PLAN Strategy in the Taiwan Strait


pugachev_diver

Banned Idiot
Since the Varyag discussion focuses heavily on the topic of Taiwan, then let's talk about possible intervention of USN in the case of conflicts. Let's say that the Strait Crisis similar to that of 96 happened again in the region and the mainland had issued an ultimatum that the local government had to surrender, or else full scale military mobilization would take place. The goal of the mainland is to fully take control of Taiwan. In this type of scenario, already happened in 1996, which the mainland backed down after the dispatch of two carrier strike groups by the USN.

In case this scenario happened again, let's say in 10 years. Do you guy think the mainland will back down again? And in case the mainland didn't back down in front of two carrier groups, do you think they will with 3 or 4 carrier groups? I do know that the USN has to have at least 2-3 carriers in the Persian Gulf at all times, which means there are only 4-5 carriers available for mobilization (there are always a few going through scheduled maintenance and big-fixes, a few more have to be on alert for other areas other than the just Asia). On top of that, the US military bases in the Asia-Pacific regions are either too small to be effective or too far away. The closest major military base that is big enough to pose a threat is guam, which is two and half thousand kilometres away. Naha is too small, barely have enough troops to pose a threat. The closest place in the Japanese main island is still 1,500 Km away.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Re: Latest PLAN Aircraft Carrier Info & Photos

The Third TW strait crisis was not to take control of Taiwan, it was to discourage voting... It would be unlikely that another crisis will occur in the near future because China has such an overwhelming advantage over Taiwan, not just militarily but politically, in terms of isolating it from other countries.

whether the mainland "backs down" or not, and against what kind of opfor, depends what their motive is. If it's not very important like the 1996 crisis then they could very well back down against any number of american force.
If it's of utmost importance then you're looking at WWIII.

And I disagree -- talk about the varyag does not revolve around Taiwan at all. All Chinese carrier development is focused for situations beyond taiwan... that's not to say they wont' be useful for such a contingency however.
 

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Re: PLAN Stragety in the Taiwan Strait

I do know that the USN has to have at least 2-3 carriers in the Persian Gulf at all times, which means there are only 4-5 carriers available for mobilization

Actually only one. But at this moment there are two. Enterprise & Vinson.

which means there are only 4-5 carriers available for mobilization (there are always a few going through scheduled maintenance and big-fixes, a few more have to be on alert for other areas other than the just Asia).

True. Usually three are four are ready for what the USN calls surge deployments. There is always one in the shipyard in Newport News VA under going a major overhaul.

The closest major military base that is big enough to pose a threat is guam, which is two and half thousand kilometres away. Naha is too small, barely have enough troops to pose a threat. The closest place in the Japanese main island is still 1,500 Km away.

You forgot the the US bases in South Korea. Including Osan AB. Not exactly an airstrip. By the way the USN perhaps in 10 years time may homeport a carrier in Guam or Hawaii. This was in discussion about 5 years ago.
 

Geographer

Junior Member
Re: PLAN Stragety in the Taiwan Strait

Although we are all military and IR enthusiasts, we should be skeptical of predicting and scheming too much. International relations are really hard to predict. We know the broad outlines of policy if Taiwan moves toward independence: the Mainland will be pissed, Western countries will warn against independence, and the KMT will oppose it. But beyond that, accurate predictions are impossible. It would be a big time game theory move of bluffing, calling bluffs, expectations, and fears. IR is like Newton's Third Law: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

But as military and IR enthusiasts we can still think of scenarios. I'd like to raise one possible response by the PRC: launching nuclear weapons into the sea East of Taiwan in order to intimidate them into surrender. Consider the situation: a conventional sea invasion followed by land war would be long and costly. Even if the U.S. and Japan stay out, it will be ugly. If the United States navy intervenes China will certainly lose the war. China count on winning the war before the carriers get there. The American invasion of Iraq took three weeks to reach Baghdad, and that was possibly the most lopsided conflict in modern warfare, fought mostly in the desert. China will take at least that long to establish a defensive beachhead. Then they have to fight the Taiwanese army over mountains and jungles.

The alternative is a true shock-and-awe campaign: nuclear weapons first shot into the sea by ballistic missile, then into Taiwan's cities. It is exactly the same rationale for the American dropping of atomic bombs to end World War II. Nuke the cities to provoke immediate surrender and prevent a long, drawn out, and extremely brutal invasion. Taiwan would have practically no defense. The Patriot missiles could be taken out with dedicated cruise missiles. Or the nuclear warhead carrying--ballistic missiles could be mixed in with a wave of conventionally-armed missiles. Or China could put a warhead on the cruise missile. There is no way Taiwan could survive a nuclear attack or retaliate with its own. A nuclear strike accomplishes China's exact goal: quick surrender with minimal loss of life to itself.

But what about the international reaction? How could China get away with nuking itself? First of all, China has to anticipate angry international response if it lifts a finger against Taiwan. I don't think the response will be any worse than an invasion. Second, China could defend itself the same way America does its decision to drop the atomic bomb: it will end the war quicker and with less loss of life. Third, a war that ends quickly will be in China's long-term interest. China's economy is so big it can ride out any reflexive sanctions or asset seizures. A long war is the worst thing that could happen. It allows the propaganda war to set it, for humanitarian crises like starvation to set it and be well-publicized, and for the steady stream of war news to dominate headlines. People will begin to think about China only in terms of the war.
 

In4ser

Junior Member
Re: PLAN Stragety in the Taiwan Strait

@Geographer
I understand your rationale from a strategic standpoint, but seriously nuking Taiwan!? Are you INSANE? Perhaps detonating above Taipei or KaoHsiung as an EMP but not an outright nuclear strike!

Even the mainlanders and pro-unification supporters like myself themselves would be in complete disgust. The CCP would lose all legitimacy in this blind genocide, Japan was a different matter, especially since hostilities began with their pre-emptive strike. People are willing to accept invasion and enforcing claim and sovereignty, but nuclear weapons will send a terrible precedent especially if done on one's own people as a Country With No First Use Policy.
 
Last edited:

no_name

Major
Re: PLAN Stragety in the Taiwan Strait

China don't need nuke for the Taiwan problem. They are not in a hurry - right timing, right condition, right momentum and the job is almost done effortlessly. That nuke scenario is very ugly, and clumsy.

The Taiwan problem, the dispute with Japan, the south china sea dispute, the indian border dispute. They all partly rest on one main pillar. Currently they are more or less repressed issues, forcing an act on one of them will make the others alive.

As long as china does not push too hard, none of the other actors will be too outrageous - they don't want to be the first cannon fodder for others -The first fruite to bear is the first to rot. If no one moves and no one is incited, the status quo will stay and china will be stronger with passing time.
 
Last edited:

antiterror13

Brigadier
Re: PLAN Stragety in the Taiwan Strait

China don't need nuke for the Taiwan problem. They are not in a hurry - right timing, right condition, right momentum and the job is almost done effortlessly. That nuke scenario is very ugly, and clumsy.

The Taiwan problem, the dispute with Japan, the south china sea dispute, the indian border dispute. They all partly rest on one main pillar. Currently they are more or less repressed issues, forcing an act on one of them will make the others alive.

As long as china does not push too hard, none of the other actors will be too outrageous - they don't want to be the first cannon fodder for others -The first fruite to bear is the first to rot. If no one moves and no one is incited, the status quo will stay and china will be stronger with passing time.

Taiwan will have no choice but to be close to China (or part of it). I believe in 20 years time .... China economy and military will be so big and Chinese living standard would be much better and perhaps approaching Taiwan on average AND China would be somewhat a democracy country (China version) ... so there is no reason won't be any re-unification in 20-30 years time
 

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
Re: PLAN Stragety in the Taiwan Strait

Seeing you guys are carrying on about nuking, I read over at WAB that Chinese missiles arent mated with their nuclear warheads, if not how long would the procedure take. and her subs dont go out on patrol with nuke missiles either.

So if the US decided on a nuclear attack the US could wait till those subs are out on patrol with no means of hitting back.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Re: PLAN Stragety in the Taiwan Strait

Seeing you guys are carrying on about nuking, I read over at WAB that Chinese missiles arent mated with their nuclear warheads, if not how long would the procedure take. and her subs dont go out on patrol with nuke missiles either.

So if the US decided on a nuclear attack the US could wait till those subs are out on patrol with no means of hitting back.

I imagine that would be for older missiles, as warheads not on their delivery systems would kind of defeat the purpose of having highly mobile TELs... I don't think anyone here can say how long a it will take for a TEL to set up and fire, but for this Taiwan scenario time shouldnt' be a problem as they're not intending to blow anyone up.
And it's no question the US nuclear arsenal is far more capable at the moment, but any conflict between the two would almost result in armaegeddon. I think a similar discussion happened in the PLA ICBM power in 2016 thread a few weeks back. (But I don't see how what you posted was relevant to whatever was being said before? :confused: )

Who mentioned nuking Taiwan in the first place anyhow? It's one of the most ridiculous scenarios I've seen yet... jeez...
EDIT: Ah reading back, it was suggested as a shock and awe tactic... but I can't see what that will do apart from sanctions and dramatically heightened tensions in the region to which we've not seen since the second world war. In simple words I think using nukes against taiwan in any form is stupid, it sets a dangerous precedent and China will be the last country in the world to think of the nuclear option as the first course of action...
 
Last edited:

kroko

Senior Member
Re: PLAN Stragety in the Taiwan Strait

Useless thread. Political guessing about what will happen in the far future is pointless. Besides i bet that this thread will turn into a USA vs china thread.
 

Top