PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

Zichan said:

Shallow waters are beneficial to submarines because the environment makes it extremely hard to detect them.

Don’t forget that PLAN will be operating a large number of ships to the east of Taiwan. They might attempt amphibious landings on Okinawa, etc.

Click to expand...

Shallow waters favors SSKs with small size. It doesn't favor large SSNs with comparable length to water depth. In that case their maneuver in pitch angle is highly confined. In addition, they form a new waveguide with the bottom, while typically there's already a waveguide in shallow water between surfaces and bottom, an easily detected signal. Finally, shallow water means mines and obstacles

Given the McCarthy escalation, I've been thinking about what Song Zhongping meant when he said that China will need to escalate more than Pelosi. One possibility I thought we may have overlooked: taking the small island of Kinmen, either simulated or peacefully, in a practice of a blockade against the big island. This is a classical strategy from the civil war era: surrounding a small ROC garrison with overwhelming force to get them to surrender as a prelude to a bigger campaign.

We all saw how shaken up the Taiwanese garrison was when drones were overflying them at visible range. It was like they were shitting their pants. But their Twitter at least still worked, their electricity was still on, they did not feel in danger. Now imagine that PLAN cut the cables connecting Kinmen to the rest of the world, PLAAF jammed their wireless links, and not only small recon drones flew overhead but armed drones with ATGMs were flying in visible range. A text then goes to the garrison's phones, letting them know they're completely surrounded and cut off, but a surrender will allow them to either live in China as heroes, or be allowed to return to Taiwan in peace. The only connection they have will be to the PLA, they will be unable to contact their families, friends, commanders or journalists. In such a situation, a surrender is likely from the psychological pressure alone. And if they don't, firing a few ATGMs or dropping some bombs on uninhabited beach as a demo would help them understand the gravity of their situation.

The prize is ridiculously asymmetric compared to the risk: getting the island of Kinmen and finally removing a major thorn limiting Xiamen's development in exchange for a few days of jamming, some drone flights and some special forces work. If it fails, nobody dies. If it works, it would be a meaningful escalation with none to few lives lost, and a counterescalation from Taiwan is unlikely, since Kinmen would be surrendering without a fight.

FairAndUnbiased said:

Given the McCarthy escalation, I've been thinking about what Song Zhongping meant when he said that China will need to escalate more than Pelosi. One possibility I thought we may have overlooked: taking the small island of Kinmen, either simulated or peacefully, in a practice of a blockade against the big island. This is a classical strategy from the civil war era: surrounding a small ROC garrison with overwhelming force to get them to surrender as a prelude to a bigger campaign.

We all saw how shaken up the Taiwanese garrison was when drones were overflying them at visible range. It was like they were shitting their pants. But their Twitter at least still worked, their electricity was still on, they did not feel in danger. Now imagine that PLAN cut the cables connecting Kinmen to the rest of the world, PLAAF jammed their wireless links, and not only small recon drones flew overhead but armed drones with ATGMs were flying in visible range. A text then goes to the garrison's phones, letting them know they're completely surrounded and cut off, but a surrender will allow them to either live in China as heroes, or be allowed to return to Taiwan in peace. The only connection they have will be to the PLA, they will be unable to contact their families, friends, commanders or journalists. In such a situation, a surrender is likely from the psychological pressure alone. And if they don't, firing a few ATGMs or dropping some bombs on uninhabited beach as a demo would help them understand the gravity of their situation.

The prize is ridiculously asymmetric compared to the risk: getting the island of Kinmen and finally removing a major thorn limiting Xiamen's development in exchange for a few days of jamming, some drone flights and some special forces work. If it fails, nobody dies. If it works, it would be a meaningful escalation with none to few lives lost, and a counterescalation from Taiwan is unlikely, since Kinmen would be surrendering without a fight.

Click to expand...

Nope. Russia is living example of this with Crimea. There are too many negatives to list them here

The way I see it, China either takes Taiwan in one bite or not. Half-measures are counterproductive

FairAndUnbiased said:

Given the McCarthy escalation, I've been thinking about what Song Zhongping meant when he said that China will need to escalate more than Pelosi. One possibility I thought we may have overlooked: taking the small island of Kinmen, either simulated or peacefully, in a practice of a blockade against the big island. This is a classical strategy from the civil war era: surrounding a small ROC garrison with overwhelming force to get them to surrender as a prelude to a bigger campaign.

Click to expand...

I believe the bigger concern that we do have right now than McCarthy's expected visit to Taiwan within the next couple of months is this:

We already know what China's responses to Pelosi's visit to Taiwan as the speaker of the US House of Representatives would be like, which means the situation can still be managed for McCarthy's visit, to say the least.

However, if that bill of recognizing Taiwan's independence and seperating from China is passed in the US Congress, that would mean a major escalation of hostility against China's territorial sovereignty and integrity by the United States. Even if Biden managed to veto the bill, there is no guarantee that whoever is coming in 2025 would be able to do the same.

When that happens, how should China respond, without causing a nuclear war as the result? I think it is time that we should start seriously think about this.

The root of the problem right now WRT Taiwan is no longer Taipei - It's Washington DC.

FairAndUnbiased said:

Given the McCarthy escalation, I've been thinking about what Song Zhongping meant when he said that China will need to escalate more than Pelosi. One possibility I thought we may have overlooked: taking the small island of Kinmen, either simulated or peacefully, in a practice of a blockade against the big island. This is a classical strategy from the civil war era: surrounding a small ROC garrison with overwhelming force to get them to surrender as a prelude to a bigger campaign.

We all saw how shaken up the Taiwanese garrison was when drones were overflying them at visible range. It was like they were shitting their pants. But their Twitter at least still worked, their electricity was still on, they did not feel in danger. Now imagine that PLAN cut the cables connecting Kinmen to the rest of the world, PLAAF jammed their wireless links, and not only small recon drones flew overhead but armed drones with ATGMs were flying in visible range. A text then goes to the garrison's phones, letting them know they're completely surrounded and cut off, but a surrender will allow them to either live in China as heroes, or be allowed to return to Taiwan in peace. The only connection they have will be to the PLA, they will be unable to contact their families, friends, commanders or journalists. In such a situation, a surrender is likely from the psychological pressure alone. And if they don't, firing a few ATGMs or dropping some bombs on uninhabited beach as a demo would help them understand the gravity of their situation.

The prize is ridiculously asymmetric compared to the risk: getting the island of Kinmen and finally removing a major thorn limiting Xiamen's development in exchange for a few days of jamming, some drone flights and some special forces work. If it fails, nobody dies. If it works, it would be a meaningful escalation with none to few lives lost, and a counterescalation from Taiwan is unlikely, since Kinmen would be surrendering without a fight.

Click to expand...

It’s either all or nothing. Taking inconsequential islands like Kinmen will incur heavy geopolitical costs with minimal gain.

siegecrossbow said:

It’s either all or nothing. Taking inconsequential islands like Kinmen will incur heavy geopolitical costs with minimal gain.

Click to expand...

even if they surrender peacefully?

ACuriousPLAFan said:

I believe the bigger concern that we do have right now than McCarthy's expected visit to Taiwan within the next couple of months is this:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

We already know what China's responses to Pelosi's visit to Taiwan as the speaker of the US House of Representatives would be like, which means the situation can still be managed for McCarthy's visit, to say the least.

However, if that bill of recognizing Taiwan's independence and seperating from China is passed in the US Congress, that would mean a major escalation of hostility against China's territorial sovereignty and integrity by the United States. Even if Biden managed to veto the bill, there is no guarantee that whoever is coming in 2025 would be able to do the same.

When that happens, how should China respond, without causing a nuclear war as the result? I think it is time that we should start seriously think about this.

The root of the problem right now WRT Taiwan is no longer Taipei - It's Washington DC.

Click to expand...

If Taiwan refuses to acknowledge independence and affirms that it remains a part of China in dispute with the central government: nothing. Watch actions though.

If Taiwan simply says nothing: sanctions on Taiwan and reaffirm that per the 2005 anti-secession law, any declaration of independence by Taiwan itself, stationing of foreign troops on Taiwan, accepting a foreign ambassador or moving towards WMD development will be an act of war by Taiwan.

If Taiwan actively accepts the declaration through either rhetoric or action like accepting an embassy, then Donbass strategy. First would be a quarantine (rediversion and inspection of ships bound for Taiwan to China) and no fly zone around Taiwan. At this point, watch the enemy response. If they begin concentrating forces, then there's no choice but to launch the war.

The war goal should be disproportionate attrition of Taiwanese forces and destruction of their infrastructure while having sufficient PLAAF and PLAN long range assets in reserve to defend against a foreign power intervening. A landing on Taiwan is not necessarily conducive to this, but taking Kinmen and Matsu should be low risk with amphibious forces and some light bombing, they are literally in visual range of the mainland, and would be a concrete gain.

The PLAAF, PLAN and PLARF should, of course, begin dispersing strategic assets and getting ready for a potential WW3, as that is their job, and nobody can control an escalation as that requires cooperation between 2 adversaries.

siegecrossbow said:

It’s either all or nothing. Taking inconsequential islands like Kinmen will incur heavy geopolitical costs with minimal gain.

Click to expand...

I actually think there is a lot more at stake. China has had the ability to take Taiwan with extremely high confidence for years. This is reinforced by the procurement decisions of the PLA I recent years, they are not rushing to buy landing ships, fire support ships, J10s or short range low cost suicide drones. What they are buying are LHDs, carriers, 055s, J16s, J20, and high end long range drones etc. Those are not the purchase decisions of a military still worrying about being able to take an island 200km off its coast.

The problem isn’t about military power but diplomatic and economic costs.

If China moves on Taiwan, with the way the US is acting and how thoroughly European governments and the EU is compromised by US agents and useful idiots, we can expect to see the same extreme economic and diplomatic costs applied to China as was done to Russia. Sure, Chinese retaliation will cost the Americans and Europeans just as much if not more, but just because you can cost the other side more doesn’t mean what you will loose won’t still hurt.

This is why China is focused on BRI and engagement and development of the global south, so that it can ensure China’s economy isn’t isolated and crippled after it takes Taiwan and that the living standards of ordinary Chinese people can continue to improve in the years and decades after instead of stagnating or deteriorating.

I think that is the minimum requirement that needs to be met before China will proactively move on Taiwan.

The stretch objective would be to flip the EU so it at least stays neutral and out of it in any showdown between China and the US over Taiwan, both diplomatically and economically (direct European military involvement is so far fetched China would have to fuck up in a colossal way to make that even plausible).

This is also why how the war starts matters so much. If China just launches a massive sudden attack out of the blue, it would be all but impossible for Europe to stay neutral. But if the war breaks out after incessant and egregious provocations from the US, it would be a lot easier for EU countries to act in their own best interest and stay neutral instead of siding with the US.

If China takes Taiwan at the cost of the EU, then it’s Cold War 2.0 with potentially decades more of rivalry and proxy wars.

OTOH, if the war was so indisputably the fault of the US that not even the western MSM can spin it as anything else, and the EU manages to stay neutral, then there is a high chance a militarily defeated, diplomatically isolated and economically drained US will turn inwards and become isolationist if not suffer major internal violent ‘disagreements’.

That, I think is what China is playing for now, and why it is taking all these cheap shots from the US with extremely restrained and mature responses and isn’t taking the bait to act recklessly or needlessly aggressively that America desperately wants it to do.

The PLA’s military preparations are focused more on seizing the first island chain and keeping the Americans to outside the second. This allows the PLA to safeguard the Chinese coast so America cannot just sit back and spam missiles at Chinese cities and industrial centres to roll back decades of development. But that is basically well on track to be achieved soon, if not already within reach. This is why China isn’t responding like many here expects or hopes with massive hikes in Military spending.

The PLA has high confidence of being able to handle the coming fight with what they have operationally deployed and within the existing pipeline of production and procurement. It doesn’t need to go into panic mode and throw piles of money at problems hoping to magically solve them overnight.

If China actually announced a massive increase of its defence spending, that would actually be a massively worrying sign for me, because that would suggest the PLA has low or no confidence of being able to handle a possible fight with America over Taiwan now or in the near future.

But trying to magic weapons out of thin air by throwing ridiculous amounts of cash around is like trying to cram the entire syllabus the night before the exam - too little too late. Even if you had idle production capacity, it will be years before newly ordered tanks, planes and ships are ready for delivery, and years more before they are combat ready in a meaningful way.

plawolf said:

I actually think there is a lot more at stake. China has had the ability to take Taiwan with extremely high confidence for years. This is reinforced by the procurement decisions of the PLA I recent years, they are not rushing to buy landing ships, fire support ships, J10s or short range low cost suicide drones. What they are buying are LHDs, carriers, 055s, J16s, J20, and high end long range drones etc. Those are not the purchase decisions of a military still worrying about being able to take an island 200km off its coast.

The problem isn’t about military power but diplomatic and economic costs.

If China moves on Taiwan, with the way the US is acting and how thoroughly European governments and the EU is compromised by US agents and useful idiots, we can expect to see the same extreme economic and diplomatic costs applied to China as was done to Russia. Sure, Chinese retaliation will cost the Americans and Europeans just as much if not more, but just because you can cost the other side more doesn’t mean what you will loose won’t still hurt.

This is why China is focused on BRI and engagement and development of the global south, so that it can ensure China’s economy isn’t isolated and crippled after it takes Taiwan and that the living standards of ordinary Chinese people can continue to improve in the years and decades after instead of stagnating or deteriorating.

I think that is the minimum requirement that needs to be met before China will proactively move on Taiwan.

The stretch objective would be to flip the EU so it at least stays neutral and out of it in any showdown between China and the US over Taiwan, both diplomatically and economically (direct European military involvement is so far fetched China would have to fuck up in a colossal way to make that even plausible).

This is also why how the war starts matters so much. If China just launches a massive sudden attack out of the blue, it would be all but impossible for Europe to stay neutral. But if the war breaks out after incessant and egregious provocations from the US, it would be a lot easier for EU countries to act in their own best interest and stay neutral instead of siding with the US.

If China takes Taiwan at the cost of the EU, then it’s Cold War 2.0 with potentially decades more of rivalry and proxy wars.

OTOH, if the war was so indisputably the fault of the US that not even the western MSM can spin it as anything else, and the EU manages to stay neutral, then there is a high chance a militarily defeated, diplomatically isolated and economically drained US will turn inwards and become isolationist if not suffer major internal violent ‘disagreements’.

That, I think is what China is playing for now, and why it is taking all these cheap shots from the US with extremely restrained and mature responses and isn’t taking the bait to act recklessly or needlessly aggressively that America desperately wants it to do.

The PLA’s military preparations are focused more on seizing the first island chain and keeping the Americans to outside the second. This allows the PLA to safeguard the Chinese coast so America cannot just sit back and spam missiles at Chinese cities and industrial centres to roll back decades of development. But that is basically well on track to be achieved soon, if not already within reach. This is why China isn’t responding like many here expects or hopes with massive hikes in Military spending.

The PLA has high confidence of being able to handle the coming fight with what they have operationally deployed and within the existing pipeline of production and procurement. It doesn’t need to go into panic mode and throw piles of money at problems hoping to magically solve them overnight.

If China actually announced a massive increase of its defence spending, that would actually be a massively worrying sign for me, because that would suggest the PLA has low or no confidence of being able to handle a possible fight with America over Taiwan now or in the near future.

But trying to magic weapons out of thin air by throwing ridiculous amounts of cash around is like trying to cram the entire syllabus the night before the exam - too little too late. Even if you had idle production capacity, it will be years before newly ordered tanks, planes and ships are ready for delivery, and years more before they are combat ready in a meaningful way.

Click to expand...

The classical saying is that when you're strong, appear weak and when you're weak, appear strong.

Non-increase of military funding even as US has announced larger and larger spending does seem to be an attempt to invite attack. At this point, who knows. The CPC have their own analysts who will do many wargames to evaluate the balance of forces between China and USA.

Still, this type of stance is risky, bordering on arrogant. If China was seeking peace, they would increase military funding to create a stronger deterrent effect. Straight up abandoning such thinking instead means that China is going to war and that war is guaranteed in the near future.

Biscuits said:

The classical saying is that when you're strong, appear weak and when you're weak, appear strong.

Non-increase of military funding even as US has announced larger and larger spending does seem to be an attempt to invite attack. At this point, who knows. The CPC have their own analysts who will do many wargames to evaluate the balance of forces between China and USA.

Still, this type of stance is risky, bordering on arrogant. If China was seeking peace, they would increase military funding to create a stronger deterrent effect. Straight up abandoning such thinking instead means that China is going to war and that war is guaranteed in the near future.

Click to expand...

I think the Chinese leadership has decided a while back that it’s an useless act of self harm trying to reason with or send complex signals to idiots who wilfully reject logic, evidence and even reality itself.

Instead they are doing the only reasonable thing one can when dealing with a rabidly hostile, wilfully irrational and utterly unpredictable lunatic. Ignore their rambling nonsense, carefully watch their actions, and have a big fucking gun loaded and ready.