PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
And the problem here is that one too many believe that the US is not capable of winning a large-scale war against China.
This was tested twice:

1. Korea - a full US committed conventional war that still failed to achieve objectives and ended up with a 500 km retreat + Seoul sacked multiple times.

2. Vietnam - a full US committed conventional war (yes, it was conventional, not COIN) with China only as a supplier, yet resulted in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, even in the case of Vietnam acting fully defensively with no ability to strike US bases outside Vietnam. And this was not because (as many Americans love to claim) because they were holding back or got bored or something, it was because
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
by their own admission.

The only reason that US had any ability to strike Korea and Vietnam at all was because of bases in Japan, Thailand, Philippines, had 36% of global GDP in 1970, and China/Vietnam had basically no navy.

I leave it to the imagination as to how many of those bases will remain operational against China.
 

zyklon

Junior Member
Registered Member
There will certainly be grey zones in such a conflict and situations wherein both parties come to a mutual understanding to not escalate further. If Iran and Israel can do it, so can the US and China.

But that wasn't my main argument. Some are suggesting that China launch a surprise attack on US bases and assets in the Pacific in the opening hours of a Taiwan conflict; this would clearly be nothing short of a declaration of war against the US and certainly not a "grey zone" action. The scenario you described stems from escalatory actions & counter-actions, not a blitzkrieg that sets off a whole new war in motion.

Maybe I should've made this a little more explicit: in lieu of striking US targets in Guam, Okinawa or the Japanese mainland to deter US intelligence and/or military support for Taipei in the event of a kinetic scenario, the PLA may achieve similar effects with significantly less risk by targeting US intelligence and communications resources situated inside Taiwan.

Taipei is going to have a hard time receiving intelligence from Washington and feeding aimpoints to Camp Smith if the requisite infrastructure ceases to function and/or exist. Likewise Washington is going to have second thoughts if it's feeling blind.

You're going to struggle to "get help" if your phone can't maintain reception for more than a few seconds and data simply refuses to transmit.

As for notions like pre-emptive PLARF strikes against Guam: that's just going to force Congress to declare war. Not an idea worth entertaining unless the US has already somehow been denuclearized.
 

Biscuits

Colonel
Registered Member
If US attacks China will attack back.

If US doesn't undertake aggression (and there's all indication that Trump and Musk at least fear attacking), China isn't gonna randomly strike them "just for safety", that's crazy. Beijing would just knock out the domestic terrorists, and that's it.

In no world would China attack US first over a domestic Chinese matter... If US just doesn't attack, they don't have anything to fear. And I don't see current US doing what it would need to do to muster a force that can credibly threaten invasion.
 

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
Maybe I should've made this a little more explicit: in lieu of striking US targets in Guam, Okinawa or the Japanese mainland to deter US intelligence and/or military support for Taipei in the event of a kinetic scenario, the PLA may achieve similar effects with significantly less risk by targeting US intelligence and communications resources situated inside Taiwan.

Taipei is going to have a hard time receiving intelligence from Washington and feeding aimpoints to Camp Smith if the requisite infrastructure ceases to function and/or exist. Likewise Washington is going to have second thoughts if it's feeling blind.

You're going to struggle to "get help" if your phone can't maintain reception for more than a few seconds and data simply refuses to transmit.

As for notions like pre-emptive PLARF strikes against Guam: that's just going to force Congress to declare war. Not an idea worth entertaining unless the US has already somehow been denuclearized.
I think it should generally be assumed at ANY target on the island of Taiwan whether Taiwanese or American, would be considered fair game during an invasion scenario, including any US troops which we know area already present in limited numbers.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Maybe I should've made this a little more explicit: in lieu of striking US targets in Guam, Okinawa or the Japanese mainland to deter US intelligence and/or military support for Taipei in the event of a kinetic scenario, the PLA may achieve similar effects with significantly less risk by targeting US intelligence and communications resources situated inside Taiwan.

Taipei is going to have a hard time receiving intelligence from Washington and feeding aimpoints to Camp Smith if the requisite infrastructure ceases to function and/or exist. Likewise Washington is going to have second thoughts if it's feeling blind.

You're going to struggle to "get help" if your phone can't maintain reception for more than a few seconds and data simply refuses to transmit.

As for notions like pre-emptive PLARF strikes against Guam: that's just going to force Congress to declare war. Not an idea worth entertaining unless the US has already somehow been denuclearized.

The question of whether the U.S. will get involved will have been answered long before things go kinetic on Taiwan. And to be frank, at that point China won’t give a fuck what Congress does or doesn’t do. America isn’t the only one with nukes.
 

supersnoop

Major
Registered Member
After the 2019 massive separatist protests in Hong Kong, many Chinese have realized that it's necessary to unify Taiwan with FORCE. Peaceful unification may be achieved easily for China in the short term, but some deep-rooted issues remain, and will break out years later. Force unification is a way to solve these issues once and for all.
Complete mischaracterization of the situation in HK. The lead up to the riots was not because of peaceful unification, it was because an economic imbalance existed between HK and the mainland that prevented the establishment of an effective security apparatus. A light handed approach was the MO as to not “rock the boat”. Contrast the situation with Macau where the NSL was passed without major opposition and PLA resources were formally deployed.

The riots were the culmination of the US leveraging all the assets they cultivated over the years (teachers union, healthcare workers unions, media, political figures) and I think it was a gamble by mainland to have them play all the chips. However the difference is that there is no “all in” situation for China since HK no longer held the same economic importance as 30 years ago. The calculus being that weathering the crisis would allow them to formally take control of the security situation and get rid of political irritants.

As this pertains to Taiwan, there would be no economic imbalance this time around. If peaceful unification were to happen tomorrow, there is no fear of rocking the boat and creating an economic crisis. A National Security Law and counterintelligence strategy would be created immediately.
 

coolgod

Brigadier
Registered Member
Complete mischaracterization of the situation in HK. The lead up to the riots was not because of peaceful unification, it was because an economic imbalance existed between HK and the mainland that prevented the establishment of an effective security apparatus. A light handed approach was the MO as to not “rock the boat”. Contrast the situation with Macau where the NSL was passed without major opposition and PLA resources were formally deployed.

The riots were the culmination of the US leveraging all the assets they cultivated over the years (teachers union, healthcare workers unions, media, political figures) and I think it was a gamble by mainland to have them play all the chips. However the difference is that there is no “all in” situation for China since HK no longer held the same economic importance as 30 years ago. The calculus being that weathering the crisis would allow them to formally take control of the security situation and get rid of political irritants.

As this pertains to Taiwan, there would be no economic imbalance this time around. If peaceful unification were to happen tomorrow, there is no fear of rocking the boat and creating an economic crisis. A National Security Law and counterintelligence strategy would be created immediately.
I think you two both have valid points. I think 2019 was a turning point in how Chinese mainlanders see Hong Kong, regardless of what led to the riots. The riots in 2019 definitely changed the calculus in how Beijing approaches the reunification problem, I think it is very unlikely Taiwan will become a SAR with some sort of 50 year phase in period.

Even basic economic questions can make people take a second look at AR. For example, will Taiwan have to pay taxes to central government post reunification? These kind of sweetheart deals might be politically possible for peaceful reunification back in the 80s/90s, I doubt it would be possible today.
 
Last edited:

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
I think you two both have valid points. I think 2019 was a turning point in how Chinese mainlanders see Hong Kong, regardless of what led to the riots. The riots in 2019 definitely changed the calculus in how Beijing approaches the reunification problem, I think it is very unlikely Taiwan will become a SAR with some sort of 50 year phase in period.

Even basic economic questions can make people take a second look at AR. For example, will Taiwan have to pay taxes to central government post reunification? These kind of sweetheart deals might be politically possible for peaceful reunification back in the 80s/90s, I doubt it would be possible today.
If Taiwan is willing to acquiesce without a fight, I think China would certainly offer them a 1 country 2 systems deal.
 

Luke Warmwar

New Member
Registered Member
So long as there is a real chance of a nuclear exchange in an AR scenario, there will be plenty of room for negotiation around the domestic configuration of peaceful reunification.

Really, there’s a question about what the bare minimum of that sort of agreement might look like. I’d think the cornerstone would have to be constitutional integration, (although,
but aside from that, what could be on the table?

Infrastructure and wealth transfers, while a little gauche given Taiwan’s high GDP per capita, would presumably be acceptable.

A separate currency, electoral system, legal system, law enforcement, flag, passport, trade relations, and international participation were permitted for Hong Kong, and can be taken as given.

Hong Kong also kept its coast guard, so the same can be assumed for Taiwan.

Military is where things get more complex. A nominally independent/delegated military may still be workable, but the shift in mission would be such that it might not make much sense. It would also be a point for potential future conflict. The upshot is, it would keep the people in charge of the military employed post-reunification, sweetening the deal for them.

Would the PLA be willing to eschew a garrison on the island? Even for Hong Kong, there’s a garrison. Some PLA presence, even if confined to specific locations, seems like a bottom line.

There’s an outstanding question of, to what extent would separatism be permitted? Nothing from legislators or the government, obviously. But a full prohibition, a la Hong Kong under the NSL, is possibly able to be avoided. This obviously leaves potential social problems to fester, but that’s a problem for the longer term. Unlike HK, even if the entire island is brought to a halt in protest, it doesn’t have ramifications for the mainland.

The relationship with the USA is the touchiest point. Continued supply of weapons to TW, if aimed at the mainland, is just asking for trouble. Similarly, continued presence of USAID (or whatever its next incarnation is) is a recipe for disaster. But maintaining Taiwan’s relationship with the US in some form would be desirable for peaceful reunification.

If you want to get really creative, we can talk about changes to the mainland system. Country-wide gay marriage, for example, would be an easy bone to throw to the liberals. I’m sure there are other options too.

This may all seem academic right now, but as the military imbalance increases, these sorts of discussions may become increasingly relevant. Even if a military conflict would be a forgone conclusion, there are real incentives on both sides to make concessions to avoid the incalculable costs of a hot war.
 
Top