PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

Z

zyklon

Junior Member
Registered Member
Iron Man said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree with you, but there's still quite a bit of ambiguity in the mix.

Generally speaking, diplomatic compounds are sacrosanct (even during war), but AIT isn't an embassy or consulate, at least not officially, and is certainly a base of operations for US military and intelligence personnel forward deployed to Taiwan.

The PLA might leave AIT alone should the Chinese authorities feel magnanimous despite AIT's ambiguous status, but considering what occurred in Belgrade in 1999, there's no guarantee just how things will play out.

This is just one example of a grey zone that could be in play if things get kinetic across the Taiwan Strait. I'm sure you can think of more examples.

plawolf said:
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.
Click to expand...

We might have to agree to disagree here.

Should the CMC direct the PLA to seize Taiwan by force, the US will almost certainly be able to approximate zero hour in advance.

Though that doesn't mean Uncle Sam will be poised to respond to zero hour immediately and kinetically. In all likelihood it'll take the US weeks, if not months to muster the requisite assets for a meaningful military response, assuming a meaningful military response can be both defined and achieved.

The longer it takes the US to muster forces, the more time Beijing will have to achieve a fait accompli in its seizure of Taiwan and its associated islands.

However, should pre-emptive PLA strikes inflict mass casualties upon US forces outside of Taiwan, then Congress will be forced to declare war to satiate domestic political pressure, regardless of whether some sort of conventional military victory is even feasible for the US.

IMHO, that's a path best to avoid.
 
Wrought

Wrought

Junior Member
Registered Member
Luke Warmwar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Monopoly on force is non-negotiable; in practice, this translates to PLA garrison + disbanding local military. Everything else is likely negotiable to a greater or lesser extent.
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
zyklon said:
We might have to agree to disagree here.

Should the CMC direct the PLA to seize Taiwan by force, the US will almost certainly be able to approximate zero hour in advance.

Though that doesn't mean Uncle Sam will be poised to respond to zero hour immediately and kinetically. In all likelihood it'll take the US weeks, if not months to muster the requisite assets for a meaningful military response, assuming a meaningful military response can be both defined and achieved.

The longer it takes the US to muster forces, the more time Beijing will have to achieve a fait accompli in its seizure of Taiwan and its associated islands.

However, should pre-emptive PLA strikes inflict mass casualties upon US forces outside of Taiwan, then Congress will be forced to declare war to satiate domestic political pressure, regardless of whether some sort of conventional military victory is even feasible for the US.

IMHO, that's a path best to avoid.
Click to expand...

When did I ever say anything about a pre-emptive strike against US forces?

China isn’t Russia. It’s not going to tolerate US recon and C&C assets functioning as part of Taiwan’s kill chain with impunity. Nor will it be so pathetically passive as to allow the US to build up in peace and give them full say on when and how they might intervene.

China, in all likelihood, will allow America to throw the first punch, but that doesn’t mean it will just sit back and allow America to leisurely wind up its biggest haymaker to take that massive alpha strike.

The most likely scenario is that China will be extremely aggressive and set up a massive no-fly no-sail zone around Taiwan and actually enforce that with lethal force from the get go.

Congress can declare war if a USN recon plane ignored the no-fly zone, got intercepted, refused to obey orders and got shot down, but it won’t resonate with the US public like Pearl Harbour 2.0 will it? And that’s just a very simple and obvious example of how the PLA can basically force America to show its cards on day one with minimal cost or risk. And the PLA can use similar moves to trigger basically any scale conflict it wants.

The only way you can realistically avoid full scale war with a country like America is if you show you are not afraid of it and willing to throw down any time they want. Show any weakness and it will be the same playbook in Ukraine where America keep salami slicing your bottom line.

But as I said, China will know what America will do before America itself at that point, and it will not allow America the luxury of time to plan out its moves. Instead, China will play its pre-prepared cards in ultra rapidly succession so America only has time and bandwidth to react. China will most likely structure its moves to steer America away from direct, or at least full scale commitment, but it will also aim to manoeuvre America into the least advantageous position to start if it does decide to go all in.

So any plan or scenario that involves America getting the time and space to leisurely make its own opening preparations in peace is just pure fantasy.
 
obj 705A

obj 705A

Junior Member
Registered Member
Luke Warmwar said:
But maintaining Taiwan’s relationship with the US in some form would be desirable for peaceful reunification.
Click to expand...
now that is rediculous. one of the minimum requirements from the mainland for a deal on peaceful reunification would be for Taiwan to cede it's forgein ministry. Taiwan won't be allowed to have any foreign relations with any country or organization. the biggest concession mainland could give to Taiwan in case of peaceful reunification is one country two systems similar to HK but with Taiwan retaining a ground force minus the navy, the airforce and also minus any missile forces. the PLAN and the PLAAF would be the ones responsible for securing Taiwan airspace & maritime borders.
 
B

Biscuits

Colonel
Registered Member
Luke Warmwar said:
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.
Click to expand...
Attempting and failing an invasion does not grant US any seat at the table for negotiation. The best they should hope to walk away with is not getting a PLA buffer zone in east Asia to prevent future US aggression.

There can be no negotiation with invaders. Especially not when China has overwhelming force.
 
Z

zyklon

Junior Member
Registered Member
plawolf said:
When did I ever say anything about a pre-emptive strike against US forces?
Click to expand...

From the looks of it, we in fact agree on more than we disagree.

However, where we diverge might be how we expect an armed seizure of Taiwan by the PLA to play out, especially in terms of where there's most escalatory risk, and just how manageable escalatory risk will be.

plawolf said:
The most likely scenario is that China will be extremely aggressive and set up a massive no-fly no-sail zone around Taiwan and actually enforce that with lethal force from the get go.

Congress can declare war if a USN recon plane ignored the no-fly zone, got intercepted, refused to obey orders and got shot down, but it won’t resonate with the US public like Pearl Harbour 2.0 will it? And that’s just a very simple and obvious example of how the PLA can basically force America to show its cards on day one with minimal cost or risk. And the PLA can use similar moves to trigger basically any scale conflict it wants.
Click to expand...

In the event the CMC directs the PLA to seize Taiwan by force, the declaration of a No Fly Zone (NFZ) and a Maritime Exclusion Zone (MEZ) will not be probable or likely, but absolutely certain to occur. Moreover, the declaration of a NFZ and MEZ shouldn't been seen as extremely aggressive or even aggressive at all, so much as what responsible great powers do when they go to war and to be expected.

Once we get to that point, what the PLA will render upon Taiwan will make the "Shock and Awe" that Iraq experienced in 2003 look like a Sunday picnic (unless ROC personnel surrender, defect and/or desert en masse), and while this isn't something the average 11B or even member of Congress will necessarily expect, this is something the INDOPACOM J2 absolutely knows will happen. The airspace above and surrounding Taiwan will be the most non-permissive environment imaginable. Not something anyone walks into by accident or even willingly.

In fact, I fully expect GOs/FOs at the Pentagon to push back in private against challenging any such NFZ or MEZ immediately with crewed assets if directed to do so by the White House. They'll insist on mustering forces prior to any such attempt: no one wants to be accused of sending their men into harm's way without first giving them the resources to fight and win or at least going through the motions.

With that said, if the elected US political leadership gets reckless enough to test the waters (without first mustering forces which will give the PLA time to achieve a fait accompli) despite the advice they'll receive from their own generals, admirals and SES, there'll be no reason for the Chinese authorities to have any delusions or misapprehensions about the White House's intentions.

plawolf said:
The only way you can realistically avoid full scale war with a country like America is if you show you are not afraid of it and willing to throw down any time they want. Show any weakness and it will be the same playbook in Ukraine where America keep salami slicing your bottom line.
Click to expand...

NGL "accidentally" shooting down a RQ-180 or some other high end unmanned asset may do more good than harm: "We understand your RQ-180 accidentally violated our NFZ due to technical difficulties (that of course had nothing to do with our EW systems), and unfortunately we were unable to intervene before our highly automated IADS detected and destroyed one of your most expensive and sophisticated stealth assets. Please fly more cautiously moving forward."

Who knows if such a scenario will actually occur, but it could actually be arguably ideal as it'll give both sides an opportunity to reassess their capabilities and reason for avoiding further escalation. Knowing Trump, he might even receive it as a sign from God to walk away so long as the Chinese agree to buy the USAF some even bigger and shinier drones as a face saving gesture for his administration . . .
 
Last edited:
vincent

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
China can always force US’ hand by taking out radar stations on the Japanese islands near the Taiwan Island using whatever excuse they can come up with, making US get involved before they gathered enough strength in the theatre.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top