PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

FriedRiceNSpice said:

In the event that the US actually provokes a conflict over Taiwan and is unable to prevent its fall, do you think South Korea would still place any faith in American provided security?

Click to expand...

Unlike Taiwan, U. S. has a sizable deployment and basing in SK. Vastly different situation from Taiwan as an attack on SK could result in more than trivial U. S. casualties. Also, I believe the security agreement with SK is formal.
However, my main concern is the U. S. ability to leverage SK bases and geography against China in a conflict over Taiwan. Geographically, this is the nearest deployment of U. S. military power to the Chinese mainland and several major bases/HQs. I’m not certain that SK leadership would be confident to chart an independent course in the face of occupying pressure from the U. S.
All this, notwithstanding, I’ll simply say this: my expectation is that when the U. S. sets its grand plan for east-Asia into motion, attempting to neutralize NK as a viable military threat to its operations in SK will be the first order of business. A failure to anticipate, and to prepare for, this, in my opinion, would be a grand folly!

james smith esq said:

Unlike Taiwan, U. S. has a sizable deployment and basing in SK. Vastly different situation from Taiwan as an attack on SK could result in more than trivial U. S. casualties. Also, I believe the security agreement with SK is formal.
However, my main concern is the U. S. ability to leverage SK bases and geography against China in a conflict over Taiwan. Geographically, this is the nearest deployment of U. S. military power to the Chinese mainland and several major bases/HQs. I’m not certain that SK leadership would be confident to chart an independent course in the face of occupying pressure from the U. S.
All this, notwithstanding, I’ll simply say this: my expectation is that when the U. S. sets its grand plan for east-Asia into motion, attempting to neutralize NK as a viable military threat to its operations in SK will be the first order of business. A failure to anticipate, and to prepare for, this, in my opinion, would be a grand folly!

Click to expand...

If SK permits US forces to operate from bases in SK territory, then it is inevitable as to what the PLA response would be, and it is questionable what the fate of SK will be after the conflict. However, in my opinion, Chinese foreign policy should do everything in its power to preclude that possibility. Unlike Japan, SK makes sense as a natural ally in the long term. In the short to medium term, China should maximize the possibility of SK neutrality and in the long term, seek alignment with SK.

Bear in mind the following reality.

Dolcevita said:

Bear in mind the following reality.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

This arrangement cannot survive for long if the US were to provoke conflict in the Taiwan strait. If the US is demonstrated to be not able to maintain military control in the region, then there will be no way the US can maintain a military presence on the East Asian mainland.

FriedRiceNSpice said:

If SK permits US forces to operate from bases in SK territory, then it is inevitable as to what the PLA response would be, and it is questionable what the fate of SK will be after the conflict. However, in my opinion, Chinese foreign policy should do everything in its power to preclude that possibility. Unlike Japan, SK makes sense as a natural ally in the long term. In the short to medium term, China should maximize the possibility of SK neutrality and in the long term, seek alignment with SK.

Click to expand...

Which is the point if the first scenario I proposed, i. e., a diplomatic overture which situates China and Russia as de-escalators on the peninsula and the guarantors of peaceful resolutions of issues, therein. I mean, NK is an issue that needs to be dealt with; better do it to China’s advantage, on China’s time-frame, than to have it foisted upon China at an inopportune time.

Dolcevita said:

Bear in mind the following reality.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

It would still be unlikely for SK to attack China. Doesn't matter what the US command says, if it's too dangerous and the SK troops aren't able to provide proper support, they won't be used.

NK is too big of a threat. US would be forced to divert a signficant portion of their power just to keep SK barely intact. Involving SK would hamper the invasion effort, not improve it. Especially because it allows China to have an excuse to employ heavy ground forces.

There's no air defense that can counter the massed artillery NK has. Especially not when China will do SEAD for NK and assist the campaign by hitting the most high value targets.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

An outright invasion of the Japanese home islands is not going to work, I'm afraid. Just read Operation Downfall to see how perilous and difficult it is to execute an all-out amphibious invasion against the Japanese home islands, even with overwhelming aerial and naval superiority on the Allied side against a completely-broken-yet-fervently-fanatic Imperial Japan.

Click to expand...

Japan is highly import dependent for food and energy, just like Taiwan. In a total blockade, there'll be hunger. Japanese today are also not fanatic in the same way as in WW2. So an invasion of Japan should remain an option of necessary and the US is unable to intervene. In a world war scenario in which Russia is involved you could even have an invasion of Hokkaido and Kyushu at the same time. Operation downfall assumed that there'd only be air fields in Okinawa and the aircraft carriera to support an invasion which is very far from the American homeland. But China can bomb Japanese cities much more easily from hundreds of airbases on the mainland while Japan has lost the ability to independently produce fighter planes

FriedRiceNSpice said:

To say Germany lost very little during WW1 is a massive understatement. Of course, inarguably the French suffered a greater deal of devastation due to the action of the Western Front taking part primarily on French soil. To state that Germany only suffered humiliation is ignoring the massive economic consequences to Germany which ultimately enabled the creation of an environment within Germany that fostered radicalism and resulted in the Nazis taking power and plunging the world into another world war. An amended version of your assessment of the lesson to be drawn from WW1 should be: unless you can directly assert control / total influence over the defeated adversaries, you should seek to minimize the costs placed directly on the population of said adversaries.

As you mentioned, it would not be possible to completely resolve a world war to the favor of any one side due to MAD. It would be in everyone's best interests for the conflict to be resolved as quickly and within as limited of a scope as possible. Even in a limited conflict where there is minimal direct involvement of US forces, if Taiwan is taken in a conflict which is seen as sparked by the US, then the credibility of US power in the Western Pacific would collapse. Japan and Australia would remain as the only nations still aligned with the US, and US influence and power in the rest of region would recede into nothingness.

Hence, it is in the best interests of China to 1) avoid direct confrontation unless it can be viewed as being provoked by the separatists or the US (ie declaration of independence, basing of foreign military assets directly within the territory of Taiwan) and 2) limit the scope of the conflict as much as possible.

Click to expand...

The settlement of WW1 is usually described as too humiliating and aggressive towards Germany, but the core of my argument is that history proves that it left Germany intact enough to start another war. France could have pushed to re-establish Napoleonic borders and make the Rhine River the new border. Or they could have demanded more autonomy or independence for regions like Bavaria. Instead, they wasted political capital on saving face by inserting the war guilt clause and demanded money rather than more land.

Yes, the world is different today. But how do we avoid a future of a century of Sino American wars? I completely agree with your conclusions regarding Taiwan. But what's the strategy if the US actually fights with all available assets to take over Taiwan? China needs to have a strategy for making Asia safe from future American aggression. If they fight over Taiwan and lose, then Hawaii and Alaska will suddenly look very vulnerable. China shouldn't stop until there's no American soldiers left in the Philippines, Japan and the kingdom of Hawaii which they illegally annexed. The US shouldn't have any ability to threaten the mainland coast if there's a next war

Minm said:

“[...]. China shouldn't stop until there's no American soldiers left in the Philippines, Japan and the kingdom of Hawaii which they illegally annexed. The US shouldn't have any ability to threaten the mainland coast if there's a next war”

Click to expand...

And, what of the Korean Peninsula?

HighGround said:

I've always been curious about how Japan is planning to maintain such a powerful force. Increased automation can only go so far.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

The Japanese military has a huge problem with recruits. Like huge... Three evils all together

1- Low and decreasing number of young people
2- The military is a low respect job
3- No conscription

The median age of their military is above 30 and a substantial portion of the budget is personnel wages. Any expansion of the JSDF would require more personnel which is only possible by a significant wage increase. This is one of the primary reasons why the growth of their military has been incremental at best for a decade. The supposed Japanese re-armament keeps generating hype every few years but substance has been low.

BoraTas said:

The Japanese military has a huge problem with recruits. Like huge... Three evils all together

1- Low and decreasing number of young people
2- The military is a low respect job
3- No conscription

The median age of their military is above 30 and a substantial portion of the budget is personnel wages. Any expansion of the JSDF would require more personnel which is only possible by a significant wage increase. This is one of the primary reasons why the growth of their military has been incremental at best for a decade. The supposed Japanese re-armament keeps generating hype every few years but substance has been low.

Click to expand...

They can't solve this even with higher wages unless they're astronomical. They just don't have the demographics for it while their youth are more and more into Genshin. The core demographic of the Japanese fascists is the baby boomer cohort born in the 1960s that came of age in the 1980s. Their children (born in the 1980s) and grandchildren (born in the 2000s) don't want to fuck with China, the first because they think China is brutal and the second because they think China is Genshin and Honkai.