PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

The lesson I draw and hope China's leadership likewise draws is that Russia gets the respect it does for a single reason: it has a superpower's nuclear arsenal. If China wants the respect due a superpower, it gets a superpower's arsenal. Period. Scratch the surface of any so-called analyst who babbles on American media and you will find stark terror at Russia's arsenal. Every single American knows intuitively that war with Russia is suicidal. Even as the dementia eats away whatever's left of Biden's brain, a single thought shines brightly in the darkness of his mind:

If nuclear weapons were that important, China could have saved a lot of money over the past decade by building thousands of nukes instead of investing so much in conventional capabilities.

Do forum goers here seriously believe they are wiser than China's leaders?

Obviously, whatever true goals the current leadership in China may have - are not going to be easily achievable by just building a ridiculous amount of nukes.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
I've already given my explanations multiple times for why a war of attrition would not be viable for China, and the entire nature of a China-US conflict over Taiwan are so different to the Vietnam war of Korean war that it should be blazingly obvious.

If those differences cannot be understood, then I don't think anything else I write will be able to clarify it.

If there is a war of attrition, Korea as a battlefield is relevant.

Why would China limit itself to a naval-air war which favours the US?

The Korean peninsula is essentially an extension of mainland China. A land war in Korea would force the US Army to fight the Chinese Army. And North Korea faces the prospect of economic collapse if China loses.

At worst, it ends up as another stalemate. At best, China conquers South Korea and ends up with bases right next to Japan.

If we go with a 3-12 month timeframe, I suspect a war of attrition in Korea would favour China and that the US would run out of soldiers and equipment first.
 
Last edited:

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel
Registered Member
Do forum goers here seriously believe they are wiser than China's leaders?
In this matter, yes. They're obviously far better informed and - much as it stings my ego to say this - more intelligent than I am (if only slightly). But I don't suffer from a bias that they have: I don't assume Americans are rational. Having been in closer proximity to American "culture" than any Chinese leader (an experience I would rather do without), I understand their insanity far better than any Chinese leader ever could.
 

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
Do forum goers here seriously believe they are wiser than China's leaders?

Obviously, whatever true goals the current leadership in China may have - are not going to be easily achievable by just building a ridiculous amount of nukes.
Given that China is now amidst an unprecedented and IMO urgent nuclear build up, I would say yes. Obviously the previously "minimum deterrence" nuclear strategy isn't working (we have been saying this for a long time)
 

LesAdieux

Junior Member
lesson from the Ukraine crisis is the west only respect strength and the will to use force. the nuclear gap has been exaggerated. China's weakness is lacking the will to use force.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
lesson from the Ukraine crisis is the west only respect strength and the will to use force. the nuclear gap has been exaggerated. China's weakness is lacking the will to use force.

This pushes the view that somehow Russia hasn't been punished enough by the west for it's actions. The sanctions so far against Russia has hit the Russian economy and industry really hard. After buying close to 100 military aircraft a year in mid 2010s, Russia has been able to only order around 20 a year in the past couple of years. That should give you an idea of who hard Western sanctions have hurt Russian economy and cut off access to western suppliers and technologies. It's a huge shock to Russia's entire system. And if Russia does invade Ukraine soon, there will be economic warfare against Russia from the west. That's why Putin was so desperate to get Chinese partnership recently.

Not all wars are fought on the battlefield. Wars are not popular with general public. America is not going to help Ukraine, because there is no desire amongst American public to get involved it. That's quite a different scenario compared to china and Taiwan where American public is already viewing china negativity for covid and the rising Chinese economic power.

Even so, I think any future war between the two countries will be fought a lot more in financial market, economic war and virtual realm vs military hardware. As I said, an all out military will be so bad for not just the two countries but rest of the war because all the major export industries in Asia will be cut off from global trade. Oil market will spike up from bombing of middle eastern oil routes. There will be hyper inflation and currency collapse and economic collapse all around the world. Every other country are going to beg us and china to get on the negotiation table very quickly. We have never had a war in history where the two countries are so economically and financially tied together. Not have we ever had a time when rest of global world is so linked together. Lessons of second world war might as well be thrown out of the window here.
 

LesAdieux

Junior Member
This pushes the view that somehow Russia hasn't been punished enough by the west for it's actions. The sanctions so far against Russia has hit the Russian economy and industry really hard. After buying close to 100 military aircraft a year in mid 2010s, Russia has been able to only order around 20 a year in the past couple of years. That should give you an idea of who hard Western sanctions have hurt Russian economy and cut off access to western suppliers and technologies. It's a huge shock to Russia's entire system. And if Russia does invade Ukraine soon, there will be economic warfare against Russia from the west. That's why Putin was so desperate to get Chinese partnership recently.

Not all wars are fought on the battlefield. Wars are not popular with general public. America is not going to help Ukraine, because there is no desire amongst American public to get involved it. That's quite a different scenario compared to china and Taiwan where American public is already viewing china negativity for covid and the rising Chinese economic power.

Even so, I think any future war between the two countries will be fought a lot more in financial market, economic war and virtual realm vs military hardware. As I said, an all out military will be so bad for not just the two countries but rest of the war because all the major export industries in Asia will be cut off from global trade. Oil market will spike up from bombing of middle eastern oil routes. There will be hyper inflation and currency collapse and economic collapse all around the world. Every other country are going to beg us and china to get on the negotiation table very quickly. We have never had a war in history where the two countries are so economically and financially tied together. Not have we ever had a time when rest of global world is so linked together. Lessons of second world war might as well be thrown out of the window here.

I think the proper lessons maybe drawn from the WWI rather than WWII. before WWI, western countries traded a lot, and none of them really wanted a war, but they got it anyway.

to say Ukraine is irrelevant, doesn't deserve to fight for, and Taiwan is so important, the west must fight to defend, is not very convincing.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Anyone in the neutral audience can check whether my model with extensive citations is reasonable. I welcome anyone to try and refute that model, and I can address any challenges. My conclusion was that even looking at the simplest 1st step of a conflict - standoff weapons against Chinese air defense - in the worst case scenario for China, China can hold. It doesn't even account for even a single attempt at counterattack from the PLAN or PLARF, just air defense, in the worst case scenario.

The issue is that the context is an air-sea attrition campaign lasting months/years. Just like how China can concentrate its superior firepower on weak points in the 1st Island Chain, the US can currently do the same to key targets in mainland China.

But it's not an insurmountable issue. I can think of 3 counters already eg.

1. Declare mainland China off-limits to US attack and subject to a tit-for-tat response against the US homeland, leading all the way up to MAD.
2. China actually increases military spending from its current demilitarised level (1.7% of GDP) to a moderate 2.5%. This significantly accelerates the day when China has a larger naval-air conventional and nuclear military force.
3. China could open up new theatres such as the Korean peninsula, where I think China can win a war of attrition against the USA.
 

foxmulder

Junior Member
I've already addressed all of these points in previous posts.

I understand the idea of China losing a war to the US provokes an uncomfortable response, but it is better to face reality so as to allow for clear sighted future planning than trying to cope with the idea that somehow China has adequate capabilities today.

Three decades ago the PLA was outmatched by the ROC military, and by clearly recognizing it, the PLA was able to develop and procure systems in a clear headed manner such that the situation is now massively reversed.
There is no shame in that.
Same for this.

Blitz you assume too much. I am not even Chinese. I am very much comfortable to discuss and aware where China is weaker.

However, your take on history is very selective. Everyone with basic history knowledge and average reasoning can see tactically speaking Korean and Vietnamese wars are different than a possible over straight confrontation *but* strategically they are the same and they are tons of learnings.

When you think what China and USA can bring to this theater, military balance is not much afar from each other. When you think how long can China and USA sustain a war effort China is favorite with its 1) proximity, 2) production prowess, 3) willingness to accept loses.

USA already lost wars to China. I can easily see it is losing another.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
I think the proper lessons maybe drawn from the WWI rather than WWII. before WWI, western countries traded a lot, and none of them really wanted a war, but they got it anyway.

to say Ukraine is irrelevant, doesn't deserve to fight for, and Taiwan is so important, the west must fight to defend, is not very convincing.
We have never had a time in history where supply chain is so global. Where fuel are so reliant on export. Where the financial market is so complicated that you can destroy another country s economy through malicious trading activity. The ability to sustain a long conflict have so many points of failure. Much more than a century ago. And a sustained large scale conflict between us and china would destroy the entire world also. Regardless of the name, world war one was localized to Europe for the most part.

If we go back to your other point, the difference between Taiwan and Ukraine would be quite large. America has an obligation to defend Taiwan as part of the Taiwan act. It does not have such an obligation for Ukraine. Now if Ukraine was to join NATO, this would be entirely different. Another difference is how America views china and Russia. Russia is viewed as a temporary annoyance from fading power. China is viewed as a long term strategic competitor. Big difference for the dc establishment.
 
Top