China’s “String of Pearls” and India's Two Front War Predicament : Analysis

[randomradio]

If you were given a money printing press, tell me, would you use it with restraint? I think that as long as you still have a shred of human nature in you, you absolutely would not.
Therefore, that first path is completely unfeasible. As for the population, when will it hit rock bottom? There is absolutely no historical precedent for a recovery among advanced nations. Consequently, whether it is China or India, there will be no rebound. Survival is a fundamental human instinct, but destruction is a fundamental human instinct as well

The Indus Valley Civilization is the only civilization known that has decreased income inequality with increased prosperity.

Inequality declined in the Bronze Age city of Mohenjo-daro | Antiquity | Cambridge Core

Inequality declined in the Bronze Age city of Mohenjo-daro

www.cambridge.org

At least in India, the Nationalists follow this culture. Modi and many of the Nationalist leaders chosen to lead the party do not have wealth or intend to have families and children to prevent dynasties, nepotism, and corruption.

Once people become educated and civilized, they feel a profound sense of responsibility toward their offspring. If you maintain the current system of ownership—where wealth is passed from father to son, and from son to grandson—then the naturally logical strategy to ensure the next generation lives a better life is to have fewer children. This should be a universal consensus among all parents.
Having more children is for oneself; having fewer children is for the sake of the children.
Therefore, population collapse has nothing to do with economic levels; it has to do with human nature. This process is irreversible.
Unless, as I just mentioned, this entire system of ownership is completely razed to the ground and the state steps in to raise your children, it is absolutely impossible for the population to rebound

This is true, but the threshold is still high. When people become educated and civilized, they tend to have 2-3 children, even 5 at times, not 10-15.

2-3 children is the norm. What forces them to end up with 1 is career advancement and financial pressure. Women have been tempted away from having children in exchange for a career. But if a girl child grows up in a well-adjusted family and has a responsible husband, she will end up with more than 1 child.

In developed countries, especially in the West, large companies have bought family homes and inflated rent. This forces parents to divert money away from children, so they end up having just one. So it's a governance problem. If companies are kicked out of the 2 and 3 bedroom markets and housing construction is deregulated, parents will have more kids. But the Western govts don't want to do that 'cause Bolsheviks are in control.

In India, both homes and schools are expensive. Homes can't be helped at the moment due to rapid urbanization. But wealth growth is somewhat commensurate with growth in real estate. Once urbanization stabilizes, only with good governance can society ensure homes are affordable. The other factor is private schools. Half the children in India today go to private schools and many in cities have very high fees. Modi has deregulated private schools, so in time it could get cheaper as more and more schools come up in neighborhoods that currently lack schools. So these two have to stabilize for families to grow.

But whether your country is developing or developed, good governance is the key. Education, housing, and access to credit are the key metrics for having children. This requires common and gender-specific education, private property and land ownership, deregulated banking and housing sectors. The US used to have all of this until the 1980s, after education and housing reforms. It's also when they started their climate change rhetoric. This is essentially when the Bolshevik takeover began. After seeing how the real estate bubble damaged Japan, they recreated those conditions in the US, India, and China.

 

[Hyperactive ADD]

The Indus Valley Civilization is the only civilization known that has decreased income inequality with increased prosperity.

Inequality declined in the Bronze Age city of Mohenjo-daro | Antiquity | Cambridge Core

Inequality declined in the Bronze Age city of Mohenjo-daro

www.cambridge.org

At least in India, the Nationalists follow this culture. Modi and many of the Nationalist leaders chosen to lead the party do not have wealth or intend to have families and children to prevent dynasties, nepotism, and corruption.

You should take whatever politicians say with a grain of salt—and the same goes for celebrities. You might think they're unmarried, but in reality, they often have multiple wives and a bunch of kids; it's just that legally, none of it is tied to their name.

This is true, but the threshold is still high. When people become educated and civilized, they tend to have 2-3 children, even 5 at times, not 10-15.

2-3 children is the norm. What forces them to end up with 1 is career advancement and financial pressure. Women have been tempted away from having children in exchange for a career. But if a girl child grows up in a well-adjusted family and has a responsible husband, she will end up with more than 1 child.

In developed countries, especially in the West, large companies have bought family homes and inflated rent. This forces parents to divert money away from children, so they end up having just one. So it's a governance problem. If companies are kicked out of the 2 and 3 bedroom markets and housing construction is deregulated, parents will have more kids. But the Western govts don't want to do that 'cause Bolsheviks are in control.

In India, both homes and schools are expensive. Homes can't be helped at the moment due to rapid urbanization. But wealth growth is somewhat commensurate with growth in real estate. Once urbanization stabilizes, only with good governance can society ensure homes are affordable. The other factor is private schools. Half the children in India today go to private schools and many in cities have very high fees. Modi has deregulated private schools, so in time it could get cheaper as more and more schools come up in neighborhoods that currently lack schools. So these two have to stabilize for families to grow.

But whether your country is developing or developed, good governance is the key. Education, housing, and access to credit are the key metrics for having children. This requires common and gender-specific education, private property and land ownership, deregulated banking and housing sectors. The US used to have all of this until the 1980s, after education and housing reforms. It's also when they started their climate change rhetoric. This is essentially when the Bolshevik takeover began. After seeing how the real estate bubble damaged Japan, they recreated those conditions in the US, India, and China.

In developed countries, the middle class generally caps their family size at two children, with the vast majority having only one. The logic is incredibly simple: if your only child marries another only child, the resulting family structure becomes an 8-4-2-1 inverted pyramid. The wealth of ten elders will eventually be concentrated and passed down to you. While this might not single-handedly guarantee a leap into a higher social stratum, it ensures that your daily life will be largely free of major financial strain.

If you are the parent of an only child, you absolutely would not want your child to marry someone from a family with multiple siblings. Of course, it's a completely different story if you have more money than you could ever spend, but those people are the exception. This reality is fundamentally dictated by the dynamics of wealth distribution and inheritance relations.

 

[randomradio]

In developed countries, the middle class generally caps their family size at two children, with the vast majority having only one. The logic is incredibly simple: if your only child marries another only child, the resulting family structure becomes an 8-4-2-1 inverted pyramid. The wealth of ten elders will eventually be concentrated and passed down to you. While this might not single-handedly guarantee a leap into a higher social stratum, it ensures that your daily life will be largely free of major financial strain.

If you are the parent of an only child, you absolutely would not want your child to marry someone from a family with multiple siblings. Of course, it's a completely different story if you have more money than you could ever spend, but those people are the exception. This reality is fundamentally dictated by the dynamics of wealth distribution and inheritance relations.

This is inherently a Chinese problem where there is no land ownership. In India and democratic economies, land ownership is your ticket to financial freedom due to its stability and high growth rate.

In India, all you have to do is save up enough money to buy some land when your kid is born, by the time the kid is an adult, the land price will take care of the kid's future. Land is very expensive in highly urbanised areas but in the outskirts you get good deals. And because India's urbanizing, the outskirts become part of the main city by the time the kids grow up. That's effectively retirement too.

The stock market in India is more volatile, but at least it's fair, unlike in China. Investing in a large corporate firm that deals with energy or high-end construction for the long term will ensure stable growth for your stock if you aren't interested in taking risks. Western stock markets and exchange rates are even better.

Chinese neither have land ownership nor good stocks to invest in. The only good place to invest is in apartments, and that's one of the worst places to invest in for anything except rent.

To put it in perspective, I recently bought some land for 9 million INR, I negotiated it down from 10m. In 3 months, the value will go up to 12m. Doubling from initial investment is expected in less than 2 years. That's how fast growth can be. Just 1 month ago it was 8.5m. But last year I booked an apartment for 9m and it's only 10m after almost a year. It will take a long time to double, but it will give good rent.

 

[Hyperactive ADD]

This is inherently a Chinese problem where there is no land ownership. In India and democratic economies, land ownership is your ticket to financial freedom due to its stability and high growth rate.

In India, all you have to do is save up enough money to buy some land when your kid is born, by the time the kid is an adult, the land price will take care of the kid's future. Land is very expensive in highly urbanised areas but in the outskirts you get good deals. And because India's urbanizing, the outskirts become part of the main city by the time the kids grow up. That's effectively retirement too.

The stock market in India is more volatile, but at least it's fair, unlike in China. Investing in a large corporate firm that deals with energy or high-end construction for the long term will ensure stable growth for your stock if you aren't interested in taking risks. Western stock markets and exchange rates are even better.

Chinese neither have land ownership nor good stocks to invest in. The only good place to invest is in apartments, and that's one of the worst places to invest in for anything except rent.

To put it in perspective, I recently bought some land for 9 million INR, I negotiated it down from 10m. In 3 months, the value will go up to 12m. Doubling from initial investment is expected in less than 2 years. That's how fast growth can be. Just 1 month ago it was 8.5m. But last year I booked an apartment for 9m and it's only 10m after almost a year. It will take a long time to double, but it will give good rent.

In the vast majority of countries, land is under a system of private ownership. Even in South Korea and Japan, where the population crisis is most severe, this has still failed to rescue their birth rates. The exact same logic applies to real estate transactions and the stock market

 

[randomradio]

In the vast majority of countries, land is under a system of private ownership. Even in South Korea and Japan, where the population crisis is most severe, this has still failed to rescue their birth rates. The exact same logic applies to real estate transactions and the stock market

Korea and Japan have difficult working conditions. All the students there do is study and then work 996+overtime. And both have high housing costs and child education expenses.

The Dotcom bubble killed Korea and the real estate bubble killed Japan. Their position is worse than in the US.

Their only real solution is to slowly push corporate offices out of Tokyo and Seoul and spread them into other underdeveloped towns. Instead of centralizing in two or three cities, they should have spread everything out properly. This would have dropped housing costs and childcare expenses.

 

[Hyperactive ADD]

500km is just a rough estimate. As a heavy fighter, the J-15 has a combat radius of about 1250km.
View attachment 47361
Taking the dual-carrier battle group displayed by China as an example, the escort ships include three 055s and six 052Ds.It can carry up to 720 HQ9B or 1440 HQ9C
I think it would be easy to deal with 20 to 30 BrahMos missiles

Oh, the F-14's combat radius is 370 kilometers at Mach 1.4 while carrying four Phoenix missiles, whereas your J-15 has a combat radius of 1,250 kilometers

Strange, if I split my reply into two parts will I be considered AI?
Moreover, the Soviet Union used a large number of supersonic anti-ship missiles to penetrate the aircraft carrier air defense network at low altitude in the 1970s. The Americans responded with two main methods:
1. F14A intercepted Soviet missiles and bombers;
2. Developed the Aegis system.
3.With the progress of the new era, the United States has also begun to use CEC capabilities to guide SM-3/6 to intercept supersonic targets at ultra-long distances.
China has all these capabilities and does them better

1、The F-14A could only intercept missiles launched by the Tu-16; it couldn't even detect the bomber itself.
2、the Aegis Combat System? A SM-3 stationed on land fails to intercept Iranian missiles, yet you expect it to defend against Indian missiles when placed on a ship less than 20 meters wide?
3、Since the Aegis system entered service, f I remember correctly, its very first interception test against two simultaneous low-altitude targets didn't happen until the 2000s or 2010s, let alone handling a larger swarm of targets. Meanwhile, the absolute limit for the fire control radars on the Type 052, 052C, and 052D is guiding 8 missiles to engage 4 targets in a single direction.

What the Americans can achieve, the Chinese cannot; yet what the Chinese can achieve, the Americans are capable of doing as well.

 

[Hyperactive ADD]

Korea and Japan have difficult working conditions. All the students there do is study and then work 996+overtime. And both have high housing costs and child education expenses.

The Dotcom bubble killed Korea and the real estate bubble killed Japan. Their position is worse than in the US.

Their only real solution is to slowly push corporate offices out of Tokyo and Seoul and spread them into other underdeveloped towns. Instead of centralizing in two or three cities, they should have spread everything out properly. This would have dropped housing costs and childcare expenses.

Japan and South Korea? Compared to China, their jobs look like a vacation

Up until date India hasn't initiated any of the wars it has fought. Nobody & I mean nobody in the world leave aside anyone in India foresees India waging a war against China except the CCP & their Han slaves.

Check out Operation Snow Leopard , the reasons it was undertaken & more importantly where it was undertaken.

There are no "Siachen Glacier Forces." It's manned on a voluntary basis by different regiments of the Indian Army most if not all of whom look forward to this assignment as it's a true test of challenging their abilities in an extremely hostile environment .

This assignment in turn stands them in good stead manning positions across the LAC. I've lost count of the number of times people here have had to literally school you.

Anybody else would've been embarassed about it & done his homework before commenting here. Not a Wumao though. That thick skin is what has helped them endure a century + 80 years of humiliation I guess.


So why did China withdraw from most positions before confirming a peace deal same time in 2024 in a meeting between Modi & Great Helmsman 2 ?

Are you suggesting China offered its own territory to India ? That's humiliation. You'd pay dearly for your comments if your supervisor in the MSS reads this codswallop.

You'd lose all your social credit points , be banned from accessing the internet , would most likely be sent to re education camps or even disappeared.

What's so bad about waging war? A love for peace is just the coping mechanism of the weak and the losers.

 

[Hyperactive ADD]

In terms of nuclear weapons, this is undoubtedly the case.
In terms of the army, India has the largest scale in the world, but most of its troops are ordinary light infantry. The armored forces are mainly distributed in the India-Pakistan border for confrontation, and they do not pose a great threat to China.
In terms of navy and air force, Japan, even South Korea and Taiwan, pose a greater threat to China than India.

What if the Indians deployed a few suicide motorboats packed with second-hand (or more like eighteenth-hand) Yamaha engines into the Malacca Strait? What on earth would you do then?

 

[Hyperactive ADD]

This is essentially a war between spear and shield. You are using a spear from the 1970s to attack a shield from the 2020s.
If this model is really useful, what is the significance of China developing the YJ-15 to YJ20 missiles?Wouldn't it be enough to just use YJ-12 missiles in large quantities?