Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis

Status
Not open for further replies.

Biscuits

Colonel
Registered Member
The decisions of the PRC in the Fourth Taiwan Crisis suggest to me that, in the event of its red line of formal independence being crossed, there is a reasonable possibility China will not actually carry out an immediate military assault on Taiwan. China's reaction will depend critically on the willingness of third-party actors to go to war with China over Taiwan, and it may choose to wait further still. I used to believe China will definitely launch an assault in this scenario, but now I am not so certain.

Hindsight is 20/20, but still hindsight tells us that China had to issue an explicit threat to Pelosi and the Taiwanese government no matter what happened, even if Beijing does not intend to use lethal force. This is China's way of communicating to a trespasser that its core interests are being harmed, regardless of what it decides to do about it immediately. Not issuing these threats would be tantamount to an acquiescence of the trespassing, and this would make Beijing appear weak both internally and externally, which would of course invite domestic unrest and further trespasses. If Beijing's threat successfully deters a would-be violation, then great. If not, it is not exactly a worse outcome than if Beijing said nothing. Of course, repeated reliance on this strategy with repeatedly foiled bluff will lead to a loss of Chinese credibility.

China has shown consistently that it is a pragmatic and calculated actor, whose decisions are firmly rooted in realpolitiks. Add to this the very real Chinese belief that time is on its side, you end up with a picture of a very cautious, risk averse actor. This is where I will make a leap of logic: it does not make sense for a risk averse actor, whose strength is growing relative to its adversaries, to gamble on immediate military action. China's red line on Taiwan could just be a way to signal its resentment to a formal declaration of Taiwanese independence, and the threat component of it may not necessarily be carried out, at least immediately. How China will respond depends on the risk involved. If there are no external support forthcoming for Taiwan, China will almost certainty not hesitate to use force. However, if the US signals convincingly that it will fight a long drawn-out war with the PRC, or signal through the act of joining the fight, China may very well back down to a ceasefire.

You might think what I'm saying is crazy, but stop and consider the actual impact of a formal declaration of independence. Does it actually change the facts on the ground? Does it preclude the possibility of military assault in the future? Well, of course not. Borders and nations are man-made, and as such they can be man-broken. If Taiwan declares independence at a suboptimal timing for China, and with US support, China can conceivably still not do anything just to buy more time, providing it perceives that its comprehensive national strength will continue to increase in relative terms. Once China has a sufficient preponderance of force to reduce the military risk to an acceptable level, it can still launch an armed reunification while deterring or defeating a US-led intervention. There are no laws of physics preventing the PLA from crossing formal national borders. Russia recognised Ukraine's independence, but there's a reasonable chance that in time Russia will annex any part of Ukraine it wants to annex.

Taiwanese independence forces may well be emboldened by the events of this crisis, but this is not to say that they will certainly go ahead and cross the red line. There is still a big risk that China will deviate from its usual risk aversion and simply react with lethal force, particularly given the domestic cost of inaction for Beijing. So formal independence will be deterred for the time being. However, the risk I see is that Taiwanese independence forces will continue to salami slice right up to the red line, to test Beijing's resolve. They may undertake further provocations, e.g. inviting more foreign leaders to Taiwan, changing the RoC flag, changing the anthem, disavowing Sun Yatsen, disbanding/renaming the KMT, further desinicisation policies, stationing sizable foreign troops, or making military agreements. The lack of a strong reaction by Beijing to any of these moves, particularly the lack of lethal response, could very well convince the independence forces that Beijing's red line is just a bluff. They would then cross it and declare independence if they have reliable confirmation of US military support. This is where I see the danger to both sides of the Taiwan Strait, and especially more so for Taiwan, in the medium term.
I don't think there's anything that suggests your option will happen.

China responded to unarmed airspace incursion with armed incursion and blockade over several days... So far, with more coming up.

So if we trade an incursion for a bigger incursion, what will logically be the trade if open war is declared?

In the current crisis, China tried to dare US to do as much as possible, this reminds of the playbook during the 1962 war where the PLA just pulled back as much as possible to make India keep advancing and then rolled back all their gains in 1 go while slapping India with the aggressor label.

If China was unprepared and wanted to bide time, they could merely sweep the visit under the rug or extensively negotiate quietly behind the scenes, instead of escalating publicly and making Biden lose face. In fact there's some precedent for it, because during the Trump regime, China prevented an US official from going to Taiwan province, even with the ultranationalist Pompeo in charge of the State Department. Back then, the negotiations were very silent, letting US back down without losing face.

This bit of info tells me that China as of late 2022 does feel ready to attack both US and ROC, unlike in early 2021 when a different approach was used to handle a similar crisis. But only if US or ROC does something that indisputably puts them as the aggressor.
 

Strangelove

Colonel
Registered Member
I would add that with the way things are going in the USA, peaceful reunification can happen sooner than later. It might not take all the way to 10 years.

I think China should now go after the real source of power for the DPP: the USA. After all, it is the USA who broke it's commitments to the One China policy. China will not go to war with the USA. But China now has the liberty to use any non-kinetic means to hurt the US. That means hurting the US where it truly hurts: the economy.

There is no more China-US relations and all non-kinetic warfare needs to be waged - reducing the use of USD, continued disposal of USTs, implementing an export tax of at least 5% on all US-bound goods, full economic support to Russia as well as support for independent movements in Hawaii, Ryukyu and within the US.
 

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
I do think the main issue is the loss of credibility internally. Xi has repeatedly said that force will be used against Taiwanese separatists/independence activists. This is a red line that has carried through many different CCP leaders. I doubt this extremely strong tradition can be cast aside so easily.
That's your own biased interpretation as a resident of Taiwan. But we'll find out soon enough, and if by some by miracle Xi is denied his 3rd term because of perceived inaction then you folks are in trouble since his replacement is going to be much more aggressive on the Taiwanese issue and others. What's the point if replacing a leader with another wuss just to get the same result. Then, God help your island if that scenario comes to pass. We'll see how what that paper dragon can do to pineapple express
 

Biscuits

Colonel
Registered Member
There is no more China-US relations and all non-kinetic warfare needs to be waged - reducing the use of USD, continued disposal of USTs, implementing an export tax of at least 5% on all US-bound goods, full economic support to Russia as well as support for independent movements in Hawaii, Ryukyu and within the US.
China still has an interest in managing US decline, just like it is managing Indian decline after winning wars that killed ambitions of Indian supremacy.

Reducing dollar use is self explanatory, China is already doing it, the dollars they do get simply get passed along in exchange for resource rights and investment into third world countries who don't truly recognize the worthlessness of a contract with USA.

What I think will happen is an era of China overtly remilitarizing as well as increased "baiting". Beijing will use opportunities that come up to encourage US to fire the first shot, the goal being a short sharp war that ends any US supremacist ambitions.

Looking at past wars and how China defends its region and allies, China isn't fond of siege tactics and/or hurting the enemy core civilian base directly. Beijing could for example make common Indians suffer A LOT more, but it leaves that task to the mismanaged Indian government to achieve by itself.

Chinese countermeasures are instead focused on destroying the capability of the hostile government in question, to collapse their political power without causing a humanitarian disaster.

In short, I think China now strives to build up forces so as to bridge and then widen the numbers gap, while encouraging US to fire first into a conflict that loses them 1-3 CVs. Beijing will maintain overall trade with US as long as it finds a use for the dollars or is able to sell in Yuan. If US population feels severe pain, it will be due to desparation of the US leadership itself, not direct Chinese sanctions.
 

ashnole

New Member
Registered Member
Now if US sent 4+ CVs then things get very serious and chances of war become highly likely. China don't have enough ships to crowd them out, but they also ain't gonna tolerate that in the straits. So it's gonna be very tempting to pull the trigger with more than 4 fat ducks in the rifle sight.
Why would USN sail around FOUR CVNs at one location in peacetime? It's against USN Carrier doctrine and not to mention insanely needlessly stupid even if there weren't a doctrine!

As per the doctrine, *only during* wartime will multiple CVNs be grouped together into a Fleet Carrier Task Force. The Fleet Carrier Task Force will comprise of at least 3 (but not more than 4) CVNs, 6-8 CGs, 12-16 DDGs, 6-8 FFGs and 6-8 SSNs.
 

ashnole

New Member
Registered Member
Reading posts on this thread, posts vastly overestimating relatively newly acquired, unproven and still undergoing maturity PLAN assets, massively underestimating USN assets and USN's three quarters of a century of global Blue Water dominance... ah, what do I say.

There is a thing called Naval rock-paper-scissor. SSNs are the rocks that smash every kind of surface & subsurface warships; Airborne ASW assets (fixed-wing or rotary-wing) are the paper that can cover SSNs and can either mission kill them or totally destroy them; Carrier-based Tactical Aviation is the scissor that can cut through enemy Airborne ASW assets.

To be a global kickass Blue Water Navy, you need to be kickass in all three of these departments *equally*. If you are found lacking in rock, the enemy's paper will ruin your chances; similarly if you are found lacking in paper & scissor, enemy's scissor & rock will punish you.

So until PLAN achieves this Naval holy triad, it's advisable to underestimate the enemy only at your peril.
 

NeutralWarrior

Junior Member
Registered Member
Big Hammer-time: This is serious, militarily.

Foreign Ministry announces 8 countermeasures

In response to US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, despite China's strong opposition and solemn representations, insisted on visiting China In the Taiwan region, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced on August 5 that it would take the following countermeasures:

1. Cancelling the phone call between the leaders of the Chinese and American military theaters.
2. Cancel the working meeting between the Chinese and the US Department of Defense.
3. Cancel the meeting of the China-US Maritime Military Security Consultation Mechanism.
4. Suspend China-US cooperation in the repatriation of illegal immigrants.
5. Suspend China-US criminal judicial assistance cooperation.
6. Suspend China-US cooperation in combating transnational crimes.
7. Suspend China-US cooperation in drug control.
8. Suspend Sino-US climate change talks.

Source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top