no potential conflict will take place before 2020?

Invasions by 2020 would be stupid. China will start to use more and more pressure to realize their perceived interests while their economic clout increases. As long as the Chinese economic clout grows, China is on the slow, but winning side without the great losses of an armed conflict. Corresponding to the economic growth, the Chinese military will expand. You will see that a real clash is considered as soon as the US and Russia decide to drastically reduce their nuclear stockpiles because the minimum deterrence second strike doctrine has outmaneuvered their nuclear power and makes every nation with much nuclear money burning armament incapable of pressing their needs with enough conventional military means. Mao is quite right that nukes like chemical weapons aren't suitable tools for war and for this reason are useless. Minimum deterrence or a a safe theoretical nuclear capability combined with a credible second strike doctrine are enough to neutralize them. So an almost de-nuked world will most likely be the first result of a China that is capable and possibly willing to press demands by armed force. It's possible that China can push the military button like the US if they slip into military Keynianism because the Chinese, like every other economy, will have an economic slump and a very hard recovery after this lengthy and great growth due to accumulated economic ineffiency during growth periods that is just human nature.

Well, it looks like "Chinese nationals" are not biting, so I'll give it a try. I agree with Kurt's first sentence, the point being that the stronger China grows, the less likely there will be any sort of of invasion. The reason is that China is even more likely to have its way in 2020 than it is today, and if you notice, generally speaking, things are going quite well for China, comparatively speaking. Why would they ruin this? Why would they unite the world against themselves?

One can take each case on its own. You can see from the results of the last election in Taiwan, and from the campaigns of the candidates, that the political situation in Taiwan has changed irrevocably in just 4 years. This evolution was not prevented by the "return to Asia" of the US in the last couple of years. A war in 2020 is simply unthinkable, because for Taiwan it's suicidal, for China it's counter productive, and the US will no longer have the credibility as a "defender" of Taiwan.

In the cases of the various islands, or the "outer Northeast" it is a matter of resources. China is not having any trouble importing these things today. Will Russia refuse to sell, in the future? This is unlikely, as it shoots itself in the foot by doing so. But even if it does, China can buy elsewhere, not only the resources, but the mines etc. Why does it need "jurisdiction" if governments are friendly? Ruling over territory, especially where the population is hostile, is expensive, both economically and politically.

It is true that resources, and oil, are a big reason why the US has bases all over the world, and particularly why so many of these bases are in the Middle East, along with those of various European powers. But none of these powers are actually trying to "grab" oil fields as such. They are simply positioning themselves to do so if conflict erupts. Grabbing these lands as "territory" makes no sense if a war is not actually happening, either for China or for Western powers. This is because these states also want the normal commercial rules to remain in operation throughout the world. All of the territories you mention are adjacent to China. China, therefore, is already well positioned, with respect to these resources, if a war were to break out. It already has much greater military resources here than the US has in any particular region in the world.

Naturally, if hostile states, which would primarily mean the US, or possibly India, would somehow try to corner China, to choke it's supplies, etc, then none of the above holds. But from your introduction, I think you are putting the notion forth of some sort of Chinese initiative to "conquer", at a point in time of its own choosing, when it has the capabilities, rather than a response to the aggression of other powers.

In any of the theaters neighbouring China, even currently, China has major advantages over her likely local opponents. No country is going to risk being the first cannon fodder against China. China therefore is also not going to go to war against anyone, so that the second and latter commers can exploit the deteriorating situation.

As long as China don't start a war, no country around China is willing to go to war with her, even if at the egging of someone else. I know alot of people doesn't like what seems like a dangerous balancing act. They want China to be able to just plow her way through her perceived threats, but China's is actually more secure currently than one may think. Nearby thorns reminds you and make you grow, early easy victories makes you pround and lose sight of the big picture.

What she is not so secure is resources and energy needs, which is why development of a blue water navy and naval aviation capabilities and force projection capabilities and Beidou etc is being pursued while problem closer at home is placed on back burner. The threat of being cut off is much more severe than what any of the countries close to China can pose to her.

China is not going to solve those issues closer to her until she makes sure she is able to confidently face issues farther out, because she recognises that vitally connected to all those closer issues is that issue farther out. Once an agreement is reached on the farther issue through bargaining/balancing of force positioning and influence spheres, the inner issues will dissolve by themselves.

So if you want China to gloriously take back some of those territories she had in her heydays, I'm afraid you'll be in for a long wait.

People talk a lot about China's need for energy and resources. They forget that a large part of that need comes from China's role as a manufacturing hub for the world. Disrupting China's supply routes means disrupting commodity trade in almost every nation.

This also means that China doesn't need nearly as much energy and resources if it's not doing all that manufacturing.

solarz said:

People talk a lot about China's need for energy and resources. They forget that a large part of that need comes from China's role as a manufacturing hub for the world. Disrupting China's supply routes means disrupting commodity trade in almost every nation.

This also means that China doesn't need nearly as much energy and resources if it's not doing all that manufacturing.

Click to expand...

That too, which is why I think it has been really wise of China and Deng to get the economy hooked up first. Who doesn't like trade? No one wants to take over a poor China and China can develop safely as long as powers that open shop in China gets a share of their cream. Now she may even be able to offer some time leniency expanding her navy and think things through carefully. China doesn't like arm race, because an arm race means you are always reactively responding to other people's threats, which may be different from what you really want to achieve with your arm force capabilities.

People also talk about China's ageing problem. They forgot that if China ages her productivity will decrease, which means that export will decrease since her own domestic needs has to be fulfilled first. This translates to less commodity, some of which essential, for her trading partners, many of them developed nations and suffering from decreasing birthrates themselves.

The way to avoid this is to set up manufacturing hubs in other developing nations, and I'm wondering if China is looking into this also. They seems to have lots of projects going on in africa. China needs to look at how to fulfill the need of her citizens in the future, and a reassement of her geopolitical position once she starts to cut back on her exports.

I just know there are people who would like to see China divided into several pieces, they will still continue to 'make stuff' but would not pose as much of a unifying threat. China's current biggest threat is actually likely to be internal with external influence rather than external based.

I did today some rough estimates that perhaps highlight China's position from a different angle.
The US is the world leading superpower. But the US has been through a series of wars as a member of an Anglo-Saxon inner core and an outer core of other allies. This Anglo-Saxon inner core not only shares culture (actors from Anglo Saxon countries have Hollywood as a homeground), but also intelligence information and have compareably high per capita spending as well as training of their soldiers. These countries, the USA, Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand form the current core of allied sea-powers who passed on the world domination from the camp with a king/queen to the camp with a president. The key of their strength is their well honed ability for naval dominance that they defended against all competitors. This Anglo-Saxon inner core of about 400 million has a closely allied outer core of 600 million people, including former opponents like Japan, Germany, Italy and Spain as well as the other NATO members, the South Koreans, Israel (that is almost a member of the inner circle) and Singapore (strong ties with the Anglo-Saxons). Althogether a diverse cluster around the Anglo-Saxon sea power of a billion inhabitants that is often called the West. That's a population total that is not much less than China or India, but indeed very diverse, although they share many meme traits in their institutions and outlook on the world.
From a military perspective the last great wars, WWII and the Cold War showed that trained technical expertise plays a key role in the ability to muster the equipment for a prolonged fight and save lives of soldiers while training new ones to the best standards because all initial advantages get blunted during a long duration (including the decline of the Red Army from its high at the start of the Cold War).
That's the issue where China will need generations to compete in numbers with trained technical expertise, that doesn't only include academics, but a culture of skilled craftsmen and master craftsmen that work as intermediaries between engineers, natural scientists, programmers and so on. These are the key weakness of many rising nations that not yet have reached the same level and will need quite long to get there. So China going to war any time soon would do these skilled personnels a great favour by emphasizing their currently decreasing importance (except informatics) while China herself has not yet the basis to compete on an equal footing.
The war currently being lost in Afghanistan will likely spur drone and unmanned combat platform developments to negate irregulars the same capabilities in the future. Just like Vietnam, it will mean lesson learned.

Seriously, picking a fight with Russia is pretty much the dumbest thing China could possibly do.
China is very succesfull with being a peacefull trader, Russia is very willing to trade with China, and, if you go on an "opportunistic resource grab" you do it in Africa and not against the 2nd largest Nuke arsenal of the planet, which also happens to belong to a close partner that is also selling you a sizeable amount of your military hardware.
While the west would no doubt love some Russian/chinese friction, its not particularly likely to happen. The west would have to seriously change its highly antagonistic policy towards Russia.
Currently, Russia has 2.5 potential threats, the west, islamists, China. The west has amply demonstrated its willingness to mess with Russia, and it has the means to do so. The Islamists would like to mess with Russia but dont really have the means. The Chinese have no motive to mess with Russia, and while they could aquire the means to do so, they are preparing for a different kind of conflict.

no_name said:

People also talk about China's ageing problem. They forgot that if China ages her productivity will decrease, which means that export will decrease since her own domestic needs has to be fulfilled first. This translates to less commodity, some of which essential, for her trading partners, many of them developed nations and suffering from decreasing birthrates themselves.

The way to avoid this is to set up manufacturing hubs in other developing nations, and I'm wondering if China is looking into this also. They seems to have lots of projects going on in africa. China needs to look at how to fulfill the need of her citizens in the future, and a reassement of her geopolitical position once she starts to cut back on her exports.

Click to expand...

Actually, because productivity is increasing with fewer people necessary to do things, it's more an issue of prioritizing efficiency of activity than loss of productivity wrt economic development in poorer countries.

montyp165 said:

Actually, because productivity is increasing with fewer people necessary to do things, it's more an issue of prioritizing efficiency of activity than loss of productivity wrt economic development in poorer countries.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking more about the need to devote more resources for elderly care, public health, stuff like that. I think the current maturing generation will have to work harder because they each have two parents to take care of, and if the government decides to relax population policy, which it will have to do then they will also likely have more than one child. Also being the only child naturally makes some career choices less attractive, ie the armed forces for example.

Actually, it can be understandable from genetics point of view why people prefer male children. When you have a daughter, one x chromosome is contributed from the mother's side and one from the father's side. But the y chromosome, which gives you a male offspring, only ever comes from the father. Therefore every male kid shares the same y as his paternal ancestors all the way back. It may be ok if you have other male siblings, but if you are the only male in a small family there could be alot of pressure for you to have a male kid.