The joke's on you. If China were to become a democracy, and it started exerting military force, it'll get condemned by the Western countries just as much as a communist China would. The reason why China is treated like this is that it's a threat, and the system of government is only an excuse.
PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
- Thread starter pugachev_diver
- Start date
In the event of a Taiwan conflict，China will be facing a difficult choice
Assume China started to attack Taiwan，the US military didn't intervene at first place. What the Chinese military should do about it?
If you do preemptive attack on US bases，what if the US has no intention to be involved in direct military conflict with China in first place？What if you never have to fight the US if you don't attack US bases first？
If you don't attack on US bases，what if the US use this opportunity to move forces from all over the world to the Pacific，you lose the window of preemptive attack if you don't make a move
Assume China started to attack Taiwan，the US military didn't intervene at first place. What the Chinese military should do about it?
If you do preemptive attack on US bases，what if the US has no intention to be involved in direct military conflict with China in first place？What if you never have to fight the US if you don't attack US bases first？
If you don't attack on US bases，what if the US use this opportunity to move forces from all over the world to the Pacific，you lose the window of preemptive attack if you don't make a move
Tell the American to stop or get attacked.
War is about politics. So, having the right legitimacy and justification is very important. If China attacks US pre-emtively, it will seem like China attacked US unprovoked. That will make public anger too high in US and also the world. China shouldn't make such a mistake.
Its preferable that China actually gets attacked by US first. Which will inflame public opinion in China and also make the war effort more popular at home. It will also make US as the aggressor and US public will have guilt that they started that war. There will be more popular desire to end it soon.
Even if its a loss tactically, it is very important that US attacks China first. Only then China can gain strategic victory and achieve its goal of completely ejecting US out of Asia and also perhaps taking over some US controlled islands in the Pacific.
Once it becomes a shooting war, niceties like public opinion don't matter any more. If it looks like the Americans are going to attack, it's entirely reasonable to strike first. Of course a lot does depend on what the American buildup looks like, and I suspect that it won't be fast enough and big enough to make that much of a difference.
Also, Americans don't feel guilt.
Public opinion is the only thing that matters in modern times. Nowadays, big wars always end in some kind of negotiation. So, its very important that the other side fights not in anger, but because of some interest. That way, they will be more ready to make concessions and end the war in some kind of deal. Compare that with WW2, where the demand was unconditional surrender, which made any kind of deal impossible.
In WW1, both Germany and Russia lost because the public got too fed up and started a revolution that changed government and that government sued for peace. I am sure CCP doesn't want that to happen to them.
So, its better that Chinese public is angry in the fight and has the desire and resolve to go all the way without backing down. On the other hand, its preferable for China that US public doesn't have the same resolve and is willing to give up major concessions to end the war quickly.