PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

Blitzo said:

This isn't about China caring about public opinion, it's about the US caring about global public opinion enough to reduce the likelihood of abrogating its word by a small amount, compared to the likelihood of abrogating its word if they went for a private assurance only option.

Again, I think both "private only" assurance and "private+public" assurances are both not super useful or iron clad if the goal is to try and prevent the US from intervening, but I rate "private+public" to be marginally more useful than "private only".
But at the end of the day it is likely that if either option is chosen, the US will still try to do its best to support Taiwan as much as it can during a conflict, to such a degree that China may view it as crossing a red line.


I don't have anything else to say on the matter of "private" versus "private+public".

Click to expand...

I think your opinion makes a lot of sense in principle, but doesn't actually work out in reality. Suppose DPP separatists did something that finally crossed China's red lines. Assuming the US quickly made private assurances, e.g., Milley called and pinky swore over the phone, Xi then called Biden to confirm.

What do you think the US would publicly announce before and after AR?

Option A)
Before AR: Taiwan has some bad folks also, therefore they are unworthy of our spilled blood.
After AR: See, we told you so, all of Taiwan is infiltrated with CCP sympathizers.

Option B)
Before AR: Taiwan is our strong ally. We will defend them at all costs, but Xi reassured me China is not launching a war anytime soon.
After AR: Those damn lying commies! Fool me once, shame on you.

One of these options is clearly politically untenable, in fact if the US made public assurances China would get even more suspicious, since it would be choosing to pay a high political cost for minimum benefits and it would go against the previous US traditions in times of crisis.

I believe this is why logic of additivity doesn't necessary apply here, adding public assurances might not be better than purely private assurances.

coolgod said:

I don't think China cares about the public opinion if the US publicly denies that they promised to stand down during the AR. I see two possible scenarios if the US denies the private assurances to China:

A. If China launches AR and the US doesn't stand down, then private negotiations are meaningless, only the winner of the war matters.

B. If China launches AR and the US stands down but claims China lied during private negotiations then it is equally meaningless. It would be equivalent to the Mea Culpa excuse using the four stage standard procedure I gave above. Furthermore, if the US does this then its hegemony credibility goes out the window. Imagine after AR Japan heard from the US that China promised not to liberate the Ryukyu Islands.

The point of private negotiations is not to hold US accountable to public opinon, it's to give US a final notice for off ramp before the point of no return.

Of course the US can avoid these two bad scenarios by avoid mentioning the secret assurances and figure out a way to spin the defeat as a result of Taiwan's/others' errors.

Click to expand...

I don't think any assurance from the USA is worth anything. Agreements with the USA equal toilet paper because you could likely fill a roll of toilet paper with the names of agreements they violated or withdrawn from suddenly. This includes the three communiques too.

I long thought they wouldn't intervene if China grew capable enough. I still kinda believe that but I have my doubts. The country is on a neo-fascist trajectory, with both parties pumping hawkish and nationalistic narratives and trying to one-up each other. The Republican Party is already very weird. US president, Joe, called China a bad guy (indicative of a very childish view of the world in the USA and an insult) yesterday and said its economy was imploding. He quoted the growth figure from 2020, a year America contracted by 3%.

So I believe China and the USA are on a war path and Taiwan is just an excuse, a convenient one for Americans. I don't know if they will actually fight but they are on that path currently for sure. China should absolutely not allow Americans to build up in Japan during reunification. It should tell that any significant build-up will be answered by a pre-emptive strike. It needs to do this at least, if not do what people here recommend.

I don't think what Taiwan does is relevant. The US govt can flip Western opinion about anything on a dime. Most Westerners already support Taiwanese independence.

BoraTas said:

I don't think any assurance from the USA is worth anything. Agreements with the USA equal toilet paper because you could likely fill a roll of toilet paper with the names of agreements they violated or withdrawn from suddenly. This includes the three communiques too.

I long thought they wouldn't intervene if China grew capable enough. I still kinda believe that but I have my doubts. The country is on a neo-fascist trajectory, with both parties pumping hawkish and nationalistic narratives and trying to one-up each other. The Republican Party is already very weird. US president, Joe, called China a bad guy (indicative of a very childish view of the world in the USA and an insult) yesterday and said its economy was imploding. He quoted the growth figure from 2020, a year America contracted by 3%.

So I believe China and the USA are on a war path and Taiwan is just an excuse, a convenient one for Americans. I don't know if they will actually fight but they are on that path currently for sure. China should absolutely not allow Americans to build up in Japan during reunification. It should tell that any significant build-up will be answered by a pre-emptive strike. It needs to do this at least, if not do what people here recommend.

I don't think what Taiwan does is relevant. The US govt can flip Western opinion about anything on a dime. Most Westerners already support Taiwanese independence.

Click to expand...

The U. S. would prefer to act before China has filled those new missile silos they’re building!

coolgod said:

I think your opinion makes a lot of sense in principle, but doesn't actually work out in reality. Suppose DPP separatists did something that finally crossed China's red lines. Assuming the US quickly made private assurances, e.g., Milley called and pink swore over the phone, Xi then called Biden.

What do you think the US would publicly announce before and after AR?

A. before AR: Taiwan has some bad folks also, therefore they are unworthy of our spilled blood.

Click to expand...

This is very much getting into the weeds of diplomacy.

Let me repeat myself:
I'm not saying that "private+public assurances" will have a high likelihood to allow China to achieve its objectives.
All I am saying is that "private+public assurances" are a slight amount more useful than "private assurances" alone.

I've already written multiple times that assurances in general (whether they're private alone or private+public) do not have a high likelihood of success due to a number of factors. In my original post on the last page, I wrote "But this is rather unlikely and the political environment in the US would be loathe to even entertain such an idea, certainly not to the degree that China would want."

It doesn't matter whether it "will work in reality" or not, because I am only talking about the principle that "private+public assurances" is slightly more useful than "private assurances" alone.
I am confused as to why you decided to go down this route of discussion, because obviously neither route has a high likelihood of reaching a satisfactory outcome and I already stated it as such in my original post.

Fedupwithlies said:

I understand your point.

You believe the US is still hedging their bets, that one does not inevitably lead to the other. That for the other to happen, a decision must still be made.

Many here, and me, do not believe so. We believe one will lead to the other. That the decision to start the other has already been made. Our concern is not for this "peaceful" buildup in isolation, but because we can already see the "wartime" buildup on the horizon.

I hope I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

If "one thing will lead to another," then it means that a decision has not been made.

The US has moved to significantly fortify and prepare itself and build capabilities in the western pacific yes, but we have no evidence to suggest they have made a decision to initiate or provoke a conflict of its own accord yet. If that decision was made, then we would be seeing much more evidence of it than we see now.

It is the nature of governments and military forces to prepare for contingencies, and that preparedness and that development of capabilities means they can rapidly carry out their tasks if a decision is made.
However, high levels of preparedness and capability does not equate to a decision to initiate or provoke conflict would have been made.


Frankly, if you and others think that the US has made a decision to initiate/provoke a conflict against China in the near future, then it by extension means you must believe the US military is much more powerful than it is, or believe that the PLA is much weaker than it is. Or alternatively, that the US military is underestimating the PLA.

Blitzo said:

Our differing views of timeline might be due to differences in what we consider the conditions for peace/victory would be for the Chinese side.

Certainly in 2-4 years (and even now), the PLA can make it very costly for the US to intervene, even in a fully mobilized manner, but I do not believe it would allow the PLA to attain a military outcome where it can allow China to offer peace on terms that it would desire.

Click to expand...

Peace terms in this case could only be total withdrawal of US forces from Westpac and non-interference in Chinese affairs, but my own expectation is that the PLA would need to force a total unconditional surrender of the US due to the militarization of the US political establishment; this is something I consider they would be fully capable of doing even in that abbreviated timeframe.

montyp165 said:

Peace terms in this case could only be total withdrawal of US forces from Westpac and non-interference in Chinese affairs, but my own expectation is that the PLA would need to force a total unconditional surrender of the US due to the militarization of the US political establishment; this is something I consider they would be fully capable of doing even in that abbreviated timeframe.

Click to expand...

"Total unconditional surrender of the US"???

From where I stand, I think you might be massively underestimating US military capability, or massively overestimating Chinese military capability, or both. Or possibly underestimate the conditions to which a nation would be forced to accept "unconditional surrender".
It's probably better to agree to disagree on this.

Blitzo said:

If "one thing will lead to another," then it means that a decision has not been made.

Click to expand...

Now who's talking sematics? One thing will lead to the other, not "another". I mean, if A, then definitely B. Not, if A, then maybe B, maybe C.

Blitzo said:

The US has moved to significantly fortify and prepare itself and build capabilities in the western pacific yes, but we have no evidence to suggest they have made a decision to initiate or provoke a conflict of its own accord yet. If that decision was made, then we would be seeing much more evidence of it than we see now.

Click to expand...

I believe we are seeing that evidence right now, specifically with the actions of AUKUS and the expansion of NATO.

Blitzo said:

It is the nature of governments and military forces to prepare for contingencies, and that preparedness and that development of capabilities means they can rapidly carry out their tasks if a decision is made.
However, high levels of preparedness and capability does not equate to a decision to initiate or provoke conflict would have been made.

Click to expand...

That's a truism, and also a generality. I'm talking specific actions of the US.

Blitzo said:

Frankly, if you and others think that the US has made a decision to initiate/provoke a conflict against China in the near future, then it by extension means you must believe the US military is much more powerful than it is, or believe that the PLA is much weaker than it is.

Click to expand...

Does not follow logically. There are other possibilities.

Blitzo said:

Or alternatively, that the US military is underestimating the PLA.

Click to expand...

We see multiple occasions/events that the US government is definitely underestimating the PLA. They have made the decision.

Fedupwithlies said:

Now who's talking sematics? One thing will lead to the other, not "another". I mean, if A, then definitely B. Not, if A, then maybe B, maybe C.

Click to expand...

?Not me. It was a typo on my behalf, but the same point arises.
"One thing will lead to the other" -- by definition, still means that a decision has not been made.

Fedupwithlies said:

I believe we are seeing that evidence right now, specifically with the actions of AUKUS and the expansion of NATO.

That's a truism, and also a generality. I'm talking specific actions of the US.

Does not follow logically. There are other possibilities.

We see multiple occasions/events that the US government is definitely underestimating the PLA. They have made the decision.

Click to expand...

None of these points are evidence for us to be able to claim that the US has actively decided to provoke or initiate conflict with China in the future.

Again, preparedness is different to intent.
The US is indeed actively preparing to augment its capabilities to fight a war in the western pacific in terms of military procurement, alliance building, and geostrategic positioning.
That doesn't mean the US has made a decision to initiate a war in the near future.
It does mean that they are preparing as best as possible to fight a war if it occurs.



Let me give an example for the difference between preparedness and intent:
- The US normally has a number of CSGs and ARGs and air units deployed around the world, including in the Indian Ocean and Middle East region to respond to various events. The capability that those deployed forces have, and their readiness levels, is such that they are able to defeat the air forces of an average nation in Africa or the Middle East if they wanted to, and to be able to conduct strike/bombing missions if they wanted to against one such nation at a time.
- However, having this capability and preparedness to do so, doesn't mean it has made a decision or plan to initiate a war against XYZ nation in Africa or Middle East, it merely means they can do so if needed. If the US actually carries out a decision to initiate war with months or years of preparation before onset of hostilities, that is usually done with substantial air, naval and logistics redeployment (for example Gulf War and Invasion of Iraq).
- The same situation exists in the western pacific -- the US is currently augmenting its western pacific forces and bases to be able to be more prepared and capable to fight a war against China if war occurred, but that doesn't mean it has made a decision or plan to initiate a conflict against China.


Reading between the lines, I think what you and others are more concerned about, is that the US fortification/preparation in western pacific and alliance building etc, means that there is a reduced time period between the US deciding to initiate a conflict (if they do so), and the US being able to start large scale operations.

I understand that concern, and I agree that US westpac activities and alliance building will allow it to wage war in a faster way with less warning if it decides to initiate/provoke a conflict -- but it would also be untrue to state right now that the US had made a decision to initiate or provoke a conflict based on current evidence.

FairAndUnbiased said:

Myanmar is one of the few Sino-Tibetan states that have not peacefully joined China, thanks to UK and India. Long term, it is questionable as to the viability of an independent yet poor Sino-Tibetan state in South Asia bordering the very aggressive Indian regime. It may be in Myanmar's best interests to negotiate some sort of political agreement with China.

Click to expand...

Would be great if Myanmar would want to join China someday somehow ...... how the people's opinion in Myanmar of China ?

Honestly I'd never thought about it

antiterror13 said:

Would be great if Myanmar would want to join China someday somehow ...... how the people's opinion in Myanmar of China ?

Honestly I'd never thought about it

Click to expand...

they are ambivalent about China, thanks to decades of KMT occupying Myanmar until 1960's when the PLA finally crossed the border and wiped them out. Now the dissidents think that China is helping the dictatorship.