Is Taiwan Next?

[Blackbeardsgoldfish]

This. China knows it cannot be both a land power and a sea power. The budget they have will be only be enough for a buildup in the Pacific, don't matter what vows china made before the invasion, they knew they'll not be able to divide their attention for a (land) war in Europe..Not without risking strategic competition with Washington in the Pacific.

Russia is by all account alone...

Seizing on Weakness: Allied Strategy for Competing With China’s Globalizing Military | CSBA

CSBA is an independent, non-partisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options.

csbaonline.org

First, composite land-sea powers cannot be very strong in the maritime and continental directions simultaneously over the long term. They must abide by the principle of strategic concentration, choosing clearly and decisively one orientation over the other. Second, land-sea powers are always in danger of being squeezed by hostile powers on the landward and seaward flanks concurrently. Indeed, two-front wars have invariably spelled disaster for past great powers. Third, land-sea powers must devote resources against liabilities and commitments in the continental and maritime directions. As such, they constantly run the risk of diluting scarce resources. Finally, high-quality leadership is essential for composite land-sea powers to navigate the geostrategic dangers.80

Liu Zhongmin, a professor at Shanghai International Studies University, draws similar lessons from his study of Imperial Germany, Tsarist Russia, and the Soviet Union. To him, Wilhelmine Germany’s “excessive worship” and “blind development” of seapower led Berlin to turn its back on its vital interests on the European continent. The Kaiser’s challenge to British naval supremacy led to the emergence of the Triple Entente between Britain, France, and Russia, a countervailing coalition on land and at sea that encircled Germany.81 Liu discerns similar strategic errors by Tsarist and Soviet leaders. Russia’s quest for seapower not only added an unnecessary burden to its existing landward commitments, but it also compelled great power competitors to form counterbalancing maritime-continental coalitions.82 Concurring, Gu Tianjiao of Jilin University cautions that composite land-sea powers must recognize and obey the limits imposed by natural geographic conditions. Countries that exceed those constraints, like Germany and Russia in the past, are likely to bring about misfortune.83

Maybe we can continue the topic here, if you'd like? It would be too much off topic in the other thread.

The modern chinese situation is even more complex than the historical examples of great powers trying to simultaneously have strong naval and land militaries. China borders 14 countries, which is as many as Russia does and the most in the world, with the major difference being that Russia borders only one other nuclear armed nation, whereas China borders 4. This results in vastly more possibilities for a conflict on land than the CCCP or Germany could have had, ergo a greater dilution of force than the other examples had to deal with. Germany also had the benefit of being allied to Austria-Hungary, the nation with which it shared the longest direct border, and the Soviet Union was able to build a protective shield of puppet regimes on it's most important border.

It's maritime boundaries, the SCS quagmire aside, are also relatively dangerous, with the constraints posed by the first and second island chain and the overwhelming sea and air power the US alone can bring to bear in an outright war, it's allies on top of that. In comparison to the german and russian/soviet example, these constraints were not as extreme. Russia had access to the open ocean during the summer time, and could build naval facilities on the pacific coast of the Kamchatka peninsula, whereas Germany wasn't as constrained by the North Sea as one would assume, as submarines still managed to easily penetrate the allied blockade. And submarines were an incredibly potent weapon in the great war, only that germany didn't use them to their fullest extent. In the second world war they even managed to overcome the north sea via the conquest of Norway and access to the open Atlantic via the bay of Biscay.

 

[xizhimen]

Russia borders only one other nuclear armed nation, whereas China borders 4.

China borders nuclear armed nations Russia, Pakistan and North Korea, all 3 are China's best buddies, India is a wild card but we don't count India as an enemy, it's Japan that should worry, it borders 3 nuclear armed nations, China, Russia and North Korea, all 3 are extremely hostile toward Japan.
Technically speaking, China has just one enemy, US, once US is handled, all its allies will immediately follow suit.

 

[Blackbeardsgoldfish]

China borders nuclear armed nations Russia, Pakistan and North Korea, all 3 are China's best buddies, India is a wild card but we don't count India as an enemy, it's Japan that should worry, it borders 3 nuclear armed nations, China, Russia and North Korea, all 3 are extremely hostile toward Japan.

So India doesn't have nukes?

 

[xizhimen]

So India doesn't have nukes?

India is a wild card but we don't count India as an enemy,
Technically speaking, China has just one enemy, US, once US is handled, all its allies will immediately follow suit.

 

[Nilgiri]

Maybe we can continue the topic here, if you'd like? It would be too much off topic in the other thread.

The modern chinese situation is even more complex than the historical examples of great powers trying to simultaneously have strong naval and land militaries. China borders 14 countries, which is as many as Russia does and the most in the world, with the major difference being that Russia borders only one other nuclear armed nation, whereas China borders 4. This results in vastly more possibilities for a conflict on land than the CCCP or Germany could have had, ergo a greater dilution of force than the other examples had to deal with. Germany also had the benefit of being allied to Austria-Hungary, the nation with which it shared the longest direct border, and the Soviet Union was able to build a protective shield of puppet regimes on it's most important border.

It's maritime boundaries, the SCS quagmire aside, are also relatively dangerous, with the constraints posed by the first and second island chain and the overwhelming sea and air power the US alone can bring to bear in an outright war, it's allies on top of that. In comparison to the german and russian/soviet example, these constraints were not as extreme. Russia had access to the open ocean during the summer time, and could build naval facilities on the pacific coast of the Kamchatka peninsula, whereas Germany wasn't as constrained by the North Sea as one would assume, as submarines still managed to easily penetrate the allied blockade. And submarines were an incredibly potent weapon in the great war, only that germany didn't use them to their fullest extent. In the second world war they even managed to overcome the north sea via the conquest of Norway and access to the open Atlantic via the bay of Biscay.

Topographically, China and India (the big two here) have a huge land deterrence with regards to tibetan plateau and himalayas.

This makes any serious protracted land conflict quite constrained (given their sizes, larger threats... and how much each stands to lose if commited on each other anyway) compared to countries that have open plains for borders and are much smaller. In fact the whole course of history would have changed without such a bulwark between China and India....and the hypothetical modelling to modern era then becomes extremely tenuous.

The serious potential threats to China's heartland all lie in the heavy seafaring powers mostly (as you have noted)....as that is the only way that can forseeably create and sustain heavy force concentrations on China's infrastructure (defence or otherwise) without resorting to WMD. Just look at the nature of the (even open plain) land war right now between Russia and Ukraine for example. China has also studied its past as to how the 19th and 20th century went for them when the Chinese navy was pitifully behind far smaller powers.

 

[Anastasius]

India is a wild card but we don't count India as an enemy,
Technically speaking, China has just one enemy, US, once US is handled, all its allies will immediately follow suit.

India doesn't seem to think so.

 

[Gary]

The modern chinese situation is even more complex than the historical examples of great powers trying to simultaneously have strong naval and land militaries. China borders 14 countries, which is as many as Russia does and the most in the world, with the major difference being that Russia borders only one other nuclear armed nation, whereas China borders 4.

I say the 2020 Galwan clash is a big blunder for the Chinese, now they have to put India into the equation, and India despite its relative backwardness in conventional military compared to China is still a nuclear power and the 2nd (some say 1st) largest population in the entire world. This in the long run will hurt their effort to pivot all their effort in the Pacific.

It's maritime boundaries, the SCS quagmire aside, are also relatively dangerous, with the constraints posed by the first and second island chain and the overwhelming sea and air power the US alone can bring to bear in an outright war, it's allies on top of that. In comparison to the german and russian/soviet example, these constraints were not as extreme. Russia had access to the open ocean during the summer time, and could build naval facilities on the pacific coast of the Kamchatka peninsula, whereas Germany wasn't as constrained by the North Sea as one would assume, as submarines still managed to easily penetrate the allied blockade. And submarines were an incredibly potent weapon in the great war, only that germany didn't use them to their fullest extent. In the second world war they even managed to overcome the north sea via the conquest of Norway and access to the open Atlantic via the bay of Biscay.

China's navy is already vulnerable at their own port, let alone trying to break through and push the US forces beyond the first and second island chain. But yes I concur that submarines will be better positioned able to slip through any theoretical blockade. China has invested quite much in the development of quiet diesel electric submarine like the Type 041 Yuan SSK and soon the Type 095 SSN.

But unlike Germany's Unterseedienst in WW2, modern China will have to face a more established submarine operators in the Pacific, most notably the USN and the JMSDF, both which is considered the very best in underwater warfare with rich operational experience. Both the USN and JMSDF is also a far proficient operator in modern ASW operation, stretching back from the Cold war hunting Soviet SSBN.

It's no surprise that earlier proposal for USN FY2022 shipbuilding prioritize submarine construction than Arleigh Burke's. They want their submarine to rule the underwater and create maximum uncertainty for the Chinese if they move ahead with an amphibious dash into Taiwan + China's dreaded anti ship ballistic missile (ASBM) can't threaten a submarine.

 

[xizhimen]

US dare not to take on China head on over Taiwan, this is why the White House again reiterates that US doesn't support Taiwan's independence. Without US support, Taiwan won't do anything to upset the status quo that both sides of the Taiwan strait are happy with.

 

[Blackbeardsgoldfish]

Topographically, China and India (the big two here) have a huge land deterrence with regards to tibetan plateau and himalayas.

This makes any serious protracted land conflict quite constrained (given their sizes, larger threats... and how much each stands to lose if commited on each other anyway) compared to countries that have open plains for borders and are much smaller. In fact the whole course of history would have changed without such a bulwark between China and India....and the hypothetical modelling to modern era then becomes extremely tenuous.

The serious potential threats to China's heartland all lie in the heavy seafaring powers mostly (as you have noted)....as that is the only way that can forseeably create and sustain heavy force concentrations on China's infrastructure (defence or otherwise) without resorting to WMD. Just look at the nature of the (even open plain) land war right now between Russia and Ukraine for example. China has also studied its past as to how the 19th and 20th century went for them when the Chinese navy was pitifully behind far smaller powers.

The plateau and Himalayas pose a virtually insurmountable barrier for any offensive from either the indian or chinese side, but in the case of war(lets say China against the Quad), a vast contingent of troops to secure the frontier would still have to be deployed. Any advance into Tibet and a potential renewed uprising of the population there, in conjunction with the threat posed to the water supply for the heartland pose an unthinkable danger to China. My point is that in the case of war with any neighbouring power or alliance, the indian frontier would have to be watched closely and a large amount of forces diverted there to pose a credible deterrence.

When it comes to a land campaign after a naval campaign, are the americans even contemplating something like that? To think that they'd first need to gain control over the SCS and ECS, then immense landmass of just coastal China and huge population, and the already existent PLA forces opposing them. Not to mention the industrial capability to build new equipment, relocation of critical infrastructure into the interior of the country and the prolonged war that this would entail. Is the Pentagon actually contemplating one such campaign?

 

[Blackbeardsgoldfish]

I say the 2020 Galwan clash is a big blunder for the Chinese, now they have to put India into the equation, and India despite its relative backwardness in conventional military compared to China is still a nuclear power and the 2nd (some say 1st) largest population in the entire world. This in the long run will hurt their effort to pivot all their effort in the Pacific.

Chinese blunders concerning India and the SCS should not be underestimated in the long run. These seeds of distrust they sowed in their critical neighbourhoods probably will lead to enormous and far reaching consequences that Beijing doesn't seem to see. At least Xi doesn't seem to see the larger strategic picture, the early aggressive military actions against neighbours will not pay dividends other than unrelenting suspicion, and the important indicators do point against China in the long run.

If they keep up the hostility towards ASEAN and India, then nothing good will come of that.

China's navy is already vulnerable at their own port, let alone trying to break through and push the US forces beyond the first and second island chain. But yes I concur that submarines will be better positioned able to slip through any theoretical blockade. China has invested quite much in the development of quiet diesel electric submarine like the Type 041 Yuan SSK and soon the Type 095 SSN.

American naval power is overwhelming and set to remain so for a long time, submarines are the most potent weapon for China. As much trumpeting as there is about the type 003, it ought not to be seen as the most critical naval vessel china has. Don't forget that naval wars virtually haven't happened since WW2, the technology has undergone enormous development and most scenarios are based on assumptions, not actual experience.

But unlike Germany's Unterseedienst in WW2, modern China will have to face a more established submarine operators in the Pacific, most notably the USN and the JMSDF, both which is considered the very best in underwater warfare with rich operational experience. Both the USN and JMSDF is also a far proficient operator in modern ASW operation, stretching back from the Cold war hunting Soviet SSBN.

It's no surprise that earlier proposal for USN FY2022 shipbuilding prioritize submarine construction than Arleigh Burke's. They want their submarine to rule the underwater and create maximum uncertainty for the Chinese if they move ahead with an amphibious dash into Taiwan + China's dreaded anti ship ballistic missile (ASBM) can't threaten a submarine.

I think that one thing that really needs to be considered here is that the SCS, Taiwan strait and western pacific in general are quite likely littered with hydrophones listening to every ship moving about. Most vessels will be monitored and an approximate location is known, and that complicates things again.

 

[Bogeyman]

Chinese leader Xi Jinping signs new rules governing 'non-war' military operations​

Chinese leader Xi Jinping has signed a directive allowing 'non-war' uses of the military, prompting concerns that Beijing may be gearing up to invade the democratic island of Taiwan under the guise of a "special operation" not classified as war.

While Taiwan has never been governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), nor formed part of the People's Republic of China, and its 23 million people have no wish to give up their sovereignty or democratic way of life, Beijing insists the island is part of its territory.

Xi signed an order which takes effect June 15, state media reported, without printing the the order in full.

"It mainly systematically regulates basic principles, organization and command, types of operations, operational support, and political work, and their implementation by the troops," state news agency Xinhua said in a in brief report on Monday.

"[It] provides a legal basis for non-war military operation," it said.

Among the six-chapter document's stated aims are "maintaining national sovereignty ... regional stability and regulating the organization and implementation of non-war military operations," it said.

Chinese leader Xi Jinping signs new rules governing 'non-war' military operations

Details of 'non-war' operations have yet to emerge, but spark concerns over a possible future invasion of Taiwan.

www.rfa.org

 

[Jagdflieger]

Chinese leader Xi Jinping signs new rules governing 'non-war' military operations​

Chinese leader Xi Jinping has signed a directive allowing 'non-war' uses of the military, prompting concerns that Beijing may be gearing up to invade the democratic island of Taiwan under the guise of a "special operation" not classified as war.

While Taiwan has never been governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), nor formed part of the People's Republic of China, and its 23 million people have no wish to give up their sovereignty or democratic way of life, Beijing insists the island is part of its territory.

Xi signed an order which takes effect June 15, state media reported, without printing the the order in full.

"It mainly systematically regulates basic principles, organization and command, types of operations, operational support, and political work, and their implementation by the troops," state news agency Xinhua said in a in brief report on Monday.

"[It] provides a legal basis for non-war military operation," it said.

Among the six-chapter document's stated aims are "maintaining national sovereignty ... regional stability and regulating the organization and implementation of non-war military operations," it said.

Chinese leader Xi Jinping signs new rules governing 'non-war' military operations

Details of 'non-war' operations have yet to emerge, but spark concerns over a possible future invasion of Taiwan.

www.rfa.org

China isn't preparing to attack Taiwan at all. (They are the same people).
China will do whatever it takes to oppose independence plans by certain Taiwanese politicians and outside politicians instigating in this matter.

China's main focus is to ward of US interests and political aims within China's security hemisphere. (e.g. just as the USA with the Monroe Doctrine of the early 19th century), continuously developing into a global doctrine from the 20th century onward.

China is presently certainly watching and analyzing the "unity" and "resolve" of NATO and that of the USA and their buddies in regards to the Ukraine.

 

[Lordimperator]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1553359261941772288

 

[Gary]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1553359261941772288

This is just saber rattling. China is not ready yet to invade and occupy Taiwan.

 

[xizhimen]

This is just saber rattling. China is not ready yet to invade and occupy Taiwan.

China never tries to play up this issue, it's US doing the saber rattling by repeatedly trying to make something out of this matter.

 

[Anastasius]

China isn't preparing to attack Taiwan at all. (They are the same people).
China will do whatever it takes to oppose independence plans by certain Taiwanese politicians and outside politicians instigating in this matter.

I'm confused, what "independence plans"? Taiwan is already an independent country.

 

[xizhimen]

I'm confused, what "independence plans"? Taiwan is already an independent country.

Who said so? UN? US? EU?

 

[xizhimen]

Besides, Taiwan is never a country's name, the country name of Taiwan is The Republic of China, whether ROC is an independent country or not, it's debatable due to disputed historical issues.

 

[Lordimperator]

This is just saber rattling. China is not ready yet to invade and occupy Taiwan.

Let see after Pelosi

 

[schuimpjes]

I'm confused, what "independence plans"? Taiwan is already an independent country.

De facto, that island has its own government apart from PRC. De jure, based on law, many countries consider Taiwan not a country, including US, thanks to One China Policy.

Called it by the name of the island, Taiwan, if you want to be diplomatically good, call it ROC if you want to make problem with China, because you consider Taiwan island as its own country apart from PRC.

But still, the reason to defend Taiwan is to defend democracy from system where you cannot legally change the status quo except with bloody revolution or civil war. You let PRC take Taiwan, then they would get cocky and take anything else because no one stop them.