PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

solarz

solarz

Brigadier
Paradigm said:
I'm certainly not displaying bravado, if you even know the meaning of bravado. The word can equate to almost every US politicians words and actions against China. If you want to reply then tell me what I said that's not true, or is negative to the China going forward.
Click to expand...

The Chinese government has proven time and again that the most obvious course of action is not necessarily the wisest.

In HK, everyone was expecting the Central Government to step in and quell the riots. Instead, the Central Government provide support to the HK government and enabled the passing of the NSL, which completely neutralized the US sponsored insurgency without a single shot being fired by the PLA. Of course, the cutting of CIA funding behind the scenes also played an instrumental role.

When Pelosi visited Taiwan, everyone expected a direct armed confrontation between China and the US. Instead, the Chinese government allowed Pelosi to land safely and instead used the incident to normalize the conduction of military exercises around the island.

You proposed for China to match US trade bans in a tit for tat response, except you failed to realize that economic decoupling was exactly what the US administration was seeking. Why should China help the US achieve its aims? So long as China has trade ties with the US, China has leverage. Ban those trade ties, and you lose that leverage, as the US found out with their tech bans.

As for the other proposals in your post, they are even more childish. Dumping US treasuries? Sailing off the coast of Guam and Hawaii? Those are as empty gestures as the US FONOPs in SCS. Worse, those responses are eminently predictable. That means the US would be able to dictate Chinese actions through their own.

As Chairman Mao once said: 你打你的，我打我的。Never let your adversary dictate your responses.
 
R

RobertC

Junior Member
Registered Member
solarz said:
As Chairman Mao once said: 你打你的，我打我的。Never let your adversary dictate your responses.
Click to expand...
I quite agree which is why I thought Taiban's link to China Security Report 2023: China's Quest for Control of the Congnitive Domain and Gray Zone Situations was so important:
In order to avoid war and create a favorable posture, China uses the PLA Navy as a deterrent force, while at the same time utilizing the CCG law enforcement agency and the maritime militia to manage the intensity of the dispute so that it does not lead to armed conflict, and exert pressure on the adversary, thereby gradually expanding China’s rights and interests.
Click to expand...
 
H

HighGround

Senior Member
Registered Member
solarz said:
When Pelosi visited Taiwan, everyone expected a direct armed confrontation between China and the US. Instead, the Chinese government allowed Pelosi to land safely and instead used the incident to normalize the conduction of military exercises around the island.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with your post, but I think military exercises in response to Pelosi's visit was a pretty expected response.
 
Temstar

Temstar

Brigadier
Registered Member
HighGround said:
I don't disagree with your post, but I think military exercises in response to Pelosi's visit was a pretty expected response.
Click to expand...
solarz said:
Not according to SDF, lol.
Click to expand...
SDF's thought at the time was PLAAF will force her plane away from Taiwan and not let her land, or something along that line. Generally I think we didn't think she will be shot down.

I didn't at first think ringing Taiwan in exercises was a strong enough response. However once the exercises were under way and all the coping by ROCMND like "it's okay, we didn't shoot at DF-16 because they were over 100km above us when they overflew Taipei so it's technically in space and not in our air space see" and the fact that USS Reagan immediately ran off to Japan and did donuts there for the whole duration were very amusing. The fact that after the exercise facts on the ground were changed and midline no longer exist and US couldn't complain about it made me realize CPC did make the correct call after all.
 
H

HighGround

Senior Member
Registered Member
solarz said:
Not according to SDF, lol.
Click to expand...
Oh well, I'm pretty new here so Idk. But on places like LCD, or for most Americans in general... we generally assumed that China will do some exercises or probe Taiwan's airspace or something to that effect.

The scale and sophisticaiton of the exercises was interesting and surprising to some, but the exercises themselves weren't really all that shocking.
 
A

ansy1968

Brigadier
Registered Member
Stierlitz said:
An expanded US military presence at bases in the Philippines will boost the countries’ surveillance in the South China Sea and over Taiwan, but the impact on China could be limited, Chinese analysts said.
Click to expand...
Finally an insightful opinion pieces instead of hysterical western MSM reporting.
Stierlitz said:
Under an agreement announced by US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin and Philippine Defence Secretary Carlito Galvez in Manila on Thursday, the United States will gain access to four more military sites, bringing the total to nine.

The locations of the bases have not been disclosed, but in November, Lieutenant General Bartolome Vicente Bacarro of the Philippines said Washington had identified five possible sites, including two in Cagayan, one in Palawan, one in Zambales and one in Isabela.

Cagayan and Isabela are in the northern Philippines. Cagayan sits across from Taiwan and Palawan is near the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.
Click to expand...
This is one of the goal the American want to have, to use the bases for intelligence gathering especially at SCS and the Philippine sea.
Stierlitz said:
“The threat is even more serious if medium-range missiles are deployed. It will have a serious negative impact on the peace and stability of the South China Sea region,” he said.

Fu added, however, that missiles were unlikely to be deployed at the new sites, and Manila must balance its relations with both Beijing and Washington.
“The Philippine government should be aware that if it allows the US to establish permanent bases, it will also have a greater impact on the Philippines itself,” Fu said.

He said that in a conflict these bases would be obvious targets for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).
Click to expand...
Yup we are not stupid for a repeat like what happen during WW2 , a total destruction of my country.
Stierlitz said:
Song Zhongping, a military commentator in Hong Kong, said the US access to the bases in places like Palawan would allow surveillance of China’s military activities near the Spratly Islands, including aircraft, warship and submarine activity.

However, Song did not rule out the possibility that the US would deploy medium-range ballistic missiles at the bases in the future, which would be “obviously aimed at China”, he said.
The purpose of deploying missiles would be to enable the blockade of the Bashi Channel, which runs between the northernmost island of the Philippines and the southern island of Taiwan, Song said.
In addition, Song said the missiles could intercept and attack PLA military targets such as ships and warplanes in the South China Sea.
Click to expand...
Here I will counter that under Philippine constitution forbade any foreign deployment / storage of nuclear and offensive weapons that is counter to our national interest.
Stierlitz said:
During Thursday’s announcement, Austin called the agreement for US military access to the four sites “a big deal”, saying it was an opportunity to increase military coordination with the Philippines, but he denied that the sites would become “permanent bases”.
“The EDCA is not about permanent basing here in the Philippines. It’s about providing access that allows us to increase our training opportunities with our partners, our allies here,” he said.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
EDCA is about pre deployment of weapon, VFA is to allow the American entry to use those equipment, in a way design to circumvent our constitution BUT this arrangement is ideal for us and not the US, why? we can revoke the VFA and deny them entry, here the American want to renegotiate the terms of the VFA BUT any deviation is counter to our constitution, So we have the American under our thump. They don't have the luxury of independent action like before when they operate Clark and Subic, this will deny any misadventure on their part.
 
Temstar

Temstar

Brigadier
Registered Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
Well, some of us here did want the PLA to shoot down Pelosi's plane before she could land in Taipei. Bad idea.
Click to expand...
Yes I know, but I judged that that was in the minority.

It would have been emotionally satisfying yes, but had PLA done that China would be seen as the unreasonable party. Where as what they actually did everyone recognized that it was the US who caused the incident.

Like if there was no Pelosi visit and one day PLA just decided to do exercises all around Taiwan and launch ballistic missile over it, imagine the international response then. Instead of that people were thinking well that's fair enough, Pelosi started this so can't blame China to do something about it.

What did US get out of the visit? Nothing
What did Taiwan get out of the visit? Midline no longer exists
What did Pelosi get out of the visit? Nothing she lost her speaker position
What did China get out of the visit? A nice thick slice of Taiwan Strait shaped salami

Given only one party won something out of this it's hard to say it wasn't the correct response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top