Or the morale really good depending on your perspective!
PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
- Thread starter pugachev_diver
- Start date
Someone point these young gentlemen to this thread so they can get some introductory learning out of the way.
Official Xi Jinping Thought discussion thread
English link:Vietnamese Party chief To Lam to meet Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in Hanoi
www.sinodefenceforum.com
I remember very well that Israel published a video of its system for recognizing and analyzing images of buildings in Lebanon, some of which had missiles stored inside them, showing the tunnels and rooms of each building, a program based on big data and AI that detailed every aspect of the urban terrain analyzed to the maximum.
I tried to find the video but I couldn't find it, maybe another user can find it, but the point is that China, as a nation that is massively applying the same technology concepts in its armed forces, must have the same type of technology to use against urban warfare in Taiwan.
If I remember correctly, they purchased Palantir's services. Palantir basically use all kinds of legal and illegal methods to collect public and personal information, and use big data to calculate the situation.
By the way, they also work with DoD and CIA, and they are the Silicon Valley technology oligarchs behind Trump
Last edited:
Definitely China is developing a similar technology.
Something similar was posted a while back.
PLA Ground Forces news, pics and videos
Still wondering about a serious use case for these. Relocating a ATGM team of two soldiers if it can carry some ammo... or a recon team. Capacity is quite low...still we have picture of them armed with ATGM ...
www.sinodefenceforum.com
I even commented on it.
I managed to find:
I don’t understand the logic of the arguments put forward by these two numbskulls. There’s no amount of “will and bravery” that can withstand a determined juggernaut backed by history, culture, politics, and the entire society’s goal of reunifying what is essentially a wayward island. The number of fighting forces, the industrial capacity, and the ability to both inflict and endure pain are heavily lopsided in favor of the PRC, making what these two clowns are asking for not only improbable but impossible.
Consider Ukraine, an almost landlocked country—Crimea was taken over and recaptured by the Russians—that is also connected to the larger European continent. It has a fighting force with a history of bravery and commitment to the defense of their motherland, not to mention an industrial capacity that dwarfs that of Taiwan. Yet, even Ukraine struggled against Russia. So, what chance do the Taiwanese people and society as a whole have against the behemoth that is China?
If the suggestion here is that America can join in the fray, is this a serious proposal? Or is it just something that’s often debated in defense circles and think tanks but not implemented as a national strategy backed by actual laws passed in Congress? Such a strategy would necessitate American blood and treasure to defend Taiwan in the event of forced reunification or if the DPP is foolish enough to declare independence.
Most importantly, no matter how the Americans and their Western cohorts bend and twist the truth, the fact of the matter is that Taiwan is part of China based on international law, U.N. recognition, the Potsdam Declaration, and the Shanghai Communiqué. Everything else is just perfunctory noise and deliberate obfuscation of the truth to fit the U.S. and Western narrative.
A fact often overlooked by these misguided individuals is that in both Afghanistan and Iraq—countries that have seen more than their fair share of bloodshed, combat, and human deprivation—the local forces could not be effectively taught the ways of modern combat, even after the supposed “excellent training” and gargantuan amounts of money spent by the U.S. and its allies. Take the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan as the most recent example: a decade or more of training the Afghan soldiers and military melted away rather quickly, in less than a week after the American withdrawal. That’s from a society known for its warrior culture. Yet, these American enthusiasts and this Taiwanese commentator imagine that Taiwanese society and its general population, which have forgotten combat, hardship, and the horrors of war, can somehow be magically hardened in both spirit and will.
The guise of using “freedom and democracy” as its raison d’être to summon courage and fight from the people totally disregards history, culture, and a serious study of war.
What these two clowns argue is nothing but wishful fantasy, similar to the wishes and fantasies concocted by neocon stalwarts like Mr. Wolfowitz, who arrogantly declared in Congress during the hearing on the impending Iraq War that American troops would be greeted as liberators and that the war costs would pay for themselves. Clearly, history has proven him wrong, and the American people seem unwilling to learn their lesson. To choose to fight against a peer enemy whose intellectual capacity ranks among the very top, combined with its industrial capacity, know-how, the support of the whole society, and the political will to see their mission (reunification with Taiwan) completed, will, in my view, result in the U.S. suffering a catastrophic loss that can only be salvaged via the use of nuclear weapons—something they considered using against China when China was largely a peasant agricultural country. Unfortunately for America, doing so now would invite mutual destruction.
From a Reddit comment 5 years ago by a deleted user, under a thread about the high casualty levels in a peer war (Part 1):
Those scenarios have been wargamed extensively in every major military, and they came to the same conclusions - horrendous casualties. During the Cold War, the Soviets predicted that many of their divisions would suffer an 80% loss, and their entire doctrine revolved around making their standard operating procedure so simple that those divisions could continue fighting even with those losses - in other words, increasing the threshold of damage a unit could take before being "combat ineffective". Around the world, major powers have tacitly accepted that, with their current doctrines, any peer or near-peer war would result in terrible casualties.
That leads us to the caveat - with current doctrines, in other words, assuming the war is fought by the book. History tells us that, in the face of near-certain death, most soldiers throw the book out the window. They don't often mutiny - mutiny means court martial, and in some countries, certain death - instead, they simply agree to follow orders to their officer's face then don't in the heat of the moment. When ordered to advance, the great majority will play dead, hide on the battlefield (from friend and foe), find any excuse to retreat, and let braver men go ahead of them. French Colonel Ardant du Picq writing in the 1860s offers some humorous examples:
Wars involving great powers today are like the bayonet charges of old. Deadly on paper, but in practice, one side would dissolve before either fought to the death. This is obvious even from the few examples of high-intensity wars since the 1960:
Those scenarios have been wargamed extensively in every major military, and they came to the same conclusions - horrendous casualties. During the Cold War, the Soviets predicted that many of their divisions would suffer an 80% loss, and their entire doctrine revolved around making their standard operating procedure so simple that those divisions could continue fighting even with those losses - in other words, increasing the threshold of damage a unit could take before being "combat ineffective". Around the world, major powers have tacitly accepted that, with their current doctrines, any peer or near-peer war would result in terrible casualties.
That leads us to the caveat - with current doctrines, in other words, assuming the war is fought by the book. History tells us that, in the face of near-certain death, most soldiers throw the book out the window. They don't often mutiny - mutiny means court martial, and in some countries, certain death - instead, they simply agree to follow orders to their officer's face then don't in the heat of the moment. When ordered to advance, the great majority will play dead, hide on the battlefield (from friend and foe), find any excuse to retreat, and let braver men go ahead of them. French Colonel Ardant du Picq writing in the 1860s offers some humorous examples:
He concludes with a poignant quote:
In the late 19th and early 20th century, bayonet charges were still highly effective in taking enemy positions, and yet less than 2% of casualties came from bayonet wounds, and likely a majority of these were from stabbing enemies in the back. How is this possible? Because if two sides armed with bayonets actually entered a melee, it would be devastating for both. At the end of almost every charge, one of the sides ran. This was in spite of the fact that the side that ran often suffered heavy casualties from being shot and bayoneted in the back - but in the moment, it didn't matter; the instinct of self preservation was too great.
Wars involving great powers today are like the bayonet charges of old. Deadly on paper, but in practice, one side would dissolve before either fought to the death. This is obvious even from the few examples of high-intensity wars since the 1960: