Let's say China has conventional military forces which as twice as strong as the US, say in 20 years time.
There likely wouldn't need to be a war as everyone would know what the result is anyway.
Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
- Status
Let's say China has conventional military forces which as twice as strong as the US, say in 20 years time.
There likely wouldn't need to be a war as everyone would know what the result is anyway.
Have to hard disagree on that.
China doesn't want war with America. It's first line of strategy is to deter an US invasion by making it obvious that America would lose, badly.
If China is too weak, America will be tempted to pull a Crimea on Taiwan. But China itself doesn't want to go on offensive vs US unless America makes it clear they will attack first. The cost in lives will be huge, and the politicians in Zhongnanhai aren't elected on the principle of sacrificing lives for the "greater good" unlike the ones in the White House.
Once China deters US from their land grab, they can use either peace settlement, force or a combination of both to get rid of the ROC rebel problem. There is no need to involve any outside nations in internal affairs, unless said countries attack first.
Afterwards, China can slowly address the problem of US spreading dangerous influence in Asia. It doesn't have to be open war in order contain Japan and Korea. Carrot and stick with sanctions and increasing media output along with disrupting the US regime at home will slowly achieve soft denazification and deamericanization of these 2 US occupied territories. Signs of this is already shown in SK.
When America, despite threatening to for 30+ years, fails at invading Taiwan and the island is irrevocably fortified, it will be an immense blow to their prestige worldwide.
Russia is at a 300 year low in power. Its power has declined to a relative position in europe similar to the times before Peter the Great. It's useful as an ally for now, but I would bet on Russia being even smaller and relatively weaker than today 100 years from now.
It's better to treat other countries appropriately for their position in the hierarchy, junior allies who believe they are equal partners will only resent the senior ally when the senior ally makes a decision they don't like.
China's first goal should be to be able to achieve a decisive victory against US forces in the western Pacific with minimal losses under all scenarios and cordon everything west of Hawaii off to any further US encroachment. That's a big enough task for the foreseeable future, after that we can cross bridges when we come to them.
It's not sufficient to label states as risk tolerant/averse, one should also consider under what conditions they're willing to tolerate risk. For as much as people proclaim the end of the unipolar moment, the US's strategic positioning is still uniquely favourable. It maintains a military presence throughout the world and has contained its opponents to a remarkable degree. Just look at where the wars against it are being fought: in Ukraine and the waters surrounding China. They're not happening off the coast of California.
The US just can't win any further. It has taken all the strategic ground it's possible to take. Why would it start wars against Russia and North Korea and jeopardize its position? What more can it possibly take to justify that sort of risk?
Contrast that with China. China literally cannot sail 100 miles off its own coast without encountering an impediment. Due to the unfortunate turns of modern Chinese history, it is strategically constrained to a degree as unique in history as America's strategic freedom. China has nothing left to lose and everything to win. Why wouldn't it take risks when the balance of power favours it?
If this can be done without war, well and good. I don't believe it can. "Slowly achieve soft denazification and deamericanization" is a long-winded way of saying "accomplish nothing". US forces are still stationed in Korea and Japan and both countries are still under US defense treaties. How is it fundamentally different today from when it was in 1945?
Oh, I'm just annoyed that he turned discussion into an unhelpful area, so I was trying to bring it back to the topic on hand of what lessons they can actually learn from Russia/Ukraine conflict. Which is that they should try to completely cut off Taiwan's communication with rest of the world in a war/blockade scenario. And also using precision munition to wear out and degrade Taiwanese army before any kind of landing. Unfortunately, he just kept on going along the line of unfair media coverage.
Exactly, that is all I was saying. I never said or implied anything about zero civilian casualties.
This is why I said explicitly that the Western media would say what it's going to say regardless, and in general the Western population will believe them, propaganda is very effective here. The point of inflicting as few civilian casualties as necessary to win is not to win a media victory in the West, the media in the West are extremely subservient and it won't matter.
The point is that the Taiwanese people will know whether the PLA in 2022 treated them like the PLA liberation of Tibet, or like the British in Ireland/India, or the US in Vietnam, or Japan in China. If the PLA uses only as much force as necessary to achieve victory, this could mean the difference between 800 years of hatred and animosity or Taiwan becoming as supportive of the central government as Tibet. In addition, and very importantly for the future, the political leadership and militaries of Japan and southern Korea will know how the Taiwanese were actually treated, regardless of what Western propaganda said. Whether it's later in the same war, or in the next war, the political and military leadership in Japan and southern Korea will consider how Taiwan was treated when they are facing the PLA and deciding whether to surrender or to fight until the last soldier dies. If they know they can expect good treatment, they are much more likely to surrender. If they know they can expect brutality and revenge if the PLA wins, they will arm every citizen who can walk, landmine every beach, and fight to the last breath. So in the domains of suppressing separatism after unification, and in other military theatres, the approach that the PLA takes to the reunification of Taiwan matters.
Minimal losses in all scenarios? That sounds like it'll never happen in our lifetimes short of a catastrophic collapse of America.
Reunification is not the same as challenging American supremacy the West Pacific, you can't conflate the two. America's response two both will be different.
So according to you America is risk adverse when it comes to North Korea and Russia, where both nations were wrong with their respective actions (invading Ukraine and developing nukes), but is risk tolerant when it comes to Taiwan, where China's actions would be 100% legal according to international law? Whether you're talking about military, economic, diplomatic consequences how is either of those two more risky than full American intervention in AR?
Yes, minimal losses in all scenarios. Of course, I exclude ludicrous scenarios like China allowing America to launch strikes against it without defending itself. It was unbelievable to think even a decade ago that China would be able to destroy US forces in the First Island Chain in some favourable scenarios, but here we are today. Who knows what another decade or so will bring?
China doesn't share Russia's limitations and doesn't see America as ten feet tall. Given Russia's far smaller economy than both China and America as well as the inherently more difficult problem of dislodging America from Europe, I can understand why Russia must bound its ambitions. It might go to war in Ukraine but it will never even in its wildest dreams contemplate going to war against NATO. China is far stronger and its problem is easier: There isn't a continent-sized, technologically advanced appendage of the US grafted onto China the way Europe is to Russia.
Reunification is very much identical to challenging US supremacy in the western Pacific. If it wasn't, Taiwan would have been resolved long ago. I am sure the Chinese leadership realizes, even if it hasn't said this publicly, that America's presence in the western Pacific is at the root of all China's strategic problems and uprooting that presence is China's ultimate goal.
Risk averse isn't the proper way to think about this. America is not compelled to respond to Russia and North Korea in the same way it would be to China because they can't hurt America. America has defeated both and put them in cages - Russia is caged by NATO and the DPRK by the ROK. Most importantly, neither Russia nor North Korea have any hope of breaking out of their cages; if they ever break out it will be because China defeated America and broke them out.
Legality and international law have nothing to do with anything, this is power politics. If China is counting on international law as anything more than a rhetorical device to bludgeon its enemies then its position is truly a sorry one.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
And China didn't have to announce Made in China 2025 and just done it without saying it. And look at how much crap China has to deal with because they announced it. Big mistake. And somehow you guys think it's unhelpful to point out mistakes in a thread about learning from mistakes...?
- Status