PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

latenlazy said:

It’s a dumb idea because the retaliatory nuclear strike would be Guam lol. You can take a guess for who can regenerate their positions faster. These discussions of nuclear contingencies are pointless. About the only conversation involving nukes that has any meaningful utility is how the threat of their uses informs military delimitations and political bargaining in the conflict scenario tree.

Click to expand...

Retaliatory nuclear strike is going to be Busan, Yokoyama and Okinawa. There no such thing as tactical nuke, nuclear is nuclear.

RedMetalSeadramon said:

Retaliatory nuclear strike is going to be Busan, Yokoyama and Okinawa. There no such thing as tactical nuke, nuclear is nuclear.

Click to expand...

It’s called a ladder for a reason. MAD escalation is not instantaneous so long as you don’t target civilian.

latenlazy said:

Once again, the invading forces also need the infrastructure to hold their position. The point is not enemy destruction. It’s positional capture.

Click to expand...

Didn't seem to be a problem for US in Iraq. They destroyed 90% of Iraqi electricity production.

FairAndUnbiased said:

Didn't seem to be a problem for US in Iraq. They destroyed 90% of Iraqi electricity production.

Click to expand...

Iraq is mostly desert and not very urbanized. The parts of Taiwan you need to hold are very urban. The US also didn’t flatten Iraq. Didn’t even try to actually.

I am sure PLA will uphold their traditions of war acts since the civil war, Korea war, Sino-India war. They had good reputation earned by well treating UN prisoners of war in Korea, unlike the brutal North Koreans.

Acting like Nazi or Khmer Rouge is not PLA way .

RedMetalSeadramon said:

Retaliatory nuclear strike is going to be Busan, Yokoyama and Okinawa. There no such thing as tactical nuke, nuclear is nuclear.

Click to expand...

No, you have to consider the racist worldview of Anglo five eyes, they won’t care if Asian cities get nuked and poisoned with radiation, when Asian genes suffer radiation damage resulting in mutations and cancers.

Any detonation of enemy atomics on sacred Chinese soil- and that includes Taiwan - must result in the complete and utter genetic destruction of the enemy.

zbb said:

Earlier in this thread, someone posted a study by the Atlantic Council (closest thing to an official US national security think tank) evaluating different ways for the US to use nukes when AR happens. Their implicit recommendation was to let PLA forces land and gather on Taiwan, then use nukes on concentrations of PLA forces in Taiwan when they are on the verge of victory. In other words, the US plan is to nuke the Taiwanese along with the PLA, so it's unlikely there will be many Taiwanese celebrating when that happens.

Click to expand...

when they have to resort to nuke talks, it means that they admit inside them that they cannot win conventionally

latenlazy said:

Iraq is mostly desert and not very urbanized. The parts of Taiwan you need to hold are very urban. The US also didn’t flatten Iraq. Didn’t even try to actually.

Click to expand...

Iraq is extremely urbanized, moreso than China.


If there aren't enough supplies for the locals due to their resistance then they must surrender or go without.

If they don't surrender then they're irrational fanatics who prefer death and then you have no choice but to eliminate them.

latenlazy said:

lol don’t think that your own population won’t dissent to the wanton slaughter of supposed kinsmen. Right to rule matters. It’s not all about hard power.


The fastest way is to get a surrender. Razing everything to the ground doesn’t do that (no one in Gaza is surrendering just because Israel decided to smash everything). It doesn’t even make sense from the standpoint of holding territory because you need the civilian infrastructure to support your own presence. You’re talking lazy nonsense right now.

Click to expand...

The problem with Israel is that they not only want to destroy Gaza's infrastructure but also intend to kill every Gazan. That's the issue, and the Gazans have no choice. As for Taiwanese people, the most likely scenario is that they hide in the mountains for several months and then find that the internet, water, and electricity have been restored. If that's the case, why would they still resist pointlessly in the mountains?

latenlazy said:

Iraq is mostly desert and not very urbanized. The parts of Taiwan you need to hold are very urban. The US also didn’t flatten Iraq. Didn’t even try to actually.

Click to expand...

Taiwan's electricity is mainly provided by 24 coal-fired or gas-fired power plants, accounting for 83.4% of the total electricity generation. Considering that Taiwan only has 10 Patriot missile defense systems and will not increase them in the foreseeable future, it is not an impossible task for China to suppress or destroy them.

latenlazy said:

It’s a dumb idea because the retaliatory nuclear strike would be Guam lol. You can take a guess at who can regenerate their positions faster. These discussions of nuclear contingencies are pointless. About the only conversation involving nukes that has any meaningful utility is how the threat of their uses informs military delimitations and political bargaining in the conflict scenario tree.

Click to expand...

Considering China's perspective that Taiwan is part of the homeland Guam barely qualifies as a commensurate target for counterstrike, more likely Long Island.

RedMetalSeadramon said:

Retaliatory nuclear strike is going to be Busan, Yokoyama and Okinawa. There no such thing as tactical nuke, nuclear is nuclear.

Click to expand...

Wrong countries.