PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

There is no point arguing weather or not fuel storage is valid target in an AR scenario - PLA have already decided the are and practiced striking them:

The primary LPG terminal in Taiwan:


Footage from Strait Thunder 2025A exercise back in April:

Nuff said, in a shooting war those things are gone.

This actually caused a big shock in April because prior to this exercise the thinking in ROC was a blockade will be in place to prevent further LPG import, so they've been working on building more of those storage tanks to increase the number of days they can hold out and wait for US reinforcement to arrive. This exercise proves that all those new storage tanks they are building are both known to PLA and are considered valid targets in the event of AR, making their whole effort in increasing LPG reserve a bit superfluous.

If you think this is terrible, yes it is. That's why there's a lot of efforts going on right now (rather successful too, if you consider how much wave gymboss was making this year) to move things in a Peaceful Reunification direction. But if Armed Reunification does happen you must go into it with both eyes open and do what is necessary or else it has the potential to become another Ukraine War phase 1 were tanks wait for the green light at intersections.

Zhejiang said:

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.

Click to expand...

Are you indulging in nonsensical references to and interpretations of international law freestyle, or are you an "LLM oriented" wannabe attorney of the ?

zyklon said:

Are you indulging in nonsensical references to and interpretations of international law freestyle, or are you an "LLM oriented" wannabe attorney of the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

?

Click to expand...

So your saying purposely creating harm to civilians isn’t a war crime and that collective punishment isn’t a war crime ether? Can you show me what Geneva Convention article says that or why you think those are just interpretations and not actually war crimes?

Zhejiang said:

So your saying purposely creating harm to civilians isn’t a war crime and that collective punishment isn’t a war crime ether? Can you show me what Geneva Convention article says that or why you think those are just interpretations and not actually war crimes?

Click to expand...

Sounds like you don't have a reasonable understanding of intent.

zyklon said:

Sounds like you don't have a reasonable understanding of intent.

Click to expand...

And I always said that, do you not think depriving civilians of basic needs just so one side surrenders is not a war crime?

Zhejiang said:

And I always said that, do you not think depriving civilians of basic needs just so one side surrenders is not a war crime?

Click to expand...

Sounds like the concept of dual use is alien to you.

If inconveniencing civilians is a categorical no go as far as you're concerned, then you might as well as oppose and reject war in totality.

What was the last war of any reasonable or otherwise somewhat memorable impact where civilians were completely unaffected?

Zhejiang said:

So your saying purposely creating harm to civilians isn’t a war crime and that collective punishment isn’t a war crime ether? Can you show me what Geneva Convention article says that or why you think those are just interpretations and not actually war crimes?

Click to expand...

Deliberately targeting civilians for the sake of harming civilians vs targeting things that lead to civilian collateral harm but which have clear military justification are considered to be different kinds of acts under international laws.

EDIT: I’m not going to comb through the whole text of the conventions just for an internet argument that is in the grand scheme of things kind of irrelevant to the broader topic, but attaching an excerpt of how the convention delineates its protections as an example of how they’re not as comprehensive and sweeping as you seem to be suggesting. Imo it’s on you to go through the document and pull up the clauses that you think show civilian protections extend to categorical and uncompromising protection of infrastructure that will impact normal civilian life.

zyklon said:

Sounds like the concept of dual use is alien to you.

If inconveniencing civilians is a categorical no go as far as you're concerned, then you might as well as oppose and reject war in totality.

What was the last war of any reasonable or otherwise somewhat memorable impact where civilians were completely unaffected?

Click to expand...

Where did I say I want civilians completely unaffected all I said was I don’t want collective punishment what is far different from no civilian harm at all. And dual use doesn’t mean collective punishment is ok.

latenlazy said:

Deliberately targeting civilians for the sake of harming civilians vs targeting things that lead to civilian collateral harm but which have clear military justification are considered to be different kinds of acts under international laws.

EDIT: I’m not going to comb through the whole text of the conventions just for an internet argument that is in the grand scheme of things kind of irrelevant to the broader topic, but attaching an excerpt of how the convention delineates its protections as an example of how they’re not as comprehensive and sweeping as you seem to be suggesting. Imo it’s on you to go through the document and pull up the clauses that you think show civilian protections extend to categorical and uncompromising protection of infrastructure that will impact normal civilian life.

View attachment 166675

Click to expand...

You’re not wrong but targeting every single fuel depot, power station, and transformer in Taiwan to force a surrender would be collective punishment and a war crime, do you disagree with that? And I never said no civilians should be harmed or no dual use infrastructure should be targeted I said bombing every single one is a war crime and collective punishment.

Zhejiang said:

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.

Click to expand...

So basically. You are huffing copium that the ROC military is going to give up precious fuel supply in a war time scenario to keep civilians happy.

Zhejiang said:

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.

Click to expand...

I notice you completely avoided the question but I suspect it is the former by your response. The lack of any acknowledgement to the ROC not accepting PRC humanitarian ships in favor of foreign ships is telling in your response. Cargo ships are huge and there is plenty of space where things can be hidden. How do you think drugs are being smuggled everywhere constantly.

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...

Quite frankly. I get the impression that all your complaining has nothing to do with the wellbeing of civilians but with how to keep the ROC from losing the war. Since the only thing you keeping trying to imply is that the war should be prolonged indefinitely in other words a ceasefire. What you are secretly desiring. Whatever you are willing to admit it or not. Is to get China to sign an ceasefire or Trump’s Minsk 3.0 of allowing western troops to be send to Ukraine Taiwan.