5 ms·

How We Would Know When China Is Preparing to Invade Taiwan

29 points by jseliger 4y ago

ilamont 4y ago
Besides the canary-in-a-coal-mine signs of a PLA buildup and other mobilization steps, another issue brought up in the essay was the prospect of a U.S. port blockade. The author did not explain how this would work. Would ships be required, or could it be done with aircraft, land-based missiles, and warnings to potential trade partners and shipping firms?
- aerostable_slug 4y ago
  Don't forget sea mines. We have the ability to deliver them covertly by submarine (some can swim to find their assigned resting place), or overtly by aircraft, a whole bunch at once. Some are able to be selectively armed or disarmed. Offensive mining will, in my estimation, play a major role in any South China Sea conflict to come.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  Article talks about PRC quarantining/blockade TW, or US blockading PRC (likely at Malacca chokepoint). The former is just PRC spamming her coast guard assets to setup a maritime cordon supported by navy. The latter involves retasking a lot of navy and coast ships but studies I've come across suggest the amount of traffic to/from PRC makes this unsustainable.
- nradov 4y ago
  To some extent the actual weapons system used would be irrelevant. If the US declared a blockade, all commercial shipping insurers would immediately withdraw coverage in that zone. Conflict zones are (mostly) uninsurable, and large merchant ships don't sail without insurance. And the US would immediately back that up with wide-ranging economic sanctions prohibiting any entities involved in trade with China from being able to use any part of the US financial system. Thus almost no neutral flagged ships would be able to call on Chinese ports. The US Air Force has put a renewed emphasis on air-delivered naval mines. During WW2 those weapons played a major role in starving Japan and they're just as effective today.
exabrial 4y ago
They same way we saw with Russia/Ukraine: * Massing of invasion forces, equipment * Creation of supply routes, casuality collection points, field hospitals, and SAR bases * Straight up denial by the PLA; most importantly accusations of "ChinaPhobia" * Restriction of speech, civil liberties (well, it's China, so...) While China's usual tactics of small low intensity conflict work for producing islands in the South China sea, military analysts state that at minimum a 3:1 ratio to be successful. Napoleon allegedly said: "The amateurs discuss tactics, the professionals discuss logistics."
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  >Straight up denial by the PLA; most importantly accusations of "ChinaPhobia" This was far from the case with Russia and Ukraine. Russia mass at the borders and shouted for months that they would invade if their demands were not met. I would wager that most military invasions start with such Behavior opposed to denial and then a blitz. I would instead look for escalatory rhetoric in China and Declarations of hard lines that would trigger invasion of Taiwan.
  - floxy 4y ago
    >I would instead look for escalatory rhetoric in China and Declarations of hard lines Has anyone analyzed "China's Final Warning" in contemporary times? https://duckduckgo.com/?q=china%27s+final+warning&t=ffab&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=china%27s+final+warning&t=ffab&ia=...
    - dirtyid 4y ago
  - mint2 4y ago
    > Russia mass at the borders and shouted for months that they would invade if their demands were not met. Except that’s not what happened. They spent months building up troops repeatedly claiming it was just a military training exercise, denying they were building up to invade and that they had “no plans to invade Ukraine” until “whoops we invaded haha we were lying about the drills after all” Yes they were making noise about nato as a pretense to Putin’s imperialism, because concern of nato is a farce. But they continually denied plans to invade. This wasn’t very long ago. It was earlier this year, why are people getting details so wrong?
ararar 4y ago
Taiwan? Looking at the board, seeing what's happening in the west, I would keep an eye on the level of loss the Russians are willing to endure before probable tactical nuke usage. Just before that point, I would look to China's northern border to see if they are about to roll north to undo the unequal Treaty of Aigun.
- CogitoCogito 4y ago
  - throwayyy479087 4y ago
    This is a misreading of history. China was truly and properly fucked for centuries by Western powers and the Japanese. A lot of what we read as aggression stems from a deep desire to avoid the humiliation of the Opium Wars again. The West has forgotten about them but China, with the reminder of Hong Kong right there, certainly has not.
    - CogitoCogito 4y ago
      China is free to demonstrate it's support of equality and fair treatment of other countries by not threatening or attacking Taiwan. Or China can continue to engage in propaganda in an attempt to make itself feel better about its military belligerence.
    - Gravityloss 4y ago
      Hmm, what does China fear Taiwan is about to do to it?
  - sacrosancty 4y ago
    Of course it's just nonsense political statements. They don't have to make sense. But Taiwan is funny because they make the same claim! In a way, they're right, Taiwan (Republic of China) used to control a lot of mainland China too but was violently shut out by the communists.
dirtyid 4y ago
Respect Culver, one of the sounder PRC analyst out there. But article talks about moves PLA modernization is trending towards. Exercises are going to get larger with increasingly huge mobilization for training purposes, munition factories are going to start stockpiling after improved jointness narrows procurement, state censorship apparatus can turn on dime. All of which ignores PRC actual invasion will be preempted by long range / standoff attacks from land, air and sea. Even an autist like Ian Easton acknowledges PLA rocketry gives TW leadership ~8minutes of warning max before decapitation strike. The more PLA modernizes, the larger the scale of joint training/exercises, the less warning there will be.

29 points by jseliger 4y ago

Besides the canary-in-a-coal-mine signs of a PLA buildup and other mobilization steps, another issue brought up in the essay was the prospect of a U.S. port blockade. The author did not explain how this would work. Would ships be required, or could it be done with aircraft, land-based missiles, and warnings to potential trade partners and shipping firms?

aerostable_slug 4y ago
Don't forget sea mines. We have the ability to deliver them covertly by submarine (some can swim to find their assigned resting place), or overtly by aircraft, a whole bunch at once. Some are able to be selectively armed or disarmed. Offensive mining will, in my estimation, play a major role in any South China Sea conflict to come.
dirtyid 4y ago
Article talks about PRC quarantining/blockade TW, or US blockading PRC (likely at Malacca chokepoint). The former is just PRC spamming her coast guard assets to setup a maritime cordon supported by navy. The latter involves retasking a lot of navy and coast ships but studies I've come across suggest the amount of traffic to/from PRC makes this unsustainable.
nradov 4y ago
To some extent the actual weapons system used would be irrelevant. If the US declared a blockade, all commercial shipping insurers would immediately withdraw coverage in that zone. Conflict zones are (mostly) uninsurable, and large merchant ships don't sail without insurance. And the US would immediately back that up with wide-ranging economic sanctions prohibiting any entities involved in trade with China from being able to use any part of the US financial system. Thus almost no neutral flagged ships would be able to call on Chinese ports. The US Air Force has put a renewed emphasis on air-delivered naval mines. During WW2 those weapons played a major role in starving Japan and they're just as effective today.

exabrial 4y ago

They same way we saw with Russia/Ukraine: * Massing of invasion forces, equipment * Creation of supply routes, casuality collection points, field hospitals, and SAR bases * Straight up denial by the PLA; most importantly accusations of "ChinaPhobia" * Restriction of speech, civil liberties (well, it's China, so...) While China's usual tactics of small low intensity conflict work for producing islands in the South China sea, military analysts state that at minimum a 3:1 ratio to be successful. Napoleon allegedly said: "The amateurs discuss tactics, the professionals discuss logistics."

s1artibartfast 4y ago
>Straight up denial by the PLA; most importantly accusations of "ChinaPhobia" This was far from the case with Russia and Ukraine. Russia mass at the borders and shouted for months that they would invade if their demands were not met. I would wager that most military invasions start with such Behavior opposed to denial and then a blitz. I would instead look for escalatory rhetoric in China and Declarations of hard lines that would trigger invasion of Taiwan.
- floxy 4y ago
  >I would instead look for escalatory rhetoric in China and Declarations of hard lines Has anyone analyzed "China's Final Warning" in contemporary times? https://duckduckgo.com/?q=china%27s+final+warning&t=ffab&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=china%27s+final+warning&t=ffab&ia=...
  - dirtyid 4y ago
- mint2 4y ago
  > Russia mass at the borders and shouted for months that they would invade if their demands were not met. Except that’s not what happened. They spent months building up troops repeatedly claiming it was just a military training exercise, denying they were building up to invade and that they had “no plans to invade Ukraine” until “whoops we invaded haha we were lying about the drills after all” Yes they were making noise about nato as a pretense to Putin’s imperialism, because concern of nato is a farce. But they continually denied plans to invade. This wasn’t very long ago. It was earlier this year, why are people getting details so wrong?

ararar 4y ago

Taiwan? Looking at the board, seeing what's happening in the west, I would keep an eye on the level of loss the Russians are willing to endure before probable tactical nuke usage. Just before that point, I would look to China's northern border to see if they are about to roll north to undo the unequal Treaty of Aigun.

CogitoCogito 4y ago
- throwayyy479087 4y ago
  This is a misreading of history. China was truly and properly fucked for centuries by Western powers and the Japanese. A lot of what we read as aggression stems from a deep desire to avoid the humiliation of the Opium Wars again. The West has forgotten about them but China, with the reminder of Hong Kong right there, certainly has not.
  - CogitoCogito 4y ago
    China is free to demonstrate it's support of equality and fair treatment of other countries by not threatening or attacking Taiwan. Or China can continue to engage in propaganda in an attempt to make itself feel better about its military belligerence.
  - Gravityloss 4y ago
    Hmm, what does China fear Taiwan is about to do to it?
- sacrosancty 4y ago
  Of course it's just nonsense political statements. They don't have to make sense. But Taiwan is funny because they make the same claim! In a way, they're right, Taiwan (Republic of China) used to control a lot of mainland China too but was violently shut out by the communists.

dirtyid 4y ago

Respect Culver, one of the sounder PRC analyst out there. But article talks about moves PLA modernization is trending towards. Exercises are going to get larger with increasingly huge mobilization for training purposes, munition factories are going to start stockpiling after improved jointness narrows procurement, state censorship apparatus can turn on dime. All of which ignores PRC actual invasion will be preempted by long range / standoff attacks from land, air and sea. Even an autist like Ian Easton acknowledges PLA rocketry gives TW leadership ~8minutes of warning max before decapitation strike. The more PLA modernizes, the larger the scale of joint training/exercises, the less warning there will be.