PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

Index said:

If US uses the bulk of its forces (which will be needed) to be in the Indian ocean to cut civilian goods trades coming out of China, China shouldn't try to play convoy protection, because as you also noticed, it's force structure is not optimized for it.

Instead, China would exploit the lack of US power in East and southeast Asia, to directly strongarm neighbors into supporting Chinese war effort.

Let Americans stay west of Malacca and sink as many commercial ships they want, China will threaten SK, Japan, Thailand, anyone else in range, saying, obey our total sanctions on US and start supporting our war effort, or get invaded. US will then be starved of necessary imports to replenish both civilians and military, while China still has its in house industry fully functioning.

Then from there, it's just a matter of building more missiles, more ISR assets, and keep pot shotting at American vessels hiding in the high seas, like the u boat hunt in ww2, while the PLA island hops against US forces across the Pacific.

All the resources from its neighbors will give China more than enough boost to keep going. There's also some chance that US will piss off the global community so much by disrupting global trade that China won't even need to go fully Imperial Japan on Asia to make them all bend the knee. Not that China would hesitate about doing so, if it was a war about protecting China itself.

Click to expand...

this is the correct way to look at it. blockading Malacca would require a lot of vessels, which will leave the US vulnerable in the west pacific. And if the US is going for attrition, that would mean that they have given up Taiwan. PLA with Taiwan as its base would be very dangerous to US bases in okinawa and guam.

And we havent even looked at the PLA potentially launching raids on the blockading force from its island bases in the SCS.

vincent said:

Who cares about choke points? Choking China’s trade equals to choking world trade. China doesn’t require much materials if she doesn’t have to produce things for the rest of the world.

Please think of this scenario: China produces hundreds of thousands of piston-base precision missiles and destroys all infrastructures (fuel depots, power stations, transformer stations, refineries, airports, sea ports, etc.) on the First Island Chain (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan Island, and the Philippines). Where can the American forces base out of to man those choke points?

if Americans refuses to get close, PLAN can send out a large task force to attack places American must defend, like Guam, to force engagement.

Click to expand...

Small suicide drones / persistent loitering munitions are great for relatively close by operational area, usually dozens of NMs, or maybe up to a couple of hundred NM. First Island Chain, sure, I think that's a goner once there is total war between China and the US, there won't be much left of Naha or any of the Luzon bases, and maybe Amami and parts of Kyushu as well.

Guam is still quite a ways away, and given the current supply capacity of the PLAN, would be kind of iffy to have a persistent presence there. Then in an all-in war footing, you would see even other bases such as Wake, Midway, Johnson Atoll, maybe even places like Eareckson in a few months time. Those would be much more difficult to reach, but precisely the types of places that USN and USMC would likely operate from if they want to ring a wide cordon around the commerce lanes.

no_name said:

I don't think military assets can hide well at sea near choke points under today's surveillance methods.

Blockade is not going to work where there is a large discrepancy in production capacity of two countries.

Also, the US have choke points too. The biggest one is under frequent rockets/missiles/UAV attacks as we speak now.
Your own commercial shipping is already being impacted, and you are still talking about blockading China.
It's not all that can be done, but I do think it will escalate along with rising tensions in East Asia/Southeast Asia, so the US will have to choose between one and the other, cause it does not have enough presence to fight in both theaters at once.

If Israel falls, say goodbye to US dollars. No one is going to believe in US military capability to 'protect' them if they would allow even Israel to fall. Which is why I don't think the US can keep hiding from getting involved in the Middle East.

China is not even trading Taiwan for Israel now. She is trading US backing out of Japan + Philippines + SK+ second Island chain for Isreal.
Scratch that. She is gonna end US dollar through Israel, and the US is gonna have to get involved in the Middle East, whether she likes it or now.

China has understood that the point of no return had been reached since the outbreak of Covid, and she has been laying down preparatory work since then.

Click to expand...

Hmm, I'm not sure what do you mean by "your own commerical shipping". I have no dog in the fight, but just making calculated observations of one of the potential great conflicts of the near future, from a POV of a military planner.

The US definitely has its own commercial vulnerabilities, but most of them are not in places that PLAN or PLAAF can strike easily, unless you are referring to commerce with ASEAN, which would definitely be disrupted to some extent for all sides.

Currently, PLAN does not have a the supply capacity or network of bases to have a robust surface fleet presence anywhere except in the marginal seas of the western Pacific. The SSN fleet is also not numerous enough to pose a constant threat in commerce lanes far from East Asia. And I don't think PLARF would be expending expensive parts of their magazine at targeting commercial shipping in any conflict.

What is needed is one or more of the following to gain control of a sea lane far away from one's own shores. 1) a numerous and robust VLO strategic bomber fleet, with significant amount of refueling capacity. 2) a large number of nuclear subs that can operate for months without surfacing (SSKs are great for ambushes in the near seas, but basically cannot do much in wider oceans). 3) A sufficient concentration of surface fleet, with robust supply, and sea control from carrier aviation, to strike at distant targets. 4) A a large number of cost effective land based extreme long range weapons along with some alternative form of satellite guidance (this one no one has cracked yet). 5) the presence of a large and friendly country with robust naval infrastructure and basing rights, and one that cannot be easily blockaded itself Preferably a combination of at least two of these.

I think there is an over-emphasis of maritime commerce blockade of China in war time. Unlike UK in WW2, or Cyprus or Norway, China can be self-sufficient on war material productions, including its energy needs during war time economy.

While China's international trade will be adversely affected, the effect is double sword that will make industrial and commercial goods in short supply in US and EU, inflation rates will be going to the ceiling causing dis-content among the civilian populations and protests or even riots.

Chinese manufacturers can switch their productions to meet domestic needs and needs of other trading partners outside the US's "The World". Trade routes with ASEAN, Central Asia, Middle East and Russia will be largely intact. Goods to and from Africa can go through land routes via Middle East. South American routes can be blocked by US but there are alternative suppliers beyond South America, and the South Americans will be very very upset with their Northern neighbour.

The whole world will feel severely the lack of China's supply chain if their trade routes are disrupted. Diplomatically, US blockade will badly affect their foreign relationships, even from some of their allies.

As wrote by many posters earlier, blockade doesn't work on China as it is a large country with self-sufficiency in almost all materials needed for war economy.

lcloo said:

I think there is an over-emphasis of maritime commerce blockade of China in war time. Unlike UK in WW2, or Cyprus or Norway, China can be self-sufficient on war material productions, including its energy needs during war time economy.

While China's international trade will be adversely affected, the effect is double sword that will make industrial and commercial goods in short supply in US and EU, inflation rates will be going to the ceiling causing dis-content among the civilian populations and protests or even riots.

Chinese manufacturers can switch their productions to meet domestic needs and needs of other trading partners outside the US's "The World". Trade routes with ASEAN, Central Asia, Middle East and Russia will be largely intact. Goods to and from Africa can go through land routes via Middle East. South American routes can be blocked by US but there are alternative suppliers beyond South America.

The whole world will feel severely the lack of China's supply chain if their trade routes are disrupted. Diplomatically, US blockade will badly affect their foreign relationships, even from some of their allies.

As wrote by many posters earlier, blockade doesn't work on China as it is a large country with self-sufficiency in almost all materials needed for war economy.

Click to expand...

You are right that a traditional blockade would not work on the long term. One is that China is primarily a continental power, that has robust trade avenues on land, although that usually presents with much higher cost. The other is that the USN / USAF simply do not have the appropriate type / number of assets to blockade and to achieve local superiority along a long periphery just to the east of the FIC, doing so for months or longer would be digging their own grave.

What they are much more likely to do, if their commanders aren't overconfident and dismissive, would be for them to set a wide cordon for commerce raiding, to exact a long term cost. That's actually what the force structure of the USN / USMC / USAF are most appropriately set up to do, especially with their vast experience / assets in logistics and their already extensive set of basing rights.

What they would need foremost would be a set of supply and support locations 1500 or more NMs away from the continental Chinese coast, in places like Diego Garcia, Darwin, Wake, western Hawaii chain, western Aleutians, etc. Yeah, they are very likely to piss off a bunch of other countries, especially in ASEAN, but whether they would be willing to go through with it depends on how US/Japan/Australia/GB are committed to retaining their hegemonic status.

lcloo said:

I think there is an over-emphasis of maritime commerce blockade of China in war time.

Click to expand...

They emphasize that because they no longer have the stomach for the type of sacrifices needed for hard battles.

The same way Germany tried in both war wars. They want China to fold with an opportunistic solution that is unlikely to go their way. They want to induce uncertainly on the stability of Yuan as a possible reserve currency.

Blockade on China is an act of war. Expect action in the Middle East if they go through with it. Expect US dollar to fall lower.

I get the feeling that a lot of the posters are over influenced by video games or what they hear from media heavily influenced by the military industrial complex.

I personally dont think commerce raiding or a naval blockade will work on a country as large as China.

I dont think it would work on Russia or even Iran. Basically if the country has a population above 50 million, i dont think these types of tactics will work.

Blockade and shipping raiding is something you do after achieving Naval dominance, not something you do to avoid having to fight for it.

You know what would have been a good time to blockade China? Right during or immediate after the Hainan Island (Wang Wei) Incident.

Few months after that 911 happened, and rest is history.

HardBall said:

Do the math on what ? on how many 12.7 mm warning shells that are needed for intercepting commercial convoys in the Adaman or Celebes, or Java sea? "Magazine depth" on what type of weapons that are needed for commerce raiding? Are NSM or AGM-158 suddenly needed to strike at the container ships or crude transports? Or are we talking about VLO platforms that are need to approach the LNG carriers with gigantic AESA arrays?

I think you are still thinking about some constant exchanges around the FIC, which is not what is likely to happen at all. That would be military fans' wet dreams, but in reality what is much more likely to happen is a lower grade cat an mouse game along many of the world's shipping lanes.

And it still doesn't seem like you actually READ what I originally wrote.

Everything you have replied to me here basically border on irrelevance to what I was discussing originally.

Click to expand...

If the blockade is a cat and mouse game then it won’t have the intensity to impact China in a meaningful way. Remember, the US gets its effects by destroying and turn around ships, and if they have to play cat and mouse games they’re not spending as much mission time doing their primary mission. Furthermore cost elevation, as opposed to strangulation, is a meaningless exercise. Costs can be offset by seeking substitutes, and partial or gradual constriction is even easier to adapt around than strangulation. If strangulation doesn’t work against China going with partial constriction to elevate costs is going to be even less effective.

It’s not that I didn’t read what you wrote. It’s that if you’re not going to provide realistic force capacity assumptions for both sides (or at least justify why you think a certain amount of force capacity is realistic) then delving into details as if we can just assume the forces are available to do the things you describe is a pointless exercise. So once again, please show us the math first.

Brilliant ROC strategy.