Zero depth. These installations are a speed-bump not a roadblock.
But yes, it is a useful trip-wire and illustrates how the “non-aggressive” West is trying to contain China.
PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
- Thread starter pugachev_diver
- Start date
Zero depth. These installations are a speed-bump not a roadblock.
But yes, it is a useful trip-wire and illustrates how the “non-aggressive” West is trying to contain China.
Does tightening the chain refer to tightening the chain on America's dogs in WestPac? I mean drawing circles and lines for fanfic is cool, but I don't see what information is new in his cartoon drawings.
Based on their range, a Shahed-Lancet combo with SATCOM + optical camera could be launched to patrol the area before the strike happens, and if any signs of aggression present, be ordered to eliminate the threat at low cost. Even 5-10 kg payload is sufficient to remove unarmored TELs, especially if the missiles cook off.
We've already established in this forum that China has a high chance of taking Taiwan. But that's the easy part: how will China control Taiwan? How will China make sure that Taiwan doesn't have some "Taiwanese Liberation Army" running around bombing mainlanders and government outposts? All these require some form of pacification, compliance, and finally acceptance or even joy over the mainland's takeover. Thus, any discussion about potential AR must include how China will manage Taiwan after the initial conquest.
Currently, we have 3 areas that China has applied pacification strategies to: Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong. Each of them required different methods of pacification but overall there are some trends.
The Xinjiang method is probably the most simple. Using the Bingtuan system, China managed to move numerous Han into the most fertile areas of Xinjiang, thus turning the population into 30-40% Han. Although there was never a mass migration into Uyghur areas, China's control of the most fertile areas of Xinjiang give it a large advantage when dealing with any independence movements. For example, Han make up a plurality in the Ili area, which is more fertile and temperate than the oasis cities the Uyghurs tend to live in. Despite Soviets and Islamists trying to wreck havoc on the reason, China has been able to control Xinjiang using it's comfortable Han majority as well as it's offerings economic development to alleviate minority concerns.
The Tibet method involves breaking the old power structures down (monasteries), replacing it from the bottom up with a completely CCP controlled power structure, and offering rapid economic development as well as decent cultural preservation for the minorities. Unlike Xinjiang, Tibet is a dry, barren land, thus offering little incentive for Han migrants. Furthermore, the high altitude means that many Han will abandon Tibet to get rid of altitude sickness. As a result, Tibet was never going to have a substantial Han minority. Originally, China entered into a proto 1 country 2 systems with the Dalai Lama which left Tibet's old governance virtually intact. However, Dalai's attempt to rebel failed and as a result China dissolved the old system and replaced it with standard CCP governance. But due to Tibetan discontent and outside influence, Tibet was always a rebellious place until China had enough resources to invest in economic development in such a barren reason. In fact nowadays, China sees no point in negotiating with the exile Tibetans because many Tibetans in Tibet are content with their current situation.
The Hong Kong method involved forcing the NSL and reshuffling the legislature. Unlike the other two areas, Hong Kong is still under 1C2S and thus cannot immediately switch to a CCP controlled area. However, using the Hong Kong protests as a rationale, China was able to reshape the power structure in such a way that it would be virtually impossible for any future Legco to declare independence or become a staging ground for spies. Furthermore, Hong Kong is an already economically developed area, thus China doesn't need to provide any strong economic incentive as a part of the pacification strategy. The opposition dissolving was also a help as well. This was all done without destroying Hong Kong's reason for existence: a bridge for foreign capital to interact with China.
Taiwan has similarities and differences with all these 3 areas. Any sort of pacification strategy that China pursues will most likely be a mix of these three.
Thoughts?
Currently, we have 3 areas that China has applied pacification strategies to: Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong. Each of them required different methods of pacification but overall there are some trends.
The Xinjiang method is probably the most simple. Using the Bingtuan system, China managed to move numerous Han into the most fertile areas of Xinjiang, thus turning the population into 30-40% Han. Although there was never a mass migration into Uyghur areas, China's control of the most fertile areas of Xinjiang give it a large advantage when dealing with any independence movements. For example, Han make up a plurality in the Ili area, which is more fertile and temperate than the oasis cities the Uyghurs tend to live in. Despite Soviets and Islamists trying to wreck havoc on the reason, China has been able to control Xinjiang using it's comfortable Han majority as well as it's offerings economic development to alleviate minority concerns.
The Tibet method involves breaking the old power structures down (monasteries), replacing it from the bottom up with a completely CCP controlled power structure, and offering rapid economic development as well as decent cultural preservation for the minorities. Unlike Xinjiang, Tibet is a dry, barren land, thus offering little incentive for Han migrants. Furthermore, the high altitude means that many Han will abandon Tibet to get rid of altitude sickness. As a result, Tibet was never going to have a substantial Han minority. Originally, China entered into a proto 1 country 2 systems with the Dalai Lama which left Tibet's old governance virtually intact. However, Dalai's attempt to rebel failed and as a result China dissolved the old system and replaced it with standard CCP governance. But due to Tibetan discontent and outside influence, Tibet was always a rebellious place until China had enough resources to invest in economic development in such a barren reason. In fact nowadays, China sees no point in negotiating with the exile Tibetans because many Tibetans in Tibet are content with their current situation.
The Hong Kong method involved forcing the NSL and reshuffling the legislature. Unlike the other two areas, Hong Kong is still under 1C2S and thus cannot immediately switch to a CCP controlled area. However, using the Hong Kong protests as a rationale, China was able to reshape the power structure in such a way that it would be virtually impossible for any future Legco to declare independence or become a staging ground for spies. Furthermore, Hong Kong is an already economically developed area, thus China doesn't need to provide any strong economic incentive as a part of the pacification strategy. The opposition dissolving was also a help as well. This was all done without destroying Hong Kong's reason for existence: a bridge for foreign capital to interact with China.
Taiwan has similarities and differences with all these 3 areas. Any sort of pacification strategy that China pursues will most likely be a mix of these three.
Thoughts?
The Hegemon and its vassals can't maintain air superiority in the West Pac.
If the missiles, their support personnel and support systems are discovered by PLA, they will be attacked with whatever means PLA has available.
If they hide, PLA can mine all those little islands and let them enjoy living within minefields.
The real version of the huts on rocks joke. Let's draw circles on the map as if they somehow make already existing thousands of already existing and longer range missiles at China irrelevant.
@coolgod This thing is going to end up in the Chinese conquest of the Filipino and Japanese small islands, along with Taiwan.
How to lose all the American RKs in Asia over an attempt to invade China: the guide
Beijing is prepared to go far extra to accomandate the KMT. An eventual deal would likely allow local rule by a KMT-CPC coalition, as long as the area remains functioning up to the standards demanded from the central government.
But that is assuming a continued peace inside China. If China destroys the KMT in a war where they act as the vanguard forces for an American invasion attempt, I don't think any softness would be expected. The Xinjiang solution of temporary emergency powers and peaceful reeducation for large swathes of people would be the softest option.
Consider that the vast majority of current Chinese politicians are rather US friendly. But if US attacks China, all those politicians will be forced to change their stances or be purged. As China mobilizes, the country will go through increased nationalism.
Because the great homeland defense war would involve every sector of society, massive amounts of ex-service members and support personnel who have been hardened by witnessing the war first hand will bring back their thinking home once war ends. These people would be more than willing to enforce hardline policies.
The methods of control over KMT held areas would probably resemble a bit what Ukraine has proposed for the Donbass. The army and locally raised militia will be mobilized to fight insurrection directly, continuing the process until there's no more insurrection.
Economic damage in the province is not a big concern for China, because with the CPC's metrics, they don't consider KMT held areas as productive at all. So even minor productivity from basic industries would already present economical development in Taiwan.
The way to win these kind of war is whomever has the biggest stockpile of guided and precision missiles. If U.S announced that they are planning to build X amounts of Y missile. Make sure you have 3x or more the amount. Whoever runs out of missile or has a slow missile production, then that country loses. Fighter jets and ships are nothing but a carrier of missiles.
I am sure China has a much bigger stockpile of missiles than the U.S and can produce it faster than anyone.
Russia is winning in Ukraine's counteroffensive is due to artillery... Russia is using 60k shells per day while being able to continuously produce a massive amount of shells.. No Western countries can keep up with the production rate. The West has good quality weapons but the quantity is very lacking.
If China has a long range MLRS that can reach Japan's range, then it is game over for them.
One country, two systems is the offer if there's peaceful reunification. The deal would probably be significantly sweeter than what Hong Kong got since Taiwan has much more leverage. Of course, with every passing year they lose a little bit of leverage. I don't think the CPC even needs to impose any laws on Taiwan, they can continue with their current mockery of democracy as long as there are some PLA bases on the island and they give up the idea of independence.
If there's a war, it depends on how radicalised Taiwanese youth become. There's probably a significant minority of them who are a lost cause. They should be encouraged to emigrate so they don't cause trouble and everyone who does want to fight should be reeducated. However, I wouldn't reeducate people on Taiwan, send them somewhere to rural China so they can mingle with their compatriots and are less likely to rebel on the island.
Even if a war is required for liberation of Taiwan, Hong Kong style 1C2S with NSL is probably still best. You'd want to minimise the shock for civilians. If they feel that nothing much has changed and they can live their lives as before, people will accept it and not rebel