You don't admit things you don't want to in official reports, you admit things you don't want to as Freudian slips during tense situations.
PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
- Thread starter pugachev_diver
- Start date
You don't admit things you don't want to in official reports, you admit things you don't want to as Freudian slips during tense situations.
As I suspected huh
Let me preface this with saying I’ve never met anyone in the ROC military, but others on the forum have, so maybe they have more insight.
There is a weird existential issue with the ROC military.
You are pledging to defend a country that the DPP claims does not exist. Now the DPP doesn't not always hold the power, but right now they do.
I saw one interview with a pilot and he specifically referred to PLAAF jets as "Communist Fighters (Jets)" instead of "Chinese Fighters" as English media would commonly use. To me, this is a very conscious choice of words. This is anecdotal, and perhaps even just an isolated case, but at the very least it is an issue on some people's minds.
If I am Taiwanese independence supporter, then why would I join the Chinese military? This is what ROC military literally is.
There is a weird existential issue with the ROC military.
You are pledging to defend a country that the DPP claims does not exist. Now the DPP doesn't not always hold the power, but right now they do.
I saw one interview with a pilot and he specifically referred to PLAAF jets as "Communist Fighters (Jets)" instead of "Chinese Fighters" as English media would commonly use. To me, this is a very conscious choice of words. This is anecdotal, and perhaps even just an isolated case, but at the very least it is an issue on some people's minds.
If I am Taiwanese independence supporter, then why would I join the Chinese military? This is what ROC military literally is.
To be honest the 共匪 (Communist bandits) moniker is just a holdover from the past. As long as the ROC still consider itself the legitmate government for all of China it can't actually call PLA the 'Chinese' army, as the ROCA considers itself the proper Chinese army. Both sides does it too. PRC never calls the Taiwan government 'Republic of China' either, but the term 'Taiwan regime' (台湾当局).
Taiwan, Japan are all failing to meet their recruitment targets.
WSJ published an article on the morale problem last year.
They probably think they can intercept the DF-21 with Aegis BMD. But the thing is we don't know how the warhead of the DF-21 is. So I think they are being overly optimistic. If you look at how even the Iranians have maneuverable warheads I doubt Chinese anti-ship missiles are simple ballistic ones. Maybe latest variant of Aegis currently in development by US and Japan would be more successful at intercepting it but I would not assume Aegis is 100% reliable against this weapon.
This shows the failure of their propaganda efforts (if they even tried) to rile up the population against the "threat of China". Taiwanese these days are more prosperous and have more opportunity than in the past, why would you join a military for low wages and a chance to die in combat? I recall reading that even US is having trouble recruiting enough people, and had to resort to enticing poor high school kids a chance to get into college and tricking some into the military.
Hi everyone. I'm a white American here who is curious about Chinese culture and military strategy. Recently, I read by scholar Harlan Ullman arguing that the PLA is unable to take Taiwan given its current capacity, nor will they be in the foreseeable future. I'll quote the relevant part of in full,
The three-to-one ratio apparently refers to a common ratio taught in military schools. The author explains,
I'm curious what people here have to say about this article. I asked a friend who knew more about PLA strategy and they said something like "simple ratios are totally obsolete in modern warfare." But I never went to a military academy, so I'm completely clueless here.
The three-to-one ratio apparently refers to a common ratio taught in military schools. The author explains,
I'm curious what people here have to say about this article. I asked a friend who knew more about PLA strategy and they said something like "simple ratios are totally obsolete in modern warfare." But I never went to a military academy, so I'm completely clueless here.
They are not ready at the moment for what I would call a "clean invasion". Which means, an invasion they can accomplish quickly before US or other countries can intervene. So, there is no reason for them to try it unless Taiwan brazenly just crosses the well established red line. By the end of this decade, they should have enough capability to accomplish a short, successful invasion. However, they might find the economic and financial hit to be too large. By 2035, they probably will have enough capacity to do a short invasion + be strong enough economically/technologically to deal with the inevitable sanctions. But in general, I don't see any reason for them to rush into this. The cross-strait balance of power has been shifting to the mainland side for 30 years and will only be more overwhelming in favor of mainland as time progresses. I think at some point, Taiwan will simply face so much pressure that they will accept some form of alliance or unification with the mainland. It's hard to say what that will look like.
Where did you get 450,000 from? The true number of active are closer to 150,000
Your friend is right. Not all soldiers are the same, in particular in modern wars. If lucky enough, a crew of 6 PLA soldiers operating the 370mm MLRS could completely wipe out an enemy battalion all once.
The US did not have this 3-to-1 ratio when it was attacking Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Russia does not have 3-to-1 in Ukraine either.
This scholar seems to have the mindset of "human wave attacks". PLA generals would be smiling in dreams if the secessionists took this guy's advice to crowd all their potential 450000 defense force on the coast lines of the island.