4 ms·

Collapse is always a strong term, bordering on being a strawman. The fact is the SCS has too many benefactors to cede it to China. There are too many local nat

Collapse is always a strong term, bordering on being a strawman. The fact is the SCS has too many benefactors to cede it to China. There are too many local nations that don't want that to happen in addition to the entire west. Even if China can win head to head against the US there is no way it can compete with that alliance, and there are no other potential allies that will tip the balance in China's favor. India has much to gain from joining such an alliance, if it were ever to come to that, they could finally resolve their border dispute and solidify it. They have already signed a military pact with the US last month. They matter.

dirtyid 6y ago
>no way it can compete with that alliance Without US, China can, trivially. China is 3x larger in population than all other SCS claimants together with 7x higher GDP. PLA Navy is building more tonnage in ships than the region combined. There's also the fact that they will never align with each other against China because they are simultaneously disputing against EACH OTHER, a fact that many people conveniently forget. USN is pretty much the only entity preventing full blown Chinese Munroe doctoring in SCS, and in many ways they've already been squeezed out. Everyone in the region is just leveraging the situation for better deals with China, i.e. Philippines and China are finally doing co-oil exploration in the region. >border dispute and solidify it This would be a huge win for China. A large reason China is pressing Ladakh so hard is because India is incapable of resolving border disputes with China who has ratified 12/14 land borders, while India has poor record settling border disputes. It's hard to cede land as a democratic leader, but Modi might pull it off. India ratifying Chinese borders would basically end Chinese fears of western theater and allow China to focus on east / Taiwan / SCS and maybe allow India to get it's shit together. And until they do, they don't substantially matter. India always matter as potential, on paper, but Indian democracy hasn't delivered, and IMO won't.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  Handwaving again. The US is clearly part of the alliance, and with it NATO. You can't just remove them from the story because it suits your POV. Your second point doesn't make sense. If India would just ratify what China wanted there would be no conflict. India is not doing that because they don't agree. India would take advantage of allying with NATO, SCS bloc, so that they can force China to agree with their definition, not China's.
  - dirtyid 6y ago
    You propositioned a scenario where regional countries can contain China without US. >Even if China can win head to head against the US there is no way it can compete with that alliance I am alleging they cannot without USN, with specific reference that USN is the only thing keeping China from rolling over the region. Also why would NATO try to contain China? A in NATO is Atlantic, which Ocean is China on? There is a lot of unsubstantiated wank of random global coalition forming blocs to contain China, but very little evidence such a coalition will form apart from QUAD, especially regionally as China integrates more with ASEAN year after year. The second point is India is bad actor when it comes to settling border disputes. If you evaluate Indian border settlement history with her neighbors. It's not isolated to China. India doesn't agree because it's difficult for democracies to settle borders which often requires compromise, but such compromises require ceding land. Ceding ANY land is political suicide, especially in democracy. India is simply incapable of being a good actor on border issues, as seen in her settlement history. Unlike CCP China, who has settled 12/14 inherited land disputes, majority with larger concessions, because an authoritarian government has enough control over people to cede land. Which brings back to India right now, China see's in Modi someone with sufficiently strong cult following and authoritarian power to get border ratifications done, because it's now or never.
    - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
      > You propositioned a scenario where regional countries can contain China without US. No, I didn't. > >Even if China can win head to head against the US there is no way it can compete with that alliance Yes, that is, even if China can win 1v1 vs the US, it can't beat the alliance that the US is in. Given your misunderstanding I see no reason to continue. All the best.
sudosysgen 6y ago
The Chinese economy is over three times larger that of India + SCS countries + Australia combined. India, no matter how much help she gets, will never ever be able to resolve their border dispute forcefully. The best they will ever be able to do is to get a settlement between the two, but India's dysfunctional political system prevents her from doing what's in her best interests here. In addition, if you're going to put India there, you're also going to have to add Pakistan, which considerably changes the balance of force. India is simply not that big of a challenger. It is counterbalanced by Pakistan, and has swathes of internal problems, as well as a dysfunctional economy.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  > The Chinese economy is over three times larger that of India + SCS countries + Australia combined. In case of Chinese aggression this is no longer true. China's economy is so large because of its status as an exporter. If countries stop importing it loses much of that status. And again with leaving the US out - do you live in a world where the US doesn't exist? > India is simply not that big of a challenger. It is counterbalanced by Pakistan, and has swathes of internal problems, as well as a dysfunctional economy. "nation has problems, more at 11." Every nation has problems. So what? India on its own isn't a 1 to 1 challenger. So what? Your point is irrelevant - India ISNT a 1 to 1 challenger. You rely too much on the strawman.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    There is no claim of Chinese agression here. China isn't going to ruin the good thing they've got going. It's in a vague situation or a defensive situation. The Chinese economy is mostly domestic, relying about 15% on exports, and this is declining. Indeed, the Chinese economy is more inwards oriented than many countries in the alliance you're proposing. I'm not saying that India is a 1 on 1 challenger. It's closer to an eight of China. I'm saying that the entire coalition you're proposing is simply not enough. It's biggest member, India, doesn't have some problems - it's comparatively bordering on dysfunctional. Moreso, you're assuming that the alliance will somehow work perfectly together and that their interests are perfectly aligned, which is ridiculous. Every single member of that alliance except India and the US rely hugely on Chinese trade, and not only that but they all have conflicts with each other! And so, for a good alliance to form, one must have a strong, near-peer figure. This could be either India, or the US. The US is very far away and, given recent technological developments, might not even be able to project a significant amount of power versus a Chinese missile interdiction of large surface ships combined with strong bombardment of Guam and, if necessary, Okinawa, as well as other bases. Because the US is simply very far away, while China is in its backyard. The US needs to project power from thousands and thousands of kilometers away and maintain supply lines with lead times in the weeks, while China can literally operate fully out of their mainland using a few other bases for auxiliary capacities. So you have an alliance that falls short to begin with, but not only does it fall short; it's a very imperfect alliance with many of the members in severe conflict with each other but also economically dependent on the enemy. All of this, while the US economy is getting more and more stagnant and while severe problems with its political structure are evolving, with seemingly no interest from the ruling class to actually solve them. Yeah, no. Beating China in their own backyard at a time where they will be close to the global #1 economy is a pipe dream.

dirtyid 6y ago

>no way it can compete with that alliance Without US, China can, trivially. China is 3x larger in population than all other SCS claimants together with 7x higher GDP. PLA Navy is building more tonnage in ships than the region combined. There's also the fact that they will never align with each other against China because they are simultaneously disputing against EACH OTHER, a fact that many people conveniently forget. USN is pretty much the only entity preventing full blown Chinese Munroe doctoring in SCS, and in many ways they've already been squeezed out. Everyone in the region is just leveraging the situation for better deals with China, i.e. Philippines and China are finally doing co-oil exploration in the region. >border dispute and solidify it This would be a huge win for China. A large reason China is pressing Ladakh so hard is because India is incapable of resolving border disputes with China who has ratified 12/14 land borders, while India has poor record settling border disputes. It's hard to cede land as a democratic leader, but Modi might pull it off. India ratifying Chinese borders would basically end Chinese fears of western theater and allow China to focus on east / Taiwan / SCS and maybe allow India to get it's shit together. And until they do, they don't substantially matter. India always matter as potential, on paper, but Indian democracy hasn't delivered, and IMO won't.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
Handwaving again. The US is clearly part of the alliance, and with it NATO. You can't just remove them from the story because it suits your POV. Your second point doesn't make sense. If India would just ratify what China wanted there would be no conflict. India is not doing that because they don't agree. India would take advantage of allying with NATO, SCS bloc, so that they can force China to agree with their definition, not China's.
- dirtyid 6y ago
  You propositioned a scenario where regional countries can contain China without US. >Even if China can win head to head against the US there is no way it can compete with that alliance I am alleging they cannot without USN, with specific reference that USN is the only thing keeping China from rolling over the region. Also why would NATO try to contain China? A in NATO is Atlantic, which Ocean is China on? There is a lot of unsubstantiated wank of random global coalition forming blocs to contain China, but very little evidence such a coalition will form apart from QUAD, especially regionally as China integrates more with ASEAN year after year. The second point is India is bad actor when it comes to settling border disputes. If you evaluate Indian border settlement history with her neighbors. It's not isolated to China. India doesn't agree because it's difficult for democracies to settle borders which often requires compromise, but such compromises require ceding land. Ceding ANY land is political suicide, especially in democracy. India is simply incapable of being a good actor on border issues, as seen in her settlement history. Unlike CCP China, who has settled 12/14 inherited land disputes, majority with larger concessions, because an authoritarian government has enough control over people to cede land. Which brings back to India right now, China see's in Modi someone with sufficiently strong cult following and authoritarian power to get border ratifications done, because it's now or never.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    > You propositioned a scenario where regional countries can contain China without US. No, I didn't. > >Even if China can win head to head against the US there is no way it can compete with that alliance Yes, that is, even if China can win 1v1 vs the US, it can't beat the alliance that the US is in. Given your misunderstanding I see no reason to continue. All the best.

sudosysgen 6y ago

The Chinese economy is over three times larger that of India + SCS countries + Australia combined. India, no matter how much help she gets, will never ever be able to resolve their border dispute forcefully. The best they will ever be able to do is to get a settlement between the two, but India's dysfunctional political system prevents her from doing what's in her best interests here. In addition, if you're going to put India there, you're also going to have to add Pakistan, which considerably changes the balance of force. India is simply not that big of a challenger. It is counterbalanced by Pakistan, and has swathes of internal problems, as well as a dysfunctional economy.

ntsplnkv2 6y ago
> The Chinese economy is over three times larger that of India + SCS countries + Australia combined. In case of Chinese aggression this is no longer true. China's economy is so large because of its status as an exporter. If countries stop importing it loses much of that status. And again with leaving the US out - do you live in a world where the US doesn't exist? > India is simply not that big of a challenger. It is counterbalanced by Pakistan, and has swathes of internal problems, as well as a dysfunctional economy. "nation has problems, more at 11." Every nation has problems. So what? India on its own isn't a 1 to 1 challenger. So what? Your point is irrelevant - India ISNT a 1 to 1 challenger. You rely too much on the strawman.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  There is no claim of Chinese agression here. China isn't going to ruin the good thing they've got going. It's in a vague situation or a defensive situation. The Chinese economy is mostly domestic, relying about 15% on exports, and this is declining. Indeed, the Chinese economy is more inwards oriented than many countries in the alliance you're proposing. I'm not saying that India is a 1 on 1 challenger. It's closer to an eight of China. I'm saying that the entire coalition you're proposing is simply not enough. It's biggest member, India, doesn't have some problems - it's comparatively bordering on dysfunctional. Moreso, you're assuming that the alliance will somehow work perfectly together and that their interests are perfectly aligned, which is ridiculous. Every single member of that alliance except India and the US rely hugely on Chinese trade, and not only that but they all have conflicts with each other! And so, for a good alliance to form, one must have a strong, near-peer figure. This could be either India, or the US. The US is very far away and, given recent technological developments, might not even be able to project a significant amount of power versus a Chinese missile interdiction of large surface ships combined with strong bombardment of Guam and, if necessary, Okinawa, as well as other bases. Because the US is simply very far away, while China is in its backyard. The US needs to project power from thousands and thousands of kilometers away and maintain supply lines with lead times in the weeks, while China can literally operate fully out of their mainland using a few other bases for auxiliary capacities. So you have an alliance that falls short to begin with, but not only does it fall short; it's a very imperfect alliance with many of the members in severe conflict with each other but also economically dependent on the enemy. All of this, while the US economy is getting more and more stagnant and while severe problems with its political structure are evolving, with seemingly no interest from the ruling class to actually solve them. Yeah, no. Beating China in their own backyard at a time where they will be close to the global #1 economy is a pipe dream.