PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

Having your plans and objectives set purely based on the hopium that the enemy will bend its knees first before you (or the infamous notion of "the enemy is a rotten house that will fall apart in one kick") in any confrontation is just outright idiotic.

It is absolutely critical to never repeat the same mistakes as N4zi Germany (dreaming that they can easily curb-stomp the USSR into disintegration and lord over the entire Europe) and Imperial Japan (dreaming that they can easily force the Allied Powers into a ceasefire by rapidly curb-stomping Allied colonial possessions across the Asia-Pacific).

Of course, hell-bending on the ultimate destruction of humanity once war breaks out is definitely not the way to go, either. There is always an escalation ladder to follow - We are not in the Cold War 1.0 mode where any contact between superpower governments are minimal to literally insignificant, and that any direct conflict that arose between these superpowers would outright resort to pressing the nuclear buttons.

Even if an all-out war breaks out between China and the US, communication lines must be maintained between the governments of both sides, either direct or through neutral intermediate countries.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

It is absolutely critical to never repeat the same mistakes as N4zi Germany (dreaming that they can easily curb-stomp the USSR into disintegration and lord over the entire Europe)

Click to expand...

They kinda did curb stomp the Soviets for a couple years but I wouldn’t say their initial strategy was based on hopium outside the latter parts of the war. Nazi intelligences made a fatal underestimation of Soviet reserves when they estimated them to be ~150 divisions and ~50 additional divisions to be created. The Soviets had muster an additional ~200 divisions instead of the expected ~50 divisions bringing it up to ~350 divisions by mid august.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Having your plans and objectives set purely based on the hopium that the enemy will bend its knees first before you (or the infamous notion of "the enemy is a rotten house that will fall apart in one kick") in any confrontation is just outright idiotic.

It is absolutely critical to never repeat the same mistakes as N4zi Germany (dreaming that they can easily curb-stomp the USSR into disintegration and lord over the entire Europe) and Imperial Japan (dreaming that they can easily force the Allied Powers into a ceasefire by rapidly curb-stomping Allied colonial possessions across the Asia-Pacific).

Of course, hell-bending on the ultimate destruction of humanity once war breaks out is definitely not the way to go, either. There is always an escalation ladder to follow - We are not in the Cold War 1.0 mode where any contact between superpower governments are minimal to literally insignificant, and that any direct conflict that arose between these superpowers would outright resort to pressing the nuclear buttons.

Even if an all-out war breaks out between China and the US, communication lines must be maintained between the governments of both sides, either direct or through neutral intermediate countries.

Click to expand...

In a total conventional fight China can push the US completely back across the Pacific even if the US went all in as the industrial disparity of forces is already at that point, but I fully expect a Pacific War 2.0 to only end either with the US defeated a la Imperial Japan or a total nuclear exchange (which is where being the last one standing with nukes becomes imperative). It really won't go any other way simply because the US political establishment won't let it play out any other way (as their support of Israel's policies is but the most recent example of this mindset in action).

montyp165 said:

In a total conventional fight China can push the US completely back across the Pacific even if the US went all in as the industrial disparity of forces is already at that point, but I fully expect a Pacific War 2.0 to only end either with the US defeated a la Imperial Japan or a total nuclear exchange (which is where being the last one standing with nukes becomes imperative). It really won't go any other way simply because the US political establishment won't let it play out any other way (as their support of Israel's policies is but the most recent example of this mindset in action).

Click to expand...

I've noticed you keep stating this, suggesting that in a conventional conflict today the PLA has the ability to defeat the US to a sufficient extent that they can be pushed all the way back across the pacific to Hawaii or even the eastern pacific/CONTUS.

Frankly, if that is what you believe then I am in complete confusion as to how you assess that is materially feasible.

Blitzo said:

I've noticed you keep stating this, suggesting that in a conventional conflict today the PLA has the ability to defeat the US to a sufficient extent that they can be pushed all the way back across the pacific to Hawaii or even the eastern pacific/CONTUS.

Frankly, if that is what you believe then I am in complete confusion as to how you assess that is materially feasible.

Click to expand...

In conventional terms China already has the production capacity and materials means to do so with its own economic inputs for all necessary military materiel in the event of a total war, and even if the equipment isn't necessarily one-on-one technologically equivalent it is far more cost-effective and faster to procure in a sustained fashion than what the US has, and my own observations and analysis of these elements over the past 25 years makes that clearer in my perspective. It's why I definitely stand by my assessments of the matter.

montyp165 said:

In conventional terms China already has the production capacity and materials means to do so with its own economic inputs for all necessary military materiel in the event of a total war, and even if the equipment isn't necessarily one-on-one technologically equivalent it is far more cost-effective and faster to procure in a sustained fashion than what the US has, and my own observations and analysis of these elements over the past 25 years makes that clearer in my perspective. It's why I definitely stand by my assessments of the matter.

Click to expand...

I'll send you a PM, because this is a much bigger topic than this thread but I'm interested in your thinking given you've been on the forums a while.

montyp165 said:

In conventional terms China already has the production capacity and materials means to do so with its own economic inputs for all necessary military materiel in the event of a total war, and even if the equipment isn't necessarily one-on-one technologically equivalent it is far more cost-effective and faster to procure in a sustained fashion than what the US has, and my own observations and analysis of these elements over the past 25 years makes that clearer in my perspective. It's why I definitely stand by my assessments of the matter.

Click to expand...

I also agree with you that China has the production capacity, training and technological prowess right now to win a decisive victory against US and push them out of western Pacific.

But at this particular moment the cost will still be too high so China will not pursue this. US+EU plus allies total GDP is still too high that they can impose a total sanction on Chinese products plus their export restrictions will hamper Chinese production as well. China will also have to face some kind of US blockade scenario in such a total war. Moreover, Chinese navy and air force is still not strong enough to prevent US to bring its ships and troops closer and attack Chinese mainland with missiles. That will increase China's losses in terms of Infrastracture, production capacity and civillian hardship.

China needs to wait until its total GDP reaches US+EU total combined. Based on Chinese growth trajectories, This will happen by 2040s. then Chinese navy and Air force will be large enough that they will literally crowl across the first island Chain. China will also have enough naval and air power to prevent any Malacca Blockade. Plus BRI should create enough infrastructure by then to allow China to ship alot of oil/gas from Central Asia and Russia. China will then be in a position to fight the Pacific War 2.0 with minimal losses.

US on the other hand will be in very difficult position and it will seem obvious to them that they cannot win such a war. So, they will most likely have to retreat after one or two crises. China can still win this without a fight.

tamsen_ikard said:

China needs to wait until its total GDP reaches US+EU total combined.

Click to expand...

GDP PPP

As China primarily sources its goods from internal sources, GDP PPP imo should be the primary metric to be used with GDP nominal as a supporting metric

tamsen_ikard said:

I also agree with you that China has the production capacity, training and technological prowess right now to win a decisive victory against US and push them out of western Pacific.

But at this particular moment the cost will still be too high so China will not pursue this. US+EU plus allies total GDP is still too high that they can impose a total sanction on Chinese products plus their export restrictions will hamper Chinese production as well. China will also have to face some kind of US blockade scenario in such a total war. Moreover, Chinese navy and air force is still not strong enough to prevent US to bring its ships and troops closer and attack Chinese mainland with missiles. That will increase China's losses in terms of Infrastracture, production capacity and civillian hardship.

China needs to wait until its total GDP reaches US+EU total combined. Based on Chinese growth trajectories, This will happen by 2040s. then Chinese navy and Air force will be large enough that they will literally crowl across the first island Chain. China will also have enough naval and air power to prevent any Malacca Blockade. Plus BRI should create enough infrastructure by then to allow China to ship alot of oil/gas from Central Asia and Russia. China will then be in a position to fight the Pacific War 2.0 with minimal losses.

US on the other hand will be in very difficult position and it will seem obvious to them that they cannot win such a war. So, they will most likely have to retreat after one or two crises. China can still win this without a fight.

Click to expand...

GDP is hardly a good measure for stuff like that. Russia has similar GDP to Germany, but would Germany even come close to surviving a situation like the current war Russia is in? Let alone taking ground and winning attrition?

US+EU might have a combined GDP of 47 trillion vs China's 33 (+Russia's 5). But that difference is not large enough to account for the fact that because NATO is not directly ruled by US, US cannot mobilize all its resources nearly as efficiently as China can.

Ultimately, what matters more is the economy size based on production capability.

US boycotting China is simply not a concern at all. Because if US fails an invasion, China wouldn't stop pushing until US has to peace out with treaties that prevent them from closing doors to their economy. Any country that supports the invasion would also themselves become targets for Chinese counteroffensives and occupation. And if US can't get at least Japan to join, they probably wouldn't attempt an invasion at all.

The economic situation after repelling an American attack in the east, would only improve in the long term compared to the prewar situation. China would have new captive markets created by occupation, and the west, which already has as many sanctions on China they can afford without imploding themselves, may be forced into new terms that allow free(er) access.

tamsen_ikard said:

I also agree with you that China has the production capacity, training and technological prowess right now to win a decisive victory against US and push them out of western Pacific.

But at this particular moment the cost will still be too high so China will not pursue this. US+EU plus allies total GDP is still too high that they can impose a total sanction on Chinese products plus their export restrictions will hamper Chinese production as well. China will also have to face some kind of US blockade scenario in such a total war. Moreover, Chinese navy and air force is still not strong enough to prevent US to bring its ships and troops closer and attack Chinese mainland with missiles. That will increase China's losses in terms of Infrastracture, production capacity and civillian hardship.

China needs to wait until its total GDP reaches US+EU total combined. Based on Chinese growth trajectories, This will happen by 2040s. then Chinese navy and Air force will be large enough that they will literally crowl across the first island Chain. China will also have enough naval and air power to prevent any Malacca Blockade. Plus BRI should create enough infrastructure by then to allow China to ship alot of oil/gas from Central Asia and Russia. China will then be in a position to fight the Pacific War 2.0 with minimal losses.

US on the other hand will be in very difficult position and it will seem obvious to them that they cannot win such a war. So, they will most likely have to retreat after one or two crises. China can still win this without a fight.

Click to expand...

America's service-based consumerism and inflated GDP is objectively 100% useless in any kind of war. That kind of metric only middle school children look at.

Or can you please explain to me how an overpaid service sector, run on debt, affects the potential conflict in any kind of way? Thanks.

What is important is that China already spends more electricity yearly than all of the G7 combined and also produces more steel,

Hence it probably already has a stronger industrial sector manufacturing than all of the West combined.

Not that I expect the rest of the West to join, to be honest, I will probably be US+ 2-3 Asian vassals.

They can't even outproduce Russia in Ukraine, not to mention China. A report came that China can produce warships 200 times quicker than the US (just for example):


Combined that information with this information and you will get a much clearer picture:



And the multiple times faster production capability is probably also true for other military assets. Not to mention that are coming to war on Chinese doorsteps 10000km away, probably weaker resolved soldiers, and can't even come full force due to their global hegemony positions.

Chinese would use many times cheaper military weapons against them while they would need many times more expensive weapons due to them having to cross the entire ocean to come into China in the first place.

I explained to you in another thread that banning imports from China will hurt them more than China (because the US has no industry, 9% of the population only works in manufacturing, who will fill their shelves then?).

What will happen if China + HK dump their bond holding and dollar holdings, will it cause even more hyperinflation for the US from the pressure around the world?

Blocking China will hurt them more because they are 100% in triple-digit hyperinflation without Chinese goods in a few months then.

(China will also stop the exports from Japan and South Korea too because of its dominance in the region = even bigger hyperinflation)

Regarding oil and gas, and other natural resources, the Chinese have + enough state reserves and reserves in state-owned enterprises to sustain the war until they defeat the US. Not to mention Russia.

Also, that's why for example Chinese relied on imports of minerals and energy so much in the past, because they saved their own natural reserves more for this kind of scenario.

On top of that, compare poll statistics of support of the government in China vs the US, patriotism in China vs the US, and divisions in society in China vs the US and see who will cave in faster.

To be honest, the US economy and society are so terminally ill right now, that I expect probably that they collapse into a civil war if they enter a war against China (literally).