PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
But I've been reading recently about US attitudes to China's nuclear arsenal, and its pretty disturbing. There is little to no recognition of China's deterrent,
They won't ever be deterred from fighting China, because to them, China is the final boss. Defeating China is worth exploring any sacrifice in a way defeating even every single country besides China at once isn't.
the question about how to think about China is literally framed as "is China a little Russia or big North Korea" (to be deterred or defended against). And the way the US is planning for conventional war, it seems the attitude leans towards the latter.
In their more sober moments, US seemingly do recognize that they're weaker in quality and are all but guaranteed to lose in quantity too once China begins building up.

For example some US reports straight up rule out hitting anything on the mainland during a war, because they believe the IADS to be too strong for attacks to be worth it.

Then again, sometimes US will lose their grip on sanity, because they know the way they've set up their empire, they're all but guaranteed to collapse if they lose in Asia. They're not thinking rationally because it's their life on the line.
Only after Xi shows up at a massive ceremony declaring the operational status of the new silo fields do I think we can say for sure the US won't intervene. There's still a lot of skepticism towards China's nuclear arsenal,
Again, this isn't rational skepticism. It's the life and death delusional skepticism of a gunman pinned down, seeing swat teams approaching. They will try and find any excuse to justify that they will walk out alive or at least able to parley.
along with no discussion of what its expanded arsenal would mean for escalation dynamics in a conflict with China. Xi in PLARF fatigues talking about the increase in the arsenal being necessary to meet the changing international environment will change that.

Or at the very least, that's the best China can do to change thinking in the US prior to a conflict breaking out. China's no first use policy is predicated on the US fearing nuclear strikes more than China; not in a military sense but in a political sense. The only reason the US threatens to use nukes is because it itself fears nukes so much. And China does not (or at least fears them less than the US).
Nuclear planning is no different than conventional planning, just by out-building and out-teching US, it will scare them even more. But even if scared, they will always fight because the alternative for them is worse.

However, they will never fight with nukes unless China does it first and/or makes intent clear they will wipe out US to the last. Because their leadership class will lose everything once nukes are used, which they won't if they make a conditional surrender.
But at the end of the day its an American with their finger on the button. If they really want to kill millions, if not billions over what flag flies over Taipei, that is up to them. One way to influence a person away from making a decision like that is to give them options to cease the conflict.
Taiwan is just a trigger point for a greater Asia conflict. China will never stop at Taiwan if US empire invades, that would be like USSR stopping after reclaiming Moscowien and Ukraine from the Germans.

US is only able to claim Taiwan due to inheriting the claim from Imperial Japan. So the end of the war must be in Tokyo. The empire of the western world must be expelled from all Asian colonies they stole from China and those territories returned. That will not trigger a nuclear conflict, as US has lost no core territories.

On nuclear strategy, the current technology is not anywhere near good enough to proof against another nuclear superpower, but there are glimmers of hope as the newest defenses can apparently even take down HGVs. Imho China does not need capability to shoot down all ~3000 nukes to defeat US' nuclear capability, it only needs to have enough missile defense to force US to use everything on China to ensure MAD. Because once it reached that level, US will functionally be unable to ensure MAD against its other adversaries. As such, US will then never use it's nukes in (nearly) any scenario (because they know that if they nuclear holocaust China, Russia, Iran, even Brazil, India etc. will remain near 100% intact and can colonize the destroyed USA).

That strategy is admittedly hinging on US not building more delivery platforms.
 

wangcard

Just Hatched
Registered Member
Interestingly, military enthusiasts in our country generally believe that Taiwan is a pawn to contain the United States, and he has restrained the attention of American politicians, and the naval exercises are more aimed at the first and second island chains. After all, Taiwan does not have long legs, where he is. China's Taiwan issue is essentially a Sino-US issue, and it is foolish to focus on a certain point (Taiwan), and the line (island chain) and the surface (Western Pacific) are the real core.
 

montyp165

Senior Member
?
Literally all US strategies around technical evolution revolve in one way or another around ways how to keep ability to hit mainland, and not let China push the fight away.
The Russo-Ukrainian conflict gives some insight as to the functional limitations of that assumption by US strategic thinking as even though the Russians have more limited defensive resources in some respects than China they still have both sufficient offensive and defensive capability to determine the course of the fighting even against Ukrainian missile strikes on Russian territories. Chinese industrial strength would enable direct strikes on the continental US if the US were to attack mainland China on top of sustaining pressure on US frontline units, so strategic attrition in this case would work precisely against the US position here.

I'm unaware of any instance where modern China has demonized an actual country and vowed to destroy it to the end. Despite the decades of propaganda about the evils of social imperialism, it even restored relations with the Soviets once Gorbachev came to power and rolled back the Soviets' bid for hegemony over China.
....

....
But at the end of the day its an American with their finger on the button. If they really want to kill millions, if not billions over what flag flies over Taipei, that is up to them. One way to influence a person away from making a decision like that is to give them options to cease the conflict.
The thing is that this highly depends on rational thinking on the Americans part, but given how irrational their body politic has become, a fight to the bitter end a la the Soviet-German War may become a matter of inevitability as Fascist ideologues do not allow for any other outcome, so China needs to be fully prepared for that.
 
Last edited:

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
The Russo-Ukrainian conflict gives some insight as to the functional limitations of that assumption by US strategic thinking as even though the Russians have more limited defensive resources in some respects than China
My understanding is that American assumption is China is incurably vulnerable(if strike can reach the coast it'll get through) that Chinese industrial output has to be neutralized to the best achievable degree.
US pacific programs are, broadly, either offensive strike programs, or "defensive" friction programs to slow down Chinese outbound move (i.e. protecting same strike staging areas).

Still, it's a questionable endeavor, because requirement grows, but strike capability (regardless of investment) will only fall due to rising Chinese capability.

Chinese industrial strength would enable direct strikes on the continental US if the US were to attack mainland China
*Will*
Right now this capabilities is completely lopsided in US favour, and I don't see how it'll change much over coming decade.
China urgently fixes nuclear part of the equation, but conventional will be harder.
 

iewgnem

Junior Member
Registered Member
*Will*
Right now this capabilities is completely lopsided in US favour, and I don't see how it'll change much over coming decade.
China urgently fixes nuclear part of the equation, but conventional will be harder.
This is implicitly assuming a static world where US retain all peacetime advantages while at war.

Distance is symmetrical, any Pacific island that US can use to strike Chinese mainland will also be within striking range of Chinese mainland but with a much larger force. That is to say islands that are closer to China than US are much harder for US to defend than it is for China to take.

This in turn means in a dynamic wartime state, it's easier for China to take Pacific islands and strike US mainland from there, than US to defend those islands or strike mainland China through Chinese controlled islands.

It's logically equivalent to how Jingmen is not an advantage for Taiwan just because they can easily strike mainland China from there.

Of course given distances in the Pacific the benefit of islands to Chinese strike on US is marginal, but the point still stand that US ability to strike China can't be modelled assuming they'll have access to those islands.

Now if we talk about how China has the world's largest merchant marine fleet, with >5000 ships available to serve as tankers and resupply bases, while US has a tiny faction of that, the balance becomes very different again.
 

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
I don't see how it's realistically possible, in any meaningful quantity anyway.

The best China can hope for, I think, is to push United States back to their side of the Pacific.
Eventually, rise of bomber force and especially navy(as the big enabler as well as by itself) will do it. Who knows, maybe even space. No matter how unfortunate your geography is, what comes one way, can come another. And if unfortunate geography is used for military purposes, it ultimately can change management, reversing situation.
But all of it is far enough from now.

Thus, for now the way to threaten continental US is to simply let them drain down relationship with Russia and build up the navy while they're distracted. Which US do without any help.
 
Last edited:

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
?
Literally all US strategies around technical evolution revolve in one way or another around ways how to keep ability to hit mainland, and not let China push the fight away.

But what is the US military supposed to do? They know that if mainland China is a secure operating location, then the US will lose in the Western Pacific.

In 2030, based on existing and expected procurement rates, my guess China will be able to obtain air superiority over Japan and whatever support the US can provide.

In 2035, assuming China retains its lead in 6th gen fighter development, we're looking at Chinese air superiority extending 3000km to Guam and the rest of the 2IC.

So in order to have even a slender hope of winning, the US has to plan on hitting airbases in mainland China.

---

Prior to Patchwork's departure, he did discuss how the US couldn't generate sufficient salvo sizes to get through the IADS on mainland China. Plus look at how many aimpoints there are and the sheer number of airbases for example.

Given this situation, is it even worth doing?
 

Almond98

Just Hatched
Registered Member
From my understanding is the u.s is painfully aware it has no hope of defeating PLA conventionally in taiwan strait therefore is contemplating or planning to strike PLAN forces across Taiwan strait with tactical nuclear weapons.
Have they ever thought this could lead to a nuclear war even if it is tactical nuclear weapon? Clearly russia will also get involved if they use this on china.
 
Top