One of the ways in which PRC and US could try to get rid of their financial dilemmas is by promoting short wars away from their own borders. This is being discussed in the US+PRC thread.
Now how far has China ever really gone for full fledged expeditionary adventures? Except in the case of the Korean war, and the proxy war support for the Vietnamese in their scond phase of "liberation/unification" campaign, and of course the "Himalayan" campaign - China has never really faced off other modern national armies. For all the talk of PLA prowess, how far is really the PLA worth it as a force to reckon with. The Korean war was a stalemate, with huge Chinese losses, so much so that apparently the communists had urged Stalin to reconsider his "order". In the Vietnam front, once again the PLA did not directly get involved in the combat. In the Indian case, it was a campaign against an army which had not been prepared by its government to face or expect Chinese aggression. The PLA is perhaps good against "weak" Asian powers or unprepared armies. It can also perhaps play good the game of helping guerrilla fighters against its "enemies". The PRC will bluff and bluster as much as possible as if its seconds away from declaring war, but I do not think the CCP wants to take the risk of the PLA suffering reverses.
As I have said before, one of the two traditional pillars of the Chinese state is toterring. This is the bureaucracy, eaten away with corruption. The other one is the army, which is perhaps being used by the CCP now in many areas of civilian life and perhaps even economics (an old Red Arny formula perfected during the "base area" experiments). This exposes the army to corruption and possible negative repercussions in those who are idealists among the army. In such a situation, can the CCP take the risk of experimenting with the only remaining tool for existence in its hand? What would be the repercussions for the regime, if either way, the PLA is successful against India (when the PLA can itself want greater share of state power) - or in case of failure, both PLA and mass disillusionment with the CCP?
Here I have included a map for possible movements by the four key elements - US,PRC,Russia, India. If we actually include the PRC+India strategic playground we can see that the circle is centred in Myanmar. Thus one way forward for India emerges in this neglected area which can ultimatley unhinge the pivot of PRC now. At the moment the pivot of PRC policy is in the North - around Kashmir, Afg and northern TSP. But India can turn this pivot around into Myanmar. India has so far played a safe game here. But the military junta is aging. The generational replacement factors will come into play. India should now clearly take a stand for democracy in Myanmar. Not many "superpowers" can afford to "disagree". Ensuring international support, India can take the side of the pro-democracy movement, and if necessary pledge more "concrete" support. The PRC is heavily involved with the Junta, and will react against Indian moves in panic. This can utilized by India to further estrange the PRC from the commons in Myanmar.
Either way PRC loses. If it takes military action to preserve the dictatorship it cannot be supported formally by US or Rus. With possible reversal of military fortunes, the entire axis of PRC military planning against India unravels. PRC now is concentrating on AP and Kashmir. The task is to draw it away further to the east, including all the potential flashpoints where national or ethnic interests clash with PRC designs. A strong nuclear capable fleet based in the Pacific that keeps the nerve centres of PRC under range is a possible distraction.