The joke's on you. If China were to become a democracy, and it started exerting military force, it'll get condemned by the Western countries just as much as a communist China would. The reason why China is treated like this is that it's a threat, and the system of government is only an excuse.
PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
- Thread starter pugachev_diver
- Start date
In the event of a Taiwan conflict，China will be facing a difficult choice
Assume China started to attack Taiwan，the US military didn't intervene at first place. What the Chinese military should do about it?
If you do preemptive attack on US bases，what if the US has no intention to be involved in direct military conflict with China in first place？What if you never have to fight the US if you don't attack US bases first？
If you don't attack on US bases，what if the US use this opportunity to move forces from all over the world to the Pacific，you lose the window of preemptive attack if you don't make a move
Assume China started to attack Taiwan，the US military didn't intervene at first place. What the Chinese military should do about it?
If you do preemptive attack on US bases，what if the US has no intention to be involved in direct military conflict with China in first place？What if you never have to fight the US if you don't attack US bases first？
If you don't attack on US bases，what if the US use this opportunity to move forces from all over the world to the Pacific，you lose the window of preemptive attack if you don't make a move
Tell the American to stop or get attacked.
War is about politics. So, having the right legitimacy and justification is very important. If China attacks US pre-emtively, it will seem like China attacked US unprovoked. That will make public anger too high in US and also the world. China shouldn't make such a mistake.
Its preferable that China actually gets attacked by US first. Which will inflame public opinion in China and also make the war effort more popular at home. It will also make US as the aggressor and US public will have guilt that they started that war. There will be more popular desire to end it soon.
Even if its a loss tactically, it is very important that US attacks China first. Only then China can gain strategic victory and achieve its goal of completely ejecting US out of Asia and also perhaps taking over some US controlled islands in the Pacific.
Once it becomes a shooting war, niceties like public opinion don't matter any more. If it looks like the Americans are going to attack, it's entirely reasonable to strike first. Of course a lot does depend on what the American buildup looks like, and I suspect that it won't be fast enough and big enough to make that much of a difference.
Also, Americans don't feel guilt.
Public opinion is the only thing that matters in modern times. Nowadays, big wars always end in some kind of negotiation. So, its very important that the other side fights not in anger, but because of some interest. That way, they will be more ready to make concessions and end the war in some kind of deal. Compare that with WW2, where the demand was unconditional surrender, which made any kind of deal impossible.
In WW1, both Germany and Russia lost because the public got too fed up and started a revolution that changed government and that government sued for peace. I am sure CCP doesn't want that to happen to them.
So, its better that Chinese public is angry in the fight and has the desire and resolve to go all the way without backing down. On the other hand, its preferable for China that US public doesn't have the same resolve and is willing to give up major concessions to end the war quickly.
China doesn't need to "get attacked first" but to make sure that the US is the "aggressor", therefore making a blockade that the US try to break is what likely to happen. US's first-strike is meant to be decisive and an enabler for the rest of the operation therefore making sure they fail at it is crucial for the defender, therefore letting them act freely just to make sure the first strike is done by them is not a good strategy, let alone a country that wants to be a global power. Failing at stopping the first-strike doesn't mean you lost, but you'll pay a bigger price to achieve your goals.
im not talking about "democracy" im talking about the will to...bomb other nation here .
wolf warrior talk useless if you show no balls to actually bomb and kill someone wrong you .
how long you expect some weakling like....philipines back down their south china sea ...claim , island holding , rusty ship guard post if everything they need to worry about are just water spray and boat ramming ?
20...more years ?
that just the philipines ....what about US/european/australia ? they just keep setting missile in philipines , send weapon to taiwan , sending warship pass taiwan strait and SCS non-stop . you expect them to back down just with diplomacy talk , rarely freedom of navigation ....400km "near" australia alone ?
while china still show no sign willing to openly help russia , setting military base on solomon island , send weapon to venezuela to help them defense from being invade and maybe ....."magically" upgrade red sea houthi anti-ship/anti-air tech again US warship/aircraft?
long story short : right now what china need the most is ....the fighting spirit of russia and the will to accept and withstand economic consequences come along with it .
the west still scare of russia not because the nuke , not because how good russia can fight , or how good russia weapon tech are . they scare because russia feel no pain (gave zero fk about economic consequences) , never stop fighting once the battle start ....
Last edited:
Just cause US attacks first doesn't mean China will not be ready and suffer major losses. Look at Pakistan, India attacked first and got absolutely trounced. If China is ready and prepared for a US attack, then the more likely scenario is US suffering major losses.
But I think its very important for China not to attack first. More importantly, China should never repeat a pearl harbor like sudden attack on US. No matter how successful that attack is, it will be a strategic mistake.
In wars, being the defender and even losing a little in the beginning is not a bad thing. The most important war is the war of public opinion and the war of production. If China can mobilize its entire public and make it a moral war to eject an evil aggressive US out of Asia, then it will have the biggest chance of victory with lasting strategic consequence.
In my view, the biggest contribution the Self-Defense Forces could make if they truly wanted to "intervene" in the Taiwan Strait situation would be to deploy a large number of anti-ship&air missiles on islands near Taiwan, just like the USMC did in the Philippines. Essentially, they have to sacrificing their lives to slow down the PLAN’s and PLAAF's advance, then hoping that the USN carrier strike group could break through the A2AD line.
Air Self-Defense Force and Maritime Self-Defense Force are basically unreliable; they lack the capability for direct confrontation in a literal sense.
The cost, as the PLA has warned, is that the area that could truly influence the Taiwan Strait is not large, but that doesn't mean the PLA wouldn't attack the mainland. There were previous rumors of the PLA ordering 1 million drones; guess how many of those will be Shahed?
Air Self-Defense Force and Maritime Self-Defense Force are basically unreliable; they lack the capability for direct confrontation in a literal sense.
The cost, as the PLA has warned, is that the area that could truly influence the Taiwan Strait is not large, but that doesn't mean the PLA wouldn't attack the mainland. There were previous rumors of the PLA ordering 1 million drones; guess how many of those will be Shahed?