PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

Serb said:

The thing with Ukraine is that they had to suffer a real-world defeat, in some form, first before they could break out of the delusional think tank fairyland they were living in, to some extent.

That’s how I see Taiwan too. Their inflated self-image knows no limits, and expecting them to act rationally is unrealistic.

Click to expand...

It's not important how Taiwan sees itself. It's important whether the US thinks it can beat China. Taiwan is never going to drag the US into a fight that America thinks it will lose.

Serb said:

Right now, they tell themselves, sure, we lost to Russia, but that wasn’t our real fight. We held back because our real enemy is China, our so-called near-peer. If we face China directly, we’ll do better.

Click to expand...

That is why I said that China is still letting the issue stall until it gains dominant power, when the US sees China's military and all its generals vote HELL NO to a hot conflict because they can't come within 2,000 miles of China without getting hot missile payload dumped all over their heads. When one or 2 rogue elites stand up and say they must try because commies must ever win, the whole room tells them to shut the fuck up because they've got about as much chance of winning as North Korea taking Rhode Island from the US. And the whole sane world sees this.

Serb said:

What I expect is that they’ll try to provoke China into a conflict over Taiwan sooner or later, thinking they can somehow control the outcome. Only after they suffer a clear defeat will they even consider negotiating.

Click to expand...

No. That window has already passed or they would have done it by now. It's clear to them that winning over Taiwan is unlikely and trying might lead to nuclear destruction. Best they can do is make a mess. But we've yet arrived to the point where the idea of American intervention is ridiculous.

Serb said:

I don’t think Trump would ever abandon Taiwan, like what happened with Ukraine, because he simply can’t. Taiwan isn’t just another peripheral geopolitical issue, it’s the one area where there’s near-total consensus among US elites, from oligarchs to the deep state. Trump doesn’t have the power to go against that, he's not that strong. They see Taiwan as an existential issue. If they ‘lose’ Taiwan, they believe it’s game over, lights out for their global empire and their unjust prosperity for good. That's why they will never 'give it' without a fight, IMO. That said, I think Trump’s presidency would be a better timeline for China, not because the US would ever willingly hand Taiwan over peacefully (that would never happen in a million years in my assessment), but because if the war does happen under Trump, the US would go into it far more internally divided and isolated from the rest of the Collective West. Trump’s sheer presence is polarizing enough to fracture both America itself as well as America’s relationship with its vassals. The guy’s a walking menace, and that’s not the kind of environment you want to be in when in a war with China.

Click to expand...

I do agree that US would not be able to stay entirely out, if there is an armed conflict in the Taiwan Strait. But that doesn't necessarily mean it would automatically be a full throated participation. There are a range of possibilities:

1. Full and unreserved participation, including sending ground troops onto the island. It seems pretty unlikely that this would be seriously considered (at least by the more circumspect members of any thinktank), nor would turn out well. No matter the outcome, the US forces on the first two island chains would be obliterated at the end of the episode. And there is a distinct possibility of escalating to nuclear exchange.
2. Direct Military participation, but only offer air and sea battle support through stand off munitions, in addition to supply the island with munitions. This also would put the nearby US and allied bases at great risk, but possibly could be managed if US pulls most of its force far back enough, only doing some SSN launched ASMs at the amphibious fleet, and deep penetrating interdiction strikes using VLO + EW platforms, while focusing the bulk of its force defending bases on Japan and the 2IC. Still extremely dangerous, but at least there might be a possibility of a ladder to deescalate further in time.
3. No direct military participation in theatre, but a wide cordoned blockade of PLAN and PRC commercial shipping. And at the same time doing as much as possible to run supplies through a PLAN/CCG blockade. A distant blockade would be something that could be feasibly deescalated over time through negotiations, and would not immediately put US personel and assets in harms' way.
4. Only provide military support before hand, and try to opportunistically make supply runs to the island. Since it is not a piece of land connected to other allied countries, this would likely not have a long term military effect, it's basically as close to neutrality as it can possibly get from the US POV. Over time, it would not be providing much more than pure symbolic support.

There are also a variety of scenarios in between those rough archetypes. But the critical thing is, we don't know what the US security think tanks would do when the situation reaches the threshold. And different posture or risk assessments by them could lead to vastly different US reactions.

So it's not really useful or meaningful to simply say that US would not hand over this chess piece peacefully when it breaks out. It all depends on how it gets itself involved.

AndrewJ said:

IMO indeed. If there's a war, then 2025/2026/2027 are perfect times, from many perspectives.

Click to expand...

I disagree.

In 10 years time, if you model what is happening in terms of economics, technology and the military - China will be in a far better position compared to its neighbours and the USA. For example, China should be able to militarily "control" the 2nd Island Chain, whereas today, only the 1st Island Chain is realistically possible.

---

In addition, Trump is only the beginning of American internal divisions.
America will be far more fractured and divided in 10 years time.

Think about the how and why Trump came to power.

For the past 30 years, the bottom 50% of Americans have seen their incomes actually decrease.
If you think about it, this is amazing statistic.

What happened to all the economic gains in terms of technology, productivity and globalisation over the past 30 years?

The answer is that all these gains over the past 30 years have flowed to the rich in America.
And this occurred during both Republican and Democrat governments.

The studies also indicate that in terms of actual decision-making, the American government has been captured by interest groups and their money.

---

And if we look at what Trump is proposing, it is essentially:
1. lower taxes for the rich
2. cutting government spending, which is disproportionately consumed by the working class
3. increased tariffs on imports. This will be borne disproportionately by the working class, not the rich

So if anything, incomes for the bottom half of Americans will continue getting worse, along with even more wealth inequality as the rich get richer.

But the average American voter doesn't understand this.

All they see is the left/right divide, and populists like Trump blame immigrants and foreign countries as the reason why the working class is getting poorer. (The solution to this problem is actually higher taxes and more redistribution)

So in 10 years, we can reasonably expect to see the Republican party and Republican Presidents become even more nakedly populist than Trump. We'll also see more outright and blatant corruption, such as the Trump and Melania memecoins recently launched with no other purpose than to scam Americans and enrich the Trumps.

So American internal divisions should become far worse in the future..

AndrewS said:

I disagree.

In 10 years time, if you model what is happening in terms of economics, technology and the military - China will be in a far better position compared to its neighbours and the USA. For example, China should be able to militarily "control" the 2nd Island Chain, whereas today, only the 1st Island Chain is realistically possible.

---

In addition, Trump is only the beginning of American internal divisions.
America will be far more fractured and divided in 10 years time.

Think about the how and why Trump came to power.

For the past 30 years, the bottom 50% of Americans have seen their incomes actually decrease.
If you think about it, this is amazing statistic.

What happened to all the economic gains in terms of technology, productivity and globalisation over the past 30 years?

The answer is that these gains have flowed to the rich in America.
And this occurred during both Republican and Democrat governments.

The studies also indicate that in terms of actual decision-making, the American government has been captured by interest groups and their money.

---

And if we look at what Trump is proposing, it is essentially:
1. lower taxes for the rich
2. cutting government spending, which is disproportionately consumed by the working class
3. increased tariffs on imports. This will be borne disproportionately by the working class, not the rich

So if anything, incomes for the bottom half of Americans will continue getting worse, along with even more wealth inequality.

But the average American voter doesn't understand this.

All they see is the left/right divide, and populists like Trump blame immigrants and foreign countries as the reason why the working class is getting poorer.

So in 10 years, we can reasonably expect to see the Republican party and Republican Presidents become even more nakedly populist than Trump. We'll also see more outright and blatant corruption, such as the Trump and Melania memecoins recently launched with no other purpose than to scam Americans and enrich the Trumps.

So American internal divisions should become far worse in the future..

Click to expand...

Why does China need to do everything in one go? The Qing empire was attacked by multiple waves. The British Empire shrank over decades. China can reunify in 2027, kick US out of west pacific by 2037. Besides you have to give time for the countries surrounding China to adapt. Otherwise, the Japanese might do crazy things like mass seppuku.

coolgod said:

Why does China need to do everything in one go? The Qing empire was attacked by multiple waves. The British Empire shrank over decades. China can reunify in 2027, kick US out of west pacific by 2037. Besides you have to give time for the countries surrounding China to adapt. Otherwise, the Japanese might do crazy things like mass seppuku.

Click to expand...

An invasion of Taiwan and the US being kicked out of the Western Pacific would likely be the same event.

But my point is that there isn't a unique "window of opportunity" in 2025-2027.

It's better to put off any confrontation into the future, when the balance of power will be more favourable to China.

One should examine the projected IOC dates (not just the commissioning dates) of various PLA platforms. The following is extremely rough and not meant to be accurate—merely to illustrate the point. The items in quotes are rumoured platforms


Again, this is not meant to be accurate. We can also make a projection on US and Japanese forces. By choosing a date, a degree of capabilities on both sides is implied, with what meets the “时间节点“ / "critical time" and what doesn't.

As an aside, note that PLA's growth should be viewed in relative terms and might have diminishing returns. The first aircraft carrier will make a bigger impact than the fifth one, all else being equal, for example.

AndrewS said:

An invasion of Taiwan and the US being kicked out of the Western Pacific would likely be the same event.

But my point is that there isn't a unique "window of opportunity" in 2025-2027.

It's better to put off any confrontation into the future, when the balance of power will be more favourable to China.

Click to expand...

Why does it have to be the same event? You just assumed that for no reason. When lesser countries invaded China during 19th and 20th century, they did it piece by piece. They didn't wait for some abstract future date to one shot it, which is stupid anyways since having control of Taiwan gives China innumerable advantages, especially with regards to kicking the US out of the West pacific.

coolgod said:

Why does it have to be the same event? You just assumed that for no reason. When lesser countries invaded China during 19th and 20th century, they did it piece by piece. They didn't wait for some abstract future date to one shot it, which is stupid anyways since having control of Taiwan gives China innumerable advantages, especially with regards to kicking the US out of the West pacific.

Click to expand...

In the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, you still have to assume US intervention and plan for this.

And also, there is still a non-zero chance that China can lose.

Remember that the consequences of losing (whether it is China or the USA) would be catastrophic.

This guy!!!

AndrewS said:

In the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, you still have to assume US intervention and plan for this.

And also, there is still a non-zero chance that China can lose.

Click to expand...

There is always a non-zero chance China can lose. That didn't stop previous Chinese leaders from unifying the country, starting with Qin Shihuang. Chinese are great strategists, but they are also very bold. The past 35 years of tranquility, has given this false impression that Chinese are some sort of pussies that are scared to rock the boat in favour of more economic development. Looking back at China's long history, this evaluation would be very wrong.

Currently the world still treats China as a joke, there is an argument for that since China hasn't even reunified its own country.