Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis

[Nobo]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This article by GT talks about a couple of options for China to deal with Pelosi's visit. I'm getting some hints that Pelosi might still be able to land on Taiwan. But not without severe harassments by the PLAAF. Some commenters here might take offense that China might not be going directly for a shoot down of Pelosi's plane and igniting WW3. But this Pelosi visit will not be cost-free for her and the US. There won't be inaction from China. Pelosi and the US crossing China redline means that they have lit the fuse. They will lose Taiwan soon, and China will also go for non-kinetic warfare against the US.

Let's not worry too much about Xi's 3rd term, or the legitimacy of the CPC. They are not gonna go down just because Pelosi insulted them. They've faced far worse internal dissent before. What's more important to the CPC is Taiwan, not Pelosi's dig at them.

Reunification with Taiwan is way more important for China than the life & death of that old c*** Pelosi. It is quite satisfying to see Pelosi dying in a fiery crash. But it is even more satisfying to see the look on her wrinkled face when she hears that the regime she that had visited awhile ago is gone. There will be a hot war, but it'll be between the PRC and the DPP's Taiwan first and foremost. War with the US will be prepared, only in case the US decides to butt in.

China achieves 3 things by going after only Taiwan, and not provoking a direct war with the US over a Pelosi shoot down. One, this gives the US an off-ramp to stay out of the reunification war. Two, this allows China to call the US's bluff over it's commitment to defend Taiwan. Three, China can concentrate on finishing off the regime in Taiwan ASAP.

So, it's very likely that there will be a hot conflict after Pelosi makes her Taiwan visit. But it will be on China's own terms and timetable. This will allow control on the escalation ladder. A sudden war with the US is not easy to control.

So no direct war with the US yet. But Taiwan will be taken off the board soon. The US will most likely chicken out. Their military and economy is not ready for this fight. But even if they do intervene, they still cannot stop the reunification process, and then it'll be an escalation to WW3, which the US is also not prepared for.

China likes to announce every counter measure in GT, this is one of the biggest problem in my opinion. President Xi should have never received that from JoJo & China should given the silent treatment

 

[texx1]

Penghu is undefended right now. Degradation of ROCAF and ROCN will be a part of the campaign if Taiwan responds. What will the Chinese people think? They won't even care about sanctions. Believe me about this. Great powers' power depends on their credibility. It is the show up or put up time for the People's Republic.

Just asking everyone here. Am I the only person who thinks China's reaction will shock the world? I feel like we will watch a punitive campaign against Taiwan. The Chinese response has been very different this time.

Lower class Chinese people would support the war liberating Taiwan no doubt. Wealthy elites who hold significant economic and political influence wouldn't due to concerns for their oversea assets.

If victory can happen quickly, then Chinese people won't mind the sanctions. With US involvement however, it's hard to judge the war duration. Depending on how deeply US gets involve, it could vary considerably as US military is still more advanced than PLA in numerous areas. Personally, I don't think PRC response would involve shooting down Polesi's plane, thus making war with US inevitable. I still put my money on flybys (over Taiwan proper) and missile tests (with actual warheads this time) off Taiwanese coast, possible shoot down of a Taiwanese jet or two. We will find out soon enough.

 

[latenlazy]

Nuclear weapons procurement and sustainment isn't quite as easy as ordering off the Dollar Menu. Further, creating a military and political apparatus capable of effectively employing them is even more of a challenge. The PLA's credible deterrence CONOP is sufficient for the overwhelming majority of cases, and I wouldn't be surprised if the LOW capability they do pursue is intended to meet a newly adjusted "baseline" deterrent capability as they perceive it, rather than building a nuclear arsenal capable of obliterating the entire world in a first-strike. Maintaining that sort of capability is ludicrously expensive, extremely logistically taxing, and among other factors - very dangerous.

In general, on this forum, there seems to be an errant perception of nuclear weapons as serving more than strategic deterrence. This is simply not the case. They're not the sort of pandora's box you crack open to further operational objectives, and force-structures built around anything more than deterrence and the ability to counter-escalate should the circumstances call for it. They will not be used by a nation that is facing military defeat in an expeditionary conflict that poses no existential threat to the nation wielding them.

When I was first getting into the contracting field, someone I regard as a mentor said something very poignant, which I think you all may benefit from:

"Nukes are not like having a cannon that can blast away enemy cities when the time comes, they're like having a suicide vest - it might take everyone else out, but you're going with them."

Using nuclear weapons against another nuclear armed state (which invariably results in very impressive escalation-ladder any% runs, no matter how limited the first instance) is a surefire way to destroy your own nation. As such, using them is always the worst possible option, and thus are only relevant, or even prudent, in a role limited to simply ensuring an adversary does not use them either. After all, the goal in a conflict is not to put the enemy in as bad of a position as possible, it is to put your nation in as advantageous of a position as possible. Far too often, I see folks mix the two up.

While I agree with the general points here, I think it somewhat understates the capacity for countries at war to utilize a nuclear arsenal as a bluffing tool to try to contain certain outcomes or contingencies based on the strategic particulars of an active conflict.

 

[lych470]

Anyone know anything about whether the US forces in INDOPACOM are being put on alert?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

US INDOPACOM Commander Admiral Aquillino was in Australia yesterday. Not sure about his movements today, but shouldn't he be in Hawaii if things do go down?

 

[Rettam Stacf]

Lower class Chinese people would support the war liberating Taiwan no doubt. Wealthy elites who hold significant economic and political influence wouldn't due to concerns for their oversea assets.

If victory can happen quickly, then Chinese people won't mind the sanctions. With US involvement however, it's hard to judge the war duration. Depending on how deeply US gets involve, it could vary considerably as US military is still more advanced than PLA in numerous areas. Personally, I don't think PRC response would involve shooting down Polesi's plane, thus making war with US inevitable. I still put my money on flybys (over Taiwan proper) and missile tests (with actual warheads this time) off Taiwanese coast, possible shoot down of a Taiwanese jet or two. We will find out soon enough.

I found your use of "lower class Chinese people" at the beginning of your post offensive and elitist. You still have time to edit your post if that is not what you intended.

 

[canniBUS]

I found your use of "lower class Chinese people" at the beginning of your post offensive and elitist. You still have time to edit your post if that is not what you intended.

Lol why? You're getting mad over an incredibly petty issue.

 

[clockwork]

rather than building a nuclear arsenal capable of obliterating the entire world in a first-strike. Maintaining that sort of capability is ludicrously expensive, extremely logistically taxing, and among other factors - very dangerous.

But 1500 is lower than the deployed count of the US or Russia. Why would it be especially difficult or bad for China to have it?

The maintenance cost of silos is quite low too.

 

[texx1]

Then Pakistan would just yet again waste another opportunity to pounce on India like they did in 1962? I think not. India would be the most stupid idiot if it were to decide to attack China.

In an ideal case, Pakistan would take the opportunity. But PRC should always prudently plan for the worse case scenario. After all, there is no alliance treaty between PRC and Pakistan.

 

[lych470]

But 1500 is lower than the deployed count of the US or Russia. Why would it be especially difficult or bad for China to have it?

Because all branches of the military needs a limited pool of funding. Nuclear weapons are the insurance policy, the probability of it actually being used is extremely limited. US and Russian nuclear arsenals are a legacy of the Cold War and different nuclear postures, which China never had. As long as the Chinese nuclear posture is still 'minimal deterrence' and as long as the PLA assesses that it has adequate nuclear weapons to achieve its strategic aim, then it doesn't need to expand its nuclear arsenal.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

But 1500 is lower than the deployed count of the US or Russia. Why would it be especially difficult or bad for China to have it?

It isn't.

As long as the Chinese nuclear posture is still 'minimal deterrence' and as long as the PLA assesses that it has adequate nuclear weapons to achieve its strategic aim, then it doesn't need to expand its nuclear arsenal.

Why should the Chinese nuclear posture remain minimal deterrence? What makes you think the PLA assesses that it has adequate nuclear weapons to achieve its strategic aim?