Perhaps. But the USA spends more on "defense" than the next 8 countries combined. Obama said so in his 2016 State of the Union address.

If all but one of those (i.e., Russia) are "friendly" (i.e., most would say China v US is unlikely given the shared financial interests), who / what exactly is the USA so heavily armed for? Is military force as a proxy for diplomacy wise?

So regardless, of the percentage of X or Y it's pretty clear these weapons are an enabler. Yet infrastructure is crumbling? Schools not as competitive? Etc.

In addition, look at China and the North Korea situation. Best I tell, China isn't interested. Sure it has a military. But it's not wanting to get involved unless it's absolutely necessary (despite the USA's insistence they do get involved).

it would be considered as suicidal for india to pick up a fight. Chinese can fire cheap guided rockets within its border to hit india's capital, india will have to use long range ballistic missiles to achieve the same.

also note that Chinese design/build/operate advanced weapons like anti satellite missiles, anti aircraft carrier ballistic missiles, ballistic missile launch early warning systems, J-20 stealth fighters, military grade satellite navigation system on its own, india can not even build self-propelled artillery on its own.

Both nations know this full well, that is why there will be long lasting peace in the region/border.

Chinese and Indian troops clash all the time! Most recently is the "Doklam" dispute [1] where they share a border with Bhutan. Last I heard they were literally throwing rocks at each other (not a joke). There's no love lost between the countries, that's for sure.

But I do agree that neither will risk a major confrontation.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_China%E2%80%93India_borde...

Agree with everything, but I'd have mentioned Taiwan too. Assuming no black swan with NK or India/Pakistan, the Taiwan situation seems the most likely to escalate.

Taiwan could certainly be a flashpoint but it's something China would be choosing to do. And... well, I'm no expert, but I just don't see it happening, not in the foreseeable future. Not only because the PLAN simply doesn't have the sealift capability - and they don't - but there's just too much to lose and not that much to gain from an attempted military takeover of the island, even before taking into account what other powers may or may not do to help (my money's on "not"). IMO, the danger of a war for Taiwan has come and gone. If it was going to happen, it would have happened in the 80s. China has a middle class now and, it's not interested.

This is a topic I've discussed quite extensively with my Chinese friends and my impression is that while Taiwan remains a sore point, that ship has sailed for the time being. The fact that it's independent and not a colony helps - Hong Kong was a different story. And there's no pressing national security need for the territory like Tibet.

The feeling towards Taiwan (amongst my circle anyway) is a bit like a wayward child - to be held in check, and encouraged to return, but certainly not warranting military action with its accompanying loss of life. And the politburo's main goals are stability and its own continued reign. So long as Taiwan doesn't do anything to threaten those, China may rattle its sabre every once in a while, but it's probably safe for now.

My personal prediction for Taiwan (as a white layperson, mind) is that as the mainland prospers and stabilises, and gets over its remnant paranoia from the bad old days - and as the island gets over its own adolescence - the emnity and restrictions will gradually dissipate and the countries will move closer together naturally. It might not be a Chinese territory again like HK, but it's hard to imagine too many restrictions being in place in 50 or even 30 years' time. In the end, Taiwan needs China a lot more than the other way round, and will inevitably gravitate towards it.

That's assuming China doesn't collapse spectacularly, of course. Then all bets are off!