PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

PhSt said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So the US has commanded another one of its chihuahuas (the other being Lithuania) to bark and piss on China.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And now Taiwanese separatists are in the process of Nazification. If China doesn't liberate Taiwan now, things will only get more complicated in the future.

Click to expand...

China will not "liberate" Taiwan right now because it is not ready to do so. It also doesn't need to do it unless Taiwan crosses the red line. Time is on china's side. What is the rush?

As for the Europeans, they are going through a phase right now. In another year or two, let's see how they feel about continued inflation and economic malaise. Why react to every provocative comment by a western politician?

A recent reddit thread about a report made by Ian Easton on an invasion of Taiwan by the PLA.
And well I was kinda interested in what was written, but when I got into the report I wanted to take a look at his sources, and well, LOL.

A lot of the chinese sources he is using are from 2012-2015, there's no new ones from 2020 or 2021 (not to mention the ones past 2015 aren't like, sources from the chinese military or the likes).

So it can honestly be thrown into the garbage bin (well not unexpected).

Truthfully, not sure if I should post this here or in the funny thread.


https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/u5rixy

What are your thoughts on how the PLA will treat the unofficial US embassy on Taiwan in the event of hostilities? Leave it alone, hold it hostage as bargaining chip or blast it?

luosifen said:

What are your thoughts on how the PLA will treat the unofficial US embassy on Taiwan in the event of hostilities? Leave it alone, hold it hostage as bargaining chip or blast it?

Click to expand...

By the time hostilities erupt, the "embassy" would almost surely be already vacated and empty.

Michaelsinodef said:

A recent reddit thread about a report made by Ian Easton on an invasion of Taiwan by the PLA.
And well I was kinda interested in what was written, but when I got into the report I wanted to take a look at his sources, and well, LOL.

A lot of the chinese sources he is using are from 2012-2015, there's no new ones from 2020 or 2021 (not to mention the ones past 2015 aren't like, sources from the chinese military or the likes).

So it can honestly be thrown into the garbage bin (well not unexpected).

Truthfully, not sure if I should post this here or in the funny thread.


https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/u5rixy

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Ian Easton is a shit source in general.



Basically devoid of analysis and goes against proven battle experience in Ukraine, where both Russian Iskanders and Ukrainian Tochkas are doing significant and strategic damage.

FairAndUnbiased said:

Ian Easton is a shit source in general.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Basically devoid of analysis and goes against proven battle experience in Ukraine, where both Russian Iskanders and Ukrainian Tochkas are doing significant and strategic damage.

Click to expand...

Of course it’s devoid. That guy has zero military experience. The closest thing he has is 2 years as a China naval analyst for a nonprofit pre-2013 and the rest of his credentials is a MBA China studies.

Michaelsinodef said:

A recent reddit thread about a report made by Ian Easton on an invasion of Taiwan by the PLA.
And well I was kinda interested in what was written, but when I got into the report I wanted to take a look at his sources, and well, LOL.

A lot of the chinese sources he is using are from 2012-2015, there's no new ones from 2020 or 2021 (not to mention the ones past 2015 aren't like, sources from the chinese military or the likes).

So it can honestly be thrown into the garbage bin (well not unexpected).

Truthfully, not sure if I should post this here or in the funny thread.


https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/u5rixy

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Ian Easton and the Project 2049 Think Tank he works for are funded by Taiwan. Anything coming from it should be considered Taiwan PSYOP.

FairAndUnbiased said:

Ian Easton is a shit source in general.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Basically devoid of analysis and goes against proven battle experience in Ukraine, where both Russian Iskanders and Ukrainian Tochkas are doing significant and strategic damage.

Click to expand...

Well, technically he isn't wrong. Taiwan does focus obsessively on ballistic missiles at a time when China can sustainably deliver orders of magnitudes more precision fire via the PLAAF.

FairAndUnbiased said:

Ian Easton is a shit source in general.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Basically devoid of analysis and goes against proven battle experience in Ukraine, where both Russian Iskanders and Ukrainian Tochkas are doing significant and strategic damage.

Click to expand...

That was pretty dumb. There are videos posted of the aftermath of some of the Iskander missile strikes. Here:


It's a lot more than a heavy artillery shell. Most of the cost of missiles are in R&D. For short range ones as would be used against Taiwan the unit cost would be low if they were being mass produced.

American ballistic missile defences are poor. They are struggling against Palestinian DIY rockets today and failed against Iraqi scuds during the Gulf war. Ballistic missiles are the number one threat for Taiwan, and there's not much they can do about the hundreds that could be launched at them in the opening hours of war if it comes to that. "Cyber warfare" isn't going to stop 25% of them, whatever that means.

Jason_ said:

Well, technically he isn't wrong. Taiwan does focus obsessively on ballistic missiles at a time when China can sustainably deliver orders of magnitudes more precision fire via the PLAAF.

Click to expand...

he's wrong because ballistic missiles aren't a big artillery shell, they aren't easy to shrug off and they aren't easy to harden against. Taiwan can worry all it wants, but it doesn't have the capability to stop them or harden against them.

for one, they deliver ~500 kg of payload vs. ~10 kg for a big artillery shell, have ~300 km range (for SRBMs) vs. ~30 km and have CEP in the single digits of meters range. 50x more firepower with 10x the range at equal accuracy is not "just a little bigger". For reference, in terms of income 50x bigger is the difference between a C suite executive and a McDonalds burger flipper. The C suite executive doesn't have "just a little bit higher income" than the burger flipper. 500 kg of even just solid concrete at Mach 5 delivered within 5 meters of a target is devastating.

conventional ballistic missiles have been used to devastating effect by both Russia and Ukraine in this very war that happened less than 1 year after he wrote the "analysis". Ukraine has lost essentially all its strategic logistics capability like oil refining and distribution, training camps, fixed command, etc. Russia on the other hand has been hit by Ukrainian Tochkas from the 1980's even weeks into the war, proving that TELs are extremely survivable even in the face of air superiority, and Taiwan has neither the capability to gain air superiority over mainland China (or even over Taiwan itself) nor the capability to strike TELs like he asserts.