PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

Bellum_Romanum said:

In all fairness to your points I agree with you emphatically on what your wrote, my question and rebuttal was not meant to attack your ideas but want to flesh out your ideas to see how far and how serious you are with such approach. In any case, your mentality is no different than Mr. Lu Feng of Peking University. He expressed an almost similar sentiment to yours in light of the Chip ban/tech ban enacted by the Biden administration along with the agreement and coalescing of its minions: The Netherlands, Japan, South Korea.

“There is a common saying in Beijing that describes typical human behaviour: you can't suppress your anger when you see a coward [见怂人压不住火]. When you think about it, this saying is actually talking about human nature. The more China backs down, the more frequent and heavier the blows [by the US] will become. Thus, it is time for China to harden its fist and develop the ability to grab hold of the other side by the ‘throat’ [扼住对方的‘咽喉’的功力]. Only then will the other party acknowledge that we both belong to a ‘community with a shared future for mankind’.”

If you're interested, you should read his interview I posted at length on the semiconductor thread.

Click to expand...

100% correct. 中国人太客气了. A lot of the problems facing China today are self inflicted. How can I say that? Simply because they are not assertive enough. Their language and criticisms have been more direct in the past 5 years but its not enough. Actions are what counts when it comes to dealing with the US.

You ban semiconductors to China? We ban rare earths to US. You want to ban solar panels and cotton from Xinjiang? We wind back soya bean imports and beef imports. Oh, McCarthy is going to Taiwan? This will cost you 50 billion more in treasuries. You want to sail up and down the Taiwan Straits? We will be sailing off to Guam and Hawaii. Military action against us will be treated the same if we fired upon your ships in China's near seas. This is how you deal with hypocrites. Don't even need to mention it during MOFA briefings. Just be consistent. Action for action. The instigators will think twice as they know the response will surely come, as likely as the sun coming up tomorrow morning.

China can keep her smiles and politeness to friendly nations but not to the nations who wish them a millennium of humiliation.

Paradigm said:

100% correct. 中国人太客气了. A lot of the problems facing China today are self inflicted. How can I say that? Simply because they are not assertive enough. Their language and criticisms have been more direct in the past 5 years but its not enough. Actions are what counts when it comes to dealing with the US.

You ban semiconductors to China? We ban rare earths to US. You want to ban solar panels and cotton from Xinjiang? We wind back soya bean imports and beef imports. Oh, McCarthy is going to Taiwan? This will cost you 50 billion more in treasuries. You want to sail up and down the Taiwan Straits? We will be sailing off to Guam and Hawaii. Military action against us will be treated the same if we fired upon your ships in China's near seas. This is how you deal with hypocrites. Don't even need to mention it during MOFA briefings. Just be consistent. Action for action. The instigators will think twice as they know the response will surely come, as likely as the sun coming up tomorrow morning.

China can keep her smiles and politeness to friendly nations but not to the nations who wish them a millennium of humiliation.

Click to expand...

It's easy to type bravado on the internet, but the actual Chinese government needs to consider factors that keyboard warriors are not even aware of.

solarz said:

It's easy to type bravado on the internet, but the actual Chinese government needs to consider factors that keyboard warriors are not even aware of.

Click to expand...

I'm certainly not displaying bravado, if you even know the meaning of bravado. The word can equate to almost every US politicians words and actions against China. If you want to reply then tell me what I said that's not true, or is negative to the China going forward.

Paradigm said:

I'm certainly not displaying bravado, if you even know the meaning of bravado. The word can equate to almost every US politicians words and actions against China. If you want to reply then tell me what I said that's not true, or is negative to the China going forward.

Click to expand...

[ Mods, please remove the above post. Defending myself is conducive to this thread.]

Paradigm said:

100% correct. 中国人太客气了. A lot of the problems facing China today are self inflicted. How can I say that? Simply because they are not assertive enough. Their language and criticisms have been more direct in the past 5 years but its not enough. Actions are what counts when it comes to dealing with the US.

You ban semiconductors to China? We ban rare earths to US. You want to ban solar panels and cotton from Xinjiang? We wind back soya bean imports and beef imports. Oh, McCarthy is going to Taiwan? This will cost you 50 billion more in treasuries. You want to sail up and down the Taiwan Straits? We will be sailing off to Guam and Hawaii. Military action against us will be treated the same if we fired upon your ships in China's near seas. This is how you deal with hypocrites. Don't even need to mention it during MOFA briefings. Just be consistent. Action for action. The instigators will think twice as they know the response will surely come, as likely as the sun coming up tomorrow morning.

China can keep her smiles and politeness to friendly nations but not to the nations who wish them a millennium of humiliation.

Click to expand...

This would be the correct thinking if you want to create a slow cold war grind, but I don't think China is going for that anymore.

Instead, the actions of China should likely be more understood as analogous to Stalin's and Chamberlain's actions prior to ww2. They will let US take the first step and manipulate towards a poor starting situation for America.

Perhaps we can still be proven wrong about how much there is to salvage in the post ww2 order, but I wouldn't bet on it, given that 1/2 of the former allies are now blatantly supporting axis claims in their state controlled medias. The peace dividend from ww2 is now fully over.

If US doesn't collapse by itself, war will be necessary. China's best bet is to fully lean into exploiting US military corruption, organization issues and overconfidence to let them overextend during peace and then deal a crippling blow at the start.

5, by turning Huangyan Shoal into a fortress island, China will certainly face some backlash, and media outcry and condemnation by concerted western MSM. OTOH, whatever China does is painted black by such MSM anyway, so no love lost here. Once the construction is completed, China will have an Ace card in its hand and de-facto overall control of the entire SCS. The whole security environment is turned to China's advantage vis-a-vis USA. So much to gain for some loss in public image. I would call that a fair deal for China, and a positive strategic initiative.

Jono said:

5, by turning Huangyan Shoal into a fortress island, China will certainly face some backlash, and media outcry and condemnation by concerted western MSM. OTOH, whatever China does is painted black by such MSM anyway, so no love lost here. Once the construction is completed, China will have an Ace card in its hand and de-facto overall control of the entire SCS. The whole security environment is turned to China's advantage vis-a-vis USA. So much to gain for some loss in public image. I would call that a fair deal for China, and a positive strategic initiative.

Click to expand...

Would having fortified islands really help that much in the grand scheme of things? They are immobile and thus are easily able to be destroyed in the case of outbreak of war. Is it worth potentially the rest of SEA allying with the US for what little deterrent it would do for Phillipenes? Now that the US has already inked the contract for the bases what would deterrent action do to discourage future action?

I think punishment should be economic, i.e "You can't expect us to continue investing/trading if you if you're obviously leaning towards our enemy." Stop approving loans for projects in any hostile SEA countries, money talks.

it is a big deal if Huangyan is turned into a mighty China fortress.
Being a big Shoal, it is large enough to become a mighty air and sea fortress, and coupled with the other already built-up artificial island fortresses will form a strong formidable triangular buttress supporting each other, and guarding almost the entire SCS.
this new fortress can be supplied with one or more mobile marine nuclear generators (like an ice breaker but stationed at the island) to supply electricity.
seeing this new reality, the other SCS claimants may have no choice but to tacitly accept China's supremacy at the SCS.
Afterward, China can begin to negotiate joint-venture deals in oil-gas exploration-->mutual sharing of profits and benefits with other claimants including the PH.
there is a saying that one cannot expect to gain favors on the negotiation table that cannot be won on the battlefield.
so cooperation with China may actually bring economic benefits, while
antagonizing China may result in a great loss for which the US is unlikely to recompense.
it is a hard choice, but life is hard for any weak neighbor, isn't it?
so think hard before you align totally with the US at the expense of China, please act wisely.

Jono said:

it is a big deal if Huangyan is turned into a mighty China fortress.
Being a big Shoal, it is large enough to become a mighty air and sea fortress, and coupled with the other already built-up artificial island fortresses will form a strong formidable triangular buttress supporting each other, and guarding almost the entire SCS.
this new fortress can be supplied with one or more mobile marine nuclear generators (like an ice breaker but stationed at the island) to supply electricity.
seeing this new reality, the other SCS claimants may have no choice but to tacitly accept China's supremacy at the SCS.
Afterward, China can begin to negotiate joint-venture deals in oil-gas exploration-->mutual sharing of profits and benefits with other claimants including the PH.
there is a saying that one cannot expect to gain favors on the negotiation table that cannot be won on the battlefield.
so cooperation with China may actually bring economic benefits, while
antagonizing China may result in a great loss for which the US is unlikely to recompense.
it is a hard choice, but life is hard for any weak neighbor, isn't it?
so think hard before you align totally with the US at the expense of China, please act wisely.

Click to expand...

Kind of agree just look how fortification have slowed down the Russians in the Donbass region.
Im sure that sort of fortifications can slow down the US significantly. If not only just distract the US long enough for some extra prep time.

An expanded US military presence at bases in the Philippines will boost the countries’ surveillance in the South China Sea and over Taiwan, but the impact on China could be limited, Chinese analysts said.
Under an agreement announced by US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin and Philippine Defence Secretary Carlito Galvez in Manila on Thursday, the United States will gain access to four more military sites, bringing the total to nine.

The locations of the bases have not been disclosed, but in November, Lieutenant General Bartolome Vicente Bacarro of the Philippines said Washington had identified five possible sites, including two in Cagayan, one in Palawan, one in Zambales and one in Isabela.

Cagayan and Isabela are in the northern Philippines. Cagayan sits across from Taiwan and Palawan is near the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.

“The threat is even more serious if medium-range missiles are deployed. It will have a serious negative impact on the peace and stability of the South China Sea region,” he said.

Fu added, however, that missiles were unlikely to be deployed at the new sites, and Manila must balance its relations with both Beijing and Washington.
“The Philippine government should be aware that if it allows the US to establish permanent bases, it will also have a greater impact on the Philippines itself,” Fu said.

He said that in a conflict these bases would be obvious targets for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).

Song Zhongping, a military commentator in Hong Kong, said the US access to the bases in places like Palawan would allow surveillance of China’s military activities near the Spratly Islands, including aircraft, warship and submarine activity.

However, Song did not rule out the possibility that the US would deploy medium-range ballistic missiles at the bases in the future, which would be “obviously aimed at China”, he said.
The purpose of deploying missiles would be to enable the blockade of the Bashi Channel, which runs between the northernmost island of the Philippines and the southern island of Taiwan, Song said.
In addition, Song said the missiles could intercept and attack PLA military targets such as ships and warplanes in the South China Sea.

During Thursday’s announcement, Austin called the agreement for US military access to the four sites “a big deal”, saying it was an opportunity to increase military coordination with the Philippines, but he denied that the sites would become “permanent bases”.
“The EDCA is not about permanent basing here in the Philippines. It’s about providing access that allows us to increase our training opportunities with our partners, our allies here,” he said.