TIL Russia is actually a lot weaker than China when you don&

>when you don't take nuclear weaponry into account
why would we do that.
Also America will continue to be top dog. Historically, China has only been interested in being a local hegemon, not a global one

>>78982952
Because there is no winner in a nuclear war, so it makes sense

>>78982896
US won't collapse.
And if it does, Europe will take over, not China.

>>78982952

>>78969355
China's nuclear arsenal is nothing to worry about, I covered that in here.

As for their conventional forces...

>poor training
>no combat experience since no war in almost 40 years
>30-40 year old equipment except for the elite units
>the officer corps is incredibly corrupt
>most weaponry are poor quality clones of Soviet/Russian gear
>the PLA's purpose is really to defend the CCP, not the nation of China--it's not a national army, only a state army
>officers waste loads of training time studying political propaganda--the CCP refuses to de-politicize the armed forces because they claim that the Soviet Union fell due to a lapse in political indoctrination in the military
>most enlisted men come from the poorest, shittiest parts of China and are typically in less-than-excellent health and fitness

To make a long story short, it's a typical Third World military with all the usual problems of corruption, poor quality equipment, and being a political instrument of the state rather than a national army.

File: asia_east_pol_2004.jpg (500KB, 1017x1238px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 1017x1238px

>>78983237
Also China's geography limits their ability to project power since almost all of their land borders are on desert, mountains, or forest, and the coastline is covered by the numerous US military outposts in Asia. There's nowhere for them to go as far as naval projection, we have them completely boxed in, and that's assuming they had anything more than a coastal defense fleet.