PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

H

HighGround

Senior Member
Registered Member
Boltzmann said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


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.
Click to expand...

The further a target is from China, the less likely it is to score a hit. You also don't necessarily need to "form a ring" around China to form a blockade. An energy blockade would involve gathering a coalition of partners to essentially embargo China's energy imports, rather than blocking China's energy imports through interdiction of trade vessels.

Boltzmann said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of writers, pundits, policy advisors, and officials are still convinced that we can easily gather a global coalition to isolate China.

In my opinion, I think that many Washington analysts view the Ukrainian War as a success. That it is living, breathing proof that Washington can easily isolate a major power through its international influence.

Following that thinking, I can see why Skylar's analysis sees a long-term contest as favorable to Washington, with the only real threat being a US defeat in a physical confrontation (hence her fear of PLA's rocket arsenal).
 
D

Deleted member 24525

Guest
HighGround said:
The further a target is from China, the less likely it is to score a hit. You also don't necessarily need to "form a ring" around China to form a blockade. An energy blockade would involve gathering a coalition of partners to essentially embargo China's energy imports, rather than blocking China's energy imports through interdiction of trade vessels.



I think a lot of writers, pundits, policy advisors, and officials are still convinced that we can easily gather a global coalition to isolate China.

In my opinion, I think that many Washington analysts view the Ukrainian War as a success. That it is living, breathing proof that Washington can easily isolate a major power through its international influence.

Following that thinking, I can see why Skylar's analysis sees a long-term contest as favorable to Washington, with the only real threat being a US defeat in a physical confrontation (hence her fear of PLA's rocket arsenal).
Click to expand...
Well aside from the existence of Russia, the main problem with this line of reasoning is that a blockade is an act of war. If the US tries and maybe succeeds in strong-arming its gulf allies into not selling to China, then even if the apocalyptic economic fallout of this were tolerable, it would be rendered irrelevant by a Chinese first-strike. There is no scenario where Washington could implement such an embargo without starting a war, and if they tried to start one after being defeated and kicked out of westpac I seriously doubt anybody would follow it since their ability to enforce it would be crippled.
I am pretty sure that an economic campaign of the kind you are talking about is not what she was discussing, since she explicitly described it as a maritime embargo.
Biscuits said:
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.
Click to expand...
If Russia is available and cooperative then yes China can tolerate a lack of maritime energy imports for >5 years, which may as well be forever in a war of such high intensity. I am more so thinking about a worst-case in which Russian overland routes are not available for whatever reason. But that is on the extreme pessimistic end of possibilities.
Most of this will be irrelevant by the end of the 15th FYP since China's transport will be ~50% electrified by then and it could boostrap itself to 100% even with zero foreign oil imports if there were no other option. This oil issue is only relevant for the rest of the 2020's.
 
H

HighGround

Senior Member
Registered Member
Boltzmann said:
Well aside from the existence of Russia, the main problem with this line of reasoning is that a blockade is an act of war. If the US tries and maybe succeeds in strong-arming its gulf allies into not selling to China, then even if the apocalyptic economic fallout of this were tolerable, it would be rendered irrelevant by a Chinese first-strike. There is no scenario where Washington could implement such an embargo without starting a war, and if they tried to start one after being defeated and kicked out of westpac I seriously doubt anybody would follow it since their ability to enforce it would be crippled.
I am pretty sure that an economic campaign of the kind you are talking about is not what she was discussing, since she explicitly described it as a maritime embargo.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but I think that's what policy analysts are banking on. They probably believe that they can justify blockading China.

And yeah, it's obviously going to goad China into a first strike, but that will also allow United States to retain the "moral advantage" and help rally its allies to help against China.

Theoretically.

Boltzmann said:
If Russia is available and cooperative then yes China can tolerate a lack of maritime energy imports for >5 years, which may as well be forever in a war of such high intensity. I am more so thinking about a worst-case in which Russian overland routes are not available for whatever reason. But that is on the extreme pessimistic end of possibilities.
Most of this will be irrelevant by the end of the 15th FYP since China's transport will be ~50% electrified by then and it could boostrap itself to 100% even with zero foreign oil imports if there were no other option. This oil issue is only relevant for the rest of the 2020's.
Click to expand...

I've seen the study that alleged that China has a potentially 8 year hold-out time.

I am highly skeptical of this claim. In my opinion, that was a rudimentary exercise in essentially napkin math, rather than a genuine analysis of how long China can last. (I believe the hold-out time to be significantly shorter)

I think the most obvious conclusion, is that any large-scale embargo of China is going to be extremely painful for everyone. But the idea here is that while the rest of the world would be damaged, it would carry on. Whereas China would be on a ticking clock if the West can convince major energy suppliers (minus Russia) to embargo China.

Theoretically.

These ideas are obviously completely insane and unfeasible in my opinion, but why else would USNI, RAND, STRATFOR, and other think tanks/publications/government offices bother gaming out these scenarios?

And people like Mastro are the ones who help write these reports out.
 
M

Minm

Junior Member
Registered Member
HighGround said:
I don't disagree, but I think that's what policy analysts are banking on. They probably believe that they can justify blockading China.

And yeah, it's obviously going to goad China into a first strike, but that will also allow United States to retain the "moral advantage" and help rally its allies to help against China.

Theoretically.



I've seen the study that alleged that China has a potentially 8 year hold-out time.

I am highly skeptical of this claim. In my opinion, that was a rudimentary exercise in essentially napkin math, rather than a genuine analysis of how long China can last. (I believe the hold-out time to be significantly shorter)

I think the most obvious conclusion, is that any large-scale embargo of China is going to be extremely painful for everyone. But the idea here is that while the rest of the world would be damaged, it would carry on. Whereas China would be on a ticking clock if the West can convince major energy suppliers (minus Russia) to embargo China.

Theoretically.

These ideas are obviously completely insane and unfeasible in my opinion, but why else would USNI, RAND, STRATFOR, and other think tanks/publications/government offices bother gaming out these scenarios?

And people like Mastro are the ones who help write these reports out.
Click to expand...
China has plenty of coal and Mongolia has coal and is in no position to embargo China. Even without Russia, China could switch to coal for heating and electricity and China is building lots of coal plants right now that are mostly idle capacity, ready to turn on if there isn't enough sun and wind or oil imports are blocked. You can even do coal liquefaction if necessary.

But China also has quite a lot of oil domestically, a lot of it is just wasted on cars. You can save a lot of oil by making driving ICE vehicles on weekends illegal, requiring people to take public transport etc.

China can be self sufficient in energy, it would just be extremely dirty and people have to accept a life with less driving cars
 
vincent

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
BMUFL said:
Well, at least to the degree that war mobilization may or may not replace.
Click to expand...
A tiny amount of China’s industrial machine can produce enough munitions to wipe out all the energy infrastructures on hostile nations in the West Pac. The Hegemon will have trouble attacking mainland targets. China can spend a few years to produce enough ships and aircraft carriers to take the war to CONUS.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
HighGround said:
I don't disagree, but I think that's what policy analysts are banking on. They probably believe that they can justify blockading China.

And yeah, it's obviously going to goad China into a first strike, but that will also allow United States to retain the "moral advantage" and help rally its allies to help against China.

Theoretically.



I've seen the study that alleged that China has a potentially 8 year hold-out time.

I am highly skeptical of this claim. In my opinion, that was a rudimentary exercise in essentially napkin math, rather than a genuine analysis of how long China can last. (I believe the hold-out time to be significantly shorter)

I think the most obvious conclusion, is that any large-scale embargo of China is going to be extremely painful for everyone. But the idea here is that while the rest of the world would be damaged, it would carry on. Whereas China would be on a ticking clock if the West can convince major energy suppliers (minus Russia) to embargo China.

Theoretically.

These ideas are obviously completely insane and unfeasible in my opinion, but why else would USNI, RAND, STRATFOR, and other think tanks/publications/government offices bother gaming out these scenarios?

And people like Mastro are the ones who help write these reports out.
Click to expand...


I reckon China could survive an oil blockade.

If you do a napkin calculation with Chinese transport completely electrified, oil consumption drops by 42% to 386 Mn Tonnes.
Today, domestic Chinese oil production is 231 Mn Tonnes with another 86 Mn Tonnes coming from Russia.
Given the reduction in oil demand due to fewer exports, Chinese production + Russian imports are likely enough to get by indefinitely.

And you would be looking at a huge increase in electric vehicle production, mostly trucks, buses and taxicabs.
The existing fleet of private electric cars would also overnight become Didis (Ubers)

Chinese cities are generally very dense, and are already served by buses and rail. These are already electric but you'd need to add even more buses and trains. In fact, we may even see overall commute times decrease as everyone uses electrified public transport which runs more frequently, instead of driving their own cars and the resulting traffic jams. And remember that the cost of public transport or taking a taxi is lower than owning a car.
 
Last edited:
M

montyp165

Senior Member
HighGround said:
I don't disagree, but I think that's what policy analysts are banking on. They probably believe that they can justify blockading China.

And yeah, it's obviously going to goad China into a first strike, but that will also allow United States to retain the "moral advantage" and help rally its allies to help against China.

Theoretically.



I've seen the study that alleged that China has a potentially 8 year hold-out time.

I am highly skeptical of this claim. In my opinion, that was a rudimentary exercise in essentially napkin math, rather than a genuine analysis of how long China can last. (I believe the hold-out time to be significantly shorter)

I think the most obvious conclusion, is that any large-scale embargo of China is going to be extremely painful for everyone. But the idea here is that while the rest of the world would be damaged, it would carry on. Whereas China would be on a ticking clock if the West can convince major energy suppliers (minus Russia) to embargo China.

Theoretically.

These ideas are obviously completely insane and unfeasible in my opinion, but why else would USNI, RAND, STRATFOR, and other think tanks/publications/government offices bother gaming out these scenarios?

And people like Mastro are the ones who help write these reports out.
Click to expand...

This goes back to why I've been saying that the US will be the one to shoot first, because China works to maximize non-military aspects first and foremost and has the infrastructure necessary to do so, while the US's goal is to maintain global supremacy (much as the British had tried), so its position is the more unstable one for that reason.
 
O

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
China gains advantage against the US as time passes. Likewise, US is not stupid and it knows the above fact as well.

Common military logic dictates to strike as early as possible to not give time to your opponent to grow. So the prudent action from a military sense would be for the US military to invest in as much short-term capability growth as it can and then strike at China
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top