PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

Geographer said:

China's ace card: a nuclear demonstration. It's the only thing that could win the war quickly without drawing the U.S. into the war. The nuclear bomb could be detonated somewhere off the coast, or high in the atmosphere to have the double effects of intimidation and an EMP. Taiwan's leaders could soon capitulate realizing they face overwhelming firepower and possessed no defense.

Click to expand...

I do not believe a "nuclear demostration" would keep the US out. It would enrage the US citizenry. Just too blatant and menacing.

They would have to have a lightning quick defeat of Taiwan without involving any US forces...and then it would largely depend on the make-up of the US HOuse and Senate, and who was in the White House.

I believe all of those are likely to change significantly in 2012.

In addition, the pro-Taiwan (ROC) lobby is still strong, They would immediately become involved publicizing a relatively weak, free people, who still do a lot of business with America, and who have been considered very frendly to America for decades being bullied into submission by overwhelming force. This would be used to bring America in if at all possible.

All of this must be taken into serious account by PRC and PLAN planners in their strategies for the Taiwan strait.

But, as we consider this directly and its potential for US-China conflict, we are getting off into one of the taboos...so I will stop there and leave it at that.

With the possible involvement of the US in a potential Taiwan Strait conflict, I don't think the US would want to voluntarily get involved simply because fighting so many wars would be economically disastrous. So IF China plans an attack on Taiwan, China will do his best to avoid any meaningful involvement of the US. Let's face it, no one wants to start a WWIII.

With that said, I think the key to any potential conflict between China and the US in the issue of Taiwan is supply, which is in fact THE key in any military conflict. When/if the US attempts to help Taiwan, the US would have to fight a war far away from home, which means the supply is stretched. This is not a problem when fighting someone like iraq when local resources can be obtained quickly by finishing the fighting soon like what we have seen. Also long distance supply can be accomplished without much worries about their enemy attacking the supply line. Fighting a country like China would be a completely different story. First of all, politically, no US elected officials would want to actually invade and occupy China in an effort to help and protect Taiwan. However, complete occupation of China is needed to cut off the supply line. But in reality, what the US would actually do is what they did in the Korean War, i.e. keeping the fighting local and avoid any expansion of the fighting. This would mean that the PLA supply line will be intact and fighting will be long term.

Any potential conflict between China and the US in Taiwan Strait will not be the kind of one-sided fighting we have seen in the last 20-30 years. It will be more like something in the Korean War. Both sides will suffer huge losses. China may lose many battles at the beginning simply because of lack of experience. However, as the conflict prolongs, they will learn from their mistakes and fighting will become more even-sided. So the next question is can the US, politically, sustain this kind of high-intensity long-term fighting against an enemy who is determined to fight and is capable of putting up a fight. In actuality, the US has that kind of economic and military power to pull it off. However, the question is does the political leaders in Washington have the kind of political will to continue the fight. I highly doubt that especially since it would be extremely difficult to justify the fight to the American people about dedicating so much resources and the lives of so many American boys in protecting something that has nothing to do with American interests (at least the interests of average Americans). The American media is complaining about losing 2000 American soldiers in a year in iraq. Imagine what kind of complaint might be if the same number of casualty will be obtained in a week when fighting China. If Washington has been facing enormous pressure in Afghanistan/iraq when fighting has been about avenging the death of thousands of American people, imagine the kind of pressure Washington has to face when fighting will be about Taiwan and of course, will almost definitely be orders of magnitude more ferocious than what we have seen in Mid East.

I don't doubt the economic and military strength of the US, but the key bottle neck in any potential conflict in the Taiwan strait is the political will in Washington. In fact, within the past 50-60 years, we have seen politics compromising the military objectives almost every time when the US fights abroad.

There is also something else I've thinking about. The US touts his enormous experience in fighting battles. Yes, that's true, but mostly fighting someone who cannot fight back. The US has been fighting asymmetrical wars and has lots of experience in it. It's like a heavy weight boxer says he's highly experienced in beating up 6-graders. Let's face it, the last time the US was in a fight against an enemy who actually fought back punch-for-punch was almost 60 years. IMHO, the US military is as inexperienced in fighting a more evenly matched enemy as anyone in the world. So the initial casualty will be high. Again, the question is does the American political leadership have the political will to ride out the initial political storm and allow the US military to learn from their mistakes and mature when the US-Taiwan-China conflict begins with huge casualty and very little justification for that kind of heavy loss.

Jeff Head said:

Pickets? I mean, my friend, really?

The US 7th fleet consists of 50-60 ships and ten seperate Task Forces. (Read up on the seventh fleet and task forces 70-79 and what they represent). If you do, I do not believe you would ever call them "pickets" again.

Click to expand...

Jeff, in your opinion, doesthe 7th fleet, with all its might have the capacity to defeat the entire PLA, by itself? Evenh allowing for the USAF forward deployed elements in Guam?

Those forces, while formidable, are still only a minimum deterrence force, and would require massive re-enforcement's in order to have a realistic chance of defeating someone like China on their home turf.

They are the first response forces there to keep a close eye on American interests and ready to deploy rapidly to counter most, but by no means all threats and challenges. What is wrong with calling that a picket force?

How would you describe it if you don't like that term?

The PRC would have to make a pre-emptive strike on Guam to hope of staving off significant, immediate US air force reinforcements in the area. They would have to defeat the US Navy forces there too.

Air force reinforcemnts within hours, large US Navy aircraft crrier reinforcements beginning the next day.

If the PRC conducted a surprise attack to try and defeat these forces, I can promise you the US would not "stay out of the war," The US has a particular hot streak about surprise attacks and ensuring that whoever perpetrates them are made to pay a very steep and long lasting price so they are not tempted to do it again. I say that simply to let you know the mentality. The best way to ensure that the US will respond in a long lasting and very dedicated mode is to conduct a surprise attack against it.

Click to expand...

Well this may shock you, but I agree 100% with the above.

However, why is it that you are taking a sneaky sneaky 'underhanded' pre-emptive attack as a given?

The Chinese place great emphasis on history, and not just their own. And it would be very unwise to assume that they will make the same mistake Japan made in WWII.

A pre-emptive Chinese attack on places as far away as Guam is also extremely unlikely tob take the US military by much surprise in this day and age now is it?

If the PLA even tried, chances are they will find the US forces ready and waiting anyways, and so would gain almost no advantage in such a move, and they would know that full well.

Now, have you considered what would be the case if China did not obligingly launch this largely pointless (for them) surprise attack and instead waited for the US to fire the first shot?

In such a situation, the very worst thing the US can do is launch into a knee-jerk immediate military attack on Chinese forces when they do not have enough forces in theatre and will be fighting against an equal, if not superior enemy in terms of assets ready to deploy.

The PLA would be expecting, if not secretly hoping for such a foolhardily rash response, and will throw pretty much everything they have at the local US forces, and will get pretty much the same results as if they had launched a pre-emptive attack.

The only difference is that instead of the American public uniting against a 'dastardly and cowordly unprovoked attack', a great many of them are going to be asking why the hell has the US voluntarily walked into this sh!tstorm and just what price this will cost America. Especially since the level of losses the US 7th fleet and forward deployed USAF forces in places like Guam in such a scenario is unlikely to be like anything the US has suffered in a very very long time.

F-22's if not deployed at the time to Guam, can be quickly deployed there in a matter of hours...

Click to expand...

Last I heard, those air bases at Guam are not hardened. All those F22s and tankers would arrive to an airfield in flames if they are lucky, or one still being hammered by cruise and ballistic missiles if they ae not.

The US Armed forces that are fighting in Afghanistan and what remains in Iraq are using completely different fleets and air force groups. For the Navy it is the US Fifth Fleet and Sixth Fleets that are handling those issues (5th-Arabian/Persian and 6th-Mediteranean).

Click to expand...

Well much of those force would be required for the fansical suggestion of the US trying to launch an amphibious assault to invade Taiwan after the PLA has taken it as Spartan suggested.

Anyhow, my point is, that though the US Armed forces are spread out...they are not weak. What they have in the Western Pacific is potent and very strong and staffed with sufficient strength for precisely a contingency for either Taiwan or S. Korea...or both.

Click to expand...

Well my friend, we will have to disagree on some of that. While I agree that the US forces deploeyed in the western pacific are by no stretch of the imagination weak, and should easily be enough to deal with a Korean scenario without needing much additional support, they are not strong enough to handle an all out PLA assault on Taiwan. And trust me, if China does move against Taiwan, they will hold nothing back (except nukes of course, any talk of nukes is plainly absurd as there is only one outcome when you head down that road, and it's not one anyone sane would want to go down).

The US forces are strong enough to not be a push over, and it will cost the PLA dear to engage them. However, neither are the currently forward deployed US forces strong enough to take on the might of the entire PLA without some pretty significant losses of their own.

As I mentioned before, for the US forces to engage the PLA before they can bring enough forces to bare to enjoy a significant advanage will be the worst thing the US military can do, as that is the only likely scenario under which China could win an outright military victory against the US.

If the US launched a knee-jerk attack as soon as the PLA started attacking Taiwan, and the PLA respoused by throwing everything they had at the US and managed to badly maul the US forces in response, there is a very high chance that large parts of the US public and politicans that would turn against the war. Especially if China followed up it's initial military gains with some smart diplomatic and PR moves, such as helping with the rescue of USN personnel from sunk ships and an olive branch to end further hostilities.

At the end of the day, Taiwan is a war of choice for the US, and there is only so much of a blood and monetary price the American public and in turn, politicians are willing to pay for such foreign advantures.

American generals and hawks knows this better than most, that is why if they are smart, they will build up US combat forces as quickly as they can, but will not get in involved with the fighting until they feel that they not only have enough of an advantage to win, but win with the level of losses the AmSri an public has grown accustomed to. And I think we can all agree that the 7th fleet is not close to being that all powerful.

By staying out of it and building up it's forces, the US would force the PLA to fight with one hand tied behind it's back as it would need to hold significant forces ready to counter a US attack that may come at any time while also conduction strikes against Taiwan's defended as quickly as possible so as to take the island before the US has built up enough forces to risk getting involved directly.

For the US, it could possibly build up enough forces to attack with relative safetly, and would be facing a PLA that would be somewhat depleted after using up a lot of ordanance and maybe even taking losses attacking Taiwan. In any case, they would be facing a easier task than if they dived straight in when the PLA was at it's freshes and strongest.

If the worst does come to bare from a US prospective, and the PLA takes Taiwan before they can get enough forces in places, it would be a hell of a less of a climb down compared to if they did get involved and the PLA took the island and managed to inflict heavy losses on the US forces. And it would not matter if the US forces inflicted far worse on the PLA. Just look at Vietnam. How many people remember the details? Not enough to really matter these days.

plawolf said:

Jeff, in your opinion, doesthe 7th fleet, with all its might have the capacity to defeat the entire PLA, by itself? Evenh allowing for the USAF forward deployed elements in Guam?

Click to expand...

The US forces of the 7th fleet and US Air Force assets in the area would be enough, IMHO, to blunt an attack by China against Taiwan. Certainly not enough to defeat China and all of her military...but that is not what they would have to do.

The PLA, PLAN and PLAAF will not and cannot commit all of their forces to that one fight. There are too many other borders to protect and other potential threats and interests that cannot be ignored.

The US would simply have to keep China from gaining air superiority over Taiwan until more and more US forces arrive in theater from the 3rd fleet, and from the US mainland...and I believe, short of a massive pre-emptive attack which disabled Guam and the carrier force of the 7th fleet all at once, that the US would be able to do so.

What you would end up with is a lot of US aircraft from Guam and other bases...even from the US with B-1s and B-2s, several carrier groups (3-4 once the US got its forces arrayed), and a lot of submarines ensuring that the Island was not invaded.

These forces would prevent air superiority being achieved by the PRC and then would engage in a war of attrition against Chinese airbases in the vicinity of Taiwan that were launching strikes against Taiwan. I do not believe however that the US would venture at all onto Chinese soil with personnel...and would only go so deep into the PRC with air attacks, and principally against air bases and launch sites for ballistic missiles.

There would be significant loss on each side.

How it went from there is anybody's guess. Would the US have the will to mantian such a posture for very long? Depends on how the conflict started, the US losses, and the percieved intentions of the PRC by the US public. All of those would play on US staying power and what politicians were willing to keep on with.

Similiar, and probably other circumstances and conditions would play on the PRCs staying power.

I for one hope it never happens, and short of something pushing it to that brink, do not believe it will. I believe two things are taking place that will avoid it.

1) The PRC and its economic influence with Tawian continues to grow. If that continues, economically it will not make since to fight over things the more the PRC influence grows.

2) I do believe that some changes are and will continue to occur with the PRC as regards individual freedom. I believe her people will want more and more of it, and I believe as younger people come into leadership over the years, it will slowly occur. Such a development will remove the perceived issue as the ideological differences lessen, partiicularly as number one happens at the same time.

But those are my own opinions.

Time will tell.

plawolf said:

How would you describe it if you don't like that term?

Click to expand...

It is a strong blocking force. Much, much more capable than a picket,and with a much different role.

It is not a trip wire, it is not a early warning system. It is a force designed to be strong enough to prevent an opposing force from projecting sufficent strength beyond its borders to win the fighte before more US or allied forces arrive in theater.

How does one's degree of "individual freedom" forfeit one's sovereignty is beyond my understanding. or does people believe a "free" china necessarily means a china that will give up pursuit of its core interests? either by removal of capability or intent?

Jeff, there are too many things that the standard line of reasoning does not make any sense.

This global ideological end-of-history nonsense has got to stop.


and...
I am afraid that there are so many people in this world who think they can control through their military might the tide of history, they are playing with forces they barely comprehend here. bad things happen if natural course of things don't run their course. its just bad mojo. it isn't bad now because some other people understand these forces and they have restraint. but there will be consequences eventually. just like california will always have earth quake and mighty colorado river will always cut through the grand canyon.

Jeff Head said:

I do not believe a "nuclear demostration" would keep the US out. It would enrage the US citizenry. Just too blatant and menacing.

They would have to have a lightning quick defeat of Taiwan without involving any US forces...and then it would largely depend on the make-up of the US HOuse and Senate, and who was in the White House.

I believe all of those are likely to change significantly in 2012.

In addition, the pro-Taiwan (ROC) lobby is still strong, They would immediately become involved publicizing a relatively weak, free people, who still do a lot of business with America, and who have been considered very frendly to America for decades being bullied into submission by overwhelming force. This would be used to bring America in if at all possible.

All of this must be taken into serious account by PRC and PLAN planners in their strategies for the Taiwan strait.

But, as we consider this directly and its potential for US-China conflict, we are getting off into one of the taboos...so I will stop there and leave it at that.

Click to expand...

Yea for some reason I can imagine a notepad document on the desktop of those western media's computers that says "vocabs to use for a story about china invading taiwan", and in which will contain words from genocides to war crimes to rape to cannibalism..

Anyways, while US have the conventional military power, I still doubt all the branches other than the USN's abilities when the war is in WPTO which involves PRC. USMC is very unlikely to have a happy field day in E.Asia as it did in the other wars, while USAF will be dealing with a lot of hassles and annoyance from the PLAAF towards their AWACS and refuelling. Ground war will not be in US favor, so the only clear and strong advantage will be the USN. The naval battles will send a lot of ships to the bottom, especially the Chinese side, but I don't think that will conclude the conflict; it's quite likely the 2nd Artillery will be deployed with their ASBMs. Either way, huge loss, huge escalations, but none of it is worth it. If anything that China will fight till the last breath for and involving an entire mobilization from resources to utilizing various leverages which includes economical, it will be territory and Taiwan, so even if US are really to be the last one standing, America will find itself guts spilling, arteries spraying.

i.e. said:

How does one's degree of "individual freedom" forfeit one's sovereignty is beyond my understanding. or does people believe a "free" china necessarily means a china that will give up pursuit of its core interests? either by removal of capability or intent?

Jeff, there are too many things that the standard line of reasoning does not make any sense.

This global ideological end-of-history nonsense has got to stop.


and...
I am afraid that there are so many people in this world who think they can control through their military might the tide of history, they are playing with forces they barely comprehend here. bad things happen if natural course of things don't run their course. its just bad mojo. it isn't bad now because some other people understand these forces and they have restraint. but there will be consequences eventually. just like california will always have earth quake and mighty colorado river will always cut through the grand canyon.

Click to expand...

I'm glad I'm not the only one who do NOT buy into that Francis Fukuyama theory. History is a continuous time clock that repeats itself with different hours but in similar cycles. One just can't ignore history. Yes it's hard and boring (depending on the person) delving into all those data and events but yet it's a lot more important than rhetoric.

Equation said:

I'm glad I'm not the only one who do NOT buy into that Francis Fukuyama theory. History is a continuous time clock that repeats itself with different hours but in similar cycles. One just can't ignore history. Yes it's hard and boring (depending on the person) delving into all those data and events but yet it's a lot more important than rhetoric.

Click to expand...

When's the last time any one of us ignored history and got away with it successfully?
In regards to the history comment, I sometimes think time is rewinding itself. US reminds me of a modern Roman Empire, while China reminds me of Han; both share much similar traits in many aspects, which is also a warning light for both nations of where their fate lies.

Equation said:

I'm glad I'm not the only one who do NOT buy into that Francis Fukuyama theory. History is a continuous time clock that repeats itself with different hours but in similar cycles. One just can't ignore history. Yes it's hard and boring (depending on the person) delving into all those data and events but yet it's a lot more important than rhetoric.

Click to expand...

Fukuyama's stuff is just a convient collection of western ideological underpinnings.

the whole point is what I call WLD (or Western, Liberal, Democracies model) is the final and highest form of human civilization, the final cumulative stage of development in human history. the rational is that since this is IT. then whatever we do to achieve this is justifiable and we are on the "right side of history" and 'them' are on the wrong side. "them" being any state or non-state actors that challenges this view.

well.

I am sorry to extremely skeptical because long time ago a very smart man name Karl who did some analysis on working conditions in Manchester mills in height of industrial revolution claimed the same thing about Communism.

regardless the success of his theories. what I see today is actually the failures of WLDs to deliver the basic material goods to vast majority of poor people in this world. instead we have a very antithesis of WLD model pulled a nation sized 1/5 of humanity out from a failed state to almost a superpower, by being precisely non-ideological and results focused. Not only that, WLD ideological models still fails to confront some of the biggest existential challenges the humanity faces today: climate change. and its partly responsible for getting this world into a manufactured financial depression, that may well finally forfeit the leadership west has enjoyed since onset of industrial revolution.

sorry to be ranty, but I think we need to look at the big picture before we make standard assumptions about alot of things.

airsuperiority said:

When's the last time any one of us ignored history and got away with it successfully?
In regards to the history comment, I sometimes think time is rewinding itself. US reminds me of a modern Roman Empire, while China reminds me of Han; both share much similar traits in many aspects, which is also a warning light for both nations of where their fate lies.

Click to expand...

You're right, but there are some very few exceptions, like say Alexander the Great, Kublai Khan (Yuan dynasty) and Hannibal Barca of Carthage are the few successful conqueror that can afford to ignore history for awhile before their fate sets in. One can even put in Napoleon Bonaparte as these guys demonstrated great military command and improvisations in battle to beat the odds in their favor.