PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

BoraTas

Captain
Registered Member
Nobody really knows what the military brass or thr political leaders truly think. Winning or losing a war is almost impossible to predict because it has countless variables. Most of which is out of one's control. A lot of it also has to do with 'luck.'
China's military is also largely untested in modern warfare.
And will the civilian population able to stomach the potential heavy loses?
Majority of the men is the only child in their family.
The last two assertions are how you say "I know nothing about China". Westerners should stop projecting their GWOT era thoughts to China. People handle war in a completely different manner when they think the war they fighting is just. You people don't know what Taiwan means for China, because none of you know any Chinese or even lived in China.

I would go as far as saying Japan and Australia are in for a similar shock Imperial Japan had when they realized the US didn't take their attack on Pearl Harbor lightly and wasn't interested in a limited war. China is not going to take Australia and Japan actually shooting at China lightly.
 

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
Although many people may mock such remarks, problems do exist. It's just that the severity won't be that high.
Americans always deliberately ignore China's nationalism when evaluating the Taiwan issue, and the most radical and fanatical advocates for national unity even hope that the military will launch a coup to replace the indecisive government(of course, these chauvinism are regarded as neurotic lunatics).

Therefore, the most easily underestimated point for other countries is that Chinese people will not be intimidated by the intimidation of several countries on the Taiwan issue. 'Historical mission' is not a simple propaganda slogan, it is a firm belief accumulated in China's history over the past thousands of years. We will achieve our goals at all costs. This is a matter that does not require additional emphasis for us.
Of course, a peaceful era that lasts too long can lead to people losing their necessary rationality, and small-scale chaos and panic are inevitable. But if, as Taiwanese people think, they are trying to intimidate us by attacking our cities with some missiles,it would be ridiculous.

The ability of civilians to bear losses ultimately depends on the extent to which the war will expand, but if Japan intervenes in the war, the acceptance of losses by civilians can still be further improved.
The efficient mobilization demonstrated by China in the past few years of COVID-19 pandemic is evident to all.The ubiquitous virus is much more terrifying than military invasion, and no country has to face the terrible situation of daily life basically stopping, and even I cannot imagine the entire country's military machinery fully operating. I only know that by then, the war in the Taiwan Strait will turn the Ukrainian war into a ridiculous children's game.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(The essence of this answer is in the comments section)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(The essence of this answer is in the comments section)
These two topics discussed Iran's Shahed-136/Mohajer-6, and some anwsers analyzed China's current ability to produce similar drones.
The main idea is that the cost of producing such drones by Iranians is too high (up to 20000 US dollars). If produced by China, by utilizing idle motorcycle production capacity and further simplifying processes and materials, the cost (excluding warheads) can be reduced to around 2000 RMB.
According to these people's claims, if the production capacity can be fully utilized, we can deploy at least 10000 such UAVs per day.This is just the most conservative statement, some people believe that if motorcycle factories can be mobilized for production, it can reach a daily production capacity of 100000 UAVs.
There won't be any choices except enduring. Some Russians also believed that the moment they went in, all the pro Russian Ukrainians would immediately coup the country for them. That didn't happen.

The few pro American in China would be forced to shut up and be conscripted. Faced with the threat of American troops, most will choose life and home over ideology.

Chinese people will fight to the last because there are no other choices, it's either that or forfeit their homes to the American and Japanese invader. In the face of that, even the politically neutral or unreliable will be forced.
 

Michaelsinodef

Senior Member
Registered Member
There won't be any choices except enduring. Some Russians also believed that the moment they went in, all the pro Russian Ukrainians would immediately coup the country for them. That didn't happen.

The few pro American in China would be forced to shut up and be conscripted. Faced with the threat of American troops, most will choose life and home over ideology.

Chinese people will fight to the last because there are no other choices, it's either that or forfeit their homes to the American and Japanese invader. In the face of that, even the politically neutral or unreliable will be forced.
Nah, there shouldn't be such a need off conscripting so many people, not to mention conscripts really won't do much without at least like 6 months training.

And even then.

Anyways, if massive conscription were to be needed, it would mean China is in deep shit, which I don't see likely.
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Sorry, but Taiwan is not a country.
Then there's nothing constructive to discuss with someone who likes playing semantics.
Can the US stomach the potential losses in a fight with China?
Maybe, maybe not but this is a childish response to the topic. The issue including the thread name is pla strategy on Taiwan. As such it is a fair question to ask about the civilian tolerance.
Also my response was to a question in which the poster illogically (my opinion) assumed the US involvement was going to be zero, ergo by logic the US casualty rate would be zero.
 

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Maybe, maybe not but this is a childish response to the topic. The issue including the thread name is pla strategy on Taiwan. As such it is a fair question to ask about the civilian tolerance.
Also my response was to a question in which the poster illogically (my opinion) assumed the US involvement was going to be zero, ergo by logic the US casualty rate would be zero.
Childish eh?

Get off your high horse bud. You the one who implied US will cause massive Chinese casualties that will affect the populace's support for the renewed civil war without itself suffer massive casualties too. Americans have been beating up goat herders who can't bomb you back. War with China will not be something you experienced since the Korean War.
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Although many people may mock such remarks, problems do exist. It's just that the severity won't be that high.
Americans always deliberately ignore China's nationalism when evaluating the Taiwan issue, and the most radical and fanatical advocates for national unity even hope that the military will launch a coup to replace the indecisive government(of course, these chauvinism are regarded as neurotic lunatics).

Therefore, the most easily underestimated point for other countries is that Chinese people will not be intimidated by the intimidation of several countries on the Taiwan issue. 'Historical mission' is not a simple propaganda slogan, it is a firm belief accumulated in China's history over the past thousands of years. We will achieve our goals at all costs. This is a matter that does not require additional emphasis for us.
Of course, a peaceful era that lasts too long can lead to people losing their necessary rationality, and small-scale chaos and panic are inevitable. But if, as Taiwanese people think, they are trying to intimidate us by attacking our cities with some missiles,it would be ridiculous.

The ability of civilians to bear losses ultimately depends on the extent to which the war will expand, but if Japan intervenes in the war, the acceptance of losses by civilians can still be further improved.
The efficient mobilization demonstrated by China in the past few years of COVID-19 pandemic is evident to all.The ubiquitous virus is much more terrifying than military invasion, and no country has to face the terrible situation of daily life basically stopping, and even I cannot imagine the entire country's military machinery fully operating. I only know that by then, the war in the Taiwan Strait will turn the Ukrainian war into a ridiculous children's game.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(The essence of this answer is in the comments section)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(The essence of this answer is in the comments section)
These two topics discussed Iran's Shahed-136/Mohajer-6, and some anwsers analyzed China's current ability to produce similar drones.
The main idea is that the cost of producing such drones by Iranians is too high (up to 20000 US dollars). If produced by China, by utilizing idle motorcycle production capacity and further simplifying processes and materials, the cost (excluding warheads) can be reduced to around 2000 RMB.
According to these people's claims, if the production capacity can be fully utilized, we can deploy at least 10000 such UAVs per day.This is just the most conservative statement, some people believe that if motorcycle factories can be mobilized for production, it can reach a daily production capacity of 100000 UAVs.
I do agree with your assessment that many Westerners underestimate china's resolve on the Taiwan issue. I also believe the US is trying to goad China into a conflict because that's how uncle Sam knows to do.
At the end of the day everyone is looking after thier own self interest.
Also for right or wrong reasons there are some in the Pentagon and Congress who genuinely believes China is 'evil.
Similarly I've seen that word used against the US even here on this board. Languages like that is ignorantly hawkish at best and ominously dark at worst.
Ultimately, it depends on the scope of the war. Will it be a skirmish, conflict or an all out war short of nuclear Armageddon?
The problem with these types of discussions is people like being in an echo chamber. Everyone thinks their side is the greatest and on the right side if history and drowns out those whom they perceived as anything less that towing the party line. I'm old enough to know that is bullocks.
The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Even more so in something as complex as the history and geopolitics of this topic.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
War with China will not be something you experienced since the Korean War.
Actually, war with China will not be something anyone has ever experienced because there has never been war between two nuclear superpowers ever. The main danger is America assuming that China won't go down this path just because America has calculated that Taiwan is by far not worth it, thus pushing what began as a game of Chicken into the point of no return for WWIII.
I do agree with your assessment that many Westerners underestimate china's resolve on the Taiwan issue. I also believe the US is trying to goad China into a conflict because that's how uncle Sam knows to do.
At the end of the day everyone is looking after thier own self interest.
Also for right or wrong reasons there are some in the Pentagon and Congress who genuinely believes China is 'evil.
Similarly I've seen that word used against the US even here on this board. Languages like that is ignorantly hawkish at best and ominously dark at worst.
Ultimately, it depends on the scope of the war. Will it be a skirmish, conflict or an all out war short of nuclear Armageddon?
The problem with these types of discussions is people like being in an echo chamber. Everyone thinks their side is the greatest and on the right side if history and drowns out those whom they perceived as anything less that towing the party line. I'm old enough to know that is bullocks.
The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Even more so in something as complex as the history and geopolitics of this topic.
In the US-China conflict/competition, there are two major forces at play when evaluating morality. America and China are not in the same position so they cannot necessarily be compared to each other directly.

On the one hand, it is quite objective that America has become a dark force, moreso than before. It is engaging in acts of piracy on the open seas, robbing assets from countries that support China against the US, such as Iran. America used to champion globalization but now wishes to deny China every right at fair play and competition. While the US wishes to stand on top of the innovations of the world, it wants to cut China off from every tech available instead of competing with China in innovation with equal access to what the rest of the world has to offer. The US wants to use the USD to sanction countries so that they have no free will, tying thier economic viability with their submission to America. The US is not interested in fair competition or freedom of choice; it wants to create a world order where every country must either obey it or be crushed by every other country, controlled by American puppet strings. This is evil.

However, it is also human. Historically, empires that are facing grievous challenge tend to become darker and more "evil" than both their rising challengers and their former selves. It's easy to be good when you 1) are rising at a fast pace and can win by simply being good and 2) don't actually have the hard power to be tyrannical yet, which is China's current situation. But when you are watching every advantage you build get torn down by a foe that has you on the clock, and you still have the power to lash out, it becomes very very human to use any justification to break the rules and break morals to do whatever you need to do to claw something back and change the game in your favor while you still have the chance.
 
Last edited:

Michaelsinodef

Senior Member
Registered Member
I do agree with your assessment that many Westerners underestimate china's resolve on the Taiwan issue. I also believe the US is trying to goad China into a conflict because that's how uncle Sam knows to do.
At the end of the day everyone is looking after thier own self interest.
Also for right or wrong reasons there are some in the Pentagon and Congress who genuinely believes China is 'evil.
Similarly I've seen that word used against the US even here on this board. Languages like that is ignorantly hawkish at best and ominously dark at worst.
Ultimately, it depends on the scope of the war. Will it be a skirmish, conflict or an all out war short of nuclear Armageddon?
The problem with these types of discussions is people like being in an echo chamber. Everyone thinks their side is the greatest and on the right side if history and drowns out those whom they perceived as anything less that towing the party line. I'm old enough to know that is bullocks.
The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Even more so in something as complex as the history and geopolitics of this topic.
Go away with that centrist shit.

Go look open up a history book on the US, how many wars, invasions etc. it has done and participated in, look into CIA history etc.

It's quite clear that if one really had to go in a good/bad, it's obviously the US being the bad guy.
 

RobertC

Junior Member
Registered Member
CIMSEC has just published one of the better qualitative (vice quantitative) analyses for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
It is one of the few to actually address China's PLAN-CCG-MM coordinated operational capabilities that I've continuously (and tiresomely I'm sure) argued with be used at the boundary of the First Island Chain. Plus it cites the effectiveness of my favorite PLAN vessel.
China’s surface forces can be significantly bolstered by non-military elements. China’s coast guard and maritime militia feature numerous vessels, and its commercial shipping fleet is massive. While these ships feature little in the way of firepower, they can considerably enhance the distribution of Chinese forces and complicate targeting by allowing the Chinese surface fleet to mask its presence among these more numerous vessels. China could also reap considerable gains in the ability to mass fires and pose a far more distributed threat if it opts to extensively field containerized launchers that could fire weapons and decoys from commercial ships. Missile seekers that are programmed to avoid striking contacts that look like civilian vessels may struggle to differentiate these threats. The threat of hidden arsenal ships residing within China’s massive shipping fleet could pose an especially distributed challenge.
The next major layer of PLA anti-ship firepower begins roughly 300 miles from the mainland. In this layer, coastal YJ-12 batteries and YJ-83s fired from short-range Type 22 missile boats pose an especially distributed form of massing anti-ship fires. These assets can help the PLA project sea denial over much of the East China Sea, the northern areas of the South China Sea, and over the maritime approaches to Taiwan. The fleet of 60 missile boats in particular could be valuable in contesting sections of the Batanes and Ryukyu island chains and the maritime approaches leading toward expeditionary advance bases posted on those islands.
China has unique options for reinforcing a maritime buffer even if its surface forces could one day face major disadvantages in their ability to fire first. By filling the forward edge of the buffer zone with copious amounts of state-owned commercial shipping, China could vastly complicate the sensory picture of the battlespace. China’s surface warships could then lurk among these large commercial vessels, and work with aviation to challenge scouts that attempt to probe and make sense of the morass of maritime contacts. Submarines may struggle to use sonar to isolate warship contacts amidst the heavy churning of many commercial ships. Anti-ship missiles may need to rise above sea-skimming altitudes to dodge commercial ships and discover warship contacts, potentially exposing themselves to more defensive fires and offering more early warning to an adversary. China’s uniquely asymmetric ability to leverage large fleets of state-owned commercial shipping in naval warfare deserves careful consideration, especially within the context of maritime active defense.
 

CMP

Senior Member
Registered Member
CIMSEC has just published one of the better qualitative (vice quantitative) analyses for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
It is one of the few to actually address China's PLAN-CCG-MM coordinated operational capabilities that I've continuously (and tiresomely I'm sure) argued with be used at the boundary of the First Island Chain. Plus it cites the effectiveness of my favorite PLAN vessel.
Agreed. I would add though that I expect Chinese state-owned commercial shipping to even be used offensively, for surveillance, or other disruptive purposes in a war scenario. The US and their vassals will not have the luxury of preserving their best firepower to use on formal military threats, because anything and everything will be utilized against them in any way possible. This will be a huge drain on their reserves of munitions, as well as their sensory and decision-making bandwidth. What's to stop China from hiding guided missile launchers on mid to large-sized civilian ships?
 
Top