PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

vesicles said:

The Japanese had been in Taiwan for 50+ years at the beginning of the WWII. China yielded the right to govern Taiwan to Japan after they lost the Sino-Japanese war in the late 1800's. They were quite successfully in colonizing the island. By that, I mean they did not use military and successfully developed the economy on the island. Many locals in Taiwan actually sided with the Japanese during WWII. According to an article I read years ago, many young Taiwanese hoped that Japan would successfully occupy and colonize China so that they could move to China and find better jobs. I'm not sure how true this is, but just something I found interesting.

Click to expand...

OK, I won't argue how Chinese or not these Taiwanese were, but in essence they voted for a path rather different from the Chinese mainland. Why, weren't they outraged at the atrocities and at a brutal Japanese rule such as the Koreans or did they feel confident with the increasing democracy (that was still pretty aristocratic) in Japan?

So we should perhaps take a closer look at Japanese Taiwan because it seems a very strange place for a Japanese occupation that in all other lands triggered guerilla resistances that played an essential part in forming the nations.

A republic with democracy at its core, from a Western perspective, or identity of interests of the state and the individual and the recognition of the individual that his concerns and aspirations influence the state, results in higher willingness to pay taxes to this communal superstructure. The case could be well studied in Europe for the conflicts between several republican and absolute monarchical systems and the monarchs on an average lost because the republics got more funds from their populations without causing riots.
Imperial Japan for example could get more money per head from her cheaper population, unlike Nazi Germany that was concerned of keeping the war burden on her population low and take more from occupied lands that in turn rose in armed rebellion, requiring troops running a constant counterinsurgency. Great Britain and especially the USA were far better off financially, and so it was only a matter of time for them to win. The Soviets are a special case, I modified the democracy argument at the start, because in essence it expressed something with a slightly differing meaning that could work in a different system.
Current problem in the democratic West is tax evasion by a seemingly large swath of our elites, so we actually do have to borrow money and implement austerity.

So concerning the massive naval requirements for a blue water capability to back up any claims in the Strait through a semi-global SLoC control, it'll play an important role how much people do support the gouvernment's ruling, goal and the consequences.
The current unemployment in the West could be very handy to stirr up a warlike mood because Chinese are considered as responsible for that. Don't argue over the logic of that, I just watched frequent outburst against China and Chinese looking people and what rationale they have: "these are the guys taking away my bright future perspectives!".

Taiwan during its colonisation by Japan had the highest Japanese police to local civilians ratio, alot higher than Korea.

Ahemmm This thread is titled PLAN Strategy in the Taiwan Strait.

Let's shelve the political and history lessons shall we? As the fat Rebel pilot says..



bd popeye super moderator

popeye, it's actually strange that you'd tolerate a topic such as this one for so long. And needless to say this'd get hotter when election is so short away.

The crux of the matter is, if the PRC is forced to go to war over Taiwan, then it has already lost the diplomatic battle. Even the most extreme DPP supporters know that Taiwan has no chance at independence without American support. Therefore, any declaration of independence MUST have been tacitly supported by the US. In other words, the decision to declare independence lies not with Taiwan, but with the US.

The good news is, there is practically no chance that the US is willing to take that kind of risk. They know perfectly well that to do so is to effectively declare war against the PRC. If they were not willing to do so in the past 20 years, when China was far weaker militarily, what makes you think they would be willing to do so in the future?

MwRYum said:

popeye, it's actually strange that you'd tolerate a topic such as this one for so long. And needless to say this'd get hotter when election is so short away.

Click to expand...

I can't read all the threads and there other mods. I have stepped in previously.

Just stay on topic.

solarz said:

The crux of the matter is, if the PRC is forced to go to war over Taiwan, then it has already lost the diplomatic battle. Even the most extreme DPP supporters know that Taiwan has no chance at independence without American support. Therefore, any declaration of independence MUST have been tacitly supported by the US. In other words, the decision to declare independence lies not with Taiwan, but with the US.

The good news is, there is practically no chance that the US is willing to take that kind of risk. They know perfectly well that to do so is to effectively declare war against the PRC. If they were not willing to do so in the past 20 years, when China was far weaker militarily, what makes you think they would be willing to do so in the future?

Click to expand...

That's a very good point. What could the US win by going to war with the China of the last 20 years? But what can the US win by going to war with the China in the next twenty years?
As Chinese economic capabilities and know-how increase, China becomes much more difficult to defeat, but at the same time a more valuable target. WWI and WWII did include massive spoils for the winners by taking away intellectual property of the defeated sides (revoking their patents, Operation Paperclip). The spoils of a war between developed countries increase because war is a time of intense developments while it is hoped that the victor can create a post-war order that serves his interests most (establishing trade and production rights for example). Nuclear weapons seem to stiffle the greed, hackers and spies offer a less risky route, but it seems like the spoils of conflict between modern actors are increasingly information and not territory. So the incentive increases, even if it's just about declaring Chinese international patents as unprotected.
At the moment, we both agree that the US has no interest in a conflict. Problem is the US has declared that there will be a conflict in the futur. It's a strange prophecy that can become self-fulfilling.

In the year 2012 a war between china and taiwan or china and the usa is for me a inapprehensible thought.

Kurt said:

That's a very good point. What could the US win by going to war with the China of the last 20 years? But what can the US win by going to war with the China in the next twenty years?
As Chinese economic capabilities and know-how increase, China becomes much more difficult to defeat, but at the same time a more valuable target.

Click to expand...

I see no incentive for the US to declare war against China in the next 20 years, unless the incentive is that the US realizes they will be in a far weaker position (militarily, economically, politically) post 2030 against china and thus want to act now to ensure it's place as the top dog in the world. But even that would be supremely unlikely and irresponsible.
I doubt any sane state actor would want to put their country into war to reap the meagre spoils of war which they are not necessarily guaranteed to win... and even then you'll expect losses the public most likely wouldn't be able to stomach.

But this is all an aside. Clearly the US isn't seeking war, and at the very least I do not see or forsee circumstances in which they would pursue that path deliberately.

Kurt said:

That's a very good point. What could the US win by going to war with the China of the last 20 years? But what can the US win by going to war with the China in the next twenty years?
As Chinese economic capabilities and know-how increase, China becomes much more difficult to defeat, but at the same time a more valuable target. WWI and WWII did include massive spoils for the winners by taking away intellectual property of the defeated sides (revoking their patents, Operation Paperclip). The spoils of a war between developed countries increase because war is a time of intense developments while it is hoped that the victor can create a post-war order that serves his interests most (establishing trade and production rights for example). Nuclear weapons seem to stiffle the greed, hackers and spies offer a less risky route, but it seems like the spoils of conflict between modern actors are increasingly information and not territory. So the incentive increases, even if it's just about declaring Chinese international patents as unprotected.
At the moment, we both agree that the US has no interest in a conflict. Problem is the US has declared that there will be a conflict in the futur. It's a strange prophecy that can become self-fulfilling.

Click to expand...

War has also become exponentially more costly in terms of blood and treasure for both sides if two near-peers goes to war.

Even when the US has gone to beat up some hopelessly outclassed and outmatched Taliban, they are not exactly having things all their way and even in oil rich Iraq, the spoils of war have not been close to covering the money the US has poured into the conflict.

And unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, China has enormously deep and broad economic ties with the US. Not only is the American economy now co-dependent with the Chinese economy financially, in terms of physical goods there is huge mutual reliance.

If America was to go to war with China, America would quite litteraly struggle to stock their shelves of essential wares and goods, especially electronics and clothing to speak nothing of the financial damage. And that is by no means accidental.

Why do you think China has been, and is continuing to spend so little on defence? (in terms of defence spending as a percentage of GDP, China's spending is far less than that of America, Russia or Britian etc, and is not even at the level NATO recommends for it's members). China has been using it's economy as a honey trap to tie America's fortunes with China's, so America will be dealing itself massive damage by merely choosing to go to war with China before a single shot has been fired in anger.

There are some in the US who would love to see nothing more than for the US to go to war with China asap, but thankfully for them, us and everyone on the planet, they are the extreme minority and are considered loony by the vast majority of Americans.

The only way America and China could go to war is if America blundered into a war without fully realising it before hand.

It's hard to imagine that such a thing could happen, but then how many of us would have thought someone like Bush Jr could not only become president, but get a second term? Or that Congress could be held to hostage by the Tea Party as it has been?

In a rational world, America would never choose to go to war with China and vice versa, but it seems Capital Hill is anything but rational these days. So while I would say the chances of America and China going to war are slight in the extreme, it is not a possibility anyone could safely rule out with American politics the way it is.