PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

W

wuguanhui

Junior Member
Zhejiang said:
Denying fuel can be a war crime considering how it’s used given that civilians also need fuel if denial of fuel is for every fuel including hospitals then it is a war crime if it’s denial for military use then it’s not a war crime.
Click to expand...
Fine, send them some fucking solar panels. Then blow up the fuel depots.


Zhejiang said:
I do agree it must succeed but China also must take steps to avoid widespread civilian harm, and bombing civilian targets because they can be used for military use is a war crime, I’m fine with China bombing dual use stuff that’s not my problem my problem is if it becomes everything that’s dual use because that creates widespread civilian harm. China should find a balance between the least casualties for both soldiers and civilians not just one
Click to expand...

I ask again how you want to fight this war, because once PLA soldiers get past the beaches, they are going to be stuck in urban warfare, and that is highly likely to result in extensive civilian collateral casualties.

If something as innocuous as denying fuel supplies constitutes "massive war crimes" to you, perhaps you are against PLA fighting any war at all.
 
vincent

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
FriedButter said:
The reality is that fuel depots and reserves are valid military targets. The ROC imports 95-98% of their energy and that fuel will be requisitioned for military purposes. Scarce resources will be reserved and allocated for military purposes. None of it will go towards pure civilian usage. If you blockade the island, then the counter reaction will be to seize all necessary resources to sustain the military ability to conduct operations over a prolonged period of time.
Click to expand...
Lots of military equipments like missiles, radars, C4ISR require electricity to run. Destroying all power stations and transformers will disable those equipment.
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
HighGround said:
But it is a multiplier. A lot of humanitarian aid is wasted because Hamas does not have the capacity to distribute aid adequately and retain control over the various militias/gangs in Gaza.

From a material standpoint, a lot will depend on how quickly Taiwan's leadership manages existing resources/assets and organizaes rationing/stockpiling. Now your point about people being used to first-world living conditions is relevant, but what we're discussing is starvation/mass deaths/etc. Even if the majority of the population decides they don't want to suffer anymore, that's really a question of Taiwan's institutional capacity to maintain control over its citizenry, not how many people starve or how fast. Though certainly, there is an eventual... "convergence" point where the State can no longer ignore the material conditions of its constituency.
Click to expand...
The capacity to reorganize distribution in a crisis is first and foremost dependent on be material systems. You knock out the legs from under a chair and it doesn’t matter how ergonomic the seat is. Secondarily, in terms of organizational factors experience counts the most and Gaza will have much more of that than Taiwan.
 
Z

Zhejiang

Junior Member
Registered Member
FriedButter said:
The reality is that fuel depots and reserves are valid military targets. The ROC imports 95-98% of their energy and that fuel will be requisitioned for military purposes. Scarce resources will be reserved and allocated for military purposes. None of it will go towards pure civilian usage. If you blockade the island, then the counter reaction will be to seize all necessary resources to sustain the military ability to conduct operations over a prolonged period of time.
Click to expand...
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.
drowingfish said:
But taking out the fuel depot does serve the purpose of minimizing civilian harm, because it may induce its government to surrender. More harm can be brought to the civilians if DPP determines that they have enough of everything to drag this out. you deny them fuel, the populace know they are screwed in about 30 days, and who is the only entity that is able to supply them with everything they need？ it is the PRC. lack of fuel and food can become a legitimate reason to surrender, which minimizes harm.
Click to expand...
What you describe here is a war crime you can’t block fuel of bomb every fuel depot to force a surrender because it’s collective punishment, just because it might end a war faster or they can rely on China doesn’t make it not a collective punishment. Again now we can agree to disagree on what China should do if armed reunification happens and if what you think China should involves committing war crimes to end it faster than okay.
 
Z

Zhejiang

Junior Member
Registered Member
wuguanhui said:
Fine, send them some fucking solar panels. Then blow up the fuel depots.




I ask again how you want to fight this war, because once PLA soldiers get past the beaches, they are going to be stuck in urban warfare, and that is highly likely to result in extensive civilian collateral casualties.

If something as innocuous as denying fuel supplies constitutes "massive war crimes" to you, perhaps you are against PLA fighting any war at all.
Click to expand...
I never said China can’t deny fuel, I said that denying fuel in mass to get a result is a war crime, and yes civilians will die in urban combat and in war but there is a difference between investable death and death caused by doing a war crime. I am not against the PLA fighting a war but I am against war crimes. Fighting a war doesn’t mean you have to commit a war crime.
 
C

CMP

Captain
Registered Member
wuguanhui said:
Fine, send them some fucking solar panels. Then blow up the fuel depots.




I ask again how you want to fight this war, because once PLA soldiers get past the beaches, they are going to be stuck in urban warfare, and that is highly likely to result in extensive civilian collateral casualties.

If something as innocuous as denying fuel supplies constitutes "massive war crimes" to you, perhaps you are against PLA fighting any war at all.
Click to expand...
His wet dream is for the PLA to tie its own hands to best increase the likelihood of losing a war.
 
zyklon

zyklon

Junior Member
Registered Member
Zhejiang said:
Denying fuel can be a war crime considering how it’s used given that civilians also need fuel if denial of fuel is for every fuel including hospitals then it is a war crime if it’s denial for military use then it’s not a war crime.
Click to expand...

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.

Zhejiang said:
I never said China can’t deny fuel, I said that denying fuel in mass to get a result is a war crime, and yes civilians will die in urban combat and in war but there is a difference between investable death and death caused by doing a war crime. I am not against the PLA fighting a war but I am against war crimes. Fighting a war doesn’t mean you have to commit a war crime.
Click to expand...

Says who?
 
M

montyp165

Senior 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...
To put it in historical terms, the NVA offensive for the reunification of Vietnam is the baseline threshold of such operations, of which current day conditions warrants higher tech intensities of action on top of that. Anybody in denial of that fact is no better than a cheerleader for the neo-liberal imperialists for all intents and purposes.
 
Z

Zhejiang

Junior Member
Registered Member
CMP said:
His wet dream is for the PLA to tie its own hands to best increase the likelihood of losing a war.
Click to expand...
Are you saying the PLA can only reliable win a war by committing war crimes that greatly harm civilians? And no my dream is actually for China to follow international law in war as best as it can. China can win a war without having to resort to harm against civilians.
 
M

montyp165

Senior Member
Zhejiang said:
Are you saying the PLA can only reliable win a war by committing war crimes that greatly harm civilians? And no my dream is actually for China to follow international law in war as best as it can. China can win a war without having to resort to harm against civilians.
Click to expand...
General Sherman's point still stands, "War is Hell", and that stays true no matter the time and place. Once War happens it does not stop for anyone or anything until it reaches its final conclusion and nothing less. Just ask the Vietnamese for that matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top