PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

[Heresy]

Because I have been banned before twice and I don’t want to do anything to risk getting banned permanently. If I knew I wouldn’t have a possibly to get banned again I would but for now I’ll just agree to disagree and stick to my original point of it’s more likely if war started today the US could win than they would in 2027

This is not a flagship thread, and you have a moderator just tell you that you would be warned before you are banned again.

Please answer my question:
a.) What do you consider is "winning" for the U.S.
b.) How will the U.S. win.

And you should also think WHY you hold the view that the U.S. will win.

 

[manqiangrexue]

This is not a flagship thread, and you have a moderator just tell you that you would be warned before you are banned again.

Please answer my question:
a.) What do you consider is "winning" for the U.S.
b.) How will the U.S. win.

And you should also think WHY you hold the view that the U.S. will win.

LMFAO @PLAwatcher12 went from:
"if the US decides to go to war with China they could absolutely win" to

"I just said if war happened today the US has more of a possibility of winning" to

"I don’t think I ever said the US would win"

 

[Heresy]

LMFAO @PLAwatcher12 went from:
"if the US decides to go to war with China they could absolutely win" to

"I just said if war happened today the US has more of a possibility of winning" to

"I don’t think I ever said the US would win"

Truthfully speaking, I am under no illusions that if a war broke out tomorrow that the PRC would necessarily "win". I think what would likely happen is something of a longish ceasefire/cold war after the U.S. shows itself incapable of successfully prosecuting a conflict against the PRC that deals any sort of significant or strategic damage due to rapid attrition of it's offensive platforms and munitions as well as a demonstrated inability of replenishing them quickly.

I think we have to keep in mind that the U.S. "not winning" is not necessarily the PRC "winning" and not necessarily the U.S. "losing" either, depending on how one frames "victory".

 

[manqiangrexue]

Truthfully speaking, I am under no illusions that if a war broke out tomorrow that the PRC would necessarily "win". I think what would likely happen is something of a longish ceasefire/cold war after the U.S. shows itself incapable of successfully prosecuting a conflict against the PRC that deals any sort of significant or strategic damage due to rapid attrition of it's offensive platforms and munitions as well as a demonstrated inability of replenishing them quickly.

I think we have to keep in mind that the U.S. "not winning" is not necessarily the PRC "winning" and not necessarily the U.S. "losing" either, depending on how one frames "victory".

If the PLA is sent out, we smoke it with missiles, suppress it with air strikes, and land troops to take control of the island. That's how we win and if America can't stop that, then that's how it loses.

 

[Heresy]

If the PLA is sent out, we smoke it with missiles, suppress it with air strikes, and land troops to take control of the island. That's how we win and if America can't stop that, then that's how it loses.

I wasn't talking about a Taiwan conflict specifically. Sure, if the victory condition for both countries is control of Taiwan, the U.S. loses every day of the week that ends 'day'. But I think we both know that any U.S. Sino conflict, including one that involves Taiwan as a trigger, will have the objective ultimately be destroying the capacity of the opponent to engage in further geopolitical competition for a certain arbitrary number of years.

 

[tokenanalyst]

I mean the US is a military power so shouldn't be underestimated BUT there is a reason why they are desperate to get out of the Middle East, is not just because the Pacific, is also because their capabilities have been degrading in the low intensity warfare in the Middle East while everyone else is literally training and building to fight a major war.

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

No it doesn't. It has no experience fighting peers. You may work at an animal shelter with stray cats but if you think you can take that "experience" to wrangle a tiger, you're gonna get mauled, even worse than if you entered cautiously assuming you know nothing about tigers.

This is one of the best analogies I've seen!

 

[bebops]

I mean the US is a military power so shouldn't be underestimated BUT there is a reason why they are desperate to get out of the Middle East, is not just because the Pacific, is also because their capabilities have been degrading in the low intensity warfare in the Middle East while everyone else is literally training and building to fight a major war.

Defense system is not a magical weapon. As long as the missile can do swerve or do unpredictable maneuver, and avoid travelling in a traditional ballistic arc trajectory, there is no guarantee the defense can knock it down. Supersonic ballistic weapon can penetrate the defense system if it meets this criteria too. not just hypersonic

 

[GZDRefugee]

I wasn't talking about a Taiwan conflict specifically. Sure, if the victory condition for both countries is control of Taiwan, the U.S. loses every day of the week that ends 'day'. But I think we both know that any U.S. Sino conflict, including one that involves Taiwan as a trigger, will have the objective ultimately be destroying the capacity of the opponent to engage in further geopolitical competition for a certain arbitrary number of years.

This is accurate. Taiwan is a sideshow to the real geopolitics. The conflict of interests between China and the US is actually fairly simple: the US will not tolerate the existence of a regional power in the Indo-Pacific and China will not tolerate containment of any kind.

I will however say that scope of strategic goals differ. China wants regional dominance while the US wants to maintain global dominance. The American goal of maintaining broad spectrum dominance over everyone, everywhere, forever is fundamentally impossible from a mathematics perspective.

 

[PLAwatcher12]

This is not a flagship thread, and you have a moderator just tell you that you would be warned before you are banned again.

Please answer my question:
a.) What do you consider is "winning" for the U.S.
b.) How will the U.S. win.

And you should also think WHY you hold the view that the U.S. will win.

Ok, well I consider winning achieving your objectives, for example the US objectives will be to keep Taiwan under their influence. And I didn’t say the US will win I said it’s more of a possibility, the reason why I say that is because China is still playing catch up in some areas. I didn’t say the US would win I said could.

LMFAO @PLAwatcher12 went from:
"if the US decides to go to war with China they could absolutely win" to

"I just said if war happened today the US has more of a possibility of winning" to

"I don’t think I ever said the US would win"

none of what I said is wrong to my original point. Could absolutely win, and could to I never said they would are the same. Could absolutely win doesn’t mean they will

I don’t get why people here are acting like the US is some weak power while China is super strong. Both are strong powers, it’s wrong to think China would win.

and to clarify myself by could absolutely win, I mean the US has a higher chance to than it would in 2027