Actually, that's not as many airports as it sounds like. China only has 400 airports right now, compared to 5000 in the US. Even with the 100 new airports, China will only have as many as Canada, and still be 200 behind Brazil. If they continue building airports at the current rate of 20 per year, it will take them more than 230 years to catch up with America. Airport stats here: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2030.html
Within 100 miles of were I live there are 30 airports with strips that are 10,000 feet or longer, my home town has a 8,000ft. concrete strip, and as for grass strips there are near 100 that I know of in the area, stop and think of the area you live in, in the U.S. and you would be amazed at how many hard top strips you will be able to find, most towns that are more than 5000 people have a all-weather strip.
Those figures are for airports with paved runways; it's broken down by length if you follow the link. The figures including non-paved runways (available an another page) are even more tilted, with the US having just under 15,000. Not quoted are seaplane lanes, which are would make an interesting map... They do have helipad statistics on another page, though: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2019.html South Korea has the most, followed by Brazil and then the US. It's worth noting that there are lots of types of airports besides the big international and regional ones most travellers use. There are military fields, transhippment/logistics airports, smaller commuter terminals, and countless private airports. The county I live in has something like 30 total, not including the numerous aircraft carriers which are stationed here at any given time. If you consider how spread-out the US is (especially with Puerto Rico, Alaska, Guam and Hawaii), it's not surprising that there's a shitload of airports.
I'm glad this thread was brought back up. I just had a great time re-reading quadraphonics older posts. Brilliant stuff.
Yeah, I guess I assumed they were all large airports, but China has a distinct lack of internal air transport capacity, hence the drive to build the extra capacity.
Yes it did and energy was cheap to make it possible. To make all that "order" form disorder (reverse entropy) required a lot of energy and to do it again, will again, but this time US may not be able to afford the energy required by the simple physics of thermodynamics, even if there is time available to do so. Also I do not think the infrastructure was made nearly as quickly as you imply, but of course that depends upon what we are including as infrastructure. Yes in a few years a few hundred thousand "cracker box" homes* were thrown up. (Levitowns, etc.) but the interstate highway system was President Eisenhower's baby and he was president after the Korean war. It will take China at least two decades even with a 10% growth rate to create the infrastructure it plans. How long do you think it will take a country with a 3 or 4% growth rate to tear down what it has and build things like the photo seven of the post I made recently? I think China will ad 30 or 40 new nuclear power plants before the US adds one! China can see what is needed before the need arises. - Adam Smith etc tries to supply it to meet the existing need (with some individual prediction and pre- resulting pre-need construction, but rarely does this include the basic infrastructure of a society) In his day, a power plant (small water wheel and dam) took a few months to build. It now takes a decade at least. This longer period to build the infrastructure society requires (and the cost of the energy to do so) is what is troubling me. ----------------------------------------------- *I can say that, with some authority as I lived in a 2BR one.
Yeah, China is a very large country, so I'd expect them to build quite a few more airports over the coming decades. On the other hand, they've just dumped a ton of money (and a lot of political capital) into building a railroad through the Himalayas to Tibet, which might then impact the support for further expansion of air transit (which is the obvious way to connect to Tibet; much easier to fly over a mountain than build a pressurized train system through it. Also wouldn't have fucked up the ecosystem as badly as the train). More news here: http://www.cfr.org/publication/11380/chinese_train_carries_controversy.html
That is true if you want to move people by the hundreds, but not true if you want to move soldiers by the tens of thousands. If you have the capacity to move soldiers by the 10s of thousands, you probably never will need to use that capacity.
I'm not so sure about that but, more pertinently, I don't see much military motivation for the railroad. China has controlled Tibet for decades without it, and doesn't face any threats on that front that would require rapid mobilization of tens of thousands of troops. I'm inclined to take the Chinese government at their word when they say the project is intended to increase economic activity and tourism.
Here is the real reason for the world's highest rail road. (Those “tourists” will be wearing miner’s hats.)*: From today’s (9/18/06) newspaper: http://en.tibet.cn/news/tin/t20060713_132877.htm “…so far, three large copper mineral belts had been discovered in Tibet. During the Eleventh Five-Year Plan period, the amount of newly-discovered copper mineral resources in Tibet will have reached nearly 10 million tons. Tibet now has the largest copper mineral resources in China …” Billy T comment: Do you know what E7 TONS of copper is worth today? (even if only referring to the ore.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From the people’s daily of 20 June 2001: http://english.people.com.cn/english/200106/20/eng20010620_73085.html "...Tibet to Tap into Mineral Resources: Geologists have verified mineral resources worth 650 billion yuan at 1,800 sites in Tibet. The reserve of 17 kinds of minerals are in the forefront of the country. ..." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From 28 July 06, interfax China: http://www.interfax.cn/showfeature.asp?aid=15593&slug=MINING “…with the new access could come a rampage of exploitation by many Chinese companies chasing the expansive mineral resources hidden in the mountain province. China's Tibetan Autonomous Region could be the largest mineral resource in the country, with a potential value of more than RMB 1 trillion (USD 125 bln). Tibet has the largest chromium and copper deposits in the country, and prospecting has already discovered deposits of 101 other minerals and more than 2,000 more potential mining sites. “…Tibet Mining is now expediting construction and production of the Tingong Copper Mine located on a copper belt in the Yarlung Zangbo River region. Ni La, an official with the company's project department, told Interfax the copper mine has started TRIAL production with 1,000 tons of electrolytic copper annual capacity, although the mine is still being prospected. … the company's transportation costs have been reduced by 20% with the opening of the new railway. The company's development was restrained before the railway because of the high transportation costs…" "...Another company, Tibet Yulong Copper Co. Ltd., officially entered Tibet in May 2005. The company mainly develops copper mines in Yulong, which has proven reserves of 6.24 mln tons and prospecting reserves of 10 mln tons. The first phase of the project is designed to produce 30,000 tons of copper, the second phase project will add a capacity of 100,000 tons...." “…since the opening of the railway, new companies are lining up to get involved in the development of minerals in Tibet …” PS there is strong reason to think there is a lot of oil there also, but I forget where I read that. China's control of Tibet is just one more reason why China going up will pass US going down, much sooner than many think. About US going down: today the rumor is that Ford and GM may join (to go bankrupt together in all probability) Also note in my prior post I indicated that I did not think the military would be needed to protect these assets, because it could be sent in now, but without the railroad's ability to deliver the troops if needed, perhaps India might be tempted by these assets to "help Tibet." ____________________________________________ *I am just guesing, but last year China closed more than 3000 coal mines. That freed up some experienced miners. I suspect that they will work in Tibet and the energy they were supplying from coal will be replaced by purchased oil. - Effectively China will reduce its need to import copper etc and increase even more rapidly its import of oil - Bad news if true for rest of the world, especailly the US whose "suburban infrastructure" is ill designed for high cost oil.
Now that year has past (since last post here) and conditions in US have changed, some may think my point that US going down is more likely cause for China to pass the US than China's growth has some validity. Here is what the current issue (web version just released) of the Economist has to say: "... For several years, emerging Asian economies have accounted for more of global GDP growth than America has. This year China alone will for the first time accomplish the same feat all on its own (at market exchange rates), even if* American growth holds up. American consumer spending is roughly four times the size of China's and India's combined, {When home was an ATM machine increasing in value} but what matters for global growth is the extra dollars of spending generated each year. In the first half of 2007 the increase in consumer spending (in actual dollar terms) in China and India together contributed more to global GDP growth than the increase in America did. ..." *{Billy T notes: that is a "big IF" now as most expect the fall out from the sub-prime mess to knock at least 1% off US's already low growth.} "... if America suffers a recession, then Asia's exports will weaken. But this should not hurt GDP growth {in China} too much because other factors should help offset the weakening. It helps that China and most other Asian emerging economies are now exporting more to the European Union than to America. China's exports to other emerging economies are growing even faster. It helps, too, that domestic spending has strengthened and is likely to stay strong: China, along with most of the rest of Asia, is one of few parts of the world without a housing bubble. ..." {also a population without significant personnel debt or credit cards, which are just now being introduced. - Fantastic untapped buying power in a rapidly growing middle class.} "... So if Asia remains strong, commodity prices should too, and commodity-producing emerging economies such as Brazil, Russia and the Middle East will also continue to thrive ..." Does any of this sound like what I was posting here and elsewhere two or three years ago? If not read this thread.* Perhaps I should sue the Economist for plagerism? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Read all the Economist article at: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9867004 For free, of course. ------------------------ *There are a lot of pages, so no one will read all. Here is link to my first post in this thread (pointing out how China is advancing by "buying" the top Western trained univesity talent: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=911507&postcount=4
China has the fastest growing economy in the world. Along with over 200 million soldiers and there ever so growing relationship with Russia makes for a serious POSSIBLE threat.
True, and not just to US. EU depends on Russia for energy (natural gas) and at present Russia depends upon EU to buy it, but about 1000 miles of the pipeline for it to China is ALREADY IN THE GROUND. I have long predicted that EU will quickly follow US into deep depression when the run on the dollar starts - This pipeline is Russia's "plan B" "Plan C" is the opening of the trans artic ocean route for economical shipment of criogenic gas to all of Asia. (The US is main human contributor to the melting of the ice and GWB is still "anti-Koyoto"!)
People under estimate China and they are gravely wrong by doing so. They may be a little lack luster in the realm of technology, but they have all the resources in the world, and means to capitalize on them; not mention MC Donald’s is moving in, lol. I know a lot of people in these threads aren’t Christian and don’t believe the Bible, but!! The Bible, Revelations, talks about the Euphrates River drying up to make way for the Armies of the East, numbering 200 million mounted troops strong. And there has been talk for a while now about damming up the Euphrates river for energy and land development.
One thing we need to remember is that in the next few years America will more or less have "battle Drones" to fight alongside our troops while our army will not be as large we have better trained troops better faster air force stronger tanks and as of right now we are working on new clocking battle armor for troops. Many a weapon is being created by our military we don't even know about, our Navy is the most powerful in the world, and if it did come to America getting invaded almost every American has a gun. And I don't think Britain Germany France or any of our other allies would just sit back and watch if America was getting invaded.
No, China recently passed the United States recently to become the largest single emitter of greenhouse gases, and is only on-board with the Kyoto Protocol because it doesn't place any restrictions on them. And then there's the issue of (non-greenhouse) air pollution, an area in which China has long been the world's worst emitter.
No, China's natural resources are very much impacted. In particular, they're running short of water, and are very much dependent on imports of wood, coal and oil. See the ongoing NY Times series on China's environmental and resource problems: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/08/26/world/asia/choking_on_growth.html Before too long, water depletion and desertification will force China to rely on grain imports to feed its people.
That's 200 million males fit for military service, not 200 million actual soldiers. NATO countries probably have somewhere around 150 million males fit for military service, to put things in perspective.
That is news to me, but such an unimportant parenthical point in post 554, that I have removed it. What do you think about the main thrust of post 554? You made no comment on that. BTW I agree with your other two post (558&559). China has serious water problems and needs to clean up it rivers, etc. It can do this. China has a lot more water than Israel and also the brains to use it well. Can even bring it down from Tibet etc. by gravity flow in pipes or trains if it needs to! China has started construction on a large diameter 1700km pipeline for oil an gas from the western provances. China makes 40% of the world's steel and still needs to import a lot! I do not understand why in EVERY discussion of the struggle between China and US for world dominance (US far in the lead at present.) that the talk ALWAYS turns to a militray conflict which neither can win as both are nuclear with ICBMs. In one of the India fianancial newspaper I usually read a couple of days ago there was article about China replacing its old noisy nuclear subs with more modern ones. The paper claimed to have photo of the first, but did not put it in the web edition. There is a war already on between China and US, but it is an economic war for control of Earth's limited oil, food and mineral resources. In all three areas US is shooting its self in the leg. (1) The latest study by Noble prize Chemist just published on greenhouse gases INCLUDING THE N2O MADE AS THE FERTILIZER IS USED shows that alcohol from corn will increase effect 1.9 times greater than if gasoline were used as the fuel for the cars. Corn alcohol will not reduce oil consumption, will greatly increase man's contribution (if any) to global warming and cost much more, even for non-drivers in taxes. The dream of celulose alcohol is far from a reality and very unlikely to ever be able to compete with a fuel that is already free for the taking (oil). (Actually the "taking" is not "free" but just much much cheaper as the oil comes from one point and is not collected from thousands of acres of grasslands for same energy content.) Also very many extra processing stages are required just to get celulose to sugar cane's starting point (a sugar rich solution to ferment). Better to keep using oil than alcohol from corn! (2) Alcohol from corn is already very significantly increasing the cost of food in US and reducing the quanity available for export. (3) China is signing up 30 year contracts all over Africa, and South America for raw materials. 50 nations attened the big trade conference held in China about 6 months ago while, in contrast US is busy earning the hatered of most of the world in Iraq and by supporting the dictator in Packestan, etc.
