PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

S

supersnoop

Major
Registered Member
Maikeru said:
RAND report on Taiwan's prospects of resisting PLA long enough for US to intervene:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...

Must be nice for people to be employed to produce such pointless reports.

The first half was basically a West (Euro/*White*) centric history lesson evoking Roosevelt, the USSR, Netherlands, etc. The only time PLA history was actually mentioned was talking about "low technical skill human wave tactics" (blah, come on, that has been well disproven).

Then after all their analysis was said and done, they basically came to a common sense conclusion of "keep selling weapons to support Taiwan, we don't know if their military/societal support will hold up, but the US should try"

And people wonder why PhDs in humanities (as this Timothy Heath has) aren't well respected...

Really the whole exercise is stupid. The PLA certainly isn't counting on the ROCA to crumble (Russian school of planning), that's why we keep seeing all those glitzy joint-command center opening ceremonies and all the newest toys (KJ-500, YY-20, J-16D, etc.) deployed quickly to the strait.

It might matter to the US planning, but really only in the sense that if the PLA really poops the bed (i.e. somehow losing like 100 J-20s to ROCAF and ROCA AD), they will come in to mop up.
 
B

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
China has the situation regarding the anti government forces themselves under complete control. Otherwise, China would never have opted for negotiations rather than just striking first to destroy the rebels before they can become a genuine threat. The reason they aren't being bombed is because they're not a threat alone.

What China needs to be wary of is American using the volatile situation to invade, and against this threat, that's what all the forces the PLA have prepared are for. Holding off an US invasion indefintely.
 
BoraTas

BoraTas

Captain
Registered Member
Maikeru said:
RAND report on Taiwan's prospects of resisting PLA long enough for US to intervene:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
IMO bad report that accidentally reaches a good conclusion.

1- Rarely talks about the PLA.
2- Repeats the human waves myth
3- Repeats 6:1 ratio myth

It concludes "we can't know" and "we should supply more weapons to Taiwan". Correct conclusion, but you don't need a PhD to reach these conclusions.

supersnoop said:
The first half was basically a West (Euro/*White*) centric history lesson evoking Roosevelt, the USSR, Netherlands, etc. The only time PLA history was actually mentioned was talking about "low technical skill human wave tactics" (blah, come on, that has been well disproven).
Click to expand...

Think tanker writings almost always contain a lot of story telling. For example did you look at Chip War? Half of the book is irrelevant cold war history with focus on electronics. The book has little to no quantitative data. You'd expect a semiconductor related book to mention Dennard Scaling right? It doesn't. Let's see what it says about Dennard

"In the 1960s, engineers like IBM’s Robert Dennard began envisioning integrated circuits that could “remember” more efficiently than little metal rings. Dennard had long, dark hair that flowed below his ears, then shot out at a right angle, parallel to the ground, giving him the look of an eccentric genius"

Hmm, very scientific
 
Last edited:
Bellum_Romanum

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
Maikeru said:
RAND report on Taiwan's prospects of resisting PLA long enough for US to intervene:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
The report simply pushes for U.S. intervention ergo more $$$ flushed into American MIC as justification to its gullible dumb down American suckers called the American taxpaying public.

The emotional argument for Taiwan rings hollow and not skin deep regarding their supposed love for "democracy" and "freedom" whereas the historical argument that animates the argument for the mainland Chinese people evokes strong passion, emotion, and part of the Chinese CPC rhetoric of 100 years of Humiliation being corrected.

The American people and its vassals need to understand how NATIONALISM/PATRIOTISM can galvanize the Chinese people into a fighting frenzy. The severe underestimation along with the overemphasis on hollow speech on Democracy and freedom and the need to impose/maintain their white western rules order will be in for a rude awakening much to the detriment and destruction of many people on this planet that I hope to goodness NEVER, EVER comes to pass.
 
D

davidau

Senior Member
Registered Member
Bellum_Romanum said:
The report simply pushes for U.S. intervention ergo more $$$ flushed into American MIC as justification to its gullible dumb down American suckers called the American taxpaying public.

The emotional argument for Taiwan rings hollow and not skin deep regarding their supposed love for "democracy" and "freedom" whereas the historical argument that animates the argument for the mainland Chinese people evokes strong passion, emotion, and part of the Chinese CPC rhetoric of 100 years of Humiliation being corrected.

The American people and its vassals need to understand how NATIONALISM/PATRIOTISM can galvanize the Chinese people into a fighting frenzy. The severe underestimation along with the overemphasis on hollow speech on Democracy and freedom and the need to impose/maintain their white western rules order will be in for a rude awakening much to the detriment and destruction of many people on this planet that I hope to goodness NEVER, EVER comes to pass.
Click to expand...
US adminstration never reads or understands the historical facts about Taiwan which is a sacred part of China's territory. They white-wash the three communiques signed between China and US. They say one thing and do the opposite, Why? US wants to keep their defence industries going, and the personnels employed, and of course billions of bucks they can make!! And to contain the rising China.
 
coolgod

coolgod

Colonel
Registered Member
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1678718930708480000

ROC veterans getting veteran discount on tickets in Xiamen, seems to be an adhoc policy (maybe for propaganda purposes). Does the CPC have a policy or any statement about what happens to ROC enlisted, vets or martyrs who died fighting against the Japanese? I'm betting a lot of ROC officers have ancestors who were also ROC officers. They might be incentivized to reunite peacefully if their ancestors get recognized for their past deeds.
 
james smith esq

james smith esq

Senior Member
Registered Member
Please, excuse me if this has been discussed, previously, but I have a question on an issue that perplexes me. Regarding the “Median Line” in the Taiwan Strait, which, it seems, was effected, solely, by U. S. military fiat, and has no standing in international law, why does China even still regard this imaginary line as having either any legitimate enforceability or bases for recognition? I mean, if the U. S. can fly its aircraft and sail its ships within 12 nmi of Chinese territories, as FON exercises (and make a very demonstrative case in doing so), then why can’t China do the same in the Taiwan Strait without raising any undue alarms? Would this not be in strict accordance with international law?
In my opinion, merely crossing the median line, as a symbolic challenge, when conducting military exercises actually weakens China’s position by both recognizing, and deferring to U. S. authority and imperatives in the region. I think that China should conduct exercises in all areas of the Taiwan Strait in which it is authorized to do so by international law. At some point, standing-up to the hegemon must go beyond simply challenging its imperatives and diktats to actually exercising one’s own full rights and authority!
 
Last edited:
FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
james smith esq said:
Please, excuse me if this has been discussed, previously, but I have a question on an issue that perplexes me. Regarding the “Median Line” in the Taiwan Strait, which, it seems, was effected solely by U. S. military fiat, and has no standing in international law, why does China even still regard this imaginary line as having either any legitimate enforceability or bases for recognition? I mean, if the U. S. can fly its aircraft and sail its ships within 12 nmi of Chinese territories, as FON exercises (and make a very demonstrative case in doing so), then why can’t China do the same in the Taiwan Strait without raising any undue alarms? Would this not be in strict accordance with international law?
In my opinion, merely crossing the median line, as a symbolic challenge, when conducting military exercises actually weakens China’s position by both recognizing, and deferring to U. S. authority and imperatives in the region. I think that China should conduct exercises in all areas of the Taiwan Strait in which it is authorized to do so by international law. At some point, standing-up to the hegemon must go beyond simply challenging its imperatives and diktats to actually exercising one’s own full rights and authority!
Click to expand...
China is doing exactly that. It has declared that the median line has no basis in international law and in fact the entire Taiwan strait is Chinese territorial waters.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is already happening since Pelosi visited Taiwan for a symbolic gesture.
 
B

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
james smith esq said:
Please, excuse me if this has been discussed, previously, but I have a question on an issue that perplexes me. Regarding the “Median Line” in the Taiwan Strait, which, it seems, was effected, solely, by U. S. military fiat, and has no standing in international law, why does China even still regard this imaginary line as having either any legitimate enforceability or bases for recognition? I mean, if the U. S. can fly its aircraft and sail its ships within 12 nmi of Chinese territories, as FON exercises (and make a very demonstrative case in doing so), then why can’t China do the same in the Taiwan Strait without raising any undue alarms? Would this not be in strict accordance with international law?
In my opinion, merely crossing the median line, as a symbolic challenge, when conducting military exercises actually weakens China’s position by both recognizing, and deferring to U. S. authority and imperatives in the region. I think that China should conduct exercises in all areas of the Taiwan Strait in which it is authorized to do so by international law. At some point, standing-up to the hegemon must go beyond simply challenging its imperatives and diktats to actually exercising one’s own full rights and authority!
Click to expand...
They don't, the only people considering a median line to exist is the military forces of the KMT. Beijing's forces operates around the area on an as needed basis.
 
B

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
FairAndUnbiased said:
China is doing exactly that. It has declared that the median line has no basis in international law and in fact the entire Taiwan strait is Chinese territorial waters.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is already happening since Pelosi visited Taiwan for a symbolic gesture.
Click to expand...
Notice how this is a low level official from the interior ministry.

As far as China (and most of the world) is concerned, there is one contiguous home territory, it is the PRC and it's border extends all the way to 12nm from Eastern Taiwan.

Claims by anti government fighters don't have any recognition. But government forces won't go into potentially dangerous areas without a plan. So going right above KMT held territory where there's GBAD doesn't happen unless there is a reason to do so.

Since a middle line is far away from any meaningful KMT force concentration, government forces operate freely around there and in the surroundings of the island from all sides, because it's completely safe for them to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top