I don't think it's likely, but certainly possible in the next three or four decades.

"Is this a military objective or an economic objective...?"
Its *both*. There is no distinction here.
They're two ways of achieving victory that synergize very well with each other.

Quote:Can you think of any?

The Sino-Indian war in the 60's and the Sino-Vietnam War in the 70's.  In both cases China attacked and met with only limited success.

99% of everything in Kmart, target, bigw, myers, etc all comes from China.
Would they risk losing that? They will instantly fall into civil war if the greedy west didn't buy their stuff.

It's all about money. They are slowly buying Aussie land one farm at a time.

(November 8, 2015 at 8:17 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Can you think of any?

The Sino-Indian war in the 60's and the Sino-Vietnam War in the 70's.  In both cases China attacked and met with only limited success.

Actually, the cause of sino-Indian war is very complicated, and by no mean is it clear cut that the Chinese were the aggressors.  The ultimate origin lies with the British, who drew a line on the map around an area that was traditionally Tibetian and called it part of British Indian, despite the fact that the British was not then or would ever excert any degree of effective control over that area during the entire Raj.   When Indian gained independence India  tries to occupy the by force, claiming whatever the British considered to be British India de jure, must now be Indian India de facto. But Tibet in fact had never conceded that area. China, who claimed Tibet, objected to Indian claim to the area and threw the Indians out by force.  They were in fact totally successful militarily, and completely and humiliating defeated the Indian forces, in so far as the Indian forces which the limited scope of the war had involved.   The war ended with China holding all the territory under immediate dispute, and then declaring a unilateral ceasefire.   Indian army never formally accepted the loss or the ceasefire, but so complete was their military collapse in the area of dispute that they never challenged the ceasefire.

The sino-Vietnam war was clearly a Chinese military invasion.  But whether it was culpable aggression, or at least the sort of aggression the west has the high grounds to condemn, is also unclear. For one thing, it was done with the blessing and encouragement of the United States as a retaliation against the Soviet Union, which had gained complete ascendancy over the United States in indochina in the aftermath of Vietnam war.    Since the end of Vietnam war Vietnam had turned from a satellite reliant on both China and the USSR into a dedicated satellite of the USSR, and openly hostile to China.    China did it because China was paranoid about Soviet encirclement of China.  China saw soviet invasion of Afghanistan and ascendency of soviet influence over Vietnam as part of a coherent Soviet strategy to surround and strangle China.  So China sought to destabilize the pro-Soviet government in Hanoi with an military attack, which China believed Vietnam could not withstand.  This war was a diseaster for China.  The Chinese army was clearly incompetent and had unseemly amounts of difficulties in overcoming Vietnamese resistance.   The Chinese army had no significant combat experience since the sino-Indian war 18 years before.   Experienced and trained officers have been purged during the cultural revolution.   So the Chinese military in 1979 was in much the same sorry shape the soviet military had been in after stalin's purges in the 1930s.   So the sino-Vietnamese war played out in much the same way as early parts of the winter war between the USSR and Finland in 1939.   The difference is in this case the rest of the world was not already occupied by other wars, so China feared Soviet intervention to protect its own satellite if the Sino-Vietnamese war dragged on.  So they abruptly called off the war and withdrew their troops when it became clear no results can be expected before earliest possible soviet intervention.

That's not what this says:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War#Ceasefire

Quote:China had reached its claim lines so the PLA did not advance farther, and on 19 November, it declared a unilateral cease-fire. Zhou Enlai declared a unilateral ceasefire to start on midnight, 21 November. Zhou's ceasefire declaration stated,

Quote:Beginning from 21 November 1962, the Chinese frontier guards will cease fire along the entire Sino-Indian border. Beginning from 1 December 1962, the Chinese frontier guards will withdraw to positions 20 kilometres behind the line of actual control which existed between China and India on 7 November 1959. In the eastern sector, although the Chinese frontier guards have so far been fighting on Chinese territory north of the traditional customary line, they are prepared to withdraw from their present positions to the north of the illegal McMahon Line, and to withdraw twenty kilometres back from that line. In the middle and western sectors, the Chinese frontier guards will withdraw twenty kilometres from the line of actual control.

Since India had asked for - and been granted - American assurances of air support it seems likely that the Chinese were simply not willing to risk a confrontation with the US.  Maxwell Taylor and Robert MacNamara recommended the use of nuclear weapons if the US had to intervene later on in support of India.  So what is a footnote to history might well have become something far more significant.

And the British were always drawing lines on maps.  That's a major reason we are up to our assholes in shit in the Middle East.

(November 8, 2015 at 8:17 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Can you think of any?

The Sino-Indian war in the 60's and the Sino-Vietnam War in the 70's.  In both cases China attacked and met with only limited success.

Yeah, and in both cases they pertained to actual disputes China had and not wanting to go in and "reform" a country. And both of the "wars" only lasted around 2 months. China didn't overthrow any foreign governments. Japan invaded Manchuria and started WWII for Christ's sake - China has shown itself to be a peace-loving nation by not aggressing such wars. China even has a strong policy against war: 不战、不乱、无核. It translates as "no war, no instability, no nukes"; and represents the China's well-established policy for the Korean peninsula.

Is China perfect? Of course not; they have horrendous human-rights abuses and continue to be a dictatorship (although one that welcomes the prosperity that capitalism brings). But they're not an aggressive war-hungry country like the USA. If a war starts in the Spratly Islands it'll be because the USA instigated it, not because China did.

(November 8, 2015 at 11:02 pm)Minimalist Wrote: That's not what this says:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War#Ceasefire

Quote:China had reached its claim lines so the PLA did not advance farther, and on 19 November, it declared a unilateral cease-fire. Zhou Enlai declared a unilateral ceasefire to start on midnight, 21 November. Zhou's ceasefire declaration stated,

Since India had asked for - and been granted - American assurances of air support it seems likely that the Chinese were simply not willing to risk a confrontation with the US.  Maxwell Taylor and Robert MacNamara recommended the use of nuclear weapons if the US had to intervene later on in support of India.  So what is a footnote to history might well have become something far more significant.

And the British were always drawing lines on maps.  That's a major reason we are up to our assholes in shit in the Middle East.

There is no reason to believe the Chinese intended to go beyond the region of dispute. China had been diplomatically isolated in the world after the split with USSR. China at the time had no allies amongst any significant powers in the world. China had assiduously courted India, which had been the titular head of the nonaligned nations during the Cold War, as an natural 3rd world ally since both countries sought to establish a separate 3rd world pole to balance the two superpowers as well as remaining European colonial influence in Asia. India under Nehru had reacted favorably to Chinese entreaties. The United States and Britain had thought India had a natural pro-communist sympathy and had feared a sino-Indian alliance. To a significant degree the United States had encouraged and manipulated Indian into adapting a number of policies antagonistic to China, including support for the Dali lama in Tibet, and taking a hard line on territorial disputes with Tibet and China. So the sino-Indian war, whatever its outcome, favored the west by driving wedged between a communist China and a socialist India with communist sympathies. It was in the interest of the United States to prolong this war as much as possible, whether India is winning or losing, because it would make solution and reproachment between China and India more difficult.

Regarding war with China, I don't think it is significant possibility unless the United States is determined to force a war with China by attacking China proper.  

The reason is so long as Chinese economy is growing substantially faster than that of the US, and has the prospect of maintaining a higher growth rate for sometime, it would always favor China to avoid any immediate military confrontation with minimum necessary concession in the peripheral regions like South China Sea in order to play for time.  China will gain much more in terms of fundamental national strength by ensuring 5-10 years of continued economic growth and time for military buildup than she would ever lose by making minimum necessary concessions in South China Sea now.

For the United States, while United States will certainly gain a overwhelming victory in any peripheral struggle with China, such as over South China Sea, China will back down to avoid such a struggle.  But the United States is not guaranteed a victory in any struggle over core Chinese interests such as defense of China proper.   So the United States will not force a war with China by attacking China proper.

So China will not make it easy to start a war, and United States will not do what it takes to start a war. So there will be no war.

China isn't going to start conquering the world (not militarily anyway), they're trying to consolidate their region and doing a pretty poor job of it. These disputes have alienated nations like Vietnam who've ended up on the same side of the dispute as the US! People give the Chinese government too much credit on political, military and even economic issues. Their reputation maybe one of ruthless efficiency and intricate planning, but in reality their policies are often short-sighted. Look at their response to the recent economic slowdown, stop-gap measures betraying their lack of any real plan (Not to mention allowing that bubble to build for so long). It's easy to have a reputation for good governance when you have so much control over the media.

China's history colours their view on war, they don't want it. Back in the 19th century China had an internal war (Taiping Rebellion) which killed at least 20 million people, which is more than the number killed in WW1. Their history has built a viewpoint which fears chaos more than authoritarianism.

I'm stunned that anyone would think that China wants a large regional war on their doorstep. Besides, the real threat militarily is coming from Russia. Annexing parts of Georgia and now Ukraine using the ethnic Russian presence in those countries as sufficient casus belli *Cough* Sudetenland! *Cough*.