PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

It's useful to look at nuclear submarine construction as well

In recent years, Bohai shipyard built 2 brand new assembly buildings for submarines.

---

Let's take the first submarine assembly building and assume a 9 month block assembly time (slightly faster than the fastest assembly time for a Virginia in peacetime).

That implies annual production capacity of 16 SSNs or 4 SSBN/SSGN-sized submarines (or any combination thereof).

This is far in excess of any possible peacetime requirement.

---

Yet Bohai decided to build a second submarine assembly building, with roughly two-thirds of the capacity of the first building.

We haven't seen any civilian or non-submarines coming out of these buildings, so the space is not being used for other purposes.

So the only rational justification for the second assembly hall, is as emergency wartime-level production space in reserve.

If we take those 2 buildings together, there is space for 20 SSNs to be assembled simultaneously, which works out as 26.6 per year. At that rate, then every 2 years, the Chinese Navy would be adding the equivalent of the entire US Navy SSN fleet.

But of course, it would take some years to ramp up to this level.

---

In addition, if this is the thinking about SSNs, then shouldn't there be corresponding emergency production "plans" for aircraft carriers, other surface warships and carrier-capable aircraft?

Very interesting article.

My personal opinion is, US is really desperate to draw up scenarios to draw JSDF troops into Taiwan contingency.

Phead128 said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Very interesting article.

My personal opinion is, US is really desperate to draw up scenarios to draw JSDF troops into Taiwan contingency.

Click to expand...

It makes sense, without Japanese personnel and bases the US insta-loses. With Japan, it's still (barely) possible that they manage to pull an acceptable outcome.

Trump Signs Law to Deepen U.S.-Taiwan Ties; Foreign Ministry Responds

【Global Times-Global Network Report, Reporter Xing Xiaojing】On the 3rd, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian presided over a regular press conference. A Bloomberg reporter asked: President Trump has signed a law requiring the State Department to periodically review relations with Taiwan to deepen ties with the island. What is the Foreign Ministry's comment on this?
Lin Jian stated that China firmly opposes any form of official exchanges between the United States and the Taiwan region of China. This position is consistent and unequivocal. The Taiwan issue is the core of China's core interests and the first red line that cannot be crossed in China-U.S. relations. The one-China principle is the political foundation of China-U.S. relations. The U.S. government explicitly committed in the Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations between the United States of America and the People's Republic of China that the United States recognizes the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legitimate government of China. Within this framework, the people of the United States will maintain cultural, commercial, and other non-official relations with the people of Taiwan.
Lin Jian stated that China urges the United States to earnestly abide by the one-China principle and the three China-U.S. joint communiqués, exercise utmost caution in handling the Taiwan issue, cease official exchanges between the U.S. and Taiwan, and refrain from sending any erroneous signals to the "Taiwan independence" separatist forces.
——

The United States has signed a bill concerning Taiwan at this sensitive time.

Foreign Ministry: Sanae Takaichi's use of "no change in position" as a perfunctory response is absolutely unacceptable to China.

On December 4, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lin Jian presided over the regular press conference.
A reporter asked: Some media outlets have reported that on December 3, Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi cited the China-Japan Joint Statement during a plenary session of the House of Councillors, expressing "understanding and respect" for the Chinese government's position that "Taiwan is an inalienable part of China's territory." What is China's comment on this?
Lin Jian pointed out that, upon verification, the relevant reports are inaccurate. Prime Minister Kōshi himself only stated that "Japan's fundamental position on the Taiwan issue, as outlined in the 1972 Japan-China Joint Statement, remains unchanged." That is all.
China's position is unequivocal: we urge Japan to genuinely reflect on its mistakes and retract the erroneous remarks made by Prime Minister Takaichi. Lin Jian stated that in the face of historical archives that are crystal clear and principles laid out in black and white, and despite China's repeated questioning over the past days and criticism from both domestic and international communities in Japan, Prime Minister Takaichi continues to evade responsibility by merely stating that "there has been no change in Japan's position." China absolutely cannot accept this.
"Since Prime Minister Kōichi stated that Japan's fundamental position on the Taiwan issue is as outlined in the 1972 Japan-China Joint Statement, can she accurately and fully restate the contents of that 1972 statement? Why does Japan deliberately refuse to clarify its existing commitments and legal obligations? What logic and motives lie behind this? Japan must provide an explanation to China and the international community," Lin Jian said.
Source: Beijing Daily App
Reporter: Liu Xiaoyan

Small detail from the recently released 2025 National Security Strategy: the phrase "the United States opposes any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait" became "the United States does not support any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait"

Whether a detail like this matters in the Trump era, we shall see.

A Trump administration official told Nikkei Asia in February that the change in language was neither a new openness to Taiwan independence nor a new openness to negotiation with China over wording.

"The reality is that we don't think it's a helpful thing to state publicly" what the U.S. position is, the official said. "The phrase that we support status quo and no unilateral change by either side is sufficient."

Click to expand...

Phead128 said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Very interesting article.

My personal opinion is, US is really desperate to draw up scenarios to draw JSDF troops into Taiwan contingency.

Click to expand...

I don't think they're *desperate*, it's more or less common understanding Japan will intervene.

00CuriousObserver said:

Small detail from the recently released 2025 National Security Strategy: the phrase "the United States opposes any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait" became "the United States does not support any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait"

Whether a detail like this matters in the Trump era, we shall see.

Click to expand...

Under a different administration, small changes in wording could be analyzed intensely. Under this one, it's probably just careless whatever. The whole document reads like AI slop.

4Tran said:

When the Marines propose an idea for engaging in the Western Pacific, it's important to note that they're not doing so to benefit the overall American strategy in the region. They're trying to see what will benefit the Marines. Everyone is well aware that any conflict in the Western Pacific is going to be a naval and aerial affair. Ground troops aren't really going to be be involved and this means that the Marines (and the US Army) don't really have a job. This is them trying to insert themselves into the operation so that they're still relevant.

Click to expand...

This is not the way it works. Naval conflicts, per maritime theory, are conflicts of bases. Air（or missile) power is what actually projects power, as well as provides logistics. Navies (ships) are means to contest ground, aka bases. They establish temporary superiority, escort amphibious invasions, as well as flow of bulk supplies(note it's more complicated than during ww2, as airlift, military and civilian, altered the general picture a lot).

PLA and US Marines are very much central. They provide fires, maintain forward bases(i.e. areas from which everyone else does fires), and they're used to contest ground.
USMC as of current state(in the middle of ongoing FS2030 reform) cover both these roles.

Also, honestly, notion that US Army(or PLA) doesn't have a job is very strange to me, when there's a whole war to refer to. Even SEA island landmass alone is like 2.5 million kilometers square, 12 Ukraines. Taking into account relevant continental landmass(SEA, Taiwan. Korea, etc) we're getting a landmass as large as entire Europe without Russian part of it.

Gloire_bb said:

I don't think they're *desperate*, it's more or less common understanding Japan will intervene.

Click to expand...

It depends on scenario and type of support. The SCMP article states a Yonaguni island occupation by PLA (with or without Taiwan contigency) triggers US-Japan island recovery efforts using actual JSDF troops. It is farfetched and absolutely preposterous for PLA to occupy Yonaguni island during Taiwan contigency (unless Ryukyu island chain was targeted to be liberated, JSDF self-defense would be ipso post facto, no duh). It reeks of US desperation to exaggerate the China threat and magically handwave a fall of Taiwan means the fall of Yonaguni and Okinawa islands necessarily requiring JSDF intervention. It's a logical leap that is flimsy and missing a few crucial steps. It's premised on fearmongering by US wargamers to force black/white scenarios where JSDF has to fight China.

Also, what type of Japanese support in Taiwan contigency absent Yonaguni island occupation? Limited to intel, logistics, basing use rights, or actual JSDF troops? Its probably just basing use rights, intel, and logistics. I highly doubt its actual JSDF troops due to lack of basic friend-foe identification cross-interoperability with Taiwan forces. No JSDF joint training in collective defense. Where is Taiwan forces in recovery of Yonaguni island occupation? They dont exist.