PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

lcloo said:

Why are people still think that US will win a conventional war with China? Last I recalled that PVA (People's Voluntee Army) without tanks, heavy artillery, airforce and navy, pushed the US army to the longest retreat in the history of US military.

The moment US army or navy suffer a heavy casualty in a battle with China over Taiwan, you can bet that there will be anti-war protests all over USA. Ordinary US citizens would not want to sacrfice their lives and lives of their families and friends to fight a war to protect an island populated by mainly ethnic Han Chinese under ROC from a civil war. They won't want to die for a war that will be 100 times worst than Vietnam war.

US adminstration may be comitted to protect ROC but the ordinary US citizens might think otherwise. I can even bet that majority of Americans don't even know where on Earth is Taiwan located.

Click to expand...

People often like to cite the Korean war and the PVA in relation to how a modern China-US conflict over Taiwan may unfold, whether in terms of resolve or outcome, and I repeatedly want people to carefully examine the geopolitical drivers, perceived threats, perceived interests and rules of engagement of all parties (but specifically the US) in both the Korean war against the PVA and how a modern China-US conflict over Taiwan may go.

I strongly recommend everyone to not view US resolve as something that would simply dissolve if the PLA inflicted some casualties against the US military, but rather to be more prudent and view US resolve as something that would harden and become more bloodthirsty instead.


Regardless of which nation or which military on earth you are, if your strategic doctrine relies on the enemy's resolve being weak without yourself having the plans and capability to materially defeat the enemy's warfighting capabilities, then you will always be at the whims and mercy of an adversary's popular sentiment.

Blitzo said:

People often like to cite the Korean war and the PVA in relation to how a modern China-US conflict over Taiwan may unfold, whether in terms of resolve or outcome, and I repeatedly want people to carefully examine the geopolitical drivers, perceived threats, perceived interests and rules of engagement of all parties (but specifically the US) in both the Korean war against the PVA and how a modern China-US conflict over Taiwan may go.

I strongly recommend everyone to not view US resolve as something that would simply dissolve if the PLA inflicted some casualties against the US military, but rather to be more prudent and view US resolve as something that would harden and become more bloodthirsty instead.


Regardless of which nation or which military on earth you are, if your strategic doctrine relies on the enemy's resolve being weak without yourself having the plans and capability to materially defeat the enemy's warfighting capabilities, then you will always be at the whims and mercy of an adversary's popular sentiment.

Click to expand...

My baseline assumption is that the U.S. is ready and willing to go full nuclear holocaust even at cost of M.A.D. over Taiwan, and I would recommend C.M.C. plan precisely for that contingency. Build for nuclear parity and launch-on-warning posture.

CMP said:

My baseline assumption is that the US is ready and willing to go full nuclear holocaust even at cost of MAD over Taiwan, and I would recommend CMC plan precisely for that contingency.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's the immediate first step of escalation, but yes I do agree that every step of the escalation up to full scale nuclear exchange is something which may occur in a conflict that may originate over Taiwan.

To others:
In general I think people should become more comfortable and be less worried about the prospect of full scale nuclear exchange and the death of everyone they know and love over a conflict about Taiwan. I'm not trying to be edgy, but rather I think accepting and internalizing that prospect (even if the likelihood is very very very remote currently) means they will be able to see the overall ladder of escalation more clearly and also mean they can probably consider PLA procurement priorities into the future more clearly as well (hint, there are many ladders of escalation between a minor skirmish over Taiwan all the way up to full scale nuclear exchange, and every rung of the ladder is something that the PLA will be orienting itself to be capable of responding to).

Blitzo said:

I don't think that's the immediate first step of escalation, but yes I do agree that every step of the escalation up to full scale nuclear exchange is something which may occur in a conflict that may originate over Taiwan.

To others:
In general I think people should become more comfortable and be less worried about the prospect of full scale nuclear exchange and the death of everyone they know and love over a conflict about Taiwan. I'm not trying to be edgy, but rather I think accepting and internalizing that prospect (even if the likelihood is very very very remote currently) means they will be able to see the overall ladder of escalation more clearly and also mean they can probably consider PLA procurement priorities into the future more clearly as well (hint, there are many ladders of escalation between a minor skirmish over Taiwan all the way up to full scale nuclear exchange, and every rung of the ladder is something that the PLA will be orienting itself to be capable of responding to).

Click to expand...

Yes I don't mean that's the first step. I just mean that is the logical last step. All options are on the table. I wouldn't be shocked to see some exotic biological WMDs (gene-targeted virus, etc) appear in that scenario too. I'm picturing Dr. Strangelove but even more insane psychotic retards in government. Mine shaft gap, etc. The only gap that really matters in the end is the thigh gap.

Blitzo said:

I strongly recommend everyone to not view US resolve as something that would simply dissolve if the PLA inflicted some casualties against the US military, but rather to be more prudent and view US resolve as something that would harden and become more bloodthirsty instead.

Click to expand...

Yes. The US still thinks itself to be basically invulnerable due to being an ocean away from any major antagonist power. Similar to how Imperial Japan used to think back in WW2. Unfortunately for the US now in the XXIst century being a continent away is no 100% insurance of being unscathed in case of full blown conflict.

CMP said:

My baseline assumption is that the U.S. is ready and willing to go full nuclear holocaust even at cost of M.A.D. over Taiwan, and I would recommend C.M.C. plan precisely for that contingency. Build for nuclear parity and launch-on-warning posture.

Click to expand...

Nah, if that was the case, they can attack with nukes right now. Why even bother trying to take taiwan.

US desire to take the region is mostly grounded in nationalistic fervor. They don't have a long term plan in what they want to do with a Chinese province even if they won, and they might not even have a realistic plan of invasion to begin with.

American officials just believe that by telling their population that we can do something big inside China, they can win the nationalist camp and stave off the sense of powerlessness and decay at home. Like how the Soviet upper command were ready with thousands of tanks to go into western Europe at any moment even as the home front was collapsing.

US will only be suicidal and go for nukes if China backs them completely into a corner. Such as demanding vast swathes of core American territory after defeating their conventional forces. There's no US commander that wants to go to a war solely to use nukes and then get nuked in return. When American military go to fight, they're trying to win, not be suicide bombers.

And as much as American civilians are powerless at affecting the leadership, the sheer absurdity of US going on the offensive and then early on wanting to use nukes, in a war US provoked by itself, might still get the white house deposed if they try it. Because they're asking for a sacrifice that would be more than 1000 times worse than Vietnam. 300+ million dead Americans for a piece of foreign land which most US civilians cant even find on a map. There's no way there wouldn't be insane backlash, if even drafting was so unpopular in the past.

gelgoog said:

Yes. The US still thinks itself to be basically invulnerable due to being an ocean away from any major antagonist power. Similar to how Imperial Japan used to think back in WW2. Unfortunately for the US now in the XXIst century being a continent away is no 100% insurance of being unscathed in case of full blown conflict.

Click to expand...

It is less that the US thinks itself as invulnerable being an ocean away, but rather that the US is likely to interpret military losses halfway around the world at the doorstep of a competitor's homeland as something that they will be offended at.

Putting it another way, there are some elements of the US political and natsec class whose opinions about what the "correct" military balance should be as one of "we should have the right to do daylight bombing of any nation in the world we want, and it is a national security threat to the US if you threaten our ability to bomb you".

From that point of view, then it goes without saying that individuals like that would be utterly incensed at the idea of losing even some US ships, aircraft or bases even if they are only within a few thousand (or even hundred) kilometers of a major power like the PRC in a conflict, which leads me to my statement that US resolve in a Taiwan conflict may harden and rally around the flag if they suffer losses, because it may come from a source of narcissistic rage and entitlement.

Blitzo said:

It is less that the US thinks itself as invulnerable being an ocean away, but rather that the US is likely to interpret military losses halfway around the world at the doorstep of a competitor's homeland as something that they will be offended at.

Putting it another way, there are some elements of the US political and natsec class whose opinions about what the "correct" military balance should be as one of "we should have the right to do daylight bombing of any nation in the world we want, and it is a national security threat to the US if you threaten our ability to bomb you".

From that point of view, then it goes without saying that individuals like that would be utterly incensed at the idea of losing even some US ships, aircraft or bases even if they are only within a few thousand (or even hundred) kilometers of a major power like the PRC in a conflict, which leads me to my statement that US resolve in a Taiwan conflict may harden and rally around the flag if they suffer losses, because it may come from a source of narcissistic rage and entitlement.

Click to expand...

I'm not as sure of that. The nationalists might get angry, but the likes of Rubio or that Indian dude aren't gonna grab a gun and take part in the million American swim to Taiwan. It's gonna be US middle/lower class that gets drafted.

We can't discount the possibility of America fully rallying around the flag, but as I see it, its much more likely than a failed first wave would lead to hopelessness, a sense that Americans shouldn't have been sent to die in an impossible battle and a political sentiment to retreat from China before the loss of face becomes impossible to cover up.

Tbh even if US totally mobilizes as a response to failing the initial steps of an invasion, that would only put them at parity with China in terms of mobilization status. China by default would start out with a very strong rallying effect, given that it's the first time since ww2 that the homeland is directly being attacked. It is a totally unprecedented event ever since the war against the Axis.

The earlier people understand that the US at its current wealth/power/tech level is utterly dependent on its hegemonic position, the earlier that people can also infer US' future actions against a rising power threatening its status.

This is a classic "you die - I live" battle. It will take the utmost diplomatic skill, civilisation wisdom, and saint-level patience for China to navigate through such treacherous waters. I say China, because its only China that is the adult in this confrontation

People who expect America to simply surrender after a couple ships or bases get blown up, are gravely mistaken

Blitzo said:

It is less that the US thinks itself as invulnerable being an ocean away, but rather that the US is likely to interpret military losses halfway around the world at the doorstep of a competitor's homeland as something that they will be offended at.

Putting it another way, there are some elements of the US political and natsec class whose opinions about what the "correct" military balance should be as one of "we should have the right to do daylight bombing of any nation in the world we want, and it is a national security threat to the US if you threaten our ability to bomb you".

From that point of view, then it goes without saying that individuals like that would be utterly incensed at the idea of losing even some US ships, aircraft or bases even if they are only within a few thousand (or even hundred) kilometers of a major power like the PRC in a conflict, which leads me to my statement that US resolve in a Taiwan conflict may harden and rally around the flag if they suffer losses, because it may come from a source of narcissistic rage and entitlement.

Click to expand...

In your opinion, are those political and natsec in control of the US military now or in the foreseeable future? Milley seemed adamant going to war with China would be the wrong choice.

Top US General Doubts Xi Planning to Take Taiwan by Force​

• Charles Q. Brown Jr. says he’s written to Chinese counterpart
• Xi, Biden expected to meet next week for first time in a year

Even though General Brown has made some fanatic comments about China previously, somehow I don't see him as the person to give the go ahead to go on a total war with China.