SouthernDragon
Member
hahaha
no
no
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
"China and India are going to have a fight, a nuclear war."
- Thread starter NotTheGuyYouKill
- Start date
- Status
Wrong. India has stated on numerous times that China is now it's most dangerous enemy.
With Pakistan is the worry it will become a failed state. You already have radical elements in control of large swaths of land. There is a reason the US is conducting routine drone strikes in Pakistan as opposed to Afghanistan.
The danger from Pakistan to India is it's nuclear arsenal and US bolstered military falling into extremist hands.
But China represents economic, military and cultural strength challenges for India.
China is over playing it's hand, and it's propaganda efforts have increased. China is now the most polluted country in the world, tons of ecological and environmental damage in the pursuit of double Le digit growth rates etc. Entire cities were built and left empty. We just never hear of the problems because their media leaves it out. The one child policy has now created a baby boomer scenario, where in 30 years, you'll have 500 million + seniors and fewer workers.
As for military. China has no forward operating bases or any power projection. It's main cities are miles from the coast. It is virtually surrounded by countries it has disputes with. India is still more capable of naval projection in the Indian Ocean, and it's cities are stretched all over the continent.
We hear all about China's purchase of an old training carrier from the Ukraine. We never hear but India has had aircraft carriers from Britain for decades. It's now about to receive one of Russia's most advanced aircraft carriers ever, the former Admiral Gorshkov. Couple this with its own indigenous carriers being built and the fact India just put in the largest fighter jet purchase tender ever and it shows how serious they take the Chinese threat.
I make no qualms about it. Unconventionally the Chinese are far superior with more nukes, ballistic missiles and ICBM's and submarine capabilities. Unconventionally they are more even matched, they share similar russian/Soviet hardware, but India's close relations with Russia meant better missile defense, better cooperation etc.
India has also become close with Israel and has expressed interest in its newly developed and tested iron dome missile defense, Israeli phalcon and AWACs are meant to counter China etc.
Going to be an interesting next half century.
Indeed.
How is that so much better than that Bruce Willis stepping out of the police car scene? Bollywood > Hollywood
This is the understatement of the century. Is there a single country bordering China that has no territorial disputes with them?
kittoo
Cretinously credulous
Indeed. While a lot of Indian army is guarding the borders with Pakistan, all the future built up is focused on China.
This says it all.
lol at China's line. shameless.
speculawyer
Member
This makes more sense than the subject of the thread.
Both China and India have high-ranking officials that are corrupt and making lots of money. Why would they want to end their own lives and the lives of their children over some pissing contest?
This says it all.
The other 7-8 countries bordering the South China Sea should reach an agreement on territorial boundaries. It would be politically difficult as they would all have to make concessions, but they could make China look like complete assholes if the rest of the claimants were all in agreement as to where the lines should be. And they could respond in unison if the Chinese tried to pull their typical shit. China's biggest advantage is that there is no unity amongst its neighbors (see also the ongoing feuds between Russia and Japan, Japan and South Korea, etc.).
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Like China, India has the potential to be a superpower, but they're quite far behind on the road to getting there.
Antiwhippy
the holder of the trombone
To be fair, you could say the same thing for most European countries too.
The US isn't exactly coy about it's territories on the Pacific - f. ex. http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/region-state/pacific-territories.html
After WW2 and then the Cold War there has been a geopolitical imbalance in the region, with China now rushing to fill the vacuum.
After WW2 and then the Cold War there has been a geopolitical imbalance in the region, with China now rushing to fill the vacuum.
laesperanzapaz
Member
with the exception of Russia, most Euros dont have a continent sized country bordering 10+ countries. Even Russia has few maritime neighbors, in contrast to China.
Nationalism is a hell of a drug
Could India completely destroy China? India has about 100 warheads according to FAS. They could hope to destroy big parts of China but would need to save some to protect themselves from Pakistan which probably would see a great opportunity to attack in such a case.
Antiwhippy
the holder of the trombone
What does that have to do with territorial disputes in Europe?
I'm just saying that it is pretty hard to find a country, which borders closely with several other countries, without a history of territorial disputes.
I'm not saying that China is right to push for those territorial claims, if that's what you're implying.
The way I see it, Pakistan is the problem of today in terms of unconventional means, China is their problem tomorrow onward conventionally. I still think Pakistan vs. India is more likely to happen first, but India definitely knows China is their biggest threat and will only get bigger.
I do find it amazing though that everyone talks about China growing and all that which is true, but people act like they're going to surpass everyone militarily within a decade. Meanwhile, India isn't viewed by many people as anything other than the stereotypes when their military is nothing to scoff at and is quite impressive really, especially in that region.
I don't understand what China is trying to accomplish by pissing off EVERY nation around it making them unite together more and more. They're getting a little ahead of themselves and picking on the small nations doesn't exactly impress others in the region.
Edit: There's a different between territorial disputes and making outrageous claims and then instigating with military units over borders that no one in the world accepts as reality.
how is he so good at science with just one city? it's crazy.
speculawyer
Member
Well, nuclear winter means that pretty much the entire planet is fucked if any reasonably large nuclear exchange were to happen.
But hey . . . at least it would fix global warming for a while.
BAW
Banned
When you can launch a nuclear weapon from any place on the globe undetected and with zero possibility of ever being detected, the rules of mutually assured destruction no longer apply. Didn't you learn anything from Metal Gear?
There will never be nuclear war.
It is possible, but it will never happenl
The most probable outcome must be one where the ruling party or the ruling elite's lives don't radically change because of the war, which is impossible. Even if they are massjve countries who are responsable for most of the planets goods, they still crave the sweet sweet luxuries the West can offer. They know it would mean decades of blue balling if there was a Nuclear confilct.
It is possible, but it will never happenl
The most probable outcome must be one where the ruling party or the ruling elite's lives don't radically change because of the war, which is impossible. Even if they are massjve countries who are responsable for most of the planets goods, they still crave the sweet sweet luxuries the West can offer. They know it would mean decades of blue balling if there was a Nuclear confilct.
Russia and the US never fought over land. It was about ideas and influence. Wars fought in other countries never directly against each other.
This is about land. Countries that border each other, and have long histories of not so friendly relations.
While it doesnt make nuclear war inevitable. It does seem to make it more likely.
This is about land. Countries that border each other, and have long histories of not so friendly relations.
While it doesnt make nuclear war inevitable. It does seem to make it more likely.
jamesinclair
Banned
This does look bad though
http://news.yahoo.com/chinese-incursion-leaves-india-verge-crisis-044158564.html
http://news.yahoo.com/chinese-incursion-leaves-india-verge-crisis-044158564.html
Over 50+ years. I think the American military industrial complex likes to downplay the money and time spent on advancing R&D and military technology.
For example, China does not have a global satellite system yet. It's trying it's darndest to do so. It still does not have the ability to manufacture it's own fighter jet engines etc. No working indigenous aircraft carrier, no indigenous missile defense etc.
So assuming America freezes today, on all military purchases and arms, 50 years seems like a good bet. America is just so far ahead in terms of conventional warfare, I'd venture to say it's probably a hyperpower in terms of military. It's just unmatched, and it's scary because in the early 80's, the soviets had actually surpassed the US for a little while until Reagan upped his rhetoric and bluster and poured billions into defense.
Just think about this, the US navy, has more gross tonnage than the world next ten navies combined.
Close to 11 nuclear powered supercarriers, thousands and thousands of fighter jets, attack helicopters, thousands of advanced battle tanks, hundreds of cargo and heavy lift planes, so many spy satellites, etc.
And now the US even has more unmanned drones than the next 10 militaries combined.
And yet, very little of it is ever used or needed. In fact, even the US army is saying no more money for tanks, we have enough, and yet congress wants to continue making them because they supply jobs etc.
It blows my mind Americans are so fearful of China. If the US military actually used what it has on hand, it can wage war simultaneously with China, India and Russia and still come out on top conventionally.
But therein lies the rub, all that money on warfare and the military and yet you have crumbling infrastructure, millions on welfare or food stamp, cities going bankrupt, hospitals turning away patients etc.
China doesn't need to match the US nor will it be able to do so, instead, it'll buy US debt, use american investment and capital to improve its cities and industry and probably fight an economic war it'll win.
30 years from now, Ford won't care about 350 million Americans but the 2 billion Chinese.
Yeah, mutually assured destruction is still a factor that countries have to take in to consideration when they think about potential wars. Part of MAD is military build-up though. You have to match the pace of your rivals and keep up appearances if you want to be taken seriously at the military game. China has been an interesting example in the accumulation of power through economics and diplomacy, but military power is still a major component of national prestige and evaluating which countries are "great powers" or "superpowers" in the eyes of the international community.
Wow, damn. I suppose China is betting that India won't call its bluff?
The difference between MAD then and now was the technology and bases each side had. China is at a severe disadvantage in a nuclear war. It's main cities and districts are mere miles from the coastline and together as opposed to the US or India. This means a greater chance of catastrophic destruction.
See the US and Russia had credible second strike capabilities in the form of automatic launches and nuclear submarines. India and China only have a few hundred warheads, the majority of which are unarmed because it's costly to maintain.
India has no nuclear subs. It's leased an Akula hunter killer sub from Russia in the hopes it can achieve nuclear triad capability and China only has a few and has no forward operating naval bases.
What this means is, whoever launches the first strike in a nuclear war, will win and risk minimal damage aside from possible global climate change or ecological destruction ie nuclear winter scenario.
For example, if the US was to decide to launch nuclear weapons at China, I'm pretty sure it would coordinate from Hawaii, Alaska, Guam and okinawa. It would send dozens of nuclear subs each armed with SLBM's and target all large mainland Chinese cities. The closer they get to the Chinese mainland, the quicker the time it'll take to impact and lessen the response.
It's always a theory, but when more than 80% of your entire countrys population is eradicated in minutes and communication goes down, it's hard to coordinate a response. With a nuclear first strike, you also out your own forces on standby. This included strike fighters and stealth bombers. In the chance the other country figures out what has happened, and uses its mobile or land launch platforms, you use your satellites and surveillance to quickly pinpoint where.
There is always a danger some form of second strike response will happen and this is why, a country that has cities and populations spread all over can withstand a nuclear war better.
But that's neither here nor there. I spoke about it casually, but it would devastate the planet, not only the loss of life and environmental damage, but the sheer inhumanity of it. But I'll be damned if the US and every other major nuclear capable country doesn't discuss or run scenarios like the above routinely. It's precisely why Russia developed mobile nuclear missile launchers. So that they can have remote outposts away from major cities in the Siberian forests or whatever, in the chance Moscow or other main cities were destroyed and word didn't reach.
Rocket Scientist
Member
So really, nothing has changed. We learn nothing from history and the cycle repeats endlessly. It was foolish to think that the 21st century would be different from the thousands of years of human idiocy.
I'm glad you mention this because reading your post made me throw up in my mouth. We shouldn't have to even hypothetically think about a situation like this anymore in this day and age, but like you said it's done by all of these countries.
Wow, can't believe this is real.
- Status