PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

solarz said:

China already fought WW2 era US in Korea.

Click to expand...

The Korean war fulfills neither of the two criteria I put forward before:

1. China was not a peer competitor of the US in Korea -- i.e.: the US was not willing to wage total war against the entirety of China as a nation (i.e.: expanding the conflict to Chinese soil), giving China significant logistical advantages and a strategic depth, which would not exist in a contemporary western pacific war where the US sees China as its primary chief peer competitor.

2. The Korean war was not an air-naval conflict, as it was primarily a ground war with some air elements, and one where the US was unable to exploit its air capabilities in the way it would have preferred if Chinese soil were also a target (i.e.: conducting large scale bombing of Chinese staging areas on Chinese soil).


The PVA conducted itself valiantly during the Korean war.

But let's not operate under this belief that the course of the Korean war is in any way useful for how the US would conduct a western pacific air-naval conflict against China today.

solarz said:

Are you saying the PVA was fighting am insurgency in Korea? LMAO!

Click to expand...

I clearly boldened the parts I was specifically responding to.

Korea was an amazing war for China and the only one in which the US actually lost territory to an adversary in conventional conflict as far as I'm aware. But using it as an analogy to the present day, while far more accurate than using insurgencies in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. is still very flawed.

The weapons of war today are multiple generations ahead of what they were in the 1950s, and the quantity of bleeding-edge weapons the US can potentially direct at China is still an order of magnitude larger than vice versa (in terms of the highest capability platforms).

China already fought WW2 era US in Korea.

Click to expand...

He said 'air-naval'. Do you think Chinese intervention in Korea was primarily air-naval?

Bltizo said:

The Korean war fulfills neither of the two criteria I put forward before:

1. China was not a peer competitor of the US in Korea -- i.e.: the US was not willing to wage total war against the entirety of China as a nation (i.e.: expanding the conflict to Chinese soil), giving China significant logistical advantages and a strategic depth, which would not exist in a contemporary western pacific war where the US sees China as its primary chief peer competitor.

2. The Korean war was not an air-naval conflict, as it was primarily a ground war with some air elements, and one where the US was unable to exploit its air capabilities in the way it would have preferred if Chinese soil were also a target (i.e.: conducting large scale bombing of Chinese staging areas on Chinese soil).


The PVA conducted itself valiantly during the Korean war.

But let's not operate under this belief that the course of the Korean war is in any way useful for how the US would conduct a western pacific air-naval conflict against China today.

Click to expand...

1. A war between US and China will absolutely lead to a second Korean War, so this will not just be a naval-air affair.

2. The US didn't refrain from attacking Chinese soil out of magnanimity. In fact, they did bomb some border towns, and MacArthur wanted to nuke China. There's a reason he was fired, and unless you think US leaders have now changed their views on MAD, those same reasons still exist.

solarz said:

1. A war between US and China will absolutely lead to a second Korean War, so this will not just be a naval-air affair.

Click to expand...

How would China having to dedicate large portions of its air-naval forces to Korea actually help? You are spreading an already thin force (when it comes to modern qualitatively equal platforms and weapons) even thinner, and guaranteeing that Korea will join the war too.

2. The US didn't refrain from attacking Chinese soil out of magnanimity. In fact, they did bomb some border towns, and MacArthur wanted to nuke China. There's a reason he was fired, and unless you think US leaders have now changed their views on MAD, those same reasons still exist.

Click to expand...

Whatever the reason, can you break down why you are SO sure that the US will not respond militarily. So sure in fact you are willing to bet all of China on this notion?

sinophilia said:

I clearly boldened the parts I was specifically responding to.

Click to expand...

So what's the relevance? Vietnam and Afghanistan fought insurgencies because they are tiny nations. Korea is what happens when China fights the US.

sinophilia said:

The weapons of war today are multiple generations ahead of what they were in the 1950s, and the quantity of bleeding-edge weapons the US can potentially direct at China is still an order of magnitude larger than vice versa (in terms of the highest capability platforms).

Click to expand...

So what, you think China has been such in the 50s?

If the US has so many bleeding edge weapons, why aren't they putting them with the seventh fleet? If you're so convinced the US is an order of magnitude higher than the PLA, why even entertain the notion of a global redeployment?

solarz said:

And I completely disagree with this position.

China fought the US when it had barely finished uniting the country. It also fought Vietnam when it had just got out of the Cultural Revolution.

China fights when it needs to, not when everything is ready.

Click to expand...

When did I ever say that China shouldn't fight when it needs to?

Obviously if Taiwan declares independence today and it has to invade Taiwan and if the US intervenes, then yes obviously China will fight the US as well, and I expect the PLA to do so to the best of its capability as much as possible.


BUT, I am saying that with the forces the PLA have today are insufficient to prevail against a total war/war of attrition against the US if the US have the resolve to fight one and if the US is capable of redeploying its global forces to the western pacific theater.
Meaning the PLA should be doing two things:
1. If war happens today, then naturally the PLA will prosecute the war as competently and fiercely as they can.
2. The PLA should simultaneously be conducting strategic planning and procurement to have the capability in the future that are able to fight a total war/war of attrition against the US.

solarz said:

1. A war between US and China will absolutely lead to a second Korean War, so this will not just be a naval-air affair.

2. The US didn't refrain from attacking Chinese soil out of magnanimity. In fact, they did bomb some border towns, and MacArthur wanted to nuke China. There's a reason he was fired, and unless you think US leaders have now changed their views on MAD, those same reasons still exist.

Click to expand...

1. The air-naval conflict will still be the primary theater in a war between the US and China. Furthermore, opening a second Korean war will not be beneficial for the PLA either, as such a conflict will sap their overall national air forces available to them, and the US and Korean air and ground forces in Korea are very capable as well. I discussed the prospect of a second Korean war as part of a westpac conflict earlier in this thread with others, and my conclusion now is the same -- starting a second Korean war as part of a high intensity westpac conflict against the US, will likely see the PLA lose the war faster.

2. I'm well aware of the reasons why they didn't bomb Chinese soil, and I described that very point in my previous post. The reason the US was not willing to bomb Chinese soil, and the reason they weren't willing to escalate to MAD, was because the Korean war was not a conflict where they were primarily fighting the peer competitor of the time -- the Soviet Union. However, in a contemporary war between China and the US, I fully expect the US to be willing to use conventional weapons against Chinese soil, as well as be willing to escalate up to the nuclear threshold and trade MAD if necessary. Therefore, it is the PLA's responsibility to be capable of matching US escalation and/or preventing the US from having the capability to strike Chinese soil in the first place.

sinophilia said:

Whatever the reason, can you break down why you are SO sure that the US will not respond militarily. So sure in fact you are willing to bet all of China on this notion?

Click to expand...

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

I said the US does not have the capability or the will to fight a protracted war on China's doorsteps.

I've already told you the reason. All imperialists are paper tigers.

solarz said:

So what's the relevance? Vietnam and Afghanistan fought insurgencies because they are tiny nations. Korea is what happens when China fights the US.

Click to expand...

The relevance is that you brought up Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam, so I responded to those points and critiqued them as being silly.

As I said, Korea is more relevant and less silly, but only in comparison.

If the US has so many bleeding edge weapons, why aren't they putting them with the seventh fleet? If you're so convinced the US is an order of magnitude higher than the PLA, why even entertain the notion of a global redeployment?

Click to expand...

Do you seriously disagree with this point? In all aspects of naval-air platforms and weaponry the US has a large quantitative lead. It doesn't matter if you're bringing up SSNs/SSGNS or CVNs or LHAs/LHDs or large surface platforms like CGs/DDGs or 5th gen combat aircraft or modern ASW platforms etc etc etc.

If you are really thinking that anyone, even most PLA fanboys, disagree with this simple mathematical reality, then you are more delusional than I thought.

The hope is that this quantitative lead is reduced to almost nothing in 15 years. An absolutely massive undertaking but very possible. Check back in 15 years and maybe China can say it's on a near-even footing with the US. That is the hope at least and would mean that in a limited short duration conflict it could easily defeat the US without taking excessive casualties, but even then in a war of attrition setting this would be catastrophic because the US would be able to target Chinese the homeland but China would still be very limited in doing the opposite.

So when China reaches qualitative and quantitative rough parity in 15 years, hopefully it will be forward deploying a moderately sized but reasonably capable percentage of its assets to target the American homeland in the same way that is being done to China now.

Bltizo said:

BUT, I am saying that with the forces the PLA have today are insufficient to prevail against a total war/war of attrition against the US if the US have the resolve to fight one and if the US is capable of redeploying its global forces to the western pacific theater.

Click to expand...

In other words, if the US could magically overcome their systematic dysfunctions and abandon their hegemonic obligations at no cost.

Bltizo said:

1. The air-naval conflict will still be the primary theater in a war between the US and China. Furthermore, opening a second Korean war will not be beneficial for the PLA either, as such a conflict will sap their overall national air forces available to them, and the US and Korean air and ground forces in Korea are very capable as well. I discussed the prospect of a second Korean war as part of a westpac conflict earlier in this thread with others, and my conclusion now is the same -- starting a second Korean war as part of a high intensity westpac conflict against the US, will likely see the PLA lose the war faster.

Click to expand...

US air assets will already be engaged in a Taiwan conflict. They're not going to have additional assets to bring to Korea. That leaves only the SK forces, against the combined PLA and DPRK forces.

solarz said:

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

I said the US does not have the capability or the will to fight a protracted war on China's doorsteps.

I've already told you the reason. All imperialists are paper tigers.

Click to expand...

I think you have a basic competency problem.

Your explanations are so simple and repetitively void of any depth of knowledge or information that I don't think you have much to say on this matter.

Like this snippet after I asked for an explanation of your reasoning:

I said the US does not have the capability or the will to fight a protracted war on China's doorsteps.

Click to expand...

Just another rehash of what I'm asking you to delve deeper into, but you're getting all angry because I do not accept your godly wisdom verbatim lmao..

W - H - Y

You just going to repeat that it's because they can't?