Is China containing itself?

[ohmrlobalobayeh]

The rich talks.
The poor stfu.

 

[waz]

IHere is the list of the top 10 military powers:

1. US
2. China
3. Russia
4. India
5. UK
6. France
7. Germany
8. Brazil
9. Japan
10. Turkey

The list, I take it from Global firepower is utter baloney. The Germans, Japanese and Brazilians haven't fought a war in the modern era. Most of their populations don't even want to fight for their country.

 

[Jacob Martin]

Actually it is about China's power. If China was Iraq, then yea, America has allies. However, China is China. Who's going to go in on China if all they have to gain is nothing, and has the potential to lose half their cities and armies for essentially America's goal of maintaining primacy.

You mention all-weather friends, I believe at this point, that is only Pakistan. We have a defense treaty with NK, but as I mentioned, a piece of paper means far less than the actual situation. China supporting the North is not only in bad taste, but could potentially turn it into something we don't want to get into right now.

As to Russia, they won't move one finger, and Sudan has nothing even if they wanted to do something. Toyotas can't run on water unfortunately.

Let's me ask you this, if India, tomorrow, condemns Assad's chemical attack and decides to go to war, loses maybe 200 men, would you be ok? Someone might question the wisdom of such a move, but the overall impact is not that bad. However, if India goes in on China and won, but gains no territory or anything(Americans maybe a lot of things but giving territories after wars is not one of them) and loses 100,000 men, would you still be cool with it?

I am not questioning America's alliances, or its power, but I doubt the desire of other nations to get destroyed, all for the sake of, btw, destroying their biggest trade partner.

This is true for Japan, Korea, America, Australia, and India for that matter.

I think you are right in your assessment that nobody would want to go to war with China. Absolutely no one, including the US. And for the reasons you cited - cost is too high in military and economic terms.

That makes the issue of allies all the more relevant. Because regardless of whether there is war, containing China and checking its rise is undoubtedly on the American agenda. So I expect limited trade wars where tariffs are slapped on imports, proxy wars such as Syria, continuing racheting up of tensions in South China Sea, secret attempts to scuttle trade deals that the other side might try to make with smaller partners, and so on.

And that is where I think China has made a mistake. You may not think much of Indian help, but it has needlessly created tensions through support to Pakistan on issues that they could have simply ignored. Pending disputes between India and China are so small compared to the level of economic and trade engagement between them that it was utterly needless.

You did mention that all countries trade with China and gain from this trade, so why would anyone risk it? Yes, no one would risk war, maybe, but they will definitely risk proxy wars. Because let's face it - geo-politics is still played on outdated notions if zero sum games. I personally think zero sum thinking is not productive, but I am not the one taking these decisions.

If you study the Chinese government's approach to certain countries, you will also see the same. Instead of simply focusing on trade and investment which will benefit all, the Chinese government makes an issue out of meaningless territorial disputes which do not really affect it in the least. It also tries to check the growth of other countries because it sees their increasing influence as a loss for itself.

So trust the other countries to think and behave in the same manner, whether or not it makes sense.

The list, I take it from Global firepower is utter baloney. The Germans, Japanese and Brazilians haven't fought a war in the modern era. Most of their populations don't even want to fight for their country.

No it's not from Global firepower but an equally random site. Aren't all such lists random?

I assume you are referring to the fact that sites like Global firepower simply do an aggregation of numbers instead of looking at quality aspects, and I agree. But even a more accurate list will not necessarily be very different. The only other claimants that I can think of are Pakistan, South Africa and Israel, and each have their own counter arguments.

Okay maybe not Brazil!

 

[Genesis]

I think you are right in your assessment that nobody would want to go to war with China. Absolutely no one, including the US. And for the reasons you cited - cost is too high in military and economic terms.

That makes the issue of allies all the more relevant. Because regardless of whether there is war, containing China and checking its rise is undoubtedly on the American agenda. So I expect limited trade wars where tariffs are slapped on imports, proxy wars such as Syria, continuing racheting up of tensions in South China Sea, secret attempts to scuttle trade deals that the other side might try to make with smaller partners, and so on.

And that is where I think China has made a mistake. You may not think much of Indian help, but it has needlessly created tensions through support to Pakistan on issues that they could have simply ignored. Pending disputes between India and China are so small compared to the level of economic and trade engagement between them that it was utterly needless.

First of all, Indian members were all excited by Vietnam visits and "potential sales" of Indian weapons. That is no where near the level of Pakistan China relationship. Either in its depth or in the other's strength. Why didn't India think of China when you did that? Why did America ignore China when it comes to Japan, we are by far the most important trade partner for the US, and Japan isn't even number 2 or 3, and yet here we are.

The fact of the matter is This type of relationship with Pakistan is worth so much more, and very rare in today's world. Think of my first post, when I said 20 years, that's actually being generous, because it's not really measured in years.

India has no such partner as Pakistan, and likely won't find one. At this point, Pakistan is far more important to China than India, and it's not even close.

You did mention that all countries trade with China and gain from this trade, so why would anyone risk it? Yes, no one would risk war, maybe, but they will definitely risk proxy wars. Because let's face it - geo-politics is still played on outdated notions if zero sum games. I personally think zero sum thinking is not productive, but I am not the one taking these decisions.

If you study the Chinese government's approach to certain countries, you will also see the same. Instead of simply focusing on trade and investment which will benefit all, the Chinese government makes an issue out of meaningless territorial disputes which do not really affect it in the least. It also tries to check the growth of other countries because it sees their increasing influence as a loss for itself.

So trust the other countries to think and behave in the same manner, whether or not it makes sense.

Saying Syria is a proxy war for China is like saying burning down your own house is proxy burning my house.

China isn't risking anything, as of this writing, China's trade with the US and India has gone up, not sure about the other ones, but both Japan and Korea has a trade surplus with China, and going by American logic, who's got the upper hand there.

China's actions is one of necessity, you don't see it as that, but India does it too, and it too is necessary. It's just that like many things, China gets a far bigger spot light than India.

Eventually this will play itself out. Visit Chinese defense, soon China will eclipse all of Asia's navy combined. Then it will be a no contest and the conflict will end. China will make a few concessions here and there. China will eventually negotiate, but it must be on our terms for it to mean anything.

This isn't a superiority complex thing, it's practical, China would eventually need to be the head of a coalition to advance our interests, and without a willing coalition, things would get difficult fast.

 

[xunzi]

LOL Any time when I heard of these "alliance" proposal that include the USA, I just think it is nothing more than a bunch of puppets seeking a sugar daddy.

There is no such things as equal alliance when the US is involved. Everyone knows they will call the shot and this is why India elite is resistant to the idea of any alliance with the US due to the fact they aspire to be a power pole but lack real hard power to make it happens. Realpolitik always speak louder than idealist which many of these naive Indian is falling into. It's rare to find a deep mind Indian that understand how geopolitics work in the real world. It's unfortunate.

 

[Jacob Martin]

First of all, Indian members were all excited by Vietnam visits and "potential sales" of Indian weapons. That is no where near the level of Pakistan China relationship. Either in its depth or in the other's strength. Why didn't India think of China when you did that? Why did America ignore China when it comes to Japan, we are by far the most important trade partner for the US, and Japan isn't even number 2 or 3, and yet here we are.

The fact of the matter is This type of relationship with Pakistan is worth so much more, and very rare in today's world. Think of my first post, when I said 20 years, that's actually being generous, because it's not really measured in years.

India has no such partner as Pakistan, and likely won't find one. At this point, Pakistan is far more important to China than India, and it's not even close.

Yes, India does not have an "all-weather" friend like Pakistan. But I think that the friend in question is Pakistan itself explains a lot, as to how difficult China finds the task of making friends. Now don't tell me that China wouldn't have ideally wanted India, Russia or South Korea to be the closest allies. The same would apply to India, US or any other country. You want the strong as allies, not the ones you are stuck with.

Saying Syria is a proxy war for China is like saying burning down your own house is proxy burning my house.

I was giving the example of a proxy war in general, not for China.

China isn't risking anything, as of this writing, China's trade with the US and India has gone up, not sure about the other ones, but both Japan and Korea has a trade surplus with China, and going by American logic, who's got the upper hand there.

This is where I think we totally differ in our views. You think that as a rising power, China can "afford" so many issues with neighbors, or rather that they are even inevitable. I think you miss a very simple reality.

There is a simple rule between two adversaries - be who has more to loose must carefully weight their options. As far as global geo-politics is concerned, India is nowhere in the same league as China. So as far as that is concerned, it is all for China to loose. India hasn't even gotten there yet. By having so many issues with India, from Arunachal to using vetoes and technical holds, China is merely cultivating a detractor it could do without.

The same equation holds true for India and Pakistan. Between the two, India has more immediate higher aspirations in the global scenario, and Pakistan has little to lose in this regard, no matter what Pakistani members here may claim. So India gains nothing by its enmity with Pakistan, it will continue to drag it down as we need to divert resources that could have been much better utilized elsewhere.

Eventually this will play itself out. Visit Chinese defense, soon China will eclipse all of Asia's navy combined. Then it will be a no contest and the conflict will end. China will make a few concessions here and there. China will eventually negotiate, but it must be on our terms for it to mean anything.

I am afraid you are taking a rather simplistic view in which highly unpredictable things seem a matter of due course. China today is roughly in the same position as US in the first decade of the 20th century, strong but untested. But there is a vital difference. Every rising power will have its detractors and competitors. Germany was competing with the US in industrial might, whereas Japan saw it as a rival in the Pacific. But beyond that, the US did not have any obvious enemies. And even with those two, it had to rely be on a far superior coalition to beat them in the end. China has not a single such strong friend, and although it does trade and business with all countries, they are all intent on curtailing its rise as well.

The scenario you envisage where China's military might will go uncontested, IMO, is highly contingent. It will be unchallenged if China is pacifist. However, if it is not, and decides to go the way of Germany and Japan, then it will meet a similar fate.

PS. While studying history, I always found the German and Japanese hubris of going to war with the entire world as insane. It seemed inexplicable as to how or why two countries who were merely rising powers could think they can defeat the combined might of the West as well as Soviet Union. I can now see how that kind of hubris arises.

 

[Genesis]

Yes, India does not have an "all-weather" friend like Pakistan. But I think that the friend in question is Pakistan itself explains a lot, as to how difficult China finds the task of making friends. Now don't tell me that China wouldn't have ideally wanted India, Russia or South Korea to be the closest allies. The same would apply to India, US or any other country. You want the strong as allies, not the ones you are stuck with.

Sure we would, but Pakistan isn't as weak as you say, though I understand why we differ here and that's fine. As India continue to develop, it will become apparent, just how difficult it is to navigate this US centered world.

This is where I think we totally differ in our views. You think that as a rising power, China can "afford" so many issues with neighbors, or rather that they are even inevitable. I think you miss a very simple reality.

There is a simple rule between two adversaries - be who has more to loose must carefully weight their options. As far as global geo-politics is concerned, India is nowhere in the same league as China. So as far as that is concerned, it is all for China to loose. India hasn't even gotten there yet. By having so many issues with India, from Arunachal to using vetoes and technical holds, China is merely cultivating a detractor it could do without.

The same equation holds true for India and Pakistan. Between the two, India has more immediate higher aspirations in the global scenario, and Pakistan has little to lose in this regard, no matter what Pakistani members here may claim. So India gains nothing by its enmity with Pakistan, it will continue to drag it down as we need to divert resources that could have been much better utilized elsewhere.

Here's the thing, we are not coming into this world from scratch. We get dealt the hand we get dealt. Ideally, we won't have that many rivals, but those rivals aren't our rivals because there we "bully," they exist because the US exist.

To be honest, India didn't really do so much to Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Nepal. At least not enough for them to want to court a foreign power. Yet China is right there in the thick of things. The simple reason we exist is causing problems in South Asia. We can effectively balance you out of South Asia. That means we can get them deals they otherwise won't get. Nothing personal, just business.

Same thing is true in East Asia, the US is there and is pretty god like. If it's not the South China Sea, it would be something else. Why did the Soviet nations never try to go American during the height of the Soviet Empire.

So, while logic dictates disputes

I am afraid you are taking a rather simplistic view in which highly unpredictable things seem a matter of due course. China today is roughly in the same position as US in the first decade of the 20th century, strong but untested. But there is a vital difference. Every rising power will have its detractors and competitors. Germany was competing with the US in industrial might, whereas Japan saw it as a rival in the Pacific. But beyond that, the US did not have any obvious enemies. And even with those two, it had to rely be on a far superior coalition to beat them in the end. China has not a single such strong friend, and although it does trade and business with all countries, they are all intent on curtailing its rise as well.

The scenario you envisage where China's military might will go uncontested, IMO, is highly contingent. It will be unchallenged if China is pacifist. However, if it is not, and decides to go the way of Germany and Japan, then it will meet a similar fate.

PS. While studying history, I always found the German and Japanese hubris of going to war with the entire world as insane. It seemed inexplicable as to how or why two countries who were merely rising powers could think they can defeat the combined might of the West as well as Soviet Union. I can now see how that kind of hubris arises.

Just as a side note, people discount Hitler and German commanders too much when it comes to the Soviets. The Soviets were just defeated in Finland. The Soviets had the great purge. We must remember Germany did defeat Russia in WW1. Germany decimated France whom it never defeated in WW1. All these factors contributed to the conclusion, it is highly likely Germany would likely win.

Now back on topic, you seem to think there will be a coalition. There won't. First, there is a line China won't cross, and it is a line that can be easily crossed. China can sink what the Philippines calls a navy in the time it takes to make chicken soup, and have time left over to take out Vietnam's navy. Yet, we have not fired one shot.

We may push boundaries, but we are not stupid. We know when to push and when to hold back.

Second, none of the countries you mentioned actually wants a war. If Japan really wanted war, they would increase their budget drastically. While they are technologically advanced, they lack key systems that would prevent them being a military power. All they did was pass a new bill that allows overseas deployment, which I might add to this day has amounted to nothing.

Australia is even worse, at least Japan is adding new weapons every now and then. Australia is waiting until hell freezes over until their subs, and their light "carrier" is ready. Mean while they been going same old same old.

South Korea? Their president attended China's military parade, even North Korea wasn't there. Why do people always forget that.

As someone interested in geopolitics, one must look at the results rather than the rhetoric. You can hide your intentions, but you can never hide the result. The age of democracy has really forced politicians to be liars as they must convey a popular message, even if it is the wrong message.

Certainly, my reasoning was simplistic, and without more time and effort, it would have to remain that. However, when it comes down to it, the world isn't as complicated as all that, on paper anyways.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

Indian, they thought India is very powerful ... but the national data looks not beautiful, why Indian always focus on China why not compare with S.Korea or Japan ?

Hence, people are talking about linking up with other countries.

"India has"
"Indians Are"
"Due to arming Pakistan"

Stopped reading. Another Article written solely for Amusement of Indian masses.

No it is not. I didn't even quote one Indian member. Look at all other players, be it Australian, American etc.

No, nothing has changed. Something may have changed in people's arguments, but nothing really has changed.

You have to consider what you are saying. You are saying these 4 countries needs to join together to take on the second most powerful nation in the world. Outside of the US, the other three combined has about the same GDP as half of China.

You are asking them to damage their economies, or worse, lose their lives to help against China that really only serve the US.

I have no question that the US will do something, but other than the US, there needs to be a lot more than just a perceived threat to act. China is not Iraq. Even on the losing end, China can cause a level of damage none of these guys can possibly handle.


In terms of India, China and India will be at least rivals either way, so why not get started now when India has no real way of firing back. By the time India may have something, China would finished with east Asia and India will be in the exact same spot as we were 20 years ago to now.

Your arguments are not totally incorrect.

1. Something has indeed changed. Look at Australia. There was frequent comments about maintaining neutrality vis-a-vis China and US. But now all is over. A huge fraction of Australia's defense and security establishment is rooting for all kinds of defense partnerships now.
2. Smaller, less powerful countries have routinely joined together to take on a perceived hegemon. Also, the ASEAN and Indian economies are growing much faster than China, and the difference would decrease substantially in the coming years.
3. I'm not asking anything. These countries are asking it themselves. Japanese are, Australians are, Vietnamese are, Indians are, Americans are.
4. The ability to harm other country doesn't prevent other country to join an alliance. In fact it may be the thing to urge them to join an alliance. If you look at it, Soviet Union had tremendous ability to harm very small countries like Denmark, Norway, etc. But these countries eventually did end up forming the NATO, which was extremely successful in containing USSR.
5. Chinese influence on other countries economies is vastly overplayed. For a country like Australia, trade with China constitutes smaller than 3% of its economy.
6. No, India and Chinese rivalry isn't inevitable. But your actions of surrounding India will make that inevitable.

Actually it is about China's power. If China was Iraq, then yea, America has allies. However, China is China. Who's going to go in on China if all they have to gain is nothing, and has the potential to lose half their cities and armies for essentially America's goal of maintaining primacy.

You mention all-weather friends, I believe at this point, that is only Pakistan. We have a defense treaty with NK, but as I mentioned, a piece of paper means far less than the actual situation. China supporting the North is not only in bad taste, but could potentially turn it into something we don't want to get into right now.

As to Russia, they won't move one finger, and Sudan has nothing even if they wanted to do something. Toyotas can't run on water unfortunately.

Let's me ask you this, if India, tomorrow, condemns Assad's chemical attack and decides to go to war, loses maybe 200 men, would you be ok? Someone might question the wisdom of such a move, but the overall impact is not that bad. However, if India goes in on China and won, but gains no territory or anything(Americans maybe a lot of things but giving territories after wars is not one of them) and loses 100,000 men, would you still be cool with it?

I am not questioning America's alliances, or its power, but I doubt the desire of other nations to get destroyed, all for the sake of, btw, destroying their biggest trade partner.

This is true for Japan, Korea, America, Australia, and India for that matter.

Again, let me ask you this:

Why did countries like Denmark, Norway, Turkey, Greece join the NATO, when they had a lot to potentially lose in a conflict with USSR?

Remember, during the early 50s when NATO was formed, USSR was true peer to US. USSR was in fact stronger militarily than Europe combined, which isn't the case with China today.

The fact remains that when countries feel potentially threatened, and they may not deal with their adversary one to one, they form alliances.

typical Indian POV... I guess some people just never learn.

How is it an Indian POV?

There are Australians, Japanese, Americans already recommending forming the Quad, and other military alliances.

The list, I take it from Global firepower is utter baloney. The Germans, Japanese and Brazilians haven't fought a war in the modern era. Most of their populations don't even want to fight for their country.

China hasn't fought a war since 1979. Meanwhile Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Britain have. Does that mean others are more powerful than China?

The thing about popular surveys is that they change very rapidly. Very Very rapidly.

British Public was dead against any war or involvement with Europe until 1935. However, once Hitler invaded Austria, or unified it depending on how you look at it, they turned. In fact, they were willing to go to some long and tough times once Hitler invaded France.

Similarly, American Public was dead against being involved in WW2. (Despite that the politicians still gave aid to European Partners, China, and imposed a blockade against Japan)

But after Pearl Harbour, they changed suddenly.


Also, I will say that Germany and Japan, even if they don't go to war, they are HUGE economic, scientific and technological powerhouses. They can support America even just by their economic and scientific prowess, even if they were not to go to war.

 

[Stuttgart001]

Yes, India does not have an "all-weather" friend like Pakistan. But I think that the friend in question is Pakistan itself explains a lot, as to how difficult China finds the task of making friends. Now don't tell me that China wouldn't have ideally wanted India, Russia or South Korea to be the closest allies. The same would apply to India, US or any other country. You want the strong as allies, not the ones you are stuck with.

China definitely do not want to have any idea of being an ally to india. Let me tell why?
First of all, there are thousands of slave masters or their descendants under indian shelter dreaming of separating Tibet from China.
When the Tibet issue exists ,there is no even 1% of possibility of substantial political trust between both sides.

Second, India is too self-esteem. India's ambition always goes way way ahead of its strength.
In 1950s, when india just got independence from Britain as a poor and developing with such a mass of population to feed, Nehru was so optimistic to come up with the opinion that Indian is the leader of the third world.
Besides, as other post has said China prefer to spend more resource on inner affairs , that's right , Chinese culture values the qualities of humbleness and modest , but indian as a nation , my personal opinion, is too passionate to face reality.
Having an ally as India is too risky to be dragged into some meaningless and unpredictable conflicts.

Being an ally means a responsibility to other nation, meanwhile, a menace to the ally's adversaries.
China is not in a position under urgent outer threat , for now, the national strategic direction is developing economy and improving people life.
China wish to do business with as many states as possible.
Being a member of international organization related to trade or culture or is interesting to China.
Being an ally of a strong country which will cause other's hatred is definitely a deviation to China's strategy.

I was giving the example of a proxy war in general, not for China.



This is where I think we totally differ in our views. You think that as a rising power, China can "afford" so many issues with neighbors, or rather that they are even inevitable. I think you miss a very simple reality.

There is a simple rule between two adversaries - be who has more to loose must carefully weight their options. As far as global geo-politics is concerned, India is nowhere in the same league as China. So as far as that is concerned, it is all for China to loose. India hasn't even gotten there yet. By having so many issues with India, from Arunachal to using vetoes and technical holds, China is merely cultivating a detractor it could do without.

The same equation holds true for India and Pakistan. Between the two, India has more immediate higher aspirations in the global scenario, and Pakistan has little to lose in this regard, no matter what Pakistani members here may claim. So India gains nothing by its enmity with Pakistan, it will continue to drag it down as we need to divert resources that could have been much better utilized elsewhere.



I am afraid you are taking a rather simplistic view in which highly unpredictable things seem a matter of due course. China today is roughly in the same position as US in the first decade of the 20th century, strong but untested. But there is a vital difference. Every rising power will have its detractors and competitors. Germany was competing with the US in industrial might, whereas Japan saw it as a rival in the Pacific. But beyond that, the US did not have any obvious enemies. And even with those two, it had to rely be on a far superior coalition to beat them in the end. China has not a single such strong friend, and although it does trade and business with all countries, they are all intent on curtailing its rise as well.

The scenario you envisage where China's military might will go uncontested, IMO, is highly contingent. It will be unchallenged if China is pacifist. However, if it is not, and decides to go the way of Germany and Japan, then it will meet a similar fate.

PS. While studying history, I always found the German and Japanese hubris of going to war with the entire world as insane. It seemed inexplicable as to how or why two countries who were merely rising powers could think they can defeat the combined might of the West as well as Soviet Union. I can now see how that kind of hubris arises.

Dude, World has changed totally. People should learn from history ,not swallow it.
In the past, war was started by overestimating yourself and underestimating your enemy.
Since the nukes come out , there are overwhelming defeat to a nuclear power.
There is an American saying, if you can not defeat your enemy, then join it.

Suppose that Britain, Germany , France all had nukes in 1914 , I bet 100% there would have a meeting discussing how to divide up Balkan rather than declare war on each other
The cold war is over, the globalization in all fields is the trend.
Do business with anybody, make yourself rich.
The more rich the country is , the more cash it could used to develop technology and education.
The more advanced the technology is, the stronger the defense will be.
It is a positive chain reaction and is what China did in last 40 years.

There is a new revolution of technology right out.
US , China, Japan, Germany have been pouring tons of cash into the fields of AI, quantum combination/computation, Big data, cloud cal , thermal nuclear power .etc.
Everyone want to run ahead of others in the race.
Any of those aspect above cost huge amount of resource.
In 10 to 20 years, these technologies will be practical and change the world.
These state of art weapon you have or pursue will be totally obsolete.

China missed the first and second industrial revolutions and caught the tail of informational revolution. But China will lead the fourth revolution from start.

Dude, I know you Indian have your national proud ,but reality is reality.

If India still is wasting resource to prove you are the boss of Indian ocean and the strongest of South Asian,India are missing its opportunity of the latest revolution which means be a economical colony.

 

[dy1022]

so much wishful thinking from inferiority complex Indians.

India can do this and that, when China doing something = China containing itself.

Weak and poor India's great power dream cashed since 1962,today in 2017 more than half of them still do open defecation in public, India is more hunger than Sub-Saharan Africa.

India is so desperate to become another China, but it can't , Indian talking about US-Japan Allies,but in fact it's a Master-Slaver "allies"while more than 50,000 US troops stationed in Japan since 1945.

Everyone in this world is looking for doing business with China, Everyone is looking for Chinese investment, for example, China as the largest trading and Hi-Tec exporting nation in this world, more than 70 nations joined AIIB which leads by China,"one belt one road",etc...

indian is talking about China's fate as Japan and Germany, but simply this delusions indian doesn't have a clue about industry power and some basic facts of China.

1.China has nearly 10,000,000 KM2 landmass with its' top ranking Oil；Gas；Rare earth;mineral;Gold reserves.

2.China as the largest industry nation with billion+ PP in this world, Never ever seem it before in Human History.
at the end of 2016, China's industry output already surpassed USA,Japan,Germany combined! India is nowhere and nobody!

3.China is totally undefeatable see link - https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chinas-294-megatons-of-thermonuclear-deterrence.107079/
China's 294 megatons of thermonuclear deterrence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Rocket_Force
People's Liberation Army Rocket Force

4.China's military production capability in war time, Currently, China produces more than 130+ J10,J11,J15,J16,Y20,J20 aircrafts per 1 year.

For navy,2 Aircraft carriers (65,000-80,000T);8 052D DDG(7,500T), 4 055 Cruiser(12,000T), 1 SSBN+2 SSN, 4 AIP subs at the same time.

China has more than 30 shipyards that could produce 100,000T super aircraft carrier. China's military budget is less than 2% of China's GDP, Anyone has a common sense could imagine what China's military production capability in war time would be!!!

5.China's economy keep growing fast,nearly 7% per year, China has one of the highest saving rate in this world, China has more than 3T Foreign Exchange Reserve,1.5 times of India's GDP, China is one of world's top ranking of Creditor nation, time is on China's side but not debtor nations like US,India.


J20

Y20

one Nuclear Submarine Factory in China

4 055 12,000T Cruiser under production

CV-17 will hit the water before the end of this month!

 

[Jacob Martin]

China definitely do not want to have any idea of being an ally to india. Let me tell why?
First of all, there are thousands of slave masters or their descendants under indian shelter dreaming of separating Tibet from China.
When the Tibet issue exists ,there is no even 1% of possibility of substantial political trust between both sides.

Second, India is too self-esteem. India's ambition always goes way way ahead of its strength.
In 1950s, when india just got independence from Britain as a poor and developing with such a mass of population to feed, Nehru was so optimistic to come up with the opinion that Indian is the leader of the third world.
Besides, as other post has said China prefer to spend more resource on inner affairs , that's right , Chinese culture values the qualities of humbleness and modest , but indian as a nation , my personal opinion, is too passionate to face reality.
Having an ally as India is too risky to be dragged into some meaningless and unpredictable conflicts.

Being an ally means a responsibility to other nation, meanwhile, a menace to the ally's adversaries.
China is not in a position under urgent outer threat , for now, the national strategic direction is developing economy and improving people life.
China wish to do business with as many states as possible.
Being a member of international organization related to trade or culture or is interesting to China.
Being an ally of a strong country which will cause other's hatred is definitely a deviation to China's strategy.


Dude, World has changed totally. People should learn from history ,not swallow it.
In the past, war was started by overestimating yourself and underestimating your enemy.
Since the nukes come out , there are overwhelming defeat to a nuclear power.
There is an American saying, if you can not defeat your enemy, then join it.

Suppose that Britain, Germany , France all had nukes in 1914 , I bet 100% there would have a meeting discussing how to divide up Balkan rather than declare war on each other
The cold war is over, the globalization in all fields is the trend.
Do business with anybody, make yourself rich.
The more rich the country is , the more cash it could used to develop technology and education.
The more advanced the technology is, the stronger the defense will be.
It is a positive chain reaction and is what China did in last 40 years.

There is a new revolution of technology right out.
US , China, Japan, Germany have been pouring tons of cash into the fields of AI, quantum combination/computation, Big data, cloud cal , thermal nuclear power .etc.
Everyone want to run ahead of others in the race.
Any of those aspect above cost huge amount of resource.
In 10 to 20 years, these technologies will be practical and change the world.
These state of art weapon you have or pursue will be totally obsolete.

China missed the first and second industrial revolutions and caught the tail of informational revolution. But China will lead the fourth revolution from start.

Dude, I know you Indian have your national proud ,but reality is reality.

If India still is wasting resource to prove you are the boss of Indian ocean and the strongest of South Asian,India are missing its opportunity of the latest revolution which means be a economical colony.

Your post is a mish-mash of rhetoric, projection and baiting. The topic here is not India, rather it is China and its abilities to have allies. Your consistent attempts to bait and insult India are irrelevant to the topic. You are simply dragging the discussion where you want it to go rather than what the thread topic is.

And as far as your certificate regarding what india is - I am sure you are least aware of the arrogance and condescension dripping through your post. For someone who starts off by saying that India is a delusional state with delusions of grandeur, you sure have plenty of it yourself.

It would be nice if you, for a change, temper down the insulting tone in which you talk as if you represent China. You do not. All you represent are your own views. And that means that unlike what you think, your arrogance and self assertion has no backing from the Chinese state. In other words, forget about India and how delusional it is, and focus on your own delusion.

 

[Jacob Martin]

Sure we would, but Pakistan isn't as weak as you say, though I understand why we differ here and that's fine. As India continue to develop, it will become apparent, just how difficult it is to navigate this US centered world.





Here's the thing, we are not coming into this world from scratch. We get dealt the hand we get dealt. Ideally, we won't have that many rivals, but those rivals aren't our rivals because there we "bully," they exist because the US exist.

To be honest, India didn't really do so much to Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Nepal. At least not enough for them to want to court a foreign power. Yet China is right there in the thick of things. The simple reason we exist is causing problems in South Asia. We can effectively balance you out of South Asia. That means we can get them deals they otherwise won't get. Nothing personal, just business.

Same thing is true in East Asia, the US is there and is pretty god like. If it's not the South China Sea, it would be something else. Why did the Soviet nations never try to go American during the height of the Soviet Empire.

So, while logic dictates disputes



Just as a side note, people discount Hitler and German commanders too much when it comes to the Soviets. The Soviets were just defeated in Finland. The Soviets had the great purge. We must remember Germany did defeat Russia in WW1. Germany decimated France whom it never defeated in WW1. All these factors contributed to the conclusion, it is highly likely Germany would likely win.

Now back on topic, you seem to think there will be a coalition. There won't. First, there is a line China won't cross, and it is a line that can be easily crossed. China can sink what the Philippines calls a navy in the time it takes to make chicken soup, and have time left over to take out Vietnam's navy. Yet, we have not fired one shot.

We may push boundaries, but we are not stupid. We know when to push and when to hold back.

Second, none of the countries you mentioned actually wants a war. If Japan really wanted war, they would increase their budget drastically. While they are technologically advanced, they lack key systems that would prevent them being a military power. All they did was pass a new bill that allows overseas deployment, which I might add to this day has amounted to nothing.

Australia is even worse, at least Japan is adding new weapons every now and then. Australia is waiting until hell freezes over until their subs, and their light "carrier" is ready. Mean while they been going same old same old.

South Korea? Their president attended China's military parade, even North Korea wasn't there. Why do people always forget that.

As someone interested in geopolitics, one must look at the results rather than the rhetoric. You can hide your intentions, but you can never hide the result. The age of democracy has really forced politicians to be liars as they must convey a popular message, even if it is the wrong message.

Certainly, my reasoning was simplistic, and without more time and effort, it would have to remain that. However, when it comes down to it, the world isn't as complicated as all that, on paper anyways.

Firstly, I did agree with you that none of these countries want war with China. That's not how the world works anymore, unless it is a country which can be simply rolled over.

It will boil down to whether the US-led allies can find an effective solution to the puzzle - how to contain China without hurting their own economy too much. The globalized nature of the world economy today ensures that pain in one part is transferred to the others. And that is a limiting factor for everyone.

If I understand you correctly, your view is that since China will not force the issue on any dispute unilaterally, there will be no coalition against it. That is quite obvious. I also agreed with that point in my previous post. But there are two likely scenarios that you may consider - that China itself claims that its territorial disputes are non-negotiable, and that even if China itself does not make a move, the US may orchestrate one for it.

Look at North Korea for instance. While it is true that members in PDF do not necessarily represent the views of the Chinese government, yet there is chaos and confusion as far as the response to the current situation is concerned. Everything from war with US to cooperation in getting rid of Kim seems to be on the table. The point is, things can get out of hand pretty fast, and who can China rely on then?

Yes, obviously if any side plays all their cards right then a favourable outcome is possible. But in order for China to be able to surmount all challenges - trade wars, South China Sea, Taiwan, North Korea, border disputes with India, competition for influence in Africa and South Asia, at a place and time of its own choosing. I think that is an optimistic view, although not impossible.

As for India and influence in South Asia is concerned, I have no doubts that India's geo-political activities should be extremely restricted. India is a poor country with hungry bellies to feed, children to be educated and sick to be taken care of. Any foreign engagement should be only for the purpose of securing favourable trade deals and investment, and no point over-extending oneself unnecessarily chasing illusory concepts of prestige.

In that regard, China is free to increase its influence in South Asia if it so wishes. India should not enter any race to counter Chinese influence at all. Up until the turn of this century, the British and Portuguese were present on the Chinese Mainland and even today, The US maintains a military presence right next door. If China can live with that, so can India.

Of course, that means India ends up having a special interest in developments in South China Sea, etc. Even though they have little to do with it directly. Because no matter how it is portrayed, simultaneously trying to counter Japan, US, Vietnam, Philippines, is a severe over-extension. And an over-extended China suits India fine.

Again, you are right that it probably won't lead to war. Countries would rather do business. But just as China tries to balance its foreign trade and investment with long term strategic considerations, so do they.

About Germany, I have a different view. They were undoubtedly good, but eventually their weakness in numbers was bound to beat them. They went up against a country that could out-produce them (US), a country that had greater geographic presence (Britain), and a country that was willing to sacrifice many more lives (Soviet Union). Taken together, I don't see any scenario in which they could have prevailed.

 

[Suika]

ROK views of China have steadily been decreasing because China has been applying its economic might against the ROK resulting in a much higher level of favorability towards the US than China. And Park herself has been disgraced and impeached. The meaning behind ROK's president Park visiting the PLA 2015 military parade has vanished.

http://en.asaninst.org/contents/cha...c-opinion-toward-the-united-states-and-china/



China has been taking advantage of the peaceful Japan that does not want to fight to intrude into Japanese territory. So far this year, Chinese Coast Guard ships have intruded into Japanese territorial water around the Senkaku islands 9 times.

---start---
Four vessles of the Chinese Coast Guard intruded into Japanese territorial waters at the Senkaku islands of Ishigaki City in Okinawa Prefecture and navigated for about 2 hours. It makes it the 9th time this year with the last intrusion by Chinese public ships on March 28th.

According to the 11th Regional Coast Guard Headquarters (Naha City) coast guard vessels "2101", "2106", "2305", and "2306" intruded into territorial waters between around 10:15AM and around 10:35AM north-northwest of Uotsurishima island. Between around 11:45 and around 12:10, they exited from west-southwest of the same island. (2017/04/10-14:59)

沖縄県石垣市の尖閣諸島沖で１０日、中国海警局の「海警」４隻が日本の領海に侵入し、約２時間航行した。中国公船の領海侵入は３月２８日以来で、今年９回目。

　第１１管区海上保安本部（那覇市）によると、海警「２１０１」「２１０６」「２３０５」「２３０６」が午前１０時１５～３５分ごろ、魚釣島の北北西で領海に侵入。同１１時４５分～午後０時１０分ごろ、同島西南西で領海を出た。（2017/04/10-14:59）
http://www.jiji.com/jc/article?k=2017041000541&g=soc
---end---

Chinese Coast Guard ships intruded at least 35 times in the year 2016. Three Chinese Coast Guard patrol boats intruded into Senkaku waters on December 11th and navigated within the territorial waters for about 1 hour and 40 minutes. This makes it the 35th intrusion this year, the last one being on December 5th.
沖縄県石垣市の尖閣諸島沖で１１日、中国海警局の「海警」３隻が日本の領海に侵入し、約１時間４０分航行した。中国公船の領海侵入は５日以来で、今年３５回目。
第１１管区海上保安本部（那覇市）によると、海警「２３０２」「２３０５」「２３０８」が午前１０時１５～２５分ごろ、魚釣島の北北西で領海に侵入。同１１時５０分～正午ごろ、魚釣島の西南西で領海を出た。
http://www.jiji.com/sp/article?k=2016121100059&g=soc

And the number of times that the Japanese Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) had to scramble fighter jets to meet with Chinese aircraft has risen sharply in the last few years. Fiscal year starts on April 1st and ends on last day of March.

Fiscal Year 2012 (Heisei 24): 306 times
Fiscal Year 2013 (Heisei 25): 415 times
Fiscal Year 2014 (Heisei 26): 464 times
Fiscal Year 2015 (Heisei 27): 571 times
Fiscal Year 2016 (Heisei 28): 644 times (at 3 quarters, not full year)

The total number of times the JASDF had to scramble jets has reached the same level of intensity as the height of the Cold War.
http://www.mod.go.jp/js/Press/press2017/press_pdf/p20170120_02.pdf

The total number of scrambles have reached 1,000 in February, setting a record.
---start---
Japanese Defense Ministry sources say Air Self-Defense Force jets have been scrambled a record number of times over the past 10 months.
Ministry officials say the number of scrambles topped 1,000 from last April through January, and the number is still rising. That's higher than the Cold War record of 944 in 1984. This fiscal year's figure has already exceeded that with 2 months remaining.

Scrambles against Chinese jets stood out, accounting for 73 percent of all cases from April to December. Scrambles against Russian jets came in a distant second, with 26 percent of the total.

The number of Chinese jets that have threatened Japanese skies at one time has also increased. More than 10 ASDF jets had to be scrambled in one incident.
---end---
http://newsonjapan.com/html/newsdesk/article/119054.php

The JASDF has doubled the number of jets to scramble per instance from 2 jets to 4 jets now in order to better respond developments that may occur at each instance.
---start---
TOKYO (Kyodo) -- Japan's Defense Ministry has doubled the number of fighter jets scrambled in each response to foreign airplanes approaching its airspace on the back of China's intensifying military activities around the disputed Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, government sources said Saturday.

Japan's Air Self-Defense Force began scrambling four fighter jets since last year in each case of potential airspace violation by foreign aircraft, they said.

The ASDF previously sent two jets in each scramble since it began such missions in 1958.

The number of scrambles by Japan and China has been surging in areas near the Japan-controlled, China-claimed Senkaku Islands in Okinawa Prefecture where the two countries' air defense identification zones overlap.

The two countries have yet to establish a communication mechanism to avoid any accidental aerial or maritime clash.

Between April last year and January, the number of scrambles Japan engaged in already eclipsed the annual record of 944 in fiscal 1984 when Soviet airplanes were active in the Cold War period.

According to the sources, an increasing number of Chinese aircraft have been flying past the northern latitude of 27 degrees, which Japan sees as a defense line to keep Chinese planes out of the area between the latitude 25 and 26 degrees north where the Senkakus are located.

Of the four F-15 jets scrambled each time, two in the rear will be on alert to deal with approaches of additional aircraft.

The ASDF has also extended the duration of a mission called combat air patrol and begun sending more E-2C early warning aircraft and a surveillance plane known as airborne early warning and control system, or AWACS, during a scramble.

In January last year, the Defense Ministry doubled the number of F-15s stationed at its base in Naha, Okinawa, to about 40, but more frequent scrambles and the increased number of fighter jets flown in each mission led to a shortage of jets on standby.

To more flexibly operate aircraft, the air defense command in Tokyo has started controlling fighter jets across different regions, reviewing such rules as the minimum number of aircraft needed for standby at each composite air division.
---end---
http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20170226/p2g/00m/0dm/011000c


Of course Japan doesn't want to overact. But China seems to read weak response as an open invitation to push even harder on Japan as well as other countries. And whenever Japan looks into increasing defense spending by a fraction of percentage point, China screams Japan is trying to militarize. So there is this double standard of being pushed and at the same time being accused of militarization.


The alliance system between Japan, the US, India, Australia, Vietnam, and the Philippines is slowly brewing and developing. Chinese patriot posters here seem to laugh at such an alliance prospect and underestimate. And they continue to push for Chinese military expansion. And for some reason they keep calling insulting the Indian posters.

Nippon Kaigi is an organization that is working towards the changing of the Japanese constitution. One of the key points is of course is the war-renouncing article 9. At one large event at Nippon Kaigi, representatives from India, Vietnam, and the US contributing to the event, all talking about the increasing security situation in the Asia-Pacific urging and supporting the changing of Japan's constitution and welcoming Japan's growing activities in security. Here are the speakers.
From India, strategic thinker Brahma Chellany.

From Vietnam, former diplomat and chief advisor to the Ministry of Foreign affairs Dinh Hoang Thang.

And from the US, a message from John McCain read in Japanese.

And when Abe recently visited the Philippines..

When JS Hyuga visited the Philippines in 2016

The naval exercise called Malabar that was created by the US and India has been going for a long time and sometimes an additional country joins the annual exercise. But a few years ago, Japan become a permanent member of the Malabar exercise. And this year, JS Izumo will be participating in the naval exercise.

No country wants a Cold War with China. All counties want to work and cooperate and live peacefully with China. But China has to cool down its fever and make compromise with its territorial demands, most particularly in the South China Sea and back off from the Senkaku islands.

Face it, there are so many countries that don't like China's expansionist fever. Too many Chinese are being foolishly lead into being over-confident. China really should stop pushing or it will find itself in a new Cold War. And after decades of competition, the result will be the same for China as it was for the Soviet Union. China will run out steam and energy and burn itself out like the Soviet Union did, and might lose Tibet and Xinjiang like how the Soviet Union lost the Ukraine and Kazakhstan.

I said last time that I was making my last posts but I still check in once in awhile and seeing what is said like in this thread is difficult to ignore. But well, I'm sure no Chinese poster here will take an interest in changing their support for CCP's China's foreign policy. So just injecting this as my last post. Y'all have been warned of the system of alliances that has been brewing.

 

[Shotgunner51]

China's economy keep growing fast,nearly 7% per year, China has one of the highest saving rate in this world, China has more than 3T Foreign Exchange Reserve,1.5 times of India's GDP, China is one of world's top ranking of Creditor nation, time is on China's side but not debtor nations like US,India.

Basically you're right, just some minor corrections. FX reserves is managed by PBoC, its nature is conservative, when it comes to global investment, it's the SWF (big four AUM totals $1.721T) that leads the pack of fellow SOE/POE. Parking excessive position in FX reserves is a mismanagement (unless it's a geopolitical deal), which usually exist in form of cash, sovereign bonds (US treasury bills, Japan JGB, Euro bonds), all very low return high liquidity assets. A level equivalent to several months of imports plus coverage on short-term loans would be adequate, my estimate is $1.3 trillion (note, China sustains trade surplus), excess position should go into outbound FDI, outbound portfolio investments or others (trade credit, outbound loans).

China Mainland alone is on par with Germany as world's #2 largest creditor economy, trails after Japan, but Greater China as a whole (Mainland #2 largest creditor economy, Hong Kong #4, Taiwan #5) is largest creditor nation. India is a debtor nation but not very deep, net liabilities only $364B, even as % of GDP it's not deep, while nations such as US, Mexico, Brazil, Eastern Europe and of course PIIGS are far deeper in indebtedness.

 

[Stuttgart001]

No country wants a Cold War with China. All counties want to work and cooperate and live peacefully with China. But China has to cool down its fever and make compromise with its territorial demands, most particularly in the South China Sea and back off from the Senkaku islands.

Apparently, you do not know what the cold war is.
It was capitalism camp vs communist camp, eastern camp vs western camp .
It was a war of ideology and a struggle for global hegemony.
Soviet as a inferior one in economic field ran off its strength in the whole world.
China would not pursue supremacy in any other place except its territory and air and sea.

Face it, there are so many countries that don't like China's expansionist fever. Too many Chinese are being foolishly lead into being over-confident. China really should stop pushing or it will find itself in a new Cold War. And after decades of competition, the result will be the same for China as it was for the Soviet Union. China will run out steam and energy and burn itself out like the Soviet Union did, and might lose Tibet and Xinjiang like how the Soviet Union lost the Ukraine and Kazakhstan.

You have no idea of the reason why Soviet collapsed.
US never defeated Soviet militarily, and Soviet collapsed because of economical depression that is related to its twisted industrial structure and meaningless pursuit of global hegemony.
On the one hand, US and NATO could not prevent Russia which is far way weaker than Soviet in all respects from taking back Crimea and eastern Ukraine .

On the other hand , this so called Asian NATO comprised of Japan ,Vietnam ,Philippin
and indian could not parrall the real NATO completely ,with all due respect.

Given to the performance of real NATO and US on the issue of Crimea and Ukraine, why are you so confident that US would risk a nuclear war that could destroy the whole world for some small countries thousands of kilometers away , I could not understand.

China is a nuclear power and a member of UNSC and a strong nation deserving respect.
As soon as China do not try to challenge the status of US, there is no large-scale confrontation between each other which have been so dependent mutually.

As to your expectation of a separation of China, I have to admit that you are a optimistic person living in your own dream.
Comparing Soviet's Union republics with China's provinces reveal your ignorance about politics.
Xinjiang and Tibet are provinces which mean that the Chinese central have total control to these areas.
Less than 50% of the population of Soviet is Russian , and 92% of Chinese population is ethnic Han Chinese on the contrary.
By and by, the most population ethnic is Han Chinese even in Xinjiang province.

How naive you believe that only a small group of terrorists could separate a nation with such a dominant ethnic people.

Look at the Republic of Chechnya. Did Chechnya such a political entity with its own regime and military force succeed in being independent from the weakest and disordered Russia ?
Did the US and mighty NATO help Chechnya ?

Be realistic and wake up.

You will never ever see China gets separated until the end of the world.

I said last time that I was making my last posts but I still check in once in awhile and seeing what is said like in this thread is difficult to ignore. But well, I'm sure no Chinese poster here will take an interest in changing their support for CCP's China's foreign policy. So just injecting this as my last post. Y'all have been warned of the system of alliances that has been brewing.

You'd better never post with lacking knowledge and common sense.
Chinese foreign policy is definitely right and fine.
Japan and Philippine should thank god for being a neighbor of China not Russia. Suppose Russia , guess what would happen.