PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

canonicalsadhu said:

Let's also not overlook the fact that in the next 2-3 decades, China is poised to transform itself from the largest energy importer (vulnerable to US blockades) to self-sufficiency and then to world's biggest energy exporter (of cleantech). Also the advancement in robotics coming from China will change the nature of warfare and position it favorably.
Given all these long-term structural advantages, China is not going to gamble its future on some short-term considerations like the current US cabinet or whatever.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

As per Rifkind's "Third Industrial Revolution", 86% of all productivity growth since the 1st Industrial Revolution in England has been due to improvements in aggregate energy efficiency aka technology.

In the long-run, the studies indicate that all productivity growth ends up as higher wages.

So if China is leading in technology, then the average Chinese person would be the richest in the world, barring some microstates and resource states. Then multiply that by the Chinese population, and the Chinese economy would be over 4x larger than the US economy. But this is still some decades away.

---

And remember that at the end of the day, isn't the end-goal economic prosperity and security?

FairAndUnbiased said:

IDK about that. Complacency is not good either.

USSR was ascendant in the 1960's and 1970's: won the 1st space race, catching up in strategic arsenals, in Vietnam, had the Mig-21 which smoked its contemporary the F-4, and had unparalleled influence in Africa, Middle East and Latin America. Then in the 1980's alone it crashed down.

Soviets had the weight of 250+ million domestically and another 100 million in Eastbloc, 2nd largest economy, largest military. You would have never expected anyone like Gorbachev to get anywhere near power and in the rare event someone did, they'd be severely constrained by momentum. Even if it declined, it would do so slowly, and be tightly managed.

Click to expand...

Remember that at its peak, the Soviet economy was only half the size of the US economy.

By the 1980s, the Soviets had *negative* productivity growth, so every year, their economy was getting less efficient. Plus the Soviet economy was about 5x smaller than the sum of all its potential opponents eg. USA, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, China, Australia.

And even though the Soviets had the largest military for much of the cold war, by the 1980s, it wasn't anywhere near large enough to take on all these potential opponents.

So is it any wonder that the Soviets overspent on the military?

---

In contrast, SIPRI has estimated Chinese military spending at a modest 2% of GDP for over 2 decades now. This is significantly lower compared to what the US or Russia were routinely spending.

But I severely doubt China is still at this level, given what we're seeing in the world in the past few years.

AndrewS said:

And if China starts a war that it somehow loses?

That would go down in the Chinese history books indeed

Click to expand...

The official recorded history books generally look more favourably towards emperors that were more "adventurous" versus ones which were meek. Starting bad wars were usually blamed on lower officials, while not starting wars were blamed on emperors.

These narratives might not accurately reflect reality, but the official Chinese history definitely has an editorial stance.

AndrewS said:

And if China starts a war that it somehow loses?

That would go down in the Chinese history books indeed

Click to expand...

If China loses, it will have no one to blame but itself. Taking action is often better than waiting for the inevitable. As the saying goes, "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take."

The Chinese leadership faces a difficult decision: letting the Taiwan issue simmer indefinitely or taking the necessary but unwanted action of using force to retake Taiwan, with all the geopolitical consequences that would involve. The risks of taking such actions are enormous, and the consequences of failure would be severe. The CPC leadership and party would bear the blame for any failure, but they would also be criticized for not taking defensive action sooner due to concerns about economic and stability risks.

The party elders and the sons and daughters of the CPC/PLA that brought upon the spirit back to China owe it to the newer generation to complete their founding tasks of Chinese complete reunification of all the territories lost. Living the unfinished tasks to the newer cadre of leaders is in my opinion tantamount to a serious dereliction of their solemn duty sans the leadership is content with being fat from the material wealth they have all gained forgetting the revolutionary mission and purpose of the party along with it's spirit in the process.

coolgod said:

The official recorded history books generally look more favourably towards emperors that were more "adventurous" versus ones which were meek. Starting bad wars were usually blamed on lower officials, while not starting wars were blamed on emperors.

These narratives might not accurately reflect reality, but the official Chinese history definitely has an editorial stance.

Click to expand...

It's better to be adventurous than cautious. Fortune favors the bold.

The more China wait, the further and more alienated Taiwan and the people become thereby making the reunification all but impossible.

Why must we assume that the U.S. will not be able to find it's footing in a decade or less and when that happens it'll be much more difficult and costly for China to make. What would be the next excuse then? I like to use a famous quote from a western novel "Those who remain" that goes like this: "Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times, and good times create weak men".

I feel that the rapid ascent and economic development of China had made some of the core leadership in the party abandoned their core and principal duty to the party creed. They have been spoiled by the riches and splendid of the new China that they have now (perception only) appear to be impotent to take the ultimate task of taking Taiwan back because they will lose their riches (along with their spoiled relatives, kids) in the process.

What was even the purpose of the CPC led revolution if at the end of the day, the country and the party that leads it becomes nothing more than a carbon copy of the very culture and system it bitterly fought against and in the process leading to the division of the country and its people that continue to this very bleeping day.

AndrewS said:

Agreed.

As per Rifkind's "Third Industrial Revolution", 86% of all productivity growth since the 1st Industrial Revolution in England has been due to improvements in aggregate energy efficiency aka technology.

In the long-run, the studies indicate that all productivity growth ends up as higher wages.

So if China is leading in technology, then the average Chinese person would be the richest in the world, barring some microstates and resource states. Then multiply that by the Chinese population, and the Chinese economy would be over 4x larger than the US economy. But this is still some decades away.

---

And remember that at the end of the day, isn't the end-goal economic prosperity and security?

Click to expand...

I think this discussion really depends on your vision of what PRC is aiming for. Mao would have wanted to see Red Flags planted all over the world, but Deng changed all that. We aren't sure what the top Chinese leaders' visions are but there is an argument to be made that the current PRC is similar to the Song dynasty.

The Song dynasty was leading in technology in the world, steelmaking during the Song was unmatched in the world. The Song dynasty had gunpowder and rudimentary rockets and explosives, by contrast its neighbours initially only had bows and arrows. The Song dynasty had printed bank notes, a very developed economic system which prospered in part due to ease of transportation throughout the empire. The Song dynasty exported vast quantities of goods throughout the world. The average person living in the Song dynasty would be the richest in the world at that time also.

This all sounds kind of familiar doesn't it, no one would deny the Song had economic prosperity. If we followed your logic of analysis and look at the Song dyansty, you can argue it had security also. After all, in the long run the mighty Song dynasty should be growing faster than those northern barbarian tribes, the Song was more economically productive than the northern barbarians. In the end the Song did outlasted two of its main rivals, the Liao and Jin, but still suffered a cruel fate.

Clearly the people were living great lives in the Song, they produced great scientific inventions, art, poems and philosophy. But the Song dynasty was never highly revered in Chinese history, official or unofficial. They squandered many opportunities to defeat their rivals, they were the infamous cautionary tale for future Emperors. They didn't expand the empire, in fact they didn't even reunify the empire. Mention the phrase 燕云十六州 and you can shut down any Song fanboy. Song emperors' complacency was their biggest sin, and it will never be forgotten by the Chinese people.

Which is why I am firmly with GenSec Xi's important tasks of rebuilding the party esprit de corps; it's ideological footing and spirit of the proletariat must not be lost or else everything goes to shit.

I mean, if the party acedes to everything and everyone's that's gained wealth and thereby influence it would be nothing more than just a mediator/facilitator for the capitalist pimps that are more than willing to surrender and sell the country to the highest bidders. They don't even believe in their CHINESE sense of culture; some of them readily absorbs and look upto Europe, Japan, and America as evidenced to the very idiots that left the country during the post-covid reopening. They chose to flock to Singapore and elsewhere bringing with them the litany of complaints.

What do the Chinese mainland folks believe in today anyway? Their spiritual and ideological convictions wane as soon as they get the taste of wealth and access to material power.

As much as we dunk on the Americans at least their core beliefs remain unshackled: Freedom and Democracy are their calling card no matter how farcical. Those people believe it to their very essence. Do the Chinese and especially their leadership (with the exception of Xi) even believe the party creed and what it stands for? Doubtful.

Bellum_Romanum said:

As much as we dunk on the Americans at least their core beliefs remain unshackled: Freedom and Democracy are their calling card no matter how farcical. Those people believe it to their very essence. Do the Chinese and especially their leadership (with the exception of Xi) even believe the party creed and what it stands for? Doubtful.

Click to expand...

Very much disagree, US government doesn’t believe in freedom and democracy as evidenced by its actions this should be obvious. Many on the left believe in identity politics while shutting down the opposition while many on the right believe in the republic not democracy. Very few are actually committed to the so called “freedom and democracy” or respect the actual majority opinion or genuine democracy in other countries. As for the Chinese and their leadership, just look at the facts in terms of economics, technology, general governance and public welfare. Not in a war so can’t gauge actual war time performance but a lot things are related.

Bellum_Romanum said:

What do the Chinese mainland folks believe in today anyway? Their spiritual and ideological convictions wane as soon as they get the taste of wealth and access to material power.

Click to expand...

Patriotism and most people are than not. Some people actually become more nationalistic when they don’t have to worry about basic needs.

Bellum_Romanum said:

I feel that the rapid ascent and economic development of China had made some of the core leadership in the party abandoned their core and principal duty to the party creed. They have been spoiled by the riches and splendid of the new China that they have now (perception only) appear to be impotent to take the ultimate task of taking Taiwan back because they will lose their riches (along with their spoiled relatives, kids) in the process.

Click to expand...

The poor tend to suffer the most during wars. When there is only one shot at it and the suffering could be immense the preparation needed has to be very thorough.

Bellum_Romanum said:

What was even the purpose of the CPC led revolution if at the end of the day, the country and the party that leads it becomes nothing more than a carbon copy of the very culture and system it bitterly fought against and in the process leading to the division of the country and its people that continue to this very bleeping day.

Click to expand...

So you are trying discredit all the progress and improvements the PRC has achieved since it’s founding? Look at the facts instead of propaganda.

Bellum_Romanum said:

Why must we assume that the U.S. will not be able to find it's footing in a decade or less

Click to expand...

Because the US has become so fundamentally dysfunctional, it would take a violent revolution to change the way things are.

coolgod said:

And also filled with many winning decisions that came with this mindset. China wouldn't be what it is today if there weren't Tang, Ming, Qing emperors with this mindset.

Click to expand...

On the contrary.

Tang expansion in Central Asia halted when they attacked Chach (石国) without provocation. This angered all the other minor principalities in the region, and they rallied to the Abbasid Caliphate, resulting in the Battle of Talas which Tang lost.

The most famous defeat in Ming history, the Tumu Crisis, happened because Emperor Yingzong thought he could emulate Yongle and lead an army to defeat the Mongols. Instead, he got his ass captured and over 100k of the finest Ming troops were lost in the debacle.

Emperor Liu Bang once got angry with Han Xing and wanted to prove that he too, could lead armies. It resulted in him getting surrounded by the Xiongnu and forced to agree to humiliating terms in order to leave.

Military campaigns should always be planned with the clearest rational objectives in mind, never with selfish thoughts of personal glory.

coolgod said:

This is nice to say in retrospect, but back in the 60s, early 70s your statement would have been objectively not true.

Click to expand...

We are way past the 60s and even 70s era of the Cold War analogy. Current US is more like 80s USSR in terms of political dysfunction and military overreach.

AndrewS said:

And if China starts a war that it somehow loses?

That would go down in the Chinese history books indeed

Click to expand...

There won't be a Chinese history nor a world history if China loses, this isn't the 1920s, ceding major territory won't happen because China has nukes.

In my view, an US invasion is inevitable, but as long as China is improving more than US, they should wait for US to attack first. Whether this attack comes as a direct US assault on the island, or by a significant transfer of military support/recognition to militant US collaborators.

In the meantime, China can and should increase its defensive operations in Taiwan, this means both covert counteraction, overflight by planes and ships stationed to hold sea areas. And it should also actualize the government's right to jurisdiction in Taiwan. First gradually, then more generally.

Waiting has been a good logic so far because each decade heavily improves China while US is staying stagnant due to corruption/poor institutional regulation. For example, US has had a 100 major ship navy for like 40 years. While China has gone from 0 to 4 to 12 and with escort destroyers ballooning from 10 to 40-50, each of them qualitatively superior to the USN counterpart.

Bellum_Romanum said:

The more China wait, the further and more alienated Taiwan and the people become thereby making the reunification all but impossible.

Click to expand...

What people think inside Taiwan has always been irrelevant, the absolute majority of the country doesn't want to cede Taiwan so it doesn't matter what a few million living in Taiwan thinks. Same logic like Ukraine has in Donbass and Crimea. If it really comes down to it, we'll just do as the Ukraine does whenever they take a town in the Donbass (admittedly not happened in a long time): tell the population to evacuate to stable territory and summarily get rid of anyone refusing and/or showing pro invaders opinions.