3 ms·

> 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. Chin

> 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.

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.