PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

PLAwatcher12 · 2025-07-23T18:05:56-0400

manqiangrexue said:
No, actually he claimed that publically. He claimed the same about Russia and Medvedyev said he never dared say this in Moscow. You're confused at what constitutes propaganda and what doesn't. Trump said this pubically to look tough. In private, he said there's nothing the US could do to help Taiwan.

Same issue you had with Trump; you flipped what was said to fanfare and what wasn't. Hegseth said in a podcast that the US is screwed. When put on the spot in congress, he claimed that the US would win. That is a man protecting his job when put on the stand.

You asked me to show you where Trump and Hegseth said that the US would lose in a Taiwan conflict. I showed you, then you tried to slip out of them because you did not want to accept it.

Yeah it is. You have bases. I destroy them with missiles. If you think it isn't, then you haven't learned what a rebuttal is yet.

Which is that they can get destroyed by missiles.

Yeah, they cause China to use missiles to hit them. The missile impact is the impact.

No you were not. There is no professional military expert in the world without a Bachelor's degree. Repeating things that other people already put down several times is not being professional even if you tried to be civil about it.

You said there are bases. I said they'd be destroyed by missiles, and you said but they have impacts. WTF is that?

Then you should show it instead of going in the same circles over and over.

The only reason you're still going on about this is because you've got no substance in the real debate.

Trump said in private that he would bomb Beijing not in public so it must be true and are you saying Trump saying that we would bomb Moscow in private didn’t mean he would, wouldn’t that mean saying something in private isn’t always true? And just because you say something in an interview doesn’t make true and anything said in public is than wrong that’s not how that works, and saying Bases aren’t important because of missiles, than that means Chinese bases are useless in war, so why even have bases? And you don’t need a degree to have knowledge on military matters. Your views are over simplified and you believe them because they fit your narrative that China will absolutely win and the US can’t win, the world isn’t black and white. We all thought Russia with a much stronger military and war experience would easily beat Ukraine yet it’s been over 3 years. And let me ask you if Pete said in the interview America would win would you believe that?

CMP · 2025-07-23T18:10:01-0400

He's just wasting everyone's time.

Heresy · 2025-07-23T18:21:44-0400

PLAwatcher12 said:
First off my points were logistics aren’t impossible for the US during wars and missiles alone don’t win wars, and I did say if the US knew war was coming they could but anyways there is absolutely zero need for insults especially personal ones, this is supposed to be a professional forum not where you get to throw personal insults because they disagree with you.

Mod: Removed references to deleted post.

Again there is absolutely zero need for personal insults just because someone disagrees with you. This is supposed to be a professional forum and personal attacks really shouldn’t belong here.

Also to everyone laughing at my grammar I have dyslexia. Personal attacks shouldn’t belong here

PLAwatcher12 said:
Saying China and missiles and bases on fire isn’t a rebuttal it’s just Inorging the impact of bases, what we should both agree do have impacts on war. I was being professional and saying my points even if you disagreed. I am able to learn

PLAwatcher12 said:
You are right but personal attacks shouldn’t have any place in debates especially on a professional forum

You keep using this word "professional", but I don't think you understand what the word means. Let me put it this way - you are not equipped mentally or otherwise to participate in a "professional" discussion on possible Sino-American armed naval conflict. Period.

PLAwatcher12 said:
Also Trump said in a private meeting he would bomb Beijing if China “invaded” Taiwan, that doesn’t mean he will though and what hegseth said was mostly to drive fear what the US does

PLAwatcher12 said:
Trump said in private that he would bomb Beijing not in public so it must be true and are you saying Trump saying that we would bomb Moscow in private didn’t mean he would, wouldn’t that mean saying something in private isn’t always true? And just because you say something in an interview doesn’t make true and anything said in public is than wrong that’s not how that works,

You are correct. You shouldn't always trust the words of politicians, but in this case, Hegseth is only the most recent DoD official to state that the U.S. is likely to be unable to protect Taiwan. And in this case, it's not because Hegseth says it, therefore it's true. It's true that China is likely able to defeat the U.S. militarily around the Taiwan Strait, and if the Secretary of Defense says it, then you know they know it's true as well.

PLAwatcher12 said:
and saying Bases aren’t important because of missiles, than that means Chinese bases are useless in war, so why even have bases? And you don’t need a degree to have knowledge on military matters. Your views are over simplified and you believe them because they fit your narrative that China will absolutely win and the US can’t win, the world isn’t black and white. We all thought Russia with a much stronger military and war experience would easily beat Ukraine yet it’s been over 3 years

It's not that bases aren't important. It's that the volume of fire, offensive AND defensive that isolated island bases can put out it vastly inferior to the numerous bases that China has on the mainland. You talk about a few hundred bases in your mind surrounding China. Have you considered how many bases China has on the mainland?

And you're right, everyone thought Russia would've steam-rolled Ukraine. And then they haven't due to a comical amount of incompetence on the Russian part. But yet, here we are 3 years later and Russia is still "winning" against the Ukrainians.

bebops said:
When it comes to these attack debates or discussion, everyone has their own opinion. If you don't like any posters here, just click on the ignore button.

This is a forum. I doubt the top military guys will even look at this forum or follow some of our advices..

If we ignore people like @PLAwatcher12 and allow them to spread their drivel and idiocy, that is doing this forum a great disservice. While you may not be able to see it, someone will, and that someone will have their ignorance at least partially perpetuated by reading the crap that @PLAwatcher12 spews on this topic. And that should not be acceptable.

PLAwatcher12 · 2025-07-23T18:33:58-0400

Heresy said:
You keep using this word "professional", but I don't think you understand what the word means. Let me put it this way - you are not equipped mentally or otherwise to participate in a "professional" discussion on possible Sino-American armed naval conflict. Period.

You are correct. You shouldn't always trust the words of politicians, but in this case, Hegseth is only the most recent DoD official to state that the U.S. is likely to be unable to protect Taiwan. And in this case, it's not because Hegseth says it, therefore it's true. It's true that China is likely able to defeat the U.S. militarily around the Taiwan Strait, and if the Secretary of Defense says it, then you know they know it's true as well.

It's not that bases aren't important. It's that the volume of fire, offensive AND defensive that isolated island bases can put out it vastly inferior to the numerous bases that China has on the mainland. You talk about a few hundred bases in your mind surrounding China. Have you considered how many bases China has on the mainland?

And you're right, everyone thought Russia would've steam-rolled Ukraine. And then they haven't due to a comical amount of incompetence on the Russian part. But yet, here we are 3 years later and Russia is still "winning" against the Ukrainians.

If we ignore people like @PLAwatcher12 and allow them to spread their drivel and idiocy, that is doing this forum a great disservice. While you may not be able to see it, someone will, and that someone will have their ignorance at least partially perpetuated by reading the crap that @PLAwatcher12 spews on this topic. And that should not be acceptable.

Am I not equipped mentally because I find personal attacks have no place in debates and you prove my point that you only believe it because he is saying what you agree with, that’s called confirmation bias btw. And so bases are imporant but only for China not the US? Or maybe they didn’t steamroll Ukraine because war is unpredictable and there is no way to know who will win and winning is objective some say Ukraine is and some say Russia is. And since when has this forum been about gate keeping and not allowing disagreeing opinions even if “wrong”, this is a professional forum not where we should get to decide if we don’t like what your saying it shouldn’t be allowed.

manqiangrexue · 2025-07-23T18:41:48-0400

PLAwatcher12 said:
Trump said in private that he would bomb Beijing not in public so it must be true and are you saying Trump saying that we would bomb Moscow in private didn’t mean he would, wouldn’t that mean saying something in private isn’t always true?

That's not professional level English no matter what condition you have.

He said it at a fundraiser. What is this "in private" you imagine?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is him trying to drum up donor support:
"“With Putin I said, ‘If you go into Ukraine, I’m going to bomb the sh*t out of Moscow. I’m telling you I have no choice,’” Trump said during one 2024 fundraiser, according to the audio. “And then [Putin] goes, like, ‘I don’t believe you.’ But he believed me 10%.”"

Then it was refuted by Russia that he ever said anything like that. Beijing doesn't even play those games or respond.

PLAwatcher12 said:
And just because you say something in an interview doesn’t make true and anything said in public is than wrong that’s not how that works,

I wouldn't have brought it up until you started talking about propaganda. Propaganda is public, not private. You brought it on yourself; it is how it works now.

PLAwatcher12 said:
and saying Bases aren’t important because of missiles, than that means Chinese bases are useless in war,

Nope, this is the second circle of logic you can't escape.
Me: Chinese missiles render US bases useless.
You: Wouldn't US missiles also render Chinese bases useless?
Me: No, because American missiles are slow, easily defeated, and small in number because they need to be launched by refueled aircraft while China can spam hypersonic/supersonic missiles right from the mainland.
You: ... China and US both have missiles, so they should both hit each other's bases, right?
Me: No, that's not a respond; that's a restart because you can't get past the last point. No, because American missiles are slow, easily defeated, and small in number because they need to be launched by refueled aircraft while China can spam hypersonic/supersonic missiles right from the mainland.

PLAwatcher12 said:
so why even have bases?

They were made when China was much weaker. And they also suppress weaker threats.

PLAwatcher12 said:
And you don’t need a degree to have knowledge on military matters.

You have basic reading comprehension issues, which is why you repeat things failing to understand that they were already rebutted. Reading comprehension is needed.

PLAwatcher12 said:
Your views are over simplified

Just saying it doesn't make it true. You have nowhere to to go except saying that something isn't "impossible" from the US side.

PLAwatcher12 said:
and you believe them because they fit your narrative

The truth fits my narrative. They don't fit yours, so you don't believe ANYONE on here and ask for proof of what Trump and Hegseth said only to not believe them either.

PLAwatcher12 said:
that China will absolutely win and the US can’t win, the world isn’t black and white.

I said the US has some miniscule chance because we cannot dismiss the unforeseen.

PLAwatcher12 said:
We all thought Russia with a much stronger military and war experience would easily beat Ukraine yet it’s been over 3 years.

That could easily be flipped against the US instead.

PLAwatcher12 said:
And let me ask you if Pete said in the interview America would win would you believe that?

No. If your opponent concedes, you accept. If he wants you to concded, you fight him. An American blowhard saying he's beat is different from him saying he can beat others.

TheWanderWit · 2025-07-23T18:48:10-0400

PLAwatcher12 said:
Am I not equipped mentally because I find personal attacks have no place in debates and you prove my point that you only believe it because he is saying what you agree with, that’s called confirmation bias btw. And so bases are imporant but only for China not the US? Or maybe they didn’t steamroll Ukraine because war is unpredictable and there is no way to know who will win and winning is objective some say Ukraine is and some say Russia is. And since when has this forum been about gate keeping and not allowing disagreeing opinions even if “wrong”, this is a professional forum not where we should get to decide if we don’t like what your saying it shouldn’t be allowed.

No one is saying bases aren't important for the US. The point is the US has significantly less bases to operate out from in China's region compared to the China. There's maybe 10-15 air bases the US can utilize near China's region? In contrast, there's 200+ PLAAF/PLANAF bases scattered across China, along with civilian airfields that can be used, but I'm just gonna ignore them here. All those very few bases are extremely vulnerable and can be attacked. You cannot say the same for China because the ability for the US to degrade these bases operational capabilities is little to none and is unrealistic, especially when all your munitions are just glide bombs and subsonic cruise missiles. I mean just look at a map and look how close Okinawa is to China for example. It's very vulnerable. This affects sortie generation, logistics, operational capabilities, etc. Which do you think is more viable? 2K+ fighter aircraft with say 100 bases to use, or 400 fighters with just 10 bases to use and under a far higher degree of attack?

PLAwatcher12 said:
Or maybe they didn’t steamroll Ukraine because war is unpredictable and there is no way to know who will win and winning is objective some say Ukraine is and some say Russia is.

Nah, it's cause Russia is straight up incompetent and went in thinking it would be like 2014. Their military was already on the decline and relatively outdated. They didn't go in serious and lack certain basic capabilities compared to other major military countries. Like, to put this in perspective, Russia's military has less basic MALE/HALE drones for ISR than China's civilian organizations. That's all you need to know about the capabilities of a country who was considered a major military power. I can promise you Russia would love to be flying multiple AEWs everyday across certain borders or RQ-4-like HALE drones, but they fundamentally have none. Among a multitude of other factors. If Russia was serious about this invasion, they needed like 500K troops minimum, with the bulk of that towards Kyiv, not "250K".

PLAwatcher12 · 2025-07-23T18:53:33-0400

manqiangrexue said:
That's not professional level English no matter what condition you have.

He said it at a fundraiser. What is this "in private" you imagine?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
This is him trying to drum up donor support:
"“With Putin I said, ‘If you go into Ukraine, I’m going to bomb the sh*t out of Moscow. I’m telling you I have no choice,’” Trump said during one 2024 fundraiser, according to the audio. “And then [Putin] goes, like, ‘I don’t believe you.’ But he believed me 10%.”"

Then it was refuted by Russia that he ever said anything like that. Beijing doesn't even play those games or respond.

I wouldn't have brought it up until you started talking about propaganda. Propaganda is public, not private. You brought it on yourself; it is how it works now.

Nope, this is the second circle of logic you can't escape.
Me: Chinese missiles render US bases useless.
You: Wouldn't US missiles also render Chinese bases useless?
Me: No, because American missiles are slow, easily defeated, and small in number because they need to be launched by refueled aircraft while China can spam hypersonic/supersonic missiles right from the mainland.
You: ... China and US both have missiles, so they should both hit each other's bases, right?
Me: No, that's not a respond; that's a restart because you can't get past the last point. No, because American missiles are slow, easily defeated, and small in number because they need to be launched by refueled aircraft while China can spam hypersonic/supersonic missiles right from the mainland.

They were made when China was much weaker. And they also suppress weaker threats.

You have basic reading comprehension issues, which is why you repeat things failing to understand that they were already rebutted. Reading comprehension is needed.

Just saying it doesn't make it true. You have nowhere to to go except saying that something isn't "impossible" from the US side.

The truth fits my narrative. They don't fit yours, so you don't believe ANYONE on here and ask for proof of what Trump and Hegseth said only to not believe them either.

I said the US has some miniscule chance because we cannot dismiss the unforeseen.

That could easily be flipped against the US instead.

No. If your opponent concedes, you accept. If he wants you to concded, you fight him. An American blowhard saying he's beat is different from him saying he can beat others.

Back to insults I see, a mod literally said no more personal attacks but ok. And it was a private one not public, fundraisers are not really public and my point was not that it was true but just because someone says something doesn’t make it true. And you are aware the US can launch so many missiles at China right? It’s not something only China can do, you say the US acts like China is weak what is true but you also act like the US is weak and I’m glad you admitted to confirmation bias, that you belive it’s true because others agree with you. You’re right you didn’t you just implied it’s impossible.

PLAwatcher12 · 2025-07-23T19:00:50-0400

TheWanderWit said:
No one is saying bases aren't important for the US. The point is the US has significantly less bases to operate out from in China's region compared to the China. There's maybe 10-15 air bases the US can utilize near China's region? In contrast, there's 200+ PLAAF/PLANAF bases scattered across China, along with civilian airfields that can be used, but I'm just gonna ignore them here. All those very few bases are extremely vulnerable and can be attacked. You cannot say the same for China because the ability for the US to degrade these bases operational capabilities is little to none and is unrealistic, especially when all your munitions are just glide bombs and subsonic cruise missiles. I mean just look at a map and look how close Okinawa is to China for example. It's very vulnerable. This affects sortie generation, logistics, operational capabilities, etc. Which do you think is more viable? 2K+ fighter aircraft with say 100 bases to use, or 400 fighters with just 10 bases to use and under a far higher degree of attack?

Nah, it's cause Russia is straight up incompetent and went in thinking it would be like 2014. Their military was already on the decline and relatively outdated. They didn't go in serious and lack certain basic capabilities compared to other major military countries. Like, to put this in perspective, Russia's military has less basic MALE/HALE drones for ISR than China's civilian organizations. That's all you need to know about the capabilities of a country who was considered a major military power. I can promise you Russia would love to be flying multiple AEWs everyday across certain borders or RQ-4-like HALE drones, but they fundamentally have none. Among a multitude of other factors. If Russia was serious about this invasion, they needed like 500K troops minimum, with the bulk of that towards Kyiv, not "250K".

Yes the US has limited bases but those can still do damage they’re not useless and the US weapon stock is more than just glide bombs and subsonic cruise missiles. So you’re saying war is predictable and you can know who will win? Yes Russia was unprepared but that’s not why their doing bad, their doing bad because war isn’t easy to predict who will win and because of Russian incompetence

FriedRiceNSpice · 2025-07-23T19:16:50-0400

PLAwatcher12 said:
Saying China and missiles and bases on fire isn’t a rebuttal it’s just Inorging the impact of bases, what we should both agree do have impacts on war. I was being professional and saying my points even if you disagreed. I am able to learn

Here is an extremely dumbed-down simplified model that is hopefully within the bounds of your limited cognitive abilities:

1) Let's say China has 200 bases, and the US has 100 bases. Both sides fire missiles and do heavy damage to 20 enemy bases. Now, the US has destroyed 10% of Chinese bases and China has destroyed 20% of the US bases.

2) China, with greater industrial capacity, repairs 10 bases. The US, relying on bases in Japan and the Philippines, is only able to repair 5 bases. Now China is back to 95% capacity while the US remains at 85%. Another missile exchange happens, and both sides lose 20 more bases. China is back down to 170/200 bases and the US is now at 65/100 bases.

3) By now, both sides have used a lot of missiles. Chinese bases are resupplied via rail, while US missiles are shipped across the Pacific. China again repairs 10 bases, the US repairs 5 bases. Now, due to the US bases still awaiting resupply, in the next exchange the US loses 25 bases and China only 15. Now, China is at 165/200 bases while the US is at 45/100 bases.

4) Both sides are resupplied and lose 20 bases. China repairs 10, the US repairs 5. Now, US is awaiting another shipment, but this time with only half as many missiles as needed due to industrial limits. Meanwhile, Chinese factories have already shipped out missiles to Chinese bases, and have actually increased the number of offensive missiles by 50%. China is at 155/200 bases, while the US is down to 30/100 bases.

5) Using 50% more missiles, and due to the US now only having 50% of the defensive missiles it requires, China destroys 40 US bases. Having only 50% of the offensive missiles as before, the US could only destroy 10 Chinese bases. China again repairs 10 bases while the US repairs 5. Now, China is still at 155/200 bases while the US is down to only 10/100 bases.

The same logic that applies to these abstract "bases" will also apply in the air and on the seas as well. This model, though drastically oversimplified, shows that even if initially the US is able to fight China on even grounds, the military balance will shift in China's favor at an accelerating pace as the war drags on. Due to strategic depth, China is able to take much less relative damage from attacks. Due to distance, it takes much longer for US supplies to reach US bases. Due to superior industrial capabilities, China can increase the number of missiles it has available while the US missile count only decreases.

PLAwatcher12 said:
We all thought Russia with a much stronger military and war experience would easily beat Ukraine yet it’s been over 3 years. And let me ask you if Pete said in the interview America would win would you believe that?

Even if it takes Russia another 3 years - a win is a win. Even if it takes China 5 years to take Taiwan - it is still a victory. And no, most of us did not believe Russia would win "easily." That is armature level of thinking is on par to your understanding of the nature of military conflict. Many of us expected Russia to eventually win, but recognized the major deficiencies in the Russian military and understood it would not be an easy nor quick victory for Russia.

You've mentioned you were attending university - which university do you attend and what is your major if you don't mind sharing?

gelgoog · 2025-07-23T19:22:32-0400

TheWanderWit said:
Nah, it's cause Russia is straight up incompetent and went in thinking it would be like 2014. Their military was already on the decline and relatively outdated.

Russia massively increased the amount of tank brigades. But closer to 2022 they started rushing things through to create new formations. They started taking T-72B and even T-72A straight out of mothballs and didn't even bother upgrading them to T-72B3s. They also took out T-80BVs instead of upgrading them to T-80BVM. They were doing this two years before the war started.

Russia started mass production of R-77-1 and R-37M AA missiles. Otherwise they would have went in with the R-27.
They mass produced the Kalibr. This required replacing the Ukrainian made turbofan engine.
The Su-35 entered service in 2014.
Kinzhal and Zircon entered service.
They produced a lot of Orlan drones.
They restarted production of Krasnopol with a Russian instead of Ukrainian made sensor.
They restarted artillery shell production and started refurbishing old shells.
They started producing the Lancet.

TheWanderWit said:
They didn't go in serious and lack certain basic capabilities compared to other major military countries. Like, to put this in perspective, Russia's military has less basic MALE/HALE drones for ISR than China's civilian organizations.

That is because Russia lacked the proper engines. China has better piston engine technology for example. And right now has better small aviation engines as well.
Drones also need a lot of electronics.
Anyway things like the Bayraktar were a flop in Ukraine. It is the smaller drones that had more success.
The Orion drone wasn't procured in large numbers after 2022 because it is rather expensive and not that survivable.

TheWanderWit said:
That's all you need to know about the capabilities of a country who was considered a major military power.

The Russians still are a major military power.
They have the largest and most modern nuclear arsenal in the world.
Why do you think the US won't dare try to establish a no fly zone in Ukraine even. Let alone one over Russian airspace like they did in Iraq?

TheWanderWit said:
I can promise you Russia would love to be flying multiple AEWs everyday across certain borders or RQ-4-like HALE drones, but they fundamentally have none.

Well the Altius was a flop. No engines.

TheWanderWit said:
Among a multitude of other factors. If Russia was serious about this invasion, they needed like 500K troops minimum, with the bulk of that towards Kyiv, not "250K".

Right. But to keep surprise the Russians also had to keep the headcount low. From what I understand they only kept numerical parity with the Ukrainian army after it grew post 2014. The major fumbles were not starting mass recruitment when the war started, and even worse they let the contracts expire. But that was the politicians fault.

PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

PLAwatcher12

Junior Member

CMP

Senior Member

Heresy

Junior Member

PLAwatcher12

Junior Member

manqiangrexue

Brigadier

TheWanderWit

New Member

PLAwatcher12

Junior Member

PLAwatcher12

Junior Member

FriedRiceNSpice

Major

gelgoog

Lieutenant General