Read the news. You see headlines like "US sends two carriers to Persian Gulf". Not "Government of the US", but "US". That is, in external affairs - military and diplomatic and espionage - it is a normal, customary usage to refer to the government of the country by the name of the country. It's used that way, whether you agree or not.

Now, the point you're making - that there is a difference between the government and the people, and we need to remember it - is a valid point, and an important one. But you're splitting the wrong hair to make that point.

> it is a normal, customary usage to refer to the government of the country by the name of the country.

And this is more or less fine. Not just in the news, in normal conversation we do the same. Not just "China is doing this" but also "Chinese are doing this." That's also logically true, because some subset (however big or small) of Chinese is doing this.

However, I object to this particular expression - "China is a hostile nation." I don't know why it's even a point of contention. Maybe when people use the term 'nation' they actually mean 'state'? Because 'nation' by and large refers to people the country consist of.

> Maybe when people use the term 'nation' they actually mean 'state'?

Yes, they do.

> Because 'nation' by and large refers to people the country consist of.

No, it doesn't. We keep telling you this, over and over and over, and you keep not listening, but I'm going to say it one more time: No, it doesn't. When you're talking about international things - things between countries - "nation" by and large refers to the government, not the people.

False.

Definition 1.b. in your link includes the government explicitly.

None of them exclude the government, and they can all reasonably include the government.

Of course the nation as a community of people in 1b also includes the government, but you can hardly say the nation understood in this sense is hostile. What you can say is that the government is hostile - we have proofs of that. We can also say that some minuscule percentage of the population is hostile - we can see some evidence of that. But to say that a nation is hostile is really crossing a red (no pun intended) line.

I'm discussing this apparently insignificant issue ad nauseam only because repeated conflation of government and citizens in discourse, media, and ultimately our minds are not without consequences.

> but you can hardly say the nation understood in this sense is hostile

I don’t see how you can make this claim so strongly.

The government is not independent of the people even if it is authoritarian.

Any hostility enacted by the government will necessarily involve the people. Governments need people in order to do anything.

A government without people can speak hostile words, but can’t be hostile, because by definition it can’t do anything if it isn’t governing anyone.

What you say is of course true of democracy, but has nothing to do with totalitarian systems and dictatorships.

I can’t see any way what I said doesn’t apply equally to totalitarian systems and dictatorships.

You will need to explain.