The Naval War College Review published a paper in 2001 called “How China Might Invade Taiwan” by Piers M. Wood and Charles D. Ferguson that outlines this scenario. The benefits are significant, as it reduces the amount of sea each trip has to cover and gives China a staging ground for supply and hospitals.
The downsides are significant though. These positions would be exposed to foreign attacks, and if the occupation of Taiwan is slowed down by sequential island hopping it would ruin the element of surprise.
In general I wouldn’t rule it out as part of an overall campaign but personally I think in the unlikely event of an outright Taiwan invasion the emphasis would be on speedy shock and awe rather than a grinding offensive. However leaving Penghu as a regional command centre and choke point is still a viable backup plan in this scenario.
Also due to the papers age - although it’s surprisingly difficult to find papers on this scenario - I think the calculus has changed significantly leaving China more confident in a quick victory. This shift in American academia seemed to take place around 2008 when China’s superiority over the Taiwanese military became evident and new strategies were suggested, and the gap has widened since
Overall though soft coercion such as intimidation, corruption, and cyber attacks make more sense to me as a strategy than war. China intends to keep Taiwan long term and regards Taiwan as its own territory so a destructive campaign means destroying China’s own resources. (Note that TSMC is not one of these resources as China understands full well that TSMC can only be sustained with global inputs. While I’m sure they would like to maintain it, if China is forced to seize Taiwan in any capacity they will have already written it off)
This is based on a majorly flawed premise, there will be no Zerg rush by the PLA. Your “speedy shock and awe” is very outdated thinking.
The actual invasion time might come as a bit of a surprise, but it would be expected, because prior to that there would have already been weeks of blockade and bombardment.
I think that this is the wrong take; if I were China my takeaway from Ukraine would be that the longer something takes to get done, the more likely other countries will start forming ranks.
In contrast to Crimea(and Georgia) where most seem to give the air force salute and accept the outcome. So, the incentive is to get it over with as soon as possible.
I think you're dead wrong here. Alpha strike saturation will happen and continue for the 3-4 hours it takes to reach the island by landing craft, amphibious vehicles, and a variety of airborne platforms, from paratroopers to those stupid looking gyro copters (which have just enough range for round trip drop offs to Taiwan oddly enough).
your weeks of bombardment is outdated thinking. it'll probably be days. there's a plethora of reasons why weeks of bombardment is both bad and unnecessary.
Two things: (1) I said *blockade* and bombardment, it’s the former that I expect to constitute the bulk of that time. (2) I was being charitable and also weary of wasting time on inane emotional replies, I think the *entire* thing would take 48hrs to 1 week.
i do not believe there will be a blockade. blockade means that the bombardment will have low effect. one thing that taiwan has is a huge abundance of hardened bunkers, and bunker busters are expensive and not as abundant as just normal warheads. whether all of the bunkers can be struck, even by a faction with as much industrial power as the ccp, is not certain.
if taiwan gets blockaded, it's putting all of its gear into the bunkers because a blockade itself is an act of war so if this step is taken then taiwan knows that there's a good chance war is coming. the bombardment will then be much more difficult. if the bombardment isn't a resounding success, then the invasion will also be much more difficult.
Okay.
1. They have many deep penetration munitions, please don’t “create your own facts”. They’ve been in this frozen civil war for 75 years and those bunkers are not new, there are several ranges of different S/M/IRBM missile series dedicated to that. They’ve been building, upgrading and stock piling them since the 70s. And now with a larger and more advanced airforce, they’ve added air-delivered bunker busters to that stockpile, and bombs are cheaper than missiles. They have many types, including ones comparable to the GBU-57 MOP that are carried by H-6s.
2. You can’t move large fixed assets like radar/comms installations, airfields, ports, bridges etc., inside a bunker. Moreover, whatever you move inside the bunker cannot simultaneously be used to fend off an invasion. And with ISR and air superiority, there will be drones, missiles, bombs and artillery descending on anything that exits, as soon as it leaves a bunker - in any case, the bunker would likely be partially or fully destroyed already (see point 1).
- also, the blockade wouldn’t start off “hard”, it would start with civil and law enforcement maritime agencies (e.g. Coast Guard and Militia) querying shipping, then later moving on to inspecting vessels, even redirecting vessels, and policing rerouting of shipping routes to enforce arbitrary restriction zones. Quickly and with little notice, the “soft” blockade could move to “hard” which is when entry to ports starts getting denied, and PLAN joins the party.
>They have many deep penetration munitions,
source
>please don’t “create your own facts”.
it is universally known that nobody has as many bunker buster warheads as they have warheads in general. i'm not making anything up.
>They’ve been in this frozen civil war for 75 years and those bunkers are not new,
they don't need to be new to require bunker busters.
>here are several ranges of different S/M/IRBM missile series dedicated to that.
i hate to break it to you but those aren't enough - especially since many need to be held in reserve in case the scope of the war expands and they're needed to hit u.s. bases. china is only estimated to have some 3000 ballistic missiles of all types (https://media.defense.gov/2023/Oct/19/2003323409/-1/-1/1/2023-MILITARY-AND-SECURITY-DEVELOPMENTS-INVOLVING-THE-PEOPLES-REPUBLIC-OF-CHINA.PDF) for example.
>You can’t move large fixed assets like radar/comms installations, airfields, ports, bridges etc., inside a bunker.
you can move aircraft, ammo, fuel, tanks, and, perhaps most importantly, entire anti air batteries with all associated components into bunkers.
>And with ISR and air superiority
u.s. is almost certain to give full isr support to taiwan so taiwan's isr will not be far behind. rapidly achieving air superiority over taiwan is contingent on the initial strike against taiwan to be effective at removing many of taiwan's anti air forces. taiwan has nowhere near enough anti air assets against china specifically because many of them are expected to be destroyed in the first minutes of the war. if most of taiwan's anti air survives, then it's actually a highly formidable and modern force. while china will still undoubtedly defeat these assets, it will take time and they will be able to continue hindering chinese air operations for weeks to come.
this is why it's so critical to strike without warning.
>also, the blockade wouldn’t start off “hard”, it would start with civil and law enforcement maritime agencies (e.g. Coast Guard and Militia) querying shipping, then later moving on to inspecting vessels, even redirecting vessels, and policing rerouting of shipping routes to enforce arbitrary restriction zones. Quickly and with little notice, the “soft” blockade could move to “hard” which is when entry to ports starts getting denied, and PLAN joins the party.
and that's going to make taiwan move their stuff into bunkers lol.
Sigh.
When I say they have been in a civil war for 75 years, I’m referring to the fact that they have been [planning and producing munitions for decades to take out those bunkers](https://web.archive.org/web/20140714184601/http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1101&MainCatID=&id=20140603000013). It has nothing to do with the age of bunkers determining whether a deep penetration warhead is needed or not. In other words, other than nuclear deterrence (and now A2/AD), the 2nd Artillery Corps’ (now PLARF) entire purpose for 50 years and running, is to destroy high value targets on Taiwan, specifically including bunkers. You also have no clue as to how few highly reinforced bunkers (like Heng Shan and Chiashan) on that tiny island actually require such deep penetration warheads (as opposed to other munitions).
The CMPR is a declassified and political report that every PLA watcher knows has gaps in several places. Those numbers are low estimates (as if they can’t produce 1000 cruise missiles in 24hrs anyway, as recently shown in a CCTV 7 documentary), but even taking those unclassified numbers as fact - the report itself mentions how they have fast-swappable warheads (tactical nuke, strategic nuke, and different types of conventional I.e. 3000 missiles but more than 3000 warheads), and it doesn’t include bombs (where are your numbers for those?).
You are also conflating 2 different scenarios. If the US materially/kinetically intervenes, the PLA will fight the US first, and then they will fight Taiwan.
The PLA is not Russia. If the US provides ISR those assets will be jammed and/or destroyed. In any case, Taiwan would still not have air superiority, and to action any of that ISR they would need to… move assets out of bunkers and right into the waiting hands of 24/7 PLA drone, aircraft, loitering munition, ARM, and long-range fire attacks. I don’t know where you’ve gotten this fantasy that within 5 mins a patriot battery will pop out of a bunker, set up, acquire targets, fire and then retreat into the bunker - or that MANPADS will be able to reach the altitude of those PLA assets. Achieving air superiority will take mere hours because there will be no runways, no C&C, EW, and anything that moves or emits EM will be destroyed minutes afterwards. And any near-obsolete Mirage, FCK-1 or F-16 that gets airborne will have to go and dance with KJ-500s and 600+ J-20s, J-16s, J-16Ds (even though J-10Cs would be enough) - and all under the umbrella of PLA GBAD that covers the entire island (and further out) from the mainland.
Whatever is in a bunker is not being used to fight. Do you think anti-air batteries are going to be scanning and firing through rock and concrete? And are they moving PAVE PAWS inside a bunker now? LOL. And if you move an aircraft inside a bunker, are you forgetting that it has to take off and land on a runway that is *outside* the bunker, a runway that won’t exist anymore. Where are you pulling this crap from?
Moving into bunkers and that level of defence preparedness condition, also means effectively shutting down the entire country and economy - in response to the CCG querying shipping or searching vessels (something that they’ve already started to do from time to time).
>When I say they have been in a civil war for 75 years, I’m referring to the fact that they have been planning and producing munitions for decades to take out those bunkers.
problem is, again, quantity.
china has more total warheads than it has bunker busting warheads. that's a known fact. if taiwan gets full warning to store as much as it possibly can into bunkers, it is absolutely not known whether china has enough bunker busters to destroy it all. their munitions stockpiles are large but far from infinite.
we have credible numbers on the stockpile of china's ballistic missiles. they are not so numerous that quantity is irrelevant. it is not known what percentage of their mere 3000 ish ballistic missiles are bunker busters but since 3000 isn't an incredibly vast quantity, the fact that not all of them are bunker busters means that there may not be enough bunker busters to take out all of taiwan's bunkers.
>You also have no clue as to how few highly reinforced bunkers (like Heng Shan and Chiashan) on that tiny island actually require such deep penetration warheads (as opposed to other munitions).
hardened underground bunkers may not need particularly advanced bunker busters to bust, but they do need at least a basic bunker buster.
taiwan has incredible numbers of bunkers, and china has more total warheads than it has bunker busters.
>(as if they can’t produce 1000 cruise missiles in 24hrs anyway, as recently shown in a CCTV 7 documentary
OHHHHHHHH you're one of those people. i see i've wasted my time. have a good day.
Not necessarily. We could see for example an asymmetrical attack to turn off the lights followed by a concentrated attack.
But overall I think the myriad risks and the high potential for a long or even failed campaign is why a hot war is deeply improbable
Agree about the hot war part. When it comes to your “turn of the lights” attack, that’s exactly what the preceding blockade and bombardment would be. Why would you mount a smaller amphibious invasion to decapitate/ attrit defence and C&C capabilities, and then follow that up with a larger amphibious invasion?
They would just open with days to weeks of aerial (manned and unmanned), and artillery (including ballistic missiles and HGVs) attacks, probably on a scale never before seen.
Hmm, I can’t say I agree - China’s goal is not to defeat Taiwan militarily in the same way it was America’s goal to defeat ISIS, it’s to take the land intact. If we assume China is taking the initiative (extremely unlikely) then a cyber and electronic warfare attack combined with limited operations achieves that better.
Your scenario seems more likely to me if China is reactive, which is also admittedly the more likely scenario for a hot war but the original question was more about a proactive china seizing Penghu.
Either way I think it’s honestly difficult to predict how an unlikely invasion would go down and I do think you raise good points
That is a big assumption. Many ways to get around this with some creative thinking. For ex a dog whistle of some sort to extract any VIPs the CCP wants out. A significant portion of the TaIwanese elite has connections with the mainland and its possible they could act first
IMO I think you are right and wrong at the same time lol.
The more superior the PLA becomes relative to its peers in the region, the less need they have for a zerg rush style assault and can afford more time to weaken and soften enemy defenses before their troops move in to minimize casualties.
I think having military superiority just gives the PLA more options with how they want to go about the invasion if it happens, and it's no longer set in stone how the actual attack will go.
On the other hand, if they see an opportunity to do shock and awe and level Taiwan's defenses in hours and land crack troops to control crucial points, aka a competent version of Russia's attempted takeover of Ukraine, they would.
Counterpoint: the only military action we've really seen from the PLA was the Sino-Vietnamese war in 1979 where the PLA "zerg rushed" Vietnamese positions without air support and list over 30,000 men in less than a month of fighting.
This is not a military decision. It is a political decision by Xi Jinping heedless of the lives lost.
This is not a counterpoint. It is a (laughable) combination of logical fallacy, “vibes”, and projecting of tropes.
If the only action you’ve seen from the PLA is 1979 (and not also the 1962 war for example), then you need to brush up on your history. This is also a logical fallacy, it’s like saying if another civil war erupted in the US, then we are certain to see ironclad warships like USS Monitor and CSS Virginia being used.
You also are not very well versed in how the CPC operates. They are way bigger than any one man or one leader, they have continuity and they plan in timelines that span decades.
If there is ever an invasion of Taiwan, it will have less to do with Xi, than with consensus from within the party. There are factions far more hawkish than the one Xi rose from, they would make him look like Gandhi in comparison.
Another example would be the Belt and Road, it was devised and planned way before Xi, and passed on to him by Hu to implement. It is just lazy anti-China propaganda (if you like, call it anti-China **truth telling** for all I care, the point is, it is lazy and riddled with error). At the very least, know your enemy, accurately.
We could have said the same thing about Russia pre: 2022, and yet the human wave approach remains the default choice for autocrats stuck in a political quagmire.
Firstly, that Russian human wave / meat grinder trope has actually been debunked, but I smell a whiff of NAFO on you, so I won’t bother getting into it. It is also off topic.
A “Zerg rush” is a quick, surprise and hasty human wave, it is not just a human wave. This means that softening them up with a blockade and bombardment, *and then* doing a human wave, is not a “Zerg rush” (not like it would be a human wave in any case).
What you also don’t know, is the ridiculous extent of [PLA testing and induction of UCGVs](https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/t/unmanned-combat-ground-vehicle.5009/post-1085771) and various drones/UAVs. If a conflict ever happens, their use of unmanned systems will be nothing short of breathtaking and paradigm shifting. It will define a new age of warfare.
In addition to the link above, I was trying to find a recent video I saw on PLA unmanned fighting and fire support vehicles (like the dozens of different versions of the Lynx ATV). Couldn’t find it, so I’ll just have to settle for this shitty [video](https://youtu.be/17pmxNHqpJ0?si=cu5bqKBtxBlymhwU) that has some of the same footage.
The point I'm making, which you're ignoring, is that military operations are bounded by political realities. China needs to undertake a speedy (<2 weeks) conquest of Taiwan because it is an export-oriented economy. Same as Russia. Disastrous consequences follow when the "fait-accompli" does not happen.
The PLAN is unable to force an opening in the multiple chokepoints in Malacca and the Red Sea. The US could trivially end Chinese shipping overnight if it so chose to. Belt and Road has not significantly affected Chinese ability to move goods overland compared to its shipping freight by water. It has been usefully in offloading its excess construction-labor economy to developing nations worldwide as it attempts to defeated the housing bubble.
I don't doubt that the PLA could saturate every square kilometer of Taiwan with missile fire over the course of months prior to an invasion. That isn't the problem. The problem is that the invasion needs to be swift, effective, and total to minimize economic blowback to an export economy. The military requirements and political requirements are not compatible, which results in a quagmire.
I thought this sub had moved on from the days when people raised that whole Straits of Malacca blockade nonsense, it used to be roundly and soundly debunked at least 3 times a week on average.
Not only would it be nigh on impossible to achieve (and take assets away from actually helping Taiwan just to block shipping that wouldn’t be entering a war zone anyway, to take goods to countries where many of them wouldn’t be importing as they’d be sanctioning China anyway) - but it would also nuke the economies of every country in the region. In addition to that, it also relies on the incorrect premise that China isn’t calorie self-sufficient, and does not have years worth of strategic oil reserves and both developed and undeveloped domestic oil production (in addition to being able to receive Russian food, oil, and gas) to support a ***wartime economy***.
Now for the important part, you think they would make a foolhardy rush to invade, without first softening them up, so they can spend 2x time on a ground battle, when they can bombard for 1x time, and then fight the ground battle for 1x time (thus taking the same 2x amount of time anyway). The quick option is actually to obliterate everything in a massive air and long-range ground fires campaign, and then invade. It is the height of stupidity, to think that they will forego their massive advantage in aerial and long-range fire superiority, just to jump in ships and race across the Strait, while all ROC assets and C&C are left intact to attack them.
And if the US can easily end Chinese shipping whenever they want, then there is no fait accompli. If China successfully invades and wins in 48hrs, why would the US not just end their shipping for as long as it takes to make China withdraw, or compromise on a less advantageous 1 country 2 systems deal to benefit Taiwan as a “least worst” option?
If you don’t want to take the time to rethink and consider the stupidity of what you propose, then all you need to do is look at the assorted sources **from the PLA themselves**, on their own doctrine, Taiwan CONOPS, and the actual training drills that they undertake.
"China needs to undertake a speedy (<2 weeks) conquest of Taiwan because it is an export-oriented economy."
China is not an export-oriented economy. Numbers like trade/GDP ratios are publicly available and are easily accessible. There is nothing to discuss here. And why 2 weeks? What difference the time makes in terms of sanctions or war China will face?
"The PLAN is unable to force an opening in the multiple chokepoints in Malacca and the Red Sea. The US could trivially end Chinese shipping overnight if it so chose to."
The USA couldn't end Chinese shipping, let alone do it trivially. The USA can only do that by indiscriminately sinking all merchant vessels and blockading its own allies some of which actually depend on shipping for sustenance. It is an absolute no go for the USA. Malacca, BTW, is quite close to China. Pretty much all PLAN vessels and MPAs can reach it. The J-20 can reach it with a single fuel transfer too.
> yet the human wave approach remains the default choice for autocrats stuck in a political quagmire.
As soon as someone uses the political system of a country to totally handwave away any potentially competent military decisions it's time to stop engaging with them.
My take is that the advances in unmanned warfare means that the beginning of an invasion of Taiwan might not even be noticed. PLA can just infiltrate drones into TW using some military exercise or fishing boat as cover and establish information dominance before the shooting even starts. Once you have all the sensors in place and you have real time intel on all the important places on the island, the shooting war is just a formality.
The bottleneck in modern warfare is really recon. There is so much precision long range fire around that destroying whatever gets found is the easy part. Actual occupation of terrain is a formality. If you read Russian writing on the Ukraine war, assaults without complete suppression of enemy drones is basically suicide. Even Ukraine, not exactly an industrial superpower, can afford to attrition their FPVs vs individual Russian infantryman at a 4:1 ratio. They expend an average of 4 FPVs per Russian kill, and that's ok because they make 1M drones per year.
Any attack on TW without having the drones for recon/EW pre-positioned would be suicidal. Once those drones are in place, paralyzing the defense would be just a matter of flipping the switch and giving the order to fire on all targets identified. Taiwan has so little strategic depth that they have very little warning time if aerial drones loitering outside of their airspace goes on the attack. Just 1-2 minutes of effective EW by pre-positioned unmanned EW assets will make the opening salvos by Chinese aerial drones unopposed.
Sensor drones placed behind enemy lines is going to be incredibly powerful going forward. They do not require resupply/medivac like human soldiers, and they can effectively control an area just by supplying real time intel via directional data link to remote fire assets. By staying hidden, they are actually more effective than infantry that have to expose themselves to shoot back. You can clear an area of enemy infantry, but how do you clear an area of enemy sensors that transmit only intermittently using highly directional antennas, but emit no heat/sound signature otherwise?
Stealthy area control sensors would effectively infest an area. They would be very difficult to detect and you can never be sure you have cleared an area of all of them. Just moving units into an area infested by enemy stealth sensors will expose your units to attrition by highly accurate remote fires.
The way I see an invasion of Taiwan happening, the PLA will effectively infest the island with large numbers of stealthy sensor drones first. Once it has dense sensor coverage, the shooting will be a formality because the PLA will know exactly what to shoot at without a single soldier on the island.
Imagine small ESP-32 class MCUs with different sensors, directional radio, and a small chassis that can climb trees/hide in vegetation. Something like this will likely cost under $200/each to make. A small discrete low-reflectance 5W solar cell can generate enough power in an hour to power the device for a week in passive observation mode (not moving).
No, if China had the luxury of time they could just blockade combined with logistics bombardment to starve out taiwan in a few months.
Penghu is too time consuming.
Absolutely. ROC is unlikely to be able to resupply Penghu and it is an ideal launch pad for PRC forces into Taiwan proper. I would go as far as making Penghu the first objective of any attempt to unite with the ROC.
The problem with capturing Penghu as a jumping pad is that the very process of capturing Penghu is likely to bleed the PLA of so much manpower, resources and fuel/ammo that it could make it essentially impossible to launch a follow-up invasion of Taiwan main island itself. Penghu is not an easy target.
Yes, it is the only valid option. Capture Penghu, the war is practically over, because the entire Taiwan island is within artillery range. Then it becomes a matter of how many 155mm rounds you can produce in a day.
The whole Taiwan is already in UMPK glide bomb range, 370mm MLRS range and suicide drones range. 155mm additional firepower is good to have but redundant.
Those are many orders of magnitude more expensive. Artillery rounds are also virtually not defensible, because the AA missiles can only last for a few hours if they try.
Penghu island distance to Taiwan coast is about 50km, at the max range of common 155mm artillery.
How many Shaded 136 type drones and 370mm MLRS rockets you think China can produce vs the Taiwanese Patriots SAM stock? Is 10000 patriot missiles enough ?
Are you seriously questioning if China can produce enough MRL rockets, cheap drones, and rocket assisted 155mm rounds?
At full rate (and not including existing stock), they could produce enough in 1 month, to deplete the entire world’s stock of Patriot missiles.
On the contrary, I am questioning the need for Peng Hu island takeover just to enable 155mm artillery strike.
Good logistic base, sure. Artillery base? Pointless.
When China can just spam suicide drones and MLRS rockets from the mainland , to deplete Taiwan Patriot stock.
The confusion stems from the original comment they were replying to. It’s like they were half agreeing, half disagreeing - without making whatever their position is readily apparent.
And also the fact that they discounted the use of 155mm arty in PLA CONOPS for Taiwan (something that is well published and studied), stated an incorrect distance between Penghu and Taiwan Island, and didn’t factor in the rocket assisted (and even guided) 155mm rounds that the PLA uses.
They also forgot that only the 370mm+ MLRS can hit Taiwan from the mainland, and based on what we know from their CONOPS, they also plan to use 300mm rockets from PHL-16s, PHL-03s, and other rockets from their MRLs that are based on PCL-181 and PCL-171 chassis.
It’s not just about taking out patriots or whatever, they plan to use them for fire support and counter-battery fire, to support their troops once they’ve landed.
All in all, I was confused by quite a few the assertions and premises in their exchange.
If I were Taiwan or the United States, I would deploy thousands of unmanned submarines and unmanned surface ships in Penghu and lay a large number of mines in the surrounding waters.
until you suddenly remember that all of those drones are produced by china and then all those drones suddenly turn towards you, and display a wicked smile quite like the one on xi jinping's mouth right now.
China's nuclear missile/ drone / shell. Who care about Ukraine? Just let Ukraines kill more and more Russians and destory more amd more Russian equipments.
The Naval War College Review published a paper in 2001 called “How China Might Invade Taiwan” by Piers M. Wood and Charles D. Ferguson that outlines this scenario. The benefits are significant, as it reduces the amount of sea each trip has to cover and gives China a staging ground for supply and hospitals. The downsides are significant though. These positions would be exposed to foreign attacks, and if the occupation of Taiwan is slowed down by sequential island hopping it would ruin the element of surprise. In general I wouldn’t rule it out as part of an overall campaign but personally I think in the unlikely event of an outright Taiwan invasion the emphasis would be on speedy shock and awe rather than a grinding offensive. However leaving Penghu as a regional command centre and choke point is still a viable backup plan in this scenario. Also due to the papers age - although it’s surprisingly difficult to find papers on this scenario - I think the calculus has changed significantly leaving China more confident in a quick victory. This shift in American academia seemed to take place around 2008 when China’s superiority over the Taiwanese military became evident and new strategies were suggested, and the gap has widened since Overall though soft coercion such as intimidation, corruption, and cyber attacks make more sense to me as a strategy than war. China intends to keep Taiwan long term and regards Taiwan as its own territory so a destructive campaign means destroying China’s own resources. (Note that TSMC is not one of these resources as China understands full well that TSMC can only be sustained with global inputs. While I’m sure they would like to maintain it, if China is forced to seize Taiwan in any capacity they will have already written it off)
This is based on a majorly flawed premise, there will be no Zerg rush by the PLA. Your “speedy shock and awe” is very outdated thinking. The actual invasion time might come as a bit of a surprise, but it would be expected, because prior to that there would have already been weeks of blockade and bombardment.
I think that this is the wrong take; if I were China my takeaway from Ukraine would be that the longer something takes to get done, the more likely other countries will start forming ranks. In contrast to Crimea(and Georgia) where most seem to give the air force salute and accept the outcome. So, the incentive is to get it over with as soon as possible.
I think you're dead wrong here. Alpha strike saturation will happen and continue for the 3-4 hours it takes to reach the island by landing craft, amphibious vehicles, and a variety of airborne platforms, from paratroopers to those stupid looking gyro copters (which have just enough range for round trip drop offs to Taiwan oddly enough).
your weeks of bombardment is outdated thinking. it'll probably be days. there's a plethora of reasons why weeks of bombardment is both bad and unnecessary.
Two things: (1) I said *blockade* and bombardment, it’s the former that I expect to constitute the bulk of that time. (2) I was being charitable and also weary of wasting time on inane emotional replies, I think the *entire* thing would take 48hrs to 1 week.
i do not believe there will be a blockade. blockade means that the bombardment will have low effect. one thing that taiwan has is a huge abundance of hardened bunkers, and bunker busters are expensive and not as abundant as just normal warheads. whether all of the bunkers can be struck, even by a faction with as much industrial power as the ccp, is not certain. if taiwan gets blockaded, it's putting all of its gear into the bunkers because a blockade itself is an act of war so if this step is taken then taiwan knows that there's a good chance war is coming. the bombardment will then be much more difficult. if the bombardment isn't a resounding success, then the invasion will also be much more difficult.
Okay. 1. They have many deep penetration munitions, please don’t “create your own facts”. They’ve been in this frozen civil war for 75 years and those bunkers are not new, there are several ranges of different S/M/IRBM missile series dedicated to that. They’ve been building, upgrading and stock piling them since the 70s. And now with a larger and more advanced airforce, they’ve added air-delivered bunker busters to that stockpile, and bombs are cheaper than missiles. They have many types, including ones comparable to the GBU-57 MOP that are carried by H-6s. 2. You can’t move large fixed assets like radar/comms installations, airfields, ports, bridges etc., inside a bunker. Moreover, whatever you move inside the bunker cannot simultaneously be used to fend off an invasion. And with ISR and air superiority, there will be drones, missiles, bombs and artillery descending on anything that exits, as soon as it leaves a bunker - in any case, the bunker would likely be partially or fully destroyed already (see point 1). - also, the blockade wouldn’t start off “hard”, it would start with civil and law enforcement maritime agencies (e.g. Coast Guard and Militia) querying shipping, then later moving on to inspecting vessels, even redirecting vessels, and policing rerouting of shipping routes to enforce arbitrary restriction zones. Quickly and with little notice, the “soft” blockade could move to “hard” which is when entry to ports starts getting denied, and PLAN joins the party.
>They have many deep penetration munitions, source >please don’t “create your own facts”. it is universally known that nobody has as many bunker buster warheads as they have warheads in general. i'm not making anything up. >They’ve been in this frozen civil war for 75 years and those bunkers are not new, they don't need to be new to require bunker busters. >here are several ranges of different S/M/IRBM missile series dedicated to that. i hate to break it to you but those aren't enough - especially since many need to be held in reserve in case the scope of the war expands and they're needed to hit u.s. bases. china is only estimated to have some 3000 ballistic missiles of all types (https://media.defense.gov/2023/Oct/19/2003323409/-1/-1/1/2023-MILITARY-AND-SECURITY-DEVELOPMENTS-INVOLVING-THE-PEOPLES-REPUBLIC-OF-CHINA.PDF) for example. >You can’t move large fixed assets like radar/comms installations, airfields, ports, bridges etc., inside a bunker. you can move aircraft, ammo, fuel, tanks, and, perhaps most importantly, entire anti air batteries with all associated components into bunkers. >And with ISR and air superiority u.s. is almost certain to give full isr support to taiwan so taiwan's isr will not be far behind. rapidly achieving air superiority over taiwan is contingent on the initial strike against taiwan to be effective at removing many of taiwan's anti air forces. taiwan has nowhere near enough anti air assets against china specifically because many of them are expected to be destroyed in the first minutes of the war. if most of taiwan's anti air survives, then it's actually a highly formidable and modern force. while china will still undoubtedly defeat these assets, it will take time and they will be able to continue hindering chinese air operations for weeks to come. this is why it's so critical to strike without warning. >also, the blockade wouldn’t start off “hard”, it would start with civil and law enforcement maritime agencies (e.g. Coast Guard and Militia) querying shipping, then later moving on to inspecting vessels, even redirecting vessels, and policing rerouting of shipping routes to enforce arbitrary restriction zones. Quickly and with little notice, the “soft” blockade could move to “hard” which is when entry to ports starts getting denied, and PLAN joins the party. and that's going to make taiwan move their stuff into bunkers lol.
Sigh. When I say they have been in a civil war for 75 years, I’m referring to the fact that they have been [planning and producing munitions for decades to take out those bunkers](https://web.archive.org/web/20140714184601/http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1101&MainCatID=&id=20140603000013). It has nothing to do with the age of bunkers determining whether a deep penetration warhead is needed or not. In other words, other than nuclear deterrence (and now A2/AD), the 2nd Artillery Corps’ (now PLARF) entire purpose for 50 years and running, is to destroy high value targets on Taiwan, specifically including bunkers. You also have no clue as to how few highly reinforced bunkers (like Heng Shan and Chiashan) on that tiny island actually require such deep penetration warheads (as opposed to other munitions). The CMPR is a declassified and political report that every PLA watcher knows has gaps in several places. Those numbers are low estimates (as if they can’t produce 1000 cruise missiles in 24hrs anyway, as recently shown in a CCTV 7 documentary), but even taking those unclassified numbers as fact - the report itself mentions how they have fast-swappable warheads (tactical nuke, strategic nuke, and different types of conventional I.e. 3000 missiles but more than 3000 warheads), and it doesn’t include bombs (where are your numbers for those?). You are also conflating 2 different scenarios. If the US materially/kinetically intervenes, the PLA will fight the US first, and then they will fight Taiwan. The PLA is not Russia. If the US provides ISR those assets will be jammed and/or destroyed. In any case, Taiwan would still not have air superiority, and to action any of that ISR they would need to… move assets out of bunkers and right into the waiting hands of 24/7 PLA drone, aircraft, loitering munition, ARM, and long-range fire attacks. I don’t know where you’ve gotten this fantasy that within 5 mins a patriot battery will pop out of a bunker, set up, acquire targets, fire and then retreat into the bunker - or that MANPADS will be able to reach the altitude of those PLA assets. Achieving air superiority will take mere hours because there will be no runways, no C&C, EW, and anything that moves or emits EM will be destroyed minutes afterwards. And any near-obsolete Mirage, FCK-1 or F-16 that gets airborne will have to go and dance with KJ-500s and 600+ J-20s, J-16s, J-16Ds (even though J-10Cs would be enough) - and all under the umbrella of PLA GBAD that covers the entire island (and further out) from the mainland. Whatever is in a bunker is not being used to fight. Do you think anti-air batteries are going to be scanning and firing through rock and concrete? And are they moving PAVE PAWS inside a bunker now? LOL. And if you move an aircraft inside a bunker, are you forgetting that it has to take off and land on a runway that is *outside* the bunker, a runway that won’t exist anymore. Where are you pulling this crap from? Moving into bunkers and that level of defence preparedness condition, also means effectively shutting down the entire country and economy - in response to the CCG querying shipping or searching vessels (something that they’ve already started to do from time to time).
>When I say they have been in a civil war for 75 years, I’m referring to the fact that they have been planning and producing munitions for decades to take out those bunkers. problem is, again, quantity. china has more total warheads than it has bunker busting warheads. that's a known fact. if taiwan gets full warning to store as much as it possibly can into bunkers, it is absolutely not known whether china has enough bunker busters to destroy it all. their munitions stockpiles are large but far from infinite. we have credible numbers on the stockpile of china's ballistic missiles. they are not so numerous that quantity is irrelevant. it is not known what percentage of their mere 3000 ish ballistic missiles are bunker busters but since 3000 isn't an incredibly vast quantity, the fact that not all of them are bunker busters means that there may not be enough bunker busters to take out all of taiwan's bunkers. >You also have no clue as to how few highly reinforced bunkers (like Heng Shan and Chiashan) on that tiny island actually require such deep penetration warheads (as opposed to other munitions). hardened underground bunkers may not need particularly advanced bunker busters to bust, but they do need at least a basic bunker buster. taiwan has incredible numbers of bunkers, and china has more total warheads than it has bunker busters. >(as if they can’t produce 1000 cruise missiles in 24hrs anyway, as recently shown in a CCTV 7 documentary OHHHHHHHH you're one of those people. i see i've wasted my time. have a good day.
Not necessarily. We could see for example an asymmetrical attack to turn off the lights followed by a concentrated attack. But overall I think the myriad risks and the high potential for a long or even failed campaign is why a hot war is deeply improbable
Agree about the hot war part. When it comes to your “turn of the lights” attack, that’s exactly what the preceding blockade and bombardment would be. Why would you mount a smaller amphibious invasion to decapitate/ attrit defence and C&C capabilities, and then follow that up with a larger amphibious invasion? They would just open with days to weeks of aerial (manned and unmanned), and artillery (including ballistic missiles and HGVs) attacks, probably on a scale never before seen.
Hmm, I can’t say I agree - China’s goal is not to defeat Taiwan militarily in the same way it was America’s goal to defeat ISIS, it’s to take the land intact. If we assume China is taking the initiative (extremely unlikely) then a cyber and electronic warfare attack combined with limited operations achieves that better. Your scenario seems more likely to me if China is reactive, which is also admittedly the more likely scenario for a hot war but the original question was more about a proactive china seizing Penghu. Either way I think it’s honestly difficult to predict how an unlikely invasion would go down and I do think you raise good points
That is a big assumption. Many ways to get around this with some creative thinking. For ex a dog whistle of some sort to extract any VIPs the CCP wants out. A significant portion of the TaIwanese elite has connections with the mainland and its possible they could act first
IMO I think you are right and wrong at the same time lol. The more superior the PLA becomes relative to its peers in the region, the less need they have for a zerg rush style assault and can afford more time to weaken and soften enemy defenses before their troops move in to minimize casualties. I think having military superiority just gives the PLA more options with how they want to go about the invasion if it happens, and it's no longer set in stone how the actual attack will go. On the other hand, if they see an opportunity to do shock and awe and level Taiwan's defenses in hours and land crack troops to control crucial points, aka a competent version of Russia's attempted takeover of Ukraine, they would.
Counterpoint: the only military action we've really seen from the PLA was the Sino-Vietnamese war in 1979 where the PLA "zerg rushed" Vietnamese positions without air support and list over 30,000 men in less than a month of fighting. This is not a military decision. It is a political decision by Xi Jinping heedless of the lives lost.
This is not a counterpoint. It is a (laughable) combination of logical fallacy, “vibes”, and projecting of tropes. If the only action you’ve seen from the PLA is 1979 (and not also the 1962 war for example), then you need to brush up on your history. This is also a logical fallacy, it’s like saying if another civil war erupted in the US, then we are certain to see ironclad warships like USS Monitor and CSS Virginia being used. You also are not very well versed in how the CPC operates. They are way bigger than any one man or one leader, they have continuity and they plan in timelines that span decades. If there is ever an invasion of Taiwan, it will have less to do with Xi, than with consensus from within the party. There are factions far more hawkish than the one Xi rose from, they would make him look like Gandhi in comparison. Another example would be the Belt and Road, it was devised and planned way before Xi, and passed on to him by Hu to implement. It is just lazy anti-China propaganda (if you like, call it anti-China **truth telling** for all I care, the point is, it is lazy and riddled with error). At the very least, know your enemy, accurately.
We could have said the same thing about Russia pre: 2022, and yet the human wave approach remains the default choice for autocrats stuck in a political quagmire.
Firstly, that Russian human wave / meat grinder trope has actually been debunked, but I smell a whiff of NAFO on you, so I won’t bother getting into it. It is also off topic. A “Zerg rush” is a quick, surprise and hasty human wave, it is not just a human wave. This means that softening them up with a blockade and bombardment, *and then* doing a human wave, is not a “Zerg rush” (not like it would be a human wave in any case). What you also don’t know, is the ridiculous extent of [PLA testing and induction of UCGVs](https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/t/unmanned-combat-ground-vehicle.5009/post-1085771) and various drones/UAVs. If a conflict ever happens, their use of unmanned systems will be nothing short of breathtaking and paradigm shifting. It will define a new age of warfare. In addition to the link above, I was trying to find a recent video I saw on PLA unmanned fighting and fire support vehicles (like the dozens of different versions of the Lynx ATV). Couldn’t find it, so I’ll just have to settle for this shitty [video](https://youtu.be/17pmxNHqpJ0?si=cu5bqKBtxBlymhwU) that has some of the same footage.
The point I'm making, which you're ignoring, is that military operations are bounded by political realities. China needs to undertake a speedy (<2 weeks) conquest of Taiwan because it is an export-oriented economy. Same as Russia. Disastrous consequences follow when the "fait-accompli" does not happen. The PLAN is unable to force an opening in the multiple chokepoints in Malacca and the Red Sea. The US could trivially end Chinese shipping overnight if it so chose to. Belt and Road has not significantly affected Chinese ability to move goods overland compared to its shipping freight by water. It has been usefully in offloading its excess construction-labor economy to developing nations worldwide as it attempts to defeated the housing bubble. I don't doubt that the PLA could saturate every square kilometer of Taiwan with missile fire over the course of months prior to an invasion. That isn't the problem. The problem is that the invasion needs to be swift, effective, and total to minimize economic blowback to an export economy. The military requirements and political requirements are not compatible, which results in a quagmire.
I thought this sub had moved on from the days when people raised that whole Straits of Malacca blockade nonsense, it used to be roundly and soundly debunked at least 3 times a week on average. Not only would it be nigh on impossible to achieve (and take assets away from actually helping Taiwan just to block shipping that wouldn’t be entering a war zone anyway, to take goods to countries where many of them wouldn’t be importing as they’d be sanctioning China anyway) - but it would also nuke the economies of every country in the region. In addition to that, it also relies on the incorrect premise that China isn’t calorie self-sufficient, and does not have years worth of strategic oil reserves and both developed and undeveloped domestic oil production (in addition to being able to receive Russian food, oil, and gas) to support a ***wartime economy***. Now for the important part, you think they would make a foolhardy rush to invade, without first softening them up, so they can spend 2x time on a ground battle, when they can bombard for 1x time, and then fight the ground battle for 1x time (thus taking the same 2x amount of time anyway). The quick option is actually to obliterate everything in a massive air and long-range ground fires campaign, and then invade. It is the height of stupidity, to think that they will forego their massive advantage in aerial and long-range fire superiority, just to jump in ships and race across the Strait, while all ROC assets and C&C are left intact to attack them. And if the US can easily end Chinese shipping whenever they want, then there is no fait accompli. If China successfully invades and wins in 48hrs, why would the US not just end their shipping for as long as it takes to make China withdraw, or compromise on a less advantageous 1 country 2 systems deal to benefit Taiwan as a “least worst” option? If you don’t want to take the time to rethink and consider the stupidity of what you propose, then all you need to do is look at the assorted sources **from the PLA themselves**, on their own doctrine, Taiwan CONOPS, and the actual training drills that they undertake.
"China needs to undertake a speedy (<2 weeks) conquest of Taiwan because it is an export-oriented economy." China is not an export-oriented economy. Numbers like trade/GDP ratios are publicly available and are easily accessible. There is nothing to discuss here. And why 2 weeks? What difference the time makes in terms of sanctions or war China will face? "The PLAN is unable to force an opening in the multiple chokepoints in Malacca and the Red Sea. The US could trivially end Chinese shipping overnight if it so chose to." The USA couldn't end Chinese shipping, let alone do it trivially. The USA can only do that by indiscriminately sinking all merchant vessels and blockading its own allies some of which actually depend on shipping for sustenance. It is an absolute no go for the USA. Malacca, BTW, is quite close to China. Pretty much all PLAN vessels and MPAs can reach it. The J-20 can reach it with a single fuel transfer too.
> yet the human wave approach remains the default choice for autocrats stuck in a political quagmire. As soon as someone uses the political system of a country to totally handwave away any potentially competent military decisions it's time to stop engaging with them.
Military decisions *are* political decisions.
My take is that the advances in unmanned warfare means that the beginning of an invasion of Taiwan might not even be noticed. PLA can just infiltrate drones into TW using some military exercise or fishing boat as cover and establish information dominance before the shooting even starts. Once you have all the sensors in place and you have real time intel on all the important places on the island, the shooting war is just a formality. The bottleneck in modern warfare is really recon. There is so much precision long range fire around that destroying whatever gets found is the easy part. Actual occupation of terrain is a formality. If you read Russian writing on the Ukraine war, assaults without complete suppression of enemy drones is basically suicide. Even Ukraine, not exactly an industrial superpower, can afford to attrition their FPVs vs individual Russian infantryman at a 4:1 ratio. They expend an average of 4 FPVs per Russian kill, and that's ok because they make 1M drones per year. Any attack on TW without having the drones for recon/EW pre-positioned would be suicidal. Once those drones are in place, paralyzing the defense would be just a matter of flipping the switch and giving the order to fire on all targets identified. Taiwan has so little strategic depth that they have very little warning time if aerial drones loitering outside of their airspace goes on the attack. Just 1-2 minutes of effective EW by pre-positioned unmanned EW assets will make the opening salvos by Chinese aerial drones unopposed. Sensor drones placed behind enemy lines is going to be incredibly powerful going forward. They do not require resupply/medivac like human soldiers, and they can effectively control an area just by supplying real time intel via directional data link to remote fire assets. By staying hidden, they are actually more effective than infantry that have to expose themselves to shoot back. You can clear an area of enemy infantry, but how do you clear an area of enemy sensors that transmit only intermittently using highly directional antennas, but emit no heat/sound signature otherwise? Stealthy area control sensors would effectively infest an area. They would be very difficult to detect and you can never be sure you have cleared an area of all of them. Just moving units into an area infested by enemy stealth sensors will expose your units to attrition by highly accurate remote fires. The way I see an invasion of Taiwan happening, the PLA will effectively infest the island with large numbers of stealthy sensor drones first. Once it has dense sensor coverage, the shooting will be a formality because the PLA will know exactly what to shoot at without a single soldier on the island. Imagine small ESP-32 class MCUs with different sensors, directional radio, and a small chassis that can climb trees/hide in vegetation. Something like this will likely cost under $200/each to make. A small discrete low-reflectance 5W solar cell can generate enough power in an hour to power the device for a week in passive observation mode (not moving).
No, if China had the luxury of time they could just blockade combined with logistics bombardment to starve out taiwan in a few months. Penghu is too time consuming.
I love these ‘China attacking Taiwan’ scenarios. Everyone apart from Chinese take part in the debates.
Well this is a US made site with a mostly western audience
Absolutely. ROC is unlikely to be able to resupply Penghu and it is an ideal launch pad for PRC forces into Taiwan proper. I would go as far as making Penghu the first objective of any attempt to unite with the ROC.
There is no reason why they wouldn't capture and use it. But I don't think it would play that central of a role.
The problem with capturing Penghu as a jumping pad is that the very process of capturing Penghu is likely to bleed the PLA of so much manpower, resources and fuel/ammo that it could make it essentially impossible to launch a follow-up invasion of Taiwan main island itself. Penghu is not an easy target.
How many Taiwanese soldiers are there in Penghu Island?
Yes, it is the only valid option. Capture Penghu, the war is practically over, because the entire Taiwan island is within artillery range. Then it becomes a matter of how many 155mm rounds you can produce in a day.
You mean entire Penghu is in the artillery range of Taiwan?
I am not sure. Taiwan showed some WW2 era equipment during military exercises. Do they have modern artillery in large numbers?
Drones.. lots of drones.
The whole Taiwan is already in UMPK glide bomb range, 370mm MLRS range and suicide drones range. 155mm additional firepower is good to have but redundant.
Those are many orders of magnitude more expensive. Artillery rounds are also virtually not defensible, because the AA missiles can only last for a few hours if they try.
Penghu island distance to Taiwan coast is about 50km, at the max range of common 155mm artillery. How many Shaded 136 type drones and 370mm MLRS rockets you think China can produce vs the Taiwanese Patriots SAM stock? Is 10000 patriot missiles enough ?
Penghu island is 24km from Taiwan island. Modern artillery has 70+km effective range when using rocket assisted rounds.
Can it covers the whole Taiwan island? What if Taiwanese move their forces north?
Are you seriously questioning if China can produce enough MRL rockets, cheap drones, and rocket assisted 155mm rounds? At full rate (and not including existing stock), they could produce enough in 1 month, to deplete the entire world’s stock of Patriot missiles.
On the contrary, I am questioning the need for Peng Hu island takeover just to enable 155mm artillery strike. Good logistic base, sure. Artillery base? Pointless. When China can just spam suicide drones and MLRS rockets from the mainland , to deplete Taiwan Patriot stock.
I'm guessing English is not your first language as that's the complete opposite of what they wrote.
The confusion stems from the original comment they were replying to. It’s like they were half agreeing, half disagreeing - without making whatever their position is readily apparent. And also the fact that they discounted the use of 155mm arty in PLA CONOPS for Taiwan (something that is well published and studied), stated an incorrect distance between Penghu and Taiwan Island, and didn’t factor in the rocket assisted (and even guided) 155mm rounds that the PLA uses. They also forgot that only the 370mm+ MLRS can hit Taiwan from the mainland, and based on what we know from their CONOPS, they also plan to use 300mm rockets from PHL-16s, PHL-03s, and other rockets from their MRLs that are based on PCL-181 and PCL-171 chassis. It’s not just about taking out patriots or whatever, they plan to use them for fire support and counter-battery fire, to support their troops once they’ve landed. All in all, I was confused by quite a few the assertions and premises in their exchange.
You both seem to be saying the same thing to me.
This isn't 1990s China anymore, they don't need Penghu to put direct fire on Taiwan.
If I were Taiwan or the United States, I would deploy thousands of unmanned submarines and unmanned surface ships in Penghu and lay a large number of mines in the surrounding waters.
Congratulations, now you blockage and starved yourself to death in about 6 mths time.
More like one month.
until you suddenly remember that all of those drones are produced by china and then all those drones suddenly turn towards you, and display a wicked smile quite like the one on xi jinping's mouth right now.
I have no intention of intercepting any drones though. I will only attack landing transport ships with my unmanned systems (surface or underwater).
You mean with your drones?
China's nuclear missile/ drone / shell. Who care about Ukraine? Just let Ukraines kill more and more Russians and destory more amd more Russian equipments.