PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
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
That's a flawed way of thinking. A hegemonic war needs a state's 100% commitment not "we are feeling confident, no need to hike military spending".
By the time war happens, and sht hits the fan, it would be too late to increase military spending

I have said this before, and I will repeat it now.
Better overspend on military procurement now:
  • If war happens, good, you thank your lucky stars for having this much wisdom to increase military spending some years ago and preparing yourself.
  • If a war doesn't happen, big deal, your economy is huge enough that it can handle the side effects. On the other hand, congratulations, you just became the military overlord on your region, lets see who dares to make trouble now.

Now lets see what happens if you don't prepare for war by increasing military spending:
  • If a war happens, congratulations, you might actually be screwed for not seriously preparing for war while your opponent did. Its not a certain defeat, but it certainly doesnt maximise your chances of winning. Now go and kowtow to your ancestors for being a useless leader and the sinner of the country
  • If a war doesn't happen, good. Your risky bet actually paid off and your economy is better than it would have been if you had increased military spending.

Based on planning for worst case scenario (war happens) given the current international environment, big increase of military spending/serious preparation of war is what makes sense

Your "haha already confident on my capabilities, no need for big military spending increase" is wrong from an risk analysis point of view.
 

Zichan

Junior Member
Registered Member
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
According to that report, in most of the plays Japan joined the battle. That means Japan’s SSKs will be actively engaged in the theatre.

In the games where China avoided striking Japan’s home islands, the outcome was usually worse for China.
 

Stierlitz

Junior Member
Registered Member
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.
From TaiwanNews article : "With the new Republican-led composition of the U.S. House of Representatives, it is likely that the resolution will pass. However, as a House Resolution rather than a legislative bill which might become law, the measure would only reflect the sentiment of the 118th U.S. Congress, and a policy recommendation for the Biden administration".
 

Jiang ZeminFanboy

Senior Member
Registered Member
According to that report, in most of the plays Japan joined the battle. That means Japan’s SSKs will be actively engaged in the theatre.

In the games where China avoided striking Japan’s home islands, the outcome was usually worse for China.
Cool story, but China has many more SSK than Japan. Two - Like one hundred ASW surface vessel assets, and finally robust fleet of KQ-200 ASW plane plus dedicated ASW vessel in the case of type 927. Three - Taiwan strait is part of the great underground wall of China with Chinese sensors everywhere.

Any hostile to China submarine mission there will be pretty much suicide.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
According to that report, in most of the plays Japan joined the battle. That means Japan’s SSKs will be actively engaged in the theatre.

In the games where China avoided striking Japan’s home islands, the outcome was usually worse for China.
Given the distance to Taiwan from Japan and the density of ASW assets, Japanese SSKs would need a miracle to even be there much less conduct operations.
 

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
That's a flawed way of thinking. A hegemonic war needs a state's 100% commitment not "we are feeling confident, no need to hike military spending".
By the time war happens, and sht hits the fan, it would be too late to increase military spending

I have said this before, and I will repeat it now.
Better overspend on military procurement now:
  • If war happens, good, you thank your lucky stars for having this much wisdom to increase military spending some years ago and preparing yourself.
  • If a war doesn't happen, big deal, your economy is huge enough that it can handle the side effects. On the other hand, congratulations, you just became the military overlord on your region, lets see who dares to make trouble now.

Now lets see what happens if you don't prepare for war by increasing military spending:
  • If a war happens, congratulations, you might actually be screwed for not seriously preparing for war while your opponent did. Its not a certain defeat, but it certainly doesnt maximise your chances of winning. Now go and kowtow to your ancestors for being a useless leader and the sinner of the country
  • If a war doesn't happen, good. Your risky bet actually paid off and your economy is better than it would have been if you had increased military spending.

Based on planning for worst case scenario (war happens) given the current international environment, big increase of military spending/serious preparation of war is what makes sense

Your "haha already confident on my capabilities, no need for big military spending increase" is wrong from an risk analysis point of view.
There's only 1 case where this type of thinking does make sense.

If you want to provoke a war using the illusion of "use it or lose it" to goad the enemy into gambling and losing.

US has the pressure knowing that at anytime, China could start to rev up its military engine, therefore it would see any time where China doesn't do that as the golden opportunity which may never arrive again.

Consequently, US might rush into a war where they have terrible disadvantage and there is no international support, because they want to take advantage of the golden opportunity.

It's dangerous thinking that imho is not really in character for how the CPC usually thinks, but the fact that China is not (openly) militarizing cannot be disputed, and there are not many reasons other than strategical provocation to do so.
 

Chilled_k6

Junior Member
Registered Member
Of course, cost is probably low per unit, but to achieve the effect you desire for potentially hundreds of UAV armed and airborne over Taiwan continuously would require substantial investment in infrastructure that we don't know whether China currently have.

Spread out all over China? Sure, since UAV is becoming common place in PLA. But the question is whether they can concentrate all of that relatively closely to Taiwan, a question which I don't think any of us will have a definite answer since it would be military secret, note that I'm not talking about command side since you can put that anywhere with satellite relay. You also need to arm, replenish and recover as close as possible for maximum on station time while also competing against other military aircraft for runway usage. Disposable kamikaze UAV make this equation trivial.
You make a good point about the sustaining the operation. It's an interesting premise though about the hundreds of UCAVs airborne over Taiwan. Agreed that PLA will need hundreds of drones mobilized and ready to go, but does the PLA really need those hundreds of UCAVs airborne all at once over Taiwan?

Taiwan relatively speaking isn't a big place to cover. How much ground a UCAV can monitor and cover, how they would coordinate with other assets to strike targets, attrition and etc. Seems like a complicated calculation with many factors to account for. Just food for thought, that's pretty tough for anyone to answer.
 

escobar

Brigadier
That's a flawed way of thinking. A hegemonic war needs a state's 100% commitment not "we are feeling confident, no need to hike military spending".
By the time war happens, and sht hits the fan, it would be too late to increase military spending

I have said this before, and I will repeat it now.
Better overspend on military procurement now:
  • If war happens, good, you thank your lucky stars for having this much wisdom to increase military spending some years ago and preparing yourself.
  • If a war doesn't happen, big deal, your economy is huge enough that it can handle the side effects. On the other hand, congratulations, you just became the military overlord on your region, lets see who dares to make trouble now.

Now lets see what happens if you don't prepare for war by increasing military spending:
  • If a war happens, congratulations, you might actually be screwed for not seriously preparing for war while your opponent did. Its not a certain defeat, but it certainly doesnt maximise your chances of winning. Now go and kowtow to your ancestors for being a useless leader and the sinner of the country
  • If a war doesn't happen, good. Your risky bet actually paid off and your economy is better than it would have been if you had increased military spending.

Based on planning for worst case scenario (war happens) given the current international environment, big increase of military spending/serious preparation of war is what makes sense

Your "haha already confident on my capabilities, no need for big military spending increase" is wrong from an risk analysis point of view.
Historically, nearly every war happens earlier than anticipated...
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
That's a flawed way of thinking. A hegemonic war needs a state's 100% commitment not "we are feeling confident, no need to hike military spending".
By the time war happens, and sht hits the fan, it would be too late to increase military spending

I have said this before, and I will repeat it now.
Better overspend on military procurement now:
  • If war happens, good, you thank your lucky stars for having this much wisdom to increase military spending some years ago and preparing yourself.
  • If a war doesn't happen, big deal, your economy is huge enough that it can handle the side effects. On the other hand, congratulations, you just became the military overlord on your region, lets see who dares to make trouble now.

Now lets see what happens if you don't prepare for war by increasing military spending:
  • If a war happens, congratulations, you might actually be screwed for not seriously preparing for war while your opponent did. Its not a certain defeat, but it certainly doesnt maximise your chances of winning. Now go and kowtow to your ancestors for being a useless leader and the sinner of the country
  • If a war doesn't happen, good. Your risky bet actually paid off and your economy is better than it would have been if you had increased military spending.

Based on planning for worst case scenario (war happens) given the current international environment, big increase of military spending/serious preparation of war is what makes sense

Your "haha already confident on my capabilities, no need for big military spending increase" is wrong from an risk analysis point of view.

There are so many silly logical fallacies and glaring omissions in your argument is going to take an essay to properly unpick. The most glaring ones are:

1) it’s a ridiculously stupid strawman to argue that not going with your silly suggestions equates to not preparing for war.

All you seemed to care about is making big flashy announcements to sound tough but gives zero considerations about the actual logistics and practicalities of how to actually get things done.

2) military spending increase doesn’t immediately or necessarily translate into increases in overall combat power or effectiveness.

With all the will in the world, you can only increase your production levels so far before you max out your production capacity. Throwing more money at it won’t magically move your production levels higher, all it will do is create inflation. This, just-throw-more-money-at-the-problem approach is precisely where America went wrong and why it’s getting so abysmally poor return for its eye watering military expenditure.

China has been building at just about the limits of its production capabilities for years now. They cannot meaningfully boost output without significantly expanded production facilities. Facilities which started construction years ago and are now nearing or entering production.

Until those production facilities are online and are full capacity, all your suggestions does is ensure China repeats those same American mistakes and create a massively inflated military budget with significantly reducing returns on all your expenditure.

3) You are not considering at all what such ridiculously transparent and aggressive moves would do to your opponent’s calculations and timetables.

Right now, the US on paper has a bigger military and more firepower. But everyone including the pentagon are acutely aware that time is not on their side.

China announcing massive hikes in its official defence spending would only supercharge those fears and exasperate the use-it-or-loose-it dilemma for the US and push the US into starting a war sooner rather than later to try to cash in on its perceived current military advantage before all that extra spending from China translates into new planes, ships and nukes to erase that advantage.

You seem to think that China should try to out-American the Americans by being more brash and loud and bluff them into backing down without thinking about the current balance of power. Which is where you are fundamentally misunderstanding the game and how to play it.

America’s behaviour and strategy only works for them because they have the military and economic might to back it up. For China to emulate that behaviour and strategy without the hard power to back it up is just like trying to bluff with your cards showing on the table while the other guy has a better hand.

What China is actually doing is laying the foundations to allow it to acquire the hard power it needs to stare down the Americans and make them blink. It’s backup strategy involves building up its military as quickly as possible while also expanding its production capabilities to allow it to accelerate that process.

One of the main reasons America had basically thrown caution to the wind in its provocations against China is that it has assessed that China is already building new planes, ships, nukes and tanks as fast as it can. China has been investing massively to boost its production capabilities, but because that doesn’t count as part of the military budget you don’t care.

What China needs above all else is time. Which is whgChina’s strategy is designed to buy itself as much time as possible to grow its military and economy while yours is all about pushing for confrontation now because at the core, your strategy revolves on being able to cow the Americans into not attacking when they still think they have a sizeable military advantage.

Essentially your strategy is like someone trying to threaten a thug into backing down by waving your invoice for guns and ammo that you just ordered in his face and trash talking about how you will have a bigger gun than him when that order arrives and how you are going to take him down once that happens, all the while ignoring the fact he has the bigger gun right now. You think this thug is more likely to drop on his knees and beg for your forgiveness while I think he is more likely to pull out his gun and bust some caps in your butt before your order arrives.

There's only 1 case where this type of thinking does make sense.

If you want to provoke a war using the illusion of "use it or lose it" to goad the enemy into gambling and losing.

US has the pressure knowing that at anytime, China could start to rev up its military engine, therefore it would see any time where China doesn't do that as the golden opportunity which may never arrive again.

Consequently, US might rush into a war where they have terrible disadvantage and there is no international support, because they want to take advantage of the golden opportunity.

It's dangerous thinking that imho is not really in character for how the CPC usually thinks, but the fact that China is not (openly) militarizing cannot be disputed, and there are not many reasons other than strategical provocation to do so.

You have it backwards. The Americans are not all idiots, and their analysts have concluded that China is building new ships and planes just about as fast as it can. They are also aware of the massive expansion programmes in key production facilities such as Huludao and CAC.

Thus the only reasonable conclusion the Americans can draw from a massive official increase in Chinese defence spending is that those new production facilities are up and running at full capacity, and that they are essentially in the endgame and have very limited time before their conventional (and potentially nuclear as well) military advantage disappears.

What China wants to do is continue to buy time and hide the true status and output of its military production as long as possible, and ideally the US will only realises after Chinese military power has already surpassed theirs, thus removing the use-it-or-loss-it threat altogether.

Parts of the US elite and government realises this while the rest either don’t or are wilfully trying to block it out. Thus these elites are constantly upping the ante in goading China trying to get China to loose its cool and sabre rattle and hopefully scare some sense into their domestic rivals. This is why China is so resolutely not playing to their tune and showing restraint instead of wildly lashing out in useless rage.
 

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
1) it’s a ridiculously stupid strawman to argue that not going with your silly suggestions equates to not preparing for war.
No need to get worked up. Here are you words, read them again

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
Increased military spending takes time to materialise which is why increased military spending should had happened years ago but anyway, better later than never. Given that the 2020s is an extremely dangerous decade, even if this increase happened in 2023, it would still help if/when a war happens in a few years. So not overnight, nowhere did I say that problems would be solved overnight.


2) military spending increase doesn’t immediately or necessarily translate into increases in overall combat power or effectiveness.
See above. I don't know why you are so fixated on this issue. Yes, military spending takes time to materially affect a military. It helps, but not immediately

With all the will in the world, you can only increase your production levels so far before you max out your production capacity. Throwing more money at it won’t magically move your production levels higher, all it will do is create inflation. This, just-throw-more-money-at-the-problem approach is precisely where America went wrong and why it’s getting so abysmally poor return for its eye watering military expenditure.
"Maxed out production capacity" only means that you stopped investing further. Human capital (can be trained with time) is there, resources are there, whats missing is money. Money to expand/build more factories and expand your supply chain.
Unless you somehow think that the current stock of big items are enough (missiles, ICBMs, hypersonic missiles, J-20, subs, surface vessels etc).

You can never have too many of these big items. The more the better. If you cant win with quality, then just drown the enemy with quantity. And in any case, any non-short term war will quickly need quantity as well, so no harm on expanding production

3) You are not considering at all what such ridiculously transparent and aggressive moves would do to your opponent’s calculations and timetables.
Strategically I already consider the US as a war opponent, so all of my writings are based on the fact that I believe there is a >50% chance of a war happening in a few years.

The US doesnt need any excuses to do its own things. Its already significantly expanding its missile stockpile and is preparing for a war. What China does or doesnt do won't affect their preparations because they have already started preparing for a war by themselves lol

Right now, the US on paper has a bigger military and more firepower. But everyone including the pentagon are acutely aware that time is not on their side.
Yes

China announcing massive hikes in its official defence spending would only supercharge those fears and exasperate the use-it-or-loose-it dilemma for the US and push the US into starting a war sooner rather than later to try to cash in on its perceived current military advantage before all that extra spending from China translates into new planes, ships and nukes to erase that advantage
Where we differ is that I think that the Pentagon is already seriously planning for a war. Even if China started significant expansion, the US wouldn't start a war because they have not finished their preparations. Their missile stockpiling program hasn't finished yet. When their preparations are complete, there is high chance that a war will start.

China has been building at just about the limits of its production capabilities for years now. They cannot meaningfully boost output without significantly expanded production facilities. Facilities which started construction years ago and are now nearing or entering production.
And? Build more production facilities then, that's what's the increased military spending is all about. Expansion of production facilities and supply chains while training your human capital. You never know, a war might start in 2025, or it might start in 2030. Just build them now and you can ramp up later

You seem to think that China should try to out-American the Americans by being more brash and loud and bluff them into backing down without thinking about the current balance of power. Which is where you are fundamentally misunderstanding the game and how to play it
What I believe is very simple. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
This isn't America of the Cold War with seasoned diplomats and responsible politicians. This is America of the crazy dogs.

You dont deal with the crazies by talking to them, you deal with them by taking a shotgun, shoving it down their throat and pulling the trigger if they dare to do anything.

You don't reason with crazies and radicals. You just show them your military, and you promise that you are going to hunt them all the way till the end of the earth and put them down if they dare to do anything stupid.

That's where we differ, you believe America is logical and rational and that's the basis of your claims. My argument though is based on one simple thing, that America is crazy and that the best way to deal with the crazies is to scare the jesus out of them Putin-nuclear style.

And in case they aren't scared enough to not start a war, bomb them to smithereens. Talk is talk, and bomb is bomb. Crazies don't need any of that talk, bombing them is good enough. My claim of wanting significant increase of military spending is for this, to bomb them, and bomb them good, and in case they aren't bombed, keep bombing them until they drop dead. If you want logic and rationality, you can save that for their funeral

That's my way of thinking. Talk for rational countries, shotgun for crazy countries

One of the main reasons America had basically thrown caution to the wind in its provocations against China is that it has assessed that China is already building new planes, ships, nukes and tanks as fast as it can. China has been investing massively to boost its production capabilities, but because that doesn’t count as part of the military budget you don’t care.
Not fast enough. The current nukes situation especially is a joke for a rising power looking to challenge the hegemon. Thats a good place where increased military spending could have gone if it had happened years ago. Same with J-20 (even taking into account the recent expansion). we will see in 2023 and 2024 if we get another big jump in production rate

The next big item is H-20, we will see there how much budget was allocated to them by their production rate. If its anything like 3-4 per year after their first year of production (to iron out initial production issues) I swear, i am going to lose my mind lol

What China needs above all else is time. Which is whgChina’s strategy is designed to buy itself as much time as possible to grow its military and economy while yours is all about pushing for confrontation now because at the core, your strategy revolves on being able to cow the Americans into not attacking when they still think they have a sizeable military advantage.
That's a good summary. Yes China needs time, the issue is that the US could strike as soon as in 2025/26. The more China accumulates by 2025/26, the better its position would be. And you never know, maybe America gets more anxious (I firmly believe that America will stick with its preparation schedule and won't attack prematurely) and decides to attack when it isnt fully ready, maybe it gets more scared Putin-nukes style. Putting your entire strategy on the whims of your opponent isn't wise, just do your own thing well and if America is deterred, good. If not, well at least I am as ready as I could be, no regrets.

Essentially your strategy is like someone trying to threaten a thug into backing down by waving your invoice for guns and ammo that you just ordered in his face
I am not waving invoices. I am waving the real things, they are already operational in their regiments, brigades, naval formations. The US is more than welcome to use its satellites and count them one by one, I will even position them in a certain way so that they resemble a a certain shape when viewed from above, a shape all boys and men can easily recognise, in order to get the message across in case they are brain damaged and can't count.

If not ready, just count my production facilities and make a move if you want, but with the knowledge that next year I can output what I produced in the last 3 years combined.
 
Top