PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

FriedButter

FriedButter

Brigadier
Registered Member
Zhejiang said:
Fuel depots and reserves are military targets yes but targeting every single fuel depot of fuel reserve is a war crime because civilians use them too.
Click to expand...

Which is where your problem is. Any remaining fuel depot or reserves will be under military control and kept for military purposes. You are assuming that the military will allocate fuel supplies for civilian usage. If the island is blockaded, then the military will requisition all remaining supplies for military operations. The only fuel that civilians will be able to obtain is at the gas station which will be pumped dry by civilians or the military within 24 hours.

If the ROC military runs out of fuel then the ability to quickly move supplies and troops is severely hampered. It will be imperative for the military to stretch the available resources for as long as possible under a blockade. The compliant about potential war crimes is overblown. Civilians will not have access to remaining fuel supplies.
 
Z

Zhejiang

Junior Member
Registered Member
zyklon said:
Should full spectrum hostilities breakout across the Taiwan Strait, the PLA will not only target and destroy fuel depots on the island of Taiwan, but also transmission level substations, if not power generation assets and distribution level substations as well. This means hospitals without backup generators or fuel for generators will go dark.

I'm sorry if such a scenario upsets you — as I would like to assume that your outlook is rooted in the best of intentions — but the fact of the matter is that destroying
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(and other
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
) has been the norm during war for almost a century, if not time immemorial.

None of us wish or hope for such a scenario as Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are our brothers and sisters. However, such is war.

If that's too much for you, you might want to become an advocate for pacifism in lieu of posting on a defense forum.



Says who?
Click to expand...
International law says so, and do you think China to a win a war needs to resort to depriving civilians of basic needs they need to function and live? I am against using war crimes that greatly harm civilians to achieve an objective when it’s not necessary. Why do you think hospitals running out of fuel leaving people for dead and without basic care and food spoiling and no clean water is necessary to achieve a win?
 
Z

Zhejiang

Junior Member
Registered Member
FriedButter said:
Which is where your problem is. Any remaining fuel depot or reserves will be under military control and kept for military purposes. You are assuming that the military will allocate fuel supplies for civilian usage. If the island is blockaded, then the military will requisition all remaining supplies for military operations. The only fuel that civilians will be able to obtain is at the gas station which will be pumped dry by civilians or the military within 24 hours.

If the ROC military runs out of fuel then the ability to quickly move supplies and troops is severely hampered. It will be imperative for the military to stretch the available resources for as long as possible under a blockade. The compliant about potential war crimes is overblown. Civilians will not have access to remaining fuel supplies.
Click to expand...
Now yes if military takes to fuel for themselves then yes China can legally target them all, but I highly doubt Taiwan will given civilians and hospitals need fuel to run.
 
M

montyp165

Senior Member
Zhejiang said:
International law says so, and do you think China to a win a war needs to resort to depriving civilians of basic needs they need to function and live? I am against using war crimes that greatly harm civilians to achieve an objective when it’s not necessary. Why do you think hospitals running out of fuel leaving people for dead and without basic care and food spoiling and no clean water is necessary to achieve a win?
Click to expand...
This is again the exact type of Neo-liberal argument that enables Western powers to kill with impunity while simultaneously denouncing any opposition by the developing world. International law does not apply to internal conflicts, and Sri Lanka did not allow that type of interference in their civil conflict precisely because it was that type of argument that caused the Second Indochina conflict to erupt and intensify via US meddling. Again the Vietnam experience dictates the necessary types of actions once fighting starts for real.
 
Z

Zhejiang

Junior Member
Registered Member
montyp165 said:
This is again the exact type of Neo-liberal argument that enables Western powers to kill with impunity while simultaneously denouncing any opposition by the developing world. International law does not apply to internal conflicts, and Sri Lanka did not allow that type of interference in their civil conflict precisely because it was that type of argument that caused the Second Indochina conflict to erupt and intensify via US meddling. Again the Vietnam experience dictates the necessary types of actions once fighting starts for real.
Click to expand...
So basically caring about civilians in war I bad idea and the right idea is let the civilian population suffer, in Vietnam the US did mass bombing against civilian targets that killed over a million civilians if you think that’s model to replicate than ok but wanting basic functions for civilians in war isn’t a Neo liberal argument. And international law does apply to internal conflicts
 
Last edited:
M

montyp165

Senior Member
Zhejiang said:
So basically caring about civilians in war I bad idea and the right idea is let the civilian population suffer, in Vietnam the US did mass bombing against civilian targets that killed over a million civilians if you think that’s model to replicate than ok but wanting basic functions for civilians in war isn’t a Neo liberal argument. And international law does apply to internal conflicts
Click to expand...
The very first thing the Viet Minh performed at the start of the First Indochina conflict was the elimination of internal opponents to the National Liberation War, because they knew that internal opposition would be fatal to their successful conduct of the conflict. This approach was validated through the Second Indochina conflict especially when the US attempted to use international law to their benefit at Vietnam's expense. Both then and now such "international law" arguments in internal conflicts have always been made by Western third party inteference to systematically undermine opposition to western imperialism (of which Israel is a major practitioner with Iran being the most recent example of what happens when internal dissent is not addressed). When the shooting starts for real all of the above goes into effect.
 
FriedButter

FriedButter

Brigadier
Registered Member
Zhejiang said:
Now yes if military takes to fuel for themselves then yes China can legally target them all, but I highly doubt Taiwan will given civilians and hospitals need fuel to run.
Click to expand...

Before anything else is continued. Give us an explanation on why you believe that the ROC/Military is willing to provide scarce fuel resources to civilians? Exclude hospitals since they inevitable end up as dual use and it is unlikely China would intentionally target it due to political and geopolitical considerations.

Zhejiang said:
So basically caring about civilians in war I bad idea and the right idea is let the civilian population suffer, in Vietnam the US did mass bombing against civilian targets that killed over a million civilians if you think that’s model to replicate than ok but wanting basic functions for civilians in war isn’t a Neo liberal argument. And international law does apply to internal conflicts
Click to expand...

Another problem I see with your arguments is that it is a contradiction. On one side, you say you want to limit civilian harm by not targeting duel use infrastructure or supplies. Then on the other hand, you say the best option is a blockade.

So what happens after Taiwan completely runs out of fuel and food? When people begin dying and starving. Will you start demanding that China should lift the blockade and let western military convoys send supplies (and hidden military supplies) to the island? Because they will never agree to PLA supplies or “neutral suppliers” that definitely won’t be in working with foreign powers.

Will you blame the PRC for not allowing western military convoys into Taiwan or will you blame the ROC for not accepting PRC humanitarian relief?
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
Look I think it’s safe to say most of us would prefer no war at all but if a war must happen whatever ends it the most quickly and decisively is ultimately going to be the most humanitarian option. What you don’t want is to go “easy” out of consideration for civilian collateral damage risks and then have the conflict drag out long enough for Uncle Sam to collect himself for a meaningful response. The faster you can get that surrender the better.
 
Last edited:
zyklon

zyklon

Junior Member
Registered Member
Zhejiang said:
International law says so, and do you think China to a win a war needs to resort to depriving civilians of basic needs they need to function and live? I am against using war crimes that greatly harm civilians to achieve an objective when it’s not necessary. Why do you think hospitals running out of fuel leaving people for dead and without basic care and food spoiling and no clean water is necessary to achieve a win?
Click to expand...

Can you please be more specific about the international law or laws that you are referencing?
 
Z

Zhejiang

Junior Member
Registered Member
FriedButter said:
Before anything else is continued. Give us an explanation on why you believe that the ROC/Military is willing to provide scarce fuel resources to civilians? Exclude hospitals since they inevitable end up as dual use and it is unlikely China would intentionally target it due to political and geopolitical considerations.



Another problem I see with your arguments is that it is a contradiction. On one side, you say you want to limit civilian harm by not targeting duel use infrastructure or supplies. Then on the other hand, you say the best option is a blockade.

So what happens after Taiwan completely runs out of fuel and food? When people begin dying and starving. Will you start demanding that China should lift the blockade and let western military convoys send supplies (and hidden military supplies) to the island? Because they will never agree to PLA supplies or “neutral suppliers” that definitely won’t be in working with foreign powers.

Will you blame the PRC for not allowing western military convoys into Taiwan or will you blame the ROC for not accepting PRC humanitarian relief?
Click to expand...
I told you what they spare fuel for what is hospitals and water supply treatment, anything that civilians need to live would be given fuel to atleast hopefully. And yes if the population runs out of fuel or food they should let ships in and during a military blockade China has the right to inspect every ship coming in or out if they refuse inspection they are not allowed to be brought in, if weapons are snuck in through them then I would generally be fine with not allowing anymore in, but I’m not fine if you cause civilian harm because maybe this can happen.
zyklon said:
Can you please be more specific about the international law or laws that you are referencing?
Click to expand...
The Geneva convention outlines the laws of war what is you can’t cause harm to civilians on purpose what’s in article 48 or collective punishment that is listed in article 33. Now I’m not saying to cause zero civilian casualties or not target buildings that the military is using that houses civilians, but I am saying to not commit war crimes on purpose like collective punishment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top