By Yang Tianzi, Vision Times
As geopolitical tensions continue to reshape the Indo-Pacific, the stability of the Taiwan Strait has become an issue of global concern. When Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi warned that “Taiwan’s security is Japan’s security,” Beijing responded with rage as it warned Tokyo not to cross its “red lines.” But the response did not merely stem out of diplomatic offense, but out of strategic anxiety.
That fear, according to newly resurfaced analysis, is rooted in hard military data.
Japan’s President Online recently cited the work of a former Maritime Self-Defense Force officer known under the pen name “Major Wolf.” His conclusion is shocking: China’s greatest nightmare is not Taiwan alone, but the combined force of the U.S.–Japan alliance.
RELATED: Beijing’s ‘Coercion’ Backfires, Boosting Japan’s Takaichi
A thorn in the CCP’s side
Success
You are now signed up for our newsletter
Success
Check your email to complete sign up
Though Taiwan maintains its de facto independence as the Republic of China (ROC), Beijing views Taiwan as a breakaway province that must be reclaimed by any means necessary, including using military force. The Kuomintang (KMT), which ruled all of China prior to 1949, retreated to Taiwan after being driven off the mainland by communist rebels.
But experts note that China’s push in reclaiming the self-ruling island would not be easily achieved. Now, a major U.S. think tank supports this claim.
In 2023, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) conducted one of the most comprehensive Taiwan war simulations ever performed. Out of 24 scenarios, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) achieved a clear victory in only two — and in both cases, the wins depended entirely on U.S. and Japan failing to coordinate.
The CSIS war game: How China lost 22 times
The CSIS simulation defined victory in absolute terms:
- China wins only if it fully occupies Taiwan.
- Taiwan, the U.S., and Japan win if they prevent occupation.
Despite China’s massive military, the PLA failed in 22 out of 24 simulated invasions. At best, Chinese forces reached control of only one-quarter of Taiwan’s territory before being pushed back. The main reason: Cross-strait logistics; not lack of firepower.
Taiwan’s geography forces China into a narrow invasion corridor. Even with hundreds of thousands of ground troops available, the PLA faces structural limitations, including:
- Restricted landing beaches
- Limited amphibious lift capacity
- Bottlenecked ports
- Vulnerable supply lines
- Slow reinforcement schedules
This “projection bottleneck” gives Taiwan, and its allies, precious time to mount a defense and strike back efficiently.
The only two scenarios where China wins
CSIS found that Beijing’s only path to victory requires one of two extreme conditions:
- The United States does not intervene.
This would leave Taiwan alone against an overwhelming force.
- Japan refuses to allow U.S. forces to use bases on its soil.
This is the critical variable — and the one Beijing fears most.
If Japan declares “absolute neutrality,” U.S. intervention becomes dramatically slower and less effective. Without Japanese bases, Washington must operate from Guam or even Hawaii, transforming response times from hours into days or weeks. That change alone alters the outcome of the war.
Why Japan is the indispensable link in the U.S.–Taiwan defense chain
The war game identifies Japan not as a secondary player, but as the linchpin of the entire defensive structure. Japan provides:
- The nearest viable bases
Air and naval forces rely on proximity. Without access to Kadena Air Base, Yokosuka, Sasebo, or Okinawa, U.S. strike capacity collapses.
- Essential maintenance and logistics
Modern warfare is sustained through:
- Rapid aircraft repairs
- Ammunition resupply
- Fuel storage
- Naval dry docking
- Medical evacuation
None of these functions can be reliably performed from Guam at the scale required for a Taiwan conflict.
- A survivable rear-area base
Japan’s distance from the Chinese mainland makes its bases:
- Harder to hit
- Harder to saturate with missiles
- Easier to repair
- More resilient over time
In short: Japan is the only fortress from which the U.S. can fight a sustained war.
Can the PLA knock out Japan’s bases?
CSIS assessed the feasibility of a PLA missile blitz on Japanese infrastructure. But the findings point otherwise: China’s stockpile of medium-range ballistic missiles is limited and expensive, while saturating dozens of spread-out Japanese facilities would require an unsustainable expenditure of munitions.
In addition, every missile used on Japan is a missile not used on Taiwan. Japanese and U.S. forces can rapidly repair damaged runways, ports, and logistical hubs. Unlike Taiwan, Japan cannot be overwhelmed by massed rocket artillery. Its distance gives it survivability — and that survivability keeps the entire U.S.–Japan–Taiwan defensive triangle intact.
The report debunks a key misconception: Japan does not need to send troops to fight in the Taiwan Strait. Japan’s essential responsibilities are:
- Allowing U.S. base access
This alone drastically shifts the war’s outcome.
- Providing logistical support
Fuel, ammunition, repairs, and medical evacuation directly determine U.S. staying power.
- Defending its own territory
Japan must protect itself from potential Chinese missile strikes, freeing the U.S. to focus on Taiwan.
- Optional, but impactful, support of operations
Anti-submarine warfare, intelligence sharing, and surveillance would all help protect Taiwan.
These actions do not require direct combat, but they make victory possible.
The winning formula: A three-pillar defense
CSIS and Japanese experts converge on a simple but powerful equation: Taiwan’s resolve + U.S. military intervention + Japan’s logistical support = China cannot take Taiwan Remove any one of the three pillars, and the defensive structure collapses.
This is why Beijing reacts with fury whenever Tokyo acknowledges that “Taiwan contingency is a Japan contingency.” The CCP understands the math, and it knows the numbers are not on its side. The CSIS simulation is thus more than an academic exercise; it is a strategic reality check that demonstrates:
- China can start a war, but it likely cannot finish one.
- Japan’s cooperation is the keystone holding the entire defense in place.
- The U.S.–Japan alliance is more decisive than China ever admits publicly.
- Beijing’s threats and bluster reflect fear, not confidence.
For Chinese strategists, these findings explain why Washington and Tokyo repeatedly emphasize “peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.” They understand Beijing’s weaknesses more clearly than Beijing wants to acknowledge.
