Reasons Quadrilateral Coalition Cooperation is Impossible

[Martian2]

There are fundamental reasons that true cooperation between the US, Australia, India, and Japan is impossible.

The US wants permanent military bases in India and Australia to militarily pressure China.

Australia

Australia refuses to permit a US permanent military base, because China will be forced to neutralize those American bases in Australia. This means a permanent US base in Australia will give China a reasonable excuse to invade Australia.

China will say that it cannot defeat the US without conquering the permanent American bases in Australia. If China wins an Asian war against the US, it will have to conquer Australia. If China does win, I doubt China will leave Australia.

Hence, Australia is not dumb enough to ever permit an American permanent military base in Australia. The world is watching and China has no pretext to conquer Australia.

India

Similarly, India is in the exact same position as Australia. India knows China will want its South Tibet back in the future, but the territory is small in size and pretty irrelevant.

However, a permanent US base in India will invite a Chinese invasion of all of India.

South China Sea

Australia and India will not place their future existence in the hands of the United States over a South China Sea war.

The US is weighing the risks of fighting China militarily in the South China Sea. The cost is China retaking Outer Mongolia (which is the size of four Californias) and building up Outer Mongolia into a thermonuclear missile base.

Outer Mongolia

Let's say the US ignores the cost of Outer Mongolia and decides to fight China anyway in the South China Sea. China will be forced to invade Australia or India to defeat the permanent American military bases there. If China succeeds, it will not go home and will probably annex the territory on the grounds of national security.

Israeli Annexations

China's action will be similar to Israel's. The Arabs attacked Israel in the 1967 war. Israel won and annexed Syrian (Golan Heights), Egyptian (Sinai), and Jordanian (West Bank) territories. Australia and India do not want to be in the position of having their territories annexed.

Hence, the Quadrilateral coalition will never be a true alliance. The cost is staggering. Australia and India do not want to put their land at risk. A US war over the South China Sea will force China to solve the problem of Australia or India.

China can keep trying until it succeeds.

China has one hundred years to succeed in conquering Australia or India. China can launch invasion after invasion every decade after upgrading its military. Sooner or later, China will succeed.

Losing your country is the cost of joining a true Quadrilateral Coalition.

Australia and India are smart enough to never give China a good reason to invade their countries in the claim of Chinese self-defense. Thus, there will never be a real Quadrilateral Alliance against China. The price is losing your country.

ASEAN

There has never been an Asian version of NATO. The ten Southeast Asian nations have shown no interest in joining a formal alliance. The crux of the problem is whether you can defeat China's army. Many of the Southeast Asian nations are linked to China by land, such as Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar, Malaysia, and Singapore.

If China views an Asian NATO as a threat, it might decide to annex those territories to permanently remove the threat. Israel annexed its Arab neighbors' lands to safeguard its national security.

China has unlimited natural resources (with the world's second largest landmass). It has 1.4 billion people. It also has state-of-the-art weaponry in stealth fighters and advanced missiles.

What are the chances that you can defeat China in a land war? If the answer is "pretty slim" then the safest course of action is to not threaten China with a formal alliance. The cost is the loss of a significant portion of your land (which is what Israel took). It is possible that China may decide to annex entire countries and not just a portion.

Counter-Intuitive Survival Strategy

It sounds unusual, but the best survival strategy against China is to be as less threatening as possible. Normally, a military alliance protects the members of the alliance. Against a military superpower like China, a threatening formal military alliance is a terrible idea.

For example, the US can annex Canada or Mexico whenever it wants. The US does not do so, because Canada and Mexico are not viewed as threats.

Similarly, the countries near China's border are safe because China does not view them as threats. If those countries are dumb enough to sign a formal military alliance and threaten China then the Chinese government may decide to neutralize the military threat. The long-term solution is annexing the lands of threatening countries.

Hence, we have not seen an Asian version of NATO in the last 50 years. Seriously challenging China will provoke a strong Chinese military response and the consequences can be unpleasant.

Japan

The United States has never allowed the sale of land-attack Tomahawks to Japan. Japanese Kongo-class destroyers (which are downgraded Japanese versions of US Arleigh Burkes) are not armed with Tomahawks. The US will not allow Japan to fire a Tomahawk into Chinese territory. An attack on China may elicit a Chinese invasion of Japan. Thus, the US does not sell Tomahawk cruise missiles to Japan.

Attacking or "threatening to attack China" is the worst possible military strategy against a military superpower. China ignores its neighbors, because they are not threatening. Attacking China with a Tomahawk cruise missile or forming a military alliance is a different story. Hence, you see the US claims of selling DEFENSIVE weaponry to Asian countries.

South Korea

When the US installed THAAD missiles in South Korea, the US publicly claimed it was only for defensive purposes. The US is very careful to consistently declare that its arm sales to Asian countries are only for defensive purposes. The US is trying to avoid a scenario where China claims the arms sales are OFFENSIVE and the Chinese military decides to preemptively remove the offensive threat.

By claiming the US arms sales to Asia are DEFENSIVE only, the US prevents a Chinese invasion of the Asian arms-buying country.

 

[Martian2]

claims Quadrilateral coalition is "pointless" in another thread:


*Goes ahead and opens a thread about*

I only opened this thread, because one of my posts was deleted in the other thread.

I like to freely discuss a topic.

By the way, I said the US sells downgraded F-35s to Australia and this shows a lack of true cooperation between the Quadrilateral countries.

I have no idea why that uncontroversial post was deleted. Thus, I started this thread to allow free speech on the Quadrilateral Coalition.

The mod claims my post was off-topic and "derailed" Rising Sun's thread. To fix the problem, I created this thread where you can say whatever you want on the Quadrilateral coalition.

My understanding of "off-topic" is that you're not discussing the Quadrilateral coalition. My post involved Australia and the US over the F-35. My argument was a lack of trust among Quadrilateral coalition member countries. A mod deleted my argument, which I thought was heavy-handed.

Now, we have a new thread where anything that is related to the Quadrilateral coalition can be freely discussed without being censored.
----------

Here is my argument. The Quadrilateral coalition isn't going anywhere, because there is no trust or real cooperation among the member countries.

One good example is the US refusal to sell "normal" F-35s to Australia.

Instead, the US sells downgraded F-35s to Australia.

American F-35s have a marble-ball sized RCS (radar cross section).

Australian F-35s have a beach-ball sized RCS.

Australian F-35s are vastly inferior to American F-35s. Since the US is not willing to trust Australia and sell non-downgraded F-35s, my argument is that the Quadrilateral coalition is built on a foundation of sand.

Not so stealthy: the $15b fighters | The Sydney Morning Herald

"Like a beach ball on the radar … the former defence minister Robert Hill with a mock-up of the [F-35] fighter.
...
THE ability of Australia's new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to evade detection and enemy attack has been substantially downgraded by the US Defence Department.
...
A crucial aspect of the fighter's 'stealth capability' - radio frequency signatures - has been downgraded from 'very low observable' to 'low observable', according to the US Defence Department website.

Peter Goon, a former RAAF flight test engineer, said that would mean the difference between it appearing as a "marble and a beach ball" on enemy radar. The problem with the fighter, Dr Jensen says, is that it can be relatively easily detected from the rear."

 

[武成王]

The other three offer money and weapon to hire Indian to make trouble, this is how quadrilateral relationship supposed to work. The other three treat India like an idiot, however India treat the other three as a bunch of idiots.

 

[Martian2]

From a military perspective, the Quadrilateral coalition is a lightweight.

The Australian-purchased F-35s have an RCS of a beach ball.
Similarly, the 42 Japanese-purchased F-35s have an RCS of a beach ball.

In contrast, the Chinese J-20s (which are in service) have the RCS of a marble.

Two of the Quadrilateral coalition members, Australia and Japan, are flying vastly inferior "stealth" fighters.

China will have an easy time shooting down downgraded Australian and Japanese F-35s.

Thus, the Quadrilateral Coalition is very weak. It cannot field marble-size-RCS fighters. Only the US has that capability.

So...we're down to China vs. the US again. The Quadrilateral coalition cannot muster quality military power. Australian and Japanes F-35s will show up like beach balls on Chinese radar. Easily detectable and easily shot down by Chinese stealth fighters.

 

[Suika]

There are fundamental reasons that true cooperation between the US, Australia, India, and Japan is impossible.

The US wants permanent military bases in India and Australia to militarily pressure China.

Australia

Australia refuses to permit a US permanent military base, because China will be forced to neutralize those American bases in Australia. This means a permanent US base in Australia will give China a reasonable excuse to invade Australia.

China will say that it cannot defeat the US without conquering the permanent American bases in Australia. If China wins an Asian war against the US, it will have to conquer Australia. If China does win, I doubt China will leave Australia.

Hence, Australia is not dumb enough to ever permit an American permanent military base in Australia. The world is watching and China has no pretext to conquer Australia.

India

Similarly, India is in the exact same position as Australia. India knows China will want its South Tibet back in the future, but the territory is small in size and pretty irrelevant.

However, a permanent US base in India will invite a Chinese invasion of all of India.

South China Sea

Australia and India will not place their future existence in the hands of the United States over a South China Sea war.

The US is weighing the risks of fighting China militarily in the South China Sea. The cost is China retaking Outer Mongolia (which is the size of four Californias) and building up Outer Mongolia into a thermonuclear missile base.

Outer Mongolia

Let's say the US ignores the cost of Outer Mongolia and decides to fight China anyway in the South China Sea. China will be forced to invade Australia or India to defeat the permanent American military bases there. If China succeeds, it will not go home and will probably annex the territory on the grounds of national security.

Israeli Annexations

China's action will be similar to Israel's. The Arabs attacked Israel in the 1967 war. Israel won and annexed Syrian (Golan Heights), Egyptian (Sinai), and Jordanian (West Bank) territories. Australia and India do not want to be in the position of having their territories annexed.

Hence, the Quadrilateral coalition will never be a true alliance. The cost is staggering. Australia and India do not want to put their land at risk. A US war over the South China Sea will force China to solve the problem of Australia or India.

China can keep trying until it succeeds.

China has one hundred years to succeed in conquering Australia or India. China can launch invasion after invasion every decade after upgrading its military. Sooner or later, China will succeed.

Losing your country is the cost of joining a true Quadrilateral Coalition.

Australia and India are smart enough to never give China a good reason to invade their countries in the claim of Chinese self-defense. Thus, there will never be a real Quadrilateral Alliance against China. The price is losing your country.

ASEAN

There has never been an Asian version of NATO. The ten Southeast Asian nations have shown no interest in joining a formal alliance. The crux of the problem is whether you can defeat China's army. Many of the Southeast Asian nations are linked to China by land, such as Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar, Malaysia, and Singapore.

If China views an Asian NATO as a threat, it might decide to annex those territories to permanently remove the threat. Israel annexed its Arab neighbors' lands to safeguard its national security.

China has unlimited natural resources (with the world's second largest landmass). It has 1.4 billion people. It also has state-of-the-art weaponry in stealth fighters and advanced missiles.

What are the chances that you can defeat China in a land war? If the answer is "pretty slim" then the safest course of action is to not threaten China with a formal alliance. The cost is the loss of a significant portion of your land (which is what Israel took). It is possible that China may decide to annex entire countries and not just a portion.

Counter-Intuitive Survival Strategy

It sounds unusual, but the best survival strategy against China is to be as less threatening as possible. Normally, a military alliance protects the members of the alliance. Against a military superpower like China, a threatening formal military alliance is a terrible idea.

For example, the US can annex Canada or Mexico whenever it wants. The US does not do so, because Canada and Mexico are not viewed as threats.

Similarly, the countries near China's border are safe because China does not view them as threats. If those countries are dumb enough to sign a formal military alliance and threaten China then the Chinese government may decide to neutralize the military threat. The long-term solution is annexing the lands of threatening countries.

Hence, we have not seen an Asian version of NATO in the last 50 years. Seriously challenging China will provoke a strong Chinese military response and the consequences can be unpleasant.

Japan

The United States has never allowed the sale of land-attack Tomahawks to Japan. Japanese Kongo-class destroyers (which are downgraded Japanese versions of US Arleigh Burkes) are not armed with Tomahawks. The US will not allow Japan to fire a Tomahawk into Chinese territory. An attack on China may elicit a Chinese invasion of Japan. Thus, the US does not sell Tomahawk cruise missiles to Japan.

Attacking or "threatening to attack China" is the worst possible military strategy against a military superpower. China ignores its neighbors, because they are not threatening. Attacking China with a Tomahawk cruise missile or forming a military alliance is a different story. Hence, you see the US claims of selling DEFENSIVE weaponry to Asian countries.

South Korea

When the US installed THAAD missiles in South Korea, the US publicly claimed it was only for defensive purposes. The US is very careful to consistently declare that its arm sales to Asian countries are only for defensive purposes. The US is trying to avoid a scenario where China claims the arms sales are OFFENSIVE and the Chinese military decides to preemptively remove the offensive threat.

By claiming the US arms sales to Asia are DEFENSIVE only, the US prevents a Chinese invasion of the Asian arms-buying country.

I recall there being one post where an overenthusiastic poster for China made a post about a little conflict between an Indian fighter and a Chinese fighter. He posted an image full of Chinese text claiming that the Chinese fighter outmaneuvered the Indian fighter in 1v1 when in reality the Chinese text describe the event which included more than 1 Chinese fighter that responded to the lone Indian fighter. So in other words, if that poster understood Chinese (imagine the irony if he didn't), than he was making intentional lies for the sake of bashing.

Your post is almost as bad as that. Information is terribly false but you speak with such a sense of truth bringing. It really discredits your credibility.

Some examples...

The US does have a base in Australia, at Darwin. It's a US Marine Corp base. And the number of marines stationed on 6 month rotations there is growing. It started at a few hundred. Last I seen, the number was 1,250 US marines.

Quadrilateral relations doesn't mean US having to make bases in Australia and India. What it means is the forces of those countries, as well as with Japan, doing things together. For example, when the Malabar exercises are conducted in the Indian Ocean, US Navy ships (as well as Japanese) stop at an India naval base for 2 weeks or so for the duration of the training. In the same way, India navy ships visit Japan to conduct training with Japan and the US in waters around Japan. Here is one recent joint-training from the three countries in the Sea of Japan from November 3rd to November 6th. Ships were USS Ronald Reagan, USS Chafee, JS Inazuma, INS Satpura, and INS Kamorta

http://www.mod.go.jp/msdf/formal/info/news/201711/20171107-01.pdf
TOKYO: The US Navy carrier, the USS Ronald Reagan, conducted three days of drills with a Japanese destroyer and two Indian warships in the Sea of Japan, Japan's navy said on Tuesday.

The exercise involving five ships, which ended Monday, came amid heightened tension in the region over North Korea's ballistic missile and nuclear tests+ and as US President Donald Trump began a 12-day tour of Asia beginning in Japan on Sunday.

"The exercise helped improve fighting skills and deepened cooperation with India," Japan's Maritime Self Defence Force said in a press release.

The 100,000-ton Reagan, which is based in Japan carries around 70 combat aircraft and is the US Navy's most powerful warship in Asia.
The Reagan will join two other carriers in the Western Pacific, the USS Nimitz and USS Theodore Roosevelt, in a potent reminder to Pyongyang of the US ability to rapidly mobilize military force, U.S. officials told Reuters earlier.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...navy-in-sea-of-japan/articleshow/61541231.cms
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...navy-in-sea-of-japan/articleshow/61541231.cms
And even just a little earlier, on October 15th, India and Japan naval ships conducted joint-training which included JS Kirisame, INS Satpura, and INS Kamatt.

http://www.mod.go.jp/msdf/formal/info/news/201710/20171016-01.pdf


Likewise, not only naval ships go an make joint-training. Two Japanese P-3C maritime patrol aircraft conducted joint-training with India over Indian waters on October 30th.

http://www.mod.go.jp/msdf/formal/info/news/201710/20171031-01.pdf
As joint-training deepen cooperative capabilities and trust, it will enable the deployment of forces to each other countries should any contingencies of such develop. Permanent bases aren't a requirement for deployment to occur. An example of this is Desert Storm in 1990 which was followed by the 1991 Persian Gulf war. All those forces were not originally stationed in Saudi Arabia. A more recent example that is happening right now are the deployment of US, British, Canadian, and various other Europeans forces deployed in the Baltic States and Poland to help reassure them from any aggression from Russia since the Ukraine related ordeal.

One more point is about the Kongo and your claim that they are downgraded Burkes. First of all, there are several different versions of Burkes. And not all of them have BMD (Ballistic Missile Defense) capable systems. Out of the 66 completed Burke destroyers, about 30 are capable in BMD. The four Kongo destroyers are all BMD capable. Additionally, their BMD systems have been upgraded. The first three (Kongo, Kirishima, and Myoko) initially had AEGIS Weapon System version Baseline 4 while the 4th one (Chokai) initially had Baseline 5. But currently all four of them have Baseline 5.2. So in short, the four Kongos are capable of BMD while about half the Burkes are not.

But feel free to keep believing in delusional thoughts if it makes you feel better. But bear in mind, the more you spread delusional thoughts, the further behind in lack of understanding actual circumstances you and the readers that take you for truth will fall.

 

[Martian2]

I recall there being one post where an overenthusiastic poster for China made a post about a little conflict between an Indian fighter and a Chinese fighter. He posted an image full of Chinese text claiming that the Chinese fighter outmaneuvered the Indian fighter in 1v1 when in reality the Chinese text describe the event which included more than 1 Chinese fighter that responded to the lone Indian fighter. So in other words, if that poster understood Chinese (imagine the irony if he didn't), than he was making intentional lies for the sake of bashing.

Your post is almost as bad as that. Information is terribly false but you speak with such a sense of truth bringing. It really discredits your credibility.

Some examples...

The US does have a base in Australia, at Darwin. It's a US Marine Corp base. And the number of marines stationed on 6 month rotations there is growing. It started at a few hundred. Last I seen, the number was 1,250 US marines.

Quadrilateral relations doesn't mean US having to make bases in Australia and India. What it means is the forces of those countries, as well as with Japan, doing things together. For example, when the Malabar exercises are conducted in the Indian Ocean, US Navy ships (as well as Japanese) stop at an India naval base for 2 weeks or so for the duration of the training. In the same way, India navy ships visit Japan to conduct training with Japan and the US in waters around Japan. Here is one recent joint-training from the three countries in the Sea of Japan from November 3rd to November 6th. Ships were USS Ronald Reagan, USS Chafee, JS Inazuma, INS Satpura, and INS Kamorta

http://www.mod.go.jp/msdf/formal/info/news/201711/20171107-01.pdf
TOKYO: The US Navy carrier, the USS Ronald Reagan, conducted three days of drills with a Japanese destroyer and two Indian warships in the Sea of Japan, Japan's navy said on Tuesday.

The exercise involving five ships, which ended Monday, came amid heightened tension in the region over North Korea's ballistic missile and nuclear tests+ and as US President Donald Trump began a 12-day tour of Asia beginning in Japan on Sunday.

"The exercise helped improve fighting skills and deepened cooperation with India," Japan's Maritime Self Defence Force said in a press release.

The 100,000-ton Reagan, which is based in Japan carries around 70 combat aircraft and is the US Navy's most powerful warship in Asia.
The Reagan will join two other carriers in the Western Pacific, the USS Nimitz and USS Theodore Roosevelt, in a potent reminder to Pyongyang of the US ability to rapidly mobilize military force, U.S. officials told Reuters earlier.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...navy-in-sea-of-japan/articleshow/61541231.cms
And even just a little earlier, on October 15th, India and Japan naval ships conducted joint-training which included JS Kirisame, INS Satpura, and INS Kamatt.

http://www.mod.go.jp/msdf/formal/info/news/201710/20171016-01.pdf


Likewise, not only naval ships go an make joint-training. Two Japanese P-3C maritime patrol aircraft conducted joint-training with India over Indian waters on October 30th.

http://www.mod.go.jp/msdf/formal/info/news/201710/20171031-01.pdf
As joint-training deepen cooperative capabilities and trust, it will enable the deployment of forces to each other countries should any contingencies of such develop. Permanent bases aren't a requirement for deployment to occur. An example of this is Desert Storm in 1990 which was followed by the 1991 Persian Gulf war. All those forces were not originally stationed in Saudi Arabia. A more recent example that is happening right now are the deployment of US, British, Canadian, and various other Europeans forces deployed in the Baltic States and Poland to help reassure them from any aggression from Russia since the Ukraine related ordeal.

One more point is about the Kongo and your claim that they are downgraded Burkes. First of all, there are several different versions of Burkes. And not all of them have BMD (Ballistic Missile Defense) capable systems. Out of the 66 completed Burke destroyers, about 30 are capable in BMD. The four Kongo destroyers are all BMD capable. Additionally, their BMD systems have been upgraded. The first three (Kongo, Kirishima, and Myoko) initially had AEGIS Weapon System version Baseline 4 while the 4th one (Chokai) initially had Baseline 5. But currently all four of them have Baseline 5.2. So in short, the four Kongos are capable of BMD while about half the Burkes are not.

But feel free to keep believing in delusional thoughts if it makes you feel better. But bear in mind, the more you spread delusional thoughts, the further behind in lack of understanding actual circumstances you and the readers that take you for truth will fall.

No. The US marine base in Australia is temporary and only on a rotating basis. It is also very small.

For the Quadrilateral coalition to matter, what the countries desire the most has to occur.

Australia wants F-22s, because it would put Australian air power on a par with Chinese J-20s. Instead, Australia only has downgraded F-35s.

Even non-downgraded F-35s are inferior to Chinese J-20s. The J-20 flies at 66,000 feet. The F-35 can only fly up to 50,000 feet. The Chinese J-20 has a larger radar than the smaller F-35. A downgraded F-35 should pose little problem for the Chinese air force.

The US needs very large permanent military bases in Australia or India. Otherwise, it cannot field a meaningful military operation in Asia.

Since Australia cannot obtain F-22s to bolster its air power, Australia is a meaningless country in military terms.

Since the United States cannot obtain permanent military bases in Australia or India, it cannot project meaningful military power in Asia.

Holding joint military exercises does not solve the intractable problems that I have mentioned.

Australia lacks the military technology to contest Chinese air superiority. The United States does not have a large permanent military base in Australia or India as a base of military operations for an Asian war. South Korea and Japan are easily within Chinese missile range and the American military bases in those countries can be easily destroyed.

In conclusion, the Quadrilateral meeting lacks substance. Australia hasn't gotten what it wanted. The US hasn't gotten what it wanted. Unless the Quadrilateral countries start taking some serious risks, the Quadrilateral group is simply a photo opportunity. To give real meaning to the Quadrilateral group, the US has to share its F-22 technology with Australia; which would require an Act of the US Congress (the US President does not have discretion in this matter). In return, Australia must sign a 99-year treaty to lease land for a large permanent American military base. However, neither country is willing to give up its prized possession. Thus, no meaningful progress for the Quadrilateral group.

 

[Martian2]

The concept of the Quadrilateral Coalition is illogical.

Since its founding in 1949, China has not used its military to conquer neighboring lands.

China has claimed the South China Sea for 2,000 years. The claims are stated in the historical archives of Chinese Dynasties.

The US is disputing China's claim to the South China Sea.

The Quadrilateral Coalition is meant to blunt Chinese power. However, a real Quadrilateral Coalition has serious side effects. A US-China war in the South China Sea will entangle Quadrilateral Coalition countries.

China is bursting with military technology and a huge manufacturing economy that can produce war machinery.

If China perceives the Quadrilateral Coalition as a real threat, it will start manufacturing huge quantities of stealth fighters and military equipment to defeat the Quadrilateral Coalition countries.

Basically, I'm saying a true Quadrilateral Alliance will force China to respond militarily. This is a counter-productive Quadrilateral Coalition. It will force China to solve its problems with military means.

Right now, China is taking its sweet time in developing military weapons. China has not moved to a war footing.

If China perceives a real military threat from its neighbors, it will preemptively strike to remove the threat.

The South China Sea dispute does not risk Australian or Indian sovereignty.

However, if the Quadrilateral Coalition takes serious steps to threaten China, it will force a military showdown with China (which I'm pretty sure that Australia is not interested in doing).

Thus, my conclusion is the Quadrilateral Coalition will always remain a photo opportunity. If the Quadrilateral Coalition gets down to business, there will be a serious blowback from China. China will start preparing for war. Stealth fighters and thermonuclear missiles will start pouring out of Chinese factories. A military showdown will be inevitable.

The Quadrilateral Coalition will provoke the war that it seeks to avoid.
----------

This is how I think a China vs. Quadrilateral Coalition war will play out.

1. China drops megaton-class EMP over Japan. Japan is out of the war.
2. China drops megaton-class EMP over India. Chinese military occupies India within one month.
3. Chinese military moves south through Laos, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Chinese military occupies Australia within one year.
4. China and US signs peace treaty within two years of onset of war.

There is no way the US can sustain a long-term war against China's 1.4 billion people in Asia. China has the "home court" advantage in logistics.

 

[Martian2]

@Daniel808

In reply to your question on my profile page, India only produces two Agni V missiles per year that are capable of hitting China's coastal cities.

These can be easily shot down with Chinese Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs). China had two successful exo-atmospheric intercepts of ballistic missiles.

Additionally, any launch of Indian ATOMIC weapons (20 kilotons of TNT equivalent) would lead to a counterstrike by China's THERMONUCLEAR/HYDROGEN BOMB warheads (5 MEGATONS of TNT equivalent on the DF-5A ICBM) on India. This is an extinction level event for India.

Thus, India's atomic weapons are pretty useless against China. You can't use ATOMIC FIRECRACKERS against China's THERMONUCLEAR MEGATON CITY-BUSTERS.

It is incorrect to suggest China cannot invade India due to the presence of a few Indian Agni V missiles with atomic weapons. They are not much of a deterrence.

I hope that answers your question.

 

[Daniel808]

@Daniel808

In reply to your question on my profile page, India only produces two Agni V missiles per year that are capable of hitting China's coastal cities.

These can be easily shot down with Chinese Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs). China had two successful exo-atmospheric intercepts of ballistic missiles.

Additionally, any launch of Indian ATOMIC weapons (20 kilotons of TNT equivalent) would lead to a counterstrike by China's THERMONUCLEAR/HYDROGEN BOMB (5 MEGATONS of TNT equivalent on the DF-5A ICBM) arsenal on India. This is an extinction level event for India.

Thus, India's atomic weapons are pretty useless against China. You can't use ATOMIC FIRECRACKERS against China's THERMONUCLEAR MEGATON CITY-BUSTERS.

I hope that answers your question.

Thanks again my friend @Martian2
Yes, it answer my question. I really like your research and analysis.

Yeah, China already successful with their GBIs (HQ-19, HQ-26, HQ-29 and others) just like we see in the last successful test a couple months ago.

 

[大汉奸柳传志]

conquering Australia does sound tempting...

 

[prashantazazel]

Funny writeup.

 

[cloud4000]

The concept of the Quadrilateral Coalition is illogical

If it’s so illogical, China has nothing to worry about because it’s never going to happen. End of thread.

 

[Martian2]

If it’s so illogical, China has nothing to worry about because it’s never going to happen. End of thread.

That is my point. These anti-China announcements are silly.

If China was more like Germany (during World War I and World War II), most of China's neighbors would have been annexed by now.

China is the world's second largest country by landmass. It is 27 times larger than today's Germany.

China has 17 times Germany's population.

China has stealth fighters and thermonuclear weapons.

The idea of defeating China in a conventional land war is ridiculous. Yet, every few months, Japan and India float another anti-China coalition. It will never go anywhere, except to force China to annex the anti-China coalition in Asia.
----------

Look at this logic.

Germany is strong, right? How about fighting 27 Germanys at the same time? How far do you think you'll get?

In the history of the world, there has never been a larger manufacturer than today's China (with $2 TRiLLION in annual manufactured exports).

China has the largest installed base of industrial robots.

China builds and installs more machine tools than any nation on Earth.

China consumes 34% more TOTAL ENERGY than the United States per year.

China consumes 51% more TOTAL ELECTRICITY than the United States per year.

Which dummy wants to fight China militarily?

 

[cloud4000]

That is my point. These anti-China announcements are silly.

If China was more like Germany (during World War I and World War II), most of China's neighbors would have been annexed by now.

China is the world's second largest country by landmass. It is 27 times larger than today's Germany.

China has 17 times Germany's population.

China has stealth fighters and thermonuclear weapons.

The idea of defeating China in a conventional land war is ridiculous. Yet, every few months, Japan and India float another anti-China coalition. It will never go anywhere, except to force China to annex the anti-China coalition in Asia.
----------

Look at this logic.

Germany is strong, right? How about fighting 27 Germanys at the same time? How far do you think you'll get?

In the history of the world, there has never been a larger manufacturer than today's China (with $2 TRiLLION in annual manufactured exports).

China has the largest installed base of industrial robots.

China builds and installs more machine tools than any nation on Earth.

China consumes 34% more TOTAL ENERGY than the United States per year.

China consumes 51% more TOTAL ELECTRICITY than the United States per year.

Which dummy wants to fight China militarily?

Who says anything about taking on China militarily? This is your delusion with your list of meaningless factoids about China. Supporters of the Soviet Union were equally as boastful, and we know what happened.

The idea that any country will fight China on conventional means -- especially a land war -- is ludicrous, especially when there are nukes in the equation. One can easily make the assertion that if fighting China is silly so is China fighting either India or US.

China wants to be a superpower, but expect it to be treated like a superpower, with a mixture of contempt, fear, and awe.

 

[dy1022]

India has no equation at all!