To be fair, given the state of the US Navy, anybody would prefer to stay away from them. They are a complete disaster.
PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
- Thread starter pugachev_diver
- Start date
The US is behind all this redline testing. US has been pressuring Korea to clarify it's role in a Taiwan contingency, whether they allow USFK bases to operate offensive forces from US bases in Korea. Korea has been highly reluctant under new PM. US pressuring new Japan PM to be explicit in their role in Taiwan contingency, or else US question their alliance. RAND wargames have shown only scenario where US would lose a Taiwan contingency is if Japan refuses to provide basing, logistics, and support from their territory. The fact Japan PM refuses to retract, and US diplomats say they fully back Japan means it's a coordinated effort to test the redlines of China (not unlike the coordinated US-Dutch effort on Nexperia). It's consistent with the "gathering the allies" approach of Biden admin, to counter China.
Taiwan is a symptom of a broader issue, it's fundamentally the entire security alliance of East Asia, where US can compel or force it's allies to share logistics, bases, even troops for a Taiwan contingency, in an all-or-nothing effort to preserve US influence in the region. China should not see Taiwan AR in isolation, but the entire US alliance structure in East Asia will be drawn in.
Taiwan is a symptom of a broader issue, it's fundamentally the entire security alliance of East Asia, where US can compel or force it's allies to share logistics, bases, even troops for a Taiwan contingency, in an all-or-nothing effort to preserve US influence in the region. China should not see Taiwan AR in isolation, but the entire US alliance structure in East Asia will be drawn in.
US can do that and their allied have alot of interest to come and save taiwan because china allow taiwan become very worthy to save
allow the place you want to take become so worthy to save in the eyes of other = worst strategy ever
so ...how about china start "making taiwan less worthy , less valueable to save" now ? instead of sit there wall of texts comment and worry so much about ....what US and their allied gonna do ?
when taiwan not worth the saving effort anymore then all those problem from US , japan and their allied gang automatically go away
Last edited:
In reality, as China's military and economic strength rises while America's military and economic strength declines, calls for abandoning Taiwan will gradually gain traction. Given the current trend, China need only wait.
Looks like that China is going to use everything it takes to take a target that is 130 km from its vast coast. Probably a full mobilization of the country resources. The issue comes the US and their vassals are willing to sacrifice for that island. Because a week or two show is not going to cut it. What is going to happen when TSMC fabs are destroyed? When most of talent migrated to the US? When the threat of nuclear war become apparent? my guess if that after that island get destroyed will lose its value and will be abandoned.
You see the Taiwanese could have reached a good deal with the Mainland before any contingency, but no, stooges are going to try to force that island to get decimated from coast to coast and the lives of the people who live there become an inferno. For nothing.
There will always be opposition on the beach. It is realistically unlikely to completely eliminate the threat of opposing forces on the beach. The very artillery barrage, air strikes, and drone attacks against the defenders on the beach could indicate prior preparation for the landing, giving the enemy the location—hence the emphasis on the amphibious demonstration—from where the amphibious attack will occur.
Your statement that "amphibious units must not make their final approach until a beachhead and its surrounding terrain have been cleared of all or most fortified positions" is the most realistic within the context of an amphibious operation, which in the exercise itself seems not to have been fully executed, as there was still strong enemy fire resistance against the landing units.
I don't believe that, because the trend is heading towards the militarization of the Western Pacific, which makes things much more unbalanced, especially when you have an actor encouraging any and all efforts to contain China.
I'm with you on this one. China cannot achieve its political objectives in East Asia without first completely dethroning the US.
rule 1 in geopolitic and warfare strategy : never fall into moral trap because enemy alway use it again you
2/ TSMC labs are the main rally under the flag reason US/allied gang nation + their populations support the war with china to save taiwan
it must be destroy first before the offical invasion start .
if not china basically help US/allied gang nations convince their population accept go to war with china much more easier
because human nature care more about something affect their normal daily life more than something happen far away
US/allied gang nations can't just convince their population go ww3 with china with reason like : stop china breaking out of 1st island chain because this reason is just far away geopolitic matter for most of their population don't affect their daily life much
but with : let go to war and save taiwan or else china control TSMC and they gonna ruin your daily life : no more toaster , coffee/icecream machine , washing machine , TV , video game console , PC , smart phone , cars for you anymore ....etc
> the convincing effort become way easier .
by destroy TSMC with missile attack , no fly zone not allow talent people escape first before launching offical amphibious invasion ...china effectively remove the strongest ability allow US/allied nations grovernment convincing their population accept go to war with china to save taiwan
TSMC no longer exist = any gov offical , leaders dare to order ww3 with china will be kick out by their own population in a flash .
so yeah .......taiwan semi-conductor industry must be destroy before the offical amphibious invasion start....that the only way
I think the point is that the Western perspective is that 500km is rather far, because munitions of this range are either scarce, or still in-development (and likely to be scarce after development concludes), while the Chinese perspective is that 500km isn't all that far, for similar reasons (not scarce, and weapons are in development that aren't likely to be too scarce, etc.)
There's also the matter of scarceness of weapons must also consider how many targets there are to hit: Chinese missiles have fewer targets to hit with more missiles, than the West does with fewer missiles.
There's also the matter of scarceness of weapons must also consider how many targets there are to hit: Chinese missiles have fewer targets to hit with more missiles, than the West does with fewer missiles.