PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

[manqiangrexue]

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.

First of all, holy shit. That's one sentence? LOL

Secondly, missiles absolutely win wars. Iran's missiles turned the table on Israel. They decimate the enemy weapons inventory and make everyday life unlivable. Every time you count American assets, you should could Chinese missiles and compare.

Third, what logistics? Having bases all around the world has nothing to do with pulling them together for war. The bases that are out of range are not a factor.

Taiwan is 100 miles from China's coast. It is thousands and thousands of miles from the nearest US base that is out of Chinese missile range. They are defended, but those defenses are not for hypersonic missiles and work very poorly against saturation strikes.

And they are reinforced.

Are they? Against what? Hypersonic missiles? Constant bombardment?

Saying Chinas chance of winning is 95-99% is massively underestimating the US ability

Over Taiwan, that's about right. There is no forseeable situation where the US wins and you have never presented one. All you ever managed to do is count bases.

 

[bebops]

Believe it or not, some of these US bases barely have any troop deployment. The only meaningful ones in the indo-pac are Japan, guam and Philippine.

 

[manqiangrexue]

1. You are assuming the US wouldn’t be able to pre-position forces in the event of armed reunification, unless it was disguised as a routine drill turned into a surprise attack, the US would certainly be able to tell and pre position forces and the US 7th fleet can send ships in a matter of hours since it’s stationed in Japan already and they can send bombers from US mainland in a day to Guam and than into the theater.

1. So you just acknowledged that China would have to voluntarily give away the element of surprise for the US to pre-position forces.
2. Pre-positioned forces all need bases, not ones that are on fire.

2. Yes, that’s true but China would face the same, if not greater risk trying to move supplies 100 miles across the Taiwan Strait during war and also under fire, this isn’t something the US would only face, and this isn’t ww2, logistic lines are dispersed they aren’t exactly easy to cripple.

It's harder for China to move supplies across 100 miles after decimation of Taiwan's assets by missile and air strike than it is for the US to do that over thousands of miles while fighting China's air force and navy? Huh?

3. Okinawa is the closest major base, but the US also has other major bases within the Indo-Pacific and range alone doesn’t decide combat effectiveness but how the forces are positioned, what matters isnt the distance but Guam, Philippines and Japan are all important factors in any war that involves the US.

All on fire

4. To actually hamper any US base you would need muptile volleys, AD isn’t perfect some will get through but you need more than a few to destroy an base and do you think Chinas can handle US missiles? What matters is can they still project force if not how long can they project force again?

LOLOL You think China can't build enough missiles or something? And yeah, American missiles are a lot easier to handle because they are fewer (since they are not operating from bases but from platforms that manage to get into range by refueling from a distance far enough to not need Asian bases) and they are mostly subsonic while China's are supersonic and hypersonic.

5. Show me where the DoD agrees with your statement,

Hegseth and Trump, America's 2 current highest ranking military control men have both said that America stands no chance against China over Taiwan. Do you want me to refer you to where I already told you or are you just going to pretend it was never said again?

and opinions are opinions even if you disagree and there is absolutely no reason for you to resort to Ad hominem, if you can’t debate without that then you shouldn’t be debating and shows more about your position than it does mine. It’s fine that you disagree but there was no reason for Ad hominem.

LOL Who are you even responding to?

And to answer the rest of the responses. First the number of ships don’t matter in war what matters is the type of ships.

Both absolutely matter, as well as the rest of the system including land-based support. So what you said was definitely wrong.

And I’m not just counting weapons I’m counting the amount the US can bring to the table

No, you're counting the ones that the US could ship over if China was some defenseless middle-eastern shrub.

and their capabilities and Allie’s, these are all imporant things to consider they’re not irrelevant.

But you failed to consider that China's capabilities are specifically designed to defeat those capabilities. Just listing capabilities in a vacuum doesn't make them dangerous.

And while the US is falling behind in hardened airbase shelters they are starting to build them and do have same to say they have none is not true

To say that everything needs to be destroyed for a base to be largely useless is not true.

and US bases are guarded with the PAC-3 and Aegis destroyers.

Neither of which are equipped to handle hypersonic missiles or supersonic missiles in saturation strike.

 

[4Tran]

1. You are assuming the US wouldn’t be able to pre-position forces in the event of armed reunification, unless it was disguised as a routine drill turned into a surprise attack, the US would certainly be able to tell and pre position forces and the US 7th fleet can send ships in a matter of hours since it’s stationed in Japan already and they can send bombers from US mainland in a day to Guam and than into the theater.

I'm not convinced it's possible. The bases that the Americans have access to just aren't capable of hosting particularly large numbers of troops without a lot of work in advance. And even if they can support large forces, it would still take months to move units from the US mainland into position. On the other hand, China only has to shift forces within China itself, and should be able to do so much more quickly.

2. Yes, that’s true but China would face the same, if not greater risk trying to move supplies 100 miles across the Taiwan Strait during war and also under fire, this isn’t something the US would only face, and this isn’t ww2, logistic lines are dispersed they aren’t exactly easy to cripple.

That's only if China is in a rush to storm over the Strait. More scenarios suggest that they wouldn't do that until the Taiwanese defenses are completely reduced and all air units and air defences have been eliminated. You're right that it's not WWII any more, and it's quite possible to knock out everything important before a single marine has boarded his transport.

3. Okinawa is the closest major base, but the US also has other major bases within the Indo-Pacific and range alone doesn’t decide combat effectiveness but how the forces are positioned, what matters isnt the distance but Guam, Philippines and Japan are all important factors in any war that involves the US.

There's no guarantee that American tankers can survive near the combat zones so most combat aircraft can only rely on internal fuel + drop tanks. In such a scenario, the distances matter a lot, and every extra kilometer that Americans need to transit makes them that much less effective. And bear in mind that they will mostly have to rely on 4th gen aircraft, and these might end up being PL-15 bait unless they have a lot of support.

4. To actually hamper any US base you would need muptile volleys, AD isn’t perfect some will get through but you need more than a few to destroy an base and do you think Chinas can handle US missiles? What matters is can they still project force if not how long can they project force again?

You're sort of correct in this that conventional munitions are of limited effect against a target like an airfield. However, the main effect of the Rocket Force is that the US is unwilling to forward deploy too many key assets. And as Chinese missiles get deadlier, the definition of "forward deploy" moves closer and closer to Hawaii.

And to answer the rest of the responses. First the number of ships don’t matter in war what matters is the type of ships. And I’m not just counting weapons I’m counting the amount the US can bring to the table and their capabilities and Allie’s, these are all imporant things to consider they’re not irrelevant. And while the US is falling behind in hardened airbase shelters they are starting to build them and do have same to say they have none is not true and US bases are guarded with the PAC-3 and Aegis destroyers.

When it comes to surface vessels, China has a significant advantage. Not only are its large ships much newer, but they're equipped for a fight against a powerful opposing navy whereas the American one is not. Just look at the anti-ship missiles each side is equipped with. The Americans only have subsonic missiles in its VLS tubes whereas China is mostly using supersonic and hypersonic missiles. Maybe if the entire USN can gather into the Western Pacific, they'd have more of a chance, but that's completely unrealistic.

Even more important than any of this speculation is to look at what the Americans are actually doing, and using their actions as a gauge for what they feel they can do. And what that is is to concentrate on things that have no real impact and skimping on things that matter a lot, like advanced munitions. Instead of sending more potent forces into the First Island Chain, the US has been withdrawing troops to rearward bases like Guam, and making their allies take more of the workload.

 

[PLAwatcher12]

First of all, holy shit. That's one sentence? LOL

Secondly, missiles absolutely win wars. Iran's missiles turned the table on Israel. They decimate the enemy weapons inventory and make everyday life unlivable. Every time you count American assets, you should could Chinese missiles and compare.

Third, what logistics? Having bases all around the world has nothing to do with pulling them together for war. The bases that are out of range are not a factor.

Taiwan is 100 miles from China's coast. It is thousands and thousands of miles from the nearest US base that is out of Chinese missile range. They are defended, but those defenses are not for hypersonic missiles and work very poorly against saturation strikes.

Are they? Against what? Hypersonic missiles? Constant bombardment?

Over Taiwan, that's about right. There is no forseeable situation where the US wins and you have never presented one. All you ever managed to do is count bases.

lol, how did Irans missiles best Isreal and turn the tide, they still have significant military assets and aren’t stopping anytime soon.

Do you seriously think the US has zero logistical capability during war?

All AD won’t work well against saturated attacks, including Chinas let’s not like US AD doesn’t matter but Chinas does.

I absolutely presented one you just disagree because you don’t want to imagine a scenario where China loses because to you China in unbeatable and can’t lose a war against Taiwan and the US.

1. So you just acknowledged that China would have to voluntarily give away the element of surprise for the US to pre-position forces.
2. Pre-positioned forces all need bases, not ones that are on fire.

It's harder for China to move supplies across 100 miles after decimation of Taiwan's assets by missile and air strike than it is for the US to do that over thousands of miles while fighting China's air force and navy? Huh?

All on fire

LOLOL You think China can't build enough missiles or something? And yeah, American missiles are a lot easier to handle because they are fewer (since they are not operating from bases but from platforms that manage to get into range by refueling from a distance far enough to not need Asian bases) and they are mostly subsonic while China's are supersonic and hypersonic.

Hegseth and Trump, America's 2 current highest ranking military control men have both said that America stands no chance against China over Taiwan. Do you want me to refer you to where I already told you or are you just going to pretend it was never said again?

LOL Who are you even responding to?

Both absolutely matter, as well as the rest of the system including land-based support. So what you said was definitely wrong.

No, you're counting the ones that the US could ship over if China was some defenseless middle-eastern shrub.

But you failed to consider that China's capabilities are specifically designed to defeat those capabilities. Just listing capabilities in a vacuum doesn't make them dangerous.

To say that everything needs to be destroyed for a base to be largely useless is not true.

Neither of which are equipped to handle hypersonic missiles or supersonic missiles in saturation strike.

1. How do you suppose China can buildup for war with no one noticing, do you actually think the US would have zero clue China would be doing a war buildup?
2. So your plan is preemptive strike Japanese bases? You are aware they would raw in both the US and the Japanese army correct? It would be an incredibly dangerous idea.

3. You think China won’t be fighting the US navy and airforce too or US missiles?

4. Nice deflection from the fact but any serious person knows Japanese and Philippines bases matter.

5. why exactly do you think Asian bases won’t matter in a war? And subsonic missiles are still a threat don’t act like they’re not.

6. The same guy, lol

7. Show me where hegseth and Trump said the US stands no chance against China over Taiwan that wasn’t propaganda meant for more military support.

8. How exactly is what I said wrong, the number of ships largely doesn’t matter, what matters is how capable they are and what types.

9. You think the US couldn’t bring bombers to Guam or ships to Guam or F-35, F-22 to Japan, why do you think that?

10. Designed to defeat doesn’t mean it will work that way and are you trying to say Japan and Philippines aren’t a threat in any war?

11. You need to destroy quite a bit to make an airbase largely useless.

12. Both are absolutely meant to handle subsonic missiles and the same threats apply to China, why do you ignore that?

 

[RobertC]

5. Show me where the DoD agrees with your statement, and opinions are opinions even if you disagree and there is absolutely no reason for you to resort to Ad hominem, if you can’t debate without that then you shouldn’t be debating and shows more about your position than it does mine. It’s fine that you disagree but there was no reason for Ad hominem.

I didn't state an opinion but rather cited the work of Capt Hughes and Capt Tangredi. In particular Capt Hughes work

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

was published in multiple DoD fora including Naval Warfare Publication 3.

Captain Wayne Hughes holds a position of prominence in the field of naval theorists and thinkers. A luminary and highly influential war quant, Captain Hughes imbued his theories with a concrete, quantitative rigor that has contributed to the prestige and the staying power of his ideas. Captain Hughes began his career as a practitioner, spending over 30 years on active duty in the United States Navy as a surface warfare officer before beginning a second career as a naval scholar, serving as a professor of Operations Research at the Naval Postgraduate School

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

until

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. He is best known as the author of Fleet Tactics

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and for his salvo equations, which describe naval combat in the age of missiles. Hughes’ rich research and deep understanding of modern naval conflict is masterfully distilled into his most often quoted phrase, “fire effectively first.”

I then invited alternative model(s) supporting your assertion.

My post was not ad hominem.

 

[bebops]

lol, how did Irans missiles best Isreal and turn the tide, they still have significant military assets and aren’t stopping anytime soon.

Israel lost. This is what happen if you only get your information on Western news media. Israel asked for ceasefire because the economic pain is too much to bear. Iran only had used their old missile inventory stock, they were just getting started.

Israel is running low on missile supply. In the last few days, the AD interception rate dropped down to 60%.

Israel don't have the manpower to wage a long war. Their objective is to get it done quick but it turns out it is not as easy as thought.

 

[PLAwatcher12]

I'm not convinced it's possible. The bases that the Americans have access to just aren't capable of hosting particularly large numbers of troops without a lot of work in advance. And even if they can support large forces, it would still take months to move units from the US mainland into position. On the other hand, China only has to shift forces within China itself, and should be able to do so much more quickly.


That's only if China is in a rush to storm over the Strait. More scenarios suggest that they wouldn't do that until the Taiwanese defenses are completely reduced and all air units and air defences have been eliminated. You're right that it's not WWII any more, and it's quite possible to knock out everything important before a single marine has boarded his transport.


There's no guarantee that American tankers can survive near the combat zones so most combat aircraft can only rely on internal fuel + drop tanks. In such a scenario, the distances matter a lot, and every extra kilometer that Americans need to transit makes them that much less effective. And bear in mind that they will mostly have to rely on 4th gen aircraft, and these might end up being PL-15 bait unless they have a lot of support.


You're sort of correct in this that conventional munitions are of limited effect against a target like an airfield. However, the main effect of the Rocket Force is that the US is unwilling to forward deploy too many key assets. And as Chinese missiles get deadlier, the definition of "forward deploy" moves closer and closer to Hawaii.


When it comes to surface vessels, China has a significant advantage. Not only are its large ships much newer, but they're equipped for a fight against a powerful opposing navy whereas the American one is not. Just look at the anti-ship missiles each side is equipped with. The Americans only have subsonic missiles in its VLS tubes whereas China is mostly using supersonic and hypersonic missiles. Maybe if the entire USN can gather into the Western Pacific, they'd have more of a chance, but that's completely unrealistic.

Even more important than any of this speculation is to look at what the Americans are actually doing, and using their actions as a gauge for what they feel they can do. And what that is is to concentrate on things that have no real impact and skimping on things that matter a lot, like advanced munitions. Instead of sending more potent forces into the First Island Chain, the US has been withdrawing troops to rearward bases like Guam, and making their allies take more of the workload.

1. The US has plenty of forward deploy bases and don’t need months to buildup they would need days.

2. Yes that is true but moving supplies over 100 miles when you still have the US is difficult you would need to cripple the US warfighting capability first if the US gets involved.

yes, distance does matter but not as much as some people think especially for modern aircraft and the US would have access to 5th generation aircraft too and most of what China would use in a Taiwan war won’t be J-20 or the J-35. it will be 4th generation ones they mainly rely on like the J-10C and J-16.

The US has forward deploy bases, and what makes you certain the US would be unwilling to commit key assets to them with war is imminent?

What American warships aren’t meant to fight against another naval power and while Chinese warships might be newer, US ones are still deadly and capable.

I didn't state an opinion but rather cited the work of Capt Hughes and Capt Tangredi. In particular Capt Hughes work

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

was published in multiple DoD fora including Naval Warfare Publication 3.

I then invited alternative model(s) supporting your assertion.

My post was not ad hominem.

You did state an opinion as we all are here, your post isn’t a fact and mine isn’t ether so it’s an opinion. And where in that do they say the US can’t defend Taiwan against China? And the last part of your post was ad hominem, if it wasn’t then how was attacking me at all relevant to who could win in a war against Taiwan?

 

[PLAwatcher12]

Israel lost. This is what happen if you only get your information on Western news media. Israel asked for ceasefire because the economic pain is too much to bear. Iran only had used their old missile inventory stock, they were just getting started.

Israel is running low on missile supply. In the last few days, the AD interception rate dropped down to 60%.

Israel don't have the manpower to wage a long war. Their objective is to get it done quick but it turns out it is not as easy as thought.

How exactly did Israel lose and how exactly did Iran win? Iran suffered enormous losses to their military scientists and show me where Isreal asked for the ceasefire? And yes Isreal economy was damaged but they still have a capable military and Iran dug deep into their stocks they used more than just old missiles. And missiles hitting Israel and AD being strained doesn’t mean Iran war, missiles and drones hit Iran too with close to zero being stopped. But that’s enough on this topic, it isn’t relevant to this topic so we will need to agree to disagree

 

[Blitzo]

It's funny how these arguments always end up basically coalescing around specific unknowables which those of us in the general public are unable to definitively prove, with key linchpins being:

1. Short term readiness of each side to be able to fight a conflict, aka time to prepare and thus who has the element of "surprise"
2. Actual specific capabilities of certain essential systems (fires, sensors, air defenses, networking), aka the actual degree of vulnerability that bases and other power projection nodes have
3. Logistical means to fight and sustain a conflict in the immediate short term to medium term and ability to continue fighting afterwards if needed
4. The actual numbers involved, whether it's sortie generation rates, fires generation and bandwidth, sensor density, magazine depth, etc
5. And to a lesser degree, political decisiveness and political course leading up to conflict, aka how conflict occurs


If those linchpins (or rather, prerequisites) cannot be agreed on between different parties, then the discussion will automatically get stuck there until one side can exhaust the other through attrition, because chances are neither party has the actual numerical evidence or the raw intelligence to form a cohesive argument.

It boils down to equivalents of:
"Logistics favours China!"
"Nuh-uh, logistics favours America!"

Rinse and repeat.

That said even in context of us having a lack of decisive information, there is a right answer or at least a "more likely" answer, that in TYOOL 2025 one can garner if they've been paying attention long enough.