscriminately bombing hundreds of thousands of civilians in Cambodia.
 

coolgod

Colonel
Registered Member
It's not America's policy to provide nuclear umbrella to its allies for conventional attacks.
How are you sure about that?
In fact, none of the American war planners have considered using nuclear weapons in a westpac scenario based on what some reliable sources explained to me.

As such, I would suggest that people on this forum stick with conventional scenarios.
Is your "reliable source" more credible than the sources huhwhat posted?
 

coolgod

Colonel
Registered Member
Think Tankers are not the US government and do not represent the views or policies of the US.
Genuinely curious, who do you think represent the views or policies of the US (with respect to China/Taiwan and nuclear policy) today? Is it Dementia Joe over there? Is it the rest of the White House who have to walk back Joe's comments everytime? Is it Sullivan and his NSC gang? Is it Blinken and his blob? Is it responsible General Milley and the other top generals? Is it the unnamed deep (administrative) state? Is it the multinational corps? Is it the ultra-rich elites? Or is it some other group? Because at the end of the day, these groups all rely on think tankers to craft actual policies.

What do you take as the gospel on the US's China/defence policy? The National Security Strategy document? Biden's and Xi's meeting readout? The Shanghai communique? The Six assurances? Or some other document which the US had signed in history. Because I can tell you those documents contradict each other and are worth less than the paper they were signed on.

Regardless of what US says about their nuclear policy regarding Taiwan, PLA will treat it as a possibility. The fact this possibility is publicly raised in the media highlights the increased odds of this scenario happening.
 
Last edited:

supersnoop

Major
Registered Member
Is this a hard suggestion meaning that anyone caught violating it would suffer a warning or a ban? Or would sharing some public, non-Indian sources that I hope forum members would think is as reliable as anonymous "reliable sources" with regards to Washington's internal policies be an exception?

First, Global Times, a more hawkish Chinese tabloid that, while not representative of official CPC policy, publishes opinions the party considers acceptable. The author is an assistant professor at the School of International Studies, Nanjing University. The author believes that a nuclear umbrella over Taiwan is wishful thinking, but he does not completely discount the possibility. He claims strong opposition from China is a deterrence to the policy being implemented, but Biden undoing Blinken's state visit within a day by insulting Xi shows how little respect America has for China's concerns.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



Now, for a Taiwanese source.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Diplomat is basically used to gauge public opinion over potential Western Pacific policies Washington and/or its lackeys hope to implement. The two authors are Legislative Assistants in the Legislative Yuan, Republic of China (Taiwan). They, like the GT article above, confirmed that Joseph Wu indeed have discussed including Taiwan under its nuclear umbrella. That such a policy is even brought up for discussion, in my opinion, is dangerous. The authors quoted Mearsheimer, who everyone else loves to quote on the issue of Ukraine due to his supposedly dovish and realist opinions.



Finally, an American source.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The author holds the Jessica T. Mathews Chair and is co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Unlike the two previous articles that were published in 2023, this was published in 2017, when U.S.-China relations were still good. In fact, the relations were very good compared to how far they have deteriorated since.

This article calls for peace and for the United States to take a less aggressive posture towards nuclear weapon use. However, if people actually read the actual details of this proposed plan, they will find that this less hawkish policy still calls for a nuclear umbrella over Taiwan, even during nonnuclear conventional warfare. Also, since the plan is supposed to be less aggressive, this implies that the hidden or unspoken clauses within the U.S. 'strategic ambiguity' policy towards Taiwan, even back in 2017, was more aggressive than the plan.



The U.S. nuked Japan. General Douglas MacArthur wanted to nuke China but was ultimately stopped. People may argue that because MacArthur was stopped, the U.S. would similarly shirk from a nuclear commitment towards its Western Pacific lapdogs. However, the U.S. today is not the U.S. of the Cold War era. Henry Kissinger, who counseled against NATO expansion to the east, is now seen as too peace-loving, despite Kissinger engineering the collapse of the Soviet Union and indiscriminately bombing hundreds of thousands of civilians in Cambodia.

I think it’s common sense.

If PRC attacks ROC conventionally then any nuclear response by USA will 100% result in nuclear attack on your home soil.

Would anyone risk SF being nuked because Taipei was attacked? It’s stupid and not worth it.
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Think Tankers are not the US government and do not represent the views or policies of the US.
Given the incestuous relations between the US government and the think tanks this is a naive assumption to have.

For example. Victoria Nuland. US Under Secretary of State. Fellow of the Brookings Institute. Married with Robert Kagan. Co-Founder of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Formerly in the Carnegie Endowment For International Peace. Now also at the Brookings Institute.

And guess who founded the now much cited ever since the Ukraine conflict started Institute for Study of War (ISW). Kimberly Kagan. Married to Robert Kagan's brother. Her husband Frederick Kagan also contributes to the ISW and is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Which is the right-leaning mirror image of the Brookings Institute.
 
Last edited:

coolgod

Colonel
Registered Member
Given the incestuous relations between the US government and the think tanks this is a naive assumption to have.

For example. Victoria Nuland. US Under Secretary of State. Fellow of the Brookings Institute. Married with Robert Kagan. Co-Founder of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Formerly in the Carnegie Endowment For International Peace. Now also at the Brookings Institute.

And guess who founded the now much cited ever since the Ukraine conflict started Institute for Study of War. Kimberly Kagan. Married to Robert Kagan's brother.
Don't forget Fred Kagan, Donald Kagan and Kimberly Kagan. Think tank is where most top level bureaucrats and politicans go when they aren't directly employed by the US government.
 
Top