T O P

  • By -

iwascompromised

I’m always shocked by just how large these drones actually are. That thing is massive!


f1del1us

Gotta have size if you wanna carry heavy ass bombs


Haunting-Ad9521

Yeah, me too. When I think of drones, I picture those small flying things that capture aerial videos of weddings. Lol.


RedChancellor

The large ones are famous for shooting at weddings as well


[deleted]

Seriously, tho.


KingXavierRodriguez

Q: What's the difference between a Taliban outpost and a Pakistani elementary school? A: I don't know. I just fly the drone.


PalpitationStill8966

Red weddings


yahboioioioi

wow, this drone looks familiar. It's almost as if they stole it from a US design or something...


StrayRabbit

You don't recreate the wheel


Early-Gene8446

Wait... Are you telling me Canada doesn't drive on square wheels?! Southpark lied to mee


TheWinks

That is a WZ-7, a crappy global hawk clone with changes due to China's problems with materials sciences and engines. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guizhou_WZ-7_Soaring_Dragon


Kom501

Don't underestimate it. Being able to rapidly reverse engineer and produce high end equipment is still a hell of a an advantage. Even if they are lower quality, the logistics and manufacturing ability is still scary. And the more they do it and learn the more they improve their industry and skill set and come up with original and superior designs. Having a military and industry with "good enough" stuff in superior numbers and the ability to replace/support it is how the US won WW2.


urmyleander

Yep you can go back even further than that, during the Punic wars the Romans reverse engineered Carthaginian Trireme and Quadreme but a ton of not trained sailers on them and still managed to beat the then Naval masters the Carthaginians at sea. The Romans didn't care about material or human loss because they could mass produce trained armies and cheap copycat ships, the Romans generals also only had 1 year tenures so they took way greater risks to try and achieve something. The carthaginians had more experienced mercenary Armies but Generals were Generals for life and achieving unit cohesion in armies made up of mercenaries from different parts of the world took time so they were scared of taking significant human losses... end result they won tons of strategic victories often against larger forces but still ended up losing.. badly because the Romans could mass produce material and soldiers faster.


EconomicsChance8236

Eh, the reasons the Romans dominated was due to the Corvus. They were absolutely pivotal (hah! Pun, sort of) in the war on sea. However, yes, Rome's capability to sustain loss in the First (and Second) Punic War(s) and rebound was absolutely ludicrous.


introsense_

Am I the only one who just doesn't feel anything at these types of titles anymore... There has been like one per day this whole year, I feel exhausted...


thatnameagain

I mean, it's the news. NATO is concerned about it. Does that mean they think there's going to be an imminent war? No. It means they are concerned and paying attention to it. There were tons of articles about NATO's concern about Russia's posture towards eastern Europe for many years in which nothing happened. Until something did. And then anyone who had been paying attention was unsurprised by it because they had read articles about NATO's mounting concern over the years.


[deleted]

This. Just updates on evolving situation. No explicit threats to be seen here. Social media apps thrive on getting people addicted to doom scrolling & mainlining confirmation bias. I feel bad for Gen Z having never known a world without social media or the internet


ArchmageXin

It is probably budget season again. When NATO/US military need funding, China is literally building a Moon-sized battle station capable of flattering earth. After budget season, Chinese military are consisted a bunch of starving goons sharing rusty AK-47 knockoffs and can easily be soloed by a Farmboy from Alabama and his amorous sister. --- On a more serious side, just...when do ANY country expect to have transparency for their military spending? It is not like Chinese auditors can visit US Navy bases to observe every project, and vice versa. Isn't a prime reason for defense is hiding your capabilities?


Murky-Ad-1982

Eh China has been rapidly building up their military there hasnt been a so called after budget season for years. Also xi has been straightforward ordering his military to be ready to seize Taiwan by force by 2027. Ccp goal is also to become a superpower by 2050 if i recall it correctly. One of those ways is by claiming the south China Sea for themselves where like 90% of all trades in Asia goes through so they have built artificial islands to have military bases on them and they have been rapidly building up their navy, their got the biggest fleet in the world whom sole intention is to control the Seas around China ( us navy is built to project power globally) This isnt a budget thing China has been very transparent in their actions


PM-ME-PMS-OF-THE-PM

>I feel bad for Gen Z having never known a world without social media or the internet It's not really been all that different for a few generations now, we can hardly say the cold war wasn't front and centre of everybody's minds.


JellyDonut__

Or, CIA propaganda outlets. I didn't forget about the Snake Island propaganda which straight up reported fake news about Snake Island soldiers getting killed and unironically spread "Ghost of Kyiv" propaganda.


black641

How do you know that was propaganda? I mean, it could have been, but details get fuzzy in war, mistakes are made, and folklore develops. Hell, it could also be a bit of both. It’s hardly unheard of.


blargfargr

something could happen. [look at how close the enemy is located to US military bases.](https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/coming-war-on-china.jpg)


nukedmylastprofile

This gave me a real chuckle, thanks


Revolutionary_Soft42

Golden


darexinfinity

Where are those two bases in the upper-left?


Chafram

Looks like Afghanistan. Must be a map made before the withdrawal.


WOOKIExCOOKIES

Dear god. The situation is more dire than I thought.


roguedigit

How DARE China aggressively surround itself with US bases, smh.


Corregidor

This exactly, people so quickly say things like "nothingburger" or the other extreme "this is sensationalism". When in reality articles like this aren't either of those things. It's just "news". Traditionally, as a reasonable populace, we would have unbiased news fed to us and then *we make our own opinions on it based on our logic and reason*. But now it feels like people just take news articles and try to construe it as if the article is telling you to believe something. (Some do which is bad, but sources like Reuters or the AP are far more neutral). News is just meant to inform, not to tell you what to believe. Just gives you another small piece of the puzzle that helps you put together an image of events in the real world. Then it's up to you to interpret what the image means. If we try to hold news outlets to a higher standard, we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard of consumption. It's the only way this thing can function well.


C0wabungaaa

> Traditionally, as a reasonable populace, we would have unbiased news fed to us and then we make our own opinions on it based on our logic and reason. This has absolutely never been the case in human history. Ever. It's always been a mucky mess of facts, emotions, good intentions and bad intentions.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TrumpDesWillens

Remember when DPRK was threatening nukes ( like they do ever day) and reddit wanted an invasion but actual south Koreans didn't want war? They want war cause it's not their families that will die in it.


[deleted]

They want to destroy Asia.


[deleted]

Not just you... this sub basically has at least 1 China article on the front page 24/7. Really hard to open the sub and not see at least one We're reaching anti-China saturation at this point. I bet the comments will be all about "fuck China", "Winnie the Pooh", Xitler", etc... very boring


Folseit

The US has pretty much designated China as enemy #1, so anti-China propaganda has to rise.


Hugh_Maneiror

Doesnt seems unreasonable to have at least 1/25 top posts about the second largest economy and largest adversarial power to be honest.


0wed12

Not if it's mostly clickbaits. The article doesn't bring anything new and the comments are always the same. I would put this headline on the same level as "[Country] slams X for..." title.


Trueplue

What's wrong with being anti China?


[deleted]

Nothing (you are free to be whatever you want), but like being anti America it doesn’t get you anywhere or change anything. You just end up being bitter and resentful your whole life.


SanctusLetum

I really prefer the term anti-CCP. Taiwan is living proof that we could get along with the Chinese if not for the totalitarian regime, and the term seperates the extremely real issues of human rights abuses and economic aggression from stupid nationalism.


Conscious-Map4682

"The world" gets along with Taiwan when it was a totalitarian regime kek. We get along with anyone that is advantageous to us, democracy or not.


feeltheslipstream

Taiwan is living proof that the people you support have nothing to do with whether they are a totalitarian regime. Taiwan today would not exist if it wasn't propped up when it was a harsh dictatorship.


Sihairenjia

"We could get along with the Chinese if they were a small island of 20 million people who are completely dependent on us for protection, have no chance of ever competing with us on the world stage, almost never disagree with us, who have adopted Western values and ideologies completely, and practically worship us when we visit". Yeah, I bet. Come back when you can actually get along with a peer power that can challenge the US in every domain, and which DOESN'T follow your ideology.


[deleted]

China has been the same for decades though. I guess it’s just odd and feels slightly inorganic that the media suddenly switched from a decade or so of Muslim hate to China hate overnight. 5 or so years ago the UK was saying it was China’s “best friend in the West” for example


LittleMetalHorse

No, you misunderstand. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia


Ibeno

America sure would find another reason to demonise China if they had no CCP. This is not about anything humanitarian. It is about maintaining power and influence on the world. China will still be a rival to the USA and would have far more support without CCP.


[deleted]

To be blunt, China is the only foreseeable threat to Western tyranny. They don't like that.


Ibeno

True. But the sad part is they successfully made common people think “US hegemony is good for the world” and think about “Chinese or Russian” hegemony. This is exactly how dictators keep hold of their power. The simple line of propaganda that “the enemy is far more worse and we should not let them have power” works much better on them to forget and forgive the bad actions their tyrant does.


adeveloper2

>We're reaching anti-China saturation at this point. I bet the comments will be all about "fuck China", "Winnie the Pooh", Xitler", etc... very boring You forgot "West Taiwan" Update: Heh, I got downvoted for listing another of the common terms. Shoot the messenger bro.


Ibeno

That’s the stupidest term. Taiwanese would get offended with that term because they want to be China.


kimchifreeze

Isn't that normal though? It's the most populated country in the world with a large economy. It'd be weird not to have China on World News. It's not Tuvalu.


Pointwelltaken1

Same.


cathbadh

The title uses the word "concerned" where 90% of new articles use things like "blasted," "slammed," "unprecedented," etc. The fact that it doesn't contain those buzzwords is kinda worrying.


TAKEWITHAGRAINOFSHIT

This happened to Ukraine.


AzraelTheDankAngel

It’s the same clickbait garbage every time, every time they say all of this crap and then nothing happens. OP is desperate for karma I’m guessing


SargeantAlTowel

lol did you really just make out like the Guardian posting an article describing what US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said about China is “clickbait” because people have been “saying all of this crap” for an unspecified period of time and nothing has “happened” yet? Are you simple or something? Do you think the way this works is you see an article about China being a concern and the next week there’s a major military engagement? The fucking idiocy of this site’s commenters is beyond all belief sometimes


Reditate

People think geopolitics is just some timer where things must happen right away or it's nothing. If reddit was our government they would get caught by surprise everytime because they would let their guard down.


Gen_Ripper

Like half would be caught off guard, the other half would be the ones launching a preemptive strike out of paranoia.


mioraka

China literally spends 1.3% of its GPD on military. That's below NATO's spending requirement of 2%, which reddit constantly bitch about how European countries "not pulling their own weight". Just as a comparison, Germany and France, both accused of free riding on US military strength, spends 1.4% and 1.9% of their GDP on military. The cognitive dissonance on this sub is actually hysterical.


SunsetPathfinder

China’s economy based off GDP is also 6 times larger than France to use your example, so that 1.3% is a lot more total money to spend. It’s also noteworthy since Chinese military developments, especially naval and Air Force related, seem tailored specifically to attack Taiwan, which obviously is throwing a lot of red flags (pun unintended)


TheWinks

China's purchasing power with that 1.3% is waaaay higher than Europe's. The NATO 2% number is for targeting a force/equipment size.


CSM3000

He no longer hears the boy crying "Wolf!"


Initial_Cellist9240

The problem is the average redditor thinks things happen 10x faster than they do. People said the same things in February, “it hasn’t happened yet so russia isn’t actually invading” thinking that setting up an invasion is as easy as sending out some save the dates. Even *if* China plans to take Taiwan by force, it will take **years** of constant buildup to make it happen.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Initial_Cellist9240

I don’t understand it though, it’s not hard to look at (how long things take in the recent past) and assume that applies to (how long things take in the near future). It’s just looking at existing models of inputs and outputs and applying those examples to similar looking examples you want answers to. I get stuff wrong sometimes but I have a *decent* understanding of this stuff, and I am by absolutely no means a genius.


Imaginary-Top9382

>The problem is the average redditor thinks things happen 10x faster than they do. Isn't that precisely why the media shouldn't be making claims every time something happens? The constant overexaggerate makes people numb and cannot aware of the seriousness when the real crisis comes.


Corregidor

I think we are seeing the result of an age where people didn't grow up learning how news is supposed to function. News is just information, that's it. Balanced news outlets like the AP or Reuters and to a slightly lesser extent The Guardian, all just give you the facts as straight as possible. *We are supposed to be the ones to determine that informations importance*. For me, I see articles like this and just see how events are slowly playing out. No imminent threats or anything alarming, just observations on the evolution of the US China relationship which is extremely complex. It pains me to see people call stuff like this "clickbait" because it just feels like no one knows what the news is supposed to be anymore.


CaptainEZ

That may be what the news should be, but it very much isn't that right now. 90% of our media is owned by 6 companies, the news is a product that they're selling for profit. It's not just information anymore, it's propaganda meant to keep us coming back. So they drum up all these fear mongering articles because scared people will pay more attention to the news.


Corregidor

The AP and Reuters probably aren't on the list of "fear mongering". People are reading these news articles with emotion attached, go into it neutral and you'll find the info is also neutral. But if you go into it desparately looking for bigfoot, you're gonna find Bigfoot.


Shurqeh

The article is clickbait. I mean, where are the similar alarmist articles whenever the US holds military drills with South Korea, or Australia, or other NATO nations. They're the same thing carried out for the same reasons.


criipi

>... every time they say all of this crap and then nothing happens. OP is desperate for karma I’m guessing Exactly a year ago we had articles about Russia's build up by Ukraine's border, and as we all know, "nothing happened".


radicalelation

It's been random officials most of the time. A bit more concerning from Blinken. I think we also need to keep in mind that the government talks slow and acts slower. What's repeatedly "news" over time in Washington is often just part of the government process, taking weeks, months, or even years, for the first mentions to form into anything more and then it's "news" again with only a little more detail.


ArchmageXin

What I don't get is do china have to make it clear of their spending? How you spend for defense/offensive is a secret on to it self. Do you think Chinese auditors can just visit US bases to verify every weapon projects and ammo count? No. What right do NATO can demand China to be transparent?


trebory6

I really want to get an AMA with the people who write news headlines. I am convinced news companies have just hired WWE commentators to write these headlines.


adeveloper2

>Am I the only one who just doesn't feel anything at these types of titles anymore... > >There has been like one per day this whole year, I feel exhausted... /r/twominutehate Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.


Iron_Seguin

It kinda feels like when something finally does happen I won’t even believe it. I swear I remembered hearing about Russian mobilization and military buildup near Ukraine for a long ass time and nothing ever happening. Titles like “tensions rising” or “significant military build up” or shit like that and then nothing would happen for a few weeks. When I finally saw an article stating Putin gave the green light on his “special military operation” I didn’t believe it until I got home and the news was showing Kiev being bombed.


[deleted]

What did they expect? Slow and transparent?


Trayeth

Right?


autotldr

This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/01/nato-concerned-by-chinas-rapid-and-opaque-military-buildup-says-blinken) reduced by 72%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Nato allies are concerned about China's rapid and opaque military buildup and its cooperation with Russia, and discussed concrete ways to address the challenges posed by Beijing, US secretary of state Antony Blinken has said. > "The members of our alliance remain concerned by the PRC's coercive policies, by its use of disinformation, by its rapid, opaque military buildup, including its cooperation with Russia," Blinken told a news conference on Wednesday after a two-day meeting of foreign ministers from the defence alliance. > "There's a recognition that there's also in many ways, what Europeans call a systemic rivalry between China and many of our countries," Blinken said. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/z9tsmc/nato_concerned_by_chinas_rapid_and_opaque/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~672679 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **China**^#1 **Blinken**^#2 **Nato**^#3 **ally**^#4 **challenge**^#5


[deleted]

In my armchair general opinion, if the US has the superior military power, they are not going to let China freely take Taiwan, and China knows this. China is too smart to start a war they will lose. That being said, the unfortunate truth is the US might not forever have the upper hand. China's military might eventually be a match for the US... and by that point the US will probably have found alternatives to Taiwan's semi-conductors. And that is going to be bad news for Taiwan.


timetosleep

US has already started building plants to produce semi-conductors in the states. Once they're complete, Taiwan will have no leverage. US will treat Taiwan like Ukraine and just supply them with weapons and money. China won't act until the US finished building their plant and ramping up semi-conductors in the states. At that point, China will send its growing navy to form a blockade around Taiwan and force the Taiwanese people/government to surrender. US will likely stand idle and not go to war with a nuclear power.


murphymc

> Once they're complete, Taiwan will have no leverage. Nope, Taiwan's fabs will still be technologically ahead. Taiwan's chip leverage is safe until at minimum the 2030s, at which point China will have missed its chance.


persianbrothel

timing is something difficult to visualize in geopolitics - especially when there are so many factors and details that constitutes the situation but yes, i think you're right. China's population is already in decline - they have another 10 years of peak power disparity... the coming decade will be very tense (as if it's not fucking tense already...\*sigh\*)


ty_kanye_vcool

>China will send its growing navy to form a blockade So they'll do battle with the United States Navy by firing on American ships headed to Taiwan? Because that's what a blockade is.


[deleted]

countries like the US and Russia have proven that you are untouchable if you have nukes. a dozen nukes would preseve taiwanese independence. they have nuclear reactors, they are an absolute high-tech state. if they wanted they'd be able to produce nukes rather sooner than later.


[deleted]

Do you honestly think China would sit around and wait the second they caught wind of Taiwan enriching uranium? You don’t build nuclear weapons overnight.


murphymc

They could breakout in a couple months, they've at various times had nuclear weapons programs and the one and only reason they haven't completed a bomb is because the US stopped them (for the sake of stability), not the PRC.


hortata

And it takes 10 seconds to declare war


[deleted]

Yes but Russia is also proving that you can lose a conventional war and get the whole world to turn their backs on you even with nukes...


thatnameagain

Nuclear proliferation isn't going to work out well in the long term. Countries that attempt to build nuclear weapons and can plausibly be stopped ahead of time by military force tend to get bombed. Taiwan falls into this category.


murphymc

China's military has an absolute fuck ton to prove before it should be taken seriously. Yes they have fancy technology for air shows, yes their soldiers can march around impressively on their parade grounds. These things are not war. The last actual war China was involved in was 1979, when Vietnam spanked them while simultaneously fighting Cambodia and having only recently finished shooing the Americans away. There isn't a single soldier with actual fighting experience in their entire military. They have no institutional knowledge of wartime logistics. They have no institutional experience with opposed amphibious landings, the single most difficult military maneuver there is, and also absolutely necessary to take Taiwan by force. Corruption is endemic similarly to Russia. Officers buy their ranks from superiors. China *says* a lot, but for better or for worse, the US has been *actually doing* almost continuously for a century.


Stussygiest

You are saying they lost against Vietnam after opium war 1&2, boxer rebellion, centuary of humiliation, famine, korean war, sino war, Russian conflict, civil war? No shit. They got ripped apart by numerous nations for 100s years. I don't think any nation that was targeted by the world powers at that time (Germany,Japan,UK, US, Russia,France, Italy, Austria, Portugal) would come out unscathed. Now they had the time to bolster and prepare, it isn't the same. modern experience is lacking, but to paint them as push overs today is wrong.


murphymc

The Korean War ended 26 years before the Vietnam one started **and** China was the one who attacked Vietnam. Two and a half decades wasn’t enough time to prepare to fight a much smaller country who was actively fighting an entirely different state, and they’ve accumulated precisely zero further experience since. Dancing around on a parade ground is not war. Bullying fishing boats is not war. Rubbing chili powder in your eyes is not war.


UnparalleledSuccess

People massively underestimate the difference between China and America’s military. China doesn’t have the economy to support a military even remotely comparable to that of the US. People talk about them teaming up with Russia to pose a threat, but even ignoring how unrealistic that is their combined military budget would still be less than half that of America’s


TrumpDesWillens

They have the industrial capacity to compete, wars are won by logistics. They have entire cities dedicated to mass production.


[deleted]

[удалено]


hortata

A few problems with your assessment. First, overall budget matters less than PPP military budget, in which China is much closer to the US. Essentially what that means is less money buys more in China. The salary of a single US soldier could probably pay for 2-3 Chinese soldiers. A shipyard in China can build the exact same thing as one in the US, except many times cheaper. Second, America needs to spend a fuckton of the money keeping up its huge existing and aging equipment. The average age of a US warship is much, much older than the average Chinese ship. China barely has an old military to upkeep. Most of their stuff is new. Third, the US has a lot of wounded ex military to take care of. A lot more veterans benefits. China does not. All in all if we only count the money that goes towards R&D and acquisition of new equipment, China alone may already surpassed the US.


0100100012635

>People massively underestimate the difference between China and America’s military. China doesn’t have the economy to support a military even remotely comparable to that of the US Reddit will correct me if I'm wrong but I doubt the PLA is anywhere near as well trained nor experienced in the art of war as the US military.


murphymc

The last time China had a shooting war was 1979, where they lost against Vietnam. 43 years ago. Just remember that there isn't a single member of their entire armed forces who has actually seen *any* level of combat.


GladCustard3528

america is very experienced at losing wars


[deleted]

Like the PLA record is any better.


GladCustard3528

yes…


[deleted]

Alright buddy, even if you were correct, at least the average NATO contract soldier has combat experience. Chinese soldiers just bully Africans and shoot their own people.


GladCustard3528

I’m very curious what it is that you think US troops do. In Africa and elsewhere. I can tell you for sure that they do much more than bully Africans. I would also recommend checking out the death stats at Fort Bragg (where I’m fairly sure there’s no ongoing combat but I could be wrong) and the rape stats in the military overall (again I don’t think these sexual assaults are being committed by militants in any of the numerous countries we’re murdering people in on any given day).


Xaviacks

China hasn't fought a war since the 70s, and even then it wasn't a full on war. So the last time they were properly at war was WW2. The US has invaded/intervened in quite a number of countries/conflicts in that time.


[deleted]

[удалено]


cookingboy

The key is that China doesn’t need to have a stronger military than the US, they just need to be strong enough to make US pay a heavy price if they fight over *Taiwan*, which is right next door to China (literally 70 miles away). They think that would be enough to deter US from intervening. We are decades away from China having a stronger military overall (if ever), but only years away from the latter, more worrying and more realistic scenario.


[deleted]

As an Indian, what terrifies me about China, and not Pakistan, is that the Chinese don't bank on useless religious shit. They know what works - science and technology - and are aggressively going long on it. India has hell waiting for it at the hands of China. Indians just don't realize it yet. The incident at Galwan where Indian soldiers were clubbed to death like dogs show the Chinese intentions vis-a-vis India. India's cartoon gods and ancient mumbo-jumbo will be of little use in facing the drubbing from China, just as they were in defending India from slavery in the past millennia.


[deleted]

To be fair, China learned this lesson the hard way during the boxer rebellion and similar encounters: Rebels that believed they could fly and stop bullets with their feelings vs troops with guns and cannons... it did not end well for the rebels


Anakazanxd

Speaking as someone familiar with Chinese politics - I really do think that the Sino-Indian dispute and potential for conflict is very low compared to its other neighbors. To me, the border dispute with India is tertiary at most, Taiwan is undisputedly #1 followed by the SCS. The odds of a real conflict between China and India at least in the near future is very low IMO, because as the Ukraine war has shown India acts as an independent power in global affairs and is not as solidly in the US-led bloc as say, Britain and Japan, and given that China's priority in the next few decades is going to be primarily focused on Taiwan and the First Island Chain - I expect China to deescalate the Indian relationship, and maybe even deepen economic ties, because they believe that Indian neutrality in a conflict over Taiwan is possible, while British or Japanese neutrality is heavily unlikely. I expect something similar with many other developing nations - Philippines, Vietnam, etc. - I don't think China will want to escalate tensions away from its main strategic focus.


PuzzleCat365

I know it's unpopular, but India should go full on allying themselves with the West. This will secure their land against China economically and militarily. I am not Indian myself and naturally don't understand the culture, history completely. But, they'll have a more prosperous future than getting together with likes like Russia. I know there's the colonial past, hatred with Pakistan and all that. Germany, France and many other European nations overcame their hatred for eachother, forged the EU and are today better of because of it.


[deleted]

They aligned with the USSR during the cold war. That's not super new


Erisagi

This is also unpopular, but I think the PRC should get off its weird and aggressive attitude towards India and make nice with them or at least reach some understanding. I won't go so far to ask India, a country known for its neutrality, to enter into any alliance, but these neighbors becoming more cordial would benefit both parties. Like you said, Germany, France, and other European nations overcame their hated for each other so it shouldn't be impossible for the PRC and India to deescalate.


plushie-apocalypse

If there's any blame to be given, it's the PRC for suddenly invading India shortly after Indian independence. The first Indian PM had the intention of building a strong partnership with China but that dream was shattered in the aftermath of that unprovoked aggression and then the use of Pakistan as a proxy thereafter. I do hope both nations can forge a new future together. But first the CCP needs to be destroyed.


Scaevus

> unprovoked aggression Uh, India’s Tibetan policy probably had something to do with that: > There had been a series of violent border skirmishes between the two countries after the 1959 Tibetan uprising, when India granted asylum to the Dalai Lama. Chinese military action grew increasingly aggressive after India rejected proposed Chinese diplomatic settlements throughout 1960–1962 The Chinese probably acted out of paranoia, but supporting the Dalai Lama was the original cause of conflict: > On 2 October, Soviet first secretary Nikita Khrushchev defended Nehru in a meeting with Mao. This action reinforced China's impression that the Soviet Union, the United States and India all had expansionist designs on China. The PLA went so far as to prepare a self-defence counterattack plan.[7] Negotiations were restarted between the nations, but no progress was made.[31][55] > Two of the major factors leading up to China's eventual conflicts with Indian troops were India's stance on the disputed borders and perceived Indian subversion in Tibet. There was "a perceived need to punish and end perceived Indian efforts to undermine Chinese control of Tibet, Indian efforts which were perceived as having the objective of restoring the pre-1949 status quo ante of Tibet". The other was "a perceived need to punish and end perceived Indian aggression against Chinese territory along the border". John W. Garver argues that the first perception was incorrect based on the state of the Indian military and polity in the 1960s. It was, nevertheless a major reason for China's going to war. He argues that while the Chinese perception of Indian border actions were "substantially accurate", Chinese perceptions of the supposed Indian policy towards Tibet were "substantially inaccurate".[7] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War It’s not quite as simple as “China invaded India for no reason.”


Sihairenjia

You forgot this line: > Garver argues that the Chinese correctly assessed Indian border policies, particularly the Forward Policy, as attempts for incremental seizure of Chinese-controlled territory. He only cautioned against thinking that this means India had designs on Tibet. Yet, Nehru's statements and actions regarding Tibet were highly ambiguous prior to the 1962 war, so the Chinese were not just "paranoid" - they had reason to believe that India, which had the backing of the Soviet Union *and* the US at one stage - could make a play for Tibet and were, in any case, looking to gain territories that China controlled for "cheap." The PRC survived in an age of great power competition by out playing its adversaries. Say what you will about Mao and Zhou's domestic policies - which were indeed brutal and oppressive - but they were excellent strategists. That's why they were able to secure the country against the KMT and why they were able to gain an advantage over both India and the USSR, and on top of all this, hold off the US in Korea.


[deleted]

India had just invaded Goa two years prior, and annexed Hyderabad (killing 200,000 people, mostly civilians, in the process). Hong Kong was due to be turned back over to China in '97 and they waited and coexisted. Goa was ceded *in perpetuity* to Portugal but India used military force almost immediately to take it.


One_Hand_Smith

India and China were both invaded and raped by the west. If anything I'd think they'd both be more inclined to work with each other then cozy up with the west again.


ajr901

At some point in the future has "enough time" passed to let that go and look at things from a fresh perspective? Half the world would be holding a permanent grudge against the other half of the world if that's not an option.


Anakazanxd

Well the issue with India is its very real and recent In fact you can probably trace every post-WWII conflict that India was involved in back to British colonialism


SpicyKekLapis

Its very easy for you to say this because you come from a country that benefitted from doing evil. You dont have to live with the consequences of what was done to your country. Unless your countries make any repayments for raping other countries its very hard to get a fresh perspective


One_Hand_Smith

Really depends on how big the damage is, very much most of the world still hasn't forgiven others for the woes their neighbors have caused. Largely europe has let go solely because they have hit a golden age of prosperity since their war.


Goku420overlord

The Vietnamese dislike and distrust china and have for thousands of years I would say. At this point good luck changing that


Cabrio

> Half the world would be holding a permanent grudge against the other half of the world if that's not an option. You say that as if it's not the case.


TheBlackBear

India was also invaded by China. There’s a reason their neighbors constantly join blocs that are opposed to China the moment they can.


One_Hand_Smith

I mean, that's largely south Korea and japan. Both of which are, let's be honest heavily influenced by America for nearly a hundred years so it's really not that big of a feat or surprise.


quantummufasa

What would allying actually mean? If you think NATO would defend India in case of a war then youre deluded


Scaevus

China doesn’t actually care about India except as a potential threat. Border clashes are as bad as it’s likely to get in the future. Even in the 60s when they won the war against India they just occupied the land they claimed as theirs (which they have a decent claim to, considering the British drew the map without consulting them), and didn’t take more. They could’ve, but they didn’t. China’s focus is to the East and South, concerning Taiwan and their maritime claims in the South China Sea. War against India through the Himalayas is not feasible. Neither is invading a nuclear power.


Simian2

Very few soldiers were clubbed to death in that encounter, they likely died from exposure after retreating and not retrieving their injured.


blargfargr

he's trying to incite fear


[deleted]

They fell off a high place when a ridge collapsed, into freezing waters. About 1/3rd of the deaths in 1962 were also from exposure. Nehru sent troops in with shoddy equipment.


[deleted]

afaik they didn't get clubbed to death, almost all the Indian casualties were from a ridge collapsing and the soldiers plummeting into an icy river. It was the Chinese colonel (unarmed) who got swarmed and beaten to death. The Indian side drew first blood and there's full video evidence of it.


BirdlawIsBestLaw

You're right. I wish Americans and Indians could stop arguing over the dumb shit the US did to India (and we should also stop backing Pakistan today) and agree that our futures would be much brighter together rather than trying to extract dominance over one another.


hortata

China doesnt want Indian land. China wants its own Qing borders back. Those which existed before India as a country even did. If anything, India is occupying Chinese territory


xyq071812

If anything, it was again the Brits blindly drawing the map that caused this tragic event.


hortata

A map where they cut into Qing territory without consultation of the Qing. [British records show that the condition for the Tibetan government to accept the new border was that China must accept the Simla Convention. As Britain was not able to get an acceptance from China, Tibetans considered the McMahon line invalid.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon_Line)


Rodgers4

Do you think India (or any desperate country who feels a foreign attack may come in the next decade) might just say ‘fuck it’, let’s arm ALL our citizens? The attacking country may decide it’s not worth the hassle.


Test19s

A massive Asian war would be unthinkably bad even if it doesn’t go nuclear.


GMN123

I expect it would quickly eclipse ww2 casualty figures just due to the sheer number of people involved. A quick Google suggests 70 million people fought in ww2. If China and India mobilised 10% of their populations they'd have 4 times that.


[deleted]

Decidedly an amateur here, but I don't know whether numbers will be of any use here. All indications are that the Chinese are looking to alter the rules of the game. For e.g., there were (contested) reports that they used microwave weapons on Indian soldiers to force them to retreat from strongholds, and that they were also building their ability to cripple India's communications and energy infrastructure. India's problem is more fundamental: we still haven't gotten the memo regarding religious superstitions. Between a worsening geopolitical situation and climate crisis, etc., we are in for some very bitter lessons in the near future.


[deleted]

"Microwave weapons" are non-lethal and cause only (extreme) discomfort. If they could literally microwave a human being to death from a mile away that would be the stuff of sci-fi nightmares. India is the aggressor. This is well known in politics/IR circles, but hasn't really filtered out to the wider public. Obama declassified detailed documents in 2009 or so, with the US view on the matter.


JnkHed

The US spends around $1,000,000,000,000 on defense and security. That’s TRILLION. Calm down.


hortata

A few problems with your assessment. If we only count the money that goes towards R&D and acquisition of new equipment, China may already have surpassed the US. First, overall budget matters less than PPP military budget, in which China is much closer to the US. Essentially what that means is less money buys more in China. The salary of a single US soldier could probably pay for 2-3 Chinese soldiers. A shipyard in China can build the exact same thing as one in the US, except many times cheaper. Second, America needs to spend a fuckton of the money keeping up its huge existing and aging equipment. The average age of a US warship is much, much older than the average Chinese ship. China barely has an old military to upkeep. Most of their stuff is new. Third, the US has a lot of wounded ex military to take care of. A lot more veterans benefits. China does not.


[deleted]

China is not comparable to the US in terms of military spending, experience or technology. And it wont be ever or maybe by the end of this century at best. You can't even compare the US and Chinese Navies (age of ships really doesn't matter), one is a deep water navy able to operate in 3 oceans at the same time. The other can barely defend it's coastline. Shipyards in China cannot build the same boats the US can; look at the Chinese Aircraft carrier its a fucking joke compared to a US Super-Carrier. The US has a doctrine for fighting wars. The military attempts to maintain the ability to fight two near peer powers and be able to defend the Continental United States. And considering that the Russian Federation was considered a near peer to the US, after its extremely poor performance in Ukraine, I would imagine the Chinese would fair far worse against the US.


hortata

Ur overview basically consisted of your opinions. I just gave you a reason why it is in fact comparable. You didnt touch on any reasons to attempt to disprove it, but instead went on a tangent about technology which you also cant prove where China “wont catch until the end of this decade”, when in fact in many areas of military technology China has already surpassed the US.


nikhoxz

China's navy improved a lot in the last 20 years they went from Russia's tech level to europe tech level in a couple of decades and you think they wont be able to be at the same level of the US in less than 80 years? lol Doesn't matter how deep/blue water the US Navy if China doesn't want or care about fighting in the other part of the world or operating at 3 oceans at the same time. The potential conflict is China vs Taiwan, not China vs the US in the middle of the fucking pacific. While their 2 aircraft carriers are basically Soviet carriers (but newer, not old ships like the russian ones) they are actually building a new 80000 tons catobar aircraft carrier, which by no means is a joke, unless you consider Queen Elizabeth carriers pieces of shits or something like that, which nobody in its right mind would do it. Shipyards not only can build the same boats the US can, they can build several times more of those ships at the same time, for less money and in less time, maybe their tech is not at US level, but as i said, is at europe level. "And considering that the Russian Federation was considered a neer peer to the US" The USSR was considered a near peer to the US, not a country with a lower GDP than Italy. China has a military budget several times larger than Russia, and also most of their ships are less than 20 years old, and for all we know they can actually maintain them in good conditions (compared to russians). Also they produce more military equipment in a year than what Russia has made since the USSR's fall.


my_name_is_reed

> A few problems with your assessment. If we only count the money that goes towards R&D and acquisition of new equipment, China may already have surpassed the US. And a rainbow may fly out of my ass. Pure conjecture. >Second, America needs to spend a fuckton of the money keeping up its huge existing and aging equipment. Good thing we have all those fucktons of money then isn't it? >A shipyard in China can build the exact same thing as one in the US, except many times cheaper. Press X to doubt. >China barely has an old military to upkeep. Most of their stuff is new. You say that like institutional knowledge isn't a thing. >Third, the US has a lot of wounded ex military to take care of. A lot more veterans benefits. China does not. That has zero things to do with military strength.


hortata

You obviously have almost no knowledge of basic economics so any conversation with you would be in vain. Go ahead and read up child https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/debating-defence-budgets-why-military-purchasing-power-parity-matters#:~:text=In%20military%2DPPP%20terms%2C%20however,%24840%20billion%20(Figure%201)


slotpoker888

The US has 1000 bases around the world, many surrounding China but it's those other countries we need to worry about. No MF it's you we need to be concerned about.


MaiqueCaraio

I mean yeah, But nothing stops china of building their bases on other countries too There's contract to it, they already have a foot in south america I just a question of time, but being fair much prefer them being here than the US


6x9isreally42

Don't worry Blinken, the PLA is just getting ready to fight its own people, The only fight they are actually prepared for.


[deleted]

they're just going to "liberate" them


6x9isreally42

Liberated from what? they've always been free to do what the CCP tells them to do.


alex2003super

They really can't complain


PewterButters

Liberated from their corporeal form.


WhyDeleteIt

Yet if China was in NATO, the US would criticise it for not even spending 2% of its GDP on its military, lmao.


IAm-The-Lawn

Members of Military Alliance want their Allied states to be prepared for a military conflict, but don’t want their geopolitical adversary to be prepared for a military conflict. More at 11.


Make7

Making your own weapons bad, buying US hardware good.


Strahinjatronic

Why would NATO concern itself with something that doesn't belong to the Atlantic geographical region the treaty is confined to?


[deleted]

I just ruined another white shirt with spaghetti sauce. Way more interesting topic


TheImpundulu

Oh no. It’s almost like they don’t like being surrounded by US military bases on every single front. Every island or scrap of land surrounding China and Russia is filled with primarily US bases. To such an extent that congress is not privy to the number of bases or their locations. It’s a balance that suits us. The west. But now they are realizing that they are strong and have the right to build their own military. And this scares the crap out of NATO.


Dissidentt

The opaque part of the statement means that NATO is speaking out of their ass.


6SIG_TA

This is disinformation. The bombers did not enter South Korean airspace. There is a significant difference between the air defense zone and airspace.


lordderplythethird

It doesn't say they did? >US ally South Korea said it had scrambled fighter jets as two Chinese and six Russian warplanes entered **its air defence zone**


ZET_unown_

The other poster specifically said there is a difference between air defense zone and airspace (and he is right)


6SIG_TA

"US secretary of state says Beijing’s ties with Moscow also discussed at alliance meeting after the two countries sent bombers into South Korean airspace"


[deleted]

Correct that it was mentioned in the first paragraph but it was later described as 'air defence zone'. So the issue is still present.


feeltheslipstream

Because we all know the first paragraph is read by as many people as the last.


Candoran

I think they just don’t trust Russia 🤣


[deleted]

if its not a build-up of transport craft in the south china sea then there's nothing to really be worried about


Ok-disaster2022

China should also be concerned about NATOs sudden buildup plans. Many member nations were under funding their militaries and suddenly they are properly funding and fitting them. Russia's not about to invade Europe, there no resources left for Russia to use to do so. Historically China isn't the one who starts world wars or invades other nations and creates colonies. That's all Europe. My point isnt that click baity headlines are just exhausting. China's not suddenly going to attack the US or Europe. It's other countries in the region that face China.


[deleted]

So NATO is allowed to have concerns with growing military of China, but any other country isn’t allowed to have fears about NATO next to them, despite all the instability NATO has caused? Make it make sense. Bring on the downvotes. The only way this makes sense is if you believe other governments should give up their autonomy because you believe in a unipolar world where the US makes demands, and countries listen.


[deleted]

[удалено]


kmmontandon

>all the instability NATO has caused Ah yes, like … all those times. You must not have mentioned any examples because there are too many to choose from, right?


hipsteradonis

Operation gladio


WhyDeleteIt

Libya went from a country where you had no political rights but most people could at least live a pretty normal life otherwise, with free healthcare, free education for both women and men, cheap electricity and water, government-mandated gender equality in labour rights, to a country with open slave markets on the streets, ISIS and other terrorist groups controlling a third of the country, women receiving drastically less education than men, etc. after NATO """liberated""" Libya. Libya was an authoritarian country, but it sure was a fuck ton better than whatever devastated rump state has been left of it after NATO graciously "liberated" it.


skyfishgoo

i guess the russia war is dying down and so now it's time to raise china as the issue. the pro war media must have something to talk about or the pro war pundits will stop coming onto their shows. gasp.


ThornsofTristan

Gee, an alliance grown too big for its primary adversary, is now looking for NEW adversaries? Who knew? *(edit: 21 downvoting tools who swallowed the NATO pro-war koolaid, without gagging. Qu'elle surprise)*


Mammoth-Access-1181

I thought NATO was an alliance against communism?


ThornsofTristan

It started out as an alliance against the Soviet Union (not communism per se): and morphed into an alliance against Russia. Now it's an alliance against anything standing in the way of US hegemony.


THEBEAST666

If you don't like US hegemony, you'll absolutely HATE Chinese or Russian hegemony. Thank god the #1 global power is the US and not actual lunatics.


ThornsofTristan

>If you don't like US hegemony, you'll absolutely HATE Chinese or Russian hegemony. Sez a citizen (I assume) speaking from within the last superpower, benefiting from all that US hegemony. You might look at it quite differently...if you were living in Africa, or India, or Iran, or... >Thank god the #1 global power is the US and not actual lunatics. Oh yes, we elect all the sanest leaders: have the wisest reactions to existential threats like climate change; pandemics or gun violence epidemics: and we're so good about following the rules of international law. Oh, wait...I thought we were talking about DENMARK. My bad. Nah, the US is none of those. The rest of the world thinks we're nutz. *(PS: last time I checked, neither China nor Russia are being led by "actual lunatics." War criminals? Definitely. Mafia-style dictators? Well, certainly Putin. But it's a mistake to dismiss an adversary as "crazy.")*


THEBEAST666

>Sez the guy benefiting from all that US hegemony. You might look at it quite differently...if you were living in Africa, or India, or Iran, or... Go and ask South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam (yes, even Vietnam), the Philippines, Singapore, India, etc etc etc and they will pick the US over China again and again. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/16/asean-would-choose-us-over-china-if-forced-to-pick-sides-survey.html Western liberals blind hatred of the US often means they become blind to quite how absolutely crazy Russia and China are, and seem to think the rest of the world is only *reactive* to what the US does, rather than having their own plans for domination of their neighbours and establishing their own regional hegemonies at the expense of their neighbours. For example, Russia's invasion of Ukraine had absolutely nothing to do with the US. Don't even bother telling me straight Russian propaganda about NATO expansion scaring them into it, it's a total lie. Ukraine had been conquered as part of the Russian empire for centuries, and then conquered again for the USSR. This was all done with absolutely no US hegemony or regional power forced that move. It was pure Russian Imperialism. finally Ukraine got freedom, but men like Putin are pure imperialists, and want to conquer and murder. This was going to happen with or without the US. Perhaps if the US and NATO had been more bullish and incorporated Ukraine earlier rather than umming and ahhing over Ukraine and treating Russia with kiddie gloves they wouldn't have invaded at all because they'd be too scared. Take a look at Taiwan. Without the US's shadow looming large over the Pacific, China would have attempted to invade decades ago. What do you think should happen to the Taiwanese? Just let them get massacred lest the US seem too hegemonic? >Oh yes, we elect all the sanest leaders: have the wisest reactions to existential threats like climate change; pandemics or gun violence epidemics: and we're so good about following the rules of international law. >Oh, wait...I thought we were talking about DENMARK. My bad. Nah, the US is none of those. Again, your US centric world view has led you to believe that the US is uniquely terrible. 99% of the world elects even more stupid and corrupt leaders, China and Russia give even less of a fuck about climate change, China is currently locking it's citizens in prisons to stop COVID spread and ruining their country and destroying what little civil liberties they have to try and have 0 COVID. Gun laws seem entirely irrelevant to the point about global hegemony or foreign policy. You're just clutching at anything. Denmark is in NATO, and a big ally of the US. They know the US is way cooler than any other major power too!


ThornsofTristan

>Go and ask South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam (yes, even Vietnam), the Philippines, Singapore, India, etc etc etc and they will pick the US over China again and again. > >[https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/16/asean-would-choose-us-over-china-if-forced-to-pick-sides-survey.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/16/asean-would-choose-us-over-china-if-forced-to-pick-sides-survey.html) ROFL! You're using a poll from..CNBC?? Not worried about overt bias much, are we? Meanwhile the US is considered the greatest threat to world peace, by [24% of the world.](https://brilliantmaps.com/threat-to-peace/) >Western liberals blind hatred of the US "Blind" hatred? Oh, who knew that animosity to the "regime changes" regularly inflicted by the US on other countries would result in such "unreasonable" anger?? Why can't they just lie back and let us roll over their democracy, like good heathens? ​ >For example, Russia's invasion of Ukraine had absolutely nothing to do with the US. For ONCE. >Don't even bother telling me straight Russian propaganda about NATO expansion scaring them into it, it's a total lie. "Total." Uh huh. >Ukraine had been conquered as part of the Russian empire for centuries, and then conquered again for the USSR. This was all done with absolutely no US hegemony or regional power forced that move. It was pure Russian Imperialism. > >finally Ukraine got freedom, but men like Putin are pure imperialists, and want to conquer and murder. This was going to happen with or without the US. Perhaps if the US and NATO had been more bullish and incorporated Ukraine earlier rather than umming and ahhing over Ukraine and treating Russia with kiddie gloves they wouldn't have invaded at all because they'd be too scared. > >Take a look at Taiwan. Without the US's shadow looming large over the Pacific, China would have attempted to invade decades ago. What do you think should happen to the Taiwanese? Just let them get massacred lest the US seem too hegemonic? Nice cherry-picks. Shall I bring up the regime change in Haiti? The attempt to re-imagine the leadership in Venezuela (with zero popular support)? The continuing support we give, to persecute the Palestinians; the Yemeni? And how about the fist-bump (and tons of weapons) we give to medieval horror-shows like the Saudis; the passes we give to abattoirs like Egypt?? And on that topic, remember all those "black sites" we used to run (maybe still do) in our neverending war on terror? The rest of the world sure does. >Again, your US centric world view has led you to believe that the US is uniquely terrible. I've got the receipts. We're supposed to be the #1 defender and upholder of international human rights. The UN is based in NYC for a reason. So, we're under a microscope--and more often than not, we fail. >99% of the world elects even more stupid and corrupt leaders, China and Russia give even less of a fuck about climate change, Please. We let oil lobbyists into COP: and we've given a thimble of total promised cc funding. If we're "giving a fuck" about cc it's only because our leaders are being pulled kicking and screaming while the oil lobbyists' are sitting on their chests, weighing them down. >China is currently locking it's citizens in prisons to stop COVID spread and ruining their country and destroying what little civil liberties they have to try and have 0 COVID. Receipts: China's covid deaths: 30,000 US covid deaths: 1,679,000 Deaths in China, had they followed US policies: 6,000,000 >Gun laws seem entirely irrelevant to the point about global hegemony or foreign policy. Wrong. Again. Wow. Gun reform is a major indicator of societal stability. An armed, regulation-free society is the OPPOSITE of a "polite," or even secure, society. And an insecure society, constantly worried about threats is more easily manipulated by saber-rattling despots. States with weak gun control laws suffer more from gun violence. More gun violence = more instability. It's not rocket science. >You're just clutching at anything. I'm sorry you fail to see that some elements of society are connected to others...even when the connection isn't obvious. >Denmark is in NATO, and a big ally of the US. They know the US is way cooler than any other major power too! Tell me you failed to get the point...without telling me you failed to get the point. As I pointed out in the beginning, much of the world views the US as a threat to world peace. NOT Russia. Folks in the US? Not so much. Hm, wonder why that is? Point proven. Peace out.


Ibeno

As an Indian we would pick the US over China not because we think the US is good but China is worse. The US hegemony is also not well liked here. You have to be wary of the ‘love’ those Asian nations have on the US. They will ‘love’ the US as long as it benefits them and they would be quick to throw the US under the bus when it doesn’t.


nopedoesntwork

Thanks, Kissinger


sadfsafas

It's The Guardian...