PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

Chevalier said:

Chinese planners should be aware that the US is using the Ukraine war not just to get rid of old inventory but also planning how much munitions they would consume in the coming war against China, and tweaking data for their own platforms under EW attack by Russian systems

Click to expand...

I see it as an attempt to rebuild industrial capacity as a whole, but specifically military industrial capacity. They seem to be talking about not just multi-year buys for things like missiles, patriot batteries, radars, but also increases in production capacity. They are also investing in things like new docks for ship repair and building.

These things are going to take a long time to bear fruit and there is no guarantee they end up making large contributions to military industrial output due to the vagaries of funding from Congress.

If the US has any realistic Taiwan military contingency plan I don't see it being ready before they have time to mature and expand production capacity.

Personally, I don't think there is any real appetite for US Military intervention in a Taiwan straight conflict. I think they would look to leverage economic and political pressure and isolation to hurt China, which could hurt China much more in the long run.

Maikeru said:

Financial sanctions in a TW war or blockade scenario:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Interesting. I see that we in the west have chosen death.

HighGround said:

I love this part.



If what Beijing did in Hong Kong is "draconian", what do they think is the "correct" response to mass rioting and a potential color revolution attempt?

Click to expand...

Well, duh!! The right course of action for Beijing to take was to make Joshua Wong loser the new pansy leader for Hong Kong, along with the emperor Jimmy the loser Lai as the perpetual head of state giving him the free hand to expand his vast wealth establishing American connection to the city-state free of control from the See See Pee.

SlothmanAllen said:

I see it as an attempt to rebuild industrial capacity as a whole, but specifically military industrial capacity. They seem to be talking about not just multi-year buys for things like missiles, patriot batteries, radars, but also increases in production capacity. They are also investing in things like new docks for ship repair and building.

These things are going to take a long time to bear fruit and there is no guarantee they end up making large contributions to military industrial output due to the vagaries of funding from Congress.

If the US has any realistic Taiwan military contingency plan I don't see it being ready before they have time to mature and expand production capacity.

Personally, I don't think there is any real appetite for US Military intervention in a Taiwan straight conflict. I think they would look to leverage economic and political pressure and isolation to hurt China, which could hurt China much more in the long run.

Click to expand...

Just look and read the recommendations and conclusions of that Atlantic council report per @Maikeru linked post above:

• disruption at stake.
• Economic asymmetries need to be better understood. Policymakers argued that the most likely economic countermeasures would focus on areas where China is asymmetrically dependent on foreign goods, technology, and finance. Further research is needed to identify these areas and the potential costs, vulnerabilities, and limitations of targeting them in a crisis.
• Take practical legal steps now to boost the credibility of G7 deterrence. Discussants noted that successful deterrence requires making clear that G7 nations are ready to act decisively in a crisis. This may require legal steps, including: shoring up of the EU’s framework for export controls; advance preparation of US executive orders specifying and granting sanctions authorities to the Office of Foreign Assets Control; preliminary analysis on the potential impact and spillovers of proposed packages; and the construction of communication channels among US government stakeholders such as the Federal Reserve, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and appropriate bilateral, plurilateral, and multilateral counterparts. This may include preparing the legal and regulatory landscape across G7 jurisdictions to ensure appropriate authorities are in place to deter or respond to a crisis.
• Invest in other forms of deterrence. Economic countermeasures should be considered as part of a whole-of-government and multilateral strategy as they have costs and limitations that can make them less effective on their own. These tools will be more effective when paired with traditional tools of deterrence in both the military and diplomatic realms.
• Keep lines of communication open. Bilateral and plurilateral communication is the best tool to de-escalate in a crisis. Recent breakdowns in military-to-military communication channels between the United States and China are of serious concern given elevated tensions in the region. Maintaining open communication lines and regular exchanges with Chinese counterparts is a key element in any risk-mitigation strategy.
• Balance credible threats with credible assurances. Effective deterrence requires credible threats to be matched with credible assurances. The G7 should make clear to Beijing it has no desire to change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. Efforts to maintain the status quo and shore up traditional diplomatic, military, and economic tools to ensure peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait should be the priority.

Overbom said:

If this war has shown anything, its that the old "logistics win wars" saying is still as much valid as it was thousand of years ago.

All these fancy equipment and weaponry will be quickly consumed in a high intensity war. That's where industrial base matters

Imagine if China was in Russia's case. By year 2 of the war, China would be producing so much weaponry that it would make late WW2 America look like kindergarden.

We talk in these forums about military equipment a lot, but China's biggest strength is its industry. The world probably still cannot comprehend how vast China's industry is.

Just recall how quickly BYD adapted its production lines and then ramped up to produce masks during Covid and how by the end of it, it was one of the biggest mask producers... Compare that to Ford and you will understand what I am saying

Click to expand...

you are right. i think the logistic aspect of war has in fact only become more decisive in modern warfare.

China's industrial capability is why in any scenario short of a nuclear war, China will prevail in a war over Taiwan regardless of who else gets involved. even if the initial landing attempt fails, China can simply spam missiles for months, until everyone else literally runs out of fuel. it is obviously not a route it wants to take, but the option is there if all else fails.

American-led Western elites and media always want to believe in their own propaganda: that the CCP is detached from its citizenry, and does not enjoy grass-root support of the masses.
As a result, they seem to ignore the will and morale of the Chinese people in their calculations with respect to the Taiwan Strait issue. They simply cannot fathom or choose to ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of the Chinese people support Beijing's initiative to reunite TW with the Motherland which by itself is only the first step in the Great Rejuvenation of the Nation. I think the CCP recognizes that its legitimacy to govern the country hangs in the balance if it fails to bring TW back into the fold, and I believe Xi wins his third term against the usual CCP tradition of two-term limits because he has personally put such a great and heavy responsibility upon his shoulders. Come to think of it, Xi is probably the only leader in this present generation who enjoys the support and loyalty of the Army, Party, and Government. And the Chinese People trust him.
So America and G7 coming to TW's aid will evoke the collective memory and be perceived as another 8-nation alliance gunboat diplomacy.
America's dream of demonizing the Chinese leadership as dictators and being toppled by a color revolution will fail.
The morale of the Chinese People and support to the Central Government in a TW reunification war (sadly if it ever comes to that) will be very high and sustaining, as against that of the local TW population who may put up the white flag or the China National Flag at first sight of the PLA soldiers.
If China continues to build up its forces in preparation for the eventual fateful day in a show of will and strength, America will have to concede and make compromises to prevent a war from happening. Its economy simply just cannot afford a major war with a near-peer rival like China. But alas, both Biden and Trump are not rational leaders, and the MIC and Washington establishment+the white supremacists therein (the deep state) cannot bear to see America losing its top-dog position.
yes, I am pessimistic about peaceful reunification as both sides cannot back down from the pressure of internal politics.

HighGround said:

I love this part.



If what Beijing did in Hong Kong is "draconian", what do they think is the "correct" response to mass rioting and a potential color revolution attempt?

Click to expand...

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.

supersnoop said:

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.

Click to expand...

If you want an explanation it's because people in America "feel" that the Hong Kong protests were a legitimate protest against creeping Chinese authoritarianism that seeks to slowly break down the promise of "One Country, Two Systems".

In the Western/Anglo mindset, the only acceptable response is to "negotiate" with the protesters or to back off from the Security Law (which the journalists never bothered to actually read).

They see any "crackdown" as inherently "draconian" regardless of the protest's disregard for the rule of law, for non-protesting citizens, for looting, violence, and other potential negative aspects of the protest. I mean we saw the same madness with the 2014 Ukrainian uprising as well. An anti-democratic uprising completely destroyed the legitimately elected government of Ukraine, which is seen as a "just" outcomes, regardless of how much it violates the supposed rules-based order.

HighGround said:

In the Western/Anglo mindset, the only acceptable response is to "negotiate" with the protesters or to back off from the Security Law (which the journalists never bothered to actually read).

Click to expand...

The only acceptable response is whatever their hypocritical answer works for them. If it was the other side then they will support killing, arresting and jailing every single one of them. One only needs to look how they treat the progressive riots compared to when conservatives riot. It is only draconian when it’s against their ideology and the police should bash their brain into a paste when it’s not against their ideology.

CMP said:

What's interesting is the seeming absence of a Chinese response. One would think this is an obvious red line.

Click to expand...

China’s response is to build up the ability to reliably deliver 3,000 nukes to CONUS and see how quickly the US dismantle its ‘umbrella’.

American leaders talk, Chinese leaders act.