Eh? The Kargil sort of jostling most certainly does not go on all the time. Troops fire at each other across the line of control, but in this case Pakistani soldiers crossed the line of control, which serves as the de facto border, and were bombarded by Indian Air Force and ground troops until the Pakistani troops were finally forced to withdraw two or three months later.
One country’s army invading another country and being beaten back fits my definition of war.
Indian sources invariably refer to the conflict as the Kargil war, but there are several neutral sources that do the same. Here are a few examples (highlights and brackets mine.)
http://web.mit.edu/cis/precis/2012spring/india_pakistan.html
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1450.html
I can understand that a Pakistani would be unwilling to acknowledge a conflict that Pakistan unambiguously started and lost as a big deal, but it’s a rather unfortunate point of view. Like Mumbai in 2008, it was a big deal, and it colours Indian perception of Pakistan to this day.
To your first paragraph: This sounds like silly “grow or die”* Geopolitik:* Very big in Germany a century ago, but I don’t expect it speaks to the Chinese today. China is already huge. Why annex independent territories and ask for trouble?
One thing some Chinese do want is to have more intellectual property development in their own borders. They’re already the world’s manufacturer; if they engineered (and thus owned) the products themselves, they’d get the big bucks designers and rights-holders command.
As to your second paragraph: Cite?
China has a huge and growing population (and a significant excess of men) and may decide it needs lebensraum. I really don’t need to remind you of what happened the last time, do I?
Usually? Nothing. Plenty of countries have those problems and just put up with it. Wars of conquest in the modern era are a huge economic drain that virtually always just aren’t worth the money and effort. Despite America’s - not China’s- - repeated attempts at conquest. If America with its advantages can’t profitably hold on to a place like Iraq, what makes you think China will be able to profit from conquest?
A lot of Americans seem to really, really want a new Cold War or even WWIII with China (seriously, you are actually trying to compare them to the Nazis?), but I don’t think it’s going to happen.
The Netherlands has one of the highest population density in Europe. and may decide it needs lebensraum. I really don’t need to remind you of what happened the last time, do I?
I don’t see why a Cold War-style “my puppets vs. your puppets” war would be absurd.
Well I do know they have bought up large tracts of land to grow food on and ship it back to China. They also have bought up many African mines to export raw minerals.
It just seems to me most countries in the world have had their day in the sun when they basically conquered alot of the world. The Greeks had theirs. Then the Romans. Mongolia had theirs. Spain was big for a while as was France. Then England had colonies on every continent. The US was the last big one. Now I wonder if China wants to do the same. I dont think they have forgotten how for over 100 years they were occupied and basically pushed around by the rest of the world (ex. Opium Wars, Control by foreign powers, WW2 and the Japanese).
“suffering greatly from global warming” :dubious: … this manifests how, exactly?
And the mainstay of the economy is exporting a whole basket of commodities, staples and foodstuffs to the world’s economic growth engine. Consequently we have a positive trade balance with PRC. How you guys going with your accounts?
China has the 159th highest growth rate and 80th highest population/area compared to the other countries if the world. If that’s all it takes for you to see visions of Hitler, you have a pretty long list of countries you have to worry about before you get to China.
Both the US and China have had a bad history with the kind of fanatical rebel groups that tend to arise from such conflicts, so I think both countries are pretty happy not getting back into that sort of game. Plus the status quo seems to be working for both countries, its pretty hard to see what either would gain from pouring money into opposing sides in a civil war in, say, Laos or wherever.
I honestly hope they have plans for wars against Denmark, Hogwarts and the Moon. That doesn’t mean any of those are likely to occur.
You missed one rather large and very long lasting empire in that list of yours: China. China was not only the Mongols largest conquest; the Mongols were culturally absorbed by China in the decades after their conquest, not the other way around. Saying China never had its day in the sun while using Rome as an example of an empire that did displays a woeful ignorance of its history. China was not only as powerful and culturally dominant in the East as the Roman Empire was in the West when the Roman Empire was around, it outlasted the Roman Empire.
Do you really believe the official figures?
Well, it does have large desert areas. And it has a huge population to feed. East is the sea, South is highly populated, South-west is India, with its own huge population. North and West are Mongolia and Russia. It’s easy to see China trying to take over the area east of the Urals. Of course, there’s the issue of Russia’s nuclear arsenal…
You argue that a war between China and the U.S. would be absurd, which is undeniable; that in the case where it happened both sides would lose, which is absolutely true; and that therefore it is impossible, which is…optimistic. As always, the great English philosopher Blackadder has a relevant quote on a very similar situation:
[QUOTE=Blackadder]
Baldrick: The thing is: The way I see it, these days there’s a war on, right? and, ages ago, there wasn’t a war on, right? So, there must have been a moment when there not being a war on went away, right? and there being a war on came along. So, what I want to know is: How did we get from the one case of affairs to the other case of affairs?
Edmund: Do you mean “Why did the war start?”
Baldrick: Yeah.
George: The war started because of the vile Hun and his villainous empire-building.
Edmund: George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganyika. I hardly think that we can be entirely absolved of blame on the imperialistic front.
George: Oh, no, sir, absolutely not. [aside, to Baldick] Mad as a bicycle!
Baldrick: I heard that it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich 'cause he was hungry.
Edmund: I think you mean it started when the Archduke of Austro-Hungary got shot.
Baldrick: Nah, there was definitely an ostrich involved, sir.
Edmund: Well, possibly. But the real reason for the whole thing was that it was too much effort not to have a war.
George: By Golly, this is interesting; I always loved history…
Edmund: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other’s deterrent. That way there could never be a war.
Baldrick: But this is a sort of a war, isn’t it, sir?
Edmund: Yes, that’s right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan.
George: What was that, sir?
Edmund: It was bollocks.
Baldrick: So the poor old ostrich died for nothing.
[/QUOTE]
If war does break out, there will be no shortage of people to blame the vile Hun and his villainous empire building, but the ostrich will have died for nothing.
Do you have any idea how large the present territory of the People’s Republic is already? They have their empire, and their hands full trying to educate its populace to be one people.
Not to mention that since the 1970’s, USA and Chinese proxies typically haven’t been fighting each other, so much as cooperating against the Russians. Really, you people ever hear of Henry Kissinger?
Nederlands expansionism is historically directed into the continental shelf.
You made the claim that their population was growing quickly. If you don’t believe the official figures, what figures were you referring to?
In a non-nuclear exchange, China would almost immediately annex all the places that we would normally use to stage. India and Russia are not going to let US forces stage within their borders.
We may be tops at “power projection” but you guys are nuts if you think we could defeat China with a few aircraft carriers.
Why wouldn’t you? It’s not really in their interest to make the One Child policy look more successful than it really is.
Officials always want to look good to their superiors. I note the relaxing of the OC policy and the simply massive numbers of Chinese, and the economic expansion required just to stay still from population expansion.
What exactly is the scenario for war between China and the US? What are America’s war aims? What are China’s war aims?
In the case of Korean War part 2, both countries war aims are the maintenance of the status quo. China doesn’t want to see South Korea annex North Korea, America doesn’t want to see North Korea annex South Korea.
So if the South Koreans are winning, the Chinese are going to come pouring in to save the North’s bacon, like they did in the last war? And then continue on until they conquer South Korea?
Except China doesn’t want to conquer South Korea.
China is not going to be annexing anywhere. They don’t need more unruly ethnic minorities. Chinese imperialism will be more like American imperialism in Central and South America–propping up friendly governments, negotiating one-sided resource extraction trade deals, punishing unfriendly governments. Sending troops and occupying the country isn’t going to work, look at how well we’ve been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sure, we can keep troops in Afghanistan as long as we like. Except what’s the point?
The only countries that China can hope to send troops to in the next 50 years or so are the countries that directly border China. Oh, maybe they’ll land troops on uninhabited islands in the Pacific that other countries claim. But realistically, Russia, Korea, Japan, Mongolia, and Vietnam are the only ones that have to worry. I didn’t include India, because although India does border China there are no easy ways to move troops from one country to the other, there are some mountains in the way and no way to go around them.
This. China has been cornering and stockpiling the world’s resources for a while now. They’ve expanded their economy and invested into Africa big time. They’re huge. They’re only going to get huger, their economy will balloon, their geopolitical weight can only increase further and their culture will also seep through more and more, even throughout the West.
They don’t need a war, quite the opposite. I fully expect millenial kids or *their *kids to have to learn Chinese to get anywhere in life or do business with anyone the same way I got to learn English back in my day, when the dinosaurs walked the Earth.
[QUOTE=foolsguinea]
Nederlands expansionism is historically directed into the continental shelf.
[/QUOTE]
Is it now ? 