PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

T

texx1

Junior Member
FairAndUnbiased said:
Did it? How much damage did Suleimani inflict?

More examples include when USS Pueblo was captured by North Korea and the crew imprisoned (no US response), 3 axe incident (no US response), and challenging US - South Korea mutual defense pact by torpedoing the Cheonan (no US response).
Click to expand...
We are on a military forum. I thought the significance of Suleimani to IRGC and its foreign proxies in the middle east is apparent and self evident to people interested in geopolitics and military. A simple google search would provide plenty of evidences describing the importance of Suleimani played in Lebanon, Syrian civil war and Iraq.

Mind you, my post#506 was very specific. I commented that you used a wrong incident/example to highlight US weakness.
 
FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
texx1 said:
We are on a military forum. I thought the significance of Suleimani to IRGC and its foreign proxies in the middle east is apparent and self evident to people interested in geopolitics and military. A simple google search would provide plenty of evidences describing the importance of Suleimani played in Lebanon, Syrian civil war and Iraq.

Mind you, my post#506 was very specific. I commented that you used a wrong incident/example to highlight US weakness.
Click to expand...
So at best, they got even (killed Suleimani after he already inflicted massive damage) but then Iran still responded with missiles and they still failed to respond afterwards even though they could have used as a casus belli to escalate.

There was also no response to the arrests of US soldiers or to an outright attack on a core ally Saudi Arabia

Also I'd like to remind you the original context: someone said that all China would do if Taiwan declared independence is seethe and feel helpless and defeated.
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Broccoli said:
If Taiwan declared indelendence tomorrow and PRC didn't do anything how would life of average citizen is Beijing change?
Click to expand...
What a loaded and idiotic question.

If China takes Taiwan tomorrow, how would the life of the average citizen in Washington change tomorrow? Hell, if China takes Hawaii tomorrow what would change for the daily life of your average citizen in Washington? China could nuke LA and life would still not change much for your average Washington citizen. Short of China dropping a nuke directly on Washington, the life your average citizen living there will not be materially and directly affected. Does that mean anything before dropping a nuke on DC is reasonable and acceptable to the average American?
 
T

texx1

Junior Member
FairAndUnbiased said:
So at best, they got even (killed Suleimani after he already inflicted massive damage) but then Iran still responded with missiles and they still failed to respond afterwards even though they could have used as a casus belli to escalate.

There was also no response to the arrests of US soldiers or to an outright attack on a core ally Saudi Arabia

Also I'd like to remind you the original context: someone said that all China would do if Taiwan declared independence is seethe and feel helpless and defeated.
Click to expand...
From US perspective, Suleimani was a highly effective operator who would've continue to cause great damage to US interests in ME as long as he was alive.

As for Taiwan, I am frankly tired of hearing about the same old CCP talking points about preventing Taiwan's independence. They have been more or less the same since the 80s when I was still a kid. The narratives is always the same, Taiwan independence is only and forever supported by a small group even when president Tsai/DPP was essentially elected on a pro independence political platform and continues to enjoy significant support.

Also, China drew many red lines regarding Taiwan's diplomatic status, stationing of foreign military etc. Many of which were already breached by recent US and EU efforts without meaningful responses. I mean China didn't even summon US embassy's military attache for a few hours of stern talking in response to US stationing uniformed soldiers on Taiwan. Unfortunately, talks/speeches won't deter foreign powers anymore.
 
FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
texx1 said:
From US perspective, Suleimani was a highly effective operator who would've continue to cause great damage to US interests in ME as long as he was alive.

As for Taiwan, I am frankly tired of hearing about the same old CCP talking points about preventing Taiwan's independence. They have been more or less the same since the 80s when I was still a kid. The narratives is always the same, Taiwan independence is only and forever supported by a small group even when president Tsai/DPP was essentially elected on a pro independence political platform and continues to enjoy significant support.

Also, China drew many red lines regarding Taiwan's diplomatic status, stationing of foreign military etc. Many of which were already breached by recent US and EU efforts without meaningful responses. I mean China didn't even summon US embassy's military attache for a few hours of stern talking in response to US stationing uniformed soldiers on Taiwan. Unfortunately, talks/speeches won't deter foreign powers anymore.
Click to expand...
In 1950 the US thought the same in Korea, 1962 India thought the same as well. Salami slicing works until it draws an overwhelming and irreversible response that changes the entire balance of power.
 
T

texx1

Junior Member
FairAndUnbiased said:
In 1950 the US thought the same in Korea, 1962 India thought the same as well. Salami slicing works until it draws an overwhelming and irreversible response that changes the entire balance of power.
Click to expand...
It's not wise to compare the political resolve and control of Mao and Deng with Jiang, Hu or Xi. Great leaders like Mao and Deng were never shy about military solutions since they themselves rose through the "baptism of fire" in sino-Japanese war and the civil war. Mao chose to intervene in Korea in 1950 when PRC had just been established. He didn't put so much emphasis on developments or biding for the appropriate time. Mao acted when it's needed.
 
FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
texx1 said:
It's not wise to compare the political resolve and control of Mao and Deng with Jiang, Hu or Xi. Great leaders like Mao and Deng were never shy about military solutions since they themselves rose through the "baptism of fire" in sino-Japanese war and the civil war. Mao chose to intervene in Korea in 1950 when PRC had just been established. He didn't put so much emphasis on developments or biding for the appropriate time. Mao acted when it's needed.
Click to expand...
You think it's about great individual men but I don't. Mao couldn't have made that decision on a whim as an individual because if it was a gamble and he lost, it could've ended PRC right then and there. I mean, actively attacking a country that just steamrolled Japan easily (same Japan that shattered KMT elite forces and occupied parts of China for almost 10 years) and had 40% of world GDP is not a decision to be made lightly. Even PLA beating KMT forces - similarly to Japan - doesn't give them confidence in and of itself.

But it wasn't a gamble because it wasn't a decision made on a whim and bravery, it was the result of careful planning, estimation and understanding that the PVA had the capability to intervene in Korea. Indeed planning started as early as June 1950, before the actual US intervention. A northeastern command was formed in July 1950. Zhou Enlai warned the US in August and September repeatedly. You can only be surprised if you choose to ignore the multiple warnings.

This is a slower situation, so the planning and warning phases will go on longer until a major kinetic escalation.
 
lcloo

lcloo

Captain
texx1 said:
From US perspective, Suleimani was a highly effective operator who would've continue to cause great damage to US interests in ME as long as he was alive.

As for Taiwan, I am frankly tired of hearing about the same old CCP talking points about preventing Taiwan's independence. They have been more or less the same since the 80s when I was still a kid. The narratives is always the same, Taiwan independence is only and forever supported by a small group even when president Tsai/DPP was essentially elected on a pro independence political platform and continues to enjoy significant support.

Also, China drew many red lines regarding Taiwan's diplomatic status, stationing of foreign military etc. Many of which were already breached by recent US and EU efforts without meaningful responses. I mean China didn't even summon US embassy's military attache for a few hours of stern talking in response to US stationing uniformed soldiers on Taiwan. Unfortunately, talks/speeches won't deter foreign powers anymore.
Click to expand...
The red line for a war is Taiwan's declaration of independence, other so called "red lines breach" are just breach of earlier agreement between China and others on One China policy which are not serious enough to go for war.

Will China go to war if Taiwan declare independence? The decision will not be the choice by the leader of PRC but by the people. Unlike Korea war, where China's involvement was initiated by CCCP in Moscow, Taiwan issue is considered a domestic issue and Chinese people regardless where they are, Beijing or Kunming, are expected to be unanimously asking for military action to recover the island. Any Chinese president who fail to take action won't last for more than a few months in his position.
 
T

texx1

Junior Member
FairAndUnbiased said:
You think it's about great individual men but I don't. Mao couldn't have made that decision on a whim as an individual because if it was a gamble and he lost, it could've ended PRC right then and there. I mean, actively attacking a country that just steamrolled Japan easily (same Japan that shattered KMT elite forces and occupied parts of China for almost 10 years) and had 40% of world GDP is not a decision to be made lightly. Even PLA beating KMT forces - similarly to Japan - doesn't give them confidence in and of itself.

But it wasn't a gamble because it wasn't a decision made on a whim and bravery, it was the result of careful planning, estimation and understanding that the PVA had the capability to intervene in Korea. Indeed planning started as early as June 1950, before the actual US intervention. A northeastern command was formed in July 1950. Zhou Enlai warned the US in August and September repeatedly. You can only be surprised if you choose to ignore the multiple warnings.

This is a slower situation, so the planning and warning phases will go on longer until a major kinetic escalation.
Click to expand...
Throughout the Chinese long history, it has always been a tale of great individuals whether the person is a competent emperor, an inspiring revolutionary or a daring reformer. Without the efforts and leadership of great individuals like Sun, Mao, Deng especially in last 150 years, Chinese civilization couldn't have survived intact without breaking further apart. Instead it has managed to throw off the shackle of colonialism, reunite some of its lost pieces and strive for greater achievements.

Sure, Mao got advises from the other senior CCP members, PLA and soviets. But, the ultimate decision to intervene was up to him and he made the call. Just as Chinese historians attributed responsibility of self-strengthening movement's failure to Empress Dowager Cixi, KMT's lost of mainland to Chiang, Mao was also considered as personally responsible for the intervention. There was no guarantee that PRC would've been victorious considering the military advantages possessed by UN forces. Mao could have easily been a leader of short lived government. In other words, Mao was willing to risk his personal reputation and his place in Chinese history for the PRC. I don't think I can say the same for any other PRC leaders. Hence, I question the resolves of PRC's peacetime leaders.

Keep in mind, in Chinese culture personal reputation is ahead of interests. (名利,名在前利在后)

Anyway this is mostly off topics. I suggest we continue this in PM if your wish.
 
S

Sleepyjam

Junior Member
Registered Member
texx1 said:
Throughout the Chinese long history, it has always been a tale of great individuals whether the person is a competent emperor, an inspiring revolutionary or a daring reformer. Without the efforts and leadership of great individuals like Sun, Mao, Deng especially in last 150 years, Chinese civilization couldn't have survived intact without breaking further apart. Instead it has managed to throw off the shackle of colonialism, reunite some of its lost pieces and strive for greater achievements.

Sure, Mao got advises from the other senior CCP members, PLA and soviets. But, the ultimate decision to intervene was up to him and he made the call. Just as Chinese historians attributed responsibility of self-strengthening movement's failure to Empress Dowager Cixi, KMT's lost of mainland to Chiang, Mao was also considered as personally responsible for the intervention. There was no guarantee that PRC would've been victorious considering the military advantages possessed by UN forces. Mao could have easily been a leader of short lived government. In other words, Mao was willing to risk his personal reputation and his place in Chinese history for the PRC. I don't think I can say the same for any other PRC leaders. Hence, I question the resolves of PRC's peacetime leaders.

Keep in mind, in Chinese culture personal reputation is ahead of interests. (名利,名在前利在后)

Anyway this is mostly off topics. I suggest we continue this in PM if your wish.
Click to expand...
There are no guarantees but Mao wasn't stupid enough to invade Taiwan when China didn‘t have the military capability to do so back then. At least China is in a much better position now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top