Is the U.S. military seeking a dignified exit from the Taiwan Strait? According to a recent assessment by the U.S. military think tank RAND Corporation, mainland China is developing a new strategy aimed at swiftly subduing Taiwan—without full physical destruction or total annihilation. Instead, it would rely on a three-pronged operational concept: blockade + decapitation + cognitive warfare—enabling a rapid, efficient, and low-cost victory that could achieve cross-strait unification. Coincidentally, one of the key components of Taiwan’s 2023 “Han Guang 42” military exercise involves mobilizing air defense missiles as quickly as possible to concentrate around the Taipei metropolitan area, “protecting” Taipei’s central command center and guarding against any potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) decapitation strike targeting “Taiwan independence” leaders. Lai Qingde has shown particular concern over this issue, even personally visiting the shipyard in Bali to conduct an inspection tour today.

Lightning war, full-domain blockade, constrictor tactics, decapitation operations—various speculations circulate globally about how mainland China might accomplish reunification. However, researchers from RAND Corporation recently published an article asserting that Beijing already proposed last year a military concept combining blockade, precision strikes, and cognitive warfare to rapidly subdue Taipei—focusing not on complete physical destruction, but on undermining public and military morale.

How exactly? The report details that military blockade includes both material and information blockades. Precision strikes encompass “decapitation” and paralysis. For instance, PLA special forces and drones could precisely target Taiwan’s military commanders and personnel operating critical infrastructure; seize or bribe power grid operators and repair facilities; and carry out infrastructure sabotage.

Cognitive warfare involves algorithm-driven information bombardment and psychological manipulation, aiming to convince Taiwan’s populace of the inevitability and benefits of unification—thereby eroding resistance within the island and achieving a swift end to conflict.

In reality, Western analyses, predictions, and assessments regarding how mainland China might achieve complete reunification are largely like blind men touching an elephant—partial and distorted. Historically, Western speculation has primarily focused on three models:

First, traditional amphibious landing operations (“Normandy-style”). This remains the most entrenched stereotype among Western analysts. U.S. military leadership frequently invokes the so-called “window of opportunity,” speculating that the PLA may launch large-scale amphibious assaults under specific weather conditions at designated beaches such as Taoyuan, portraying it as “the most difficult amphibious assault in history.”

Second, comprehensive firepower destruction—the “scorched-earth bombing” model. This theory assumes the PLA will indiscriminately carpet-bomb the entire island, destroying all infrastructure in an attempt to crush resistance through absolute physical annihilation.

Third, an “agent-based” attrition war. U.S. think tanks often try to fit the Taiwan Strait scenario into the mold of the Ukraine conflict, assuming the U.S. will not directly intervene but instead sustain Taiwan as a proxy battlefield through continuous arms sales and material supplies, turning it into a “porcupine” that drains mainland resources.

The RAND Corporation’s latest proposal of a “blockade + decapitation + cognitive warfare” framework is essentially a self-correction of these outdated narratives. Its underlying strategic intent and motives deserve serious scrutiny—could this be an effort to find a dignified way for the U.S. military to justify its inability to intervene in the Taiwan Strait?

In recent years, high-level U.S. think tanks including CSIS and RAND have consistently reached similar conclusions in war-gaming simulations: under the PLA’s formidable “anti-access/area denial” capabilities, any U.S. military intervention in the Taiwan Strait would entail catastrophic costs—such as the destruction of aircraft carriers and the paralysis of bases—and potentially result in a “ten battles, nine defeats” outcome.

U.S. State Department and Pentagon reports from several years ago have also acknowledged that, if necessary, the PLA could instantly disable U.S. combat aircraft and naval vessels heading toward the Taiwan Strait, rendering them deaf and blind—achieving the goal of “defeating America without fighting.”

Therefore, RAND’s admission that the PLA possesses the capability to subdue Taiwan without landing troops can, to some extent, be interpreted as a recognition within the American strategic community that the U.S. has lost its military edge in the Taiwan Strait—potentially serving as a prelude to public opinion-building for abandoning Taiwan or refraining from direct military engagement.

Naturally, behind RAND’s argument may lie a deliberate effort to create “cognitive panic,” pressuring U.S. allies to increase defense spending. By amplifying fears of “decapitation” and “cognitive warfare,” this narrative heightens anxiety among Taiwan’s population while simultaneously providing justification to the U.S. Congress for the urgency of the “China threat”—thus securing greater defense budgets. It also aims to tightly bind allied nations such as Japan and the Philippines to the U.S. military framework, building what some call a “hellish landscape” of alliance entanglement.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1872759894943936/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.