PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

4Tran · Oct 9, 2025

xmupzx said:
As a graduate majoring in International Trade, I would say that international trade exists because it improves the situation for most of the participants.
China is not only the world's largest exporter but also the second-largest importer.
This means that we still have a significant demand for some manufactured goods or intermediate products from Western countries to meet our own consumption needs and to supplement the supply chain on the production side.
However, as time goes by and technology advances, China's demand for foreign industrial manufactured goods will gradually decline. By then, China's demand will only be for raw materials and agricultural and livestock products, and such trade will not allow Western countries to maintain their current affluent lifestyles.
This is the essence of the China-US conflict that we see. However, before this conflict is resolved through one side's victory or some form of win-win outcome, China and the West both have strong trade dependencies on each other. That said, I would say that China is the side with a lower degree of dependence, after all, we can sustain ourselves at a level of living comparable to that of the 2000s if not 2010s.

The problem with this post is that the US simply isn't interested in a win-win relationship with China. Under that circumstance, free flow of trade is no longer possible and a long term approach towards decoupling is the only reasonable approach. The problem for the West is that they don't believe in long term planning, and they seem to have no idea what strategic materials are.

xmupzx · Oct 9, 2025

latenlazy said:
When you look into the details China’s trade dependency with the US is basically almost nothing now thanks to the effect of 8 years of trade wars.

Not so. In fact, the fact that I can chat with you on this forum right now would not be possible without American computer hardware and software services obtained through trade.
China may completely rid itself of this kind of foreign dependency in 5~10 years, but not now.

xmupzx · Oct 9, 2025

4Tran said:
The problem with this post is that the US simply isn't interested in a win-win relationship with China. Under that circumstance, free flow of trade is no longer possible and a long term approach towards decoupling is the only reasonable approach. The problem for the West is that they don't believe in long term planning, and they seem to have no idea what strategic materials are.

I believe it is precisely because of this short-sightedness on the part of the West that they would be unable to use trade sanctions to trouble China after the PLA liberates Taiwan. They simply cannot bear the pain caused by such trade sanctions.
Meanwhile, the CPC is actually not interested in causing the collapse of the West by lowering the living standards of its own people.

manqiangrexue · Oct 9, 2025

萌萌与猫猫 said:
I must say, while I hold you in high regard, I cannot agree with this viewpoint. The European and American markets are crucial trading partners for China. This is not because China is weak, but precisely because China is the world's largest industrial nation. Its production capacity has far surpassed that of all industrial entities that have ever existed in history. Even without being fully mobilized, this immense capacity has already made China the factory supplying the entire world. If China relied solely on domestic demand, it would be insufficient to absorb such massive industrial output. What China needs now is, on one hand, to expand the scale of its domestic market demand, and on the other hand, it requires greater market access from Europe and the United States. When the initiative shifts to China, the vast disparity in production capacity could swiftly overwhelm Western markets with Chinese exports. This would force Western nations to become dependent on China—the world's factory—across all sectors, including high technology. China would then secure complete dominance in every industrial domain.

No, dude, think about the core meaning of the economy. When all civility and artificial institutions are done away with, what is it? It's a matter of producing goods to sustain and embellish the lives of your citizens. Money has no intrinsic value. Selling your goods for their money is only meaningful if you use that money of theirs to buy their things for your own use. The main thing that China buys from the West is technology. The equation used to balance as China trading everyday goods like toys, washing machines, etc... for high tech goods like cars, planes, industrial robots, etc... As their technology slips and ours overtakes, we need that import less and less but they need our exports more and more, expanding to the things we used to need them for. Now they still need us for their toys and kitchen appliances and easy bullshit but now they also need us for our EV cars, computer chips, cellphones, industrial robots, etc... What do we need from them? Barely anything and waning. So if we don't want anything from them, what are we selling them things for? Just their money? It's just decorative paper! That equation no longer balances. Our citizens are working to give them better lives, trading for freely-printed decorative paper and these whiney little bitches are complaining that we're being unfair to them! Cut the relationship! Chinese can enjoy what we make; they can cover themselves in money they print. See who's better off.

This doesn't apply to countries in the global south where we can get raw materials from in trade for our manufactured goods. We can sell for their currency to buy their resources and they can sell for the RMB for things that modernize and enhance their lives. Win-win.

RoastGooseHKer said:
Deterrence is never guaranteed, especially when facing an irrational and desperate declining superpower. The risk of losing one’s existing prestige and status is much greater incentives to fight than trying to gain something one never had. It is for this reason why conservatives whites in America fought against every attempt to pass civil rights laws guaranteeing racial equality for a 100 years from the Civil War until 1965. And it is for the same reason why it is so hard to tax the rich in liberal democracies with institutions that tend to protect existing elites and power bases. Apply such logics to international politics, it is why Britain would fight so hard to prevent the rise of Germany through a national strategic gamble (joining WWI) whilst overlooking the US. In sum, status quo powers (both domestically and international politics) tend to fight to the last tooth and nails to preserve their privileges even when their realistic material power could no longer support their desires. Compromise would mean losing everything bit by bit and fade into the flood of history.

OK cool, so I guess in the end, America just have to accept defeat or we can all nuke out and start over. America's biggest advantage was a higher starting point than China. We all know who moves faster. So I'm cool with starting on the same line as them any day. If their will for dominance is iron than our will to break it is steel.

bsdnf · Oct 9, 2025

RoastGooseHKer said:
Deterrence is never guaranteed, especially when facing an irrational and desperate declining superpower. The risk of losing one’s existing prestige and status is much greater incentives to fight than trying to gain something one never had. It is for this reason why conservatives whites in America fought against every attempt to pass civil rights laws guaranteeing racial equality for a 100 years from the Civil War until 1965. And it is for the same reason why it is so hard to tax the rich in liberal democracies with institutions that tend to protect existing elites and power bases. Apply such logics to international politics, it is why Britain would fight so hard to prevent the rise of Germany through a national strategic gamble (joining WWI) whilst overlooking the US. In sum, status quo powers (both domestically and international politics) tend to fight to the last tooth and nails to preserve their privileges even when their realistic material power could no longer support their desires. Compromise would mean losing everything bit by bit and fade into the flood of history.

Using feigned irrationality and hysteria to threaten China into making concessions is itself a form of deterrence.

If 1,000 nuclear bombs can't keep them sane, then build 3,000, 10,000. China also has the right to be irrational and hysterical

"Should good guy be held at gunpoint?"

latenlazy · Oct 9, 2025

xmupzx said:
Not so. In fact, the fact that I can chat with you on this forum right now would not be possible without American computer hardware and software services obtained through trade.
China may completely rid itself of this kind of foreign dependency in 5~10 years, but not now.

Not like if China were cut off today you wouldn’t be able to chat with people on forums. There are Chinese alternatives for all that now.

GulfLander · Oct 9, 2025

Pentagon nominee John Noh hints at Aukus changes, says Taiwan should ‘pay its way’

US pick for Indo-Pacific security role tells senators that he strongly supports President Donald Trump’s ‘America first’ foreign policy

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

BasilicaLew · Oct 9, 2025

Heresy said:
I think it would be a huge sign of incompetence if Zhongnanhai didn't consider the possibility of American insanity.

Obviously there should be an emphasis on breaking nuclear MAD...and to do it quickly and quietly. But failing that, China should guarantee in a nuclear exchange that North America and Europe are uninhabitable, and that there are not enough breeding pairs to sustain a viable genetic base to rebuild civilization there. At the same time, Zhongnanhai needs to make sure that it will be the Chinese that will rise from the ashes first.

Obviously, bioengineering and large scale infrastructure production will be key. Critically, there also needs to exist the will to end the Anglos, and I'm not talking metaphorically.

Does