Will China overtake US?

I think, the USA can do better than that, and they'll find a solution for growth. We just need to wait up.

Originally posted by CookieMonster000
yes i agree with you

ive been watching the news lately and the value of a dollar is going down steadily and if this keeps up we'd be the next roman empire

collapsing from within

Pfff, a bit over the top thinking. The Roman Empire lasted for a thousand years. America is only a ruler since the the collapse of the USSR...one or two decades. It will not be a war with China or other hero like end. The end of America will be if OPEC change the Dollar for Euro. America will fall down to Argentinean levels. This is why Saddam had to go. He started trading his oil in Euro's.

Thanks for the Cola and Burgers. Your the weakest link .... bye!!

Fascism is Capitalism in decay.

[edit on 23-10-2004 by voorwaarts]

Originally posted by Chris McGee

Talking of china, how advanced do you think they are in military terms? They seem to import a lot of their techs.

there are a few threads in the weapons forum covering this topic...

the general consensus is that they have been catching up rapidly by importing and reverse engineering many technologies... as a result they have leapt 50 years in a decade and are now starting to produce their own technolgies to rival those of the west.

THey are generally concentrating on areas that the west has ignored... this would allow them to develop "assymetric warfare"... effectively rendering western technology useless or disabled in a war, rather than challenge it directly head to head.

That seems to make sense, Lucretius, they've also been building up their conventional forces aswell, with the purchase of several surface ships with AEGIS tech and possibly the purchase of two aircraft carriers. If the chinese really want to get up there with the big boys, they need to get (a) some blue water capability and (b) some means of force projection beyond their borders. The carriers should provide this but from what i've heard, they're pretty crappy compared to the rest of the worlds gear. Wonder if they could retro-fit them?

@voorwaarts

The petro-dollar thing totally fascinates me, i've done a lot of reading on it and to me it seems like daylight robbery! The only thing to seriously compromise the US position in the near future will be their complacency in this regard. The US govt has run up huge deficits based on the petro-dollar (and you can't blame them, dollar hegemony has existed since 1945) and while this seems OK in the current climate, if there were to be a switch, they would be in trouble. Fortunately the only way most of the OPEC countries would switch would be if Brent crude were to be priced in euros, something that would only happen if the UK joined the single currency and gained accession from Norway.

The Saddam thing is so obvious but has never been reported in either the US or British media, wonder why? Iran will be the next target and I've started a thread dedicated to that:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is beginning to appear that technology alone can only win short quick battles not long wars of attrition. The way I see it, the US certainly has leading edge military technology, and has had since the second world war. But since that time the US has not won a single war anywhere.

High technology weapons are great at destroying things quickly from a distance, but you cannot hold ground with them. Vietnam, Afghanistan, and now Iraq are beginning to prove this once again. A determined and well supplied gorilla army can hold a modern army at bay indefinitely.

The problem with high technology is maintenance and resupply. A missile once fired is gone. A jet fighter with an electronics fault is grounded. So you need to win quickly, or you are in big trouble.

I would not be so sure that America could overrun and hold all of China indefinitely. I also wonder if a multi million man Chinese army invaded America how long America could hold out with no fuel, no spare parts, and the power grid down. Its a bit like one guy with a six shot gun versus 12 guys with clubs.

Nuclear weapons are great, until you realise that a lot of other countries now have them as well, so that is not really a solution. It only really works when you are the only country with those weapons.

The best solution is probably to just try to keep the peace. Nobody anywhere is actually threatening the US. All these wars are really about oil and the US dollar not about any threat of invasion to America.

No-one is threatening the US for good reason, if it were a ground war, it would mean getting troops through canada or mexico and any approach over the sea will be spotted about 2000 miles away. The nazis had the most formidable war machine ever seen (at the time) and there was still no way they could ever hope to take the continental US.

I'm just wondering what will happen when we do go back to a multi-polar world, be it through economics, military strength or a combination of the two. Will the US even allow this situation to develop, can they stop it? Russia was a big player, can it become so again?

The last thing we need is another cold war (or another hot one or that matter )

Originally posted by drfunk
The US is the key to the global economy. If the US goes down, everything falls down with it. The rest of the world isn't going to let the US economy go down and will happily keep providing the $$$ to make sure this doesn't happen.

If the US reforms it's military, social security and also it's budget it will be fine

thanks,
drfunk

Haha, other way around my friend. What do you find more of? "Made in China" or "Made in USA"? The Panama Canal controls about 1/3 of the world's shipping and guess who it's controlled by? China.

Originally posted by Blackout

Haha, other way around my friend. What do you find more of? "Made in China" or "Made in USA"? The Panama Canal controls about 1/3 of the world's shipping and guess who it's controlled by? China.

Production is very important. However it is equally important where an item is bought. A failure on either end brings the entire system down.

The US economy is having some problems right now, it's a concern but not something to comit suicide over. It's been up and down before and will again. Neither the dollar or the euro is going away anytime soon. Thier relative value will change constantly, just like all others.

To some it may seem like a good thing if the US were to implode. For some it might be, but not for most. It's a pipe dream to think everything would be just peachy without the US. A vacuum will always be filled and you may like what fills it even less.

The Panama Canal controls about 1/3 of the world's shipping and guess who it's controlled by? China.

I've never heard of this before,and i don't think a country which can't even
unify itself could be thus powerful.could u provide some wetlinks to show this.
thanks

You people don't understand the power of the US. The whole world economy is based on the US. If the US goes down, every single country goes with it - theres no way around it.

As for the military, China is very far behind, though they are getting better. China won't stand a chance against the US for several more decades - think at the very least 30 years, probably more in the 40-50 range.

Originally posted by Warpspeed
It is beginning to appear that technology alone can only win short quick battles not long wars of attrition. The way I see it, the US certainly has leading edge military technology, and has had since the second world war. But since that time the US has not won a single war anywhere.

This statement alone proves your ignorance. I guess you missed both times we kicked Iraqs ass. How about the Korean war? Does that count?

High technology weapons are great at destroying things quickly from a distance, but you cannot hold ground with them. Vietnam, Afghanistan, and now Iraq are beginning to prove this once again. A determined and well supplied gorilla army can hold a modern army at bay indefinitely.

OK military master - a history lesson for you. Why is it that the US didn't win the Vietnam war? Answer: The US was not allowed to attack it's enemy. Thats right, we limited our selves to defensive warfare. That was the only reason we didn't win. We could have had the whole country in about 6 onths if we had just bombed the crap out of them and attacked all their major cities.

Afghanistan? Ha - I guess you missed that whole election thing. Iraq - We took that coutry in a matter of weeks - TWICE! Give me a break.

The problem with high technology is maintenance and resupply. A missile once fired is gone. A jet fighter with an electronics fault is grounded. So you need to win quickly, or you are in big trouble.

Oh sure. Well I'll tell you what - if it's so ineffetive, then how come technology has dominated every war since the dawn of time? From the Phalanx to the rifle to the SSBN technology has proven to be the most decisive force multiplier.


I would not be so sure that America could overrun and hold all of China indefinitely. I also wonder if a multi million man Chinese army invaded America how long America could hold out with no fuel, no spare parts, and the power grid down. Its a bit like one guy with a six shot gun versus 12 guys with clubs.

First off, the US would never try to occupy China - we would just cripple them.

As for your invasion theory - use your head here buddy. Exactly how is china going to get all of these troops over here? Hmmmmmmmm? It took the US with the most extensive and sophisticated transport system in the world weeks to get 200,000 troops to Saudi Arabia in GWI with no resistance and plenty of in theater allies weeks to get our troops to the middle east. Exactly how is China, with no such transportation system, going to get all of those troops to our shores or nieghbors land without the US finding out WELL in advance?

And once we see the VERY FIRST PLANE OR BOAT LEAVE WITH OUR SATALITES AND TRACK IT DONT YOU THINK THE US WOULD COUNTER THAT MOVE? God, use your brain!

And lets say that China did get this whole army undetected to ou boarder - exactly HOW WOULD THEY FEED THESE MILLIONS OF MEN? Soldiers march on their stomach as they say, and China would not be able to feed these men.

And then you forget about the fact that the US is the most armed nation in the world. You think Iraq is bad? Try marching through the midwest while guys that have been hunting their whole life take shots at you with scoped .308's. Then, try to take our cities - yeah, just what an army should do - go down town in places like NYC. Great idea.

To put it more bluntly, it is more like a guy with a .50 cal machine gun in a trench beeing attacked by 12 guys with their bare hands. Tell you what, I'll be the one guy, you and 11 Chicoms can see how you fare.

Nuclear weapons are great, until you realise that a lot of other countries now have them as well, so that is not really a solution. It only really works when you are the only country with those weapons.

Again - totally wrong. China has about 100-150 nuclear weapons, of which, only about 50-70 are capable of hitting us via missle. The rest are bombs.

To put this in perspective, the USAF ALONE has more then 1000 such weapons, including Minutemen II missles, able to strike anywhere in the world within 45 minutes and hitting within a few yards of the intended target. Chinas missles don't come close to that.

In a preemptive strike, those missles China has would be the VERY FIRST target, so most of them would be destroyed. The US is also working on missle defense, so you have to keep in mind that by the time China could potentially rival the US military, we would have a ballistic missle shield, which they would not.

This is not to say that nuclear war is a good solution, but it is very winable against countries that don't have a lot of nukes.

The best solution is probably to just try to keep the peace. Nobody anywhere is actually threatening the US. All these wars are really about oil and the US dollar not about any threat of invasion to America.

Yup, you finally got something right.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
This statement alone proves your ignorance. I guess you missed both times we kicked Iraqs ass. How about the Korean war? Does that count?

The US didn't win the Korean War, they were winning until China decided to send their troops down. China took heavy causualties but they had enough sheer numbers to sustain it. So I don't know why you're attempting to use the Korean War as a "victory". That's a really lousy definition of victory if you call it that.

And lets say that China did get this whole army undetected to ou boarder - exactly HOW WOULD THEY FEED THESE MILLIONS OF MEN? Soldiers march on their stomach as they say, and China would not be able to feed these men.

The same way armies have done for centuries after invading, plus Chinese soldiers probably don't eat the amount that us obese Americans are used to so really, they would only eat 200,000 americans worth of food anyway

Then, try to take our cities - yeah, just what an army should do - go down town in places like NYC. Great idea.

Just on a humorous note, Chinatown is downtown in NYC, and handguns are illegal in NYC. So really, going downtown would be a pretty good idea should the Chinese attempt to invade NYC.

To put it more bluntly, it is more like a guy with a .50 cal machine gun in a trench beeing attacked by 12 guys with their bare hands. Tell you what, I'll be the one guy, you and 11 Chicoms can see how you fare.

AK-47's are cheap and easy to obtain, plus China already has a bazillion of them anyway. So it'll be you with a .50 cal machine gun versus 12 guys with AK-47's.

Again - totally wrong. China has about 100-150 nuclear weapons, of which, only about 50-70 are capable of hitting us via missle. The rest are bombs.
To put this in perspective, the USAF ALONE has more then 1000 such weapons, including Minutemen II missles, able to strike anywhere in the world within 45 minutes and hitting within a few yards of the intended target. Chinas missles don't come close to that.

Umm, no. China had 2,350 warheads in 1996 and has more now.
See here
There was a much better site that explained the capabilities of every nuclear power but I don't have the link on hand.
Also, China has approximately 24 ICBMs in service currently that can hit anywhere in the world, including the USA (seeing as how the US is about as far away as you can get. It might not be 1000, but if you sent 2 to the 12 largest cities in the US it would get the job done fairly well. I was always confused as to why the US and the USSR felt the need to escalate their pissing contest to the absurd levels they did and wasted tons of money (although the expenditures probably hit the USSR much harder in the long run). And no, these don't hit within "a few yards" but 500 meters is more than enough when you're launching nuclear warheads at people. I also have to doubt your claimed "few yards" spec for the minuteman II across continents, but that's another issue.

More importantly, while they only have 24 ICBMs currently armed, the Long March II booster rocket China uses to launch satellites into space for corporations happens to use the exact same booster design, and they have an awful lot of those, and can quite quickly pump out much more. Then again, they may already have more and just don't want people to know. Nobody knew they had 2,300 warheads until someone leaked their documents anyway. Who knows how many ICBMs they really have. And finally if they were really really desperate they could probably just pop the bombs into jets and send 2000 jets over here on a kamikaze nuclear mission. Not as simple as launching ICBMs but you gotta figure at least a few would get through.

In a preemptive strike, those missles China has would be the VERY FIRST target, so most of them would be destroyed. The US is also working on missle defense, so you have to keep in mind that by the time China could potentially rival the US military, we would have a ballistic missle shield, which they would not.

Pre-emptive strikes at China would be picked up by their satellites too you know, so they would have launched the nukes our nukes were launched at and we would all die and they would all die and the world would end.

In all realism though, nukes are pretty pointless, the only benefit of having them is to keep nations with nukes from threatening you with them, since you can threaten them back.

Which I would venture, is why China only has 24 ICBMs armed even though they have 2300+ warheads and make the exact same booster body in a commercial design for satellite launches daily. Sure, they *could* stock up a 500 warhead ICBM arsenal but that's really just a waste of money, while they can sell the same booster for satellites and MAKE money instead.

The problem here is not how China will invade the US, but what they will do once they have entered the borders. I know that there are far more guns held by the citizens on the US than what there is within our army. If a chinese man in uniform walked to my door, or even down my street in a time of war, I would shoot him.
When you get into the aspects of a war on China, I believe it would be a stalemate. We would not be able to attack them because of our ever-cremping economy, and they would not attack us due to our over-whelming militia.
So, if China wants to take us on, go ahead and let them. I'll be right here waiting, with my gun in hand, to take out any who would attack my country, and attempt to end my freedom and liberty. Just like our fore-fathers...

if china successfully invaded america (yeah right how would they get over here?) they have almost as many ground troops as we have people. but explain to me why they need to take over the midwest? just hold california and the rockies and cripple or take over the worlds 6th largest economy.

if american economy went under the world would lose its biggest importer, im sure the shockwaves would be felt. doesnt mean its not going to happen though. oil prices staying the same except against the dollar shows how far the dollar is going down. more likely EU / russia and China will only call in enough of american debt to make its economy weak so it can be a subservient nationstate to them, after the increasing expenditures cut military funding. the slow burn until america loses world power status and allowing for whoever is the new money waster to come up to the plate.

I'm in the manufacturing industry. Yes, many products are made in china right now. In the future however, the laborers will say "wait" why am I working for less that $1.00 U.S. per day. I want more money. People in China get richer, expecially the blue collar workers. They will refuse to work like slaves.

The companies pocketing the money in the U.S., Europe, Japan, Taiwan, etc... will say: "it is becoming increasingly expensive to manufacture in China due to rising standards of living... Let's transfer our factories and technology to India... Besides, the Chinese government only leased us this land for 99 years and the time is almost up."

What do you think happened in the U.S., Mexico, Taiwan, etc??? Cheap labor turns into higher standards of living throughout the country, thus refusal to work for such low wages. Companies "INVEST" elsewhere. India has enough people to support cheap factory work.

Originally posted by doichen420man
So, if China wants to take us on, go ahead and let them. I'll be right here waiting, with my gun in hand, to take out any who would attack my country, and attempt to end my freedom and liberty. Just like our fore-fathers...

Your right... So will Hundreds of Thousands of Gangsters on the streets of Compton, Southern Californa. HAHA I want to see PLA troops stroll through compton. Talk about guerilla warfare. They have assault weapons too in Compton HAHA.

why do people assume that china surpassing the US economically, automatically means war between the two countries?

China, India, Pakistian and other "developing" third world countries will eventually (sooner than later?) reach the capacity of oil consumption per capita similar to what is experienced in the US today......

Let's do that math then..............

The US at 300mil represents 5% of the world's population but we consume 27% of the world's available "cheap" oil...........

Add just even China into the mix of oil consumption at the levels approaching the US per capita usage and you have a severe if not terminal shortage of "cheap" oil.......that is, oil that can be readily found, drilled and refined within reasonable costs..........

So.........are we going to tell China........."sorry you can't have cars and other assests made of oil because you are going to use it all up?..........So back to the third world you came from??"...................

What do you think their response would be??

If we don't all end up extinct from some genetic designer virus/bacteria release on this planet.........sooner or later all who aspire to the standards of living the US has will be fighting over the remaining natural resources on this planet............and oil is a biggie among them and the first to be threatened..........

The big problem?................Too many people and not enough planet to go around..............

7Billion doesn't cut it....................Drop the world's population to 1 or 2 Billion and eveyone might be able to live a high standard of life..........

But how would you do that??.......................Too many social, cultural and religious beliefs would never except such radical changes to reproduction rates.......

Folks we are all in for a rough ride in the next 20 years...........

I feel sorry for anyone under 40yrs of age in the US...........you will never get to see the greatness of the US as it once was..............

sounds like the "population thoery",which suggest the population is everincreasing while the natural resources(land,energy......) is limited.so there must be wars and plagues to dealt with the population.
but it neglected that the technology is everincreasing and people can make use of more and more natural resources,more important,now human can have birth control.in fact,the living standard of the people on earth is much better than the past,when there were much fewer people.
as the oil become less,it will become more and more expensive,so other energy resources will become profitable,and will thus be developed.even there was no other energy at hand,u should decided whether to spend more dollars on the oil or start a (possibly,nuclear)war.i guess the answer is clear.
i once read a book on economy which suggested that unlike most people may think ,the price of raw materials in the world is as a whole in a drop.
that shows the power of new technology.
my english is quite limited,i hope i could make myself understood.

Originally posted by Lucretius
why do people assume that china surpassing the US economically, automatically means war between the two countries?

Probably leftover paranoia from the cold war era with the USSR...now that the USSR has disappeared (at least temporarily...Putin seems to be trying to ressurect it) the paranoia has to be focused somewhere and where better than a country that's still (officially) communist?

I think the US also has a little bit of paranoia about no longer being #1 in every aspect since we've been on top since WWII. But hey, we could just get over the idea of having to be #1 in every aspect, the countries in Europe seem to have and they seem to be doing just fine...the UK didn't crumble into a pile of dust after their imperialism failed, heck London is a bustling economy that made me feel like a pauper when I was there (their average income is something like $77K US...that's average, of course their rent is so ridiculous that even though they make that much there's still a ton of people in poverty because rent eats up all their money leaving them with nothing for food).

Originally posted by guyverseven

Originally posted by doichen420man
So, if China wants to take us on, go ahead and let them. I'll be right here waiting, with my gun in hand, to take out any who would attack my country, and attempt to end my freedom and liberty. Just like our fore-fathers...

Your right... So will Hundreds of Thousands of Gangsters on the streets of Compton, Southern Californa. HAHA I want to see PLA troops stroll through compton. Talk about guerilla warfare. They have assault weapons too in Compton HAHA.

Well see, guerilla warfare works great when your people outnumber the troops holding your country and can thus blend into the civilian population and snipe at the enemy troops.
It would be a little more difficult to do that if the enemy troops are the ones that outnumber you.

Of course this is all nonsense since there's no way for China to transport 300 million troops to California unless they somehow convince Canada to turn against the US (well I suppose this is vaguely possible far far down the line, who knows what will happen in 2403).

You also assume the gangsters in Compton actually would be patriotic enough to defend the country...which I don't know about. And all those Mexican gangs would likely not care quite as much either. So if China could get Canada to ally with them, and maybe Mexico too and sandwich attack the US from Canada and Mexico they could probably get all the mexicans in California on their side and probably at least some of the Chinese population in SoCal.

Of course we'll never know unless China loses it's mind and figures out a way to bring 300 million troops over, but personally I wouldn't bet on winning a guerrilla war against 300 million troops. Plus the US government would probably just decide that California is lost and nuke it into the ocean to stop China from taking the rest of the country.

lol