PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

Mr T said:

The PLA also has to think about a post-unification landscape. Is it really worth having bases on Taiwan if the population is hostile? That would require significant resources required to suppress the population, especially as there are no Chinese peasants/migrants there to give a loyal base of support. It wouldn't even be possible to have the levels of freedom that exist in Hong Kong, it would have to be run more like China (maybe even like in Xinjiang).

The strategy should be one of co-existance and of maintaining permanent good relations with Taiwan by removing the military threat to the island. Then there's no threat of "containment" because it's a win-win situation for both China and Taiwan. Ok, you don't get the bases either, but it's still better than where things are now. And with aircraft carriers on the way for China, it will be able to project power even more than it can now.

Click to expand...

True, but look at America's military base in Okinawa, Japan. It works out well strategically, but at the cost of some locals concerns for safety and violations of their customs and laws. You will always have some locals against an existence of a foreign military base, (which is very understandable) but the pay off for the long term defense is at least advantageous.

I don't think there would be too many Chinese from Taiwan be protesting against the PLA troops stationing in Taiwan. They're both came from the same ethnic race, yes differ in politics, but the tension are not as thick like in Okinawa or even sometimes South Korea.

Removing the military threat is almost impossible unfortunately for the locals, because it sits in such at an advantageous avenues of approach that no military could ignore it. Still, I hope the continuing dialogue will resolve these issues and I do wish honestly that Taiwan someday reunite with the mainland as a whole peacefully. Enough of this drama already.

Drastic turn of the thread, when we finally found out that legally, no one occupy Taiwan, without Chinese govt (be it PRC or ROC) agrees.

Sometimes I think, it is the heavy handed "I think so", that clounded some of the simplest things on earth. - I would pissed, if I am an American, and Canadian govt told me that it have the right to occupy Washington D.C., because a war made it entiltle for it.

Jeff, I have no personal feud with you, but I wish you can FEEL it, feel the wrong-ness, of arrogance.

Equation said:

True, but look at America's military base in Okinawa, Japan. It works out well strategically, but at the cost of some locals concerns for safety and violations of their customs and laws.

Click to expand...

Okinawa is a small island, part of a country of 127 million+ people. Taiwan is the whole country, minus a few small tiny islands. If Taiwanese object to Chinese bases, you can't rely on a remote government with a much larger electorate to keep them open. And there is no benefit to Taiwan in having Chinese bases there because China is Taiwan's only military threat. There is, however, every reason to object to them because Chinese bases would make it easier for China to control Taiwan and back-track on any agreements on autonomy.

Also, how would these bases fit in with Taiwanese freedoms? The US is still officially in Japan by Japanese invitation. If Tokyo said in definite terms the US had to leave, the US would have to leave even if it took many months to do so. What happened if a Taiwanese government was elected and said the Chinese bases had to close? If China really allows Taiwan to have a free, democratic government it would have to agree to that. But I have a feeling that it wouldn't, and I'm sure most Taiwanese would oppose bases for that reason.

Removing the military threat is almost impossible unfortunately for the locals, because it sits in such at an advantageous avenues of approach that no military could ignore it.

Click to expand...

If China wants to cohabit with other countries peacefully, it needs to learn not to want to gobble up every "strategic" island or piece of territory, regardless of what the people living there want.

Red___Sword said:

Drastic turn of the thread, when we finally found out that legally, no one occupy Taiwan, without Chinese govt (be it PRC or ROC) agrees.

Click to expand...

I do not think we have necessarily found that out. There are communiques...but there is no treaty. Until there is a treaty, I believe the legal question is still in dispute.

I do not believe there will be a treay until such time as both the people on TAiwan (the ROC) and the mainland Chinese come to a peaceful settlement...which has been the US position for some time.

Now, that is simply the legaleze part of the equation and will not be the determining factor in any case. What the two groups of agree to...and what they do...will be the determining factors. And that is still being worked out.

Red___Sword said:

Sometimes I think, it is the heavy handed "I think so", that clounded some of the simplest things on earth. - Jeff, I have no personal feud with you, but I wish you can FEEL it, feel the wrong-ness, of arrogance.

Click to expand...

No offense taken. I do not believe "arrogance" has entered into this discussion. IMHO, that is all perception. It could equally be pointed out that the arrogance you believe applies to the US handling of the issue from the mainland standpoint, could equally be applied to how the people on the ilsand view the mainland's demands. ie. "You are a part of us no matter what you want or believe...and not matter that for the last 60 years you have operated apart." So, it is best to not even bring those types of emotional arguemnts, at least in my opinion, on to the table.

How we "feel" about these issues, on either side, is not going to be the determining factor in the end. It will be what the two sides agree to and what they do.

Right now, I believe things are moving towards a peaceful resolution, agreed to by all sides. Let's hope and pray it continues that way. I believe it can.

Mr T said:

And there is no benefit to Taiwan in having Chinese bases there because China is Taiwan's only military threat. There is, however, every reason to object to them because Chinese bases would make it easier for China to control Taiwan and back-track on any agreements on autonomy.

Click to expand...

Japan is a threat to Taiwan too. They claim Diaoyu tai as their and drive out Taiwan fishermen in that area, prompting ROC navy to assemble their stongest fleet to demonstrate their claim on that area.

Mr T said:

If China wants to cohabit with other countries peacefully, it needs to learn not to want to gobble up every "strategic" island or piece of territory, regardless of what the people living there want.

Click to expand...

Korea also has dispute with Japan over island issue.. Malaysia and Indonesia also needly clash over territories dispute recently over few island. Taiwan also claim Diaoyu Tai over with Japan which is same stand as China against Japan.. How do you know historically, those island do not belong to China? So Korea clashed with Japan with those island, tell me who is the aggressor? Taiwan also clashed with Japan over Diaoyu Tai, who is the aggressor? Tell me? Seems you are so sure..

Thailand also fought with Cambodia over land issue recently. Who grab who's land. Tell me??? Who is the aggressor?

Mr T said:

Okinawa is a small island, part of a country of 127 million+ people. Taiwan is the whole country, minus a few small tiny islands. If Taiwanese object to Chinese bases, you can't rely on a remote government with a much larger electorate to keep them open. And there is no benefit to Taiwan in having Chinese bases there because China is Taiwan's only military threat. There is, however, every reason to object to them because Chinese bases would make it easier for China to control Taiwan and back-track on any agreements on autonomy.

Also, how would these bases fit in with Taiwanese freedoms? The US is still officially in Japan by Japanese invitation. If Tokyo said in definite terms the US had to leave, the US would have to leave even if it took many months to do so. What happened if a Taiwanese government was elected and said the Chinese bases had to close? If China really allows Taiwan to have a free, democratic government it would have to agree to that. But I have a feeling that it wouldn't, and I'm sure most Taiwanese would oppose bases for that reason.



If China wants to cohabit with other countries peacefully, it needs to learn not to want to gobble up every "strategic" island or piece of territory, regardless of what the people living there want.

Click to expand...

Re Okinawa: A previous Japanese government wanted to remove the Futenma base from the island instead of moving it to another site. The problem was solved by changing the Japanese government. The people of Okinawa were not protected.

It is depend on how the re-unification occurs. In the event of peaceful re-unification, I wouldn't be too surprised it if it's more less like the status quo. Where Taiwan keep's it's ROCA, ROCN and ROCAF as an regional military force, though probably in vastly reduced form. And it's the only military presence on the island. (Maybe a special military region?) While PLA's military assets current facing Taiwan will probably move on to Indian or Vietnamese border. (I just can't see PLA throwing stuff away)

luhai said:

It is depend on how the re-unification occurs. In the event of peaceful re-unification, I wouldn't be too surprised it if it's more less like the status quo. Where Taiwan keep's it's ROCA, ROCN and ROCAF as an regional military force, though probably in vastly reduced form. And it's the only military presence on the island. (Maybe a special military region?) While PLA's military assets current facing Taiwan will probably move on to Indian or Vietnamese border. (I just can't see PLA throwing stuff away)

Click to expand...

PLA will have the duty to defend the island, just as in HK. RoC forces might well formally be incorporated in PLA but adapted and rearmed to PLA standard over the time of several years. Most of the assets you talk about can also serve to protect Taiwan.

luhai said:

It is depend on how the re-unification occurs. In the event of peaceful re-unification, I wouldn't be too surprised it if it's more less like the status quo. Where Taiwan keep's it's ROCA, ROCN and ROCAF as an regional military force, though probably in vastly reduced form. And it's the only military presence on the island. (Maybe a special military region?) While PLA's military assets current facing Taiwan will probably move on to Indian or Vietnamese border. (I just can't see PLA throwing stuff away)

Click to expand...

I very much doubt that a military trained under a different ideology from that of CCP/PLA will be allowed to exist in a unified China. The ROC military will most certainly be disbanded, and PLA forces garrisoned on the island.

Somethings just don't change with the CCP, and one of them is the absolute control of the military. Indeed, they would be fools to do otherwise.

delft said:

Re Okinawa: A previous Japanese government wanted to remove the Futenma base from the island instead of moving it to another site. The problem was solved by changing the Japanese government. The people of Okinawa were not protected.

Click to expand...

I think you're referring to the Hatoyama administration. The former PM resigned in part because he realised that it would not be possible to fulfill an election pledge to close the base. I'm not sure whether he promised to remove the base from Okinawa or just move it elsewhere, but the point is that his government fell because he made a wild election pledge without thinking about it properly. Japanese defence plans are based on having US support. Japan could tell Washington that all US bases on Japanese soil would have to close but that would mean having to have a risky defence situation or increasing spending on its own armed forces. It's Japan's choice.

There were other reasons for the resignation, such as scandals regarding Ozawa, who had been his biggest backer.

On the other hand, Taiwan has not relied on US or other countries having forces stationed in Taiwan for its defence since.. well I'm not sure. So it doesn't have a difficult choice in deciding between foreign support on its own shores or going it alone. Any hope of getting outside assistance has always been on the assumption of it coming from bases elsewhere in Asia.

Someone referred to Japan as a "threat" to Taiwan. Japan has no, repeat no, interest in attacking Taiwan. There are maritime disputes, but Taiwan has been able to survive by itself without China or the US helping it. Concerning the Senkaku/Diaoyutai Islands, Japan currently controls them. It's not like they are currently held by Taiwan but Japan might take them back. Taiwan isn't going to take the islands by force. And even if it wanted to, I doubt that China would help Taiwan take them and let Taiwan control them independently. China's claims to those islands is partly in conjunction with its claim to Taiwan. If China had its way, Taiwan would only control the islands if Taiwan itself was under Chinese control.

Besides, they're a minor issue when compared to the problems with China. If you gave Taiwanese the option between being properly independent of China and being autonomous within China but having technical control of those tiny islands, I think they'd go with the former.

So I think my point stands, there's no real benefit to Taiwan of having Chinese forces there and only a risk of Chinese inteference in the future.

luhai said:

It is depend on how the re-unification occurs. In the event of peaceful re-unification, I wouldn't be too surprised it if it's more less like the status quo. Where Taiwan keep's it's ROCA, ROCN and ROCAF as an regional military force, though probably in vastly reduced form. And it's the only military presence on the island. (Maybe a special military region?)

Click to expand...

It would have to be Taiwan's choice as to the size of the military forces they maintained, otherwise China would still be able to threaten military intervention if Taiwan did not do what it wanted. And I'm not sure that a "Special Military Region" would be acceptable, as that would suggest China might have authority to garrison troops there in the future.