PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

T

tamsen_ikard

Senior Member
Registered Member
RoastGooseHKer said:
But this does not resolve the dilemma between spending more on guns versus butter after 2035. China's aging population issues will force the government to spend more on universal eldercare. And that means less resources for the PLA (except veterans and MOD retirees).
Click to expand...
You can't make definitive statements like that. How much a government spends on a particular category is dependent on politics. Nothing is stopping the govt to spend less on elder care if they want to. The elderly will just depend more on their own savings or their children.

China spends the least amount on the military right now. Less 1.2% of GDP officially. Technically China is the one that is following the pacifist constitution rather than Japan.

China spends the most on infrastracture, poverty reduction, education and so on. It spends on things that will boost China's economic potential, which in turn leads to higher GDP growth.

As China gets richer, its geopolitical ambitions will rise which means it will spend more on the military, not less. Right now, its in keep your head down, hide and bide, just focus on economy mode. As it gets richer, there is less incentive to keep silent. There will be more ambition to push for more influence and more power.
 
BasilicaLew

BasilicaLew

Junior Member
Registered Member
RoastGooseHKer said:
But this does not resolve the dilemma between spending more on guns versus butter after 2035. China's aging population issues will force the government to spend more on universal eldercare. And that means less resources for the PLA (except veterans and MOD retirees).
Click to expand...
The PLA can still downsize quite a bit more, PLA needs less troops because its more efficient. For the US troop numbers I mean having bases all around the world only worsens that trend. And also some positions in logistics may become automated over time.
 
Sinnavuuty

Sinnavuuty

Captain
Registered Member
Puss in Boots said:
2027 also marks the centennial of the founding of the Chinese People's Liberation Army. I wonder if this is a coincidence.
I agree that 2027 should be the year when the gap in military power between China and the United States is at its smallest. After all, the gap will only widen, and the United States has no ability to reverse this trend.
Click to expand...
On the issue of dates (2027, 2035 and 2049), a good article that covers everything discussed here:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Nevermore

Nevermore

Junior Member
Registered Member
RoastGooseHKer said:
But this does not resolve the dilemma between spending more on guns versus butter after 2035. China's aging population issues will force the government to spend more on universal eldercare. And that means less resources for the PLA (except veterans and MOD retirees).
Click to expand...
China's current military spending is extremely low. With just a modest increase in the future, it could maintain the world's strongest military power within its theater of operations. Surely you don't think it's a huge strain for the PLA to sustain its current level of military strength?
 
P

Puss in Boots

New Member
Registered Member
Sinnavuuty said:
On the issue of dates (2027, 2035 and 2049), a good article that covers everything discussed here:
Click to expand...
I'm more inclined to believe the timing is simply a coincidence. China's requirements for military development are designed to meet the needs of its economic development.
The report, as always, is rife with bias, making it impossible to accurately predict China's military development path.
The report focuses on Taiwan and the South China Sea to demonstrate China's military development goals, clearly underestimating China's ambitions! This report was released last year; a re-release of an assessment of China's military development this year would be significantly different.
Discussing China's military development cannot be separated from China's economic development. I can't find any discussion of economic development in this report.
These timelines are still American fantasies. The CPC doesn't set a clear timeline for itself because it doesn't need to curry favor with the public by promoting a vision of the future. This is completely different from Western politics.
 
P

Puss in Boots

New Member
Registered Member
Sinnavuuty said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
Americans: As long as I have a strong enough military, I have enough money.
Chinese: Only if I have enough money can I make my army stronger.
This is the difference between agricultural civilization and pirate civilization.
I think this report is a pirate's understanding of the world.
 
R

RoastGooseHKer

Junior Member
Registered Member
Nevermore said:
China's current military spending is extremely low. With just a modest increase in the future, it could maintain the world's strongest military power within its theater of operations. Surely you don't think it's a huge strain for the PLA to sustain its current level of military strength?
Click to expand...
Current level is sustainable, but it is only a peacetime posture with a total force of less than 2 million. Once war starts, you need to pay for sudden surge in man power, munitions, logistics, and more importantly, payouts and healthcare to the wounded and the dead. You are talking about sudden surge in spending and resources. If the war drags out, not sure how long you could sustain such war economy. Image sustaining a 5-6 million strong PLA for a period of 5 years should a war drags out. And this occurs whilst China’s economy is completely cutoff from the world. And as soon as the war ends, you need provide the huge sums of payouts and healthcare benefits to the wounded and families of the dead. The country’s debt is going to skyrocket.
 
T

tamsen_ikard

Senior Member
Registered Member
RoastGooseHKer said:
Current level is sustainable, but it is only a peacetime posture with a total force of less than 2 million. Once war starts, you need to pay for sudden surge in man power, munitions, logistics, and more importantly, payouts and healthcare to the wounded and the dead. You are talking about sudden surge in spending and resources. If the war drags out, not sure how long you could sustain such war economy. Image sustaining a 5-6 million strong PLA for a period of 5 years should a war drags out. And this occurs whilst China’s economy is completely cutoff from the world. And as soon as the war ends, you need provide the huge sums of payouts and healthcare benefits to the wounded and families of the dead. The country’s debt is going to skyrocket.
Click to expand...
I wonder who the PLA will fight with 5-6 million soldiers and what will happen to the economy and military of that enemy. You are also saying the war will drag for 5-6 years. So, that enemy will literally fall apart trying to sustain such a war against the PLA?

Whatever the war costs, if China achieves comprehensive victory after a 5-6 years of WW3, the economic benefits of that victory will far outweigh whatever losses or debts it incurs.

You actually discount China much low though. US in the WW2 was able to muster a military of 12 million with a population of just 100 million at that time. China can easily sustain an army of 50 million in a supposed ww3 with their 1.4 billion population.
 
Last edited:
Phead128

Phead128

Major
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
RoastGooseHKer said:
But this does not resolve the dilemma between spending more on guns versus butter after 2035. China's aging population issues will force the government to spend more on universal eldercare. And that means less resources for the PLA (except veterans and MOD retirees).
Click to expand...
Artificial intelligence and industrial robotics has changed the game, productivity will exponentially rise despite lower labor pool. It's not as simplistic as young more, more military spending, otherwise India wouldn't spend only 1.6% increase in 2024 in defense spending despite eclipsing China in total population. It's never that simplistic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top