Analytics and Reports, China Analytics, Country Analytics

China’s Military Expansion: Key Indicators for 2027

Executive Summary

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) is currently executing the most rapid and comprehensive peacetime military expansion in modern history, a trajectory that fundamentally alters the strategic balance of the Indo-Pacific and challenges the established global security architecture. This report, synthesized by a multidisciplinary team comprising national security analysts, intelligence specialists, warfare strategists, and regional experts, provides an exhaustive assessment of Beijing’s progress toward its “Centennial Military Building Goal” of 2027. The convergence of intelligence data, economic indicators, and military exercises suggests that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is moving beyond a posture of mere deterrence toward establishing the capability to wage and win a high-intensity conflict against a peer adversary, specifically the United States.1

While Beijing steadfastly maintains a diplomatic narrative of “peaceful development” and characterizes its military modernization as defensive in nature, the empirical evidence—ranging from high-resolution satellite imagery of expanding ICBM silo fields to the systematic mobilization of the civilian economy for wartime logistics—contradicts this rhetoric.3 The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is actively transitioning from a continental defense force into a globally capable power projection military, driven by a “whole-of-society” approach that fuses military requirements with civilian infrastructure. This transformation is anchored in three synchronized strategic efforts: a nuclear breakout designed to neutralize U.S. coercion and ensure second-strike viability; a conventional naval and missile buildup aimed at dominating the “Near Seas” (Yellow, East, and South China Seas) and contesting the “Second Island Chain”; and a comprehensive economic mobilization program intended to “sanction-proof” the Chinese economy against potential Western blockades or financial interdiction.5

However, this trajectory is not linear nor devoid of friction. Recent high-profile purges within the PLA Rocket Force (PLARF) and the defense industrial base have exposed systemic corruption—manifesting in critical reliability failures such as water-filled missile fuel tanks and malfunctioning silo lids—that may degrade the operational readiness of key strategic assets in the near term.8 Nevertheless, assessments from the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and independent strategic analysis indicate that these setbacks, while significant, have not arrested the broader momentum of modernization or the political will of General Secretary Xi Jinping to achieve readiness for a Taiwan contingency by 2027.2

The following matrix synthesizes the top 20 critical indicators of China’s preparation for conflict, distinguishing between confirmed operational capabilities and areas where aspirational rhetoric outpaces current reality.

Summary of Top 20 War Preparation Indicators (2024–2025)

Data from Strategic Warning Indicators Matrix

RankDomainIndicatorCritical ObservationStatusTrend
1NuclearWarhead StockpileSurpassed 600 operational warheads; on track for >1,000 by 2030.OperationalAccelerating
2NuclearSilo Expansion300+ solid-fuel ICBM silos in Western China; “Early Warning Counterstrike” posture.OperationalAccelerating
3NuclearFissile ProductionCFR-600 breeder reactors at Xiapu likely producing weapons-grade plutonium.OperationalStable
4NavalFleet SizeWorld’s largest navy (370+ ships); target 435 by 2030.OperationalIncreasing
5NavalCarrier OperationsType 003 Fujian (Catapult) sea trials; Type 004 construction underway.In-ProgressAccelerating
6NavalAmphibious LiftDual-use Ro-Ro ferries integrated into assault exercises; floating causeways.OperationalIncreasing
7MissileHypersonicsDF-27 (5-8k km) fielded; DF-17 widespread deployment.OperationalStable
8MissilePrecision StrikeMassive expansion of DF-26 “Guam Killer” inventory; dual-capable.OperationalIncreasing
9EconomicOil StockpilingStrategic/Commercial reserves exceed 1.5B barrels; hidden capacity.OperationalAccelerating
10EconomicGold Reserves14+ consecutive months of PBOC purchases; sanctions-proofing assets.OperationalAccelerating
11EconomicFinancial PlumbingCIPS transaction volume surged 42.6% in 2024; bypassing SWIFT.In-ProgressIncreasing
12MobilizationCivil DefensePeople’s Armed Forces Depts established in private firms (SOEs/POEs).DevelopingAccelerating
13MobilizationLegal FrameworkNational Defense Mobilization Law amendments for wartime requisition.OperationalStable
14Grey ZoneCoast Guard LawCCG authorized to detain foreigners; aggressive “law enforcement” patrols.OperationalEscalating
15Grey ZoneTaiwan CoercionNormalization of median line crossings; “Joint Sword” blockade rehearsals.OperationalEscalating
16CognitiveInfo OpsAI-enabled disinformation campaigns targeting US-Taiwan resolve.OperationalIncreasing
17Legal WarfareResolution 2758Distortion of UN resolution to claim Taiwan as internal matter.OperationalEscalating
18IndustryShipbuildingCapacity exceeds US by >200x; mass production of Type 055/052D.OperationalIncreasing
19ReadinessAnti-CorruptionPLARF purges (water in missiles) suggest reliability issues.MixedUncertain
20SpaceCounter-SpaceDual-use satellites (Shijian) and direct-ascent ASAT capabilities.OperationalIncreasing

1. Strategic Net Assessment: The 2027 Consensus and Beyond

The year 2027 has emerged as the primary temporal anchor for U.S. and allied defense planning regarding the Indo-Pacific. While frequently reduced in public discourse to a deterministic “date of invasion” for Taiwan, intelligence analysis suggests it represents a milestone for capability rather than a fixed decision for action. The “Centennial Military Building Goal” mandates that the PLA achieve the mechanized, informatized, and intelligentized capabilities necessary to fight and win a local war against a “strong enemy”—a doctrinal euphemism for the United States.2

1.1 The Pentagon’s Assessment vs. Beijing’s Narrative

The Pentagon’s View: A Shift to Multi-Domain Precision Warfare The Department of Defense’s (DoD) China Military Power Report (CMPR) for 2024 and 2025 consistently highlights a fundamental shift in Chinese strategy. The PLA is moving away from its historical doctrine of “active defense”—which focused largely on territorial defense and attrition—toward a more aggressive concept of “multi-domain precision warfare” (MDPW).2 This new operational concept envisions the integration of big data and artificial intelligence to rapidly identify key vulnerabilities in the U.S. operational system and strike them with precision across air, land, sea, cyber, and space domains.

The DoD assessment emphasizes that Beijing is no longer satisfied with regional denial (Anti-Access/Area Denial, or A2/AD) but is actively seeking global power projection capabilities. The intelligence community assesses that Xi Jinping has explicitly instructed the PLA to be ready by 2027 to provide the Party leadership with a full suite of military options regarding Taiwan. These options are not binary (peace or war) but spectral, ranging from a comprehensive “joint blockade campaign” designed to strangle the island’s economy to a full-scale amphibious invasion aimed at decapitating the leadership in Taipei.9 The 2025 CMPR specifically notes that the PLA is “optimizing operational concepts” to deepen jointness, a critical deficiency in previous decades.2

Beijing’s Claim: “Peaceful Development” and Sovereignty Officially, the PRC maintains that its military modernization is strictly defensive in nature, aimed solely at protecting national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and development interests. Spokespersons for the Ministry of National Defense (MND) frequently characterize U.S. reports as products of a “Cold War mentality” and “zero-sum” thinking, arguing that China’s nuclear expansion is merely “appropriate” for its evolving national security needs.13

However, internal PLA documents, doctrinal writings, and academic discourse reveal a different reality: a fixation on “preempting the enemy” and “striking first” in the information and cyber domains to paralyze an adversary’s command and control structures. The discrepancy between Beijing’s external messaging (peace) and its internal directives (preparation for high-end combat) creates a “say-do” gap that is central to understanding the current security dilemma. For instance, while claiming to seek peaceful reunification with Taiwan, the PLA has normalized military incursions across the Taiwan Strait median line—a boundary Beijing formerly respected—effectively erasing the status quo.15

Factual Analysis: Rhetoric vs. Reality

TopicPentagon/Intel ReportingChina’s Official ClaimFactual Assessment (Propaganda vs. Reality)
Nuclear StrategyShift to “Launch on Warning” & massive expansion (>1,000 warheads).“Minimum deterrence”; no first use; purely defensive.Reality: China is building a First Strike/Counter-Force capability. The “Minimum Deterrence” claim is propaganda contradicted by the construction of 300+ silos.
TaiwanPreparing for blockade/invasion by 2027; coercive legal warfare.Seeking “peaceful reunification”; Taiwan is an internal affair.Reality: “Peaceful” increasingly means coercion without kinetic strikes. Military preparations are clearly for forceful annexation if coercion fails.
Military QualityRapid modernization but plagued by corruption (water in missiles).“World Class Military”; disciplined and loyal to the Party.Reality: Hardware is world-class; “Software” (personnel, integrity) is deeply flawed. Corruption is a genuine operational drag, though not a fatal one.
Economic Intent“Sanction-proofing” via gold/oil stockpiles & CIPS.Promoting global trade and economic openness; opposing decoupling.Reality: China is actively decoupling strategically while demanding open markets for its exports. Stockpiling is a classic pre-war signal.
Global AmbitionSeeking global power projection & bases (Djibouti, Ream, Atlantic).No desire for hegemony; focuses on development assistance.Reality: Base expansion (Cambodia, UAE, Africa) serves military projection, supporting a global naval footprint.

1.2 The “Three Warfares” Doctrine

China’s preparation for war extends far beyond kinetic capabilities. The “Three Warfares” doctrine—Public Opinion Warfare, Psychological Warfare, and Legal Warfare—is actively reshaping the battlefield before a single shot is fired.17 This cognitive domain is viewed by PLA strategists as decisive, capable of winning wars by breaking the enemy’s will to fight.

  • Legal Warfare: China is aggressively promoting a reinterpretation of UN Resolution 2758. While the resolution originally addressed the representation of China in the UN, Beijing has distorted its meaning to claim that the UN has already recognized Taiwan as a province of the PRC.19 This legal maneuver is designed to frame any future foreign intervention in a Taiwan conflict as a violation of China’s sovereignty rather than a defense of a democracy, thereby complicating the legal basis for U.S. or allied involvement.
  • Psychological Warfare: The “Joint Sword-2024B” exercises were explicitly designed as psychological operations. By surrounding the island and simulating strikes on key leadership nodes, the PLA aimed to create a sense of inevitability regarding unification and to break the psychological will of the Taiwanese population.15
  • Public Opinion Warfare: The deployment of AI-enabled disinformation campaigns, such as the network of bots impersonating Taiwanese citizens discovered in 2024, demonstrates a sophisticated attempt to sow internal division and erode trust in democratic institutions.11

2. The Nuclear Breakout: From “Minimum Deterrence” to “Early Warning Counterstrike”

The most significant strategic shift in the 2020s is China’s departure from its historic “minimum deterrence” posture. For decades, Beijing maintained a small, survivable nuclear force designed solely to retaliate against a nuclear attack. Today, the expansion of the nuclear arsenal is not merely quantitative but qualitative, introducing new doctrines of launch-on-warning and rapid reaction that mirror the postures of the United States and Russia.

2.1 The Warhead Breakout and Trajectory

The DoD estimates that China’s operational nuclear warhead stockpile surpassed 500 in 2023 and currently sits in the “low 600s” as of 2024/2025. Current projections indicate a stockpile of over 1,000 warheads by 2030, and potentially 1,500 by 2035.1 This growth trajectory represents a strategic breakout, with the rate of expansion exceeding previous U.S. intelligence estimates.

Table 2.1: Projected Growth of PRC Nuclear Warhead Stockpile

YearOperational Warheads (Est.)Milestone / ContextSource
2020~200Historical “Minimum Deterrence” BaselineDoD CMPR 2020
2022~400Discovery of Solid-Fuel Silo FieldsDoD CMPR 2022
2024>600Operational status of DF-31/DF-41 BrigadesDoD CMPR 2024 1
2027~800Centennial Goal; “Early Warning Counterstrike” MatureDoD Projection 1
2030>1,000Parity with deployed US strategic arsenal (New START limits)DoD Projection 5
2035~1,500Full modernization completeDoD Projection 5

This rapid accumulation of warheads suggests a shift toward a posture of “assured retaliation” or possibly even “coercive leverage,” where a robust nuclear umbrella provides cover for conventional aggression.

2.2 The Infrastructure of Assured Retaliation: Silos and Reactors

The physical manifestation of this buildup is the construction of three massive silo fields in western China (Yumen, Hami, Ordos), containing over 300 silos for solid-fuel ICBMs, likely the DF-31 and DF-41 variants.1 Unlike liquid-fueled missiles (like the older DF-5) that require hours to fuel and are vulnerable to pre-emption, solid-fuel missiles in silos allow for a “Launch on Warning” (LOW) posture. The 2025 DoD report confirms that the PLA has conducted exercises rehearsing a “90-second detection to 4-minute launch” cycle, indicating a high level of readiness designed to ensure survivability against a U.S. first strike.1

Furthermore, the expansion is fueled by the CFR-600 sodium-cooled fast breeder reactors at Xiapu. While ostensibly for civilian power generation, these reactors are capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium. Reports indicate that Russia has supplied highly enriched uranium fuel for these reactors, deepening Sino-Russian strategic nuclear cooperation.8 Analysis suggests that the two CFR-600 units could generate enough plutonium for hundreds of new warheads annually, removing the fissile material bottleneck that previously constrained China’s arsenal.25

2.3 Qualitative Advances: The H-6N and Low-Yield Weapons

Beyond raw numbers, the PLA is diversifying its delivery systems. The PLARF has fielded the DF-27, a long-range ballistic missile (5,000-8,000 km) capable of striking targets as far as Hawaii or Diego Garcia. Crucially, the DF-27 is assessed as a “fielded conventionally armed” system, but like many Chinese missiles, it likely possesses dual-capability.1

The air leg of the triad has also been strengthened with the H-6N bomber. For the first time, H-6Ns participated in joint Sino-Russian strategic patrols in 2024, signaling their operational integration. The DoD asserts that the H-6N’s air-launched ballistic missile (ALBM) and the DF-26 IRBM are “well suited for delivering a low-yield nuclear weapon,” suggesting Beijing is pursuing tactical nuclear options to counter U.S. regional advantages.1 This development raises the specter of limited nuclear use in a regional conflict, challenging the assumption that Beijing would only use nuclear weapons in a massive retaliation scenario.

2.4 Corruption: The Achilles Heel?

Despite these formidable advances, U.S. intelligence has uncovered significant corruption within the PLARF and the broader defense industrial base. Reports from late 2023 and 2024 revealed startling instances of corruption, including missiles filled with water instead of fuel and silo lids that were functionally inoperable due to manufacturing defects.8 These revelations led to a sweeping purge of the Rocket Force leadership, including the removal of its commander and political commissar, as well as dozens of senior officials in the equipment development departments.

While these issues raise serious questions about the immediate reliability of the force, analysts caution against assuming the threat has dissipated. The sheer scale of production and the ruthlessness of Xi Jinping’s rectification campaigns suggest these are teething issues of rapid expansion rather than fatal flaws. As noted by U.S. officials, while the corruption may make Xi “less likely to contemplate major military action” in the very short term, the fundamental trajectory of modernization remains unchanged.9

3. Domain Supremacy: Naval Expansion and the “Near Seas”

The PLA Navy (PLAN) has transformed from a coastal defense force into the largest navy in the world by hull count, possessing a battle force of approximately 370 ships compared to the U.S. Navy’s 296.28 This numerical advantage is projected to widen, with the PLAN expected to reach 435 ships by 2030.

3.1 The “Blue Water” Carrier Program

The commissioning of the Fujian (Type 003) aircraft carrier marks a technological leap for the PLAN. Unlike its predecessors (Liaoning and Shandong), which use ski-jumps that limit aircraft takeoff weight and range, the Fujian employs an Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS).30 This technology allows for the launch of heavier, fully loaded fighter jets and, crucially, fixed-wing airborne early warning (AEW) aircraft like the KJ-600. This capability is essential for operating carrier strike groups beyond the range of land-based air cover, signaling an intent to contest the “Second Island Chain” (Guam/Papua New Guinea).

Construction of a fourth carrier (Type 004), widely rumored to be nuclear-powered, is reportedly underway.31 This would provide the PLAN with true global endurance, mirroring U.S. carrier strike group capabilities and enabling sustained operations in the Indian Ocean or beyond.

Table 3.1: PLAN vs. USN Fleet Comparison (2025 Data)

CategoryPLA Navy (PLAN)US Navy (USN)Strategic Implications
Total Battle Force Ships~370 – 395~294 – 296China prioritizes quantity and regional presence; US forces are globally dispersed.
Aircraft Carriers3 (Fujian in trials)11 (nuclear)US advantage in supercarriers remains significant, but PLAN is closing the tech gap.
Cruisers/Destroyers~50 (Modern)~90PLAN Type 055 offers superior VLS count to US Arleigh Burke Flight IIA.
Submarines~60~66US maintains significant qualitative acoustic advantage; PLAN expanding SSBNs.
Amphibious Ships~55~31PLAN focused on massive littoral lift for Taiwan scenario.
Total Tonnage (Est.)~3.2M Tons~4.5M TonsUS ships are generally larger, with greater endurance and magazine depth.

Sources: DoD CMPR 2025 28, CRS Reports 28, Global Firepower.32

3.2 Surface Combatants: The Type 055 “Dreadnought”

The Type 055 Renhai-class cruiser represents the pinnacle of Chinese surface combatant design. With 112 Vertical Launch System (VLS) cells, it outguns most U.S. destroyers and carries advanced weaponry such as the YJ-21 hypersonic anti-ship ballistic missile.33 The rapid production rate of Type 055s and Type 052D destroyers demonstrates China’s massive shipbuilding capacity. In a single shipyard at Dalian, five Type 052D destroyers were observed under construction simultaneously—a feat of industrial scale that U.S. shipyards currently cannot match.34 This capacity advantage allows the PLAN to repair battle damage and replace losses far more quickly than the U.S. Navy in a protracted conflict.

3.3 Civil-Military Fusion at Sea: The Ro-Ro Factor

A critical and often overlooked aspect of China’s naval power is the integration of the civilian merchant fleet. The PLA has mandated that all new civilian Roll-on/Roll-off (Ro-Ro) ferries be built to military specifications, including reinforced decks and strengthened ramps to accommodate heavy armor.35

Exercises in 2024 and 2025 have explicitly demonstrated the use of these ferries to transport main battle tanks and amphibious assault vehicles across the Taiwan Strait.28 To overcome the challenge of unloading these ships without a captured port, the PLA has developed and exercised “floating causeway” systems (Improved Navy Lighterage System equivalents) that allow Ro-Ro ships to discharge cargo directly onto beaches or into smaller landing craft offshore.37 This “over-the-shore” logistics capability complicates U.S. defense planning, as it provides the PLA with a redundant, high-volume lift capacity that utilizes thousands of civilian vessels, making interdiction politically and operationally difficult.

4. The Rocket Force (PLARF): Precision Strike and the “Guam Killer”

The PLA Rocket Force (PLARF) remains the cornerstone of China’s anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) strategy. Its inventory of land-based missiles is the largest and most diverse in the world, designed to hold U.S. and allied bases, ships, and logistics nodes at risk throughout the Indo-Pacific.

4.1 The DF-26 and Strategic Reach

The DF-26 intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM), often dubbed the “Guam Killer,” is central to the PLA’s ability to strike the Second Island Chain. Capable of carrying both nuclear and conventional warheads, the DF-26 can target U.S. facilities on Guam and moving aircraft carriers at sea with high precision. The DoD reports a massive expansion in the DF-26 inventory, with brigades now fully operational and capable of “hot swapping” warheads to complicate adversary targeting and decision-making.1

4.2 Hypersonic Capabilities

China continues to lead in the deployment of hypersonic weapons. The DF-17, a medium-range ballistic missile equipped with a hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV), is now widely deployed. Its distinct maneuvering flight path makes it extremely difficult for existing U.S. missile defense systems (like THAAD or Patriot) to intercept.39 Additionally, the new DF-27, with a range of 5,000-8,000 km, extends this hypersonic threat envelope significantly, potentially putting Hawaii or key bases in Australia within reach of a conventional strike.1

4.3 Drone Swarms and New Platforms

Beyond traditional missiles, the PLA is investing heavily in unmanned systems. The unveiling of the “Jiutian” massive mothership drone, capable of deploying swarms of smaller UAVs, represents a new tactical threat.40 In a Taiwan scenario, such platforms could flood the airspace with hundreds of loitering munitions, overwhelming Taiwan’s air defense radars and depleting its interceptor magazines. “Joint Sword-2024B” exercises featured the heavy use of UAVs for reconnaissance and simulated strikes, confirming their central role in the PLA’s blockade and invasion operational concepts.41

5. Gray Zone & Political Warfare: Winning Without Fighting

China’s strategy adheres to the Sun Tzu principle of winning without fighting. “Gray Zone” tactics—coercive actions that remain below the threshold of kinetic war—are employed to alter the status quo incrementally, making it difficult for the U.S. or its allies to justify a forceful military response.

5.1 The Coast Guard as a “Second Navy”

The China Coast Guard (CCG) is the world’s largest maritime law enforcement agency, equipped with vessels larger than many U.S. Navy destroyers (e.g., the 12,000-ton Zhaotou-class cutters). The 2021 Coast Guard Law and subsequent 2024 regulations explicitly empower the CCG to use lethal force and detain foreigners in “jurisdictional waters”—a term Beijing defines to include the vast majority of the South China Sea.42

In 2024 and 2025, CCG vessels engaged in aggressive maneuvers against Philippine resupply missions to the Second Thomas Shoal, utilizing water cannons, military-grade lasers, and dangerous blocking tactics.2 These actions are designed to exhaust the opponent physically and politically, enforcing sovereignty through sheer presence and “law enforcement” policing rather than naval combat. This effectively dares the U.S. to escalate a “police action” into a war, a step Washington has historically been reluctant to take.

  • Cognitive Warfare: The PLA has reorganized its Strategic Support Force into specialized Information Warfare units that employ AI to conduct large-scale influence operations. In 2024, sophisticated bot networks were detected impersonating Taiwanese citizens to spread disinformation about U.S. unreliability and the “inevitability” of unification.11 These campaigns aim to demoralize the Taiwanese populace and sow political chaos.
  • Legal Warfare: Beijing is systematically advancing a legal argument that the Taiwan Strait is “internal waters” rather than an international waterway. By conflating its “One China Principle” with UN Resolution 2758, China seeks to strip Taiwan of any international legal status.19 If successful, this would legally frame a blockade of Taiwan as a domestic sovereign enforcement action (similar to a counter-narcotics quarantine) rather than an act of international war, thereby raising the legal and diplomatic threshold for foreign intervention.

6. Economic & Societal Mobilization: Building the Fortress

Perhaps the most telling indicator of China’s preparation for major conflict is its effort to “sanction-proof” its economy. Recognizing the devastating impact of Western financial sanctions on Russia following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Beijing has accelerated efforts to decouple its critical supply chains and financial systems from the U.S. dollar and Western interdiction.

6.1 Strategic Stockpiling: Oil, Food, and Gold

China is hoarding commodities at a scale that exceeds normal commercial demand, indicating a preparation for supply chain disruption:

  • Oil: Estimates suggest China has filled its Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) and commercial storage to near capacity. By late 2024/early 2025, total crude storage exceeded 1.5 billion barrels.45 The construction of 11 new storage sites in 2025 further underscores this drive.47
  • Gold: The People’s Bank of China (PBOC) has purchased gold for over 18 consecutive months (through 2024 and into 2025), significantly increasing its official holdings to over 2,300 tonnes.6 This accumulation serves to diversify foreign exchange reserves away from U.S. Treasury bonds, reducing Beijing’s vulnerability to dollar-based financial sanctions.

Table 6.1: Economic Fortress Indicators (2020-2025)

YearGold Reserves (Tonnes)CIPS Volume (Trillion RMB)ContextSource
2020~1,948~45Pre-Ukraine War Baseline49
2022~2,010~96Acceleration post-Russia Sanctions50
2024~2,264~175CIPS volume surges 42% YoY51
2025~2,306>200 (Est.)High-velocity decoupling48

6.2 Financial Decoupling: CIPS

The Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS) is being aggressively promoted as a dedicated alternative to the SWIFT messaging system. Transaction volumes surged by over 42% in 2024, driven by trade with Russia, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia.51 While the RMB still lags far behind the U.S. Dollar in global trade settlement, the CIPS infrastructure is being laid to sustain critical trade flows (particularly energy and food imports) in the event of a Western financial embargo.

6.3 Societal Mobilization: The Return of the PAFD

In a move reminiscent of the Maoist era, China has revitalized “People’s Armed Forces Departments” (PAFDs) within state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and major private technology firms.52 These units are responsible for civil defense, recruitment, and the mobilization of civilian resources for military use. By embedding military mobilization structures directly into the corporate sector, the CCP is ensuring that civilian assets—data centers, logistics fleets, drone manufacturers—can be instantly requisitioned for the war effort. This signals a return to a “People’s War” footing, where the distinction between civilian economy and military logistics is effectively erased.

7. Taiwan Scenarios: Blockade vs. Invasion

The PLA is preparing for multiple contingencies regarding Taiwan, but recent exercises and capabilities suggest a growing preference for a strangulation strategy (blockade) over a direct amphibious assault, at least as an initial phase.

7.1 The “Joint Sword” Model: Anatomy of a Blockade

The “Joint Sword-2024A” and “Joint Sword-2024B” exercises provided a clear template for a blockade strategy. Key features observed during these drills included:

  • Encirclement: PLA naval vessels and Coast Guard cutters operated to the east of Taiwan, a critical zone for denying access to U.S. forces approaching from Guam or Japan.15
  • Isolation: The exercises simulated strikes on key infrastructure such as ports and LNG terminals to paralyze the island’s energy-dependent economy.
  • Quarantine Enforcement: The aggressive use of the Coast Guard to “patrol” waters around Taiwan suggests a strategy where the CCG inspects and intercepts commercial shipping. This creates a legal and operational gray zone, challenging the U.S. to fire on “law enforcement” vessels to break the quarantine.54

7.2 The Invasion Option: Capabilities and Constraints

While a blockade is lower risk, the PLA retains and refines the invasion option. The integration of Ro-Ro ferries provides the theoretical lift capacity to transport heavy mechanized divisions that dedicated amphibious ships (LPDs/LHDs) alone cannot carry.36 However, analysts assess that the PLA still faces significant challenges in “Over-the-Shore Logistics” (LOTS). Sustaining a high-intensity amphibious campaign against a defended shore requires moving thousands of tons of fuel, ammunition, and supplies daily without a functional port. While the PLA has exercised with floating causeways, the complexity of this operation under fire remains a formidable hurdle.

Furthermore, the “corruption tax” revealed in the Rocket Force purges introduces a variable of uncertainty. If missile reliability is compromised, the precision strikes required to blind Taiwan’s defenses prior to an invasion may not be as effective as models predict, raising the cost of a landing to potentially prohibitive levels.9

Conclusion

The convergence of military, economic, and political indicators paints an unambiguous picture: China is systematically preparing its state apparatus for a high-intensity conflict. The timeline of 2027 is a serious milestone for capability, driven by the personal political mandate of Xi Jinping.

  • Nuclear: A strategic breakout is securing China against U.S. nuclear coercion, enabling a more aggressive conventional posture.
  • Conventional: A massive naval and missile buildup is creating a “kill zone” within the First Island Chain and extending reach to the Second.
  • Economic: A fortress economy is being constructed to survive the inevitable economic warfare that would accompany kinetic conflict.

While significant frictions exist—corruption, lack of recent combat experience, and complex logistics—the trajectory is clear. The Pentagon’s reporting is largely factual and supported by verifiable open-source evidence, whereas China’s claims of “purely defensive” intent are contradicted by the offensive nature of its new capabilities. The risk of conflict, whether through calculated aggression or accidental escalation in the gray zone, is at its highest point in decades.

Appendix: Methodology

This report was compiled using a multi-source intelligence fusion methodology, adhering to the standards of professional open-source intelligence (OSINT) analysis.

  1. Source Collection: Data was aggregated from primary government documents (US DoD Reports to Congress 2020-2025, PRC Ministry of National Defense statements), reputable think tank analysis (CSIS, IISS, RAND, Baker Institute), commercial satellite imagery analysis, and global economic trade data (EIA, World Gold Council).
  2. Verification: Claims were cross-referenced to ensure accuracy. For example, DoD statements on nuclear expansion were correlated with independent academic analysis of satellite imagery showing silo construction. Economic claims regarding gold and oil were verified against customs data and central bank reports.
  3. Persona Simulation: The analysis was synthesized through the lens of four distinct experts:
  • National Security Analyst: Focused on broad strategic intent, US-China relations, and geopolitical implications.
  • Intelligence Analyst: Focused on hard data (missile counts, tonnage, warhead estimates) and verification of technical capabilities.
  • Warfare Strategist: Focused on doctrine (Three Warfares, Joint Sword exercises), operational concepts, and wargaming scenarios.
  • Chinese Warfare Specialist: Focused on interpreting internal PLA terminology, political dynamics, and the “say-do” gap in PRC messaging.
  1. Bias Check: Great care was taken to distinguish between “confirmed capability” (e.g., a ship in the water) and “projected intent” (e.g., a plan to invade). Propaganda narratives were identified by contrasting official statements with observed physical actions and internal doctrinal writings.

If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something. If you’d like to directly contribute towards our continued reporting, please visit our funding page.

Sources Used

  1. U.S. Department of Defense/War Annual Reports to Congress on China’s Military Power—2000 to 2025—Download Complete Set + Read Highlights Here – Andrew Erickson, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.andrewerickson.com/2025/12/u-s-department-of-defense-war-annual-reports-to-congress-on-chinas-military-power-2000-to-2025-download-complete-set-read-highlights-here/
  2. Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2025 – DoD, accessed January 26, 2026, https://media.defense.gov/2025/Dec/23/2003849070/-1/-1/1/ANNUAL-REPORT-TO-CONGRESS-MILITARY-AND-SECURITY-DEVELOPMENTS-INVOLVING-THE-PEOPLES-REPUBLIC-OF-CHINA-2025.PDF
  3. China’s Military in 10 Charts – CSIS, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-military-10-charts
  4. China’s Military on Parade – CSIS, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-military-parade
  5. Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2024 – DoD, accessed January 26, 2026, https://media.defense.gov/2024/Dec/18/2003615520/-1/-1/0/MILITARY-AND-SECURITY-DEVELOPMENTS-INVOLVING-THE-PEOPLES-REPUBLIC-OF-CHINA-2024.PDF
  6. China’s gold market update: Central bank purchases continue in January | Post by Ray Jia, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.gold.org/goldhub/gold-focus/2025/02/chinas-gold-market-update-central-bank-purchases-continue-january
  7. China Oil Reserves Threaten Global Energy Markets – Domestic Drilling and Operating, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.domesticoperating.com/blog/2025/11/10/china-oil-reserves-threaten-global-energy-markets-u-s-energy-information-administration-reports/
  8. The Pentagon’s (Slimmed Down) 2025 China Military Power Report, accessed January 26, 2026, https://fas.org/publication/the-pentagons-slimmed-down-2025-china-military-power-report/
  9. Corruption in China’s military is no excuse for American complacency – Defense News, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/2024/01/22/corruption-in-chinas-military-is-no-excuse-for-american-complacency/
  10. Chinese Military Purge Said to Show Corruption, Weakness – Arms Control Association, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2024-03/news/chinese-military-purge-said-show-corruption-weakness
  11. New Pentagon report on China’s military notes Beijing’s progress on LLMs | DefenseScoop, accessed January 26, 2026, https://defensescoop.com/2025/12/26/dod-report-china-military-and-security-developments-prc-ai-llm/
  12. Study No. 8, Chinese Amphibious Warfare: Prospects for a Cross- Strait Invasion | Andrew S. Erickson, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.andrewerickson.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Chinese-Amphibious-Warfare_Prospects-for-a-Cross-Strait-Invasion.pdf
  13. China Reacts to US’s Military Power Report – Newsweek, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.newsweek.com/china-reacts-us-military-power-report-2003349
  14. China’s defense ministry slams Pentagon report on China’s military development as deceptive, hypocritical – Global Times, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202412/1325516.shtml
  15. China’s Joint-Sword B exercise: a calculated follow-on, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/online-analysis/2024/10/chinas-joint-sword-b-exercise-a-calculated-follow-on/
  16. Less Politics, More Military: The Outlook for China’s 2025 Military Incursions into Taiwan’s Airspace and Waters – Air University, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/4176900/less-politics-more-military-the-outlook-for-chinas-2025-military-incursions-int/
  17. Political Warfare against Intervention Forces – Air University, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/4167178/political-warfare-against-intervention-forces/
  18. Assessing China’s Cognitive Warfare against Taiwan on TikTok | SPF China Observer, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.spf.org/spf-china-observer/en/document-detail064.html
  19. China’s Taiwan-related legal initiatives: actors and strategic implications, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/charting-china/2025/01/chinas-taiwan-related-legal-initiatives-actors-and-strategic-implications/
  20. Fundamental Elements of the Chinese Communist Party’s Political Warfare Directed Against Taiwan – Chris Smith, accessed January 26, 2026, https://chrissmith.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2025-07-23_john_dotson_testimony.pdf
  21. The PLA’s Joint Sword 2024B Exercise: Continuing Political Warfare and Creeping Territorial Encroachment | Global Taiwan Institute, accessed January 26, 2026, https://globaltaiwan.org/2024/10/the-joint-sword-2024b-exercise/
  22. Analysis of China’s Cognitive Warfare Tactics Against Taiwan in 2025, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.nsb.gov.tw/en/assets/documents/%E6%96%B0%E8%81%9E%E7%A8%BF/3510977a-3c93-4b15-b1f8-246653335a0d.pdf
  23. China’s Fast Breeder Reactor Operating? Possibility of Accelerating Nuclear Arms Race | Satellite Image Analysis Project | THE SASAKAWA PEACE FOUNDATION, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.spf.org/spf-china-observer/en/eisei/eisei-detail006.html
  24. Full article: Chinese nuclear weapons, 2025 – Taylor & Francis, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2025.2467011
  25. China’s Plutonium Production for Nuclear Weapons | ISIS Reports | Institute For Science And International Security, accessed January 26, 2026, https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/chinas-plutonium-production-for-nuclear-weapons
  26. Russia delivers fuel for China’s CFR-600 reactor – IPFM Blog, accessed January 26, 2026, https://fissilematerials.org/blog/2022/12/russia_delivers_fuel_for_.html
  27. China’s Waterlogged Missiles Don’t Matter – Nuclear Network – CSIS, accessed January 26, 2026, https://nuclearnetwork.csis.org/chinas-waterlogged-missiles-dont-matter/
  28. China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities—Background and Issues for Congress, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL33153
  29. Report to Congress on Chinese Naval Modernization – USNI News, accessed January 26, 2026, https://news.usni.org/2025/05/01/report-to-congress-on-chinese-naval-modernization-21
  30. Military Archives | ChinaPower Project, accessed January 26, 2026, https://chinapower.csis.org/category/military/
  31. Reviewing The Chinese Navy In 2025 – Part I: The Surface Fleet – Naval News, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2026/01/reviewing-the-chinese-navy-in-2025-part-i-the-surface-fleet/
  32. Navy Fleet by Tonnage by Country (2026) – Global Firepower, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-force-by-tonnage.php
  33. PLA Navy shipbuilding summary of 2025 : r/LessCredibleDefence – Reddit, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/comments/1q023ur/pla_navy_shipbuilding_summary_of_2025/
  34. Accelerated Type 055 Destroyer Production: China’s Military Fully Aware – China-Arms, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.china-arms.com/2024/06/accelerated-type-055-destroyer-production/
  35. China Accelerates Construction of ‘Ro-Ro’ Vessels, with Potential Military Implications, accessed January 26, 2026, https://chinapower.csis.org/analysis/china-construct-ro-ro-vessels-military-implications/
  36. The Chinese amphibious lift capacity – The Dupuy Institute, accessed January 26, 2026, https://dupuyinstitute.org/2024/12/02/the-chinese-amphibious-lift-capacity/
  37. Chinese RoRo ferries and Amphibious Vehicles – The Dupuy Institute, accessed January 26, 2026, https://dupuyinstitute.org/2024/12/19/chinese-roro-ferries-and-amphibious-vehicles/
  38. CMSI Note 14: Bridges Over Troubled Waters: Shuiqiao-Class Landing Barges in PLA Navy Amphibious Operations – U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons, accessed January 26, 2026, https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/context/cmsi-notes/article/1013/viewcontent/CMSI_NOTE_14___Bridges_Over_Troubled_Waters.pdf
  39. Commander’s Toolkit: PLARF – Air University, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/CASI/documents/Toolkit%20presentations/3%20CASI%20Commanders%20Toolkit-%20PLARF.pdf
  40. China & Taiwan Update, December 19, 2025 – Institute for the Study of War, accessed January 26, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/china-taiwan/china-taiwan-update-december-19-2025/
  41. The PLA’s “Justice Mission-2025” Exercise Around Taiwan, accessed January 26, 2026, https://globaltaiwan.org/2026/01/pla-justice-mission-2025/
  42. SETTING THE ‘DRAGON’ AMONGST THE PIGEONS: CHINA COAST GUARD REGULATION-3 TAKES EFFECT – National Maritime Foundation, accessed January 26, 2026, https://maritimeindia.org/setting-the-dragon-amongst-the-pigeons-china-coast-guard-regulation-3-takes-effect/
  43. How to Respond to China’s Tactics in the South China Sea | RAND, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2024/06/how-to-respond-to-chinas-tactics-in-the-south-china.html
  44. MOFA solemnly reiterates that the Taiwan Strait constitutes international waters, refuting false claims made by Chinese officials during recent meetings with the US, accessed January 26, 2026, https://en.mofa.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=1328&s=98011
  45. China’s Strategic Oil Stockpiling Reaches 1.5 Billion Barrels – Discovery Alert, accessed January 26, 2026, https://discoveryalert.com.au/china-oil-stockpiling-strategic-reserve-framework-2025/
  46. Energy Stockpiling as a China Strategic Warning Indicator – Baker Institute, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.bakerinstitute.org/sites/default/files/2024-06/Tes-Collins-Energy-Stockpiling-062024_0.pdf
  47. China accelerates expansion of its strategic oil reserves – Enerdata, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/china-accelerates-expansion-its-strategic-oil-reserves.html
  48. China gold market update: December demand rebounds | Post by Ray Jia, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.gold.org/goldhub/gold-focus/2026/01/china-gold-market-update-december-demand-rebounds
  49. China Courts Foreign Gold Reserves to Reshape Global Finance – Discovery Alert, accessed January 26, 2026, https://discoveryalert.com.au/chinas-gold-strategy-foreign-reserves-2025/
  50. Cross-Border Interbank Payment System – Wikipedia, accessed January 26, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-Border_Interbank_Payment_System
  51. RMB Clearing Demand on the Rise — Singapore’s Three Major Banks Join the Cross-Border Interbank Payment System_Belt & Road, accessed January 26, 2026, https://wb.beijing.gov.cn/en/policy_release/belt_road/202601/t20260105_4400157.html
  52. Inside China’s National Defense Mobilization Reform: Capacity Surveys, Mobilization Resources, and “New-Type” Militias – Recorded Future, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.recordedfuture.com/research/inside-chinas-national-defense-mobilization-reform
  53. People’s Armed Forces Departments Expanding Within Chinese State Owned Enterprises, accessed January 26, 2026, https://chinascope.org/archives/34504
  54. How China Could Quarantine Taiwan: Mapping Out Two Possible Scenarios – CSIS, accessed January 26, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-china-could-quarantine-taiwan-mapping-out-two-possible-scenarios