UK and U.S. are culturally linked. They share the same language and many of the same values and customs. China is as culturally and politically distinct from the U.S. as the ancient Celts were from Australian aboriginines.
PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
- Thread starter pugachev_diver
- Start date
UK and U.S. are culturally linked. They share the same language and many of the same values and customs. China is as culturally and politically distinct from the U.S. as the ancient Celts were from Australian aboriginines.
Broccoli
Senior Member
PLA is most likely watching carefully what's going on in Ukraine, either your armor stay close to each other making them vulnerable to cluster munitions, or they'll have a lot of moving room making vulnerable against more sophisticated ATGM's. There are few videos where T-72B3's get hit my RPG in the side but tanks saved by it's ERA.
360 degree APS is a must against enemy with Javelin and NLAW like ATGM's.
360 degree APS is a must against enemy with Javelin and NLAW like ATGM's.
What you cooked up is somehow even labelled, by yourself, a solution is beyond belief. In DXP parlance, something that sounds smart but actually is a fart.
Taiwan in and of itself is not a standalone issue in modern China's political geography. It's part and parcel of entire political existence. Taiwan is 23rd province of China, period and full stop.
If you let one go, what's the point of anybody remaining in the remaining 22, or any other grouping, for that matter. Where will that stop? More blood and treasure will be spilled and spent later on to put everything back on together, and for what? To appease the 20 millions or so confused Taiwanese? On a bigger scheme of things, 20 millions Taiwanese seem a cheap good bargain to expense for a greater good.
Let them pay for what they say they believe in.
supercat
Major
More the internal resilience, the longer the war will drag on, and more people will die. Since war is so horrific, it should absolutely be the last resort. China should avoid an armed conflict over Taiwan unless it's the last option.
According to Work Bank, about 8% of Ukraine's exports goes to Russia and is decreasing year by year, while more than 40% of Taiwan's export goes to China and Hong Kong according to a different source.
As for linguistics, I think both sides practically use the same language across the Taiwan strait.
After this Ukraine crisis, China should speed up their efforts to invade Taiwan.
Taiwan isnt going to slow down with their de-sinicization but go full Azov now. Similiarily, the US will probably violate the One-China Principle even more brazenly and soon put major troops and missiles on that island.
If there was anything bad with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which I totally support, is that it has started the countdown to the Taiwan War as well. China likely does not have 10 years anymore - hell, not even 2-3 years, I argue. The longer we wait for our "perfect carrier group to surround and blockade Taiwan", the worse it will get.
I'd argue that China now really needs to prioritize two things:
1. Mass production of nuclear warheads and missiles, both strategic and tactical - we will need to do it right from the start with shock and awe, which will likely require hundreds of missiles per day.
2. Mass produce amphibious ships. Those new small LCUs we have spotted recently is a good start already - mass produce 100s of them and you can get a division across in one go.
Everything else literally can wait. Yes, that includes the shiny new PLAN carriers, 055s or even J-20s. China probably needs to invade Taiwan with all of its available manpower, setting over with tens of thousand troops per go and occupy the island with a million men.
A good thing now;
Since Russia will be sanctioned and contained, we would at least have the resource and energy security that was always in question before. Maybe even protect us with their nuclear umbrella in case our nuclear deterrence isnt enough.
Russia will keep China's back secure and fuel the Chinese war-machinery, while China needs to launch a campaign that will be entirely gloves off this time.
Taiwan isnt going to slow down with their de-sinicization but go full Azov now. Similiarily, the US will probably violate the One-China Principle even more brazenly and soon put major troops and missiles on that island.
If there was anything bad with Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which I totally support, is that it has started the countdown to the Taiwan War as well. China likely does not have 10 years anymore - hell, not even 2-3 years, I argue. The longer we wait for our "perfect carrier group to surround and blockade Taiwan", the worse it will get.
I'd argue that China now really needs to prioritize two things:
1. Mass production of nuclear warheads and missiles, both strategic and tactical - we will need to do it right from the start with shock and awe, which will likely require hundreds of missiles per day.
2. Mass produce amphibious ships. Those new small LCUs we have spotted recently is a good start already - mass produce 100s of them and you can get a division across in one go.
Everything else literally can wait. Yes, that includes the shiny new PLAN carriers, 055s or even J-20s. China probably needs to invade Taiwan with all of its available manpower, setting over with tens of thousand troops per go and occupy the island with a million men.
A good thing now;
Since Russia will be sanctioned and contained, we would at least have the resource and energy security that was always in question before. Maybe even protect us with their nuclear umbrella in case our nuclear deterrence isnt enough.
Russia will keep China's back secure and fuel the Chinese war-machinery, while China needs to launch a campaign that will be entirely gloves off this time.
us "wumaos" are already reporting for duty /s
US started the Pivot to Asia in 2009 and escalated in 2015 when 60% of USN assets were transferred to the Pacific fleets.
Meanwhile in 2015 Xi Jinping and Ma Yingjeou (Taiwan President) had the first ever CN-TW summit since Mao and Chiang. Hmm. Doesn't sound like things were getting worse up to 2015 does it? Looks to me like up until 2015, East Asia was peaceful and doing fine. And then something changed, I can't quite put my finger on it.
It is precisely this type of western attitude on that twitter post that demands that China build up the ability to face down and defeat 80% of all US forces plus allies in any given confrontation (especially in a war of industrial attrition), cause nothing less will suffice.
Even though I like many of your posts, I would say that many of your ideas (as well as people with like mind) are discussion a level that is way too microscopic in this matter, that if we indulge in it too much, we will lost sight of the grand international social-political reality of our time.
The thing is, post Cold-War international order as well as dynamics are simply more complicated than even our own best academia in the world can adequately envision and conceptualize. This is why we have people as influential as Francis Fukuyama, can be so wrong about the reality of our world.
You guys can ring the alarm bell about these Sino-American confrontation/competition/arms-race as loud as you can, but I just have this hunch that the whole state of things are not incidental and unpredictable. That all of these doesn't really mean much real change in the structure of our global world, at least not as much as we think it does.
Sure the US can put 60% in Asia-Pacific. But this adjustment in the US global military power, in term of relative size, relative capability, most likely will not achieve the goal they are trying to achieve: rebalance of power in Asia-Pacific.
The thing is, post Cold-War international order as well as dynamics are simply more complicated than even our own best academia in the world can adequately envision and conceptualize. This is why we have people as influential as Francis Fukuyama, can be so wrong about the reality of our world.
You guys can ring the alarm bell about these Sino-American confrontation/competition/arms-race as loud as you can, but I just have this hunch that the whole state of things are not incidental and unpredictable. That all of these doesn't really mean much real change in the structure of our global world, at least not as much as we think it does.
Sure the US can put 60% in Asia-Pacific. But this adjustment in the US global military power, in term of relative size, relative capability, most likely will not achieve the goal they are trying to achieve: rebalance of power in Asia-Pacific.
Last edited:
I mean, with 40% to 60% adjustment assigned to Asia-Pacific. Will this actually put Asia-Pacific back to a previous power comparison where the PLAN only has Luda-class destroyers, against USN with 40% of Cold War era carrier groups in Asia-Pacific?
Old times:
PLAN with Luda-class as the most powerful ships, versus USN with forces centers around 3 or 4 American supercarriers (40%USN）
Near Future:
PLAN with forces centered around 3 to 4 carriers/supercarriers, versus USN with 6 to 7 Nimitz/Ford supercarriers (60% USN)
Sure, from the US perspective alone, this seems like a huge change. But in a global perspective, that's hardly a "rebalance". In fact, the US will not be able to go back to the older state of balance (when the PLAN is at their weakest relative to the US in Asia Pacific), even if the USN put 95% of their forces in Asia-Pacific alone.