Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Will India become a hyperpower, i.e. a country as strong or stronger than the US?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
How is that worked out?. America is only 1/5 of our export trade

When you use the projected "real" value of the juan combined against the USD, that figure is more like 3.5/5

Most of China is still below the poverty line and this is true of India aswell.


Whats 1.3 BILLION divided by 90 million?

Thats about 7~8%. Using the word "most" would imply a majority or a large percentage. That is not a large percentage.

The american poverty line is 12% of the population. More than china

The system used to measure the poor of both countries are much different, when compared to the U.S. that figure is more like 60%.


There are over 70 million members of the CCP in china. Count the family members of these and you could have 50% of the population being a affiliate of the communist part of china.

Tiananmen Square? I know MANY Chinese peoples who hate the communist system. It is unfair, corrupt, and people are jailed for expressing this truth. And why must a member of the CCP have their entire family support the PRC? We both know that families in China have become more distant over the years since the cultural revolution...

[edit on 30/7/2006 by Night]




posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Night
When you use the projected "real" value of the juan combined against the USD, that figure is more like 3.5/5


If we did that, the yuan would be stronger againest the US dollar which makes that even LOWER not higher


The system used to measure the poor of both countries are much different


Its used to measure standard of living

One person in china or africa earns $365 a year is equivalent to a person who makes $7600 in america. Even with that difference they have roughly the same standard of living. In australia its about $6000 AU


I know MANY Chinese peoples who hate the communist system.


And how much people would you know?. I would refer have a singapore type government also but the best thing for china is a strong governemtn because its at a cruical transtion stage


We both know that families in China have become more distant over the years since the cultural revolution


I disagree,

Who says families are a lot more distant?

[edit on 30-7-2006 by chinawhite]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
China and India's military are mainly national defence forces, although modernizing and quite large. Neither of those countries have the ability to place multiple divisions, air wing, naval groups halfway around the world and project power. Neither country has multiple world spanning military arrangements for bases and assistance all around the world.


Well you certainly correct to a great extent but not entirely.

India has a navy that as of today can pretty much project power anywhere in the Indian Ocean, ASEAN and also in the Gulf.
The surface fleet has that ability. This obviously also includes the ability to deploy troops in the same regions;ASEAN,African East coast, Australia and the gulf. Now India does not have any MAJOR contesting forces in the region except maybe Australia which cries fowl every alternate naval exercise or so.
As far as its strike reach , well India has +300km (ASCM/LACM) range to the above mentioned boundaries.Also with the Su30 MKI a/c (3 sqdrns, 50+a/c today) has a refuelling range of 8000km+ and when fitted with ASCM you can add another 300km to that.
One notable deficiency in the Indian Navy is that it does not have any
nuclear-powered assets which are vital to long term operational engagements.

As far as international military bases go India has a few in Central Asia and one is a MiG 29 equipped AFB. There are also installations in Bhutan, and Nepal I think.
India has though has a very bad experience with foreign deployment in Sri Lanka where it went in as a PKF and was eventually under fire from both the rebel LTTE and the Srilankan military. India lost 4000 troops in that tragic phase I think.

China(PLAN) has a major problem in terms of power projection in the Pacific because of two immediate roadblocks USN PACCOM and JMSDF(Japan).
They do have the inherent capability though to strike targets far away with their Su30 fleet with air re-fuelling. Also the new indegneous destroyers and the Sovermeny destroyers give it a strategic depth.
Also the PLAN SSNs (lets keep it conventional) give it strategic depth.

China is compensating for this Pacific road block by actively engaging in harbour projects,intelligence gathering projects in countries like Pakistan(Gwadar), Burma(Cocos Islands) and Bangladesh. Whether they will be stationing deployable assets in these locations esp. Pakistan is yet to be seen due to Indo/US pressure.
China also has some troop deployments in Africa(Sudan I think) and maybe be looking to deploy in Central Asia as well as a mandate of the SCO, though that also may face roadblocks vis-a-vis Russia and India.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Thanks for the info Daedalus3.

Yes, China and India can quite well project power regionally as well, I probably should have said that instead of what I did.

As someone else said, it will take some major confrontation for either nation to bloom into full blown superpower, act halfway across the globe type of nation.

Hopefully the world doesn't ever have to go through such an event again and they can achieve their superpower status by peaceful means when the time comes. The world has had multiple superpowers before and will again at some time.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter, are you being serious?

Re France, they have ICBMs on subs and nuclear cruise missiles (the ASMP)

As I said, their nuclear arsenal is small.



Summary of European navy's power projection support vessels. These example demonstrate the INCREASING emphasis on support of overseas land operations that European navies are making.

The only European navies that are doing any emphasis of "overseas land operations" are the British and French navies.



France:
1 x Charles de Gualle aircraft carrier
2 x Mistral class LPD
2 x Forde class LPD
2 x Uuragan class LPD

Firstly, Charles de Gaulle is not an aircraft carrier (although the French claim it is), it is just an LPD. Secondly, if you think that France is powerful, think again, and then visit the official website of the USN. On that website, you'll find out that the USN has 11 aircraft carriers (CVN-67-CVN-77) and 11 LPDs (5 Tarawa class LPDs and 6 other LPDs), besides San Antonio class LPDs.

[edit on 31-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 04:11 AM
link   
The CDG is definitely a a/c carrier. I carries fixed wing a/c which are not VTOL/STOVL



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
The CDG is definitely a a/c carrier. I carries fixed wing a/c which are not VTOL/STOVL

By American standards it's not an aircraft carrier. By the American definition, an aircraft carrier is a ship that can carry at least 85 aircraft. The CDG can carry 40 aircraft - less than American LPDs can.

Continental European militaries are a joke. These militaries exist not to fight, but to provide jobs for people. Continental European expenditures on the military are low for two reasons:
1) Continental European countries don't have the ability to increase them
2) Continental European countries like being militarily weak

[edit on 31-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter

By American standards it's not an aircraft carrier. By the American definition, a an aircraft carrier is a ship that can carry at least 85 aircraft.
[edit on 31-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]


Then by that defn only the USN has a/c carriers.

I think you are incorrect on your LPD stats. How many fixed wing a/c can they carry?



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Jimmyboy,
Have you ever heard of Conscripts?

Since Europeans don't see the need to "spread democracy" across the globe we don't need a huge army standing idle sucking our economy dry... Most European countries can draw up conciderable amounts of trained reserves if a need rises... a need to actually defend the nation...

For example Finland has 35 000 men standing army, but in 7 days we can call up to 490 000 trained men into action...



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by northwolf
Have you ever heard of Conscripts?

Conscript militaries are weak. Conscripts are useless. In the 21st century, you cannot fight wars using conscripts. They are not trained well, the only soldiers trained well enough to fight 21st century wars are professional soldiers. Moreover, as I said, Continental European militaries are a joke. They are not capable of going to, and not suitable for fighting at, war. They exist not to fight, but provide jobs for people. Continental European countries spend most of their military budgets on pays for soldiers and only a minority of them on equipment.


Originally posted by northwolf
Since Europeans don't think there is need to "spread democracy" across the globe

The reason for why France and Germany didn't take part in war in Iraq is not because they didn't want to do so, but because they can't. But they were too proud to admit that.


Originally posted by northwolf
we don't need a huge army standing idle

Wrong. It is wrong claiming that there's no threat to Europe and there's no need for European countries to maintain strong militaries.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 04:58 AM
link   
Jimmy jimmy,
If Conscripts are so much worse than Professionals in the US of A, how is it possible that comscripts from Scandinavian countries did so much better than US Marines in for example training Operation Battle Griffin '05? Or actualy managed to pacify their areas in Kosovo, unlike Brittish pros?

Conscripts can be trained well too and with conscripts you don't have the problem of the professional military, they mostly attract the worst of the nation... with mandatory service you get all the spectrum of a nation from the smartest minds to toughest athletes...

And is Israeli army weak and impotent, since it consists mainly of conscript`s?

[edit on 31-7-2006 by northwolf]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 06:11 AM
link   


If Conscripts are so much worse than Professionals in the US of A, how is it possible that comscripts from Scandinavian countries did so much better than US Marines in for example training Operation Battle Griffin '05? Or actualy managed to pacify their areas in Kosovo, unlike Brittish pros?

If Scandinavian conscripts are better than American professional soldiers, then why is it the US that is running the world? Why is it the US that won GW1, war on Serbia and many other wars without the help of anyone? Your claims are ridiculous. The US military is the best trained military in the world. BTW, if conscripts are better trained than professionals, then why are many countries now abolishing conscription?



Conscripts can be trained well too

No, they cannot. Conscripts serve in the military only for a limited period of time, while professional soldiers serve until they reach retirement age. You must serve all of your life to claim to be a well-trained soldier.



and with conscripts you don't have the problem of the professional

Conscripts, as they training is inferior to the training of professional soldiers, are useless and cannot substitute a professional military.



And is Israeli army weak and impotent, since it consists mainly of conscript`s?

Yes. They are fighting against other conscript militaries, though, so they are winning the wars they fight.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Us did GW1 all alone?
I wonder what brittish and French have to say about that...

Serbia? You pounded a nation that saved most of it's military cabability with just not engaging your airforce.

Main reason for abolishing conscription is that youngsters in many "safe" countries don't want to go to the army, because "it restricts their life"

Why aren't we running the show? We are small and lack the economic power and population to maintain massive armie and we don't actually want to police the world, we try to make our OWN countries a good place for the people to live in.

How many US front line soldiers serve to the retirement? Most troops serve only a few years...

Have you ever heard of reserve training, you know you don't have to be 24/7 soldier and an unproductive burden to your society to keep up the military skills.

Trust me, If concripts are so bad how did the vietnamese take on the US army, or Chinese?
The war hasn't changed that much, and more complex the systems get more the conscript army gains from the higher baseline education of it's men.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by northwolf
Serbia? You pounded a nation that saved most of it's military cabability with just not engaging your airforce.

You? I'm not an American.



Main reason for abolishing conscription is that youngsters in many "safe" countries don't want to go to the army, because "it restricts their life"

And they are ABSOLUTELY right. Every young man should have the right to choose his career. Conscription is an infringement on personal liberty.



we don't actually want to police the world

The reason for why you don't police the world is not that you don't want to, but that you are not able to, but you are too proud to admit that.


If concripts are so bad how did the vietnamese take on the US army, or Chinese?

Because the Vietnamese, the American and the Chinese militaries were all conscript militaries.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Answer a simple question:
Should a country have a professional military that is not able to defend it because of the lacck of menpower, or should it have a conscript army that can keep the country independent?

Conscription is a way to give something back to the country that you live in... Every man should have the balls to stand up and defend their country and loved ones ie. be ready and trained to defend it by arms if nececary, that's what conscription is all about. Yes it may suck in power projection, but it's the best way to defend a country.

And i say it once again if we, as in Finns, wanted more power in the world we would have collapsed soviet union at 1942 and not kept the life lines from murmansk open... instead we chose to hold on defending our own..

And btw where are you from?



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by northwolf
Answer a simple question:
Should a country have a professional military that is not able to defend it because of the lacck of menpower, or should it have a conscript army that can keep the country independent?

A professional military is the better option. Conscripts don't stand a chance in fighting against professional soldiers.



Every man should have the balls to stand up and defend their country ie. be ready and trained to defend it by arms if nececary, that's what conscription is all about.

That is the pretext that the regimes of Poland, Germany and other countries that maintain conscription are using.



And btw where are you from?

That's none of your business.

[edit on 31-7-2006 by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter]



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Ok i think we're far enough offtopic to stop this argument so i agree that we disagree in this matter.

I'll put up a thread in the military projects forum about this, maybe a better place...



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   
If you think that conscription is good, then why don't you join the military?



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Did my time, recon NCO in FRDF

but i've got other interest too, like engineering, but i still keep my self fit and keep my skills up (i do orienteering and IPSC Shooting)



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   
You all talk about China or India alone. Have you ever considered a joint force consisting of all the nations from Tokyo to Casablanca? With a population of over 4 Billion, this union would be the next super power while still exporting goods to the EU and America.

No more Palestinian/Israeli problem since Gaza and West Bank would be a part of it. India and Pakistan once again reunited with the british partition undone. Peace keepers sent to Sudan to stop the fighting in Darfur. Taiwan reunited with China. Japan on friendly terms with China and North Korea. North and South Korea reunited. All oil traded in this union's currency. Future candidates to include Venezuela, Bolivia, and Argentina.

Major spaceport in UAE and Singapore. New Space Agency with China, Japan, India as key contributors.

[edit on 31-7-2006 by Huangjiaweishi]






top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join