Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

solarz said:

You seem to be under the impression that this is some kind of game, where if China kills the last TW defender, China wins the map and the US can't do anything anymore.

The US would be all too happy to attack China, provided it sees an advantageous cost-benefit opportunity. That's why in all of their wargames on the subject, they always have China start off with an amphibious invasion, because that is the most advantageous position for the US.

In reality, even before any shot is fired, China is going to blockade the island. Then it will subject Taiwan to weeks of bombardment. Only after island defences have been thoroughly degraded will the PLA launch an amphibious invasion. At this point, whether or not there are ROC partisans hiding in a bunker somewhere is not going to change the equation of whether the US will intervene.

Click to expand...

Well, all theories and strategies are game until they become reality. That's why they call any military simulation and scenario as wargame. We have never doubt that PLA also doing Taiwan Scenario wargame everyday to find every possibility that will happen, if Taiwan Conflict ever become a reality in the future. Plus, this thread is all about Taiwan Scenario, not Taiwan Conflict as reality.

Even your suggested blockade scenario can only be considered as a scenario, with it's own merit and demerit. It is not a reality, because it is not happen yet. It is only one of PLA many option, if Taiwan conflict is ever become reality. Unless you rigidly think that there is no other option that China can take beside your suggested blockade scenario?

If you not, then why not explore another possibilities? I bring a case, maybe unrealistic, to here so people can explore them and give the thought about it. You may also bring a case, so people can explore the possibilities here. SDF is a forum where we can exchange our thought and analyst so everyone can share and learn. There may some amateurs. But they have the right to ask and bring some cases, so the Thinktank and profesionals can share their taught and the amateurs can learn.

Btw, I thankful for your taught about the blockade, and why my previous question is far from realistic to China. I learn a lot about this.

I personally don't think that kill them all as the end result of the conflict. And I don't see this as some kind of Total War game that we both play in PC.

Brainsuker said:

Well, all theories and strategies are game until they become reality. That's why they call any military simulation and scenario as wargame. We have never doubt that PLA also doing Taiwan Scenario wargame everyday to find every possibility that will happen, if Taiwan Conflict ever become a reality in the future. Plus, this thread is all about Taiwan Scenario, not Taiwan Conflict as reality.

Even your suggested blockade scenario can only be considered as a scenario, with it's own merit and demerit. It is not a reality, because it is not happen yet. It is only one of PLA many option, if Taiwan conflict is ever become reality. Unless you rigidly think that there is no other option that China can take beside your suggested blockade scenario?

If you not, then why not explore another possibilities? I bring a case, maybe unrealistic, to here so people can explore them and give the thought about it. You may also bring a case, so people can explore the possibilities here. SDF is a forum where we can exchange our thought and analyst so everyone can share and learn. There may some amateurs. But they have the right to ask and bring some cases, so the Thinktank and profesionals can share their taught and the amateurs can learn.

Btw, I thankful for your taught about the blockade, and why my previous question is far from realistic to China. I learn a lot about this.

I personally don't think that kill them all as the end result of the conflict. And I don't see this as some kind of Total War game that we both play in PC.

Click to expand...

The blockade is a necessity because you need to cut off any route of reinforcement.

solarz said:

The blockade is a necessity because you need to cut off any route of reinforcement.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. In my old posts, I also suggest on siege / blockade, too. To be honest, blockade, or maybe besiege is the most critical necessity in any war. It is true not only in today military term, but also the ancient way of military operation. Long time ago, we siege a castle first, before we capture it. But in today warfare, the whole country is actually an oversized castle that need to be cut out from the outside world. the question is how to blockade / siege an island effectively.

Brainsuker said:

the question is how to blockade / siege an island effectively.

Click to expand...

See August's military exercises

Overbom said:

See August's military exercises

Click to expand...

Is it here in this forum? I'll seek it right away.

I think the insurgency angle is mostly a distraction, the conventional phase would be the far more difficult and decisive phase in Taiwan. Taiwanese are not Afghans, they are not Iraqis, the sustainability/effectiveness of insurgency is inversely proportional to the wealth and urbanisation of the state while the effectiveness of conventional resistance proportional. Just because the US ate sh*t in the Middle east/Central Asia doesn't mean it is applicable to Taiwan at all.

Insurgency occurs when the conventional resistance quickly collapse when there's still some fight left in the men, even then it is not guaranteed to materialize. If the conventional phase have exhausted the will/manpower to continue fighting, then the insurgency movement would be largely dead in the water.

But, let's say that the conventional military of Taiwan collapsed quickly without exhausting all of its will to fight, I do not believe a major(there will always be some holdouts)insurgency movement would materialize. Alot of the fighting is driven by sectarian/tribal divisions where religious identification is a matter of life and death, what makes the conventional military of Afghanistan is so fragile is also why they seem to be have an endless supply of young man willing to fight the United States and their collaborationist government. As much as Liberals love to unironically spout their slogan of "Give me liberty or give me death", they are the absolute least likely of all ideologues to risk their lives when odds are against them. The ones that do even in the face of certain death are the least liberal of all people and derided as Terrorists.

Brainsuker said:

Is it here in this forum? I'll seek it right away.

Click to expand...

You can read this report, although keep in mind its from a US thinktank

An insurgency is easily dealt with using reeducation and population resettlement.

The ROC army isn't going to fight to the last man obviously. They'll surrender when defeat becomes obvious. Actually, should hostilities restart, I'd expect a giant wave of refugees and draft dodgers from Taiwan. China should ensure that they can escape from any blockade.

I don't get why people want weeks of bombardment. There's only a certain number of targets. If there's 10,000 targets, China should be preparing 20,000 missiles. How long does it take to fire them all? Once all enemy targets are eliminated, the invasion can begin. If it takes one week, why keep bombing and waiting for the US to prepare to enter the war? Once Taiwan is secured, nuclear weapons are sufficient to deter a western intervention. While the fighting is ongoing, there's a bigger risk that American forces might participate.

Minm said:

An insurgency is easily dealt with using reeducation and population resettlement.

The ROC army isn't going to fight to the last man obviously. They'll surrender when defeat becomes obvious. Actually, should hostilities restart, I'd expect a giant wave of refugees and draft dodgers from Taiwan. China should ensure that they can escape from any blockade.

I don't get why people want weeks of bombardment. There's only a certain number of targets. If there's 10,000 targets, China should be preparing 20,000 missiles. How long does it take to fire them all? Once all enemy targets are eliminated, the invasion can begin. If it takes one week, why keep bombing and waiting for the US to prepare to enter the war? Once Taiwan is secured, nuclear weapons are sufficient to deter a western intervention. While the fighting is ongoing, there's a bigger risk that American forces might participate.

Click to expand...

yes insurgency is irrelevant to the Taiwan question, discussion on this is just a waste of time and trolling.

as for bombardment, i think the notion mostly originated from the gulf war. military watchers seem to cling onto the notion of defeating the enemy from the air, although it has since been proven to be a myth. from china's perspective, bombardment needs to happen, but my opinion is that the objective of bombardment must be to neutralize the island in case of US intervention. if taiwan loses its sensors, air force, and anti-air, then it is no longer relevant in case of a confrontation between china and the us. if it retains those capabilities then it'll tilt the battle heavily in favor of the us. the bombardment can of course happen simultaneously with invasion, which is why i always said taking penghu and matsu first is the right move. recall that the coalition forces took basra on the second day of the war in iraq, concurrently with the bombardment phase.

as for the notion of a blitzkrieg strike on taiwan to finish the business before the US could react, i think it is a nice to have but not necessarily what beijing is planning for. it should be the number one lesson from ukraine, which is that your nice plan can fail even against an incompetent enemy. the blitzkrieg idea finds its roots in a time when china was weak and absolutely has no chance to win against US intervention. it was as much of a gamble as the schlieffen plan. the irony here is that if china rushes the invasion, then fumbles the opening move, it would actually invite US intervention, whereas a deliberate, well-executed operation with no apparent weakness would deter it. i think for the US, the best outcome for taiwan would be a failed chinese invasion, second best outcome is actually a quick surrender, as it is then absolved of the failure to intervene and can move straight on to "uniting the free world" in its aftermath.

Brainsuker said:

I agree with you. In my old posts, I also suggest on siege / blockade, too. To be honest, blockade, or maybe besiege is the most critical necessity in any war. It is true not only in today military term, but also the ancient way of military operation. Long time ago, we siege a castle first, before we capture it. But in today warfare, the whole country is actually an oversized castle that need to be cut out from the outside world. the question is how to blockade / siege an island effectively.

Click to expand...

In my view, China has finally found an effective counter-strategy to the US' salami slicing. I call it counter-slicing: for each move that the US takes to undermine the One China Principle, the PLA will move one step closer to the total blockade of the island. This kind of tit-for-tat retaliation trades some symbolic recognition for actual gain on the ground (or sea). If the US is foolish enough to persist, TW may well find it self completely blockaded without any declaration of hostility.