PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
- Thread starter pugachev_diver
- Start date
To expand, you can categorise US thinking on choosing to wage war against China into 3 broad groups.
1. The doves. They don't believe in a war with China at all.
2. The moderates. They understand that there would be huge costs to a war with China which may involve Europe or the Middle East. And that very few countries will join such war just to extend US hegemony and keep China poor. Plus there is the possibility that the US might lose.
3. The hawks. They are convinced of the moral and ideological superiority of the US over China. They expect China to collapse by itself, so why go to war?
You also have to consider how common each positions is. The moderate view is the view of the vast majority, even in the US.
---
In addition, I think it is completely unrealistic that a war will remain conventional if it goes badly for China, even with China being at a nuclear disadvantage. The Russians are very clear that an attack on their Motherland will result in the use of nuclear weapons.
---
You can also extend this to Chinese thinking on waging a Taiwan war now.
1. The doves. They don't believe in a war over Taiwan period.
2. The moderates. They understand that there would be huge costs to a Taiwan war. And there is the possibility that the US might intervene and that China might lose
3. The hawks. They believe that the US is a paper tiger and will not come to save Taiwan if China launches a military invasion. And they accept that the economic/political/military costs would be worth it.
Again, the moderates still are a large majority
But all these groups agree that when China becomes a prosperous hi-tech nation, Taiwan will eventually come back to the fold.
China has 4x the population, so it can aspire to be economically 4x larger than the USA in the following decades.
So why have a risky kinetic war now, when Taiwan can be absorbed peacefully in the future?
Because the US would be initiating a war of choice, just for the sake of US *hegemony*. What does this actually mean? It's just the ability to boss other countries around.
It would be politically and morally untenable, because it would be such an evil and unjustified act. Furthermore it would be obvious to everyone in the USA and the world, including those in the US who actually advocate for a pre-emptive war against China.
And the word here is cripple China, not destroy.
This would merely set the stage for the next Sino-American war as China would rebuild and seek vengeance in a few decades.
Just a minor point
Even if China was operating aircraft in the Andamans, I think Singapore would decline to declare war on China for the following reasons.
1. Singapore is over 1000km from the Andamans, so would struggle to project much airpower there
2. The US Navy and/or Indian Navy should be able to handle it anyway
3. The view in Singapore is that China will become the regional economic/military hegemon in the South China Seas next to Singapore, so neutrality is a better option that actively going to war and making China an enemy.
4. Indonesia and Malaysia have made it very clear that they want no part in a US-China war, no matter how it starts. Indonesia is an archipelago nation comprised of thousands of islands which relies on uninterrupted air and sea traffic to maintain itself as a nation. If Singapore goes to war with China, it extend the war zone to the Singapore Straits, Malacca Straits and Riau Islands next to Indonesia. From the Malaysian perspective, an extension of the war to Singapore means the air-sea links between East Malaysia and West Malaysia become a war zone. Both Malaysia and Indonesia will pressure Singapore to remain neutral
5. If Singapore remains neutral, it will likely benefit economically as neutral nations usually do. In comparison, if Singapore declares war against China, it will likely lose out economically.
6. Singapore is only 2000km from mainland China, which is closer than Guam. And Singapore going to war with China would place Singapore in the same category as Guam. At a minimum, this means Singapore would face ballistic/hypersonic missile attacks on key military/industrial/economic targets. For example, can you imagine the political impact from a single DF-26 with cluster munitions wiping out scores of aircraft parked at Changi airport.
So I see the Singapore leadership as being smart enough to avoid being actively drawn into a US-China war, like Malaysia and Indonesia.
This is describing the vast difficulty in targeting Chinese military assets with missiles, without any interception capability from the SAMs and discounting the entire PLAN and PLARF... Just looking at missile stockpiles vs air defense and targets.
Even for a Taiwan scenario, the PLARF has stockpiled 2000+ SRBMs and N cruise missiles to disable Taiwanese air defense long enough for a follow up strike with PGMs and hit critical civil infrastructure for a region FAR smaller than all of China, and this is for a scenario that doesn't require a naval battle (as Taiwan's navy is negligible vs the PLAN), refueling, worrying about your own bases, etc.
When you take into account the need for a naval battle and tankers to even get to the point where missile strikes against ground targets inside China are possible there would already be significant attrition of strike assets... If they win the naval battle without horrible losses at all.
Conclusion: they don't attempt a war of attrition because the math doesn't work out in their favor.
I do think that China will lose a war of attrition if the Chinese mainland is subject to attacks on key chokepoint industries whilst the US is largely unscathed.
But the solution to this is straightforward.
Build up China's nuclear arsenal so that the US recognises that MAD exists. Also develop a limited number of conventional strike weapons and tactical nukes that can reach the Continental USA from China. We can already see this being done.
Then China declares a new policy.
Attacks on the Chinese mainland will be met with a response against the US Homeland. The Cold War generation in the USA understand perfectly well that physical attacks on the Chinese mainland will lead up the conventional escalation ladder and then the nuclear escalation ladder.
Look at how Russia reserves the right to use nukes when it's territory is threatened.
Or what the US did when the USSR tried to use Cuba as a military base right next to the USA.
And it is very clear that China considers Taiwan part of its territory. See the US–PRC Joint Communique excerpts below.
---
US–PRC Joint Communique, August 17, 1982
1. In the on January 1, 1979, issued by the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the People's Republic of China, the United States of America recognized the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China, and it acknowledged the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China
...
5. The United States Government attaches great importance to its relations with China, and reiterates that it has no intention of infringing on Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity, or interfering in China's internal affairs, or pursuing a policy of "two Chinas" or "one China, one Taiwan."
And if both the US and China refrain from attacking each others homeland, then China does actually have an advantage over the USA in terms of population, economic heft and especially industrial output.
RAND has an old study (below) based on 2013/2014 figures which looked at the economic consequences of a China-US war.
Back then, they calculated a GDP decrease of 6% for the USA and a 17% decrease for China after 1 year. If you apply that to the PPP figures (which more accurately reflect real economic output of goods and services), you end up with
USA 2021: $22.99 Trillion minus 6% = $21.6 Trillion
China 2021: $26.57 Trillion minus 17% = $22 Trillion
So China still has a slightly larger economy than the USA after 1 year, coupled with a much larger industrial and manufacturing sector.
(In 2019, China accounted for 28.7% of global manufacturing output whilst the US was at 16.8%, as per the UN)
Plus this analysis certainly overstates the negative impact on China. Since 2014, China's economy has doubled in size on an exchange rate basis, whilst the US only grew 32% (one-third). China's military is also far more capable in 2022 than in 2014. China's importance as a trade and investment partner for other countries (particularly its neighbours) is also vastly greater than back in 2014.
So a lot more of China's trade would continue.
The RAND report is below which outlines the methodology.
If someone wants to calculate what the updated scenario looks like, all the numbers for 2020/2021 should be publicly available.
rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1140.html
RAND has an old study (below) based on 2013/2014 figures which looked at the economic consequences of a China-US war.
Back then, they calculated a GDP decrease of 6% for the USA and a 17% decrease for China after 1 year. If you apply that to the PPP figures (which more accurately reflect real economic output of goods and services), you end up with
USA 2021: $22.99 Trillion minus 6% = $21.6 Trillion
China 2021: $26.57 Trillion minus 17% = $22 Trillion
So China still has a slightly larger economy than the USA after 1 year, coupled with a much larger industrial and manufacturing sector.
(In 2019, China accounted for 28.7% of global manufacturing output whilst the US was at 16.8%, as per the UN)
Plus this analysis certainly overstates the negative impact on China. Since 2014, China's economy has doubled in size on an exchange rate basis, whilst the US only grew 32% (one-third). China's military is also far more capable in 2022 than in 2014. China's importance as a trade and investment partner for other countries (particularly its neighbours) is also vastly greater than back in 2014.
So a lot more of China's trade would continue.
The RAND report is below which outlines the methodology.
If someone wants to calculate what the updated scenario looks like, all the numbers for 2020/2021 should be publicly available.
rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1140.html
Last edited:
Which ain’t remotely necessary and ain’t nowhere near gon’na happen.
If, and when a Taiwan invasion contingency does happen, it will be a war of limited objectives that will be decided by whether or not US and “allied” forces can sustainably overcome Chinese A2/AD capabilities within <1400 km from China’s southeastern coast.
I predict that China can prevail in this scenario without even a necessity of attacking either Okinawa or Guam.
Economics. They lost the “last real chance” to fight a war with China after the 2008 financial crisis (or when the 1st subprime brick was placed). The military is strong but what good is a strong military if your economy implodes. Especially now with the tensions between the left / right wing ideologies against the establishment.
The global economy is built on a house of tinder (debt) that is soaked in gasoline and in the middle of a lake of oil but the US built theirs with frozen gasoline blocks instead of tinder.
Now these are only polls (accuracy not guaranteed) but it paints the idea it isn’t sun shine and roses.