PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

FriedButter said:

So it’s a “potential risk” but not a real risk. After the coups attempt in Belarus and Kazakhstan you think the West won’t try something? You are asking what the west can offer and the answer is right there. Freedom from China. What did the West offer the Ukraine. Freedom from Russia. Also Independence agreement do not mean anything once they an internationally recognized as an independent nation. What are you going to do? Take it away?



You have provided no answer to any guarantees to China national security, discard any national security risk that foreign powers can exploit as “potential risk,” and now you hope that future Chinese generation will “eventually let go” to avoid the risk of civil war.



You are avoiding them. Your answer to a risk of civil war is based on the hopes that it will never happen.

Click to expand...

@OppositeDay is naively deluding yourself to think that such a plan is going to be honored by non existing rules abiding countries. What you proposed is nothing but an emotional reaction to the Russia VS Ukraine war that's unfolding not to mention that because you don't want to potentially rock and inconvenience the "comfortable lifestyles" of your family and friends which is honestly understandable. But we as Chinese can't and must not exchange our national sovereignity for some notion of risk free lifestyle or to set aside our core principle to satisfy worries of our cowardly inclinations.

9dashline said:

It is one thing if you were to be advocating maintaining the existing status quo (the one that up to now has more or less been in place for good part of almost 70 years etc) basically indefinitely, to keep sustaining that sort of strategic balance and ambiguity where China doesn't take any kinetic action and Taiwan doesn't cross any red lines in terms of official independence...

I think Chinese government would be okay with not doing an unprovoked kinetic strike in terms of pre-emptive unification by force if that same status quo and balance was maintained more or less into the future in perpetuity. But in order for that to happen, Taiwan has to be likewise constrained in its own words and actions and is responsible for its own part in maintaining that balance and that ambiguity... So if Taiwan wants to keep status quo, then by and through its actions and words or lack thereof it can maintain that continuous status quo and likewise the PRC can reciprocate in kind.

But this is not what is happening here in recent times. It is Taiwan that is taking actions to cross the red line, and to upend the status quo and to pervert the balance that had held together more or less for 70 years. Your proposal including #2 of "Beijing acknowledge Taiwanese independence" is entirely breaking with status quo in a bona fide manner going against Shanghai Communiqué, and if Beijing is forced to deal with a situation in which status quo will be irreparably broken to and by no fault of mainland China itself, then it should break it in its favor, and resolve the civil war once and for good just like any modern superpower would resolve an internal dispute.

You are asking China, the regional if not soon to be world hegemon, to make the ultimate compromise in sovereignty by "acknowledging" so-called "Taiwanese independence" and would even go so far as to allow Taiwan to rejoin the UN, all because Taiwan itself unilaterally made changes in the status quo towards crossing the red line and destabilizing the balance that had held the status quo together for so many decades. This completely goes counter to the reality and dictates of hard power, and is against the grain of nature. Not going to happen

The crux of the matter is this is an unequal compromise and one that the CPC would never accept. Your proposal is backwards/lopsided... instead of granting Taiwan independence and then having it promise it would never switch to the US side (your wording was "Taiwan becomes permanently neutral".) it should be Taiwan agrees to formally be reunified with China and officially acknowledge it is now part of China and that China gives Taiwan certain reassurances instead.

Click to expand...

A superpower should have no problem with keeping an small nearby island country which is economically dependent on it from violating a fundamental agreement to which the island country owes its existence.

Compared to the status quo, all China loses in the deal I proposed is de jure sovereignty. But how much does de jure sovereignty matter? Will China's de jure sovereignty prevent the West from intervening on behalf of Taiwan, either militarily or economically? Does it stop Western politicians from comparing Taiwan to Ukraine? No and no. It only matters at the UN and ultimately, even UN doesn't matter for P5 countries. Legality doesn't matter for superpowers. It doesn't matter much even for great powers. No major country outside the US alliance sanctioned Russia.

The biggest drawback I see from the hypothetical deal (if honored by both sides) is military, i.e. it's much better to have naval bases on the Taiwan Island than on Penghu and Lanyu.

FriedButter said:

Either way I am not replying further since this is going beyond the topic at hand.

Also because reality is clearly not going down that path due to the ever increasing global issues at play.

Click to expand...

Agree it's somewhat off-topic, however I think it's a worthwhile discussion to have. Can mods move this discussion to a new topic please? Something like "Negotiated Independence as a Solution to the Taiwan Problem"?

InfamousMeow said:

That is totally different from my observation. I talked to my family and friends too, not all of them are pro-government Chinese citizens, but they all think war is acceptable if it comes to the stage when reunification by force is necessary. The general trend that I see is that the general populace is more pro-government, more left-leaning? (if by left you mean paying more attention to equality on a societal scale), and less patient with Taiwan's status of de-facto independence. This phenomenon, I think, is driven by the coming of age of the more confident younger generations who, generally, have the above characteristics. I just don't understand why "sometime down the road people will be ready to let go".

What is more confusing is your correlation between shifting to "civic nationalism" and "Taiwanese seen as fundamentally un-Chinese". Why would that be the case??? In what way will Chinese think of Taiwanese as un-Chinese. They write Chinese characters as we do, they speak mandarin just as we do, they even hold some old-school Chinese traditions that mainland Chinese regard as superstitions. If Chinese people are insistent on Hong Kong and Macau being of Chinese sovereignty, why wouldn't Taiwan be? HK people speak Cantonese, are completely brainwashed by western ideology, and write some f.cked-up version, joking :>, of Chinese character because Cantonese is just so different from Mandarin.

Even if we look at the Chinese government's official stance on Taiwan issue, China, just in recent years, passed a law outlawing the independence of Taiwan, giving the government explicit legal right and responsibility to reunify China (specifically Taiwan). The constitution requires reunification, even the currently pushed narrative- the great rejuvenation of China, is officially in tandem with the reunification of Taiwan.

If you listen to a popular podcast on bilibili, two frequent guests/hosts of the podcast are working in some sort of intelligence agencies of China, and they almost explicitly hinted that there is a deadline for reunification, and that deadline wasn't moved forward or later even with the current situation in Ukraine.

So, for both the Chinese populace and Chinese government, I can only see a trajectory towards not away from reunification of Taiwan, by force or not.

Click to expand...

Because of "DEMOCRACY" such lunacy I tell ya

OppositeDay said:

A superpower should have no problem with keeping an small nearby island country which is economically dependent on it from violating a fundamental agreement to which the island

Click to expand...

Don't throw meaningless terms around. The only way to force any independent political entity to do your bidding is through force, superpower or not.

OppositeDay said:

A superpower should have no problem with keeping an small nearby island country which is economically dependent on it from violating a fundamental agreement to which the island country owes its existence.

Compared to the status quo, all China loses in the deal I proposed is de jure sovereignty. But how much does de jure sovereignty matter? Will China's de jure sovereignty prevent the West from intervening on behalf of Taiwan, either militarily or economically? Does it stop Western politicians from comparing Taiwan to Ukraine? No and no. It only matters at the UN and ultimately, even UN doesn't matter for P5 countries. Legality doesn't matter for superpowers. It doesn't matter much even for great powers. No major country outside the US alliance sanctioned Russia.

The biggest drawback I see from the hypothetical deal (if honored by both sides) is military, i.e. it's much better to have naval bases on the Taiwan Island than on Penghu and Lanyu.



Agree it's somewhat off-topic, however I think it's a worthwhile discussion to have. Can mods move this discussion to a new topic please? Something like "Negotiated Independence as a Solution to the Taiwan Problem"?

Click to expand...

An analysis cannot be complete without of course the 800-pound gorilla in the room and that is the United States. When I mentioned the differential balance of power dynamic between PRC and TW earlier of course it doesn't exist in a vacuum and the geopolitical reality is that the US (as the current global hegemon) has an "vested interest" in maintaining its global hegemony and its current position in the Asia Pacific.

Someone else made mention of the "ticking time bomb" of allowing Taiwan independence, and one only has to look at the Hong Kong situation to see that more than 180 years later after China signed away the region and ceded sovereignty, even after reunification since 1997, the time bomb still blew off in 2019 and to this day causes immense geopolitical issues for China on the world stage...

Recall one of the terms of the agreement that the US in opening up with China during the Nixon approachment was the Shanghai Communiqué in which the United States repeatedly affirmed to China that there was but only one China and that Taiwan was part of that China. As a result of this understanding and agreement, the United States benefitted from over 40 years of trade with China but now after it extracted all the benefits and harvested China's sweat and labor it then retroactively dishonored its end of the agreement and in fact reneges on the One China policy.

All it takes is a quick look at recent events (the Russia Ukraine crisis) and its apparent that it is the modus operandi of the United States to renege on its agreements (for example that there would be no NATO expansion etc) after the fact.

This strategic ambiguity and balance of status quo that has held together for nearly 7 decades is now being perverted by the United States in conjunction and conspiracy with the unduly influenced "elected officials" in provincial Taiwan. It is Taiwan, with the urging of the United States, that seek to change not only the status quo but also to renege on the One China policy/agreement altogether. For the United States its abundantly clear the motivation is to use Taiwan (and Taiwanese independence) towards the strategic geopolitical means of containment and erasure of mainland China, with the US itself clearly having stated that it views China as the single most greatest existential threat to US hegemony in Asia and globally. Given the motive, intent and the established history and pattern of the United States exploiting agreements with others, it’s clear to any reasonable person that the United States will push to Ukraine-nize any so-called Independent Taiwan including but not limited to stationing troops, military bases, strategic nukes (to create a Chinese Cuban missile crisis) and bioweapons facilities etc etc etc

Look no further than the Huawei and TSMC situation/incident and its clear as day that the United States indeed has already exploited the Taiwan situation to pit brother against brother in order to attack China's right to peaceful development and advancement. One can only imagine the new perversities that will inevitably and invariably ensue if Taiwan was ever allowed to become independent. There is no doubt that an independent Taiwan would create a full blown Ukraine crisis for China down the road. Whatever America's interest are in Asia, it cannot come at the expense of China's own internal territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Chinese state. (I suppose America can choose to fight a war against China and if China lost then Taiwan would become the new Hong Kong etc but that is outside the scope of this discussion)

As one moderator said, America may even use it as a beachhead to attack and launch an invasion of Chinese mainland down the road, and as another moderator so ardently argued, China would not currently be able to win such a prolonged war of attrition if the US choose to bring the fight to China's doorstep.

So this is a matter of not only sovereignty but also one of national security and indeed a grave matter of existential survival of the Chinese state and civilization itself. China must be prepared to defend this at all costs, up to and including the ultimate cost (MAD).

Thinking about it a little bit more, the US response to the conflict in Ukraine might not be a positive indicator towards what the US response to a Taiwan contingency might look like, but open up the potential for a new problem.

If it doesn't impact the mid-terms, the conflict in Ukraine will certainly impact the presidential election. If the Republican candidate wins, response to a crisis that threatens a democratic country will be seen as vital in their domestic political considerations. The debate on Taiwan in the US has been mixed so far, but this could be enough to tip the balance in favor of intervention when the actual shooting starts and people are (or will allegedly be) dying.

A historical example that might validate my theory is the state of the Russian attitude towards NATO following the 1999 bombings in Yugoslavia. The lack of Russian action on their periphery was not an indicator of Russian impotence, it triggered the chain of events that lead to the current conflict.

This isn't an inevitable outcome, however. There are some things China could do to discourage and prevent foreign intervention post-Ukraine-

1. "Formally" announce the expansion of China's nuclear arsenal. The exact number is secret, but if simple PR releases are not viable, there are ways to leak the size without actually leaking it. A Ministry of Foreign Affairs fact sheet from 2004 states China "has the smallest nuclear arsenal", which would imply less than 200 (the British nuclear arsenal at the time). China could quietly state somewhere that they have the 3rd or 4th or whatever largest nuclear arsenal which could indicate size to other countries "officially" without compromising the exact number. Eventually, the PLA will probably need to announce the activation of the new ICBM units anyways, so the cat will be out of the bag- there is no way China could keep its arsenal at such low levels while expanding its ICBM force to such an extent. But a direct announcement would go a long way in breaking the widespread belief that China's arsenal poses little to no threat to the US*.

2. Make a warning to other countries not to intervene when announcing the beginning of PLA operations, threatening a massive response but not using the "consequences you have never seen before in your history" type language, so as not to contradict China's no first use policy.

These two things would have a pretty good likelihood of keeping foreign intervention at bay; politicians in Japan, the US, and Australia accused of turning their back could merely take advantage of strategic ambiguity and claim they had no need to defend Taiwan due to the lack of a treaty obligation.

*This will be extremely important. During Biden's first press conference during the day following the beginning of the conflict, he specifically mentioned nuclear weapons as a reason why NATO intervention was completely off the table. Unfortunately, from what I can tell, many believe that a) the Chinese nuclear arsenal is small and insignificant or b) the Chinese nuclear arsenal is small and ABM can completely deal with it. Mere speculation regarding silo construction has not seemed to help the situation, from what I can gather from this forum, and looking at US political and think tank discussion on the subject of intervention.

The second thing would also be very important. Current discussion around intervention seems to focus upon a massive Chinese first strike which kills many Americans and Japanese. If this doesn't come, there will be a strong movement, especially in Japan (where despite its best attempts, the LDP has been unable to quell widespread pacifist sentiment), to not intervene. Regardless of the social media reaction, Americans are not up for another war according to polling regarding Ukraine. A similar situation could be expected if the "Red Dragon/Panda Bear/whatever" doesn't actually attack US forces as predicted.

OppositeDay said:

My terms for a Taiwan solution.
1. Beijing takes all Taiwan's offshore islands, including Penghu, Lanyu and Green Island.
2. Beijing acknowledge Taiwanese independence and Taiwan joins the UN.
3. Taiwanese recognition of Diaoyu Islands as Chinese territory.
4. Taiwan becomes permanently neutral.
5. Taiwan are required to share any intelligence received from any third country with China and not allowed to share any intelligence to any third country without Chinese approval.
6. Taiwan is not allowed to receive or host any third country military equipment without Chinese approval.
7. All terms above passed as a constitutional amendment.

Click to expand...

You are a terrible negotiator. If you are going to negotiate China's core interests, atleast demand a better bargain!

None of this neutrality for RoT bullshit, at minimum require that PRC and RoT sign a 10,000 year blood brother formal alliance and mutual defense treaty (+bases and troops station) in exchange for sparing it from war and dejure independence.

That way, we can have our own 'Han-club' 2-Eyes, like the Anglo-club 5-Eyes. RoT can assume the position of little btch UK role, completing with top hat and spectacle befitting of English Vegetable. So this way, China gains allies and derives benefits, not merely giving up claims for almost nothing in return.

Phead128 said:

None of this neutrality for RoT bullshit, at minimum require that PRC and RoT sign a 10,000 year blood brother formal alliance and mutual defense treaty (+bases and troops station) in exchange for sparing it from war and dejure independence.

That way, we can have our own 'Han-club' 2-Eyes, like the Anglo-club 5-Eyes. RoT can assume the position of little btch UK role, completing with top hat and spectacle befitting of English Vegetable. So this way, China gains allies and derives benefits, not merely giving up claims for almost nothing in return.

Click to expand...

What China could go for with Taiwan is like a US/Canada relationship. There will be fights, but extremely integrated economy and defense. There will be no formal declaration of independence, but Taiwan will be allowed to join some organisations. More importantly, China needs to be able to have large naval bases in Taiwan and carry out the collected air defense like NORAD. This would probably be the most likely acceptable settlement for more than 50% of Taiwanese population. I imagine they would only accept this type of settlement if they feel they have no chance in lasting more than a couple of days in an invasion. This would involved no real change in the everyday lives of Taiwanese people except greater integration with the Mainland.

Also, China should start talking to Singapore for stronger relationship. China has the greatest resource that Singapore needs. That is Han Chinese people. The entire Singapore governing philosophy revolves around the need for having Han Chinese majority. There is no place in the world that favors Han Chinese as much as Singapore. Singapore has always depended on the West due to its goal of being the main financial hub of Asia. It's military has always favored US military import and relationship because that's the only place it can get the latest hardware it needs to defend itself from much larger land forces of Malaysia. As China's military industrial complex continues to improve, it will be able to provide stuff that Singapore military would need in the future.

If we really want to talk about a counter to 5-eyes, you have to start with countries that have large Chinese populations.

tphuang said:

Also, China should start talking to Singapore for stronger relationship. China has the greatest resource that Singapore needs. That is Han Chinese people. The entire Singapore governing philosophy revolves around the need for having Han Chinese majority. There is no place in the world that favors Han Chinese as much as Singapore. Singapore has always depended on the West due to its goal of being the main financial hub of Asia. It's military has always favored US military import and relationship because that's the only place it can get the latest hardware it needs to defend itself from much larger land forces of Malaysia. As China's military industrial complex continues to improve, it will be able to provide stuff that Singapore military would need in the future.

Click to expand...

Forget about Singapore. They are bananas. They may look yellow on the outside, but they are white inside. They also have significant Indian representation in their government. Very doubtful that they will want to be any part of a Han Chinese 5 eyes club.

As for Taiwan, I have serious doubts on the feasibility of any US/Canada arrangement or 10,000 year blood brother formal alliance. The reunification of the motherland is burnt into the psyche of all Han Chinese. 100 years of humiliation has to be avenged. Taiwan will be reunified with the motherland, peacefully or otherwise.

OppositeDay said:

I posted something similar before and got some hate for it, but I will do it again. I prefer a negotiated independence over a war of reunification. Last few days I was talking to family and friends about Ukraine and Taiwan, and none of them wanted a war.

Right now China needs to build up its military (especially its nuclear arsenal) to deter the West from waging total economic war on China (i.e. total chips ban). Try something crazy and China will take Taiwan and nobody will have semiconductor for the next decade (especially if South Korea is also drawn to the war). Taiwan is China's human shield. But after China has its own independent semiconductor supply chain I think a peaceful settlement with Taiwan would be good. Taiwan's core industry, semiconductor, is by all indication about to hit a wall called the law of physics (and the law of diminishing economic returns), and its closed allies all want a slice of the pie too.

Taiwan is also not sprouting any industry of the future. It has the second lowest TFR after South Korea. It has a rapidly decreasing population without any potential for increased level of education to compensate. This, along with RCEP, is going to collapse Taiwan's non-semiconductor industries. War is just too inherently risky for an island with such a blank future.

I don't care if Taiwanese think they are Chinese or not. China will overtake Taiwan in GDP per capita, in cultural influence, and in basically everything. The future of Taiwan will be Poland to China's Germany. Taiwanese with ambition will have to work on the mainland.

And for the emotional closure to China's Hundred Years of Humiliation? Take it out on Japan. Outcompete the Japanese on every industry they have (other than pornography) and deindustrialize their country. Take it out on Europe. Have a permanent naval presence in the Atlantic and demand a seat on every discussion on European security. Take it out on the U.S. Tell them that if they ever dare to bomb another country of the Global South again China is prepared to sanction them. Dropping bombs on Taiwan gives me zero satisfaction.

My terms for a Taiwan solution.
1. Beijing takes all Taiwan's offshore islands, including Penghu, Lanyu and Green Island.
2. Beijing acknowledge Taiwanese independence and Taiwan joins the UN.
3. Taiwanese recognition of Diaoyu Islands as Chinese territory.
4. Taiwan becomes permanently neutral.
5. Taiwan are required to share any intelligence received from any third country with China and not allowed to share any intelligence to any third country without Chinese approval.
6. Taiwan is not allowed to receive or host any third country military equipment without Chinese approval.
7. All terms above passed as a constitutional amendment.

Click to expand...

FriedButter said:

You speak as if it is absolute. When USSR imploded, they were left with only promises where NATO took full advantage to where we are today. How much guarantee are you able to provide that Taiwan wont leap and host an US base whenever if China ever faces severe issues?

Taiwan isn’t simply about semiconductors but about national security. In exchange for your independence, CCP will face legitimacy issues where it could easily turn into a full blown civil war. What guarantees do you have the West won’t immediate fan the flames of civil war if they give independence?

Your option only puts China national security at greater risk because you want to do what is morally right but not what is necessary for a nation. The Americans will seize the opportunity when it presents itself just as they have in Ukraine. The world is not black and white. Neither will the Americans play by the rules even if you are strong.

Click to expand...

This proposal is a morally repugnant Taiwan Independence fantasy born out of ignorance and lazy slave mentality which lays the groundwork for enslavement of not just people in the ROC/Taiwan but also in the PRC/China. For the PRC/China this would be a self-defeating regressive way to appease proven existential threats from Western ideological prejudice, abuse, and greed. Colonized nipponization is strong in this one.