Hell, yeah!!!
Just like Russia should wipe-out the Saudi oil production/export facilities; if we can’t sell oil, nobody can sell oil!
Last edited:
PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
- Thread starter pugachev_diver
- Start date
Hell, yeah!!!
Just like Russia should wipe-out the Saudi oil production/export facilities; if we can’t sell oil, nobody can sell oil!
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
Striking at factories simply to deny chips to other nations? That is madness. That will cause severe negative repercussions for China without bringing it any benefits.
Even though the hypothetical scenario of China being permanently hindered in technological development has zero probability, the suggestion of viewing a military strike as a form of economic retaliation is insanity. Especially since you realize eventually, the US would be able to source chips from other sources, so such a strike would not accomplish absolutely nothing in the long run, and only bring severe negative consequences for China.
I disagree. Being able to freeze American technological development, at least for a time, would be a very significant benefit.
I don't want to spend too much time on this scenario because I think its premises are too unlikely to be worth considering (namely, China's failure in creating its own comprehensive semiconductor supply chain in a reasonable time frame, coupled with US failure to forcibly move the current semiconductor supply chain off Taiwan and onto US soil), but I don't see the logic in dismissing military action as a tool to inflict economic injury on an enemy as "madness" and "insanity."
The US de facto occupied Taiwan from 1949-1976. So it had it. Then lost it. The reason for the loss is that the US needed China on side to threaten the Soviets. Without China on side - even if China was as cool neutral towards the Soviets like Finland was - the cost for the US to continue and escalate the Cold War would've been much higher, even untenable. So US gave up Taiwan for China. It wasn't that China couldn't repair relations with the Soviets on its own either. Gorbachev visited Deng in 1989 after all.
If the US has irrationally wanted to hold Taiwan, then it could've continued the occupation for a few more decades. That would've been bad for the US because as China reformed, such an occupation would be a leverage point for China, not the US.
In exchange the Cold War with the Soviets could've lasted until today, China would've still rose up, the initial Taiwanese investors in China would've been even more motivated to get their money out of Taiwan, etc. Sounds like a bad trade to me.
FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
That would only remotely make sense in the very specific case where 1) that timeframe would allow the US to gain an insurmountable military advantage over China where there is high possibility the US will use that advantage to take the initiative to directly violate China's core interests / sovereignty. At which point, why stop with strikes on TSMC? In such an event, the only possible choices would be capitulation or launching total war.
However, these scenarios are so impossibly unlikely that I don't see why it was necessary to be brought up in the first place. What's the point of concocting hypothetically implausible scenarios in order to justify senseless violence?
You've summarized precisely the US's fantasy in these technological restrictions on China. They believe that China will never be able to recreate its own semiconductor supply chain, and even if it could, it would take several decades. I consider this nonsense, but there is still merit in considering one's options in worst case scenarios, even if such scenarios have infinitesimal probabilities.
I believe responses should be measured and calibrated. Escalation is not a foregone conclusion necessitating China to immediately launch total war. The scenario I outlined is one such case where the costs of escalation are so onerous to the adversary that they'll just take the L and sit down.
It came up in the context of discussing Taiwan's importance to China as a semiconductor manufacturing hub. I argued against this idea by formulating an example where even if China's situation were far worse than it actually that semiconductors became a factor in whether it takes military action, that action would still not be a prelude to AR.
That is why the USA should be the target, not Taiwan.
If the local bully try to make your short-skinny retarded brother to fight you, you ignore the brother, you go to the bully and break his Jaw,
Same with the Taiwan situation. USA is the trouble maker, Taiwan is just pawn.
If Taiwan declare independence just blockade the islands, impose a no fly zone; then force all trades and flights to go through Mainland.
1) If the USA pussies out, then Taiwan will just surrender than you get peaceful reunification. Taiwan is not valuable enough for a shooting war.
2) If the USA try something stupid like Sanction, Blockade Malacca or blow up TSMC, just give the USA an ultimatum then declare war. US don't have the industrial capacity to fight a conventional war with China, it's basically reverse pacific war, it would lucky for them to still keep Hawaii by the time it's over.
Seriously, all the Chinese in this thread seem still scared to fight the USA. The USA is your opponent, you need to learn to face your actual Enemy.
Also, if nuke didn't exist, today's China would a** r*** the USA any days. The disparity in industrial capacity is just too great.
solarz
Brigadier
Actions speak louder than words. If the US truly didn't want a shooting war over Taiwan, then they wouldn't be trying to goad China at every opportunity.
In addition, as mentioned previously, with each passing year, the balance of power continues to tip in China's favor. Currently, military force is one of the few advantages the US has left over China, and even that is rapidly eroding. Therefore, the US has every reason to try to provoke a war with China.
The stated American goal is the containment of China. The ideal outcome for the US would be the Ukraine scenario, where they can supply local vassals with intel and equipment while avoiding shedding their own blood. However, they would not be averse to doing the dirty work themselves if that was what it takes.
solarz
Brigadier
One of the lessons we learned from Ukraine is that throwing the first punch doesn't always end the fight, especially if we're talking about two juggernaut size opponents.
2035 is the year I think that China will comfortably surpass America in nominal GDP and military as well as self producing great chips altogether. Year of great confidence.
If China plans anything kinetic, I would wait until 2035. 2040-2045 is even better. In the meantime, it could do military plane flyover to Taiwan. but dont start anything kinetic.
If China plans anything kinetic, I would wait until 2035. 2040-2045 is even better. In the meantime, it could do military plane flyover to Taiwan. but dont start anything kinetic.