NationStates

Whitemore wrote:

Novus America wrote:
But that is why we must ensure India is strong enough to face the PRC. If the PRC can beat India into submission we are screwed.
I am not advocating the US and India attack the PRC, that is not the goal. The goal is not for India to “win” a decisive victory over the PRC (India does not even seek that), the objective is to make sure India does not lose.

Keeping India strong, and able to keep the PRC on a two front defensive buys us time.

The PRC cannot face is in the ocean and the India on the land at the same time. The more the PRC builds up its naval forces, the weaker its land forces become.

If the PRC can eliminate India as a ground competitor, they can pump all their resources into their naval and air forces in the Pacific. But as long as India is strong, doing that is less viable.

I see what you're saying but I honestly do not believe China could beat India down militarily, perhaps they could hit a stalemate in the vast mountains between their nations but I could never see China beating India so harshly that they would start to conquer them.

Fair, them we are not in so much disagreement. The key here though is I do kit want to risk it. I do not believe the PRC would conquer all India per se, but could possibly hit it hard enough that it could leave India unable to stand up. The PRC does not need to match into New Delhi (which is not what it plans to do). But if the PRC can seize substantial territories along the border, dominate it economically and politically, and leave it weak and afraid to fight back, then it can focus all its resources against us in the Pacific. The PRC wants to dominate both the Pacific and Indian Oceans, and it it can control one, it can them focus everything on taking the other.

The ultimate goal is to keep the PRC contained in both directions, contained from spreading East and South.
This is the real key, because if it cannot expand East and and South it will go West and North, putting it in conflict with Russia. And leaving our place in the Pacific secure.

The American Free States wrote:

Whitemore wrote:
What the..

Any additional support this alliance can possibly get, it needs to take. Including siding with Russia. Siding with Russia also prevents the war from turning nuclear, since China doesn’t hold the same nuclear capability as Russia or America.

Russia would never side with us with their current government in-charge and the mindset that we plan to invade us via Europe. If perhaps we were somehow able to relax tensions in both the Caucasus and Europe and also have Russia itself overthrow Putin then maybe they'd want to enter into an Alliance with us, otherwise I see no way they'd betray their only Ally they have against us.

Novus America wrote:

Whitemore wrote:
I see what you're saying but I honestly do not believe China could beat India down militarily, perhaps they could hit a stalemate in the vast mountains between their nations but I could never see China beating India so harshly that they would start to conquer them.

Fair, them we are not in so much disagreement. The key here though is I do kit want to risk it. I do not believe the PRC would conquer all India per se, but could possibly hit it hard enough that it could leave India unable to stand up. The PRC does not need to match into New Delhi (which is not what it plans to do). But if the PRC can seize substantial territories along the border, dominate it economically and politically, and leave it weak and afraid to fight back, then it can focus all its resources against us in the Pacific. The PRC wants to dominate both the Pacific and Indian Oceans, and it it can control one, it can them focus everything on taking the other.

The ultimate goal is to keep the PRC contained in both directions, contained from spreading East and South.
This is the real key, because if it cannot expand East and and South it will go West and North, putting it in conflict with Russia. And leaving our place in the Pacific secure.

India is already unstable as it is, with millions of different ethnic groups within their Country I'm surprised they have even lasted this long without falling into Civil War. Perhaps we could fiance India and maybe, maybe, with the approval of the US Congress and India send military units to aide them in their fight but outright allying with such an unstable country makes me nervous. I don't want a situation where India collapses and our military units are surrounded on all sides by various rebel grounds armed with Indian Weaponry and then having the People's Liberation Army closing in with no major resistance to them.

Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana wrote:While I think Vietnam may seriously consider it, I highly doubt the Phillipines will go for it, considering Duterte is in China’s favor

If Duterte rejects it, he'll face even more backlash. But I don't think he cares anyway, so long as his main base is intact.

Whitemore wrote:

The American Free States wrote:
Any additional support this alliance can possibly get, it needs to take. Including siding with Russia. Siding with Russia also prevents the war from turning nuclear, since China doesn’t hold the same nuclear capability as Russia or America.

Russia would never side with us with their current government in-charge and the mindset that we plan to invade us via Europe. If perhaps we were somehow able to relax tensions in both the Caucasus and Europe and also have Russia itself overthrow Putin then maybe they'd want to enter into an Alliance with us, otherwise I see no way they'd betray their only Ally they have against us.

True. And here is the trick. If we can take the economic steps I propose, build a strong defensive bulwark from Japan to India. Then the PRC is checked from spreading East and South, and checked from becoming a major naval power outside the the first island chain. BUT the PRC will still be a major land peer, desperately hungry for natural resources still and with its naval ambitions checked, and economy weakened go for cheaper land forces over more expensive naval ones that just sit bottled up.

If the US and Japan are the dominant powers in the Pacific, India the dominant power in the Indian subcontinent, and ideally big player in the Middle East (India relies on Middle Eastern oil as much as the PRC does, but we do not).
Then the PRC will have nowhere to go but North and West to get the additional peer, land and resources it craves.

That will make Russia PRC conflict basically unavoidable.

Russia wants and needs the PRC to expand South and East, away from Russia. If the PRC is contained South and East, then Russia is in a really bad spot. While I do not think they will ever be our ally or friend, but if the PRC becomes a bigger threat to them, they have no choice but to treat us as the enemy of their enemy.

And then Russia can ironically play a the same role the PRC did in the 70s and 80s. Russia will be forced to move more forces to Asia, leaving it less a threat in Europe as well.

Kowani wrote:And the nuclear clock ticks one second closer.

It's better than leaving China unchecked.

Novus America wrote:

Whitemore wrote:
Russia would never side with us with their current government in-charge and the mindset that we plan to invade us via Europe. If perhaps we were somehow able to relax tensions in both the Caucasus and Europe and also have Russia itself overthrow Putin then maybe they'd want to enter into an Alliance with us, otherwise I see no way they'd betray their only Ally they have against us.

True. And here is the trick. If we can take the economic steps I propose, build a strong defensive bulwark from Japan to India. Then the PRC is checked from spreading East and South, and checked from becoming a major naval power outside the the first island chain. BUT the PRC will still be a major land peer, desperately hungry for natural resources still and with its naval ambitions checked, and economy weakened go for cheaper land forces over more expensive naval ones that just sit bottled up.

If the US and Japan are the dominant powers in the Pacific, India the dominant power in the Indian subcontinent, and ideally big player in the Middle East (India relies on Middle Eastern oil as much as the PRC does, but we do not).
Then the PRC will have nowhere to go but North and West to get the additional peer, land and resources it craves.

That will make Russia PRC conflict basically unavoidable.

Russia wants and needs the PRC to expand South and East, away from Russia. If the PRC is contained South and East, then Russia is in a really bad spot. While I do not think they will ever be our ally or friend, but if the PRC becomes a bigger threat to them, they have no choice but to treat us as the enemy of their enemy.

And then Russia can ironically play a the same role the PRC did in the 70s and 80s. Russia will be forced to move more forces to Asia, leaving it less a threat in Europe as well.

I suppose I can agree with what you're saying, though most of this is relying on Luck alone for it to happen and not for anything to get in the way of things. Also, what are the economic steps you recommend for this?

Whitemore wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Fair, them we are not in so much disagreement. The key here though is I do kit want to risk it. I do not believe the PRC would conquer all India per se, but could possibly hit it hard enough that it could leave India unable to stand up. The PRC does not need to match into New Delhi (which is not what it plans to do). But if the PRC can seize substantial territories along the border, dominate it economically and politically, and leave it weak and afraid to fight back, then it can focus all its resources against us in the Pacific. The PRC wants to dominate both the Pacific and Indian Oceans, and it it can control one, it can them focus everything on taking the other.

The ultimate goal is to keep the PRC contained in both directions, contained from spreading East and South.
This is the real key, because if it cannot expand East and and South it will go West and North, putting it in conflict with Russia. And leaving our place in the Pacific secure.

India is already unstable as it is, with millions of different ethnic groups within their Country I'm surprised they have even lasted this long without falling into Civil War. Perhaps we could fiance India and maybe, maybe, with the approval of the US Congress and India send military units to aide them in their fight but outright allying with such an unstable country makes me nervous. I don't want a situation where India collapses and our military units are surrounded on all sides by various rebel grounds armed with Indian Weaponry and then having the People's Liberation Army closing in with no major resistance to them.

Well that is why I want to make sure we help keep India stable. Nothing causes more instability than a military defeat.

But actually I agree mostly.
I have no interest in stationing US troops in India, (which India does not want) simply providing India with diplomatic support, intelligence, weapons and the like. Also as we cut off the PRC economy a source of labor for things requiring large smiths of labor.

I think it is more a semantics of what and alliance would entail. It would be very different than what NATO has become. I take the the more Eisenhower/Nixon doctrine approach, in which we build up local capabilities rather than fighting their wars for them.

Rather by them securing their area we can secure ours. And vice a versa. Rather than them relying on our ground troops directly. I have no desire to keep a large land force on the Eurasian continent. Rather that we have friendsly countries that can provide their own strong ground forces, while we defend the air and sea over the Atlantic and Pacific. As long as we can maintain economic self sufficiency (which is where my economics actions against the PRC come in) and be the dominant naval and air power in the air and Pacific we are secure.

Meanwhile China has been firing off 'aircraft-carrier missiles' into the South China Sea as a warning to the US..

The DF-26 dual-capable missile is a type of weapon banned by the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty treaty signed by the US and Soviet Union towards the end of the Cold War. When the US withdrew from the treaty last year, it cited China’s deployment of such weapons as justification.

Good times 2020. I feel if China wants to get Taiwan under control before the 100 year anniversary of the CCP then they probably want Trump to lose so they can go in the transition period when Trump will be at max internal focus.

Novus America wrote:

Whitemore wrote:
India is already unstable as it is, with millions of different ethnic groups within their Country I'm surprised they have even lasted this long without falling into Civil War. Perhaps we could fiance India and maybe, maybe, with the approval of the US Congress and India send military units to aide them in their fight but outright allying with such an unstable country makes me nervous. I don't want a situation where India collapses and our military units are surrounded on all sides by various rebel grounds armed with Indian Weaponry and then having the People's Liberation Army closing in with no major resistance to them.

Well that is why I want to make sure we help keep India stable. Nothing causes more instability than a military defeat.

But actually I agree mostly.
I have no interest in stationing US troops in India, (which India does not want) simply providing India with diplomatic support, intelligence, weapons and the like. Also as we cut off the PRC economy a source of labor for things requiring large smiths of labor.

I think it is more a semantics of what and alliance would entail. It would be very different than what NATO has become. I take the the more Eisenhower/Nixon doctrine approach, in which we build up local capabilities rather than fighting their wars for them.

Rather by them securing their area we can secure ours. And vice a versa. Rather than them relying on our ground troops directly. I have no desire to keep a large land force on the Eurasian continent. Rather that we have friendsly countries that can provide their own strong ground forces, while we defend the air and sea over the Atlantic and Pacific. As long as we can maintain economic self sufficiency (which is where my economics actions against the PRC come in) and be the dominant naval and air power in the air and Pacific we are secure.

Alright, I wasn't sure if you felt we needed to station troops in Eurasia as another way to halt Chinese Expansion, that's why I brought that up. I am happy to see we agree on that. I have always liked the Eisenhower/Nixon approach to Foreign Policy, I honestly wish we'd go back to their ways sometimes but then I remember the word has moved past us being able to do that. I can agree to us sending Intelligence, weapons, medicine etc, but us allying them still makes me feel uneasy. If it helps prevent Chinese domination over Asia then so be it.

Whitemore wrote:

Novus America wrote:
True. And here is the trick. If we can take the economic steps I propose, build a strong defensive bulwark from Japan to India. Then the PRC is checked from spreading East and South, and checked from becoming a major naval power outside the the first island chain. BUT the PRC will still be a major land peer, desperately hungry for natural resources still and with its naval ambitions checked, and economy weakened go for cheaper land forces over more expensive naval ones that just sit bottled up.

If the US and Japan are the dominant powers in the Pacific, India the dominant power in the Indian subcontinent, and ideally big player in the Middle East (India relies on Middle Eastern oil as much as the PRC does, but we do not).
Then the PRC will have nowhere to go but North and West to get the additional peer, land and resources it craves.

That will make Russia PRC conflict basically unavoidable.

Russia wants and needs the PRC to expand South and East, away from Russia. If the PRC is contained South and East, then Russia is in a really bad spot. While I do not think they will ever be our ally or friend, but if the PRC becomes a bigger threat to them, they have no choice but to treat us as the enemy of their enemy.

And then Russia can ironically play a the same role the PRC did in the 70s and 80s. Russia will be forced to move more forces to Asia, leaving it less a threat in Europe as well.

I suppose I can agree with what you're saying, though most of this is relying on Luck alone for it to happen and not for anything to get in the way of things. Also, what are the economic steps you recommend for this?

The key economic step is decoupling from the PRC economically, starting by banning their state owned industries and slave industries entirely and immediately, then increasing all tariffs on them 1% per month indefinitely on everything else from them This means nobody will move production for our market their, and eventually have to pull all their production destined to us out.

But we do also offer the PRC the possibility of stopping the tariff raise. Of course this would just be a distraction, to give them a false sense of hope. We never would stop it. By 2030 with all PRC products facing a 120% nobody here would buy them. Thus we we would be free of them again.

Also we create a massive re-shoring fund, the subsidize the rebuilding and expanding of US manufacturing.
At least in key things like electronics, steel, aluminum, rare earths and shipbuilding. Those we can and must bring back, even they need subsidies and protections.

Now some of the cheap crap that relies on mass labor (and we do not even really need) like holiday decorations and other such products, that is not going here. But Indonesia, India, Mexico, Brazil and so on can provide that stuff. The quad could and should have and economic component, India, Australia, Japan and the US have a collective interest in moving our productivity on out of the PRC and into our own areas.

Then we can better build up our defensive line against them. Economic strength, especially in technology and manufacturing is the key to military strength.

Sure there is no guarantee of success but I think this is the best strategy going forward.

Bombadil wrote:Meanwhile China has been firing off 'aircraft-carrier missiles' into the South China Sea as a warning to the US..

The DF-26 dual-capable missile is a type of weapon banned by the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty treaty signed by the US and Soviet Union towards the end of the Cold War. When the US withdrew from the treaty last year, it cited China’s deployment of such weapons as justification.

Good times 2020. I feel if China wants to get Taiwan under control before the 100 year anniversary of the CCP then they probably want Trump to lose so they can go in the transition period when Trump will be at max internal focus.

Actually if a Trump loses, then Inauguration Day would be the perfect time to try something big.
Do it right as the Biden is swearing in.

Novus America wrote:

Bombadil wrote:Meanwhile China has been firing off 'aircraft-carrier missiles' into the South China Sea as a warning to the US..

The DF-26 dual-capable missile is a type of weapon banned by the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty treaty signed by the US and Soviet Union towards the end of the Cold War. When the US withdrew from the treaty last year, it cited China’s deployment of such weapons as justification.

Good times 2020. I feel if China wants to get Taiwan under control before the 100 year anniversary of the CCP then they probably want Trump to lose so they can go in the transition period when Trump will be at max internal focus.

Actually if a Trump loses, then Inauguration Day would be the perfect time to try something big.
Do it right as the Biden is swearing in.

I'd go with between C'mas and NYE just prior to the Inauguration. Having said that I'm getting that nasty feeling Trump will win..

Bombadil wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Actually if a Trump loses, then Inauguration Day would be the perfect time to try something big.
Do it right as the Biden is swearing in.

I'd go with between C'mas and NYE just prior to the Inauguration. Having said that I'm getting that nasty feeling Trump will win..

Four more years of an impotent tinpot man would be nice, would give us some more memes at least.

Lunas Legion wrote:They already tried an Asian NATO. It was called SEATO, and it failed fairly hard. Neither South Korea or Japan joined, both being happy enough with pre-existing defence arrangements with the US, and it never really accomplished much of anything.

This really is just SEATO 2. Granted, it has more to work with than SEATO or it's unmade proposed predecessors did with a more threatening China, but it'll need to bring in more nations before it's anything remotely near an Asian NATO. The entire point of NATO was to stop Soviet encroachment onto the smaller, more vulnerable nations; unless this alliance starts incorporating Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand etc, it's just a mild expansion of pre-existing US-Japan and US-Australia arrangements to include India, which will push Pakistan more firmly into the Chinese camp.

All it is, is a collection of important strategic nations that just happen to be in or close to important areas that China wishes to control. If they didn't bother including Singapore, which is literally the most strategically important nation in Asia, it's not really all that exciting.

According to Taiwan's leadership, chances are they will be a war in the South China Sea. China, in a warning to the US, last week fired missiles from the mainland into the South China sea. The missiles included that new Carrier destroying missile they created. In response the US, which has been sending naval ships and drones into the South China Sea, is going to send 50 additional naval ships which include missile ships. Has for the Philippines, they have said that if China touches one of there naval ships that they will ask the US for help. Both the US and Philippines have a mutual defense treaty. Seems things between China and the Philippines have quickly heated up after China accused the Philippines of flying planes over what China considers there waters and which the Philippines says belongs to there EEZ. Over the past hours, China has sent troops to the border with India. The Indians are not happy. Supposedly, they were going to cross over into Indian controlled territory but they stopped short when they say the Indian military. Seems China is arming up this border region near India. Add in the US election, the incumbent Pres. might use the excuse of a war with China to get re-elected. So chances are good that a war could start. It just takes some real misunderstanding between both sides to start it.

Rio Cana wrote:According to Taiwan's leadership, chances are they will be a war in the South China Sea. China, in a warning to the US, last week fired missiles from the mainland into the South China sea. The missiles included that new Carrier destroying missile they created. In response the US, which has been sending naval ships and drones into the South China Sea, is going to send 50 additional naval ships which include missile ships. Has for the Philippines, they have said that is China touches one of there naval ships that they will ask the US for help. Both the US and Philippines have a mutual defense treaty. Seems things between China and the Philippines have quickly heated up after China accused the Philippines of flying planes over what China considers there waters and which the Philippines says belongs to there EEZ. Over the past hours, China has sent troops to the border with India. The Indians are not happy. Supposedly, they were going to cross over into Indian controlled territory but they stopped short when they say the Indian military. Seem China is arming up this border region near India. Add in the US election, the incumbent Pres. might use the excuse of a war with China to get elected. So chances are good that a war could start. It just takes some real misunderstanding between both sides to start it.

Ah yes, I completely forgot about today’s developments on the India-China border

India accuses China of 'provocative military movements' at border

Aureumterra wrote:

Rio Cana wrote:According to Taiwan's leadership, chances are they will be a war in the South China Sea. China, in a warning to the US, last week fired missiles from the mainland into the South China sea. The missiles included that new Carrier destroying missile they created. In response the US, which has been sending naval ships and drones into the South China Sea, is going to send 50 additional naval ships which include missile ships. Has for the Philippines, they have said that is China touches one of there naval ships that they will ask the US for help. Both the US and Philippines have a mutual defense treaty. Seems things between China and the Philippines have quickly heated up after China accused the Philippines of flying planes over what China considers there waters and which the Philippines says belongs to there EEZ. Over the past hours, China has sent troops to the border with India. The Indians are not happy. Supposedly, they were going to cross over into Indian controlled territory but they stopped short when they say the Indian military. Seem China is arming up this border region near India. Add in the US election, the incumbent Pres. might use the excuse of a war with China to get elected. So chances are good that a war could start. It just takes some real misunderstanding between both sides to start it.

Ah yes, I completely forgot about today’s developments on the India-China border

India accuses China of 'provocative military movements' at border

This is a video on that Indian China development direct from India. Indian news services have been hitting China hard. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaIym4EQK7s

This on the missiles and Philippines problem with China - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_5PY1Vgxdk&t=1s

This just happened today. Seems China is encroaching on Nepals territory - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bLie9KVQHM

Everyone is so focused on quads. What about the glutes?

Hey I know what let's do, let's spend years negotiating a gold standard multinational trade alliance in the region so we can bolster smaller nations that might be tempted by China's Belt and Road scheme and then...erm...uh...oh nevermind...

Trillions for the military-industrial complex, not one red cent for the working class?

So long as the South East Asian nations are included then we're good.

I would really like to see South Korea added to this alliance, but I am afraid they might be reluctant to join because of their hostility towards Japan and their fear of angering North Korea. Maybe if in the next elections the Democratic Party was voted out and replaced with the United Future Party, then perhaps South Korea would be more likely to cooperate. But in terms of domestic policy, the United Future Party mostly seems to be worse.

While China needs to be contained, I don't think the answer to defeating China is just outsource all of our shit to India. That's just going to create this same issue in 40 years.

India finally chose a damn side. About time. Not that it wasn't obvious they were against communist china. But It's telling they formed a pact with the US over Russia. I was concerned India would try to sit neutral in any major conflict.

Same, China has managed to exploit the tenacious political climate to their own strategic advantage. It's clear that they want to shore up their own political and global power in order to establish a stronghold over their regional interests. It's clear that it's not in India's interest to preserve it's stagnant neutrality, in light of China's strategy for South Asia.