What's new

China always has Mongolia

Status
Not open for further replies.
Using its ballistic and 4,000km+ cruise missiles, China can indeed destroy all American military bases in Asia. However, there are still 60 American nuclear submarines that China has to worry about. Also, outside of the second island chain, the US Navy will rule supreme for the next twenty years.

I fail to see the geo-strategic benefit in tackling the American military head-on in Asia. No one attacks their best customer. Also, the US will make China pay in disrupted trade.

The US and China are two very different superpowers with different strengths. Every American action (e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc.) is based on hard military power. China Inc. is based on economic power.

Eventually, China Inc. should win the marathon contest because a much larger economy provides more resources for a nation's military. We are ten years away from the tipping point where the Chinese economy is the same size as the American economy.

However, military power is based on accumulated assets and technologies. This means China will need an additional ten years after economic parity to match U.S. military power. Therefore, China is at least twenty years away from matching U.S. military power.

Until that day, China must accommodate the U.S. whenever possible. This is the only rational choice. Rome is weakening, but it is still militarily supreme for the foreseeable future.

Very logical analysis. You got many things correct except the time line for China to match US military technology after reach economic parity. US is way ahead of China in all major technological field. And even at this time, US is pulling further and further away from China in technical ability. So it would be quite a while after China even double the economic size of US before China can start catcing up to US. We also need to remember that US currently pace the technological break through of all major researches. So even if China surpasses European and Russian technology, China is still a long way before catching up to US. My rough guestimate is that China would not equal US technology until 2100.
 
.
Using its ballistic and 4,000km+ cruise missiles, China can indeed destroy all American military bases in Asia. However, there are still 60 American nuclear submarines that China has to worry about. Also, outside of the second island chain, the US Navy will rule supreme for the next twenty years.

I fail to see the geo-strategic benefit in tackling the American military head-on in Asia. No one attacks their best customer. Also, the US will make China pay in disrupted trade.

The US and China are two very different superpowers with different strengths. Every American action (e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc.) is based on hard military power. China Inc. is based on economic power.

Eventually, China Inc. should win the marathon contest because a much larger economy provides more resources for a nation's military. We are ten years away from the tipping point where the Chinese economy is the same size as the American economy.

However, military power is based on accumulated assets and technologies. This means China will need an additional ten years after economic parity to match U.S. military power. Therefore, China is at least twenty years away from matching U.S. military power.

Until that day, China must accommodate the U.S. whenever possible. This is the only rational choice. Rome is weakening, but it is still militarily supreme for the foreseeable future.

No amount of missile matters when they cannot defend their bases and naval assets in the pacific. It's not only about the amount of missiles(and China have far more land based missiles of multiple ranges to target with, lets count a few thousand more than the American could ever muster with their SLBMs), it's also about how long you can sustain a war, how quickly and efficiently you can reproduce weapons, resupply, rebuild, in the case of a pacific war. USA without their bases in Asia might as well pack up their submarines and leave, 60 nuclear submarines is pointless, and redundant, if you understood the concept of nuclear warfare, and no USA do not have 60 nuclear submarines in the pacific or the world for that matter, your lies and deceit know no bounds, you are just making up a mountain of lies as you go.
 
.
Trade will be disrupted both sides, in fact world trade will be disrupted, you can't run a naval blockade in an open ocean but you can certainly destroy a countries ability to function economically by targeting their financial system and transportation system, but that wouldn't be necessary, a war in Asia will make sure that external trade is no longer needed as the world economic system as we know to day will fail, all export based system will fail. America will come off as the biggest losers economically if this were to happen, because the USA is far more dependent on external trade factors. China without their export can still survive, the USA without their brand name exports, monetary control and debt, and cheap imports cannot survive in it's current form. The USA may seem strong and mighty on the surface, but underlying that surface is a very weak base they cannot protect, no matter what they try militarily. When that base is taken off the collapse will come, not only for themselves but for the world, but whoever is able to adapt themselves best in the aftermath of such a restructuring of globalization will come out the strongest, and it won't be the Americans, their entire system is dependent on the current global economic order, they are the ones that help build it and is militarily trying to control it, but they can never defend it from collapse because of external factors are getting bigger and far more complex then they can ever control.
 
.
I know we are talking about realist school and might makes right, but what about loosing the moral high ground by annexing little vulnerable Mongolia. Is this going to make any problem for Chinese ability to lead or gain trust of other nations?

The same question is there for resolving the SCS dispute with force.

Interesting exchange of points and counter points by both fantasy and martian2, carry on please.
 
.
I know we are talking about realist school and might makes right, but what about loosing the moral high ground by annexing little vulnerable Mongolia. Is this going to make any problem for Chinese ability to lead or gain trust of other nations?

The same question is there for resolving the SCS dispute with force.

Interesting exchange of points and counter points by both fantasy and martian2, carry on please.

Outer Mongolia is a sovereign state, you can't take this American instigator word as truth or remotely possible in theory.
 
.
I know like many internet Indians, you are hopelessly confused and lost.

Jin was today’s Man not China at that time. Western Xia, neither. Dali belonged to today’s Bai…

After Mongol invaded China, they proclaimed that they were the Chinese, adopting Chinese culture, following Chinese tradition, and taking Chinese political systems. The ideas are reflected in no better article than <&#24314;&#22269;&#21495;&#35791;> or &#8220;Proclamation of the Foundation (of Yuan)&#8221;.

In fact, without supporting Chinese system and tradition, Mongols would have had hard time in attempting to conquer China.

In contrast, in India, it is Indians followed British systems, not the other way around, upto today.

Again the cheery picking attempt of contrasting Mongol China with British Raj?

Why not compare with the Century of humiliation and British Raj? ;)

Is it Selective Amnesia or respect for those tormentors who imposed the century of humiliation? :rofl:



I call this a complete BS
. Sorry, but your post deserves its right name.

&#8220;small kingdoms throughout her history&#8221;? If you are not illiterate then refer to this map, albeit extremely simplified:

Territories_of_Dynasties_in_China.gif

Irrespective of foaming ignorant verbal diarrhea, no other Chinese empire reached the extant of Unification Yuan Dynasty achieved. when take Modern PRC land as the base of comparison.



but I disagree with your strategy of annexing Mongolia: it doesn&#8217;t have oil reserve. Moreover, it is poor like church mouse. It would be a burden to China, just like Mexico would be a burden to USA.

You have no problem with the thought of invading and annexing a soverign nation? stockholm syndrome form the Japanese invasion in ww2?
 
.
I know we are talking about realist school and might makes right, but what about loosing the moral high ground by annexing little vulnerable Mongolia. Is this going to make any problem for Chinese ability to lead or gain trust of other nations?

The same question is there for resolving the SCS dispute with force.

Interesting exchange of points and counter points by both fantasy and martian2, carry on please.

China follows standard military strategy

My prediction of China annexing Mongolia in response to a blockade of Middle Eastern oil supply makes the most sense for the following reasons.

1. China will do everything possible to avoid a head-on military clash with the United States. This is standard military strategy. You do not fight your enemy in a frontal assault. You should always try to outflank them.

Also, powerful thermonuclear countries want to avoid a direct military confrontation in the fear that an escalation may eventually lead to an all-out nuclear war, which no one wants. For fifty years during the Cold War, the Soviet Union and the U.S. never fought each other directly. We can expect this common sense behavior to continue between the U.S. and China.

2. We saw China employ a flanking maneuver to defeat the Japanese. The Japanese government held a Chinese fishing boat captain hostage. China demanded his release. The Japanese government refused and kept the Chinese captain imprisoned.

China applied a little pressure by shutting off rare earth metal exports and the Japanese government caved. Those Japanese hadn't even seen China's economic power yet and they released the Chinese captain immediately.

China would have eventually declared all Japanese exports to China as unsanitary/unsafe and excluded all Japanese exports on health grounds, infringement of Chinese patents, or unsafe (e.g. alleged unintended acceleration of Toyota vehicles waged by the U.S. NHTSA, which was later dropped on lack of proof; this taught former Japanese Prime Minister Hatoyama not to try and push the U.S. out of Futenma base). China has lots of big economic sticks and the Japanese caved after barely getting whacked.

-----

In a recent example, we saw China apply pressure to the Philippines.

a. China declared the Philippines unsafe and canceled all group tours.

b. China declared Filipino bananas unsanitary and quarantined them.

I think at this point, the Filipinos starting caving in. That was too bad. I was waiting for China to go down the list and declare every single Filipino import as unsanitary.

-----

A year ago, in another flanking maneuver, China blocked all Norwegian salmon for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to a Chinese criminal. Taking its place, Scottish salmon replaced all Norwegian salmon imports. China didn't notice the difference, but Norwegian salmon exporters lost access to the world's second-largest market and they're still upset.

3. Like the Japanese, the American Neo-cons will make a mistake and provoke China. They will detain or stop a ship carrying Iranian oil to China. In response, China will not bleed itself by engaging the U.S. military. China will conduct a flanking movement and declare it is reluctantly annexing Mongolia to "keep the lights on" in China.

Just like the Russian annexation of Georgian territory, the world will grumble and eventually accept Chinese reunification with Mongolia as evidenced by the Qing Dynasty map.

In conclusion, my prediction of a Chinese annexation of Mongolia in response to an U.S. Neo-con provocation is a very reasonable outcome. The Neo-con hope is to humiliate China or draw the PLA Navy into Middle Eastern waters and defeat them there. That is not how China fights. We know China will respond with a flanking movement, such as annexing Mongolia.
 
.
lol...after lost your debate,now your are starting some gullible explanation.

......i posted about what position india annexed those 2 states.and what you don't know that both India,Pakistan annexed many princely states and most of them only via diplomacy and politics.people fought decades with british not to be part of princely states but part of a democratic country.states

LOLOL! If Indians diplomacy and polities means your fake voting system and Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA)!

Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
.
LOLOL! If Indians diplomacy and polities means your fake voting system and Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA)!

Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lol..it was implemented after terrorists killed hundreds of people.do you even know when India implemented it???thats 11 years after they joined in India.cut this sh!t out moron...every country implemented hundreds of such types of laws to curb terrorism and seperatist movement..you are only trying to point those out..and fake or not,we have largest working voting system for last 65 years.point out a single country which can work out this things for a billions of peoples better than us before posting Sh!t here cheerleader..
 
.
lol..it was implemented after terrorists killed hundreds of people.do you even know when India implemented it???thats 11 years after they joined in India.cut this sh!t out moron...every country implemented hundreds of such types of laws to curb terrorism and seperatist movement..you are only trying to point those out..and fake or not,we have largest working voting system for last 65 years.point out a single country which can work out this things for a billions of peoples better than us before posting Sh!t here cheerleader..

Terrorists?...under who's justification? or simply the indigenous people who want their freedom back after being conned by your government's BS? A fair or authenticated voting? under who's supervision? UN or india's own one again?

Will any fair and just voting system in the world be introducing non-indigenious people into the voting system when specially these people had the significant majority in their numbers compared to the indigenious people?
C'mon, don't fool yourself with your own version of indian logic!


Extracted from below link:
"....The group that now identifies as Tai-Ahom were historically seen as "Assamese" people. However, the term "ethnic Assamese" is now associated by the Indian government at Delhi with the Assamese-speaking Indo-Aryan Hindus of Assam.[9] The latter group is the majority people of Assam..."

Assamese people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, they will surely invite us to join them for voting their governement next time. LOLOL at indians' own crooked logic!
 
.
Terrorists?...under who's justification? or simply the indigenous people who want their freedom back after being conned by your government's BS? A fair or authenticated voting? under who's supervision? UN or india's own one again?

Will any fair and just voting system in the world be introducing non-indigenious people into the voting system when specially these people had the significant majority in their numbers compared to the indigenious people?
C'mon, don't fool yourself with your own version of indian logic!


Extracted from below link:
"....The group that now identifies as Tai-Ahom were historically seen as "Assamese" people. However, the term "ethnic Assamese" is now associated by the Indian government at Delhi with the Assamese-speaking Indo-Aryan Hindus of Assam.[9] The latter group is the majority people of Assam..."

Assamese people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, they will surely invite us to join them for voting their governement next time. LOLOL at indians' own crooked logic!

lol..low quality trolling and nothing else..in assam,both asamese and non-assamese people vote for their state.and most of the legislature are Assamese...

and by your logic,Taliban are just islamist preacher..nothing else.and what they want is a society where they can preach in peace..noobness at best..

anyway..time for few more education class...


Insurgency in Northeast India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

just note that the date of most of insurgency is from 1964,decades after annexation in India.and oldest is from 1950s...so your logic don't even stand a chance..

and i suggest you to read about civilian casualties caused by insurgents..just click the names on different groups..you'll know..hope that is more than enough to cure your delusion.
 
.
lol..low quality trolling and nothing else..in assam,both asamese and non-assamese people vote for their state.and most of the legislature are Assamese...


Read carefully again! I have challenged you to give us a valid and logical reason

Qn: why your indian government;

"......introducing non-indigenious people into the voting system....." as per my earlier post stated.

Look at this stupid indian', using non-cohesive ranting tactic to evade away from answering the above question!

LOLOL at CROOKED behaviour of the indians and India government!
 
.
just note that the date of most of insurgency is from 1964,decades after annexation in India.and oldest is from 1950s...so your logic don't even stand a chance..

and i suggest you to read about civilian casualties caused by insurgents..just click the names on different groups..you'll know..hope that is more than enough to cure your delusion.

Another weird explanation using your crooked indian logics! LOLOL.

1. Most doesn't equal to ZERO insurgency,
2. Insurgency is your own definition, how to we know it is not the other way around; the insurgents are actually fighting for their Freedom!
3. So Taliban shouldn't be even considered as a suspect in 9/11 since among the casualties, they were also so many muslims, non-muslims from many different nationalities and ethic groups.
 
.
Another weird explanation using your crooked indian logics! LOLOL.

1. Most doesn't equal to ZERO insurgency,
2. Insurgency is your own definition, how to we know it is not the other way around; the insurgents are actually fighting for their Freedom!
3. So Taliban shouldn't be even considered as a suspect in 9/11 since among the casualties, they were also so many muslims, non-muslims from many different nationalities and ethic groups.

By your logic these http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...sks-pakistan-hand-over-uighur-terrorists.html people should be only considered as freedom fighters. :lol:
By the same logic the Tibetians should also be considered as freedom fighters only.
Leave alone Mongolia, Mongol kingdom was the one invaded the present china, not the other way around. LOLOL!!
 
.
Another weird explanation using your crooked indian logics! LOLOL.

1. Most doesn't equal to ZERO insurgency,
2. Insurgency is your own definition, how to we know it is not the other way around; the insurgents are actually fighting for their Freedom!
3. So Taliban shouldn't be even considered as a suspect in 9/11 since among the casualties, they were also so many muslims, non-muslims from many different nationalities and ethic groups.

but those killed was from different countries,not Afghan.and whatever they did in Afganistan is worst than Insurgency.i don't know whatever you are trying to imply...kind of delusional logic you are trying to imply.but don't worry.most of insurgent groups are inactive or struck a peace deal and most people don't even care about them.only few fractions are scattered here and there and they will take a place in history book.may be you can honor them as "Freedom Fighter"(i doubt you even know name of any of these groups) :lol:
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom