Aggressive China triggers Asia arms race

[Piper]

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? Better to not start that in the first place.

Hmmm.. Sadly not worrying is a luxury which only the public has, administrators have to cover all angles. Joie de Vivre!

 

[Genesis]

I don't know how you would define a bad relationship, if what is going on now is 'not that bad' a relationship.

A couple wars in, nukes pointed at each other, like you and Pakistan? That bad enough for you. How many of the countries you listed have us as their number one trade partner but is also having our investments. Indonesia and Malaysia still bought our weapons, Vietnam and China has a hotline and high level meetings, while South Korean president attended China's military parade.

Nobody on our list can withstand a Chinese offensive. I didn't know that was a criterion. No president on that list wants to be attacked, but I don't know that they can tell their people that China came and walked over them and it was a good thing nobody said or did anything.

You suggesting bad relationship means the countries would obviously do something when the time comes, however the likelihood of China forcing all to battle is none. So, if what China is doing is taking over their country sure, but I like to see them explain to their people they joined a war that wasn't directly targeted at them.

Even Nehru barely survived the shit storm in 1962 and he was Nehru.

Quite possibly, as you say, China may be an ally tomorrow. That doesn't take away the humiliation of being kicked around today.

No, but people do take these things into consideration. Just look at WW1 and WW2, how often has ego, and selfish interests came in the way of victory.

If war does happen, all China needs is to back off a few of the islands we built that are in a contested zone by both Vietnam and Philippines and the fireworks will start.

Finally what rankles is not defeat, but the sort of arrogance that allows that comparison between Manny and Patterson. You must have topped in charm school.

Mayweather, why would it be Patterson, you can't compare fighters of different eras. I didn't go to your British school, we'll take power and strength, you can keep charm.

Of course les we forget, India is not exactly a shining beacon in the minds of the world population anyways. Poor and no prestige is hardly a recipe for charm. While America has decimated country after country yet it is still the sun in the sky. For your personal reference, you know what the British did to you guys for 260+ years right, yet who likes you more than the British.

 

[Joe Shearer]

A couple wars in, nukes pointed at each other, like you and Pakistan? That bad enough for you. How many of the countries you listed have us as their number one trade partner but is also having our investments. Indonesia and Malaysia still bought our weapons, Vietnam and China has a hotline and high level meetings, while South Korean president attended China's military parade.

Instead of giving yourselves a good conduct certificate, you ought to listen clearly to what your so-friendly neighbours are saying about you. It's not we; India couldn't care less, we have enough to do keeping an eye on your actions across our own border or Lines of Actual Control. It's they, the charming, friendly neighbours who adore the light shining out of your posterior that you need to listen to, and to understand.

You suggesting bad relationship means the countries would obviously do something when the time comes, however the likelihood of China forcing all to battle is none. So, if what China is doing is taking over their country sure, but I like to see them explain to their people they joined a war that wasn't directly targeted at them.

Have you been practising the 'straw man' argument much? Seems that way, the way you move into that territory with such deft grace. Pretending that someone suggested that these various bullied nations would join each other's war is entirely put together by you. That was never a thought in my posts. So pointing out the ridiculous part of that joint war making is entirely a spurious exercise directed at your rabbit out of a hat.

Even Nehru barely survived the shit storm in 1962 and he was Nehru.

He should not have survived (politically). His socialist, soft on Communists background led him to underrate the chicanery and guile that your leaders were capable of, and India paid the price.

No, but people do take these things into consideration. Just look at WW1 and WW2, how often has ego, and selfish interests came in the way of victory.

True enough in its way, but not relevant to the thread.

If war does happen, all China needs is to back off a few of the islands we built that are in a contested zone by both Vietnam and Philippines and the fireworks will start.

And you seriously believe that the other two are so stupid that they will fall for this? Do you propose to send them edicts under a scarlet seal to make them act stupefied and addle-brained

Mayweather, why would it be Patterson, you can't compare fighters of different eras. I didn't go to your British school, we'll take power and strength, you can keep charm.

You obviously failed to read, earlier in this thread, your countryman's position that the inferior fighter, Manny, should expect to lose to the better player. My contribution was to comment.

[quote'Of course les we forget, India is not exactly a shining beacon in the minds of the world population anyways. Poor and no prestige is hardly a recipe for charm. [/quote]

Are you so desperate to find a viable case that you hop onto something entirely different? Do you hope to distract attention from your own problems?

While America has decimated country after country yet it is still the sun in the sky. For your personal reference, you know what the British did to you guys for 260+ years right, yet who likes you more than the British.

Continued diversionary tactics? Point to someone else's problems or weaknesses to cover up one's own faults? What do you think, that nobody can see what you are doing?

 

[nang2]

I sometimes wonder what the Chinese strategic planners have in mind. Are some islands in the SCS really strategic
enough to anger all of the neighboring countries, even if China's historic claim on them is indeed valid?

Just look at which fleet in China has all the ballistic missile subs. SCS is the route for them. US tries to block Chinese ballistic missile subs completely. You tell me that is not strategic.

 

[Genesis]

Instead of giving yourselves a good conduct certificate, you ought to listen clearly to what your so-friendly neighbours are saying about you. It's not we; India couldn't care less, we have enough to do keeping an eye on your actions across our own border or Lines of Actual Control. It's they, the charming, friendly neighbours who adore the light shining out of your posterior that you need to listen to, and to understand.

You asked what's a bad relationship, well that's it. All these countries are doing is saying stuff, until artillery fire starts to rain. It's pretty good. Oh and who's diverting the topic now. If a few countries have arguments here and there is bad, then even Canada, US and UK have bad relationships.

Have you been practising the 'straw man' argument much? Seems that way, the way you move into that territory with such deft grace. Pretending that someone suggested that these various bullied nations would join each other's war is entirely put together by you. That was never a thought in my posts. So pointing out the ridiculous part of that joint war making is entirely a spurious exercise directed at your rabbit out of a hat.

If that was not the point of your post, then your post have no point. If they are not going to jointly fight, what's the difference between 1 and a million.

He should not have survived (politically). His socialist, soft on Communists background led him to underrate the chicanery and guile that your leaders were capable of, and India paid the price.

I mean all he did was lose a minor war and he got almost destroyed. He created India, none of the others can say that about themselves.

True enough in its way, but not relevant to the thread.

It is if you are going to name countries like your Christmas gift list. They have to stand together, or else naming them just shows you name what a globe looks like.

And you seriously believe that the other two are so stupid that they will fall for this? Do you propose to send them edicts under a scarlet seal to make them act stupefied and addle-brained

You seem to believe them acting against a far greater power is not so stupid, I can't see how this is more stupid. At least with this, they have a chance.

Besides, if you think these countries won't, you obviously don't know the history of the sea and the history of ASEAN.

You obviously failed to read, earlier in this thread, your countryman's position that the inferior fighter, Manny, should expect to lose to the better player. My contribution was to comment.

Manny should lose, yes, but he was close. He can win. Berto on the other hand has no chance, and thus losing to Floyd had no real impact on him.

The point of this is to ASEAN and China we are Mayweather and they are Berto, but to ASEAN themselves, they are Mayweather and Manny, they can't afford to lose to each other, because they are peer competitors, and it would hurt them.

Losing to China is a forgone conclusion and thus not a big deal when and if it happens. Vietnam losing Spratlys to China may be considered a lose, but lose it to the Philippines and you should know what the reaction will be.

Are you so desperate to find a viable case that you hop onto something entirely different? Do you hope to distract attention from your own problems?



Continued diversionary tactics? Point to someone else's problems or weaknesses to cover up one's own faults? What do you think, that nobody can see what you are doing?

Don't care about India in the least, the point is that if India in your eyes is not a bully, and what not, it is still not receiving any benefits. It still lacks prestige or any recognition.

China needs to do this for prestige, it didn't come out of no where. It is not the right move, it is the only move. If India wants prestige, it must also go through something like this. So your entire argument on China is irrelevant, because we must go through this if we want prestige.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

China's nuclear sub figure is wrong on this graph, since we spend more money on the nuclear subs than on the surface fleet.

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

What's the point to start an arm race with China? Since we are adding the air force and navy of a medium country each year.

 

[Kaniska]

What Indians don't realize is that China is surrounded by many powerful
countries ( economically and/or militarily) such as Japan, the Phillipines, South Korea, Vietnam, Australia and so on. So China needs a large air force , navy, and army to protect itself from so many of its neighbors. (some of which host US military bases)

Whereas India only has one hostile neighbor Pakistan. A large scale war with China is unlikely
due to the geographical limitations so we can conclude that India is only threatened realistically by Pakistan.

@Joe Shearer What's your take on this?

To some extent i agree with you..But our rivallary with Pakistan is taking a toll on relationship with China...Because, the public impression is being created that China is just outsourced its war to Pakistan to fight with India while keeping himself as a nice guy in the region...

 

[Samrat420]

Going by the Chinese jingoism in this thread,it seems WINTER IS COMING, very quickly

Ah! That epic monologue by Big Bucket Wull.. definitely ranks among one of the best quotes in the whole ASOIAF series..

 

[Joe Shearer]

This is just a continuation of your argument, that it is being suggested that all the countries in the neighbourhood will get together and jump on China, which is frankly downright ludicrous. It was relevant, and continues to be so, that China has an increasingly difficult relationship with several neighbours, and that she has to deal with all of them, whether individually or collectively.

You asked what's a bad relationship, well that's it. All these countries are doing is saying stuff, until artillery fire starts to rain. It's pretty good. Oh and who's diverting the topic now. If a few countries have arguments here and there is bad, then even Canada, US and UK have bad relationships.

In other words, as little children say, sticks and stones may break my bones, but words won't hurt me. That is simplifying things to the level of an arithmetic equation: 2+2=4, but 2+anything else higher <>4, so why worry.

An interesting outlook on international relations and bilateral relations. What are you telling us about the future, through this rather self-satisfied smug attitude?

You are effectively telling the rest of the world that it is now the dawn of the Chinese century, or of another Chinese century, and let the world look to its relations with China with care and concern for the world's ability to cope. I wonder if this can be sustained indefinitely. The prospect ahead for the rest of us, vis-a-vis China, is this: if China has really broken away from its historical pattern of good and prosperous periods marked by domination of its neighbourhood and substantial increases in its sphere of influence, alternatiing with periods of relative subsidence of energy and the will to dominate, marked by a shrinking of its influence, then of course, you have a point and we had better all adjust ourselves to working with China, and accepting Chinese demands right at the outset, and offering tribute sooner or later. This means that everybody in the neighbourhood, including those currently in China's good books, has to prepare for inevitable rape; if the idea is to increase China's influence irrespective of international law, irrespective of co-existence, and irrespective of history read from more than a Chinese perspective, then nobody is safe.

All that happens short of open warfare is meaningless; all that happens in terms of open warfare is also meaningless. In either case, China will prevail, and, with at most a couple of thousand dead on either side, the war will end with victory for China.

Whether alone or collectively, China's neighbours, and China's interlocutors who are not next door, all have to figure out what to do in the near future. Friction with China is then posited as inevitable, and Chinese will to dominate might extend up to the shores of the Americas and of Africa. This is hypothetical, but if the South China Sea is only the first post in a longer journey, it seems to be a natural progression.

Historically there have been such situations before. We are going through one just now, in fact, where the US is dominant, with qualifications, throughout the globe, even with regard to China. That domination is clearly on the decline, but it is the downslope of a period that started arguably with the Monroe Doctrine, the rough equivalent of the next step of China's policy towards east and south-east, and perhaps south Asia as well. Once given an option to treat the South China Sea as China's own North Sea equivalent, or as the equivalent of Ottoman rule over the Mediterrranean at the height of the Ottoman Empire, the inevitable next step, unless China's power goes into rapid decline in half-a-century more, is to rule that powers from outside the region are forbidden to interfere with the internal and external relations of countries in the region.

We are likely, for several reasons, to be under indirect threat, unless we manage our own affairs internally so badly that we represent no opposition at all to Chinese hegemonism, either direct or through clients, in south Asia; not hegemonism directly exercised, but exercised through more than one puppet state, empowered by China acting in the wings and supporting these puppets. We can afford, therefore, to concentrate on putting our own house in order - something we are doing in fits and starts and lurches from side to side, not with the impressive, automaton-like rhythm of more successful Asian models - while keeping our defences intact, relevant to the threat we face, and sufficient to support a defensive diplomatic posture where reconciliation and co-existence is precluded by the national exuberance of the other party, and continuous, low-level friction punctuated by sharp exchanges is the order of the day.

For others, as we had considered in other posts and as the general trend of the discussion goes, life is likelier to be far more bleak and forbidding in the next century, perhaps a little more. They have the choice of hanging together or hanging separately, to put one's tongue in one's cheek. The major difference with the US, the current hegemon, is that the US absorbed very large numbers of people throughout its period of domination; China has been exporting people. This may be affected, and more may flow out if your neighbours remain secular and ethnically unbiased, less if they take fright and put on the brakes, in the fear that immigrants may prove to weaken their ability to withstand future Chinese pressure.

If that was not the point of your post, then your post have no point. If they are not going to jointly fight, what's the difference between 1 and a million.

That was not the point of my post. There was, however, a point, irrespective of your cavalier dismissal of anything that does not strike your immediate attention as useful to consider. That point was that under increased Chinese threat, each neighbour will build its own military capability to a point higher than exists today. Some of them will succumb to Chinese pressure - one cannot see them resisting very hard, and they have an history of domination by foreign powers; some of them have an history of intermittent war with China. Who falls within which group is an exercise in speculation; this is a signal to defence contractors to appoint Asian agents if they have not done so already, and to expect a gradual transfer of technology at various levels to various locations in Asia, that is, east and south east Asia.

That is also the theme of the thread. I think.

I mean all he did was lose a minor war and he got almost destroyed. He created India, none of the others can say that about themselves.

You are right at one level, and superficially right, not truly reflective of a complex situation, at another level. Presumably you do not want to know the details and are happy with this summary. Suffice it to say that he was hardly the superhuman being that an history of the world in 100 pages might seem to indicate, and that Indian nation-building, the building of the present nation-state based on the geographical and cultural sub-stratum, started in the nineteenth century, and Nehru is increasingly looking to be a very important figure in the midst of other very important figures who contributed to what we are today. He did not create India, not even in the sense that Mao 'created' China.

Returning to your point. The 1962 war was certainly very damaging to his personal reputation and acceptance within the country. It did not destroy him; not only did he continue in office, but his influence was marked in years to come, gradually declining to the point where alternatives showed up: but only after a decade of his passing away, after roughly a decade and a half of his failure to understand and handle China.He was also only the third victim of Chinese expansionism.

Having said that, it is probably all right to accept your remark at face value, and to agree that even a dominating figure might suffer irreversible damage if unsuccessful in a military or diplomatic confrontation with China. The question is whether contemporary leaders will see it in quite such dismal terms, or will choose to try their own luck.

It is if you are going to name countries like your Christmas gift list. They have to stand together, or else naming them just shows you name what a globe looks like.

Not really. The idea was to point out that China was alienating almost everybody in the neighbourhood, but not to imply that everyone was, as a result, bonding together. There is a difference between China undergoing friction with one, or two, nations and undergoing friction with almost everybody else. Until even a year ago, even on this forum, both Pakistani and Chinese comments tended to tease Indians with this: that China had remarkably good neighbourly relations, and India had failed. It does look rather different now, doesn't it?

Just for the record, and to allay any apprehensions that you might have, I also know what a globe looks like. It looks round.

You seem to believe them acting against a far greater power is not so stupid, I can't see how this is more stupid. At least with this, they have a chance.

Your comment seems self-contradictory, so something is evidently missing 'in translation'.

Besides, if you think these countries won't, you obviously don't know the history of the sea and the history of ASEAN.

There is nothing in the history of the sea or the history of ASEAN that seems to have a bearing. Do point it out if you have the time.

Manny should lose, yes, but he was close. He can win. Berto on the other hand has no chance, and thus losing to Floyd had no real impact on him.

The point of this is to ASEAN and China we are Mayweather and they are Berto, but to ASEAN themselves, they are Mayweather and Manny, they can't afford to lose to each other, because they are peer competitors, and it would hurt them.

I have frankly no idea what all this is. It seems to be vitally important and a sporting image of deep meaning, but I don't have that degree of knowledge of boxing and of these characters, so it is necessary to read these with the next, and try to make some sense of it in that context.

Losing to China is a forgone conclusion and thus not a big deal when and if it happens. Vietnam losing Spratlys to China may be considered a lose, but lose it to the Philippines and you should know what the reaction will be.

Ah, here it comes.

A reasonable dynamic, from the Chinese point of view. Do not fight us, fight each other, and we are always there, to pick up the pieces, dry the tears and heal wounds.

In other words, benevolent centralised arbitration of conflicts: a mini-United Nations with a single member of the Security Council.

I wonder if the authors of the Greater Asian Co-prosperity Sphere are spinning madly in their graves or simply lying there with broad grins on their bony lips.

Don't care about India in the least, the point is that if India in your eyes is not a bully, and what not, it is still not receiving any benefits. It still lacks prestige or any recognition.

China needs to do this for prestige, it didn't come out of no where. It is not the right move, it is the only move. If India wants prestige, it must also go through something like this. So your entire argument on China is irrelevant, because we must go through this if we want prestige.

This last is both amusing and disquieting. What sort of huge inferiority complex dictates this craving for prestige? This is the behaviour and mindset of a badly-adjusted teen-ager.

 

[CorporateAffairs]

What's the point to start an arm race with China? Since we are adding the air force and navy of a medium country each year.

Mistake brother, India is never a competitor to anyone.
India is a competitor to itself.
Hope you understand.