PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

5unrise said:

In my opinion, China has a very good chance to retake Taiwan in the next 100 years, if it plays its cards sensibly.

Click to expand...

"The next 100 years" is the most meaningless assumption, when we will all die. We are not sure how far the division between the two places will deepen by then.

5unrise said:

I hope you can see why excessive internal pressure from a vocal domestic minority demanding immediate military action is completely counterproductive. This could conceivably lead opportunistic individuals in the Communist Party to try winning mass support by taking a more aggressive foreign policy. This may be good for that individual, and might satiate certain people in the short-term, but could very well derail China's rise in the long-run. And to me, China's rise is very very important.
So, try to be more concerned with whether Beijing's actions make sense, instead of how it feels to you.

Click to expand...

Anyway, I don't believe the man with crooked neck. Amending the law is a serious matter, and many people accuse him of taking a step backwards politically by extending his term of office.
He must make some convincing achievements. Caesar became a lifelong dictator on the premise that he conquered Gaul.
There will always be only one great leader. At present, no one is qualified to be his successor. Now this person is far from enough.
I want to see if Mr. baozi can be a qualified leader in the upcoming major event.I hope he is not a liar greedy for power.

dengyeye said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Just do the same thing here. Fly in front of Pelosi's plane and release chaff into its engines.

Click to expand...

India should join in with the US, and what better participant than a US bought AC130. Just don't fly too close in front of Pelosi's plane

zhangjim said:

"The next 100 years" is the most meaningless assumption, when we will all die. We are not sure how far the division between the two places will deepen by then.

Anyway, I don't believe the man with crooked neck. Amending the law is a serious matter, and many people accuse him of taking a step backwards politically by extending his term of office.
He must make some convincing achievements. Caesar became a lifelong dictator on the premise that he conquered Gaul.
There will always be only one great leader. At present, no one is qualified to be his successor. Now this person is far from enough.
I want to see if Mr. baozi can be a qualified leader in the upcoming major event.I hope he is not a liar greedy for power.

Click to expand...

Divisions don’t matter much as compared to the balance of power, if power keeps tilting towards China then it’s in China’s interest. Especially considering the Taiwanese mentality towards the Japanese occupation, its safe to assume they will worship whoever conquers them. The next 100 years doesnt 100 years it could be as soon as 5 or 10 years.
“don’t believe the man” “step backwards” “dictator” “liar” these are the same typical talking points as anti Chinese propagandists like Gordon Chang. Xi must be doing something right If you dislike him so much.

Biscuits said:

So your US strategy is to just go full nazi Germany and war declare on pretty much everything, let Europe starve, let Japan and SK be meatshields that eventually get occupied.

Click to expand...

Yes. Is there a problem with that?

Biscuits said:

Surely, there is no way such a strategy would backfire by pissing off trillions of people. It wouldn't create a new Allies for sure. Surely, it wouldn't break the US economy which can't even work properly to feed its population during peacetime.

Click to expand...

I don't know if you said "trillions" as comedic exaggeration or you just don't know how many people there are on planet Earth. That I have that doubt doesn't reflect well on your analytic ability. It's also comical to think history repeats itself so rigidly that all one needs to do to draw lessons from it is to swap the names of countries. Here's the actual lesson from WWII: Germany was a tiny country surrounded by enemies on all its borders with coastline so shitty that two guys in a rowboat with a bazooka could blockade it, and it still caused horrific damage on its way down. The US is a massive country that dominates its hemisphere and has full access to two oceans. What "new Allies" are going to bring it down? Are Canada and Mexico going to invade it? Is Cuba going to mount a D Day?

As for feeding its population, take a look at the US's acreage of arable land per capita. You can't be this spectacularly wrong in just three consecutive sentences and expect to be taken seriously.

Biscuits said:

Do you know China's geography? Cities like Chengdu lie about 2000 km inland. If China's defenses extends 1000 kms out from the mainland, the volume of attacks you can land even using the bombers with highest survivability firing the most expensive munitions with 1500km range, is none. Unless you wanna trade a lot of pilots by sending huge formations deep inside China and hoping 1 or 2 can make it through. B2s and pilots don't grow on trees.

Click to expand...

Ability of US to damage Chinese homeland > 0. Ability of China to damage American homeland = 0. What about that do you not understand?

Until that changes, America will win based on that fact alone.

Biscuits said:

You have bought into the false myth of American invincibility spread by their state media. The world is not a playground which US can freely mold. They can't even get themselves out of recession, nor get their life expectancy higher than China, even when every other elderly Chinese today were chain smoking as kids and grew up during total war. They can't even expel the taliban from Afghanistan. They can't even fix their own corruption. You're like those ppl thinking the Soviet Union in 1988 could use its martial might to run over all of Europe.

Click to expand...

Clowning the US for its corruption and social problems is all fun and games, but never go to war based on a contemptuous image of your opponent. Underestimating your opponent and the tragedies that ensue is also another lesson worth learning from history. The US waged the Cold War and eventually won it based on what the USSR had the potential to do, not what it actually did. China should similarly wage war on the US based on what it has the potential to do, not what it does.

Biscuits said:

Instead of making shallow analogies that have no relevance to the topic

Click to expand...

Oh, the irony.

Biscuits said:

let's just look at only the topic of war.

Click to expand...

Let's. The only time a country should start a war is if it judges that the balance of power so preponderantly favours it that if everything that could go wrong for it goes so spectacularly wrong that it seems divinely cursed, and if everything that could go right for its enemy goes so spectacularly right that it seems divinely assisted, it still wins.

The balance of power isn't in China's favour to that extent yet. It can be so in the not-too-distant future if China plays its cards right and takes militarization seriously, but it isn't today. Therefore, the only sane course of action is for China to keep building its strength in this conducive environment and go to war with the US when its economy is 3X bigger, not 33% bigger. The goal until then is to deter war and maintain the status quo across the Strait - which boils down to preventing Taiwan from declaring de jure independence or obtaining nuclear weapons.

Biscuits said:

War is a competition between the manpower and industry of both nations. Do you deny that fact?

Click to expand...

I'll say this once again and hope it finally sticks: It doesn't matter how much industry is tilted in your favour. If your opponent can hit your homeland and you can't hit his, you're going to lose.

Biscuits said:

Every so often, a country like Germany with its cult of the offensive in ww1, Japan with its decisive battle doctrine, or more recently, Russia with its battle of Kiev, comes to believe their weapons are so superior and advanced that they can bypass this basic rule. They have invariably be proven very wrong every time. What makes this any different?

Click to expand...

A bunch of disparate examples that have no bearing to our discussion. You've only listed the failures - that's half the ledger. List the successes so we can have a fair comparison.

Shaolian said:

After reading all that has been discussed, the few things we could agree on is:

1) The longer China can defer any military conflict with the US, the better it is for China.

2) The earlier the US can force a military conflict with China, the better it is for the US.

What we do not agree on is whether China should respond with military force to the US provocation this time.

But if going by our concensus, why in the world would the US give China the luxury of preparing itself "for just a few more years"? Why not forcing a military confrontation now? Why would the US, knowing that its window of opportunity to put China down for good is closing down by the months, would just let it pass?

Not saying that China should absolutely react militarily now, but I don't think there is anything anyone can do if America decides that, that's it, let's do it now.

Click to expand...

This is why there's nuclear deterrence. If where not for China possessing them, a war would have occurred the moment China starting building bases in SCS or a mini-skirmish for that matter.

Same reason why US and NATO are not impossing a NFZ over Ukraine right now. Even with Russia possessing bombs, many in western academics stilled argued for direct military intervention because of Russia's poor performance in the war.

China have no immediate plans for any war that could put them up against The U.S.
This can be assured by one simple statistic - they spend 1.7% of GDP on defense (sipiri estimate), official figures are even lower. This is similar to European countries that thought another war on the continent was impossible until February and it is certainly not what you would spend if you were planing to face the world strongest military that still hold a small technological edge over you and a substantial numbers edge.
Rising the budget up until now would also have been pointless since all you would have done is mass produce gear that was at best a generation behind, something that only makes sense if there is a direct threat to the Mainland.
China is now close to the point where all their gear is on pair technology wise, still missing H-20, J31/35, Type 95/96, Type 003 and probably a few other systems i forgot. Only when those have been launched, tested and any bugs worked out does it make sense to start ramp up production.
I cant see any way they would risk a war right now over Nancy pelosi, Some type of show of force combined with maybe Economic measures is most likely. Dumping U.S treasury's right now would put even more inflation on the dollar and swamp the market forcing them to increase the interest rate on new ones.

zhangjim said:

"The next 100 years" is the most meaningless assumption, when we will all die. We are not sure how far the division between the two places will deepen by then.

Anyway, I don't believe the man with crooked neck. Amending the law is a serious matter, and many people accuse him of taking a step backwards politically by extending his term of office.
He must make some convincing achievements. Caesar became a lifelong dictator on the premise that he conquered Gaul.
There will always be only one great leader. At present, no one is qualified to be his successor. Now this person is far from enough.
I want to see if Mr. baozi can be a qualified leader in the upcoming major event.I hope he is not a liar greedy for power.

Click to expand...

Why do you dislike Xi? Was there any policy changes made or introduced that you're very negative about?

It would be nice to know to understand the context of your opposition against the current leader of the country. Is your opposition ideological or personal or both? If so, why? Please explain.

ZeEa5KPul said:

Yes. Is there a problem with that?

I don't know if you said "trillions" as comedic exaggeration or you just don't know how many people there are on planet Earth. That I have that doubt doesn't reflect well on your analytic ability. It's also comical to think history repeats itself so rigidly that all one needs to do to draw lessons from it is to swap the names of countries. Here's the actual lesson from WWII: Germany was a tiny country surrounded by enemies on all its borders with coastline so shitty that two guys in a rowboat with a bazooka could blockade it, and it still caused horrific damage on its way down. The US is a massive country that dominates its hemisphere and has full access to two oceans. What "new Allies" are going to bring it down? Are Canada and Mexico going to invade it? Is Cuba going to mount a D Day?

As for feeding its population, take a look at the US's acreage of arable land per capita. You can't be this spectacularly wrong in just three consecutive sentences and expect to be taken seriously.

Ability of US to damage Chinese homeland > 0. Ability of China to damage American homeland = 0. What about that do you not understand?

Until that changes, America will win based on that fact alone.

Clowning the US for its corruption and social problems is all fun and games, but never go to war based on a contemptuous image of your opponent. Underestimating your opponent and the tragedies that ensue is also another lesson worth learning from history. The US waged the Cold War and eventually won it based on what the USSR had the potential to do, not what it actually did. China should similarly wage war on the US based on what it has the potential to do, not what it does.

Oh, the irony.

Let's. The only time a country should start a war is if it judges that the balance of power so preponderantly favours it that if everything that could go wrong for it goes so spectacularly wrong that it seems divinely cursed, and if everything that could go right for its enemy goes so spectacularly right that it seems divinely assisted, it still wins.

The balance of power isn't in China's favour to that extent yet. It can be so in the not-too-distant future if China plays its cards right and takes militarization seriously, but it isn't today. Therefore, the only sane course of action is for China to keep building its strength in this conducive environment and go to war with the US when its economy is 3X bigger, not 33% bigger. The goal until then is to deter war and maintain the status quo across the Strait - which boils down to preventing Taiwan from declaring de jure independence or obtaining nuclear weapons.

I'll say this once again and hope it finally sticks: It doesn't matter how much industry is tilted in your favour. If your opponent can hit your homeland and you can't hit his, you're going to lose.

A bunch of disparate examples that have no bearing to our discussion. You've only listed the failures - that's half the ledger. List the successes so we can have a fair comparison.

Click to expand...

Sorry man, but the idea that China must go full nazi invading countries and establish itself as the new global hegemon in order for it nor to repeat the experience of Qing Dynasty is frankly choleric.

I am with you on most of the points and arguments you made on the need for China to exponentially increase it's defense budget in order to thoroughly beat the combined west, led by America. But you lost me on the necessity of China to then gallop halfway to the world to invade the U.S.? Or cross into Europe? Is this what you're implying both implicitly and explicitly?

I'm surprised by the level of emotions Pelosi visit is generating here, but I guess it goes to show how important the Taiwan issue is to many here and on the mainland. This is just an outsider observation.

I'm extremely confident behind all the public charades, the head of US military forces Mark Milley will talk to his counter Li Zuocheng (if that's him, I'm not entirely familiar) to ensure nothing major happens.
Mark Milley will even share with Li Pelosi's flight plan, path and time to make absolutely sure there's zero room for miscommunication between forces like he did when it came to Trump and nukes. I mean he told Li, he will personally let him know if US was about to nuke China.

There are adults on both sides on the Pacific and they will stay up all night and day (time zone difference) to make sure this doesn't result in a hot conflict. Biden and Xi recent call was to make sure the adults were in charge. Now the underlings will make sure this dog and pony show Pelosi started doesn't get out of hand.

The biggest risk to all of this is what I termed early in my post about possible response from the PLA.

Kich said:

Grade 7: PLAAF launches intercept drills around ECS and North of Taiwan ADIZ at the exact moment Pelosi flight is heading towards Taiwan. Her flight path will originate from Japan and head towards north of Taiwan. I think this one is the most dangerous and might actually spark an incident.

Click to expand...

US will scramble fighters if they think PLAAF is intending on intercepting her. It will certainly force her to cancel her trip but it might create a mini-skirmish or even a mock air battle between forces. This is the most risky scenario which is why I believe whatever PLA does, it will be after Pelosi has landed in Taiwan and will continue after she leaves.

PLA won't act while she's in the air since that will be the most dangerous moment in all of this.

Looking at this holistic, it will be extremely idiotic if a war started over this especially when PLA hasn't even attained their full maturation in many critical areas (SSN, SSBN, 5th gen fighters, VLO bombers, CATOBAR carriers, etc) and China hasn't fully emerged economically. If ever in the future, it comes to war on Taiwan, China should assume it will be fighting not just US but Japan as well. US can't fight China without Japan so you know Japan will be a participant. PLA needs to be ready for both forces + Taiwan. It should also expect the backlash Russia has recieved economically which is why it needs to be ready to sustain its economy in some fashion at that time (access to resources and markets, etc).

It's like cooking. You don't eat while the food is still boiling on the stove. You finish preparing the meal and then serve it up neatly on a plate with drink and extras sides or snacks. Then you take a seat and enjoy.

China starting a war over this is like eating directing from the hot pot while it's still on the stove. It will be an inconvenient since the PLA dish is not done yet. You can taste it while it's still cooking which I guess will be like PLA showing the world some extreme snap drills like crossing the median line or launching ballistics near Taiwan.

Edit: You also have to understand Pelosi mindset. Old and frail, she's about to retire from her long corrupt-free (this is sarcasm) public service. She wants to put on her long resume as having visited the infamous Taiwan island while she was in office. This is more of a photo-shoot than anything. Imagine starting a war over this.

ZeEa5KPul said:

Yes. Is there a problem with that?

I don't know if you said "trillions" as comedic exaggeration or you just don't know how many people there are on planet Earth. That I have that doubt doesn't reflect well on your analytic ability. It's also comical to think history repeats itself so rigidly that all one needs to do to draw lessons from it is to swap the names of countries. Here's the actual lesson from WWII: Germany was a tiny country surrounded by enemies on all its borders with coastline so shitty that two guys in a rowboat with a bazooka could blockade it, and it still caused horrific damage on its way down. The US is a massive country that dominates its hemisphere and has full access to two oceans. What "new Allies" are going to bring it down? Are Canada and Mexico going to invade it? Is Cuba going to mount a D Day?

As for feeding its population, take a look at the US's acreage of arable land per capita. You can't be this spectacularly wrong in just three consecutive sentences and expect to be taken seriously.

Ability of US to damage Chinese homeland > 0. Ability of China to damage American homeland = 0. What about that do you not understand?

Until that changes, America will win based on that fact alone.

Clowning the US for its corruption and social problems is all fun and games, but never go to war based on a contemptuous image of your opponent. Underestimating your opponent and the tragedies that ensue is also another lesson worth learning from history. The US waged the Cold War and eventually won it based on what the USSR had the potential to do, not what it actually did. China should similarly wage war on the US based on what it has the potential to do, not what it does.

Oh, the irony.

Let's. The only time a country should start a war is if it judges that the balance of power so preponderantly favours it that if everything that could go wrong for it goes so spectacularly wrong that it seems divinely cursed, and if everything that could go right for its enemy goes so spectacularly right that it seems divinely assisted, it still wins.

The balance of power isn't in China's favour to that extent yet. It can be so in the not-too-distant future if China plays its cards right and takes militarization seriously, but it isn't today. Therefore, the only sane course of action is for China to keep building its strength in this conducive environment and go to war with the US when its economy is 3X bigger, not 33% bigger. The goal until then is to deter war and maintain the status quo across the Strait - which boils down to preventing Taiwan from declaring de jure independence or obtaining nuclear weapons.

I'll say this once again and hope it finally sticks: It doesn't matter how much industry is tilted in your favour. If your opponent can hit your homeland and you can't hit his, you're going to lose.

A bunch of disparate examples that have no bearing to our discussion. You've only listed the failures - that's half the ledger. List the successes so we can have a fair comparison.

Click to expand...

You're assuming a country that can't even properly occupy Afghanistan or dares to send a volunteer army to Ukraine is capable of essentially waging total war against the entire world minus some EU countries who will be neutral. That is delusion.

With what millions are US gonna invade the whole Middle East to stop oil to China? Are they also gonna invade Russia using another million man army to actually stop China's oil lifeline? Are they gonna conscript everyone age 18 to 60 like Zelensky? You're living in complete delusion if you think Americans will accept that. Life and brainwashing isnt horrible enough in America that ppl feel like they need to throw themselves in a meat grinder because America must either be a world power or cease to be at all.

Just having arable land doesnt help if your economy is collapsed and people can't buy any produce nor have any consumer goods.

Regarding the question of attacking eachother homeland. China could strike US homeland using conventional hypersonic missiles as well. But none of that is relevant because neither side can do it on a scale that would affect either's industrial capacity.

What part of US not having infinite B2s and pilots to be sacrificed in high risk raids do you not understand? You've also not showed how US can actually get the rare earths nor semiconductors to replenish losses in the long term. Trading number limited JASSM and B2s for random civilians factories that can be repaired in days on the coastline is the worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, when said B2s could pose a real threat to PLA navy. Also, we're only talking coastal cities here. Cities like Chengdu and Xian where China is producing its VLO platforms are just as out of reach to US as Washington D.C. is to China.

It isn't economically feasible for either side to hit the other side's industry enough for it to matter, therefore China draws ahead due to having several times higher development in that area. Simple as that.

China isnt gonna start a war actively. But if US starts one, China will finish the war. As long as the status quo empowers China more and more, its better to wait for USA to internally disintegrate, like the USSR.

America's win condition is destroying enough of the Navy fast enough, then land on Taiwan in numbers larger than PLA can repel and declare a takeover. US won't run out of munitions in a fast war. This is the scenario China should be concerned about and prepare for, not a nonsensical threat of invading the middle east, which btw all US "allies" and US itself largely gets their own oil from, so all they achieved is just cutting off their own oil at the same time. And the idea 20 B2s can do significant damage to 100ish cities, some of whom would require flying 1000km over the mainland and return without getting shot down is just laughable.