That would just embolden the US and Japan. It should be made clear beforehand that any assets or facilities used to impede reunification will become legitimate targets.
PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
- Thread starter pugachev_diver
- Start date
That is the crux of the situation with Japan as the linchpin -all or nothing with the red line of complete neutrality or face full spectrum attack from China if any help/assistance to US/allies is given-it's war, as the reunification with Taiwan will be an existential fight for the existence of China itself and a nightmare scenario of long attrition and a weakening China will embolden even a land invasion by india,or a recapture of HK by Brits,US marines landing in Shanghai etc (I know very,very,very unlikely...but) hope /work for the best but plan for the worst.What I want to see is a 96 hr armed,bloodless takeover with Chinese PLA troopers cheering alongside Chinese Taiwanese people in Taipei celebrating family reunification at last and a quiescent Japan-you want peace ?then show it by doing the right thing-goes for SK as well
Last edited:
If so, we bow out with a nuclear ggs, as China will never give up on millions of its lives whether in Taiwan, HK or elsewhere.
Japan(or, for the matter, South Korea), as of now, are more of very well developed footprints for US presence, with appropriate local defense capabilities offloaded from US budget. Both form rather inconvenient(from China's perspective) geographic "barbican", effectively limiting China's north-eastern access.
Both have to swing very hard, breaking all the American entrancement overnight, just to get out, which is highly unlikely (not impossible, but usually such a system makes such ideas highly unpopular/personally harmful in the first place). Both rapidly develop conventional/possess sub-threshold nuclear deterrent capability.
Both have potential to militarize(even if once, because with current demographic picture no country can truly afford go 20th century). RK can do it faster due to better positioned industry (but within a limited window of time (demographic clock), Japan will take longer, but their downward spiral is also more sensible.
Japan clearly seemed to overtly prepare for possibility of such a shift for last decades, but within their current alignment it does not work.
Can both be suppressed fast? ROK, potentially(geography; DPRK agreement/commitment highly desirable), Japan, less unlikely(geography; at least DPRK or better Russian commitment is highly desirable, but Russia is likely to be reluctant here, it doesn't have a strong hand in Far East against Japan).
Can both truly be expected/threatened into remain neutral?
That's almost an impossible guess beforehand, i.e. 50/50.
Both have to swing very hard, breaking all the American entrancement overnight, just to get out, which is highly unlikely (not impossible, but usually such a system makes such ideas highly unpopular/personally harmful in the first place). Both rapidly develop conventional/possess sub-threshold nuclear deterrent capability.
Both have potential to militarize(even if once, because with current demographic picture no country can truly afford go 20th century). RK can do it faster due to better positioned industry (but within a limited window of time (demographic clock), Japan will take longer, but their downward spiral is also more sensible.
Japan clearly seemed to overtly prepare for possibility of such a shift for last decades, but within their current alignment it does not work.
Can both be suppressed fast? ROK, potentially(geography; DPRK agreement/commitment highly desirable), Japan, less unlikely(geography; at least DPRK or better Russian commitment is highly desirable, but Russia is likely to be reluctant here, it doesn't have a strong hand in Far East against Japan).
Can both truly be expected/threatened into remain neutral?
That's almost an impossible guess beforehand, i.e. 50/50.
That's the whole idea of this massive show of transformative generational weapon systems(not just CAC/SAC ,076,KJ3000,5G MIL SYSTEM MD22/WZ9 ETC) which brings PLA to another level and very well to convince Japan and the like it will be absolutely futile and self-destructive to fight China over TW-in any way (and perhaps any other else)peace /neutrality is the way for neighbours to coexist.As Sun Tzu said"to win without fighting is the highest acme of skill"-doesn't denote passivity or weakness but overwhelming strength("fight us and be clubbed like a baby seal")
Last edited:
I usually avoid use of AoW quotes, because their use out of context often results in change of meanings. Sometimes, to a direct opposite. In world internet, sufficient knowledge of 1st millennia BCE China is kinda rare, even if it's normal for educated Chinese. Just a different curriculum.
Wenyan leaves a lot to interpretation in the first place, and here narrative becomes paramount. Bad translations destroy it even more.
The quote you've just used isn't about avoiding conflict, it's about avoiding honest pitched battle(戰/战 is used as battle there, not conflict) with its risks, and about using military advantages to the fullest. I. e. a direct reference to duke Xiang of Song disastrously losing battle of Hong river, basically snatching defeat from jaws of obvious victory. Honorable defeat from jaws of unhonorable victory.
It's a call for well setup, one-sided victory, not for pacifism. As is the whole book.
Wenyan leaves a lot to interpretation in the first place, and here narrative becomes paramount. Bad translations destroy it even more.
The quote you've just used isn't about avoiding conflict, it's about avoiding honest pitched battle(戰/战 is used as battle there, not conflict) with its risks, and about using military advantages to the fullest. I. e. a direct reference to duke Xiang of Song disastrously losing battle of Hong river, basically snatching defeat from jaws of obvious victory. Honorable defeat from jaws of unhonorable victory.
It's a call for well setup, one-sided victory, not for pacifism. As is the whole book.
Last edited:
Point taken-that's why AoW should be read in original Chinese(with all of its nuances) alongside translation-I have such a copy and several translated texts but it is more of a Chinese treasured cultural touchstone with some modern value/application of course not to be misused.Along with Clausewitz and Sun Bin's treatises on war,even Japan's Book of 5 Rings etc have value.But you do see my point about being overwhelming strength to deter a possible conflict?
Yes, on the point itself - no disagreement. Demonstration (as opposed to hiding) is obviously meant to deter conflict, avoiding it.
solarz
Brigadier
I think the Ukraine war is a good blueprint for how a proxy war between two great powers would proceed. We have seen no indication that the US is willing to widen the conflict by sending in NATO reinforcements even now, as Ukraine is on the verge of collapse. Russia has also been avoiding escalation by not targeting NATO ISR even though they are the direct cause of much Russian casualties.
Again, in the event of AR, China's goals are to retake Taiwan with as little cost to itself as possible, and US' goals are to bleed China as much as possible without coming into direct conflict. The two goals align in that neither would want to widen the conflict.
That US will come into direct conflict comes without saying, since no one has the ability to attack China by themselves.
So what you're saying is essentially that US will only attack in Taiwan and around Taiwan, not expand the scope of the war just like Russia didn't attack Ukraine friendly assets directly helping Ukraine from the outside. And in exchange, the idea would be that China would also restrain itself to not start attacking outside Taiwan. It's an interesting idea, but also very hard to say if both extremely opposing governments can really find enough common ground to hold a gentleman's agreement like that.
The thing about the Ukraine war is that it's the Russian military's overwhelming power that lets them restrain Ukraine to mostly being in the Donbass. Ukraine is constantly actually trying to expand the war, it's just mostly not working due to strategic logistics and tactical concerns.
Since US doesn't have that overwhelming military power and even further if they limit themselves in the conflict which exacebrates their lack of airbases compared to China, I don't think the gentleman's agreement will hold.
I mean if you think about it, if Ukraine had more than half of whole Russian navy VLS count but all concentrated in the black sea, had the ability to take out Russian theater airbases 24/7 and has local superiority in airforce numbers etc. I don't think Ukraine would agree to only fighting in the Donbass. Them being limited there currently is more a function of their weakness than the success of the Ukraine model as a "safe" proxy war.