WI: China without Tibet and Xinjiang?

So, we all know that China is incoming superpower. But what if she has no Tibet and Xinjiang? ( for whatever reason, let's say that these two areas are independent countries ) Would she be better or worse off? Would she then have the capacity to be/become a superpower?

Disclaimer: For all Chinese members, no offense whatsoever is intended. I'm not advocating for China without Tibet and Xinjiang.
 
What would the borders be? I imagine that East Turkestan area the Soviets had for a while? And the borders of Tibet waxed and wained a lot. I think about half of modern Tibet would do, as I have seen numerous maps of the eastern portion being separate from Tibet and there may be more than one Tibetan faction around. Also going to be the issue of Quinghai if the Tibetan government gets too jingoistic. I think that for Tibet there will be a revolution to try and remove the feudalistic theocrats. And depending on the borders for Tibet, it means the Chinese won't have border disputes with India. Outside of some issues with Sikkim and maybe that area they claim as part of Xingiang. Still, if possible I am sure the Chinese would adore having Mongolia, compact Tibet, and some other areas in their orbit while getting good relations with India. Of course the Soviets won't give up influence in Mongolia willingly, but the Maoists or the other communists in Chinese should be patient.
 
Well, let's say that borders of Tibet are of current Tibet AR and Xinjiang of current Xinjiang AR. Maybe the Chinese would try to keep easternmost part of Tibet as part of China, because of rivers that are flowing trough that area.
 
It would mean Uighurstan SSR and Indian protectorate Tibet on China's borders. China will have a lot more serious border disputes closer to its core.
 
8wfdimeeencsofbsbmb4_thumb.png


Better resolution: http://www.dumpt.com/img/viewer.php?file=8wfdimeeencsofbsbmb4.png
 

CaliGuy

Banned
So, we all know that China is incoming superpower. But what if she has no Tibet and Xinjiang? ( for whatever reason, let's say that these two areas are independent countries ) Would she be better or worse off? Would she then have the capacity to be/become a superpower?

Disclaimer: For all Chinese members, no offense whatsoever is intended. I'm not advocating for China without Tibet and Xinjiang.
I doubt that it would make that much of a difference. Sure, Xinjiang has some natural resources, but I haven't heard about it being absolutely crucial to China or anything like that. Indeed, with its rapidly growing wealth, China would almost certainly still be able to buy whatever it needs (and lacks) even without Xinjiang and Tibet.
 
I doubt that it would make that much of a difference. Sure, Xinjiang has some natural resources, but I haven't heard about it being absolutely crucial to China or anything like that. Indeed, with its rapidly growing wealth, China would almost certainly still be able to buy whatever it needs (and lacks) even without Xinjiang and Tibet.
The deposits of uranium within Xinjiang proved quite crucial to the Chinese nuclear program; without it, Chinas atomic ambitions may be quite harder to attain.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
The deposits of uranium within Xinjiang proved quite crucial to the Chinese nuclear program; without it, Chinas atomic ambitions may be quite harder to attain.
Did other nuclear weapons-armed states have large deposits of uranium within their own borders, though?
 
India's influence expands into Tibet increasing tensions with China? There is also an earlier break with the Soviets due to backing of a separate Xinjiang, something that almost happened under Sheng Shicai. Of course Mongolia could be given to China as compensation.
 
Did other nuclear weapons-armed states have large deposits of uranium within their own borders, though?
The Soviets had Kazakhstan, the United States had New Mexico and Arizona, Britain had Canada and Australia, France had Niger, I'm not sure about India and Pakistan, Israel probably got its from the United States. So, not necessarily, but often. It would be a slight barrier, anyway.
 
I doubt that it would make that much of a difference. Sure, Xinjiang has some natural resources, but I haven't heard about it being absolutely crucial to China or anything like that. Indeed, with its rapidly growing wealth, China would almost certainly still be able to buy whatever it needs (and lacks) even without Xinjiang and Tibet.

Well, certainly Xinjiang has a lot of oil and gas, but considering that China is net importer...
 
Tibet is probably more important for water resources than anything else.


Actually, yes if you think of Brahmaputra and Indus ( that would be important for India ), but not so much about China and SE Asia, most of these rivers flows from Qinghai Province. If easternmost part of Tibet remains part of China ( say border on Salween river ), even headwaters of Salween river ( eastern Burma ) and Mekong are in China.
 
Top