PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

ZeEa5KPul · Jul 25, 2022

plawolf said:
You are getting way too fixated on a number. Instead look at what is actually happening on the ground and tell me where China is not closing the gap to the US militarily or even pulling ahead.

That's easy: quantitatively. Consider how many F-35s America produces each year vs. how many J-20s China produces, to take one example. China absolutely needs to expand its nuclear arsenal by an order of magnitude in a few years, that alone is going to take a significant amount of money.

plawolf said:
As a counter example, look at Ukraine and the ridiculous waste happening when you just blindly throw mountains of money at a problem and actually expect that money to magic armies out of thin air overnight. The real world doesn’t work like that.

I don't advise that defense spending be doubled in a single year or anything like that - yes, all that would accomplish is an inflationary shock. However, that doesn't mean the budget can't be increased over a longer period (5+ years) under careful supervision to ensure that the money goes where it should.

plawolf said:
And that’s pretty much as fast as something as vast as the PLA can growth without wasting too much.

That argument might have been decisive when Chinese growth rates were at double digits and China's technology was backward enough that all it needed was R&D. If you're developing a jet engine and need to test it for 10,000 hours, you can't build 5 prototypes and test each for 2,000 hours, so more money doesn't get more results because the limiting factor there is time. However, China has reached a technological level where it needs to pump out mass, and that is directly proportional to how much money is spent; more money = more J-20s.

Furthermore, China's growth has modulated from its ludicrously high levels in prior decades. To be sure, it's going to be several times higher than growth in the West for many decades to come, but it's still not high enough that everything can be funded to maximal capacity without thinking about any compromises.

plawolf said:
And that’s just the official figure, if you don’t think China has significant defence spending squirrelled away under other budgets than I got a bridge in Africa to sell you.

The people who look into that sort of thing estimate the "total" budget at 1.7% (down from 1.9%), so even taking everything under the sun remotely related to military spending, it's still below the 2% NATO minimum.

plawolf said:
If China put its actual defence spending in its white paper, it will absolutely cause the Americans to loose their shit and kick start a new Cold War and arms race. Why give them that clarify when a little ‘creative accounting’ on where certain projects gets their funding can help to keep the Americans complacent and more focused on fighting their ideological enemies at home?

If China put the phrase "Our intention is the conquest and subjugation of the United States and ending its existence as a political entity" in its constitution, it would be lucky to stay in the American news cycle for more than 24 hours. Nothing is going to distract Americans from fighting domestic political enemies, not China, not an asteroid hurtling toward Earth, nothing. America is terminally dysfunctional.

The gain from increasing the defense budget far outweighs any galvanizing effect it might have on Americans. And hey, if I'm wrong and Americans do try to race China, let them. China will race them into the ground.

plawolf · Jul 25, 2022

ZeEa5KPul said:
That's easy: quantitatively. Consider how many F-35s America produces each year vs. how many J-20s China produces, to take one example. China absolutely needs to expand its nuclear arsenal by an order of magnitude in a few years, that alone is going to take a significant amount of money.

You miss how CAC has transferred J10 lines to Guizhou and expanding production capacity to focus on pumping out more J20s? How about all the (East) Wind farms being built in central China? Or the new massive nuclear submarine production facility being built at huludao? Everything you asked for and more are already being worked on as fast as possible. And all of that has been ongoing for years, all on the ‘1.4%’ defence spending! Pray tell what’s actually being neglected that vastly increasing the defence spending will fix?

ZeEa5KPul said:
I don't advise that defense spending be doubled in a single year or anything like that - yes, all that would accomplish is an inflationary shock. However, that doesn't mean the budget can't be increased over a longer period (5+ years) under careful supervision to ensure that the money goes where it should.

Again, look at what has been going on and tell me how they can go faster.

ZeEa5KPul said:
That argument might have been decisive when Chinese growth rates were at double digits and China's technology was backward enough that all it needed was R&D. If you're developing a jet engine and need to test it for 10,000 hours, you can't build 5 prototypes and test each for 2,000 hours, so more money doesn't get more results because the limiting factor there is time. However, China has reached a technological level where it needs to pump out mass, and that is directly proportional to how much money is spent; more money = more J-20s.

Yeah that’s not how mass production works. You have peak production capacity for a given factory. You have some ramp-up capacity beyond normal peacetime levels before you need a whole new factory.

That takes years to build and train the expanded workforce you need to run the factory. In the meantime, throwing more into the project gets you no more useful output. And with military equipment, specially high-end weapons, you also need to consider the entire supply chain for all the sub-components, as very little of what you need are commercially available and you reply on a small number of important subcontractors for those key and irreplaceable components. a bottlenecks at any one of the key suppliers can see lines of planes waiting at the factor unable to do anything. Just ask SAC and it’s J11s on how frustrating that can be.

ZeEa5KPul said:
Furthermore, China's growth has modulated from its ludicrously high levels in prior decades. To be sure, it's going to be several times higher than growth in the West for many decades to come, but it's still not high enough that everything can be funded to maximal capacity without thinking about any compromises.

The people who look into that sort of thing estimate the "total" budget at 1.7% (down from 1.9%), so even taking everything under the sun remotely related to military spending, it's still below the 2% NATO minimum.

Again, stop fixating on a number and look what that defence spending is buying. So what if NATO is spending 2%? Are they getting 18% more of anything than China’s 1.7%?

ZeEa5KPul said:
If China put the phrase "Our intention is the conquest and subjugation of the United States and ending its existence as a political entity" in its constitution, it would be lucky to stay in the American news cycle for more than 24 hours. Nothing is going to distract Americans from fighting domestic political enemies, not China, not an asteroid hurtling toward Earth, nothing. America is terminally dysfunctional.

The gain from increasing the defense budget far outweighs any galvanizing effect it might have on Americans. And hey, if I'm wrong and Americans do try to race China, let them. China will race them into the ground.

Sorry but that is just being plain silly and not worth wasting my time debunking something that is patently nonsense.

ZeEa5KPul · Jul 25, 2022

plawolf said:
Pray tell what’s actually being neglected that vastly increasing the defence spending will fix?

Nothing is being "neglected", only that more of it can be build. CAC transferring J-10s is good, what would be better is building new J-20 production lines.

plawolf said:
Yeah that’s not how mass production works. You have peak production capacity for a given factory. You have some ramp-up capacity beyond normal peacetime levels before you need a whole new factory.

Yeah, I want the money for whole new factories. A lot of whole new factories.

plawolf said:
That takes years to build and train the expanded workforce you need to run the factory.

Which is why the sooner this gets started, the better.

plawolf said:
Again, stop fixating on a number and look what that defence spending is buying. So what if NATO is spending 2%? Are they getting 18% more of anything than China’s 1.7%?

Just because they're failures doesn't make an expansion of China's defense spending unsound.

plawolf said:
Sorry but that is just being plain silly and not worth wasting my time debunking something that is patently nonsense.

What's silly is the irrational fear that China will end up like the Soviet Union if it lifts its defense spending up from the pitifully low level it is now. America is in no fiscal position to keep up with any increases from China; they already spend 3.5% and it's largely wasted. Inflation is borderline double digit by their own reporting and that's going to eat into any increases even further than the usual corruption.

Do you think Americans have these conversations among themselves? I've yet to hear an American congressperson worry about what China will do if the American defense budget is increased. Biting your nails and knocking your knees over what your opponent will do is no way to think about these issues.

Biscuits · Jul 25, 2022

plawolf said:
You miss how CAC has transferred J10 lines to Guizhou and expanding production capacity to focus on pumping out more J20s? How about all the (East) Wind farms being built in central China? Or the new massive nuclear submarine production facility being built at huludao? Everything you asked for and more are already being worked on as fast as possible. And all of that has been ongoing for years, all on the ‘1.4%’ defence spending! Pray tell what’s actually being neglected that vastly increasing the defence spending will fix?

Again, look at what has been going on and tell me how they can go faster.

Yeah that’s not how mass production works. You have peak production capacity for a given factory. You have some ramp-up capacity beyond normal peacetime levels before you need a whole new factory.

That takes years to build and train the expanded workforce you need to run the factory. In the meantime, throwing more into the project gets you no more useful output. And with military equipment, specially high-end weapons, you also need to consider the entire supply chain for all the sub-components, as very little of what you need are commercially available and you reply on a small number of important subcontractors for those key and irreplaceable components. a bottlenecks at any one of the key suppliers can see lines of planes waiting at the factor unable to do anything. Just ask SAC and it’s J11s on how frustrating that can be.

Again, stop fixating on a number and look what that defence spending is buying. So what if NATO is spending 2%? Are they getting 18% more of anything than China’s 1.7%?

Sorry but that is just being plain silly and not worth wasting my time debunking something that is patently nonsense.

China could still construct more factories. Wars aren't won mostly by technology, they're mostly won by numbers. And in amount of troops and ships, NATO is far larger, because they have been engaged in high military spending buildup, while China has not built up to the same extent due to having a far less aggressive leadership.

In the long term, China must greatly increase not just technology but numbers. Even if we assume 1 Chinese AAW destroyer is worth 3 American ones, if there's more than 3 American ones for every Chinese one, it will embolden the US leadership to go to war.

Regarding what the defense budget gets, its true that there is much less corruption in the Chinese system, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be increased.

Conflicts are best deterred by overwhelming force. Most people would not dispute that China can defend against an US invasion of Taiwan Island, but what about beyond Taiwan? And is the superiority of the PLA so great that a conflict is completely hopeless for America? Likely not because otherwise they wouldn't be engaging in dangerous brinkmanship, even if the military regime opposes it.

plawolf · Jul 25, 2022

Biscuits said:
China could still construct more factories. Wars aren't won mostly by technology, they're mostly won by numbers. And in amount of troops and ships, NATO is far larger, because they have been engaged in high military spending buildup, while China has not built up to the same extent due to having a far less aggressive leadership.

In the long term, China must greatly increase not just technology but numbers. Even if we assume 1 Chinese AAW destroyer is worth 3 American ones, if there's more than 3 American ones for every Chinese one, it will embolden the US leadership to go to war.

Regarding what the defense budget gets, its true that there is much less corruption in the Chinese system, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be increased.

Conflicts are best deterred by overwhelming force. Most people would not dispute that China can defend against an US invasion of Taiwan Island, but what about beyond Taiwan? And is the superiority of the PLA so great that a conflict is completely hopeless for America? Likely not because otherwise they wouldn't be engaging in dangerous brinkmanship, even if the military regime opposes it.

Do I really need to reference people to how the Cold War went down and why going nuts with wartime arms buildup during peacetime is not a great idea?

Also, something people do not seem to understand is that a core reason for why the US and NATO are not getting remotely as much value for money as China on their defence spending is because of maintenance costs on all their legacy systems and bases from the Cold War days build up.

If you absolutely want to go to war at a set time in the future, then it makes sense to go full tilt with arms purchases to serve that goal. But such a move will be impossible to hide and will trigger corresponding ramp up of arms production by the opfor and you have your classic arms race.

China has absolutely adjusted its defence spending and combat preparedness in response to US provocations and build ups in recent years; but that is still geared towards deterring war rather than trying to outright win it. The reasoning for such a choice is very straightforward.

Time is on China’s side, the further into the future a real clash is deferred, the more overwhelming China’s advantages.

The other side of the coin is that unless and until someone develops a hard counter to nukes, too much build up of conventional forces is rather irrelevant if the other side is willing to go nuclear to stop your forces from going past a certain line in the sand.

Chinese nuclear build up will serve to dissuade US nuclear brinksmanship and blackmail, but only up to a point. Paradoxically, the more China catches up and even leads the US conventionally, the more the US would be prepared to resort to nuclear blackmail and brinksmanship as a means of nullifying that Chinese conventional military advantage, much like how they did with the Soviets during the Cold War despite both sides holding sufficient nukes to MAD the world many times over. This, more than anything is the main reason why there is simply no point for China to go nuts with conventional military procurement. Because the more you invest in your conventional forces, the more attractive you make US nuclear blackmail and even tactical use. That’s something no amount of second strike nukes can mitigate as the Soviet experience demonstrated.

ZeEa5KPul · Jul 25, 2022

plawolf said:
Do I really need to reference people to how the Cold War went down and why going nuts with wartime arms buildup during peacetime is not a great idea?

Yes, you do, because I fail to see how 2.5% of GDP spent on defense is "going nuts".

plawolf said:
Also, something people do not seem to understand is that a core reason for why the US and NATO are not getting remotely as much value for money as China on their defence spending is because of maintenance costs on all their legacy systems and bases from the Cold War days build up.

That's just part of their stupidity. They should trash legacy systems and spend the money on new ones, but they're too dumb and/or politically dysfunctional to do so. Sucks to be them, but what do they and their failures have to do with China?

plawolf said:
China has absolutely adjusted its defence spending and combat preparedness in response to US provocations and build ups in recent years; but that is still geared towards deterring war rather than trying to outright win it. The reasoning for such a choice is very straightforward.

Time is on China’s side, the further into the future a real clash is deferred, the more overwhelming China’s advantages.

This is deeply misguided thinking. If you're not planning on winning a war then you're going to lose it. If you're going to lose it, you're not deterring it.

It doesn't matter how much time is on China's side, it's not going to get where it needs to be militarily on 1.4%. The US is willing to raise its spending far past its current level and will do so to compensate for China's increasing economic size - what's China's response to that?

plawolf said:
This, more than anything is the main reason why there is simply no point for China to go nuts with conventional military procurement. Because the more you invest in your conventional forces, the more attractive you make US nuclear blackmail and even tactical use. That’s something no amount of second strike nukes can mitigate as the Soviet experience demonstrated.

Building up China's nuclear arsenal to parity with the US is part of the reason I advocate increased spending, I consider that the highest immediate priority. No one is saying China should build up conventional forces at the expense of strategic deterrence.

Biscuits · Jul 25, 2022

plawolf said:
Do I really need to reference people to how the Cold War went down and why going nuts with wartime arms buildup during peacetime is not a great idea?

Also, something people do not seem to understand is that a core reason for why the US and NATO are not getting remotely as much value for money as China on their defence spending is because of maintenance costs on all their legacy systems and bases from the Cold War days build up.

If you absolutely want to go to war at a set time in the future, then it makes sense to go full tilt with arms purchases to serve that goal. But such a move will be impossible to hide and will trigger corresponding ramp up of arms production by the opfor and you have your classic arms race.

China has absolutely adjusted its defence spending and combat preparedness in response to US provocations and build ups in recent years; but that is still geared towards deterring war rather than trying to outright win it. The reasoning for such a choice is very straightforward.

Time is on China’s side, the further into the future a real clash is deferred, the more overwhelming China’s advantages.

The other side of the coin is that unless and until someone develops a hard counter to nukes, too much build up of conventional forces is rather irrelevant if the other side is willing to go nuclear to stop your forces from going past a certain line in the sand.

Chinese nuclear build up will serve to dissuade US nuclear brinksmanship and blackmail, but only up to a point. Paradoxically, the more China catches up and even leads the US conventionally, the more the US would be prepared to resort to nuclear blackmail and brinksmanship as a means of nullifying that Chinese conventional military advantage, much like how they did with the Soviets during the Cold War despite both sides holding sufficient nukes to MAD the world many times over. This, more than anything is the main reason why there is simply no point for China to go nuts with conventional military procurement. Because the more you invest in your conventional forces, the more attractive you make US nuclear blackmail and even tactical use. That’s something no amount of second strike nukes can mitigate as the Soviet experience demonstrated.

Except like 2 or 2.5% spending will not cause stress to the economy. If US wants to go into an arms race, they will be the ones having to bloat the budget even more, not to mention they start out with smaller economy.

Arms race in nuclear is expensive, if the goal is to get America to bankrupt itself through arms spending, then it wouldnt be an issue.

Suetham · Jul 25, 2022

escobar said:
US sending carrier for CAP

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1551105911414210560

If it is true that this option as a viable alternative for Pelosi to land in Taiwan means that the US really wants to change the status quo of the past, the problem is that this can trigger many variables that the biggest one implies an all-out war between China and US.

Well, I agree that China should not respond by taking the downing of Pelosi's plane as a measure, that would mean an eventual US intervention, either directly or indirectly, with all the viable options they have and I don't say that just in the military options , but also beyond that. The implementation of the No-Fly Zone would inevitably be a war against Taiwan, because all ROCAF jets would also have to be shot down, which I see no point in this unprecedented escalation, nor do I see such recklessness coming from the Chinese political leadership.

This news, if indeed the option the US is willing to go for, means that the PLAN/PLAAF option to respond on a large scale could lead to unintended results that would be dangerous and would set precedents for further escalation towards a war.

I think the PLA would really react strongly against Pelosi's plane landing in Taiwan, the problem is that I don't see her downing her plane as an alternative that can be considered by Chinese politicians.

A large scale exercise would be the most viable option, this exercise should take place not before Pelosi's plane lands in Taiwan, but after landing, depending on how many days she stays in Taiwan, the PLA should send dozens of aircraft into ADIZ. from Taiwan in protest of Pelosi's visit to Taiwan, the sound of jets around Taiwan - a small island, I have no doubt that she hears the jets passing by at some point which would cause certain apprehensions in her, the same thing took place in Kiev when Scholz and Macron were with Zelensky at an open-air conference and they heard a boom from the sky, I don't forget the photo showing their terrified reaction. Surely this would send a signal to the American political leadership.

Even if the US sends aircraft or a CSG to CAP as a way to protect Pelosi's plane, they cannot prevent the PLAN/PLAAF from carrying out exercises in Taiwan's ADIZ which also includes part of China, the same situation as the US response form. China is worth it here because Taiwan's jets would have to take off. This option being considered by the US to carry out CAP, I have no doubt that the PLA's response would be exactly a large-scale exercise because China always reacts in the same proportion.

It is worth remembering here a recent incident as a form of response from China, when the U-2 was caught spying on the PLAN naval exercise in the Yellow Sea in 2020 in the month of August, China fired ASBMs in the South China Sea sinking a ship . China always responds in kind, if it is sanctioned, China sanctions it, if opponents carry out some military maneuver in the South China Sea, China reacts in the same proportion, this happened in 2020 with the firing of ASBMs.

9dashline · Jul 25, 2022

Suetham said:
If it is true that this option as a viable alternative for Pelosi to land in Taiwan means that the US really wants to change the status quo of the past, the problem is that this can trigger many variables that the biggest one implies an all-out war between China and US.

Well, I agree that China should not respond by taking the downing of Pelosi's plane as a measure, that would mean an eventual US intervention, either directly or indirectly, with all the viable options they have and I don't say that just in the military options , but also beyond that. The implementation of the No-Fly Zone would inevitably be a war against Taiwan, because all ROCAF jets would also have to be shot down, which I see no point in this unprecedented escalation, nor do I see such recklessness coming from the Chinese political leadership.

This news, if indeed the option the US is willing to go for, means that the PLAN/PLAAF option to respond on a large scale could lead to unintended results that would be dangerous and would set precedents for further escalation towards a war.

I think the PLA would really react strongly against Pelosi's plane landing in Taiwan, the problem is that I don't see her downing her plane as an alternative that can be considered by Chinese politicians.

A large scale exercise would be the most viable option, this exercise should take place not before Pelosi's plane lands in Taiwan, but after landing, depending on how many days she stays in Taiwan, the PLA should send dozens of aircraft into ADIZ. from Taiwan in protest of Pelosi's visit to Taiwan, the sound of jets around Taiwan - a small island, I have no doubt that she hears the jets passing by at some point which would cause certain apprehensions in her, the same thing took place in Kiev when Scholz and Macron were with Zelensky at an open-air conference and they heard a boom from the sky, I don't forget the photo showing their terrified reaction. Surely this would send a signal to the American political leadership.

Even if the US sends aircraft or a CSG to CAP as a way to protect Pelosi's plane, they cannot prevent the PLAN/PLAAF from carrying out exercises in Taiwan's ADIZ which also includes part of China, the same situation as the US response form. China is worth it here because Taiwan's jets would have to take off. This option being considered by the US to carry out CAP, I have no doubt that the PLA's response would be exactly a large-scale exercise because China always reacts in the same proportion.

It is worth remembering here a recent incident as a form of response from China, when the U-2 was caught spying on the PLAN naval exercise in the Yellow Sea in 2020 in the month of August, China fired ASBMs in the South China Sea sinking a ship . China always responds in kind, if it is sanctioned, China sanctions it, if opponents carry out some military maneuver in the South China Sea, China reacts in the same proportion, this happened in 2020 with the firing of ASBMs.

So the US has decided then ...

2022 started with Russia taking back Ukraine and will end with China taking back Taiwan

For those of you in the West, go eat at your favorite PF Changs or Panda Express one last time cause pretty soon even fortune cookies will be banned..

Whatever you wanna buy best do it now, get ready for 200% inflation soon

FairAndUnbiased · Jul 25, 2022

Suetham said:
If it is true that this option as a viable alternative for Pelosi to land in Taiwan means that the US really wants to change the status quo of the past, the problem is that this can trigger many variables that the biggest one implies an all-out war between China and US.

Well, I agree that China should not respond by taking the downing of Pelosi's plane as a measure, that would mean an eventual US intervention, either directly or indirectly, with all the viable options they have and I don't say that just in the military options , but also beyond that. The implementation of the No-Fly Zone would inevitably be a war against Taiwan, because all ROCAF jets would also have to be shot down, which I see no point in this unprecedented escalation, nor do I see such recklessness coming from the Chinese political leadership.

This news, if indeed the option the US is willing to go for, means that the PLAN/PLAAF option to respond on a large scale could lead to unintended results that would be dangerous and would set precedents for further escalation towards a war.

I think the PLA would really react strongly against Pelosi's plane landing in Taiwan, the problem is that I don't see her downing her plane as an alternative that can be considered by Chinese politicians.

A large scale exercise would be the most viable option, this exercise should take place not before Pelosi's plane lands in Taiwan, but after landing, depending on how many days she stays in Taiwan, the PLA should send dozens of aircraft into ADIZ. from Taiwan in protest of Pelosi's visit to Taiwan, the sound of jets around Taiwan - a small island, I have no doubt that she hears the jets passing by at some point which would cause certain apprehensions in her, the same thing took place in Kiev when Scholz and Macron were with Zelensky at an open-air conference and they heard a boom from the sky, I don't forget the photo showing their terrified reaction. Surely this would send a signal to the American political leadership.

Even if the US sends aircraft or a CSG to CAP as a way to protect Pelosi's plane, they cannot prevent the PLAN/PLAAF from carrying out exercises in Taiwan's ADIZ which also includes part of China, the same situation as the US response form. China is worth it here because Taiwan's jets would have to take off. This option being considered by the US to carry out CAP, I have no doubt that the PLA's response would be exactly a large-scale exercise because China always reacts in the same proportion.

It is worth remembering here a recent incident as a form of response from China, when the U-2 was caught spying on the PLAN naval exercise in the Yellow Sea in 2020 in the month of August, China fired ASBMs in the South China Sea sinking a ship . China always responds in kind, if it is sanctioned, China sanctions it, if opponents carry out some military maneuver in the South China Sea, China reacts in the same proportion, this happened in 2020 with the firing of ASBMs.

Still not proportional. Dropping flares into their engines, forcing their plane away with close flying and jamming their navigation systems are proportional to the act of flying.

If she lands, further escalation can be done diplomatically at that point: diplomatic visit to Russia, Donbass, North Korea, arms sales to Donbass and North Korea, selling semiconductor equipment and machine tools to Russia, sanctions on Pelosi and her husband personally, etc.

PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel

plawolf

Lieutenant General

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel

Biscuits

Major

plawolf

Lieutenant General

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel

Biscuits

Major

Suetham

Senior Member

9dashline

Captain

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier