PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

Breadbox

Breadbox

Junior Member
Registered Member
votran said:
no need to attack US force first , it better to let them fire the first shot

and about taiwan ......it better if china have balls to conduct ...war of extermination toward any non-pro china/CPC living being on that island , after that build a five story tower of ..."footballs" in middile of taipei to remind any taiwanese still alive on that island don't be a traitor and the world about don't fked with china
Click to expand...
Genuinely what the f are some of these replies.
I genuinely hope moderators do something about these useless, psychotic bluster. Stop reading DPP circlejerk forums and live in the real world.

If a blockade focused strategy is adopted, there will be alot of negotiations and concessions. There might even be concessions considered unthinkable to many here just to bring a faster conclusion to the war, long protracted war is most damaging of all. Salty traitors starting shit during peacetime is basically nothing compared to the cost of war.
 
Last edited:
4

4Tran

Junior Member
Registered Member
vincent said:
Thanks.
What is the point of stockpiling food and LNG when you can’t transport food nor cook them after fuel depots (crude, gasoline, diesel and LNG) and transformer stations are blown-up?
So what if Aussies and others join?
ROC’s tax intake is only 14% of GDP, and the morons want the government spend most of it on weapons?
Click to expand...
I just realized that the video is more useless than I first thought. The meeting setup 2027 as a hard deadline for a Chinese invasion, and nothing that was proposed could be enacted by that date! Take the idea of increased Taiwanese military spending as an example: generally speaking, any foreign military orders would take about 2-3 years to deliver. 2027 is only 18 months from now so how would any of this help? Sure the Americans could try to find some way of speeding up orders, but nobody at this meeting proposed anything like that even though this should be the ideal venue for doing so.

By the way, where does that 2027 date even come from and why in the world are the Americans so fixated on it? It's not as if they're even trying to do anything by that date so why keep bringing it up?
 
A

Amistrophy

New Member
Registered Member
Tomboy said:
That's not even true, XJP and other Chinese repd denied it multiple times
Click to expand...
Sorry, let me make a correction. 2027 is a modernization deadline: but Taiwan is not mentioned anywhere in PRC government publications. This is commentary added by foreign actors.
Here’s some relevant documents for the PLA centennial goal.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
vincent said:
Anyone who thinks MOUT is easy and ROC forces will crumble must have missed the Russo-Ukrainian War in the last three years.
Click to expand...

I guess they missed Taiwan’s massive land boarder with multiple NATO states allowing them to pump in massive amounts of supplies, mercs, arms and ammo to prop them up.

Any comparisons of Taiwan to Ukraine is at best comparing apples to oranges and usually useless cope.
 
Breadbox

Breadbox

Junior Member
Registered Member
4Tran said:
I watched the whole thing, and it's a pretty bog-standard Congressional dog and pony show about how to address China's threat to Taiwan.

It starts with the Xi Jinping told the PLA to have the capability to take Taiwan by 2027, and then jumps right into the kind of basic strategies on how to deter China. Nobody actually went into any useful details like threat assessments or what anyone's capability is. It's very surface level stuff so I'd say that it's mostly a waste of time.

Highlights:
-Talk of how to defeat a blockade of Taiwan. Suggestions were to get Taiwan to stockpile more food and buy more Texas LNG. They were confident that submarines would break the blockade.
- Talk of a counter blockade of China with no details other than that the Europeans would help somehow.
- A lack of confidence that Australia, Philippines, and Japan would join in the conflict. I'm not sure why anyone ever thought that Australia would join in, but I guess looking at maps isn't popular for these folks.
- Talk about how Taiwan spending 10% of its GDP on American weapons isn't realistic because the US program for supplying Taiwan doesn't make that much!
Click to expand...
That linked video itself is totally worthless, the commentators are not interested in any military technology and explictly mentioned that they skipped all the technical aspects like EW and AI integration.

Anyone interested should just listen to the congressional hearing itself.


The hearing itself does touch alittle bit on threat and capability assessment. It's not as worthless as the original video suggest.
 
Last edited:
D

dingyibvs

Senior Member
plawolf said:
I guess they missed Taiwan’s massive land boarder with multiple NATO states allowing them to pump in massive amounts of supplies, mercs, arms and ammo to prop them up.

Any comparisons of Taiwan to Ukraine is at best comparing apples to oranges and usually useless cope.
Click to expand...

China is not Russia and Taiwan is not Ukraine, I completely agree with you on this point. With that said, Vietnam isn't Ukraine, as examples of quagmires, and Iraq (GF1) isn't Korea (before direct Chinese intervention) either, as examples of quick victories.

So what are the similaries between quagmire, and what are similarities between dominating victories in these fights between a smaller nation with a fairly strong military against a much larger nation with a at least near world-leading military? First is what you already mentioned, a land border with a supportive strong power. Second IMO is decisive deployment of large number of ground troops. In Iraq there was ~1 million allied soldiers deployed, and in Korea after Incheon and until Chinese intervention the allied forces far outnumbered North Korean ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top