PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

And yet the US has been rushing to put nuclear warheads back on their cruise missiles at the same time as they send one of the few large Ohio cruise missile subs they have to South Korea. They also hinted that one of the reasons for leaving the INF Treaty, and taking measures including putting nuclear warheads on cruise missiles, was the increased availability of Chinese SRBMs and IRBMs in the Pacific.
As for the US not using nukes in non-nuclear conflicts, like others here said, they used them against Japan in WW2, and the US is the only of the major nuclear powers which does not have a non-first use policy even today.

gelgoog said:

And yet the US has been rushing to put nuclear warheads back on their cruise missiles at the same time as they send one of the few large Ohio cruise missile subs they have to South Korea. They also hinted that one of the reasons for leaving the INF Treaty, and taking measures including putting nuclear warheads on cruise missiles, was the increased availability of Chinese SRBMs and IRBMs in the Pacific.
As for the US not using nukes in non-nuclear conflicts, like others here said, they used them against Japan in WW2, and the US is the only of the major nuclear powers which does not have a non-first use policy even today.

Click to expand...

American nuclear attack still seems very unlikely. Japan didn't have nukes.

US oligarchs have way too much to lose to allow some insane nationalists into killing them all just so that US can have a minimal chance to make itself slightly larger.

I mean, not even the likes of Medvedev have actually argued for nuking Ukraine as part of the offensive, and Ukraine is a non nuclear state. What nationalistic or fascistic US netizens say is not reflective of reality, and US isn't gonna begin an attack on Taiwan using nuclear weapons when they haven't even tried using conventional force. At that point, US might as well hit all of China at once with nukes, the result will be the same.

In its entire history, America was never a risk taking country. They didn't go to war with anyone that had anywhere near equal means or even the upper hand, preferring subterfuge and outlasting, even against much inferior foes such as Iran. That makes America different to the other ultranationalist regimes in the 20th century.

The idea of a Taiwan invasion in the first place is rather OOC for US, a nuclear strike during the start when no US home territories are under threat even more so.

For now, unless China dramatically reduces it military to the point where US thinks it can pull off a bloodless annexation using covert troops, I think America is most likely to simply provide economical and some amount of equipment aid to anti government fighters, but that's it.

gelgoog said:

And yet the US has been rushing to put nuclear warheads back on their cruise missiles at the same time as they send one of the few large Ohio cruise missile subs they have to South Korea. They also hinted that one of the reasons for leaving the INF Treaty, and taking measures including putting nuclear warheads on cruise missiles, was the increased availability of Chinese SRBMs and IRBMs in the Pacific.
As for the US not using nukes in non-nuclear conflicts, like others here said, they used them against Japan in WW2, and the US is the only of the major nuclear powers which does not have a non-first use policy even today.

Click to expand...

The use of Nuclear weapons in WW2 is a irrelevant point.
You do not spend massive resources to develop a new weapon and then not use it when it can end the war. There was a 100% chance of them being used in WW2, any country would do the same. It has no relevance on using nuclear weapons against another nuclear state today, there was no risk of retaliation/escalation.

The no first use policy is kinda meaningless, if you are willing to preemptively nuke another country you will not have any moral qualms about lying either...

btw, I think it's entirely logical for China to build up enough nuke force to be sufficient deterrent and that they should do it as soon as possible.

I just don't think it's productive to discuss something that really doesn't have any good answers and just get people worked up.

Especially one where I asked my contacts over and over again and was assured that nukes are not going to be used.

China can solve the tactical nuke disparity by promising to nuke Guam and Hawaii with city busters if she ever get nuked. Case closed.

vincent said:

China can solve the tactical nuke disparity by promising to nuke Guam and Hawaii with city busters if she ever get nuked. Case closed.

Click to expand...

I think nukes should be mostly used for US mainland, most of Guam and Hawaii is stolen territory and shouldn't all be punished due to a few US bases.

coolgod said:

I think nukes should be mostly used for US mainland, most of Guam and Hawaii is stolen territory and shouldn't all be punished due to a few US bases.

Click to expand...

Escalation ladder. US can still back down after those two places were nuked.

coolgod said:

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.

Click to expand...

The view of the US is represented by the official statements of spokespersons of relevant agencies, published statements and doctrines, and if applicable, international treaties that the US is a signatory of.

When it comes to nuclear policy, credibility is key. A view floated by some think tank has no credibility and can be summarily dismissed.

Jason_ said:

The view of the US is represented by the official statements of spokespersons of relevant agencies, published statements and doctrines, and if applicable, international treaties that the US is a signatory of.

Click to expand...

That's a bit naive to say the least. In addition to American politicians being notorious for speaking only lies, the nature of the diplomacy game is to manipulate others by presenting only what you want, curated and calculated for getting your desired reaction from both your direct exchangee and the rest of the watching world.

American politicians routinely contradict both each other and the actions that America takes. No one can truly believe that America does not seek to contain China, does not seek to damage Huawei or does not support Taiwan's independence. These examples are blatant testimony to the mistakes one would make if one were to take American words at face value and failed to factor in the everyday dishonesty of American politicians and representatives.

The true US view, as determined by their actions which speak infinitely louder than any words, can actually be best summarized as the willingness to to anything to or for anyone as long as it's a step in the way of protecting American dominance.

manqiangrexue said:

The true US view, as determined by their actions which speak infinitely louder than any words, can actually be best summarized as the willingness to to anything to or for anyone as long as it's a step in the way of protecting American dominance.

Click to expand...

Honestly, anyone who blindly believes US statements without thinking about it is just incredibly native. The Whitehouse talks about respecting the 1 China principle while the military and politicians pushes for war with China. They say sanctions and bans not designed to stifle China economy but they openly glee about how China economy will soon be gone. Just pointing towards the bad faith intentions with the Minsk Agreements and the lies over Nordstream proves words cannot be trusted.