I'm not so sure about that one either (though I can see why the GP might think there would be, given the fact that they are in relative proximity and both in ascendancy), but those alone are not reason enough.

I'd hate to lay odds on a Pakistan - Indian nuclear exchange though, or the next time a nuclear weapon is used against a city, too many unstable characters are already in possession of nukes or will probably get them within the next 30 years or so.

Seoul? Islamabad? Teheran? Bombay? Cairo?

The mind reels when you think about the consequences of a nuclear exchange in those regions.

I've always been very much shocked at the ease with which the US decided to try its nuclear weapons on populated areas, the 'we saved lives, the war ended sooner' argument doesn't hold water in the context in which it is usually given.

But in the longer term, it may have helped to stave off use by a whole raft of nations after world war II, given that the horrors of the aftermath were known before more powerful devices were built.

History is fickle that way, we only get to see one of all the possible future threads.

It's certainly not inevitable, but there are a number of factors, including the massive resources each country requires as industrialization continues and the standard of living increases, political interests and influence in smaller border nations nearby, directly shared borders, and some amount of history

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1974028,00.htm...

Two largest populations and growing. Shared land mass. Declining resources -- many of which are only in China. Water is running out. Energy. There's a possibility it may be contained to an economic war, let's hope. They are more advanced and conscious societies than the west, so they may have the intellectual aptitude to avoid violence, but when people get hungry and thirsty, they get more aggressive -- naturally.