PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
China hawk Elbridge Colby, a prominent advocate of a Western Pacific military buildup to deny China access to its adjacent seas, tweeted on November 6, “Senior flag officers are saying we’re on a trajectory to get crushed in a war with China, which would likely be the most important war since WWII, God forbid.”

The strategic takeaway is that the United States cannot win a firefight close to China’s coast, and can’t defend Taiwan whether it wants to or not. That view in the Joe Biden administration’s Department of Defense (DOD) persuaded the president to discuss “guardrails” against military confrontation in his November summit with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping.

Republican hawks appear to have come to the same conclusion. The United States will enact a scorched-earth policy in Taiwan, destroying its semiconductor industry, if the PRC seizes the island, former Trump national security adviser Robert O’Brien told a conference at the Richard Nixon Foundation on November 10, reports army-technology.com.

A recap from the UK-US transition, when the Royal Navy warned the British Government about getting into a war with the US.

We now have the US Military telling the US Government something similar.

When US interests were at stake prior to WW1, the US did threaten the UK with military action.

See the Venezuela crisis as an example.

The Royal Navy was very clear in telling the British government to avoid war with the US at all costs, and accede to US requirements and accept a junior position.

The reasons were : the UK faced a bigger threat from Imperial Germany Navy which directly threatened the security of the British Isles, the US could threaten Canada over land, and the US economy could sustain a larger war machine.

That is a model China could follow to ensure a peaceful power transition.

 

drowingfish

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Pentagon, Chinese analysts agree US can’t win in Taiwan Strait

US mulls ‘scorched earth’ strategy for Taiwan instead of defense

by David P. Goldman December 6, 2022
i imagine beijing is actually okay with taking taiwan without its semiconductors...after all it wanted taiwan before the semiconductors. maybe its a win-win, China get taiwan, the US can declare that they haven't actually lost taiwan if it is a taiwan without semiconductors. i feel bad for taiwan though, waiting for americans to come to their rescue but instead they get american bombs dropped on them.

the only issue here is actually that bombing taiwan factories counts as bombing china in beijing's books, how would the two sides reconcile that? the same way as how iran dealt with suleimani's death?
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Colonel
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Pentagon, Chinese analysts agree US can’t win in Taiwan Strait

US mulls ‘scorched earth’ strategy for Taiwan instead of defense
Republican hawks appear to have come to the same conclusion. The United States will enact a scorched-earth policy in Taiwan, destroying its semiconductor industry, if the PRC seizes the island, former Trump national security adviser Robert O’Brien told a conference at the Richard Nixon Foundation on November 10, reports army-technology.com.

“If China takes Taiwan and takes those factories intact – which I don’t think we would ever allow – they have a monopoly over chips the way OPEC has a monopoly, or even more than the way OPEC has a monopoly over oil,” O’Brien said.

A much-read paper by two Army War College professors published this year proposes that “the United States and Taiwan should lay plans for a targeted scorched-earth strategy that would render Taiwan not just unattractive if ever seized by force, but positively costly to maintain.”

“This could be done most effectively by threatening to destroy facilities belonging to the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, the most important chipmaker in the world and China’s most important supplier.”

O’Brien evidently agrees with the Pentagon’s assessment that the US can’t win a war in the Taiwan Strait, proposing – apropos of the Vietnam War’s most celebrated sound bite – to destroy the island in order to save it.
Does these warmongers actually believe that TSMC is the only thing that China wants from Taiwan. Really?

China already has a robust (although not yet fully mature and foolproof) semiconductor industry of her own. With or without TSMC, China is already dead-set on indigenizing her own semiconductor ecosystem. And there's nothing the US can do about it.

Plus, just like @drowingfish has said - China is after Taiwan way before TSMC even became a thing. The key lies with the Chinese Civil War which has never been concluded. In practice, both Beijing and Taipei are still in a state of war as we speak, and the war itself actually lasted longer than the Korean War.

You don't see the West agreeing on the fact that the Chinese Civil War is still ongoing today unlike the Korean War, why? Because doing so means the West could no longer claim that Taiwan is somehow "independent" from mainland China, which would stand in the way of justifying their aim to contain and destroy China.

Besides, Taiwan has way more to offer to Beijing than just TSMC:
1. Breaking through the First Island Chain encirclement;
2. Allowing PLAN East Sea Fleet to be stationed right at the gateway into the Pacific;
3. Allowing Chinese SSBN to have immediate access and hide in the vastness of the Pacific to become an effective nuclear deterrent arm for China;
4. Enable better PLA response to threats comming at China and/or her prospective allies in the region by stationing forward outposts on the island;
5. Gateway for China to venture into Oceania and South America for further and better BRI and socio-economic cooperation & integration;
6. As a forward staging base for China for future operations into the Pacific, plus enabling better security and safety guarantee for nations that are friendly to China in the Pacific and South America;
7. A new location for China's space launches that are close to open ocean and close to the equator; and
8. To fulfill the ultimate dream and vision of the Chinese civilization state that the Century of Humiliation is truly over by the final reunification of lost land by Beijing.
 
Last edited:

TK3600

Captain
Registered Member
In case of American attack on Taiwan like TSMC should China retaliate?

On one hand it might not be worth to escalate if China obtain Taiwan with some loss from TSMC.

On the other hand it is a attack on China proper and people will demand a response. By that time say 2027 a military response is feasible. At risk of extending the war China could conduct limited response.

The equal response would to attack American cities. This will cause outrage and don't earn China much. As much irony point it would score it is not good for China.

The low response would be shoot back on the military target that conducted the strike. If it is from air then the offending plane need to be shot down. The airbase it flight from can eat a couple ballistic missile. You know, like Iran response to assasination of their general.

The high response would be using this as a causus belli to clear out nearby American base that conducted the strike. Be it Guam or Okinawa base. After bombardments a full naval invasion to clear out the facility and capture the military personnel. Occupy would be likely too much, but a cleansing is sufficient. Trading tsmc for clearing out a base nearby is acceptable trade. Most importantly it sends a message to countries nearby that hosting US is not free. At the same time unlike bombing city does not corner US government to escalate further. Risky but potentially strong political reward domestically and internationally.
 

SinoaTerrenum

New Member
Registered Member
In case of American attack on Taiwan like TSMC should China retaliate?

On one hand it might not be worth to escalate if China obtain Taiwan with some loss from TSMC.

On the other hand it is a attack on China proper and people will demand a response. By that time say 2027 a military response is feasible. At risk of extending the war China could conduct limited response.

The equal response would to attack American cities. This will cause outrage and don't earn China much. As much irony point it would score it is not good for China.

The low response would be shoot back on the military target that conducted the strike. If it is from air then the offending plane need to be shot down. The airbase it flight from can eat a couple ballistic missile. You know, like Iran response to assasination of their general.

The high response would be using this as a causus belli to clear out nearby American base that conducted the strike. Be it Guam or Okinawa base. After bombardments a full naval invasion to clear out the facility and capture the military personnel. Occupy would be likely too much, but a cleansing is sufficient. Trading tsmc for clearing out a base nearby is acceptable trade. Most importantly it sends a message to countries nearby that hosting US is not free. At the same time unlike bombing city does not corner US government to escalate further. Risky but potentially strong political reward domestically and internationally.
Wiping out US forces in west pac would be a fair trade, attacking TSMC is akin to attacking Chinese territory not yet fully administered, while US bases are non territory it fully administers
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
So, basically confirmed that the only shots America will fire in anger in the event of AR is to take out TSMC. Would be ironic if it wasn’t so on brand for the serial betrayer of allies and useful idiots.

And people ask why China wants a powerful navy and carriers. It’s to defend Taiwan from the inevitable US backstab when AR comes.
 

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
China itself should destroy TSMC first, it has gone dangerously out of control.

US is more reliant on them than China is, and if TSMC doesn't help embargo America, they're a threat to national security and could potentially leak sensitive Chinese tech to America.

If TSMC can't be controlled, it must be destroyed, like any other domestic company that sells out to the enemy.

In the event of an American special operation against China, the most feasible response is to annihilate the forces of the special operation only. America itself will decide how many of their citizens die, by choosing the size and nature of the invading forces. That way, no one can blame China for escalating and US can sue for peace easily.

If they involve 2 carrier groups, the defenses exist to send both to the bottom of the ocean. If they only involve a couple of long range missiles, Chinese air defense followed by counterbattery strike will take out the launchers, and then it is up to US to escalate or back down.
 
Last edited:

bobsagget

New Member
Registered Member
“In 2020, China fired anti-ship ballistic missiles against a moving target in the South China Sea.”

China tested these weapons thoroughly, the Pentagon report adds:

“In 2021, the PLARF launched approximately 135 ballistic missiles for testing and training, more than the rest of the world combined excluding ballistic missile employment in conflict zones. The DF-17 passed several tests successfully and is deployed operationally.

“While the DF-17 is primarily a conventional platform, it may be equipped with nuclear warheads. In 2020, a PRC-based military expert described the primary purpose of the DF-17 as striking foreign military bases and fleets in the Western Pacific.”

Key to the effectiveness of anti-ship missiles is satellite intelligence and electronic warfare measures. As the Pentagon reports:

“China employs a robust space-based ISR [intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance] capability designed to enhance its worldwide situational awareness. Used for military and civilian remote sensing and mapping, terrestrial and maritime surveillance, and intelligence collection, China’s ISR satellites are capable of providing electro-optical and synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery as well as electronic and signals intelligence data.”

Most important:

“As of the end of 2021, China’s ISR satellite fleet contained more than 260 systems – a quantity second only to the United States, and nearly doubling China’s in-orbit systems since 2018.”

Satellite signals can be jammed or spoofed (misdirected to show incorrect coordinates), but

“The PLA continues to invest in improving its capabilities in space-based intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), satellite communication, and satellite navigation … the PRC continues to develop a variety of counter-space capabilities designed to limit or prevent an adversary’s use of space-based assets during crisis or conflict.

“In addition to the development of directed energy weapons and satellite jammers, the PLA has an operational ground-based anti-satellite (ASAT) missile intended to target low-Earth orbit satellites, and the PRC probably intends to pursue additional ASAT weapons capable of destroying satellites up to geosynchronous Earth orbit.

“PLA [electronic warfare] units routinely train to conduct jamming and anti-jamming operations against multiple communication and radar systems and Global Positioning System (GPS) satellite systems during force-on-force exercises.

“These exercises test operational units’ understanding of EW weapons, equipment, and procedures and they also enable operators to improve confidence in their ability to operate effectively in a complex electromagnetic environment.”

China’s military has improved quality as well as quantity, according to the Pentagon:

“Recent improvements to China’s space-based ISR capabilities emphasize the development, procurement, and use of increasingly capable satellites with digital camera technology as well as space-based radar for all-weather, 24-hour coverage.

“These improvements increase China’s monitoring capabilities – including observation of US aircraft carriers, expeditionary strike groups, and deployed air wings. Space capabilities will enhance potential PLA military operations farther from the Chinese coast.”

Overall, the Pentagon’s readout on China’s missile and satellite capability is virtually identical to the estimation of Chinese analysts, for example, the widely read military columnist Chen Feng in the prominent Chinese website “The Observer” (guancha.cn). In a November 27 report, Chen explained why an array of small satellites can achieve precise real-time target location:

“Small satellites are not only small, lightweight, and low-cost, but also operate in low orbits. In terms of space ISR, one is worth nearly three. This is true for optical and radar imaging, as well as for signal interception. So the actual reconnaissance capability of small satellites is no weaker than large satellites, and commercial Synthetic Aperture Radar small satellites in the United States and China are able to reach 0.5-meter resolution.

“Optical imaging has always had the advantage of high resolution, which is also a very mature technology. In the era of digital imaging, there is no longer a need to use the re-entry capsule to send the film back to the ground when the satellite is overhead.”

Synthetic aperture radar, Chen explains, “is not applicable to moving targets, but most of the intelligence can be interpreted from still images, and the similarities and movement can be inferred from differences between the before and after still images can also be inferred from the movement.”

A lead satellite may detect a suspicious object, and follow-up satellites “can be switched to a detailed investigation mode, and relay the results of detailed investigation.” Other satellites with electromagnetic rather than optical sensors can conduct real-time triangulation.

In addition to its satellite ISR capability, Chen says, the other half of China’s reconnaissance capability consists of “unmanned aircraft, unmanned boats, submarines, and networked land-based radar, and undersea hydroacoustic monitoring.”

China, Chen concludes, does not yet have global ISR capability, “but theater coverage has been achieved.”


See link for rest of the article.
God these people are dumb. Even if china owns it they will still sell us semi conductors and we can develop our own domestic industry. A fucking war between nuclear powers over an economic matter is batshit insane and the sign of a mind that has been in a think tank for too long and needs to touch grass. Lets say we beat china then what? We will have to go into the mainland and fully beat and occupy them. Iraq ,Afghanistan fucking childs play . China is nearly the size of the usa with some of the most fucked up geography and biomes to wage war in and has 1.4 billion people. Even 1 percent of them becoming insurgents is 1.4 million insurgents. And the chinese would rather die then be humiliated again by a western power. These people will hate us forever
 

bobsagget

New Member
Registered Member
I am always confused by our hatred of china. They helped us in world war 2, the sino soviet split helped us in the cold war . They have been a decent trade partner . Overall while they conduct sophisticated covert ops they are within norms. I do not agree with everything they do but i do not see any behavior that stands out as violating any particular norm.Would i like china to be more liberal? Yeah but shit overall the folk seem happy with it and it ain’t my country . If this is just a war of values i think america should just open a resettlement program that gets housing and work in the usa for folks who do not want to be in china.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
I am always confused by our hatred of china. They helped us in world war 2, the sino soviet split helped us in the cold war . They have been a decent trade partner . Overall while they conduct sophisticated covert ops they are within norms. I do not agree with everything they do but i do not see any behavior that stands out as violating any particular norm.Would i like china to be more liberal? Yeah but shit overall the folk seem happy with it and it ain’t my country . If this is just a war of values i think america should just open a resettlement program that gets housing and work in the usa for folks who do not want to be in china.
This should be really easy to understand. The old Chinese saying goes, "There cannot be two tigers living on the same mountain." This has nothing to do with ideology or how anybody conducts themselves. If any country in the world begins to gain power at a rate that can end American dominance, America will find a reason to turn it into the enemy. It could be the most liberal democracy in existance but America's only care is to be the world's ruler and any nation that stands in its way it must justify to the American people why that nation is evil. If China decided to do the easy life of farming and gave all its assets and tech to Canada tomorrow, Canada would be enemy number 1 for America instantly. It's not America-specific either. If America collapsed today, China and Russia would be rivals instead of allies tomorrow because then, they would be the 2 tigers inhabiting the same mountain. It's human nature.
 
Top