PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency


Registered Member
Nope. Philippines is actually a very critical country for their geographical location, somebody has already answer this question for you. It give US more access to put their bases and capability to secure their supply into Taiwan and South China Sea better than before. Also, it is an excellent fortress for the US if the war against China is ever happen. What will China do if US strike your Mainland from Philippine? Attack Philippine with your army and navy? Oh, that will be a nightmare for China. As US will has access for millions of Philippine people to become their meat grinder. They just need to give them weapons to fight against China invaders. And China will be stuck in a bloody war against Philippine, not US.
How will millions of Philippines matter when they have no way of going to China? US can give them all the stuff they gave to Ukraine and then what? They will swim towards HK while carrying javelins on their back?
If Philippine is defeated, and their people are perished, your mainland is already affected by the war. That's including your industry, economy, and military prowess. But US still fresh and intact. And Philippine is not alone. Your relation with ASEAN will be affected. Also They still have other countries for US to become the battlefield that can become very bloody for PLA. Like Japan and South Korea. Do you think at that time China still has the same level of economy power like today? I don't think so. But US will be get positive outcome from this war. Because China won't be able to compete against US economically again at that time. And let say, China will go on and beat Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan, also Philippine, you still has to beat US and their NATO allies.
US doesn't have the capability to attack the mainland directly with enough weapons (and even if it could do so on a large scale, it would be risky due to nuclear retaliation). Neither can they stop the majority of China's trade with blockades. That leaves them with doing something similar to Napoleon's continental system: telling all the NATO vassals and third world countries in places China isn't contesting or controlling to stop trade with China, or be attacked/punished. While this could affect China a bit, in practice, it is more likely to result in trade being shifted to other countries and a black market being created. It is much less likely to affect warfighting capacity.
Don't you think that it is a very stupid scenario for China if that ever happen?

Now let me ask you, if China and US will ever in conflict, like in Ukraine war, what side do you think better for China. To be in Russia position, or to be in NATO position? Well, for me, I like China to be in NATO position today. You just need send the country who has conflict in US weapons and supplies. While US will be in bloody war against that country, and lost a lot of prestige, if some of their ships ever sunk in the war.

For example, in US - Houthi war. If China help Houthi in the war, China will need only to spent money and weapons for Houthi. But at the other side, If Houthi can sink some of US warships, US will lose a lot of prestige because of that. China will stay intact, while US will be bloody and suffered because of it.

And what if the war in the middle east spread and become more bloody? China will gain prestige because they help the middle east "Allies", while US will stuck in a very bloody war and suffer because of that. Not to mention if that war manage to sink some of US Arleigh Burke destroyers and shootdown some of F-35. Don't you see that it will destroy the illusion of US military might and humiliated them in the eyes of the world?
This seems to be the preferred solution for China. Avert an American invasion by "conviniently" placing happenings in other parts of the world whenever US tries to mass forces. Where I just disagree on is that it has anything to do with fearing millions of Filipinos swimming into China.
So do you understand what I mean with my previous post? in China vs US geopolitical war today, China must be the one who dictate where is the battlefield is, not US. If China strike Taiwan, or Philippine directly, they are stupid. Because they just fall into US trap and must suffer directly because of the war.

But let say, if China can trap US to fight a bloody war in some where else. Like for example in Middle East today, that war will only cost China some money and weapons. It also give China prestige in the Muslim World. But US and their allies are the one who have to suffers because they have to fight directly in there.

That's my whole points of my previous posts.

United States today is the strongest of the world. Not only because they are strong militarily, but because they have a lot of Vassals (Allies). They managed to stay in power because they give the illusion that their military weapons are the best and no one can beat them in the battlefield. But if China manages to destroy those illusion, less and less countries will willing to become US vassals. And that will give China more benefit. And for China to do that, They have to weaken US economy and military, by trap them into a prolonged war some where else. And not only that, they have to be trapped in a war that similar to Ukraine. A war that capable to give US a bloody nose. A war that more than Afganisthan. Because in this war, the adversary will not alone. They'll get a lot of help in term of weaponry and supplies from Russia (and China secretly).
Heh. He is not the strongest in the world if he can be trapped in Ukraine, by Hamas and by houthis... But yeah, I think generally China would continue a strategy of using global proxies.

If you look at US threats at Taiwan, they have done provocative public acts, but they haven't done anywhere near the force buildup that signals real action. I would credit it to China's foresight in parrying US with geopolitical plays to prevent them from massing forces.


Junior Member
Registered Member
I think you're overhyping Philippines at bit too much.

But the CPC will probably avoid war with it when possible because its more efficient to do so.

I would compare its approach to doing things with Russia based on recent events. Russia had to deal with a colour revolution in Kazakhstan. China had to deal with one in HK. Russia sent an army into Kazakhstan and cleared the problem in a short period. China basically did nothing and waited for one year for people to lose interest by themselves.

Obviously China appeared weaker at the time and people were mocking it. But so what? Have you noticed the west which virtue signaled about HK so much in 2019 like to pretend it doesn't exist right now? Why is that? Its because China won a very clean cut victory by doing nothing. They got HK back and kicked out all the foreign agents without resorting to using the army. You don't like HK and want dat freedomz and democrazies? Go ahead and move to the west then for we aren't stopping you. The western media which was trying so hard to claim genocide in HK is now trying to memoryhole this event because otherwise people will ask, how come this didn't happen? Are you lying to us again? And now the US is trying to kill off HK by putting all these restrictions on it. Some two faced bastard.

Russia did solve the issue in Kazakhstan quickly. But people say the root cause is not resolved and the issue is still there. More and more people will somewhat sympathize with the west. Even their current leaders cannot be fully trusted anymore. The west will try to co-opt more grievances to try this again and next time it will be harder for Russia.

This is what I call suffering more now to get a better victory at the end of the day.

If Philippines wants to try so hard to get nuked for its US master then thats their problem. But China is not going to let itself be put in a position like that so easily. You can mock it all you want but honestly that doesn't mean much because if they win in their end, all your mocking will not age well and they will gladly fling it back at you. Maybe China will not take the first shot but it will gladly take the last one.

Btw this sounds like a bit of copium but the fact the DPP can't even get a majority party at this critical time, means a lot of people in TW are realising that the status quo is pretty good after all. Maybe even Lai thinks so. Its ever so easy to say you want to do it but when it actually comes with paying a price, people think twice. This is actually a critical time when the US needs Taiwan needs to do something coz maybe by 2028, China will have mastered hypersonic missiles turning all of the US Navy and Aircraft into large paperweights. Perhaps thats why the US needs the Philippines so badly to sacrifice itself now.
If a Taiwan war with the US happens I would actually welcome Philippine involvement. It would be a unique opportunity to take over the Batanes islands. China would be well within its rights to take territory in a defensive war in which the Philippines is the aggressor.

Once we start to have some public thoughts on what a post war Filipino state would look like, if there is any at all, they might think twice before getting involved.


Registered Member
HJ-12 is the equivalent of Akeron and already in service within PLA
Akeron MP is a next generation ATGM. It has IR homing without the need for nitrogen cooling. It can do lock on after launch. You can send it the coordinates of the target after firing the missile. And the coordinates can be passed through by other devices.
The HJ-12 has none of that.
Last edited:


Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Xi Yazhou's personal opinion on how the PLAGF should learn from the experience of the Ukrainian war.
The content is very long and I will not translate it. He pointed out the problems existing in the Russian military and pointed out the shortcomings of the current PLAGF infantry.

The Russians used tanks very poorly, their communication systems were poor, and they lacked confidentiality, which made their actions lose their suddenness. Their tactics, in the eyes of our army, are a simplified approach in the absence of modern technological conditions.

But the performance of the Russian infantry was very good, and their operations exposed some of the PLAGF's "bad habits".
Although there is no shortage of various individual equipment, it is rarely used during peacetime training to save funds.

The anti tank weapons of infantry still have shortcomings, especially the lack of advanced ATGM, The old-fashioned HJ-73 still holds a dominant position in PLAGF. This is simply due to a lack of funding and the need for war. The laziness of not wanting to use unfamiliar new weapons also makes the equipment speed of the new ATGM exceptionally slow.

In the Ukrainian war, it has been proven that anti tank missiles with a range of 4500 meters are still the most commonly used ATGM. In the case of outstanding performance in NLAW(but the range of the Javelin is too short and too complex), the current performance of HJ-73 cannot meet the requirements of modern warfare. Vehicles need to be equipped with better ATGMs, and infantry also need more affordable guided weapons.

Saving funds during peacetime is a fact for all militaries, even US. Reality is that equipment is more and more expensive, even basic things like gas/fuel are more expensive, so training is simply more expensive than it used to be. All branches of the US military are reducing headcounts and equipment inventories.

Although I agree about HJ-73 in general, really part of the reason is that newer ATGM is simply not a priority item. In a conflict over Taiwan, SCS, or against the US in general, there is not much use for ATGM at range.



US forces permanently stationed on Chinese soil.

I would have expected this to be a red line beyond red lines, at least provoking a military response. (Limited blockade, bombing, seizure, etc.)
Bombing??? What in China's history would make you think that this would trigger war? The fact is that Taiwan is claimed Chinese soil, which is de facto different from Chinese soil under Chinese control. How many times have US military personel been stationed in Taiwan since its founding? The true red line is Taiwan's declaration of independence. If that happens, China needs to fight regardless of readiness. But before that, China can still afford to keep tilting the power balance with maritime business/activities.

Luke Warmwar

New Member
Registered Member
Bombing??? What in China's history would make you think that this would trigger war? The fact is that Taiwan is claimed Chinese soil, which is de facto different from Chinese soil under Chinese control. How many times have US military personel been stationed in Taiwan since its founding? The true red line is Taiwan's declaration of independence. If that happens, China needs to fight regardless of readiness. But before that, China can still afford to keep tilting the power balance with maritime business/activities.
There has been no US military presence in Taiwan since 1979, as was agreed in the Shanghai Joint Communique.

There have more recently been temporary training deployments of troops. However this is the first full time deployment of US troops. That’s a significant, material difference.

A strong deterrent is needed, or next you’ll see outright bases deployed, like in the Philippines or Korea.