PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC

B

Brainsuker

Junior Member
Registered Member
dingyibvs said:
Of course, and they don't need to be totally destroyed either. They're islands, destroy their navy and offer them generous terms of surrender and it'll be over with. What does it matter to them whether they live under American hegemony or Chinese hegemony? Is the difference worth starving to death for?

Even if they still want to fight, they can't without importing massive quantities of fuel, minerals, and food, which they won't be able to do without a navy. China doesn't need to take Honshu or Luzhon etc., just some smaller peripheral islands as forward bases and it'll be able to neutralize their threat as anything more than a guerrillas/pirates, which is just a nuisance in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. it can take that route, too. China doesn't need to take over the islands and bleed themselves dry. They need only to pivot Japan and Philippine by contain their logistic. But what is the different between my idea and your post? I proposed for China to take a foothold in the pacific, to actually pivot Japan and Philippine. So they won't to continue their adventurism against China. Because at that time, the US logistic convoys won't sail in an easy way anymore. Thus, it will change their whole strategy against China.

And the current situation, US even consider to put their marines and Typhoons to the small isles south of Taiwan. It means that they have confident to supply those area without any problem. Way more easier than China to supply their Spratley bases.

But let me tell you the difference. With your idea, China will bleed, because the war won't be easy. But with my idea, they won't even start because their support from the US won't arrive in easy way.

Do you know what approach that China take in the current situation? They still use "Liu Bang destroy the bridge to go to Seechuan." The problem is, Xiang Yu is no longer ignorant. He's actively want to destroy Liu Bang.
 
Last edited:
T

tamsen_ikard

Senior Member
Registered Member
dingyibvs said:
Of course, and they don't need to be totally destroyed either. They're islands, destroy their navy and offer them generous terms of surrender and it'll be over with. What does it matter to them whether they live under American hegemony or Chinese hegemony? Is the difference worth starving to death for?

Even if they still want to fight, they can't without importing massive quantities of fuel, minerals, and food, which they won't be able to do without a navy. China doesn't need to take Honshu or Luzhon etc., just some smaller peripheral islands as forward bases and it'll be able to neutralize their threat as anything more than a guerrillas/pirates, which is just a nuisance in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...
I think people often underestimate the resilience of populations during wartime. While it’s true that Japan and Taiwan rely heavily on imports to sustain a trading economy and a high standard of living in peacetime, that logic doesn’t necessarily apply during a full-scale war. In such a scenario, both countries would likely impose heavy rationing and divert most resources toward the war effort. They have enough arable land to feed their populations for years and sufficient access to water. So the idea that a blockade alone would bring them to their knees just doesn’t hold up.

What China would need to do is launch a campaign of intense strategic bombing—much like what the U.S. did to Japan in World War II—designed to utterly degrade their strategic, economic, and military capabilities. Only after such sustained bombing, if they still refuse to surrender, then do a ground invasion.

Japan, Korea and Philippines in particular would likely be extremely difficult to break. Deep-rooted pro-Western sentiment, a colonial mindset, and strong anti-China attitudes make them especially resistant. In my view, the only way to truly shift their stance would be through a complete takeover.
 
D

dingyibvs

Senior Member
tamsen_ikard said:
I think people often underestimate the resilience of populations during wartime. While it’s true that Japan and Taiwan rely heavily on imports to sustain a trading economy and a high standard of living in peacetime, that logic doesn’t necessarily apply during a full-scale war. In such a scenario, both countries would likely impose heavy rationing and divert most resources toward the war effort. They have enough arable land to feed their populations for years and sufficient access to water. So the idea that a blockade alone would bring them to their knees just doesn’t hold up.

What China would need to do is launch a campaign of intense strategic bombing—much like what the U.S. did to Japan in World War II—designed to utterly degrade their strategic, economic, and military capabilities. Only after such sustained bombing, if they still refuse to surrender, then do a ground invasion.

Japan, Korea and Philippines in particular would likely be extremely difficult to break. Deep-rooted pro-Western sentiment, a colonial mindset, and strong anti-China attitudes make them especially resistant. In my view, the only way to truly shift their stance would be through a complete takeover.
Click to expand...
For one, let me repeat, China doesn't need to bring them to their knees. A blockade is enough to reduce them to a nuisance because they won't have the resources to build anything more than a pirate force. China isn't trying to annex Japan or the Philippines here, it's just trying to render them ineffective allies to the US.

For two, it doesn't need to be a full-scale war. If China wastes resources on a campaign of intense strategic bombing then it may turn out to be one. However, if China just destroy their navy and make it clear that their territorial integrity will be respected if they just stay neutral, then it becomes much easier for them to stomach the loss. This isn't much unlike what Israel did to Egypt in the 6-day war. Destroy the equipment that can cause trouble for you, take just enough land to deter future aggression, and then sue for peace, perhaps giving back whatever occupied land that isn't necessary for future operations back as an olive branch.

Lastly, for millennia China has never completely conquered any of those 3 countries and other than the past century or so was the center of their own civilizations. It absolutely does not require a complete takeover to turn back the clock.
 
M

montyp165

Senior Member
dingyibvs said:
For one, let me repeat, China doesn't need to bring them to their knees. A blockade is enough to reduce them to a nuisance because they won't have the resources to build anything more than a pirate force. China isn't trying to annex Japan or the Philippines here, it's just trying to render them ineffective allies to the US.

For two, it doesn't need to be a full-scale war. If China wastes resources on a campaign of intense strategic bombing then it may turn out to be one. However, if China just destroy their navy and make it clear that their territorial integrity will be respected if they just stay neutral, then it becomes much easier for them to stomach the loss. This isn't much unlike what Israel did to Egypt in the 6-day war. Destroy the equipment that can cause trouble for you, take just enough land to deter future aggression, and then sue for peace, perhaps giving back whatever occupied land that isn't necessary for future operations back as an olive branch.

Lastly, for millennia China has never completely conquered any of those 3 countries and other than the past century or so was the center of their own civilizations. It absolutely does not require a complete takeover to turn back the clock.
Click to expand...
The thing I would argue is that the necessary tools and technology that China needs to fight and win a full-scale war against the entire US military bloc in the Pacific already exists if absolutely needed, China just didn't have the need to fully focus on doing so previously. However, things are at the point where the level of automation and automated systems in warfare has reached a critical mass that the old paradigms behind direct takedowns of hostile populations won't hold anymore.
 
T

tamsen_ikard

Senior Member
Registered Member
dingyibvs said:
For one, let me repeat, China doesn't need to bring them to their knees. A blockade is enough to reduce them to a nuisance because they won't have the resources to build anything more than a pirate force. China isn't trying to annex Japan or the Philippines here, it's just trying to render them ineffective allies to the US.

For two, it doesn't need to be a full-scale war. If China wastes resources on a campaign of intense strategic bombing then it may turn out to be one. However, if China just destroy their navy and make it clear that their territorial integrity will be respected if they just stay neutral, then it becomes much easier for them to stomach the loss. This isn't much unlike what Israel did to Egypt in the 6-day war. Destroy the equipment that can cause trouble for you, take just enough land to deter future aggression, and then sue for peace, perhaps giving back whatever occupied land that isn't necessary for future operations back as an olive branch.

Lastly, for millennia China has never completely conquered any of those 3 countries and other than the past century or so was the center of their own civilizations. It absolutely does not require a complete takeover to turn back the clock.
Click to expand...

Why would they need a navy when they have land. They will have enough resources to build up massive missile arsenal and do to China what the houthis are doing to Israel. Perhaps do what Iran is doing to Israel. So, No I don't think there is any end to this war after the shooting starts without complete surrender.

What China needs is regime change, some kind of revolution or coup that brings a Pro-China government into power. I don't think Naval blockade is going to be sufficient. Some kind of massive strategic defeat or destruction is necessary to either bring about a change in government or do an actual invasion to bring about that change.
 
4

4Tran

Junior Member
Registered Member
Brainsuker said:
Yeah, I agree. it can take that route, too. China doesn't need to take over the islands and bleed themselves dry. They need only to pivot Japan and Philippine by contain their logistic. But what is the different between my idea and your post? I proposed for China to take a foothold in the pacific, to actually pivot Japan and Philippine. So they won't to continue their adventurism against China. Because at that time, the US logistic convoys won't sail in an easy way anymore. Thus, it will change their whole strategy against China.
Click to expand...
China doesn't need to do anything of the sort to deal with Philippines and Japan. Philippines has almost no military capability and they'll be neutralized as soon as the Americans quit fighting. Japan is far more bark than bite. Even if they're willing to actually go to war against China, they're not going to stick around as soon as they start taking significant losses.

And the current situation, US even consider to put their marines and Typhoons to the small isles south of Taiwan. It means that they have confident to supply those area without any problem. Way more easier than China to supply their Spratley bases.
Click to expand...
This sounds like you're talking about the Marine Littoral Regiments, and in my opinion, these units are crap. It has weak offensive capability, very little air defense capability, no support, no mobility once they're deployed, and no access to resupply. The only reason this concept even exists is because the Marines are trying to justify their existence in a war in the Western Pacific and this is the best they can come up with.
 
Wrought

Wrought

Senior Member
Registered Member
tamsen_ikard said:
I think people often underestimate the resilience of populations during wartime. While it’s true that Japan and Taiwan rely heavily on imports to sustain a trading economy and a high standard of living in peacetime, that logic doesn’t necessarily apply during a full-scale war. In such a scenario, both countries would likely impose heavy rationing and divert most resources toward the war effort. They have enough arable land to feed their populations for years and sufficient access to water. So the idea that a blockade alone would bring them to their knees just doesn’t hold up.

What China would need to do is launch a campaign of intense strategic bombing—much like what the U.S. did to Japan in World War II—designed to utterly degrade their strategic, economic, and military capabilities. Only after such sustained bombing, if they still refuse to surrender, then do a ground invasion.

Japan, Korea and Philippines in particular would likely be extremely difficult to break. Deep-rooted pro-Western sentiment, a colonial mindset, and strong anti-China attitudes make them especially resistant. In my view, the only way to truly shift their stance would be through a complete takeover.
Click to expand...

Those are not "wartime resilience" dependency numbers. Those are "literal millions dying of starvation and dehydration" dependency numbers. These nations are developed and urbanized to a degree where it is completely impossible to sustain life at the same scale under subsistence conditions. Their development and urbanization is a triumph of modern technology and global economics and so forth. But take that away and people die. By the millions.

It doesn't matter how brave or determined you are when you lack the essentials for human life.
 
00CuriousObserver

00CuriousObserver

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

1752550211082.png
7QCIhCv.jpeg

1752550246901.png
M8avxbC.png
 
A

AsuraGodFiend

Just Hatched
Registered Member
tamsen_ikard said:
Why would they need a navy when they have land. They will have enough resources to build up massive missile arsenal and do to China what the houthis are doing to Israel. Perhaps do what Iran is doing to Israel. So, No I don't think there is any end to this war after the shooting starts without complete surrender.

What China needs is regime change, some kind of revolution or coup that brings a Pro-China government into power. I don't think Naval blockade is going to be sufficient. Some kind of massive strategic defeat or destruction is necessary to either bring about a change in government or do an actual invasion to bring about that change.
Click to expand...
Get this obvious cia spy out the comm talking about a regime change and coup trying to disrupt China get out
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top