And I will add that the security situation has changed fundamentally. Whereas during the Cold War, countries engaged in proxy wars and the need for power projections often arose, China has long ceased to do so, and it has no reason to do so at the moment. It has instead pursued diplomatic options to find resources and to harness them. By exploiting western abhorrence to negotiating with certain countries perceived as corrupt, they have made inroads in places like Africa, many areas of Asia and so forth. They have been quite more diplomatically agile compared to the Japanese and Indians. It is one thing to have a mailed fist, it is a totally another different affair about using that mailed fist to achieve political objectives, and China's diplomatic offensives have been more palatable to Asian culture in general, versus the American tendencies of bulldozing their way through.brianeyci wrote:Yes, but the equation still favors America in that America has moving islands. So even though America has less territory and foreign bases are politically undesirable, it still has carrier supremacy. Technology has negated the need for an Airstrip One or traditional colonies for the US, but that doesn't mean China doesn't need land to project power. If China wants to project power it'll need land, and if that doesn't come from aircraft carriers they'll just have to... get land.
Africa is the worst possible place on this planet to get involved in the local bushfires. And Iraq is a poor example since it was a country long wrecked by sanctions and quite frankly, even the Chinese couldn't really do much business there with all the sanctions there, without doing it discretely, which hampers efficiency. The Chinese would sooner be nuked to bits than the US army get entangled in a mother of all urban warfare in China.Either by bringing countries into their fold in a Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere Mk. II or as I suggested, going for Africa where the West doesn't give a shit about but has huge untapped potential. They don't need an aircraft carrier force, but they do need the US to turn the other cheek while they land divisions. In case you think that China can just buy its way in without resorting to force or security, Iraq should prove the foolishness of trying to exploit land without security. Africa is an unsecure shit hole. And there is nowhere else on the planet with so much potential that isn't yet tapped.
Also, would you kindly illuminate me as to where China might want to land divisions, aside from Taiwan and the Spratlys? As it is, China is more concerned about home ground and its own backyard than anything else.
If the US goes around intervening in one bloody dispute after another with the same heavy handedness in Iraq, the world opinion would sooner shift against them, just as it shifted quite fundamentally after Iraq.
Unlikely that the Chinese would at this point or in the near future get into that sort of conflict. It'd sooner talk and wrangle its way through than get into a direct confrontation with the US. Also, the US has plenty of calculations it has to do before it tries anything. There are plenty of American companies on Chinese soil and it will be not quite a simple matter of gunboat diplomacy.No it is not. But China still needs the ability to influence others, and needs raw resources. If the US decides to do more "cockblocking" then China will have to take it, or simply have so much territory and military that the US is loathe to get in a conflict.
Bah. Tibet is just a small bush fire compared to what a war over Taiwan will be like. The Chinese might just hold off crushing the Tibet rebellion until after the Olympics and then roll in a tank army and crush dissent. The protesters will not only get nothing, they will be lucky there will be even a single monastery left in Tibet, especially if they push too far.Okay, that is a good point. But it still doesn't change the fact that Chinese power projection in the modern age is unproven, particularly in the face of American deterrence. If and when a Taiwan happens, we'll talk again.
Or even right now in Tibet. We will see in Tibet, what happens. The key will be if they can crush the revolt and still keep the Olympics.
The American interest in Taiwan is so far as the major suppliers and designer of electronics doesn't get rocked too badly that it disrupts the American economy. Though a lot of electronics production is done in China. There's also the issue of American hardware in Taiwan as well.
China might be a superpower, but at least not for the next 5 decades, assuming nothing stupid happens.Well then we are arguing in circles. If these tens of millions can't have their needs met, and they revolt, they will either be crushed by the Army or China will have a revolution. Either way, whoever wins, China won't be a superpower. There can be more than one reason China won't be a superpower.
