China cannot sustain themselves with the resources they have. They've seen the world react to Russia, many countries cutting Russia off financially in many ways. China could probably not survive as a nation if they were economically cut off. Yes many countries would be hurting for some time without being able to import goods but things like food, fertilizer, etc. are kinda key.

China also has a shrinking population, much like Russia, and throwing your young and middle aged men into war isn't going to help population numbers.

I think you underestimate the resilience of the Chinese people. They came out of the bloodiest civil convulsion in centuries, to become the second largest economy, and the fastest growing one, ever (well in known human history, anyway).

That being said, sure they face challenges. But I don't think they could "not survive" if isolated. They are probably one of the few places that could survive isolation: abundant agricultural land, immense manufacturing capability, incredible ability to mobilize millions of people toward survival activities, world's largest coal reserves.

If put in that position, they would be more likely to wage war to secure the things they needed, cannibalize other steel for war purposes, etc. I don't think the "China is too weak to fight a war" makes sense.

I think there's multiple levels in which it fails: if you accept it is weak, you must also accept that weak, cornered people are the most dangerous; if you accept it is strong, you must accept it can fight. Truly, it has a mix of both qualities, but I don't think the idea of it being "too weak to fight" has a solid basis.

In a more morbid sense, you could consider the lockdowns as training for the population for wartime curfew and associated hardships.

> They came out of the bloodiest civil convulsion in centuries, to become the second largest economy, and the fastest growing one, ever (well in known human history, anyway).

But how much of that is simply regression towards the mean after an extended bad outlier? All the most miraculous recoveries first require being very sick.

It seems like every country gets similar boosts when it industrializes, and we shouldn't be surprised when it is more-pronounced in a large country of high population in natural resources.

Hard to say how much. Certainly for a long period of history China was the most developed country in the world by various indexes of development (for one example see Morris' Why the West Still Rules for discussion of a few measures). Were it indeed regression to a mean stable condition, it would not exactly disprove the notion of their being very resilient.

It's true that some of the scale of its achievement could simply be a reflection of a similar achievement magnified by its population. It's also likely true that part of its achievement is to accomplish a unification of such a large population in the first place.

It may have been highly developed for much of world history, but its mean condition was not highly stable. Last century's convulsion was but one of many the Chinese people have put themselves through. You could conclude they are among the most warlike of any people, at least where domestic conflict is concerned. One can argue that is simply a reflection of a strong desire to unify a collective identity. However, their capability to both create and survive war and suffering is itself remarkable.

I think that weighs in favor of them having a high resilience. As Rocky Balboa says, "It's not about how hard you hit. It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward." China has certainly taken plenty of hits, and kept moving forward. Many other places have "never recovered" from the hits they've taken.

I would not say that this means China's ascent is assured by any means. But they do seem to have remarkable resilience and capability.

But I don't know. Maybe they do not have that. I won't say here what's in their future, all I'm saying here what one could conclude seems likely, given a sober look at their present and past.

I honestly feel that all the discussion of China is off track for this question. I must bear some responsibility for that, tho, as I think I've talked a lot about it here. I'd prefer not to, one reason is because I think this question is about far more than just China.

> China also has a shrinking population

Most developed countries have a shrinking population, excluding immigration from, well, less developed countries. Due to the one-child policy and preferences for a male child, there are now too many men, particularly in the military-eligible age groups. Sending them off to be war heroes will balance out the gender ratio and prevent an incel uprising in the future.

Wars reset all debts and China has all the capacity to sustain a massive war economy equal to USA during WW2. I think people underestimate what they could do if provoked or desperate

This, exactly. Underestimate to our detriment...surely military intelligence assesses it clearly, but the prevailing story in the press is the reverse. I wonder why that is?

Racism is a big part of it. Every race thinks they are superior and somehow other people are stupid, orks, apes, subhumans etc.

When wars break out though it generally turns out that people are equally capable of killing each other and logistics is what makes or breaks any prolonged conflict. Technology helps as a force multiplier but it won’t save you if the logistics break down and you run low on ammo or manpower.

Yeah, every group is racist, mostly to the same degree I think...but, I can only talk with certainty about the places I've lived, as I'm only a member of one group, and I've only lived more than a year in a few places, so I don't really know outside of that: degrees could indeed be different, I guess in the ones I don't know. In my limited experience of Earth so far, I've seen racism expressed differently by different groups, but every group is racist indeed.

I wonder if this the press angle we were talking about is historically consistent? As in, pre WWI and WWII, did what would become allied powers have press that downplayed the ability of axis powers to fight? And vice versa?

I know once things got started it was like there was racist propaganda, but I'm not sure about prior. Based on our discussion I'd say: probably. But I don't know.

It's weird, it's sort of like perhaps the "silver lining" of negative racism from a recipient's point of view: you are chronically underestimated. This in turn gives you the advantage that any opponents you may have are chronically unprepared.

I like your point about: generally turns out that people are equally capable of killing each other and logistics is what makes or breaks any prolonged conflict seems very salient and succinct and accurate.

One thing I wonder about tho (and we are likely getting way off topic here, so I apologize for that!), is how does this factor into occupation / unconventional warfare?

I can't seem to reconcile right now the ideas that the US has the most advanced and powerful military on Earth, with the fact that is has failed (at least it seems to have failed, but I'm not an expert) in its last few unconventional conflicts. One reason I find this hard to reconcile is because I would think that logistics, people and ammo were abundant in Vietnam, and the Middle East, yet...victory was elusive, and certainly not decisive.

I suppose the technology caveat you mention breaks down when you have "step change" technology, like nuclear weapons, or a UFO breakthrough or whatever. But I suppose the advantage of that is reduced to the extent that it's evenly distributed. The bigger the step, the easier it is, I guess, to prevent that distribution. Nukes? Relatively easy to prevent getting into the hands of everybody. Guns? Not so much.

Anyway, way off topic, so yeah. Any interesting resources you recommend to know more about this stuff?

Another driver is that extremist ideology surfaces when people are suffering under economic ruin. Nationalist sentiments rise and strongmen are put in charge.

Definitely. It's not easy to say whether nationalism and strongmen lead to the conditions that make war more likely, or whether those conditions pre-exist them and make them more likely. Reality probably involves a complex interplay.

So while it's hard to pin down causation, there's certainly more "opportunities" in such times for pretexts and justifications to arise that provide an emotional motive for war. Economic ruin provide an economic motivation as well.

It's a powerful combination. It strikes me how we see the return of Bibi (clearly a strongkin), the persistence of Putin (likewise), at this time. Likely the other conflict zones listed in comments here have some strongkin leaders, too.

Perhaps it would be interesting to combine the "food price index" suggested in another comment, with a "strong leader index" to figure out a bit of a rank.

> They basically went to war to refresh the coffers of Empire

This is technically true on its face, but second-order thinking reveals why the "coffers" were low in the first place. The United States goaded them into war by intentionally cutting off their oil supplies.

Pearl Harbor was no surprise. FDR's advisors knew exactly what they were doing.

10 years prior to the oil embargo, imperial Japan began its belligerence with expansion into China in 1931, and just before WWII, Southeast Asia. And imperial Japan's finances were already failing before 1931, prompting its aggressive expansion.

While technically true that the US embargo further depleted imperial coffers, Japan was already at war, its finances were already in dire straits, and WWII had started before this. While it certainly contributed to PH, the US' embargo cannot be said to have caused WWII, Japan's poverty, or its imperial warmongering.

Although you raise an interesting point about the advisors knowing what they were doing. I'm sure they did. And there was advance warning of an attack, due to code breaking, but they were unsure precisely where or when, I think.