The elimination of TSMC would make Intel the leader in cutting edge volume semiconductor production.
Samsung produces literal hot garbage (heat problems galore)
PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
- Thread starter pugachev_diver
- Start date
The elimination of TSMC would make Intel the leader in cutting edge volume semiconductor production.
Samsung produces literal hot garbage (heat problems galore)
America doesn't want to suffer a Chinese surprise attack, but China also doesn't want to suffer an American surprise attack. I don't think China wants to fight America at all, if it can be avoided
China's goal is still to liberate Taiwan at minimal cost. That means avoiding a Pacific war if at all possible. The safest way to take Taiwan is to slowly escalate and let the separatists give you a pretext for using the military. There won't be a Pearl Harbour style attack on the US unless the whole top of the government gets replaced by people who think like Mao
Two things that I would like to talk about when it comes to conversations of this kind:
#1 - Never underestimate your enemy. While pretty much the Capitol Hill have become a concentration of deranged, unhinged and out-of-touch-with-reality fossils, many in the Pentagon certainly aren't (I guess the Potomac River does its thing). In fact, from what I could gather, the US military is definitely taking the PLA threat (to their presence in the WestPac) deadly seriously.
On the other side of the divide, I'm sure that the vice-versa also holds true for the August 1st Building in Beijing. Even with how we've seen US warships getting rusty, US warplanes getting worn out, and US overseas bases increasingly unkept and falling apart, etc etc in recent years - The US military is still a considerable threat of force for Beijing to reckon with, partially and simply because the US military presence and prowess in the IndoPac has been built up over the past 7 decades. Simply put - The inertia is already present.
Of course, China isn't afraid to fight the US directly. But fighting your enemy diligently versus rush-B at your enemy are entirely different matters.
#2 - Always leave a back door for your enemy to leave. Surely this sounds rather counterintuitive especially to those here who really are looking at the US presence in the IndoPac like a malignant tumor that needs to be removed completely from Asia ASAP (me too) - The US is still a nuclear-armed superpower.
So, unlike the smaller nations of Japan, South Korea and the Philippines - If the US is being backed into a corner and feels that they are left with no choice but to retaliate fiercely, the Capitol Hill may choose unleash nukes against advancing PLA forces in the Pacific.
I believe that @Patchwork_Chimera (or someone else) has mentioned long ago that nukes are not considered a crucial factor by the Pentagon in a WestPac scenario against China. Coupled with China's No First Use policy regarding her nuclear arsenal - It would be better for both China and the US to keep it that way.
Therefore, should the China-US confrontation in the WestPac evolves into an all-out total war, the ultimate war objective should be the securing of a strategic depth from the Chinese coastline that stretches all the way to the 2IC in the WestPac, with Guam being the location for the Chinese version of Joint Base Pearl Habour-Hickam - Alongside the 2.5IC as the most forward frontline for the PLA to hold across the CentPac.
In the meantime, forget about trying to capture islands as far as Oahu - or even attempt amphibious operations on the beaches of San Francisco. Those are unrealistic and unfeasible goals, even with China's industrial and military prowess. Leave some room for the US to breathe (plus sufficient avenues for both sides to back down and negotiate a ceasefire/end-to-war settlement).
Tl; dr - For China, fighting the US is a matter of national survival. For the US, fighting China is the matter of hegemonic survival. It would be crucial to not cause the US to have the same concern as China - Especially when we are talking about a mentally-deranged-&-unhinged Washington DC.
Last edited:
For the most part, I’m in agreement with your assessment.
As I’ve said, previously, China’s fundamental objective (in the speculated scenario) is to reduce the U. S. to a multi-regional military power from a global military power! In order to do so, China need not become a global military power; it only needs to become the predominant power in its own region. Neutralizing the USN‘s ability to conduct offensive operations into the western Pacific would achieve this, partially. As you illustrate, in the map, above, the eastern boundary of this region, at sea, could be the “2.5 IC” line.
To the west, the boundary could be, either the land boundaries of the SCS basin, or some line midway in the Indian Ocean. Actually, I’d prefer it if China could become the predominant naval power in the Indian Ocean, as a whole. This would limit the USN to being an Atlantic-Mediterranean/east+south-Pacific power, and provide China with significant control over its sea lines of trade/communication. It‘s all about the BRI, baby!
Edit: Additionally, I’m of the opinion that any war between the U. S. and China will always remain a war of limited objectives, with neither seeking to inflict strategic damage to each other’s mainland. However, the degree to which China considers Taiwan to be Chinese territory could render this assessment moot!
Last edited:
solarz
Brigadier
It's easy to say that in hindsight.
And I suggest you go back and read what I wrote instead of continuously quoting me out of context.
I have clearly explained that the primary objective is the US is to goad China into launching AR before it is ready. Its ideal outcome is a Ukraine style scenario where it can get TW, Japan, SK, Philippines, and Australia to fight China while it supports them from behind.
I have also explained that in order to do so, the US must first convince those nations that their survival is at stake, and that will only happen if China attacks them first.
Your proposal of a preemptive strike on US bases accomplish exactly that goal. You simply assume that a preemptive strike would cripple the US ability to wage war. That was exactly what the Japanese thought when they attacked Pearl Harbor.
In reality, if you can find a theory on a public forum like this, with a purported US intel agent reading it to boot, it would be utterly foolish to believe the US would not be taking measures to mitigate the impact of such a potential strike.
Knowing about it doesn't mean they can do anything about it. The PLA's firepower is too overwhelming. I could take measures to mitigate the impact of being punched by Mike Tyson, but it's not going to do me much good.
The Pentagon has made clear that they intend to strike all critical infrastructure and major cities on the mainland. Don't be naive in thinking this will purely end with some lost planes, ships, and subs.
You assume US will quickly go nuclear, it will not, there are ladder to escalation. US is very unlikey to go nuclear unless the continental US is being attacked.
My main point is that outcome of war depend more on your ability to produce rather than your stockpile.
The disparity in industrial capacity between China and US is very similar to the one between US and Japan in WWII.
China should use Taiwan/Jap/Phil to bait the US into fire the first shot, then push the US back to the continental US, and out of Indian ocean.
You might want to think about what these other countries can offer in a Westpac fight before writing these things.
There is no benefit for America to intentionally encourage china to attack first.
Countries don't follow some kind of moral code when deciding which sides they help out. They follow national interests. Normally, national interests is following the winning side.
So, the goal is to maximize your chances of winning rather than be the good guy.
If there is any lesson to learn from the Ukraine conflict, it's that trying to be the good guy once you already started the conflict is a worthless endeavor. China would be stupid to hold back once it makes the decision to attack. Go all out, give yourself the best chance to win is the logical solution. If you are not ready to do that and be the bad guy, don't attack.
Yes, that's one of the main reason why I'm against AR. Taiwan is not worth it, the enemy is the USA, Taiwan is just pawn.
Go total war against USA or no war at all, all in between options are playing into US hands.
If China push the US back to the West Coast, all issues in Asia; Taiwan, Japs, etc. gets solved overnights.