China threatens its Neighbours

[Chinese-Dragon]

per capita income is meaningless. Hong Kong's per capita income is double that of Taiwan and SK; Hong Kong is also a part of PRC, so what now? Are you saying that Leichenstein can crush the US because it has a GDP/capita 3x that of the US? What a joke! Total GDP and military budget is what's useful in comparing and just our public budget is greater than Japan + SK + Australia + Taiwan combined. Latest missiles to Taiwan? You mean the same made in USA missiles that missed 6/19 shots in optimal conditions? The official opinion in Taiwan is that they can hold for a week. The opinion in the mainland is 3 days. Americans think that Taiwan is the "Israel" of East Asia but their military is more like "Iraq".

And you think those countries can cooperate with each other? South Korea and Japan have fought over islands. Russia is fighting with Japan right now and they don't even have a peace treaty signed. You think Russia will lift a finger to help the US? If they don't attack NATO on the European front you should be praying.

Exactly lol, Hong Kong's GDP per capita is 30 times that of India.

So we can go on our own and defeat India?

National power is affected by total GDP, otherwise places like Switzerland and Singapore would be the strongest in the world.

 

[Zeeshan360]

Chinese ppl have a delusion that everyone loves them and everyone hates India

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

No, you have sustained growth..but we are catching up on those numbers..so best time for you to attack was yesterday..but now this gap will only reduce.

Can you explain to me how the gap will reduce over time?

Considering we have a faster rate of GDP growth and a much larger economy?

Like I said before, even if you "somehow" catch up on growth rates (which I strongly doubt you can), 10% of 6 trillion is a LOT more than 10% of 1.5 trillion.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Dude, even we had to cut down our nuke arsenal due to the tremendous costs associated with it. And, here we are talking about a poor country like China. Dont you get it? Whatever you do, there are plenty of other countries that can do those as well and sometimes even better.

And, you are comparing an internationally isolated Iran with a completely engaged South Korea?? I mean it just does not make sense.

Before you guys had 35,000 nukes in the stockpile, so cut down all the old deteriorated nukes into 10,000 is more reasonable.

China doesn't need to exceed 10,000 nukes in the stockpile. In 1960s, we were hundred times poorer, yet we can still maintain several hundred nukes.

The reprocessing technology is to make sure that our nukes can last longer. It is up to you to believe or not.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Chinese ppl have a delusion that everyone loves them and everyone hates India

Hmm I always thought it was the other way around.

 

[below_freezing]

Chinese ppl have a delusion that everyone loves them and everyone hates India

Nope we know that US and their puppets hate us but that's totally fine. They can't do anything about it, we're winning from the current system and if they try anything there's the very big stick of PLA and PLAAF to discourage that.

 

[ares]

Can you explain to me how the gap will reduce over time?

Considering we have a faster rate of GDP growth and a much larger economy?

Like I said before, even if you "somehow" catch up on growth rates (which I strongly doubt you can), 10% of 6 trillion is a LOT more than 10% of 1.5 trillion.

It like this if today Chinese resources are 4 times India's in 10 yrs time of sustained predicted growth this gap will reduce as your economy is expected to slow down ..while India's is not.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Nope we know that US and their puppets hate us but that's totally fine. They can't do anything about it, we're winning from the current system and if they try anything there's the very big stick of PLA and PLAAF to discourage that.

Exactly right. The current economic status quo strongly favours us. All we have to do is wait.

And the PLA could already defend China from the USA military back in the 1950 Korean war, when we were at our weakest point.

 

[RollingStones]

Ok..lets put it this way. It is called minimum deterrent. The minimum deterrent against china is to be able to deploy a dozen SLBMs in South China Sea with nukes that target all of your eastern sea board cities. Or from Japanese Aegis destroyers toward Beijing. That's all the budget and capability that is required. Everything else is a plus. All these countries I mentioned jointly or partly or severally are monetarily and weapon-wise capable of doing that. The point is minimum deterrent against China is easily achieved. This is why these nations hardly bother about Chinese military spending as "minimum deterrent" is what is required. For example, despite all its spending, India cannot go to war with Pakistan as Pakistan already has a minimum deterrent in place. Scenarios exist where countries like Vietnam can be quickly equipped to possess a minimum deterrent against China. So, how can you be cocksure about "crushing" other nations, even poorer nations? I am not sure what your "acceptable loss" calculations are.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

It like this if today Chinese resources are 4 times India's in 10 yrs time of sustained predicted growth this gap will reduce as your economy is expected to slow down ..while India's is not.

LOL Indians have been making predictions about reaching double-digit growth for years. They never come true.

And about China's rate of growth slowing down? In 2010 we clocked 10.3% even though the government was trying to cool down the economy, and when the world was recovering from the credit crunch.

So basically, I'll believe it when it happens.

 

[RollingStones]

That is what I am saying. See my earlier post. Minimum deterrents are easily achieved even by poorer nations, like China was once, when it was "100 times poorer". How do you now assume that that doctrine does not apply to other poorer countries? And, how are you able to ignore China's own history when talking about "crushing" other countries? I simply dont get the logic and reasoning.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Ok..lets put it this way. It is called minimum deterrent. The minimum deterrent against china is to be able to deploy a dozen SLBMs in South China Sea with nukes that target all of your eastern sea board cities. Or from Japanese Aegis destroyers toward Beijing. That's all the budget and capability that is required. Everything else is a plus. All these countries I mentioned jointly or partly or severally are monetarily and weapon-wise capable of doing that. The point is minimum deterrent against China is easily achieved. This is why these nations hardly bother about Chinese military spending as "minimum deterrent" is what is required. For example, despite all its spending, India cannot go to war with Pakistan as Pakistan already has a minimum deterrent in place. Scenarios exist where countries like Vietnam can be quickly equipped to possess a minimum deterrent against China. So, how can you be cocksure about "crushing" other nations, even poorer nations? I am not sure what your "acceptable loss" calculations are.

Sorry, Western intelligence doesn't have any clue about PLA's military might. They even believed that China won't have any prototype of stealth fighter before 2025, now what?

Strategic nuke is much more important for PLA than any J-20 project, you guys can't even get the accurate information about the stealth fighter, so you expect to be accurate about our strategic nukes? Don't be silly.

 

[ares]

LOL Indians have been making predictions about reaching double-digit growth for years. They never come true.

And about China's rate of growth slowing down? In 2010 we clocked 10.3% even though the government was trying to cool down the economy, and when the world was recovering from the credit crunch.

So basically, I'll believe it when it happens.

Actually its economists(not necessarily Indians) who have been predicting both ..where have been reading this stuff for years..since you joined this forum last year itself??

 

[RollingStones]

No worries. I love HK. I live in NYC and I just absolutely love the HK vibe.

 

[below_freezing]

That is what I am saying. See my earlier post. Minimum deterrents are easily achieved even by poorer nations, like China was once, when it was "100 times poorer". How do you now assume that that doctrine does not apply to other poorer countries? And, how are you able to ignore China's own history when talking about "crushing" other countries? I simply dont get the logic and reasoning.

The problem lies within the fact that you have to already possess minimum deterrant. It took China 9 years to make a nuclear weapon, 5 more to make a delivery vehicle and 20 to make a nuclear submarine, deployed 4 years after France's. These things don't grow on trees and no one exports strategic nuclear submarines. You think US will export Ohio class subs to Japan/South Korea?