whatever really happened in Jan of 2021, Ambassador Clark's plane was already in the air when the Chinese Ministry of Defense made a call via direct link of the emergency hotline, and resulted in the trip being cancelled. Pompeio cancelled all other diplomatic trips as an excuse. This is a fact, in response to whatever specific threat made by China. Expect the same thing this time around. Pelosi is a lot higher profile and her trip is already making way more waves, hitting all the major news outlets. Furthermore, she is set to travel to other countries along the way, making margin for error much lower.
PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
- Thread starter pugachev_diver
- Start date
They've lost their minds. This isn't salami slicing, it's robbing the entire sausage factory. Unless we want to start WW3, one party is going to have to back down, and it won't be pretty either way.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
You cannot reference anything pressing China is neglecting in its defence modernisation and build up; don’t seem to care about actual real world results and seem to just want more for the sake of bragging rights of oh look at my huge defence spending! China can be spending 10% GDP on defence to achieve exactly the same results and you will only be asking for more more more! That’s exactly the kind of mistake that saw America get less and less despite spending more and more every year since the Cold War.
What matters is results, not just how much you spend. If you only care about how much you spend, well you will just spend more and get less.
Also, you and I clearly have fundamentally different views on what ‘winning’ means. When I talk about winning, it’s winning the war, not just battles or even campaigns. Right now, China can easily take Taiwan, and maybe also shatter the second island chain to provide a buffer and deep protection for Taiwan and China’s heartlands. But America will come out of the war with its homeland relatively untouched if they can resist gong nuclear. That means that the Americans absolutely can come back for seconds after they have rebuilt their forces, they may choose not to, but they can if they want. That’s not decisive enough of a victory to actively seek out.
Conventional or even nuclear total victory is not attainable for either China or America due to nukes. The only way one or the other can win a decisive victory is if the other crumbles and collapses internally, as the USSR did. This is why America is so obsessed with trying to create internal divisions and strife within China.
But America far ahead of China on such a self destructive path, and China would have to be an idiot to gift American leaders the pressing foreign menace they so desperately crave as a means to rally their citizens to put aside their domestic differences to focus on defeating their common enemy.
No, this would be impossible. Pelosi landing in China with armed forces escorting her to coordinate a civil war against Beijing, it'd be like Putin (or Shoigu) landing in Donbass to speak with LDPR troops back in early February. How do you think Ukraine would have responded? Actually, it is even worse because Ukraine isn't nuclear backed. Its like Putin sending troops into Lithuania.
A precedence has already been set, if US sends what amounts to a special military operation against Taiwan, China must first do anything to prevent the US plane from entering Chinese airspace, including shooting it down.
If America would escalate after that, they can only blame themselves, they flew into Chinese territory without permission. The US would also shoot down Chinese bombers and CAP if they overflew Hawaii and refused to turn back after repeated warnings.
The only recklessness is from the US side, thinking they can invade another nuclear power's core territory. The American population is to blame for electing such a strongly revisionist and aggressive government. Unless you tell me there is no democracy in America, in that case, it is the people's responsibility to overthrow Biden before he ends the world with his retarded expansionist agendas.
Last edited:
This isn't like Putin visiting Donbass. The history of Donbass is a little fuzzy, and there are scholarly debates on whether it is actually part of Ukraine or Russia.
This is like Putin arming Native Americans in Alaska.
No, more like going with troops into Lithuania to "support" Kaliningrad.
China and America signed a pact that declares an attack on Taiwan is the same as an attack on the mainland. Just like an attack on Lithuania would be treated as no different than an attack on US mainland. Yes, Lithuania is technically a sovereign nation while Taiwan province is a part of the Republic, making it akin to Hawaii or Guam in legal status, but Lithuania is not really a sovereign nation de facto anyways.
Yet, Biden regime seemingly wants to test this principle. Its extremely foolish, we can just hope its Pelosi herself being a loose cannon and that Biden can get his own government under control.
To be honest, given the negative attention around her due to corruption, and from what we know about Biden being a weak puppet president with no control, the chances that Pelosi took action herself are pretty high.
I already gave the example of insufficient numbers of J-20s and nuclear missiles, and insufficient quantities of advanced materiel in general. I advocated that China accomplish this through expanding the production capacity of its military-industrial complex. Try reading what I wrote.
You think it's possible that China could spend an order of magnitude more on defense and still wind up with the same results? You have a neuralgia against even the slightest increase that I worry is replicated in the Chinese leadership. Again I'll ask you to respond to the argument I'm actually making - I'm not asking that China spend 10% or 20% or 150% of GDP. I advocate, very simply, a gradual increase over a period of at least 5-10 years from the present 1.4% to 2%-3%.
Instead of talking in circles, let me put some numbers to this so we can see exactly what's required and whether it would be excessively burdensome. I'll tabulate the annual percentage increase in the military budget in real terms to get to that share of GDP and I'll assume the economy grows 5.5% per annum in real terms over the relevant period.
| Share of GDP/Amortization period | 2% of GDP | 2.5% of GDP | 3% of GDP |
5 years | 13.3% | 18.5% | 22.9% |
10 years | 9.3% | 11.8% | 13.9% |
I understand the concept of diminishing returns. In addition to engaging with the arguments I actually make, I'd ask that you be less patronizing. China needs a lot of results, including but not limited to and in order of decreasing importance:
- Thousands of strategic nuclear warheads.
- Thousands of tactical nuclear warheads.
- 100+ advanced nuclear submarines.
- Hundreds of VLO long range bombers.
- Thousands of tactical ballistic missiles of medium-to-intermediate range.
- 10+ nuclear aircraft carriers + escorts + airwing.
- Thousands of 5th/6th generation fighters.
⋮
I think it would be helpful if I explicitly stated what I consider to be China's war aims in a conflict with the US:
- The complete destruction of all US capacity to wage war in the Pacific and any capacity to impose blockades on China or otherwise damage Chinese interests through military action anywhere in the world.
- The abolition of all US defense relationships in the Pacific and regime change in hostile countries like Japan and Australia.
- The seizure of all US island holdings in the Pacific, including Guam and Hawaii.
- The accomplishment of the above with Chinese forces suffering minimal losses.
The menace is already pressing and they're already trying to rally now and failing. What makes you think they'll be any more successful if Chinese defense spending goes up as a share of GDP?
Last edited:
neither side is backing down this time.... Better take your PTO now