Will it supersede US one day?

I think it will. Democracy is not the way forward for capitalism. China can now become rich and still keep the people down. The downfall of any economic system is people’s rights and expectation increase with wealth in a Democracy. China can still stop you reading web pages they don't like or kill you for any reason they see fit. We are looking at the first major Dictatorship, Capitalist Superpower. This will change the world and who can stop them? No one!

Possibly, but not forever and certainly not the way they are now. You can do a lot when you have a billion slaves taught from birth to do whatever you say, but there are risks and limitations involved too.

I read today article by Howard W. French, (translated into Portuguese) that must have been in the New York Times a few days ago, so my translation back of parts into English is not exact and to save typing, I am also condensing the facts and ideas:

1) 58 year old Princeton U. prof (Andrew Yao), world leader in computer sciences, & Yale genetist Xu Tian, and nuclear physicist Yan Fujia are among the dozens highest level professors that China has already bought home to well equipped new labs in a "billions of dollars" plan to make 30 mainland universities "superior to Harvard." Money is no objective /problem thanks to the great trade surplus. Because of the low general wage levels etc the cost of the new buildings is less than US $50/ square foot.

2) Already each year China graduates in engineering alone: 442,000 new engineers, plus 48,000 with masters degrees, plus 8,000 Ph.D.s Since 1998, when Jiang Zemin began to transform higher education in China, it has been transformed. In 2004 alone, US$10.4 billion was spent on improving the graduate schools and "buying professors" from the world's best universities. Ex MIT's mathematician, Tian Gang is heading up a new advance math research center that will soon exceed western-trained "brain power" at Princeton’s Center for Advanced Studies, where Einstein et al worked.

Living outside of US, in a city with great news papers (They ought to be as they copy from all the world's best and have staff on site around the world.) one is not as "thought controlled" as in the US. Thus three year ago I became aware that western world has already lost engineering leadership to Asia and is in the process of losing scientific leadership during this generation as well. That is why I wrote Dark Visitor - more details soon at web site under my name. (Currently site is down but in a few days should be back up.)

Democracy never worked for anyone. It ends up as socialist authoritarism or out right totalitarianism. China will prosper if shifts to relatively free markets, the upholding of property rights and the rule of law. If not, it stagnates or fragments.

China isn't as powerful as many seems to believe. They will not, as long as they are communists, be able to conquer the USA.

--

I think it will. Democracy is not the way forward for capitalism. China can now become rich and still keep the people down. The downfall of any economic system is people’s rights and expectation increase with wealth in a Democracy. China can still stop you reading web pages they don't like or kill you for any reason they see fit. We are looking at the first major Dictatorship, Capitalist Superpower. This will change the world and who can stop them? No one!

You really haven't learned much from history, have you, Alex?

The now-defunct U.S.S.R. had all the advantages that you attribute to China and they ultimately couldn't keep it working. China won't disintegrate like they did but they cannot totally succeed in their final ambitions without some serious change.

Just what is it that makes you think that China can prevail when the U.S.S.R. could not? Just what do you see as being different between them?

China can prevail because the U.S. is actively helping them in every way.

The China hype is overblown. Yes, they'll get more powerful than they are now, but they'll never match the US. Why? The US has 300 Million people, a giant amount of natural resources and room, and is surrounded by giant oceans and docile neighbors. China has 1.3 Billion mouths to feed, has pretty much maxed out their environment, and is surrounded by formidable, nuclear-armed neighbors. The best case China can hope for would be hegemonic status in East Asia. In comparison, it's hard to imagine a realistic scenario where the US ends up with anything less than hegemony over essentially the entire Western Hemisphere. And I'd say that the latter position is the more comfortable one to be in...

Light, the answer to your question is simple. The world is now a Global market the U.S.S.R had to get it right from the inside first. China does not need the internal market to succeed. They only need the external market and we live in a much more greedy world, that begs for the cheap import.

Lets remember that history is as it says on the label "history" and today’s world is a very different place.

Light, the answer to your question is simple. The world is now a Global market the U.S.S.R had to get it right from the inside first. China does not need the internal market to succeed. They only need the external market and we live in a much more greedy world, that begs for the cheap import.

Lets remember that history is as it says on the label "history" and today’s world is a very different place.

Sorry, but that's incorrect. The world is little different today than it was then. The global market was going very strong at that time too. For a couple of examples, during that same time period the U.S. was a major exporter of grain (mostly wheat) to the U.S.S.R. OPEC was already in place and exporting oil all over the world, Argentina was already a major exporter of beef. Japan was selling small cars worldwide. There are many more examples. I gather that you weren't even around during that time and are simply going by what you think it was like.

Talking about News sources, I saw a documentary on the Discovery Times about foreign treatment of Chinese workers, the Chinese workers are getting screwed (paid less than the Chinese! Minimum wage) and their government officials are willing to except bribes to maintain that. The report was in one factory so its not really a good way to make statistic analysis but going with what I know about human beings, the Chinese are selling their own workers out. Due to the one child policy they probably have an increasing older population and few replacements not to mention a bad boy to girl ratio. There breeding more diseases with their crowding and substandard living conditions too. I think China will fail.

China is moving it's country forward economically and increasing it's military strength and will someday be on top. What's to stop them? The U.S.? Forget it. The U.S. can't even stop terrorists in Iraq. What makes you think they can stop China when China wants to make it's move on Taiwan or some other country. As long as you have a president and vice president like Bush & Cheney leading the U.S. into a hole, then of course you're not going anywhere.

May_wentee

China is indeed capable of being at the top of the US and every other nation, it just has to decide when and do it, it won't be easy but they will be at the top after the fight. This is clearly know because of its military, its allies, its influences, and its people around the globe ready to do his job and take the control. So to China be the hyperpower is matter of them to make that choice, when they think is the time it just would happen, because even at this right moment their power is spreading in all areas and levels all over the globe and gaining control in a stealthy way.

Light, exports have been going on since the first ships set sail. Sure there was a Global economy in the USSR era but it is nothing like today. If we look far enough back the Dodo was properly exported. But what is more important here, is that China is the next stage, along with India to a lesser degree. Industry is moving to China because it is cheap and nothing will stop that. Capitalism has no loyalty to a country or its people only to money and as soon as somewhere cheaper is viable then that is where the money will flow. But the real power that China has is that it will stay cheap, that’s the danger.

What natural resources does China have? In my view, that's the key for a nation to progress and thrive. As far as I'm aware, China has few natural resources other than a huge quantity of manpower, which can't do much without natural resources.

And if that's true, then the only way China can progress much at all, is to buy or take by force the needed resources from some other nation. If she buys those resources, then she's at the mercy of the seller. If she begins such a conquest, she'll have to answer to all of the other nations on Earth!

So, no, I don't think China will ever become the next super-power.

Baron Max

China's military hardware is woefully lacking. I don't even think they have a sinlgr aircraft carrier.

Sure, they may have a billion people, but they're so close together, carpet bombing would do wonders for population control.

China's not yet a threat.

Just what is it that makes you think that China can prevail when the U.S.S.R. could not? Just what do you see as being different between them?

The U.S.S.R. tried to switch to capitalism overnight. It was too drastic of a move. China started out much slower and only picked up the pace once they had a better understanding of the system.

What natural resources does China have? In my view, that's the key for a nation to progress and thrive. As far as I'm aware, China has few natural resources other than a huge quantity of manpower, which can't do much without natural resources.

Well there's a lot in SE Russia which is why the Chinese are trying to overpopulate and take over resource rich areas in that region like the way Israel tries to take over Palestine and M.E. land with its colonists and Mexico with it's illegal immigrants to the U.S.

And if that's true, then the only way China can progress much at all, is to buy or take by force the needed resources from some other nation. If she buys those resources, then she's at the mercy of the seller. If she begins such a conquest, she'll have to answer to all of the other nations on Earth!

What, like the U.S. did trying to secure more oil in the M.E.? Who'd we have to answer to? Who will China have to answer to? Are you going to be like Hans Blix and write a very angry letter to Kim Jong Ill telling him how angry the United Nations are with him? If so, oh no! :p

- N

Light, exports have been going on since the first ships set sail. Sure there was a Global economy in the USSR era but it is nothing like today. If we look far enough back the Dodo was properly exported. But what is more important here, is that China is the next stage, along with India to a lesser degree. Industry is moving to China because it is cheap and nothing will stop that. Capitalism has no loyalty to a country or its people only to money and as soon as somewhere cheaper is viable then that is where the money will flow. But the real power that China has is that it will stay cheap, that’s the danger.

Sure, I understand all that - I'm here now and I was here during the height of Russia. But the point is that China has little to offer in terms of exports. About all it has is over-population and it's still very backwards - very much a third-world country. It's huge population will never be as productive as the West because it has the same failings the Russians had. If you're alive you are assigned a job wheather it fits your talents and desires or not. That doesn't make for a productive workforce and quality suffers tremendously.

IF China wants to become a true super-power it will have to make some drastic changes in the way it treats it's people. Take a look at the same process hapening in North Korea. Just how successful have they been? There's a difference, of course, in that they are kept totally isolated form the rest of the world, but is China much better in that respect?

Don't under estimate China's military power. They have missiles and bombers capable of hitting the U.S. and just about anybody else. If you think China hasn't got what it takes to be a superpower, you better think again. China is a superpower!

May_wentee

If we are talking about China's military power, all we have to remember is that if they can put a man in space they can put a rocket in your backyard.

They have missiles and bombers capable of hitting the U.S. and just about anybody else.

And we have many, many more missiles and bombers capable of hitting them back. We also have a sizeable carrier force, which means we could stage bombing runs right next door to them.

Roman, no one on earth could beat the USA in a war, apart from a few Iraqi insurgents. For sheer military hardware no one beats the USA and hopefully no one ever will. Europe got it right with their stance of free health care rather than huge Army’s.


But China could ruffle some feathers if it truly wanted to. Also any country that has Nuclear weapons, in many ways have as much military power as the USA, and China has them.

But we have MORE nukes. If anyone was foolish to detonate a nuke, you can bet the US would empty it's arsenal on China.
Can you imagine the response of the US would be if one of our cities was nuked?
Total war; China would be completely obliterated.

The insrugency situation in Iraq is far different from what a real war with China would look like. We'd have hard targets– military & industrial, a real regime to target. Once the regime fell, China would be broken and no longer a threat.

Is China really that over populated? In terms of sheers numbers China is over populated, but is that all we need to look at here?

Lets compare China to the USA on this! What is the average height and weight of a Chinese citizen and an American? Every one in China is tiny compared to the USA. You have a large number of citizens that have the body mass of 3 or 4 Chinese people and that’s normally just one thigh. The amount of resources needed to sustain an American is excessively more than that of a Chinese citizen. Proof of this can be found if you look at the figures for the environmental footprint left by the average American, it is by far the biggest on earth. Therefore, I would claim that China is over populated but its needs created by over population as on par with the needs of the American population. The only difference is that the USA is greed driven. I don't see the USA rationing Big Mac's to only 5 per person.

It's also very important to look at the mentality of the Chinese population. Here in the UK the Chinese are some of our top student in terms of high grades. Chinese people are a dedicated nation. This is very important in building a superpower.

I also think its important to take into account Alcohol consumption. The UK will never get anywhere, in general we go to work earn money and spend it down the pub or on Alcohol or leisure activities. I believe drinking culture holds back any country, it makes for an unproductive workforce. Here in the UK young Muslims save and invest from a young age and buy property and businesses, young English people on the other hand spend the money in the Pub. China I would assume is the same as a large percentage of their population are genetically unable to process Alcohol. Therefore, I believe China could never have a substance abuse problem. Especially as it appear from another post on this forum illegal drug use can lead to being shot.

Maybe this is another China/USSR difference, as the Russians love their Vodka.

Roman the USA has enough Nukes to destory China and China has enough Nukes to destory the USA. That seems as equal as it needs to be from where I am sitting. Unless you feel some strange need to triple Nuke China.

...and China has enough Nukes to destory the USA.

Where do you get that information?

Baron Max

alex,
Lets compare China to the USA on this! What is the average height and weight of a Chinese citizen and an American? Every one in China is tiny compared to the USA. You have a large number of citizens that have the body mass of 3 or 4 Chinese people and that’s normally just one thigh. The amount of resources needed to sustain an American is excessively more than that of a Chinese citizen. Proof of this can be found if you look at the figures for the environmental footprint left by the average American, it is by far the biggest on earth. Therefore, I would claim that China is over populated but its needs created by over population as on par with the needs of the American population. The only difference is that the USA is greed driven. I don't see the USA rationing Big Mac's to only 5 per person.

You miss a key point of economics, then. To win in the industrial market, one must outproduce everyone else. And to outproduce, one must find the markets to consume. Americans concume lots because they can. If a chinaman could consume as much as an American, he would.

And thus the growing rivalry between China and the US. China wants to consume more.

China has about 1.3 billion persons, each person with a purchasing parity of $5,600.

The US has a population of about 300 million, each person;s purchasing parity is $40,100.

As you can see, the average American is worth more than seven times as much as the average chinaman.

Who is more likely to launch a suicide attack, the US or China? It doesn't take very many cobalt bombs to completely destroy an enemy. After doing that, it will be many years before anyone can live above ground again, anywhere. Some of the US's behavior says to me that China has promised to obliterate the biosphere if the U.S. does anything decisive to win against China. From there, we are just running and fetching for them and saving them from spending resources to cripple oil-producing countries or to fight any wars at all that drain resources.

If the U.S. gains the high ground it might not be enough in itself to provoke China to use the final option. I would rather risk it. I would rather have a stalemate with China than a victory by China. If they have the suicide weapon, dare them to use it. I would rather die anyway than live under Chinese rule.

Actually, China has become more pragmatic than fanatical in recent decades. America would probably be the one to do crazy-assed stuff like that... but only when we have our back to the wall. It hasn't happened in a while so most people don't remember that we can be the craziest one of the lot.

Sorry, but that's incorrect. The world is little different today than it was then. The global market was going very strong at that time too. For a couple of examples, during that same time period the U.S. was a major exporter of grain (mostly wheat) to the U.S.S.R. OPEC was already in place and exporting oil all over the world, Argentina was already a major exporter of beef. Japan was selling small cars worldwide. There are many more examples. I gather that you weren't even around during that time and are simply going by what you think it was like.
But as you presumably have not noticed, the simple fact is that not only have use of resources increased several times over, so too have interpenetration of economic entitites. The situation today is different simlpy by virtue of the trends that were in place back in the 20's and 30's in terms of corporations, trade etc growing and coming to the state they are now.



If you're alive you are assigned a job wheather it fits your talents and desires or not. That doesn't make for a productive workforce and quality suffers tremendously.
I thiinnk you'll find that it is far more open that that now, at least for an appreciable percentage of the population. Look at the Southern states, and the extent of entrepreneurship going on, as well as state investment in everything from universities to motorways.

Having said all that above, I disagree with alexb123 to a point, because as has already been pointed out, China has a lack of natural resources with which to bootstrap its way out of poverty. THe USA had lots by comparison, and used the fairly well to increase its industry and then its financial markets. China as far as I know imports just about everything in large quantities except coal.


Roman, your point about purchasing parity doesnt necessarily take into account the effects of debt. The USA is running a trade deficit, China has a trade surplus, which can be used to build up the economy. (Of course they'll probably waste a lot of it on military stupidity, but hey.)

For the title of next superpower, I expect CHina and India to be arguing about it. I read recently that wages are rising in Chinia, but staying quite low in India, which gives India an advantage in attracting cheap labour for cheap manufacturing.

The Chinese trade surplus mentioned by quthrie is expected to be $200 Billion. That is an awesome amount of money by anyones standards. Also remember these are early days for this new era in China's history.

The Queen here in the UK had top China officals here last week and even today Bush is in China. If you want to lick a Chinaman's arse these days you have to wait in line.

Also that $200 does not get swallowed up in welfare payments or huge Admin costs. It looks like much of it will go to Universitys and R+D. On that kind of income China could get to Mars before the USA. Now that would be a sign that China had become a superpower.

Where do you get that information?

Baron Max


I didn't look it up. How many nukes do you need? 10 or 15? I am sure they have more than that anyway. Also if you can put a man in space your warheads must be able to reach the USA.

I might be wrong to presume but I think its clear cut.

How many nukes do you need? 10 or 15?

A lot more than that. :p

While those 10-15 would be targetted towards major cities, just to give you an idea in regards to landmass, 10-15 nukes wouldn't even blow up all of California. It's not like one nuke blows up all of the American Southwest, one blows up the Northwest, one blows up the Northeast, one blows up the Southeast, one blows up the North, South, East, West, the Midwest, and Central U.S. then there's no more U.S. of A. That winds up being 10 nukes right there, heh.

- N

Actually, China has become more pragmatic than fanatical in recent decades. America would probably be the one to do crazy-assed stuff like that... but only when we have our back to the wall. It hasn't happened in a while so most people don't remember that we can be the craziest one of the lot.

I think that in the case of China, the threat of Doomsday is quite pragmatic. They are already prepared for it with underground shelters for those humans who they care to save. The threat paralyzes others who would just as soon see them dead. We are talking about gangsters here, not upstanding citizens like American legislators. With these gangsters it's like "either let us take over or we will kill everyone." Americans don't know how to play that game well, apparently, but at some point we should just dare them and see if they can learn to live with the chips that they have already won. We don't need to dominate China nearly as much as we need them to be unable to dominate us because it is a fate worse than total obliteration to be dominated by China.

But the point is that China has little to offer in terms of exports. About all it has is over-population and it's still very backwards - very much a third-world country. [...] If you're alive you are assigned a job wheather it fits your talents and desires or not.


You clearly don't know shit about China. China's is an export-driven economy. And they don't have any kind of communist command economy there anymore; they're more than capable of getting bright, motivated people into jobs that suit them.

I think they are talking about exportable materials. If all else fails, you can export oil, wheat, cement, whatever. IN that sense China doesnt have much to export. Look at the UK. little manufacturing left, it is sustained by financial industries, and ws until recently also helped by oil exports. What China does just now is act as a cheap manufacturing place, like Mexico did 10 years ago. China can onsly stay strong or get stronger if it can keep this advantage of cheaper labour, then turn it into an advantage of having enough capital concentration and investment that it stays at the forefront of global manufacturing investment and development.

I didn't look it up. How many nukes do you need? 10 or 15? I am sure they have more than that anyway. Also if you can put a man in space your warheads must be able to reach the USA.

Hmm, maybe that's why the US has been working on anti-ICBM systems since the 1970's? Wow, so they put a man in space; now they're only 50 years behind the Russians in the space field! The bottom line is that China's missile and nuclear technology is generations behind America's, and even if they managed to get a nuke or two through, the counterattack would be beyond any calculation. As in the total destruction of China's infrastructure and populace. Thus, they will not launch a nuclear attack on America in the foreseeable future, under any circumstances. This does not mean that they won't threaten to, but these pronouncements are merely diplomatic and propaganda tools.

China as far as I know imports just about everything in large quantities except coal.

Oh, they import quite a bit of coal. How else could Australia be the world's largest coal exporter?

Indonesia? India?
I cant remember anything about CHina's coal output, I shall have to check. I know they're building coal fired power stations at a rate guaranteed to melt the ice caps, but apart from that I dont know.

As for China's missile technology, its probably only 20 years behind the USA's, if that. Bear in mind that China has been building parts and entire wings for Boeing for over 5 years now, let alone the number of PhD's it is producing, and you can see it wont be that far behind. At the moment all it has to do is copy the USA's old technology.

Indonesia? India?
I cant remember anything about CHina's coal output, I shall have to check. I know they're building coal fired power stations at a rate guaranteed to melt the ice caps, but apart from that I dont know.

Some info here:

http://www.china.org.cn/english/BAT/147350.htm

Turns out that while they do import a huge and growing amount of coal, they are actually a net exporter. However, Chinese coal production is expected to drop over the coming years, while demand is steadily rising, so they should wind up a net importer before too long...

Ha ha, I got distracted and you beat me to it.....

http://www.china.org.cn/english/BAT/147350.htm

"China, the world's biggest coal producer, last year bought 18.76 million tons of coal from foreign companies for the first three quarters of this year, an increase of 55 percent year-on-year, while the coal export out of China witnessed a 25.6 percent drop to 54.17 million tons for the same period, Pan said at yesterday's coal summit."

Ok then, that will put further limits on what they can do by when, though I suppose the 3 gorges hydroelectric dams should be producing by then.
HHmmm, looks quite big.

"Construction on the Three Gorges Dam - the world's largest power project - has been completed up to an intermediate level. The reservoir has been partially filled, and power generation from four of the turbines has begun.

The project should be completed by 2009, when a total of 26 generators will generate 18,200MW."

http://www.power-technology.com/projects/gorges/

There is no doubt that China will overtake the US one day. India might too.

The question is what happens when two and a half billion people move out of a subsistence agrarian existence and try to have the lifestyle and luxury enjoyed by the West. While as noble a goal as any, it does make one wonder. The US alone, with its only moderate population, gets a lot of crap for the whole consumerism thing. I wonder what will happen when so many more people seize this supposed inevitability.

There is no doubt that China will overtake the US one day. India might too.

It doesn't have to happen and we can stop it.

What's so bad about China and India overtaking the U.S.? It's not like they are going to start a nuclear war just because they think they can win. That's not how it works, seriously. If they have such strong economic ties with the U.S. and the E.U., there is no way they will ever want to start a war unless we make them think that they have to. They aren't insane warmongers, or they would have done it already.

Also, on all of the military questions, I think that you guys have failed to grasp that this isn't going to be the good 'Ol days of the early part of the 20th century, with superpower nation-states bashing each other over the head for 6 years like what happened in world war two. It's just that the common theme for the past fifty years has been a "dual superpower" conflict scenario, which just doesn't apply anymore. When China becomes the technological equal of the west (which it probably will), it won't be invading Taiwan or nuking Los Angeles. It will probably end up policing East and Central Asia, and maybe some other trouble spots in the Eastern Hemishphere like the Middle East, much like the United States does. I don't think they will make themselves into our adversaries because there is no advantage in them doing so. We will probably be working with China in some instances in places like Central Asia, where water shortage will become a major source of conflict (this is going to be a common theme in the 21st century. Water shortage will undoubtedly occur in many oil-rich regions of the world, like the Middle East and Central Asia). In other instances we may find our special operations forces meeting China's and there might be a few clashes here and there because our goals and the Chinese's goals differ, but I doubt that anything like an all-out nuclear war will ever occur between the U.S. and China unless things get really desperate. And no, they will not remain as authoritarian as they are now, but they probably won't become the consumerist culture that we have either. They will most likely strike a balance between the two, and the government in China will always be the most important institution, because the people of China will never be as wealthy by virtue of population as the West, but it won't matter because the Chinese government will still be able to channel the aggregate wealth of the country as a whole into military technology and R&D.

Personally I have my own scenario as to what will happen within the next 50-100 years, and it probably won't involve any major showdown between the U.S. and China, although there will still be many conflicts. I think that the small-war scenario is still the most likely outcome of any conflicts with China, and it will most likely take place in another country, neither the U.S. or China proper. I just think that all you guys are getting into a bunch over it when it probably won't be as big a deal as you are acting. You guys have to face that fact that the United States will not always be the 800 pound gorilla of the world, the United States will not always be the superpower that controls everything, protects everybody, and kicks ass all the time. Decline happens, and it's inevitable. Deal with it and move on. The China of 50 years from now will not be the same China as now, it's a given.

China policing East and Central Asia? OMG COMMUNISM IS SPREADING! EEEK! :rolleyes:

Will we allow that? We always need an enemy and we always want to be #1. What makes China any better or worse than the U.S.S.R. in the 80's? Why will we allow China to police the world and not think of it as some major threat where they're trying to secretly take over the world as others think the U.S. does?

- N

I don't know because its hard to say anything about a cummunist and non english speaking society. But at the moment china is enjoying the fruits of cheap labor and specialization.

china is beating america in every single catagory that counts.

they have a bigger army
more people
more factories
more jobs
more apliences
a growing economy,not a ressesion
more food and farms

and in 5 years,more cars.


we have allready lost.

A big ass army not good for much more than a human wave assault.
More people is in many ways a bad thing.
Its a rapidly industrializing nation thats stripmining and otherwise fucking up their nation at a rate the US can only dream of.
Most jobs are menial, monkey work jobs that crush you body and soul.
Apliences?
Its hard to have a recession when you start with nothing.
They have already maxed out utilization of arable land and ecological problems are starting to take their toll.

And, yay, more cars. Like we need a billion more cars to pump our remaining gas into.

china is beating america in every single catagory that counts.

they have a bigger army
more people
more factories
more jobs
more apliences
a growing economy,not a ressesion
more food and farms

and in 5 years,more cars.


we have allready lost.

Indeed. China's manpower is incredible (http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/imo-scores/). Look at those math scores.

Why has this tread turned into a who's got the biggest dick competition? It does look a very really possibility that China will outstrip the USA economically. Knowing this the conversation has moved to the USA having a better Army and more Nukes.

I think that the Americans here are feeling very insecure that their status is in danger. Here in the UK we are a has-been nation as well and it really isn't that bad, we cope.

The USA believes they are the elected leaders of the free world. I did not vote for them! The ego is popping, freedom from an unelected often unwanted, definitely untrustworthy government.

Well, you do know that armies and economics are inetricably linked? With a big army, you can force open markets for your own benefit. With a big economy, you can afford a big army to open said markets or keep everyone in line.
But then you knew that already, being british.

Stuff on Chinese cruise missiles:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PBZ/is_1_84/ai_n6112517
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/missiles-04zzh.html

I reckon with the use of cruise missiles, they are only 20 years behind the USA.

Why has this tread turned into a who's got the biggest dick competition? It does look a very really possibility that China will outstrip the USA economically. Knowing this the conversation has moved to the USA having a better Army and more Nukes.

I think that the Americans here are feeling very insecure that their status is in danger. Here in the UK we are a has-been nation as well and it really isn't that bad, we cope.

The USA believes they are the elected leaders of the free world. I did not vote for them! The ego is popping, freedom from an unelected often unwanted, definitely untrustworthy government.
Well, yes. Of course I feel insecure when the idea that America is going to be toppled is brought up. The concept is one of the most horrible things possible, at least from my perspective, and there is little I would not be willing to see done to see such a fate prevented. Its like telling a roman citizen that you would turn the great nation he loves from the center of the world to a second rate strip of land known mainly for its pasta and an imaginary plumber from some place called Brooklyn.

Think of it not so much as toppled, but as a case of naturally growing old and senescent. It happens to everyone, even the biggest empire the world has ever seen (so far) succumbed.

I have always been one to think that the ravages of age and the onset of human senility are one of the few true abominations on the planet; to be defeated or avoided at all costs. The first strip you of your dignity, then your every possession, and then your life. The thought of it claiming all I know and love, while I know it to be essentially certain to occur sooner or later, gives me the feeling of a ice-cold serpent grawing through my entrails. Its not something I want to give in to and definitely not while there is any chance at all of survival.

• The US has the worlds largest arable land.
• The US has an excellent system of government and a tradition of democracy.
• The US has the worlds largest fresh water supply.
• The US uses English, the worlds language.
• The US has pretty friendly relations with China and India – two huge emerging markets.
• The US has military bases from South America to Europe Japan and Australia.
• The US has a manageable population.
• The US guarantees many freedoms that drive a civilizations forward.
• The US has a highly educated populous.
• The US has friendly neighbors.
• The US has access to both the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans.

• China has little arable land.
• China has a poor system of government and no tradition of democracy. (The Chinese character for human rights was actually an import from Japan).
• China has a poor quality water and they continue to ruin what little they do have.
• China will be the largest English speaking populous in the world, but the World will not switch from English to Mandarin (even Korea is removing Chinese Charaters from their language).
• China has somewhat strained relations with India but they are improving.
• China will never have the military capability of the US, which only has such because of the legacy of European colonialism and a victorious WWII. There will never be Chinese military basses in South America, Japan, Europe and Australia.
• China is over populated.
• China does not guarantee many of the liberties and freedoms that drive a country forward.
• China is working toi educate their populace as a whole, however this is going to take time to reach the interior.
• China has strained relations with many of it’s neighbors (The US trades more with Vietnam then does China, Japan and China …., the example of Korea removing the traditional Chinese character system from their language [incidentally Korea is also pushing to become the most proficient English speakers in Asia]).
• China only has access to the Pacific ocean.

So no, China will never replace the US. When the US slides into place it will be with the other nations. Not to be replaced but to be part of a world that really will have no single superpower.

People need to spend some time thinking about what is meant by "overtake the US." Will China eventually have a larger total GDP? Probably yes. Will China be able to repulse a US invasion? Sure, they've been able to do that for years. Will they match or replace America's role as overseer of Eastern Asia? Probably.

But that's not what I think of when I read the question "will China overtake the US?" For example, it seems improbable that China will ever enjoy the same standard of living as in the US (i.e., while their total GDP may outstrip America's, the per-capita GDP probably will not). All of the likely scenarios wind up with China being a peer of the US (along with India, the EU and perhaps Russia or Japan). I can't think of any likely scenario that ends with China in the position of world hegemony that the US currently enjoys.

Perhaps a better question would be "Do you think China will match the US one day?" The "overtake" question just seems to invite starry-eyed Chinese nationalists, paranoid American pessimists and jealous European know-it-alls. The fact is that China's not going to take over the world any time soon, nor is the US going to become a third-world country. The balance of power in East Asia may shift, but that's a long way from China being king of the world.

what i meant are in terms of economy and technological advances.

Can China actually feed, house and care for (medically) her own people? I've seen some pretty horrid-looking medical facilities in magazines and tv shows. And what of China's program to educate all of her people? Or is it just a select few?

Baron Max

The main problem with China, as I see it, is the dichotomy between the population of the interior (vast numbers, mostly poor peasants) and the people of the coast (comparitively small numbers, wealthy because of their access to trade). Revolutions in China always come from the peasant hinterland. The leadership of China also has a major problem in that they have to rely on the Mandate of Heaven (which is still a very strong idea in Chinese culture). If they fail to keep control of a situation, or if Nature hits them very hard (floods, drought, earthquake as in 1976) the people tend to blame the Government and bring it down.

Will it supersede US one day?
Does not matter the US and China will be ruled by the rising European Union super economic power house .

Does not matter the US and China will be ruled by the rising European Union super economic power house .

Ahh-ha-hah-ha!

Yeah - and lead by the French, I suppose? :D

Do you think China will overtake US one day?
It has already been overtaken by many countries which have bought it with tons of interest....... :rolleyes:

Yeah - and lead by the French, I suppose?

They do have the 5th largest economy in the world.

China is 6th.

They do have the 5th largest economy in the world.

China is 6th.

That caused me to think of something. I need to clarify myself lest someone (like Foley) get the idea that I am anti- Europe. Absolutely not! I do enjoy picking on the French though, only because they would much rather live in isolation than be a part of either Europe or the world in general.

What I actually see that Europe is facing in it's drive to be a "powerhouse" is primarily two things that will hold it back. That drive/ambition/goal exists only in the minds of the leaders trying to form the EU. It's not what the countries and the people themselves are pushing for - only the politicians.

The individual countries are quite hung-up on their individualities. They do want to be a part - yet separate. Their primary focus is on their culture and heritage. (And I happen to be one that appreciates that, too.) They prefer the old-fashion way of doing things like they have always done them. Generally take life as easy as possible and soak up tourist dollars rather than invest in industry and technology.

What has all this got to do with the US and China? Not much, except people like Foley keep sneaking it into the topic. And they are in need of some real perspective.

Europe should be damn close to their peak right now. They have a huge amount of infrastructure built up over the centuries and quite a population as well. In fact, there is hardly a square foot in Europe not in use for something. But the fact is that they have nowhere else to build or farm or whatever and they have long since used up almost all of their natural resources. America, on the other hand, is mostly open and only lightly used land that we have barely begun to tap and live on.

When I spoke of China policing East Asia, I was not talking about a spread of communism. China's communism is quite different from the Marxism of Soviet Russia, and they will eventually have to relax that communist stance (as they have been doing for a while now) in order to grow as much as they want to. Of course they will not "pass" the U.S., but they will one day equal it on almost every level, and just by virtue of the fact that China will be the greatest power in East Asia they will end up policing it. The U.S. will not decay into a third world nation unless there is some kind of global decline which affects everyone, but the U.S. will not always enjoy the sole-superpower status it now has, and it will not return to a dual-superpower world like it was with the Soviets. I am an American and I have no problem with this outcome, because from a historical perspective it is perfectly reasonable, and it will eventually happen no matter what you do to try and stop it. It's not a bad thing, it's natural. Every nation experiences a bith, middle age, an old age and then finally a death (although I doubt that the U.S. will ever "die" in the truest sense, it just won't be the almighty superpower it once was.) The U.S. will always be among the most formidable powers in the world, if not the most formidable, but one day we won't be the only ones policing the world, and we won't be able to enter most of the countries in the world on a whim and go about as we please unopposed. If China is the equal of the U.S., I doubt that China will have remained the way it is today. In order to reach that status it will have to reform it's government for one thing, and education standards will have to rise, etc... It's going to happen, deal with it.

Light,
The individual countries are quite hung-up on their individualities. They do want to be a part - yet separate. Their primary focus is on their culture and heritage. (And I happen to be one that appreciates that, too.) They prefer the old-fashion way of doing things like they have always done them. Generally take life as easy as possible and soak up tourist dollars rather than invest in industry and technology

The first bit I agree with, the second is quite erroneous. European countries are leading in technologies and industries. Not to the scope the US, of course, but France has an excellent aero industry. World class helicopters. Britain is leading in tanks. Germany has cars. Those are just off the top of my head, of course. There are others.

Tourism? That's their heritage?
A brief history of European economies:
Fall of Rome.
Rise of feudalism.
Rise of industrialization and subsequent decline of feudalism (or whatever set of causality you wish to defend. Long story short, feudalism falls out of fashion and is replaced by industry.)
Urban centers grow, less people in rural places. Lots more factory work than farm work.
Americans become affluent enough in the mid 19th century to begin touring Europe.
Europeans continue to make a living in factories and on farms.
Segue to modern era and technical jobs.

The end?

i think China surely will supersede Japan and be leader of Asia.

Will it supersede US one day?
Yes, if they haven't done so already. Thier tech is on par with us, and within the next decade, thier economy will be ten times the size of the united state's, they have more nukes and ICBMs than us, plus they have a billion more people than we do.
We are fucked, in the ass, with a spoon, if we ever go to war against China.

But i think the military power of China is less powerful than USA.

They have more nukes, more planes, more troops, close-enough quality tanks is high abundance. All they are missing is a good navy. Once they build up a navy the size of the US's, they will surpass America in every single way.

but China's weapon's technology is inferior, at least, china is not able to do Star Wars project.

I would'nt call China's weapon's technology inferior. They have a lot nukes and some big nukes at that, with a lot of ICBM's to carry them. If they can put men in space with thier own spacecraft and bring them back, then they put a big nuke in your backyard too. Don't under estimate China's military technology. They can and will catch up to the U.S. shortly if they haven't already.

They are on par with the US, and it will eventually be better. They no longer use those old AKs. They now use thier own weapons, more compact bullpup design.
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as39-e.htm

Damn, you really are rooting them on. Aren't you.

I only wish G.W.Bush won't read this thread...

They have more nukes, more planes, more troops, close-enough quality tanks is high abundance.

Do you have any specific facts to back up that statement? Being somewhat skeptical, I'd appreciate reliable information on the subject.

Baron Max

There must be some information here:

http://www.comw.org/cmp/index.html

The number of nukes they have and their ability to wage a "hard war" as it were is completely irrelevant. What matters will be their economic prowess and their "soft war" capabilities. The test of a superpower is not how big of a war they can win, but how small of a war they can win. Honestly, don't start sizing up China's military power until they get involved in a long guerilla war, because that is the test of a superpower. We lost in Vietnam and the Soviets lost in Afghanistan, so guerilla wars are much more difficult to fight, even though they are "soft" by comparison to something like World War II.

And by China fighting a guerilla war I don't mean throwing as many troops and money they have at the problem until they slaughter the opposing population, I mean counter-insurgency operations and sophisticated military planning which doesn't take their massive army and their overwhelming nuclear capabilities to be victorious. That's what I mean by China policing East Asia. One day they will have the same "soft war" capabilities as the United States, and that's when they will start controling most of Eastern and Central Asia, maybe even parts of the Middle East. They won't invade and conquer those nations, they will simply have a hegemony over them as the United States has had over the rest of the world since the fall of the Soviet Union. When they have internal security issues, or there is some sort of state-on-state war, then they will be the ones stepping in to restore order because they will have economic motivations to do so, as the United States has had. Who knows, perhaps the United States and The People's Republic of China will have their special forces working side by side to restore stability in regions like Central Asia and the Near East. I think that is a more than reasonable scenario.

I think that some of the people on this thread have this idea that China is somehow "evil" and must be "stopped" from gaining any kind of world power. On the other side of the coin, some of you seem to be almost gleeful in your anticipation of China's growing strength. IMHO, both viewpoints are rather silly since we are not politicians and we are discussing this issue in an academic rather than practical sense. If I've ruffled any feathers by my last comment, I apologize. -DistantObservor.

The number of nukes they have and their ability to wage a "hard war" as it were is completely irrelevant. What matters will be their economic prowess and their "soft war" capabilities. The test of a superpower is not how big of a war they can win, but how small of a war they can win. Honestly, don't start sizing up China's military power until they get involved in a long guerilla war, because that is the test of a superpower. We lost in Vietnam and the Soviets lost in Afghanistan, so guerilla wars are much more difficult to fight, even though they are "soft" by comparison to something like World War II.

And by China fighting a guerilla war I don't mean throwing as many troops and money they have at the problem until they slaughter the opposing population, I mean counter-insurgency operations and sophisticated military planning which doesn't take their massive army and their overwhelming nuclear capabilities to be victorious. That's what I mean by China policing East Asia. One day they will have the same "soft war" capabilities as the United States, and that's when they will start controling most of Eastern and Central Asia, maybe even parts of the Middle East. They won't invade and conquer those nations, they will simply have a hegemony over them as the United States has had over the rest of the world since the fall of the Soviet Union. When they have internal security issues, or there is some sort of state-on-state war, then they will be the ones stepping in to restore order because they will have economic motivations to do so, as the United States has had. Who knows, perhaps the United States and The People's Republic of China will have their special forces working side by side to restore stability in regions like Central Asia and the Near East. I think that is a more than reasonable scenario.

I think that some of the people on this thread have this idea that China is somehow "evil" and must be "stopped" from gaining any kind of world power. On the other side of the coin, some of you seem to be almost gleeful in your anticipation of China's growing strength. IMHO, both viewpoints are rather silly since we are not politicians and we are discussing this issue in an academic rather than practical sense. If I've ruffled any feathers by my last comment, I apologize. -DistantObservor.

The U.S. didn't want to risk war with China during the so-called Korean War because if China stepped in, the U.S. would have definetly 'retreated' big time. Nothing has changed since then and probably never will. China is going to do what China wants to do (and they probably have the power to do it) whatever it is, and I doubt the U.S. can do much about about except talk political rhetoric.

Actually, China did step into the Korean War, and they ended up pushing us back to the 38th parallel instead of letting us unite the Korean Peninsula. We didn't retreat all the way, we came to a ceasefire because the Chinese had accomplished their goal of maintaining a communist North. Much has changed since then. For one thing, the U.S. and China have one of the strongest economic ties in the world as evidenced by simply picking up and counting the number of things around you which have "made in China" written on them (of course, this assumes you are an American or living in America. If I am mistaken in my assumption, then I apologize).

Other than that, I don't understand whether or not you were agreeing with my statement, disagreeing with it, or if it's just that you felt the need to quote the preceding post in your arguement, whatever that was for. Nothing you have said conflicts with what I said, as it was so ambiguous and broad and lacking in any opinion other than "China can do whatever the hell it wants" that I cannot think of any kind of reasonable response to it. That attitude I agree with for the most part, but only in that it would take a mighty effort to stop China from doing what it wants, and to that goal the United States is completely lacking in resolve. In my opinion we should be, as a powerful China policing East and Central Asia and possibly parts of the Middle East seems like it would take much of the security burden of that part of the world off of our shoulders, giving us the capability to respond more acutely in areas which need it more, and which are closer to home. For instance, should China really be serious about gaining and then maintaining some kind of supra-regional hegemony then it would be in China's best interests to subtley influence North Korea into a more open policy, as well as restraining it from attacking South Korea, which would mean that we could remove the approximately 40,000 troops we have stationed there.

I am pretty sure that you misunderstood my comments as either a call against Chinese superpower status, or something similar to a "we must stop China" attitude, and it was not. If I am mistaken in that assumption, once again I apologize. The problem is that I don't understand why you quoted my post since there was really no reference to it in your own. Thank you. - DistantObservor.

Anyway, china is not agreesive to be an invader, not like Japan in WW2.
Don't treat China as enemy, it is the politicians' dirty trick to over emphasize the Threat of China, no such thing indeed, China is a country loves Peace.

The following is a short post i made in the economics forum under the Alcohol thread:

I also want to offer my reason as to why China keeps accepting Dollars, buying US bonds etc. - They know that they can not defeat US in a military contest. - Both would be losers if it comes to a nuclear ICBM exchange.

They now (or soon will) have the power to destroy US economically at any time of their choosing. I doubt they will do this, but they will be in a position to demand the US conform to their wishes, especially about Taiwan.

The United States is not the only country that recognizes Taiwan's independance from China. They don't just have to convince the US, they have to convince most of the world . Other than that, I don't think that they will use their economic power to compel the United States to do anything, as the act of compulsion may damage the relationship.

Actually, China did step into the Korean War, and they ended up pushing us back to the 38th parallel instead of letting us unite the Korean Peninsula. We didn't retreat all the way, we came to a ceasefire because the Chinese had accomplished their goal of maintaining a communist North. Much has changed since then. For one thing, the U.S. and China have one of the strongest economic ties in the world as evidenced by simply picking up and counting the number of things around you which have "made in China" written on them (of course, this assumes you are an American or living in America. If I am mistaken in my assumption, then I apologize).

You are mistaken......I currently live in China :D

Other than that, I don't understand whether or not you were agreeing with my statement, disagreeing with it, or if it's just that you felt the need to quote the preceding post in your arguement, whatever that was for. Nothing you have said conflicts with what I said, as it was so ambiguous and broad and lacking in any opinion other than "China can do whatever the hell it wants" that I cannot think of any kind of reasonable response to it. That attitude I agree with for the most part, but only in that it would take a mighty effort to stop China from doing what it wants, and to that goal the United States is completely lacking in resolve. In my opinion we should be, as a powerful China policing East and Central Asia and possibly parts of the Middle East seems like it would take much of the security burden of that part of the world off of our shoulders, giving us the capability to respond more acutely in areas which need it more, and which are closer to home. For instance, should China really be serious about gaining and then maintaining some kind of supra-regional hegemony then it would be in China's best interests to subtley influence North Korea into a more open policy, as well as restraining it from attacking South Korea, which would mean that we could remove the approximately 40,000 troops we have stationed there.

I am pretty sure that you misunderstood my comments as either a call against Chinese superpower status, or something similar to a "we must stop China" attitude, and it was not. If I am mistaken in that assumption, once again I apologize. The problem is that I don't understand why you quoted my post since there was really no reference to it in your own. Thank you. - DistantObservor.

China is big enough and strong enough to hold it's own just in just about any military situation it decides to expose itself too, including an ultimate 'Knock Down / Drag Out' with the U.S. or any other superpower. Underestimating China's military power will be a 'serious' mistake, even for the U.S. to make. Unfortunately with GWB at the helm in U.S., anything is possible I guess.

I don't understand why you are continueing with this arguement since there is none. I AM AGREEING WITH YOU. It seems as if you are simply using this thread as a place to rant about how militarily powerful China is. I am not argueing on that point. I am not saying that China could not handle itself in any military situation it chooses to expose itself to, in fact I am saying that it could. Everyone here who knows anything about military power knows that China is a force to be reckoned with, and what I am saying is that the growth of China as a superpower is inevitable, although I don't think that China will surpass the U.S., just equal it. If there ever was a major war between the United States and China which involved nuclear weapons, everyone would lose because that's what happens in a nuclear exchange. I have been trying to say that such a scenario is highly unlikely because of the mutual destruction it would bring to both countries along with any others that got caught in the middle. I have been trying to say that we in the United States should not be hostile to China, and apparently you have not been listening to my arguement Novacane because it seems like you are still argueing when there is no disagreement between us. -DistantObservor.

Do you think China will overtake US one day?

No. No. Never. (ummm...well if chineese women take over :D )


Peace...
Rick

This is an interesting news article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10170448/

Not because of the story the headline is about but because of the information it contains that relates to the the topic of this thread.

Despite China's huge labor force (and partly because of it) the entire nation faces a serious water shortage. The country has failed in it's anti-polution efforts (also mentioned in the article) and shortages are frequent for both the population and industry.

The number of nukes, the size and quality of it's military, the number of new factories and industries being built and the oil being imported will all mean very little if they lack the water needed to advance their economy.

So I say those here are painting an excessivly bright future for the region have reason to go back and completely rethink their positions. Any country without adequate water supplies is very limited in what it can accomplish.

All we have to do to stop China from attacking us militarily is to make it so it will cost them too much. I'm the one who keeps harping on their possible use of the moon, which they would be willing to do at great cost of human lives if it proves doable at all. It takes a lot less technology to lob a missile from the moon to the Earth than it does to send it from China to the U.S. They can stand up there and throw rocks at us with nearly complete impunity while threatening to use cobalt warheads on us if we attack any of their ground targets. By rocks, I mean rocks. Put a rocket motor on a boulder with a guidance system, instant Deep Impact. Take out bases one by one, incinerate them in a way that still allows perfect safety for the ground troops in a day or two.

Anyway, another discussion reminded me of the way that China really will bring us to our knees. They and a few other Asians sell us almost all of our technology. We are totally dependent on them for consumer technology and almost all other non-perishable items. Almost all of this technology is garbage. It quits working, wears out, or falls apart much faster than the same stuff did 20 years ago. It is much more likely to be garbage even brand new, like wire strippers that don't strip wire and screwdrivers that are poorly made so that they strip screws. In some ways it is worse when their very few items are as good as or better than American made because that helps drive more American businesses out of business. It also encourages people to buy more of that stuff. Our shoes made in China don't last a year. Clothing won't last much more than a year and it falls apart a lot sooner than it did 20 years ago.

There are more ways to conquer a country than by military conquest. If it is conquered enough beforehand, even if a military conquest of some kind is required, it can be a token force. Americans could easily wake up one day and find American guns pointed at them to force them to submit to Chinese rule. A token invasion, they officially hand over the US government, we avoid a lot of hassle, and our own forces are dragging us out of bed and deciding who to put in front of firing squads before a lot of us even realize we've been invaded.

I hope to God I'm wrong.

I think you are, MetaKron.

However, Light, I think your point is quite valid. This scenario has crossed my mind many times, but usually when I think of water shortage I think of the Middle East and Central Asia rather than China because I have the old river systems of China stuck in my head. You are most certainly right, without adequate water supplies, everything else in the country goes to hell and means nothing at all. I completely forgot about Chinese over-industrialization and water pollution being a major factor in water shortage, rather than simply relying on the amount of H2O in the country without factoring how much of it is useable. Personally, I think that water shortage will become a massive global issue within the next 50-100 years, and that major disruptions will occur in the global community, and I have even tossed around the idea of a mini-dark age of sorts caused by a lack of water in many regions, massive immigrations which leads to intermittant conflict for many, many, many decades, eventually spreading outward from there.

Anyway, my scenario was in the relatively near-term future, and it didn't involve China becoming westernized in it's standard of living and whatnot, just that the Chinese government will probably be able to pool what little rescources they have into a regional hegemony, although I could be wrong and they may invest in improving their infrastructure somehow. After the near-term scenario though, water shortage probably becomes too massive for them to exercise that kind of power any longer. Thanks for your insight. -DistantObservor.

...while threatening to use cobalt warheads on us ...

MetaKron, looks like I'm all over you case tonight. :D

Cobalt bombs????? What science fiction have you been reading lately? There are no such things. It was once an idea during the late 1950s but proved totaly impractical.

Another of your "facts" that needed to be corrected.

Light, you're just being a jerk.

The number of nukes, the size and quality of it's military, the number of new factories and industries being built and the oil being imported will all mean very little if they lack the water needed to advance their economy.

Yes, and when there was an oil embargo against Japan which helped cause WWII, did that stop Japan at all? Nope, they just TOOK what they needed even though they intially had a short supply of it. So if China has small amounts of water, what's to stop them from just going out and taking it?

Let's not also forget what happens to a dog when you keep it caged up without food and water, it'll turn into a rapid dog. If the Chinese know they have little water and need it to survive, they'll fight with great zeal to acquire it.

- N

Yes, and when there was an oil embargo against Japan which helped cause WWII, did that stop Japan at all? Nope, they just TOOK what they needed even though they intially had a short supply of it. So if China has small amounts of water, what's to stop them from just going out and taking it?

Let's not also forget what happens to a dog when you keep it caged up without food and water, it'll turn into a rapid dog. If the Chinese know they have little water and need it to survive, they'll fight with great zeal to acquire it.

- N

Oil and water are two entirely different things, industrally and domestically speaking. You can take oil, yes, but taking water is a completely different story. It's either where it's needed or it isn't. It's simply not practical to, say, import the millions of gallons needed each day to operate a steel mill.

And tranporting millions more all across that vast country every single day for the population to use for drinking, cooking and bathing would place a tremendous strain on any up-and-coming economy.

They will have to invest tremendous amounts of capital in cleaning up and improving their water supply. Otherwise, that one factor alone
will be enough to cripple their ambitions to become a true superpower.

Light, you're just being a jerk.

Nope - just letting you know how you are coming across. Most of the people here can see that you aren't nearly as smart as you wish to appear.

If you wish to continue making a fool of yourself, go right ahead. It's actually quite amusing at times. (And that's usually how it is with those who don't know what they're talking about.)

Light, I talk so much among my companions IRL about water shortage and the future of geo-politics in a water scarce world, and I completely forgot about water scarcity and pollution in China. I can't believe I left that out when it's all I have been talking about for a few years now. I feel ashamed, thank you for enlightening me. -DistantObservor.

Nope - just letting you know how you are coming across. Most of the people here can see that you aren't nearly as smart as you wish to appear.

If you wish to continue making a fool of yourself, go right ahead. It's actually quite amusing at times. (And that's usually how it is with those who don't know what they're talking about.)

You don't seem to realize or care how you look. Next to the word "specious" in the dictionary is your picture. I know, I just put it there. What are you even saying for people to believe?

Many china's girls come to malaysia as tourists, but they stayed overdue and became whores in hotels.

You don't seem to realize or care how you look. Next to the word "specious" in the dictionary is your picture. I know, I just put it there. What are you even saying for people to believe?

Oh, please, you dummy! You've the very one being specious here by trying to make it appear than you know things that actually you do NOT know. You make so many assumptions that you appear absolutely silly.

Many china's girls come to malaysia as tourists, but they stayed overdue and became whores in hotels.

What's name of some of those Malaysia hotels? I may want to book a room for a few nights in some of them. :D

MetaKron: Light is correct on this matter. No working cobalt bomb has ever been constructed and not for lack of trying. They have been universally accepted as impossible and all governments have given up on the theory in exchange for greener pastures.

Been reading a bit too much Nevil Shute lately?

Impossible? What part of producing cobalt 60 by irradiating cobalt 59 with neutrons is impossible? What kind of bomb do you think I'm talking about here? I'm talking about a very dirty type of nuclear or thermonuclear device that is possible, but is so poisonous that to use it is suicide.

Here is a Federation of American Scientists report that includes estimates of the damage that can be done by one piece of cobalt of the kind that is used to irradiate food:Article (http://www.fas.org/faspir/2002/v55n2/dirtybomb.htm) They are talking about making the entire borough of Manhattan uninhabitable for years. This is just from using TNT to scatter a few pounds of the material.

I don't know how anyone could seriously say that these things are impossible to construct. You put a big honking piece of cobalt metal, alloy containing cobalt, or a cobalt compound next to a nuclear device and touch it off. If you can throw the weight and don't feel like refining the ore, just stuff your missile with the ore. So they don't set the atmosphere on fire. They don't have to. They do generate just about as much cobalt-60 as the missile or other transport can ship cobalt, and that can be a lot of tons of cobalt-60, when a few pounds can cause dangerous contamination of a thousand square kilometers. This stuff is so pernicious that if China sets one off in Kansas, it will make people sick in China.

Wiki Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_bomb)

Google search for "cobalt bomb" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22cobalt+bomb%22&btnG=Google+Search)

If Clockwork and Light don't understand that a cobalt device works by contaminating large areas of land with a powerful gamma emitter with a half-life of 5.27 years, that definitely hurts their credibility. This is not practical for someone intent on invasion but it would be practical for someone who would tolerate large losses of their own people to completely obliterate an opponent.

Impossible? What part of producing cobalt 60 by irradiating cobalt 59 with neutrons is impossible? What kind of bomb do you think I'm talking about here? I'm talking about a very dirty type of nuclear or thermonuclear device that is possible, but is so poisonous that to use it is suicide.

Here is a Federation of American Scientists report that includes estimates of the damage that can be done by one piece of cobalt of the kind that is used to irradiate food:Article (http://www.fas.org/faspir/2002/v55n2/dirtybomb.htm) They are talking about making the entire borough of Manhattan uninhabitable for years. This is just from using TNT to scatter a few pounds of the material.

I don't know how anyone could seriously say that these things are impossible to construct. You put a big honking piece of cobalt metal, alloy containing cobalt, or a cobalt compound next to a nuclear device and touch it off. If you can throw the weight and don't feel like refining the ore, just stuff your missile with the ore. So they don't set the atmosphere on fire. They don't have to. They do generate just about as much cobalt-60 as the missile or other transport can ship cobalt, and that can be a lot of tons of cobalt-60, when a few pounds can cause dangerous contamination of a thousand square kilometers. This stuff is so pernicious that if China sets one off in Kansas, it will make people sick in China.

Wiki Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_bomb)

Google search for "cobalt bomb" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22cobalt+bomb%22&btnG=Google+Search)

If Clockwork and Light don't understand that a cobalt device works by contaminating large areas of land with a powerful gamma emitter with a half-life of 5.27 years, that definitely hurts their credibility. This is not practical for someone intent on invasion but it would be practical for someone who would tolerate large losses of their own people to completely obliterate an opponent.

The article you refer to is correct but fails to mention that the "dirty" bomb it describes is NOT the cobalt bomb as it was originally envisioned which was to make a fission bomb that had a higher yield than the uranium-based atomic bomb. It was that research that both Clockwood and I were referring and that particular type of nuclear device. There are many ways to make dirty bombs, that is simply one way (and not necessarily the easiest).

Well, for the purposes of my thesis, the "higher yield device" is completely irrelevant. The most well-known "cobalt bomb" is the dirty bomb, cobalt irradiated, vaporized, and scattered by a nuclear device. The limit to the dirt is how many tons of cobalt or other salting material the attacker cares to add. I recommend zinc myself because it is cheap, common, and even though it's only half zinc-64, half of a hundred tons of zinc makes a hell of a lot of radioactive dust, and zinc-65 has a shorter half-life than cobalt-60.

Also, the Wiki article and others say that the original cobalt bomb was a salted bomb, a "dirty bomb" thought up by Leo Szilard. He did this in 1945.

China has many polution problems. Gets most of energy from coal, and these mines are killing about 3000 people every year. China is not much different for USA in the polution aspects when US was at similar stage of development. Polution always is a problem in rapid industrial development. You are making much too much of the water issue in China.

It is true that fresh water available per capita in china is not like that of Brazil, but mainly many people, not little water. For example, take the city of Harbin where the recent polution spill (factory explosions) is currently a problem. Harbin is much better known for the abundant water in its annual ice sculptures. Very very amazing - For a visual treat, see:
http://www.rtoddking.com/chinawin2003_hb_if.htm

Yes indeed... and don't the US know it. Ah-hem! Oil... Cough - cough!

I think brid flu may hamper the development of China.

Damn, you really are rooting them on. Aren't you.
I'm just stating the facts: If we get involved in a war against China within the nex ten years, they could invade the west coast and keep going and not stop until the hit the Mississipi River.
A good way to prevent that would be to recognize China's claim to Taiwan. I, personally, already have, as a precaution. :m:

I'm just stating the facts: If we get involved in a war against China within the nex ten years, they could invade the west coast...

How would they get here? China ain't got no navy, ain't got no troop ships! They gonna' swim?

And even if they did have that damned many troop ships, are you saying that we don't have enough missiles and bombs to sink each and every ship out in the Pacific?

And you call those "facts"????? Do tell.

A good way to prevent that would be to recognize China's claim to Taiwan. I, personally, already have, as a precaution.

But in doing so, you've denied Taiwan's claim to independence ...either way, you're recognizing one and denying the other. That's not very good international diplomacy, is it?

And recognizing China's claim to Taiwan will prevent them from invading the USA?? How so? Please explain that thought process.

Baron Max

China cant even take over Taiwan....

All of their Military tech they either buy from the Russians or steal from the US. They are way behind.

China cant even take over Taiwan....

I don't know about that. For example, I think ye're right that they could NOT invade/conquer militarily. However, a simple, but effective blockade could devastate Taiwan in a matter of days! And a blockade of civilian shipping would not be very difficult even for China's poorly equipped navy.

The big question, of course, is ....would the USA take MILITARY action against the blockade? That question isn't so simple. My guess is that the US would wait for the UN to give it's approval for a "war", even a limited one ...and the UN would take weeks, perhaps months to debate the issue. By then, of course, Taiwan would have already starved to death!

Baron Max

I don't know about that. For example, I think ye're right that they could NOT invade/conquer militarily. However, a simple, but effective blockade could devastate Taiwan in a matter of days! And a blockade of civilian shipping would not be very difficult even for China's poorly equipped navy.

The big question, of course, is ....would the USA take MILITARY action against the blockade? That question isn't so simple. My guess is that the US would wait for the UN to give it's approval for a "war", even a limited one ...and the UN would take weeks, perhaps months to debate the issue. By then, of course, Taiwan would have already starved to death!

Baron Max

As to that last statement, Max, not necessarily. They have some food-producing capability and airports. It might involve massive, continuous airlifts but it could be done.

How would they get here? China ain't got no navy, ain't got no troop ships! They gonna' swim?

And even if they did have that damned many troop ships, are you saying that we don't have enough missiles and bombs to sink each and every ship out in the Pacific?
Good point. Let me revise that statement: IF they had a navy on par or large than the USN, they could possibly do that.

But in doing so, you've denied Taiwan's claim to independence ...either way, you're recognizing one and denying the other. That's not very good international diplomacy, is it?
Point being? I don't care about Taiwan. Fuck Taiwan. As far as I'm concerned, they are a province of china.

And recognizing China's claim to Taiwan will prevent them from invading the USA?? How so? Please explain that thought process.
They won't execute me if I agree with them, if they happen to invade. That would be good for me.

As to that last statement, Max, not necessarily. They have some food-producing capability and airports. It might involve massive, continuous airlifts but it could be done.

Would you like to try to calculate the number of plane-loads of supplies it might take to feed all of the people of Taiwan? Their food-producing capability is pretty damned small and limited.

Airplanes? How 'bout cheap Stinger-type missiles? How many commercial aircraft would risk such death and destruction to haul supplies into Taiwan?

How would they get the needed oil and coal to fire their generators? How long could/would the people last without electricity in today's world?

Baron Max

Would you like to try to calculate the number of plane-loads of supplies it might take to feed all of the people of Taiwan? Their food-producing capability is pretty damned small and limited.

Airplanes? How 'bout cheap Stinger-type missiles? How many commercial aircraft would risk such death and destruction to haul supplies into Taiwan?

How would they get the needed oil and coal to fire their generators? How long could/would the people last without electricity in today's world?

Baron Max

Granted, the population is about seven times that of Berlin during the airlift in the mid-1960s - but so has the cargo-carrying capacity of our military planes since then. In fact, it's grown tremendously! No doubt there would be stringent rationing but I believe it would be possible to do for some period of time.

Who would pay for it all? Where would all the food and supplies come from? Who would actually do it? I.e, I'd guess that only the USA would have the capability to do such a massive airlift ...would the taxpayers support that massive outlay of money?

And you forgot to address the issue of the Stinger missiles. Just a few of those suckers in Chinese ships just off the coast could be disasterous to big, ponderous cargo planes. How would you deal with that threat/blockade ...WITHOUT... going to war?

Baron Max

Who would pay for it all? Where would all the food and supplies come from? Who would actually do it? I.e, I'd guess that only the USA would have the capability to do such a massive airlift ...would the taxpayers support that massive outlay of money?

And you forgot to address the issue of the Stinger missiles. Just a few of those suckers in Chinese ships just off the coast could be disasterous to big, ponderous cargo planes. How would you deal with that threat/blockade ...WITHOUT... going to war?

Baron Max

For that first part, we've provided massive aid for other countries. The willingness would depend on the political/social climate when the time came.

Nope, didn't forget the missiles. I seriously doubt China would do that for two reasons. First, they need the US as a trading partner - a place to dump all their cheaply made products. Second, not only would they loose the market they need so much by doing that, they would be openly provoking a war - which they also don't want to do.

In short, they would have little to gain in comparison to what it would cost them. And they can see that. Their goal for a great many years into the future is to grow - not to get involved in an expensive war which would clearly cost them more ways than one. (Would WalMart want to declare war on their customers? :D

China cant even take over Taiwan....All of their Military tech they either buy from the Russians or steal from the US. They are way behind.I think this is over stated and unlikely to remain true for long even if true today. You may not know China has the world's only magnetic levitated train in comercial service. Is graduating an order of magnitude more well trained engineers at all levels (often now eduacted by first-rank Western-trained professors they have imported (with their great dollar surpluses from trade). The next time US goes to moon, if ever with US budget and dollar problems, they will probably need to pass thru Chinese customs.

On light's idea that China needs US to buy its goods, that is rapidly changing also as the masses move up the social economic ladder. Soon China will be hard pressed to supply domestic demand, holding great dollar reserves that they can dump to destroy US economy. Their internal market is not currently able to absorb all their productive capacity, so they sell and lend, even though they know their accumulated reserves in dollars will greatly depreciate. The dollar will fall when they decide that their populations are now rich enough to replace Americans, etc. as consumers. (With the socialists now in power in India, both China and India have strong central decision capacity.)

In China's case, US is giving (by living beyond its means) the economic gun to them to kill us. If I lived in Taiwan, I would be scared. US and China are at a military stand off, in that neither can use their nuclear IBMs, but China can collapse the US economy anytime it chooses. It does not even need to do the obvious (dump it dollars), although it is doing a little of that already by bidding too high for oil in the ground. (Better to lose a little money now, trading dollar reserves for oil reserves, instead of watch the dollars lose more value later.)

Whenever it wants to, China can pay $100 per barrel of oil coming out of the ground today. When they want to kill the US economically, they can just announce that they will create a “strategic oil reserve” and start doing this. Just the announcement will probably send oil above $100/ barrel and the dollar so rapidly down that oil producers will want payment in gold or ownership ao assets etc. Even friendly countries, will not hold most of their reserves in dollars that are rapidly losing value. The US is very dependent upon the private car, but few will be on the roads when gas is $20/gal. and then even jobs that have not already been exported will vanish as shops close because it is too expensive to drive to the shoping center, etc.

News from 11/25
It seems that CHINA has been purchasing Submarines at an alarming rate.
Also, over at www.insightmag.com, there is some interesting speculation
from China on weather the USA could fight the good fight with china:

Mr. Ishihara said U.S. ground forces, with the exception of the Marines, are "extremely incompetent" and would be unable to stem a Chinese conventional attack. Indeed, he asserted that China would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against Asian and American cities—even at the risk of a massive U.S. retaliation.

China isn't worried, they have over 100,000 Chinese college students in America
obtaining information on the "States", and passing it onto Beijing, (for what)?
With their huge military, china has nothing to worry about regarding a conflict with the USA.

Condoleeza Rice said on sunday that
There's a question of intent," Rice told reporters, referring to the modernization of the 2.5-million-strong People's Liberation Army -- the world's biggest fighting force.

Protostar, I hope ye're not taking ONE PERSON'S view of China and/or the USA without further research and reading. I think Mr. Ishihara is a mayor of some city in Taiwan ...what's his credentials for military brilliance and insights?

Baron Max

So China is popping out 100,000s engineers. Big deal. They work in China and still have no Tech- which is why once again China is importing them over here so they can steal it and send it back to China.

When was the last time China used its Military effetively?? Tibet?? Does that even count? They got their asses handed to them in both Korea and their attempted take over of Vietnam. 2.5M troops can only do so much. China's subs, planes, tanks, and general Military equipment flat out sucks. Granted they are spending some serious $$$$$ updating it all (with purchased soviet equipment and stolen US tech). Give them time im sure they can be a serious Military threat- but currently their scope of projected power (Militarily) is very limited.

I see that no one has bothered to mention India in these discussions....

Crazydrinker, you have to start at the beggining. I said on page 2 that India and china would likely be fighting it out for first place in the future.

In your post you also forget that China has caught up something like 40 years of technology in, say 15 years. It is in the middle of the social and economic/ physical changes analogous to those the USA went through in the 20's through 50's. (motorways, cinemas, massive chemical plants, microchip fabs etc) If it can balance its population, politics, need for physical resources, ecosystem, arguments with India etc, it does stand a good chance of being number one in 20 or 30 years.

What makes anyone think that China has no tech? They sell us most of our motherboards for computers. Most of the tech they have bought from us, shipping entire factories worth of machinery over to them, can be used to build more functional designs than they were originally used for. This is obvious or they couldn't make those motherboards.

So China is popping out 100,000s engineers. Big deal. They work in China and still have no Tech- which is why once again China is importing them over here so they can steal it and send it back to China.

And how does that make China look less powerful? Yes, they have tons of engineers and don't come up with the technology on their land. Yes, they do send their works here and steal our technology, but isn't that accomplishing the same end result?

Face it, we rely on them to support us. They COULD keep all their engineers and come up with all the technology on their own homeland, but it's more profitable for them to do things the way they are now. With their engineers over here, WE end up paying to fund all the research and development and the money China saves from that, they put into other areas. So we pay for the technology and they simply steal it since all their workers are here. I, personally, think that's a brilliant move.

China has no problems stealing our technology and keeping each other as technological equals rather than having a one up on us. Why? Population. When someone has a small population, that's when technology becomes the most important because you have to make up for what one lacks. However, since China has over a billion people in their country, if both sides are technologically equal, the only thing left to tip the scales is population which they have more than three times our amount. They can afford to trade blows at a 1:1 ratio or even worse with equal technology. It all winds up becoming a war of attrition.

- N

They buy our machines at junk prices and refurbish them and pay a lot less on the dollar. Also, parts fabrication machines can be fitted with digital controls and become top of the line, up to date precision fabrication machines that automatically make parts from computer files. A lot of people in the U.S. can do this on a hobbyist budget.

What makes anyone think that China has no tech? They sell us most of our motherboards for computers. Most of the tech they have bought from us, shipping entire factories worth of machinery over to them, can be used to build more functional designs than they were originally used for. This is obvious or they couldn't make those motherboards.

No one has claimed that they have no technology. They are just way behind in implementing it. And computer motherboards isn't a good example because they are easy to produce. Chips, though, are a different matter. Especially processor chips.

For those who seem to doubt that the water supply is a major problem that could hold China back, here's an excerpt from a news article that appeared today:

"China ranks among countries with the smallest water supplies per person. Hundreds of cities regularly suffer shortages of water for drinking or industry. Protesters in rural areas claim pollution is ruining water supplies and damaging crops."

And I really thing that many people here, especally the younger ones who don't understand it, grossly underestimate the need for water for people and especially for industry. It takes a tremendous amount and China simply does not have enough to go around as it is right now - much less in another 10 years.

No one has claimed that they have no technology. They are just way behind in implementing it. And computer motherboards isn't a good example because they are easy to produce. Chips, though, are a different matter. Especially processor chips.

They produce the processor chips.

They produce the processor chips.

But can they feed and house and clothe and provide adequate healthcare and public education for all of their people?

Baron Max

But can they feed and house and clothe and provide adequate healthcare and public education for all of their people?

Baron Max

Not adequately, but they can build their war machine. One thing some of us don't understand is that they can and will take their time. Unfortunately the Nazis proved that starving sick people can build and work, and the Chinese aren't that hungry or sick. You will notice that they are taking in a lot of hard currency. They are building all sorts of resources without expending them in stupid wars. What do we have when we have a China that can stockpile weapons of mass destruction and rifles for twenty years or longer without using them, without submitting to inspection, and we're paying for it by buying godawful consumer goods from them? They're not even having to spend money to do this, not net. Did I say before that it's a lot like buying three junk cars and selling two of them for enough money to cover all the expenses for buying and refurbishing all three? America acts like it has forgotten the very basics of how to make a profit.

One of the worst parts here is that when China does it to us, that country will have done it with honest work, if not honest politics.

My guess is that the US would wait for the UN to give it's approval for a "war", even a limited one ...and the UN would take weeks, perhaps months to debate the issue.

Dude, the UN would never approve any such thing, since China is a permanent (i.e., veto-wielding) member of the security council. Not that the US would await UN approval if it wanted to go in (which it probably wouldn't).

I think Mr. Ishihara is a mayor of some city in Taiwan ...what's his credentials for military brilliance and insights?

Baron Max

Ishihara is the retarded mayor of Tokyo (hence no brilliance in that respect)

Innovation is probably not going to be a problem in China, according to the official commie newspaper website (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200511/27/eng20051127_224071.html).

However, I do have to admit that a significant impedant to China's progress is the water shortage, as Light mentioned. China is a very dry landmass, overall.

Why would China want to make its water infrastructure better?
Haven't you ever heard of Hydraulic Despotism?

They have more nukes,


False. They have BIGGER nukes, just like the US did 50 years ago. Once America developed sophisticated targetting and control systems, such huge nukes weren't necessary and were replaced with much smaller ones. And they're WAY behind on anti-ICBM missiles, something the US has been working on for decades. While a nuclear exchange between the two would be horrible for everyone, China would definitely see the worse of it.


more planes,


False. They're not even close, and have only recently started building their own planes.


more troops,


True, but so what? It's only an issue if the US wants to invade mainland China, and why would they? Also, the disparity in troop numbers is nowhere near the disparity in populations (the US has about 1.5 Million, China has about 2 Million).


close-enough quality tanks is high abundance.


False. American tanks posses armor and attack capabilities multiple generations ahead of Chinese tanks.


All they are missing is a good navy. Once they build up a navy the size of the US's, they will surpass America in every single way.

Well, they haven't even started, other than acquiring submarines. Their current strategy is simply to build up the ability to keep aircraft carriers off of their coast, via submarines and missiles. They do this because one or two US aircraft carriers could, given the vast numerical and technological superiority of the USAF, bring China's military and economy to its knees in a very short while.

There's a lot of other ways of measuring military strength that are more pertinent. For example, the US has a huge lead in space systems, and you can bet they've used all those satellites to make target maps of every military and industrial site in China. And then there's battlefield communications and information integration, something America is the clear leader in. Plus, the USAF has enough long-range bombers to give China a real headache without putting aircraft carriers off their coast. Another big issue is allies: the US has tons of valuable allies, such as Japan, Europe, Korea and Australia. If China were to make any kind of belligerent moves, they'd very quickly find themselves on their own. Indeed, their position is much more precarious than America's, since they have Japan, India and Russia to worry about.

Moreover, even where China looks good on paper, they are untested. All of the submarines and missiles and troops in the world aren't any good if battlefield tactics and coordination fall apart once the shooting starts. The US military, on the other hand, has not only a huge technological lead, but has been busily refining their real-world abilities with these systems in wars all over the world for the past several decades.

In conclusion, let's give the alarmism a rest. Yes, China is no longer a third-world country, and they're going to gain in stature. But they've got a long way to go before they can play in the same league as the USA. They might be able to parlay their position into an eventual non-military absorbtion of Taiwan (in fact, the US already recognizes the "one China" policy), but they'd be in a world of hurt if they actually made a military move against any of the US allies in the region.

I would assume Chinese conventional tactics would be what I like to refer to as the "zergling swarm" in which you move thousands upon thousands of troops upon a position without any regard to losses and win through sheer numbers. Though I think it was called the 'wave line attack' or something. Despots use it to great advantage.

Oil and water are two entirely different things, industrally and domestically speaking.

Well, with desalination and purification, water does indeed = oil, as long as oil = energy.

China will invade, just as the Mongols did, when the West becomes weak enough.

And it's sure on that path!

China will invade, just as the Mongols did, when the West becomes weak enough.

And it's sure on that path!

Nuclear weapons did away with that argument. As long as the West possesses them, nobody is going to invade. Seeing as America, France and Britain will never give up their nukes, the West is never going to be invaded. Why do you think Pakistan, Iran, Israel and North Korea have been in such hurries to get nukes?

Who was it that sa