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?