PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

[votran]

I said the last part many many times, and could absolutely win means there is a chance, I don’t think we should be underestimating the US when it comes war capabilities, yes China has weapons to deal with US assets but those don’t guarantee anything, the US still has Japan, Philippines, Australia, etc, they have 11 aircraft carriers sure they might be only able to send 6 but that’s still 6 aircraft carriers, they have hundreds of 5th generation planes, stealth bombers, yes China has 5th generation planes too but not as much currently as the US does. And don’t take what hegseth says as fact, they say stuff so they can get more money and equipment.

We won’t know any of this unless war happens. I could be wrong and you could be wrung to but my opinion is that you and other people here seem to be underestimating the US capabilities, even if China did win a Taiwan war today it would be extremely costly for both sides. My overall point is today the US would more likely to win than in 2027 that’s a point I stated muptile times, and that people do seem to be underestimating the US

actually currently US navy have no way to fully equip more than 4 carrier battle group or even 3 in term of atleast 30x F/A-18 , atleast 20x F-35 carrier based variant, , two E-2 AWAC each
and standard protection group of 6x arleigh burke block 2/3 destroyer , 2x submarine , 1x mine clearing ship , 2x supply ship

you can read some open source on internet about US warship number dock in their main naval base at okinawa , or mainland japan 5 years ago all the way to this day

6 carrier require fucking 36 arleigh burke block 2 or 3 (the version with modern 96 VLS) and 12 nuclear attack marine , 12 supply ship , 180 F/A-18 , 120 F-35 .....all the stuff US currently not yet have enough let alone deploy them here to fight china

 

[doggydogdo]

My opinion about who will win in this conflict is a mix bag. I am leaning towards a stalemale. This conflict is just both sides doing a missile shooting contest with drones involved.

Best result is no war. There is no flawless wars where no buildings or military platforms will go unharmed. Israel has the military advantage but it still suffers alot of economic damage.

I don't see how it would be a stalemate since China could easily overwhelm US forces in East Asia and recapture Taiwan. Getting into a missile/drone shooting contest with China would be a guaranteed victory for China. Comparing Israel to China is stupid because Israel has less people than a lot of Chinese cities + US focuses a lot more on cruise missiles than ballistic missiles which makes it a lot easier for China to intercept them.

 

[dingyibvs]

You're right to be concerned about President Trump, but what is most worrying about him isn't his rapacity, at this point. A coherent Trump wouldn't start a nuclear war because he sees himself as a winner, if not "the winner," and he appears wise or at least seasoned enough to know that there are no winners in a MAD scenario.

Problem is Trump's mental faculties have visibly declined in the last few years, and will continue to diminish. Everyone will get old — unless they die young — so this isn't a slight against our illustrious leader. However, it is a problem in practice as it'll hamper Trump's ability to rein in less cautious, yet more ambitious subordinates.

Some of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

; likewise

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, but have been quieter about such prospects in recent years; and that's on top of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Of these states, South Korea is most likely to acquire nuclear weapons in the short or medium term, since their cousins up north got some already, and it could make for a very, very slippery slope in terms of downstream regional, if not global effects.

The

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, and if 赖清德 and his DPP cohorts feel cornered, reckless and/or are otherwise even dumber than they look, there's a not unreasonable chance the authorities in Taipei will try again.

Should the DPP leadership move towards nuclearization, the authorities in Beijing may have no choice but to direct the PLA to seize control of Taiwan by force immediately.

When people get old, they stick more to their instincts. A paranoid leader becomes more paranoid, a violent leader becomes more violent, and a leader who's always winning in his mind will win even more in his mind. The older Trump gets the easier it'll become to make him believe that he won. It's likely easier to convince him to stay out of a Taiwan scenario and recognize China's rule over Taiwan after AR in exchange for TSMC moving all currently banned SME to the US. The equipment have kill switches in them and would be useless for China anyway, and China probably would've let those who aren't willing to stay to immigrate anyway as well so it'll also do that. It's very, very reasonable for both him and his base to claim it as a win, and the idea of a win will be overwhelmingly favored in his mind that it can overcome all objections from within or without.

 

[AndrewJ]

When people get old, they stick more to their instincts. A paranoid leader becomes more paranoid, a violent leader becomes more violent, and a leader who's always winning in his mind will win even more in his mind. The older Trump gets the easier it'll become to make him believe that he won. It's likely easier to convince him to stay out of a Taiwan scenario and recognize China's rule over Taiwan after AR in exchange for TSMC moving all currently banned SME to the US. The equipment have kill switches in them and would be useless for China anyway, and China probably would've let those who aren't willing to stay to immigrate anyway as well so it'll also do that. It's very, very reasonable for both him and his base to claim it as a win, and the idea of a win will be overwhelmingly favored in his mind that it can overcome all objections from within or without.

Why it more sounds like Modi?

 

[AndrewS]

If both Pyongyang and Beijing possess nuclear weapons — the latter equipped with a far more sizeable, deliverable and capable stockpile than the former — then there's little, if any reason for Washington to be open to nuclearization for Seoul, but not for Taipei, at least in principal.

At this juncture, the US is reasonably cognizant that it will struggle to compete against China militarily — even if it somehow fully forsakes its security commitments in Europe and the Middle East — given where American economic output, in particular industrial capacity, stands vis-a-vis China.

Knowing that they can't contain the rise of Pax Sinica by themselves, the current US administration is aggressively seeking to strongarm allies, vassals or whatever you want to call countries like Japan, Australia, and so on and so forth into preoccupying and containing, and should the day come, waging war upon China:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1943974267294543946

Likewise, the US has and intends to further employ the regime in Taipei for identical purposes. Depending on your perspective, the island of Taiwan in general and its armed forces in particular either represent Uncle Sam's default "tip of the spear," or the first wave of (would be) "cannon fodder" against the Chinese.

It's why DC wants Taipei to increase defense spending to 10% of GDP:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1840733426497819117

If Washington is willing to demand something this outrageous from the island's taxpayers, adding nuclear weapons to Taipei's arsenal and the broader geopolitical equation makes complete sense, so long as it can be "done right."

That's perhaps where we diverge most. I concur that it won't be easy whatsoever for the regime in Taipei to acquire an even somewhat credible nuclear capability without Beijing finding out "prematurely."

However, that does not mean they won't try if egged on by certain forces situated on the Beltway. That in itself — as in even a handful of deliverable devices — will open up a can of worms that even our Cantonese friends won't mistake for a delicacy.

If it becomes US policy for Taiwan to acquire nuclear weapons, then I think a war of some sort is inevitable.

In such a scenario, China might as well enforce a trade and technology embargo on the US, which would be far worse than what we just saw with the rare earth restrictions.

My guess is that we'll see another TACO from Trump

The US does not care if "Taiwan is lost," and have been preparing for such a scenario — including how it'll impact access to semiconductors —

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. There's a reason why Trump has been

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

TSMC to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Let's look towards Ukraine for a second.

Not looking to get sidetracked, nor am I here to categorically deny Kyiv's agency. However, regardless of the intentions of the actors in play, the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War is effectively and principally an attempt to preoccupy and weaken a resurgent Russia.

From Washington's perspective, Taipei can and will most likely be employed for identical purposes in order to contain "the pacing threat."

I can't speak for Kyiv, but it shouldn't surprise any of us that a not insignificant number of Ukrainians — including their

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

— now regret Kiev's decision to denuclearize in the 1990s. This has not gone unnoticed in Taipei or Washington.

Taiwan can't preoccupy and weaken China, because Taiwan can be blockaded and cut off.
If there is a China-Taiwan war, and the US stays out, Taiwan will lose and will be absorbed relatively easily.

The dominant thinking in Washington is that any sort of overt and kinetic aggression on the part of the PLA against targets situated on the island of Taiwan will push Seoul, Tokyo and Manila toward Washington.

We've just been talking about a scenario where the US uses Taiwan as cannon fodder and deliberately tries to engineer a China-Taiwan war to weaken China. With the US staying out of the war, and Taiwan inevitably losing.

In such a scenario, will Seoul, Tokyo or Manila really trust the US? Or will they seek better relations with China

There are individual actors within the current administration who are reasonably rational. Though more broadly speaking, I would strongly caution against making positive assumptions about the collective rationality of the administration.

Moreover, it isn't just a lack of rationality, but an inability to manage tradeoffs, never mind reasonably foresee second and third order effects.

You can't count on their rationality!

The sitting administration's track record speaks for itself. Just look at how Trump's tariff policies have harmed both the American economy, and alienated Washington's traditional allies, vassals or whatever your preferred framing for them happens to be.



There are significant risks of escalation, if not Armageddon in play here — in fact those risks are exactly what I'm deeply concerned about — but besides a "Hail Mary," what else is there for Pax Americana to try to stop a rising Pax Sinica from supplanting it?

Pax Americana needs to accept that we live in a multipolar world first, which is feasible, given time.

A Pax Sinica will take significantly longer to appear, given a peaceful transition. And there is hope that this might not happen.

 

[Heresy]

Ok, well I consider winning achieving your objectives, for example the US objectives will be to keep Taiwan under their influence.

Ok, if you think that the current state of the U.S. military allows it to possibly win in a pure Taiwan scenario, then you're absolutely delusional.

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.

And what percentage does could actually mean? 25%? 10%? 1%? Let me put it this way. There is no realistic scenario that sees the U.S. able to somehow as you say, "maintain influence over Taiwan" in an armed conflict.

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

You have been here long enough to understand that realistically speaking, in a pure Taiwan scenario as you described, the U.S. absolutely can't win. Are Black Swan events possible? Sure, but then again it's also absolutely possible for me to walk through a wall. But the possibility is so low that I could try until the heat death of the universe and still not succeed.

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.

Nobody here is acting like you're describing. Rather, we are acutely aware of how strong the U.S. and China are. And at their current military strengths, there is no way that in an armed conflict, the U.S. can maintain influence over an island 100 miles off the Chinese coast. Let me reverse this question: would you be so adamant in arguing that China could beat the U.S. and maintain a military presence off of Cuba?

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

While true, this statement adds nothing to the conversation.

I encourage you to stop thinking about how many ships and stealth fighters the U.S. has and to instead think about the logistics of basing, launching, and recovering said fighters. Think not number of platforms but combat readiness rates; combat ranges; and maintenance cycles. Think about what sort of survivable basing and infrastructure is available and how many fighters it can actually handle.

 

[PLAwatcher12]

Ok, if you think that the current state of the U.S. military allows it to possibly win in a pure Taiwan scenario, then you're absolutely delusional.



And what percentage does could actually mean? 25%? 10%? 1%? Let me put it this way. There is no realistic scenario that sees the U.S. able to somehow as you say, "maintain influence over Taiwan" in an armed conflict.



You have been here long enough to understand that realistically speaking, in a pure Taiwan scenario as you described, the U.S. absolutely can't win. Are Black Swan events possible? Sure, but then again it's also absolutely possible for me to walk through a wall. But the possibility is so low that I could try until the heat death of the universe and still not succeed.



Nobody here is acting like you're describing. Rather, we are acutely aware of how strong the U.S. and China are. And at their current military strengths, there is no way that in an armed conflict, the U.S. can maintain influence over an island 100 miles off the Chinese coast. Let me reverse this question: would you be so adamant in arguing that China could beat the U.S. and maintain a military presence off of Cuba?



While true, this statement adds nothing to the conversation.

I encourage you to stop thinking about how many ships and stealth fighters the U.S. has and to instead think about the logistics of basing, launching, and recovering said fighters. Think not number of platforms but combat readiness rates; combat ranges; and maintenance cycles. Think about what sort of survivable basing and infrastructure is available and how many fighters it can actually handle.

What makes you say there is absolutely zero chance the US can win in a war over Taiwan? What makes you so confident in that and you are aware the US has hundreds of bases near China with 120 in Japan and 9 in the Philippines, those are imporant bases, and yes I would say it would be possible for China to beat the US and keep influence in Cuba if China had hundreds of bases near the US.

This is exactly why I say people here seem to be underestimating the US by saying there is zero possibility the US could win in a war over Taiwan

 

[manqiangrexue]

What makes you say there is absolutely zero chance the US can win in a war over Taiwan? What makes you so confident in that and you are aware the US has hundreds of bases near China with 120 in Japan and 9 in the Philippines, those are imporant bases, and yes I would say it would be possible for China to beat the US and keep influence in Cuba if China had hundreds of bases near the US.

The fact that every US asset in the region is covered over and over again in redundancy by Chinese missiles, which was already explained to you but you pretended several times that it wasn't.

It's not impossible for the US to win; like I said, butchers have been killed by the chickens they were dispatching before (real story, chicken struggled, butcher slipped, own cleaver fell on him and he bled out), it's just that there are no realistic forseeable scenerios where it would happen.

This is exactly why I say people here seem to be underestimating the US by saying there is zero possibility the US could win in a war over Taiwan

No, they're not underestimating anybody. Nobody here is saying this because they didn't know that the US has these bases. They don't say these things because they know less than you. They say these things because they know how China plans to deal with them and that the US is not equipped to counter China's plans.

One can always argue that there may be surprises withheld for war, but that gets packed up into the wild card possibilities that makes America's chances non-zero but very low.

 

[Heresy]

What makes you say there is absolutely zero chance the US can win in a war over Taiwan? What makes you so confident in that and you are aware the US has hundreds of bases near China with 120 in Japan and 9 in the Philippines, those are imporant bases,

The fact that Taiwan is 100 miles off the coast of China and the existence of the PLAAF and PLAN as well as myriad of hypersonic and ballistic anti-ship missile systems. Is the chance of victory 100%? No of course not, but it's probably somewhere between 95%-99%.

Also, I am very aware of what major U.S. positions are around China. It's not hundreds of bases, because for the purpose of this conflict, only airbases and naval bases are important. Nobody cares about the small FOBs and various other facilities that count as "bases".

and yes I would say it would be possible for China to beat the US and keep influence in Cuba if China had hundreds of bases near the US.

This is exactly why I say people here seem to be underestimating the US by saying there is zero possibility the US could win in a war over Taiwan

Even IF China had an airbase in Cuba and naval port, it wouldn't matter. STOP LOOKING AT NUMBERS and start looking at logistics. HOW will those bases be resupplied and reinforced? How vulnerable are they to attack? Are they able to provide enough protection to the assets they contain to allow them to sortie and participate in meaningful offensive actions?

 

[PLAwatcher12]

The fact that Taiwan is 100 miles off the coast of China and the existence of the PLAAF and PLAN as well as myriad of hypersonic and ballistic anti-ship missile systems. Is the chance of victory 100%? No of course not, but it's probably somewhere between 95%-99%.

Also, I am very aware of what major U.S. positions are around China. It's not hundreds of bases, because for the purpose of this conflict, only airbases and naval bases are important. Nobody cares about the small FOBs and various other facilities that count as "bases".



Even IF China had an airbase in Cuba and naval port, it wouldn't matter. STOP LOOKING AT NUMBERS and start looking at logistics. HOW will those bases be resupplied and reinforced? How vulnerable are they to attack? Are they able to provide enough protection to the assets they contain to allow them to sortie and participate in meaningful offensive actions?

You are aware the US has a navy and airforce too and missiles don’t win wars also the US has a great logistics network that’s how they are able to have bases all across the world if they didn’t they wouldn’t have bases all across the world and sure Taiwan is a 100 miles from Taiwan but US bases aren’t super far way ether also you are aware US bases are well defended they don’t have zero defense around it. And they are reinforced. Saying Chinas chance of winning is 95-99% is massively underestimating the US ability