If any country should worry about China expanding it would be Russia. Take a look at a map and look what is directly north of China, a whole bunch of trees and other resources that haven’t even been fully explored yet much less developed and is lightly populated.
Yeah I know Mongolia is partially in the way but I guess China could ask permission before driving through.
I don’t know, maybe it would be easier for China to just lease some of the land from Russia instead.
Really though, the way things are going there really isn’t any need for China to invade anybody right now and if they were to get frisky Japan and South Korea might have a say in that since the Japanese and Koreans aren’t exactly best buddies with the Chinese, or vice-versa.
Despite Japan’s constitution they have a formidable Navy and could do a pretty good job of holding back the Chinese. South Korea aren’t slouches either.
Irrelevant. They have enough that for us to “bomb the shit out of China without consideration for casualties” would lead to the devastation of America.
China may try its own version Drag Nach Osten, that is, the invasion of North Korea if it collapses just as it has invaded Korea several times over the centuries. That actually makes more sense than China waging random wars in Africa.
Not really, and totally different. We already had a large navy, and a large merchant marine (neither of which China has), and it still took us quite a long time to get sufficient troops and material over to Europe to invade. The force we sent to Africa was not all that large, and we weren’t invading the entire continent…just a little piece of it. And we were doing so in the face of a fairly modest German and Italian presence as well.
You’re daydreaming. When North Korea collapses, China will gladly wash their hands of it. A reunified Korea will cause no new policy issues for China that do not already exist with the likes of Vietnam and India.
They did, they took over Tibet by force and annexed Hong Kong (although I don’t know the details of the Hong Kong issue). They would take over Taiwan but they don’t have the military capacity.
Also, diplomatic pressure can be used by China to expand their reach. That is far cheaper and has fewer consequences than war. And they are doing that. They are using economic and diplomatic methods in Asia and Africa to expand their influence. China is building economic connections all over Africa, Asia and latin America, those can be used to influence.
Regardless of whether a navy is important in a major war these days, for Qin to assert that there is nothing China could do about us bombing them is inane and naive. They’re a burgeoning industrial nation with sufficient native supplies of material and people to move to a war footing, and they are spread out to such an extent that we couldn’t take out all their factories.
Certainly we could cause damage, certainly the early days would be all in favor of the US, but China is rich enough and talented enough to come back. There is no way we could simply bomb them into submission without a fairly liberal use of nuclear weapons.
You should always prepare to fight the last war…or in this case, several wars back. Those who don’t learn from history will probably be able to pick up chicks better at bars than those who do, since they are generally duller! Never fight a land war in Asia when death is on the line!
Yeah, we couldn’t bomb the Chinese with impunity. I doubt they could hit us in the US very hard, especially if it stayed conventional, but leaving aside what a war with China would do to our economy directly, some of our largest trading partners (aside from China) are in that region…and a large percentage of the worlds trade flows through that area. All bad things if we get into a ‘who’s dick is bigger’ contest.
But China couldn’t ramp up to logistically support a major invasion of Africa or anywhere else in a short time frame. That’s all I was saying. My name is Inigo Montoya…you killed my Father…I dinna thin’ that word means what you thin’ it means…
Depends on how seriously we took this fight I guess. China is very vulnerable to systemic infrastructure attacks. They have a lot of very vulnerable dams and bridges, and rely quite heavily on their train infrastructure for normal logistics. And if it stays conventional, and if we don’t care if they paste Japan or South Korea or hit our overseas trade (which they would do), then we could hurt them a lot worse than they hurt us. Potentially, a couple of bunker buster bombs could kill literally millions or 10’s of millions of Chinese, if we wanted to go that far.
It’s all bullshit though. China isn’t going to invade Africa. The US and China aren’t going to go to war. The Republican Party isn’t going to retake the White House in the next election. And winter is definitely coming…
They could absolutely take it over if they wished to. Hell, they could nuke it with impunity - Taiwan doesn’t have The Bomb, nor is it a member of any alliance that has The Bomb.
The problem China has with Taiwan isn’t so much that they can’t take it, but that we won’t let them take it. Possibly probably. The West has been very careful not to put a commitment to help the ROC against PRC aggression on paper (even though we totally would).
I really hate this sort of cheap historical constructivism. China stopped being expansionist for a while because they were too weak to fight the requisite wars. (Of course, a lot of the land bordering China isn’t really worth fighting for — but that was more relevant a few hundred years ago than today.) Worse, to defend this sort of thing, you have to write the exceptions of Tibet and Taiwan and Xinjiang — in essence, saying “they don’t invade any place except the places invade.”
Being fair, China does make a fuss about sovereignty — but this is more a good line to tell people than a reality. Chinese weapons certainly end up in conflict zones, and their backing of certain genocidal dictators isn’t fundamentally different than backing the rebels. Of course, in reality, China won’t start invading places anytime soon for all the reasons mentioned by other people. But they certainly do give a “flyng fuck” about places outside their borders, like Sudan, or Burma, or wherever you like.
It’s going to be more of a mess than that. I think we’ve had threads on this before, but let me reiterate anyway:
The Koreas would be unlikely to reunify (South Korea can’t afford the expense).
Even if they did, or if the North became a client of the South, China would hardly appreciate a close American ally on its border. (I realize that India and Vietnam are comparable situations in regard to hostility, but this fact still matters.)
The influx of refugees into China would go from large to insanely massively humongous — and China really doesn’t like North Korean refugees as it is.
Conclusion: the Chinese wouldn’t attack South Korea or anything, but they would certainly get involved.
I’ve spend a fair amount of time in Africa over the last 25 years. 20 years ago, I didn’t see anyone from China there. Now, the Chinese influence is everywhere. Road signs, Chinese companies, Chinese citizens.
And while the west doesn’t pay attention to all environmental laws and other moral considerations, the Chinese are raping and pillaging that continent to a great extent.
If people don’t think that China is expanding everywhere, they aren’t paying attention at all.
Over the New Territories. Hong Kong island was a British possession in perpetuity. And IIRC the Communist government repudiated all foreign treaties from earlier regimes, so arguably there was no legal requirement for the UK to return Hong Kong to dictatorial control.
Now people can argue for ever about whether practically the UK had to return all of HK, but Thatcher certainly didn’t give a shit. After all it wasn’t white people involved.
India is not a close American ally. India buys virtually no arms from the US, doesn’t really see eye to eye with us on foreign policy and international trade issues, and has historically had much closer ties with Russia.
I think that is changing. Certainly there’s been an increase in arms purchases from the US (though a lot still goes to Europe/Russia, but much of that is because of legacy purchases). As Indian economic policy has shifted, there’s been a distinct change in the business attitude towards the US. Hopefully the State Department is coming to realize that historically the US has backed the wrong horse in South Asia and start supporting the secular democracy with the heft to act as a check to Chinese power.
I get the impression that the only reason India is branching out in defense spending is because it feels too reliant on Russia, and it doesn’t look like the US will be much of a benefactor even under the new conditions. The F/A-18, F-16 or MiG-35 have all been eliminated from bidding for a tender for 100-200 fighter jets.
Part of the problem is that the US is in the habit of continually shifting policy, including limitations on defense technology. We were constantly agreeing to sell such-and-such aircraft or gun or whatever to friendly countries during the Cold War, only for the DOD to put on the brakes at the 11th hour over new technology transfer rules, and we still do it today.
That’s not a big deal for, say, Singapore, who will buy 50 aircraft and all the spares they’ll ever need at once, and not buy any new aircraft for 30 years. That’s a big deal for India or Japan or Pakistan, who are constantly retiring old aircraft and losing some in action.
