Aggressive China triggers Asia arms race

[Piper]

I got bullied so now that i can, I ll bully others Well to be fair as far as justifications go, it ain't a bad one and probably one of the more honest ones

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

It still doesn't explain why, having suffered at the hands of the Japanese, you now want to grind the faces of the Filipinos, the Koreans and the Vietnamese into the mud. I am aware of the horrible atrocities perpetrated on you; did someone tell you how the same perpetrators used our bound and blindfolded soldiers for target practice? So what is the logic of assaulting everybody in sight because one of them assaulted you?

Nobody will attack China, but many will defend themselves against China. Even if it ends in defeat.

I don't see how you can even compare what the Imperial Japanese Army did to Chinese civilians with current Chinese actions in the South China Sea?

Has a single person died in the South China Sea dispute?

How many people die from Indian/Pakistani mortars every time one side decides to start firing? That border is actually bloody, the South China Sea is not.

At most, someone gets sprayed with a water hose. Terrifying thought, I know.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I don't see how you can even compare what the Imperial Japanese Army did to Chinese civilians with current Chinese actions in the South China Sea?

Has a single person died in the South China Sea dispute?

How many people die from Indian/Pakistani mortars every time one side decides to start firing? That border is actually bloody, the South China Sea is not.

At most, someone gets sprayed with a water hose. Terrifying thought, I know.

Who compared the two? I mentioned that having gone through your century of Humiliation, you seem to be bent on inflicting it on others. Now, for you to pick out one war from the whole set of incidents in that Century, and to ask if that one is being repeated today in the reverse Century is really groping for an answer.

But I can logically argue with you to show you that the reverse is true. That China is capable of inflicting painful injuries on its neighbours, citing very dubious historical grounds for doing so, and defying every international convention or treaty on the grounds that it is strong enough to do so.

The fact is that China's aggression today terrifies everybody in sight. The Pakistani leadership is too stupid - it has always been too stupid, and completely out of step with the Pakistani people's interests - otherwise that too would be in panic, in anticipation of things to come. Most of the expansion of China is rooted in recent events; the three provinces bordering Tibet are still largely Tibetan in population, Tibet itself has been absorbed through very dubious legality, and Xinjiang was Eastern Turkestan, a Russian sphere of interest state, as recently as the 1930s, and there is nothing very much to justify China's expansion there either. If I look at China's expansion from its core areas, and if I look at the justifications put forward, I see that the overlordship of some of the Pamir Emirates to the Emir of Kashgar has not occurred to the chuckleheads who are warmly wrapped in your embrace. That, to me, points to the situation today being the baseline for China's expansion within the next fifty to a hundred years.

Please tell me that I am wrong, and that what I have cited is untrue.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Who compared the two? I mentioned that having gone through your century of Humiliation, you seem to be bent on inflicting it on others. Now, for you to pick out one war from the whole set of incidents in that Century, and to ask if that one is being repeated today in the reverse Century is really groping for an answer.

But I can logically argue with you to show you that the reverse is true. That China is capable of inflicting painful injuries on its neighbours, citing very dubious historical grounds for doing so, and defying every international convention or treaty on the grounds that it is strong enough to do so.

The fact is that China's aggression today terrifies everybody in sight. The Pakistani leadership is too stupid - it has always been too stupid, and completely out of step with the Pakistani people's interests - otherwise that too would be in panic, in anticipation of things to come. Most of the expansion of China is rooted in recent events; the three provinces bordering Tibet are still largely Tibetan in population, Tibet itself has been absorbed through very dubious legality, and Xinjiang was Eastern Turkestan, a Russian sphere of interest state, as recently as the 1930s, and there is nothing very much to justify China's expansion there either. If I look at China's expansion from its core areas, and if I look at the justifications put forward, I see that the overlordship of some of the Pamir Emirates to the Emir of Kashgar has not occurred to the chuckleheads who are warmly wrapped in your embrace. That, to me, points to the situation today being the baseline for China's expansion within the next fifty to a hundred years.

Please tell me that I am wrong, and that what I have cited is untrue.

Like I said, we cannot inflict a Century of Humiliation upon others, because to achieve the "symmetry" you mentioned, we would have to kill tens of millions of people to do so. That's obviously not going to happen, short of a nuclear war. So luckily for the world, no one else will have to experience what we did.

As for Xinjiang, you do know it was a part of Han China over 2000 years ago?

This was what it was called in 60 BC:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectorate_of_the_Western_Regions

So it's a bit strange you're talking about us suddenly expanding there in the 1930's?

 

[CorporateAffairs]

I welcome the Chinese aggression. Gives India an opportunity to either wake up and compete or get perished.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Nobody will attack China, but many will defend themselves against China. Even if it ends in defeat.

If that's true then there is nothing to worry about.

Think about it logically. In the current "state of peace", China is gaining the most relative power, by a huge margin. We are adding over $1 trillion to our GDP every year (to put that in perspective, we add an entire India every 2 years), and we are reclaiming territory at a strong pace in the SCS.

As every year passes by in a state of peace, we are the ones gaining the most, by far. Nobody else comes close.

This is not true for some of our neighbors. Every year that passes, their "relative power" declines, relative to China in particular.

So obviously, it is not China who would want to attack first. We gain the most from peace. It is the ones who are losing from peace, who are losing their relative power every peaceful year that passes, it is they who have the incentive to start an attack.

Luckily for us, they know they don't stand a chance of winning. So the SCS is completely devoid of bloodshed, a rarity in the world.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Like I said, we cannot inflict a Century of Humiliation upon others, because to achieve the "symmetry" you mentioned, we would have to kill tens of millions of people to do so. That's obviously not going to happen, short of a nuclear war. So luckily for the world, no one else will have to experience what we did.

As for Xinjiang, you do know it was a part of Han China over 2000 years ago?

This was what it was called in 60 BC:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectorate_of_the_Western_Regions

So it's a bit strange you're talking about us suddenly expanding there in the 1930's?

Please give me a break. I thought you would have a little more respect than that. Should I now beat your head in with the contrary evidence? I am refraining because with the departure of my friends from China, you are now left as the most balanced member. It is respect that restrains me, although it seems to be one-sided, and I hope that you do not make the mistake of thinking this restraint to be due to anything else.

If that's true then there is nothing to worry about.

Think about it logically. In the current "state of peace", China is gaining the most relative power, by a huge margin. We are adding over $1 trillion to our GDP every year (to put that in perspective, we add an entire India every 2 years), and we are reclaiming territory at a strong pace in the SCS.

As every year passes by in a state of peace, we are the ones gaining the most, by far. Nobody else comes close.

This is not true for some of our neighbors. Every year that passes, their "relative power" declines, relative to China in particular.

So obviously, it is not China who would want to attack first. We gain the most from peace. It is the ones who are losing from peace, who are losing their relative power every peaceful year that passes, it is they who have the incentive to start an attack.

Luckily for us, they know they don't stand a chance of winning. So the SCS is completely devoid of bloodshed, a rarity in the world.

Have you heard of the phrase, "the peace of the graveyard"?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

I hope that you do not make the mistake of thinking this restraint to be due to anything else.

You do not need to show restraint with me sir. Fire away.

Though I would like for you to revisit this post above at your convenience:

If that's true then there is nothing to worry about.

Think about it logically. In the current "state of peace", China is gaining the most relative power, by a huge margin. We are adding over $1 trillion to our GDP every year (to put that in perspective, we add an entire India every 2 years), and we are reclaiming territory at a strong pace in the SCS.

As every year passes by in a state of peace, we are the ones gaining the most, by far. Nobody else comes close.

This is not true for some of our neighbors. Every year that passes, their "relative power" declines, relative to China in particular.

So obviously, it is not China who would want to attack first. We gain the most from peace. It is the ones who are losing from peace, who are losing their relative power every peaceful year that passes, it is they who have the incentive to start an attack.

Luckily for us, they know they don't stand a chance of winning. So the SCS is completely devoid of bloodshed, a rarity in the world.

It is a fact that China is the one gaining the most "relative power" as every peaceful year passes. We are adding a trillion a year, an entire India every two years. This is a rate of economic expansion not seen before in history. Not to mention our territorial gains in the SCS which are growing every year.

Now, given that we are gaining the most from every peaceful year that passes, why would we want to attack anyone?

It's the countries that are losing relative power every peaceful year that passes, they are the ones with an incentive to start an attack. To change something about the status quo, so that they can halt their constant loss of relative power. Luckily for us, they know they have no chance, so peace endures.

Have you heard of the phrase, "the peace of the graveyard"?

Sure, I've heard of it. I would love to know how it applies to the SCS though?

 

[Piper]

Have you heard of the phrase, "the peace of the graveyard"?

It's lovely! in fact I often visit just to clear my head. Way better than a stroll in the neighborhood parks with all pesky children, couples, joggers and what not. Though I am afraid the residents don't see it that way or do they

Sure, I've heard of it. I would love to know how it applies to the SCS though?

I think he means that if China continues in it's merry ways then sure you guys will have peace cos everyone in the area under discussion will be dead. I am not sure there will be a noticeable difference as the area is already sparsely inhabited.

 

[Joe Shearer]

You do not need to show restraint with me sir. Fire away.

Though I would like for you to revisit this post above at your convenience:



It is a fact that China is the one gaining the most "relative power" as every peaceful year passes. We are adding a trillion a year, an entire India every two years. This is a rate of economic expansion not seen before in history. Not to mention our territorial gains in the SCS which are growing every year.

Now, given that we are gaining so much from every peaceful year that passes, why would we want to attack anyone?

It's the countries that are losing relative power every peaceful year that passes, they are the ones with an incentive to start an attack. To change something about the status quo, so that they can halt their constant loss of relative power. Luckily for us, they know they have no chance, so peace endures.



Sure, I've heard of it. I would love to know how it applies to the SCS though?

Very good, @Chinese-Dragon ; just as you wish.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

I think he means that if China continues in it's merry ways then sure you guys will have peace cos everyone in the area under discussion will be dead. I am not sure there will be a noticeable difference as the area is already sparsely inhabited.

I don't believe there will be a war, for 2 main reasons.

1) China is gaining the most from a state of peace, so no incentive to start an attack.

2) No one else believes they will gain benefits from attacking China.

This situation seems like it will continue for the immediate future.

Sure, it might end later on. Some crackpot in any of the involved countries (including China) might fire off a missile/drone/etc., and end up turning the SCS into the Middle East. But I seriously doubt it. None of the sides look like they are in any mood or position to turn the fight hot.

 

[Piper]

I don't believe there will be a war, for 2 main reasons.

1) China is gaining the most from a state of peace, so no incentive to start an attack.

2) No one else believes they will gain benefits from attacking China.

This situation seems like it will continue for the immediate future.

Sure, it might end later on. Some crackpot in any of the involved countries (including China) might fire off a missile/drone/etc., and end up turning the SCS into the Middle East. But I seriously doubt it. None of the sides look like they are in any mood or position to turn the fight hot.

Depends on how far and and what pace China will push. The on/off strategy where China lets things cool off for a few years before starting again is low risk, these days we are seeing a aggressive continuous push which is alarming and may result in confrontation. Xi is perhaps constrained by internal politics or rather compelled by them.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Depends on how far and and what pace China will push. The on/off strategy where China lets things cool off for a few years before starting again is low risk, these days we are seeing a aggressive continuous push which is alarming and may result in confrontation. Xi is perhaps constrained by internal politics or rather compelled by them.

I doubt it will end in a confrontation. Simply because none of the sides would benefit from it.

The question to ask is always: "Who benefits?"

As it stands, no side involved in this scenario stands to benefit from starting a war in the SCS. And as long as that remains true, the region will continue to be devoid of bloodshed.

Honestly I do not believe any of those countries will start a fight. Their position is just not good enough to get away with it, and certainly could not benefit from it.

War could happen of course. It always might. But the possibility is low enough that I do not consider it much of a concern.

 

[Piper]

I doubt it will end in a confrontation. Simply because none of the sides would benefit from it.

The question to ask is always: "Who benefits?"

As it stands, no side involved in this scenario stands to benefit from starting a war in the SCS. And as long as that remains true, the region will continue to be devoid of bloodshed.

Honestly I do not believe any of those countries will start a fight. Their position is just not good enough to get away with it, and certainly could not benefit from it.

War could happen of course. It always might. But the possibility is low enough that I do not consider it much of a concern.

The other important and perhaps the more important question is "Who looses?" Wars are often started not out of notion of presumptive gain but presumptive losses and mitigation strategies. An entity might bear another's gain but will not bear losses to itself. Sadly in this case it is quickly turning into a zero sum game.

Then again it is a matter of perception also, China in this regard is quickly getting isolated which is not surprising as you have taken the bait which was so cleverly laid down. I agree with you that there might not be a physical war but there are other kinds of wars with even more important stakes being fought.

China has laid out a very ambitious OBOR gambit which threatens the status quo and what better way to derail it then to focus China's energy on few islands and frame the narrative in form of China is a principle aggressor.

Just think about this.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

I agree with you that there might not be a physical war but there are other kinds of wars with even more important stakes being fought.

China has laid out a very ambitious OBOR gambit which threatens the status quo and what better way to derail it then to focus China's energy on few islands and frame the narrative in form of China is a principle aggressor.

Just think about this.

They may think they are diverting our attention, but our attention is where it needs to be.

As long as no country wants to declare war on us, our motive is simple. Increase our relative power exponentially every year.

Now I can understand why other countries are upset that their "relative" power is declining. But frankly that is not our concern. We have to do what is best for our own national interests, not worry about what foreigners are complaining about today, because it will be something else tomorrow.

If we give up our interests to stop foreigners from complaining, when will it end? It will never end, so we can never go down that path.