Awww, lawd! Another one of these Trumpers? Y’all‘s some, sorely, confused children!
PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
- Thread starter pugachev_diver
- Start date
If your position is now that "the idea of AR possibly occurring in 2027 is not unreasonable," I hope you can recognize that is a massive step back from the previous statement you had of "China has been actively intending and planning to initiate conflict in a AR context in the year 2027".
Obviously we cannot rule out the idea that a conflict over Taiwan will not occur in 2027, as that is an impossible task of trying to prove a negative.
As for "manufacturing consent" -- the natural progression of the cross-strait relationship over the last decade to now, as well as the geopolitical context between China and the US, is one where China naturally is signaling in a variety of ways that it is willing to go to war over Taiwan if its red lines are crossed, and in practical ways that it is aiming to be prepared for a variety of eventualities.
Yes, that includes public signaling to its own population that the Taiwan issue is important to the nation, and that they may have to go to war over it in the near future.
None of that however, is sufficient to support the idea that China has been actively planning and intending for a number of years now, to go to war over Taiwan in the specific year 2027.
If some more nationalistic individuals have raised their own expectations and/or hopes for conflict due to being unable to understand geopolitical context, signaling and the actual requirements to prosecute a war on one's own long term initiative and schedule, then it just means they are letting their heart get ahead of their brain.
"Some people feel like this signaling could be interpreted as China wanting to go to war in 2027" is simply not good enough for this kind of claim.
If the idea is that China's been planning to initiate war in 2027 and has been planning and intending to do so since a couple of years ago, then we need evidence for that.
Otherwise, this essentially amounts to a statement of "well we can't rule out that China won't initiate a war in 2027" which in turn can really properly be distilled down to "myself and/or others want China to initiate a war in 2027".
And likewise you're also overestimating the benevolence of the ones that instigated the cultural revolution, buried hundreds of thousands of Americans through covert support to America's enemies and came on top through an incredibly bloody warlord era.
Why would China care about damages in Taiwan? According to PRC methodology, KMT controlled areas are not considered as generating any economic activity at all. If China can set up a few dozen America style labor prisons and install a bunch of military base support towns in Taiwan with mostly mainland settlers, the province's economic prospects would already be vastly improved.
With the existence of drones, facial recognition and electronic surveillance, these factors are able to destroy any attempt at insurrection. While the current Chinese government isn't going to use the most brutal tools right away, the next government, which would have many veterans from repelling an American invasion of China, would not hesitate twice to use Israel style tactics on the island if the situation calls for it.
The fighting will be horrific, for American invaders who will mostly end up swimming with sharks as their ships get sniped trying to breach the Taiwan line. And for the KMT traitors, who will be bombed wherever they go. But this is their deserved lot for engaging in territorial aggression.
To be honest, the feasibility of your idea is not high. This approach is simply a cruel means of replicating KMT's reign(before 1949).
These opportunists lack the courage to engage in real combat. Of course, if they are allowed to carry out Fascism transformation on the people of Taiwan Island, it will be a failure of our policy.
It is still too early to talk about governance issues, but I am certain that it is very difficult to transport weapons from outside, which will help stabilize the situation in a few years. The simplest approach is to actively contact loyalists now, because in the current political atmosphere on Taiwan Island, publicly expressing closeness to the mainland is a high-risk behavior.
You can always reeducate people over and over into different ideologies as long as you control the media.
Look at Xinjiang for an example. Islamism was touted by most people as being even harder to get rid of than fascism. But China still got rid of it, they just first needed a ground offensive to knock out the terrorists' armed forces and break open the islamists' control over local media and law.
A so called fascist wave in Taiwan would not be too dangerous either for the same reason.
To this day, I still regard that day as a day of shame.
I quite doubt the determination of the leadership, and it is still the same to this day. So I really look forward to Americans continuing to create some 'big events' that can force the sluggish CPC to respond: without whipping them on the back, they will continue to see all problems as non-existent.
So I am looking forward to Biden personally visiting that island or deploying THAAD on it, preferably B2 bombers and nuclear weapons. Americans should be bolder.
The legitimacy of regime is not used for firewood. At present, many erroneous policies have not been corrected, and bureaucrats have only mechanically implemented preferential policies towards Taiwan without conducting strict qualification checks. When you talk about grand plans, the bureaucrats responsible for actual execution can always make you lose confidence.
Let's wait and see. I don't like those malicious speculations, but it's not a good thing for the people to suspect that the leadership is concerned about the safety of their children in the United States, so they dare not take action. This may be the imagination of those vulgar and short-sighted citizens, but the patience of the people will eventually be exhausted.
Leadership heads need to roll if that's the case.
What is shameful about the fact that China has now held America at bay for more than 70 years of invasion threats?
You criticise the leadership, yet is it not the leadership that commissioned numbers of defences, some specifically designed to tackle an American attack, weapon types across all spectrums, many 1 or 2 generations ahead of what any other country has? So you think China will not use its defenses should there be a day where US invades?
It's a marathon, not a sprint. China has the prequisite means to defend itself, and more, should the government go to war production. If they refuse to for some outlandish reason, they will go the way of the Yanukoyvich regime, replaced by someone who is willing to fight American enemies at the gate.
In such a scenario, I guess Americans can enjoy 2-5 years of contested sovereignty over Taiwan province, before the next government in Beijing brings the full war production weight of the largest economy in the world to crush them. And I don't think such a government would stop at Chinese territories.
What is really a shame is that the American regime are today greedy for territory, while their citizens are falling further and further behind their Chinese counterparts. There is no shame in being a country under threat from invasion, but all shame to the ones that disrupt the peace. And should America make good on its threat, they will drown in their own blood.
D
Deleted member 24525
Guest
This is a surprise to me. Usually Skylar leans pretty hard towards the pentagon side of things, rather than the think tanks, when discussing the prospects of the US in a hypothetical war. So her endorsement of a maritime energy blockade is strange.
Honestly I don't understand what she could be thinking in saying that a maritime blockade would be feasible. This is the same woman who has been sounding the alarm on Chinese long range precision strike capabilities for years. Is there something new to the strategy that I haven't heard of? They could do it in the Indian ocean instead of Westpac, but that would require diverting substantial (and for the US, basically irreplaceable) surface combat power far away from the actual war, making a Chinese victory more likely, and even then they still wouldn't be fully safe from Chinese missiles.
I do think a protracted war would be a problem energy wise, but that is simply because having a high intensity war going on would naturally disrupt cargo transit, rather than because of any deliberate blockade action by the US.
I would appreciate others' input if there is anything significant I am missing here, or if Skylar really has just gone off the think tank deep end.
I know this is an emotionally charged topic but please refrain from knee-jerk replies or quips, or unnecessary political commentary.
Last edited by a moderator:
What would a blockade achieve when China has energy, food and material self sufficiency by land routes?
Sure, a succesful blockade would temporarily tank luxury products availability and rationing might go into effect in some areas, but it's not anything regular Chinese can't live with, especially when they're dealing with the whole being invaded by USA scenario.
Life would get blander, assuming the worst case, in China's most vulnerable areas (besides Taiwan), life might become as bland as it is in Lviv. Which is sustainable, especially when Chinese people don't have a choice.
As I see it, a blockade is an admission of defeat. If US is forced to withdraw to sustainable blockade margins like the Indian ocean, China will first wreck any country in Asia that supported the US attack.
Sooner or later, the PLA will reach the US blockade margins and push them back. At that point, China would have overwhelming numbers advantage from a fully mobilized economy, and they would also have occupied the co-aggressor countries in Asia, using those to help further fuel the war machine. They would at that time not only be able to just construct frigates, helicopter carriers and submarines in mass numbers like at the start of the conflict, but embark on something similar to WW2 US mass Iowa class construction, building multiple CVN in parallel along with their escorts.
If US failed to breach the Taiwan line and opts for a blockade, they would be slowly ground down without being able to mount major offensives again.