Dear I agree with you but do remember the Chinese approach to warfare differs significantly from that of Pakistan, India, and the rest of the world. The Chinese prioritize non-military strategies and strive to achieve victory through political, economic, and social means. They often seek to avoid direct physical conflict, employing tactics such as diplomacy, economic pressure, and information warfare to weaken their adversaries before resorting to military force. Military force is used as a last resort and often when they have already gained a significant advantage. In contrast, countries like Pakistan and India, among others, may not always prioritize long-term strategic planning and may be more inclined towards immediate military responses. This can lead to different approaches to conflict resolution. I am not suggesting that the Chinese approach is superior or that the Pakistani and Indian approaches are inferior. I am simply stating that they differ, and this leads to different ways of conducting warfare. There are reason Pakistan and India are not at chinese level and they are very solid whether we like it or not. Unfortunately.
I can continue this discussion with you if MODS thinks it is not off topic.
1, In national competition, military competition is the foundation. It is the underpinning of the use of non-war means in national competition. That is, any competition of non-war means is based on the foundation of strong military power. Without strong military power as a foundation, all other means are nonsense. Many countries in the world, they either join military alliances or seek the shelter of military powers. Only then are they qualified to talk about other means of competition. The building of a country's military power does not represent the means it now uses. The fact that China is now prioritizing the use of non-war means does not represent the direction of China's military force building.
If not for the PLA as a strong backing for China, the Americans would not have any interest in engaging in a tech and trade war with China.
真理只在大炮射程之内，尊严只在剑锋之上！(Truth lies only within the range of artillery， dignity only at the point of a sword.)
2. The autonomy of the development of weaponry and equipment and the practicality of military force have nothing to do with the country's current strength or diplomatic environment. It has only to do with the country's sense of national independence. Of course, it also has nothing to do with the country's current strength. It depends only on your desire and determination.
North Korea. A globally recognized backward country. It is able to produce many of its own weapons independently. While these weapons may be very backward, North Korea does manage to manufacture them independently. However, so far, India and Pakistan have been unable to manufacture a passable rifle bullet completely independently.
3. The basic rule of international military trade is that it must not threaten their own security.
Pakistan and India are among the world's top importers of arms, and both are able to purchase a wide range of advanced weapons from many countries around the globe.
Let us put our thinking in a different direction.
Why are these countries willing to export arms to them?
Why are these countries not worried that these weapons will threaten their security?
Why are these countries not worried that India and Pakistan will copy these weapons?
Why is it that when India and Pakistan come up with a program of self-development of weapons, various military-industrial powers actively cooperate with them instead of blocking them?
If we go on, here are a million “why's” ......
