It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

China for World super power in next 40 years

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by COWlan
OHHHHHHH.......I can assure you ONE HUNDRED PERCENT that Canada does not give China humanitarian aid (the government). But if you are talking about all the organizations that invest in the less fortunate then yeah maybe but I haven't heard of one yet. I am sure there are many organizations that help the less fortunate in America.


I didn't know that until they have a debat recently in the Canadian Parliament. I am not sure what form is the aid. If I remember correctly, it wasn't a lot of money. I suspect it is some policy made many years ago. They just haven't adjust it...that is why it was brought up in Parliament for discussion.

[edit on 21-11-2004 by twchang]




posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 03:11 PM
link   
hmm...just some thought. Obviously if China is going to become a military super power, the US will be in the way. So will this become another cold war? Or will it be different because US is also doing business with China? And US's forces seem to be a bit over stretched right now. Any comments on that issue?
How about EU? are they doing anything significant right now so they will become super power as well?

[edit on 21-11-2004 by twchang]

[edit on 21-11-2004 by twchang]



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by plutonian

Originally posted by Broadsword2004
More idiots again (exclusing SweatmonicaIdo).

It also shows here that you seem to have no idea of how a carrier would go into battle. The Chinese mainland? I don't think the U.S. has any plans of invading China. That would be political suicide right now, plus, despite what politicians might ever want, the people themselves of the U.S. have no such interests. Also, aircrafts? China has no forward sea projection. All their aircrafts have to come from the mainland pretty much. Which means in a real war scenario, the carriers would be sitting out of range of those aircraft. And if any of those aircraft somehow came near the carrier, the carrier has its own anti-aircraft missiles, AND its own aircraft to fight those aircraft. The carriers would be out of range of the missiles too. The only way to take out a carrier would be to use a nuclear missile, and everyone knows where that would lead.

You also seem to forget that carrier groups train for such scenarios all the time!! You think the U.S. Navy hasn't already thought of, "What if, in a real battle scenario, the enemy tries to swarm a carrier battle group...." etc....etc....they are plenty aware of all that. No carrier would ever come close enough to China to get into such danger.


lol, ok, I am not gonna argue about carrier groups' maximum computing capacity simply because I am studying in this field, let me just say it is general knowledge to me and it is not worth my time to debate on the "US must have ..." assumptions. It is the current "technological limitation", including GPS's vulnerability to interference and limitations on the deployment of UCAVs, please, at least do some homework before you talk, it is not "if US Navy haven't thought of", it is "they are not able to atm".

PS: I think COWlan does have a point, no offence.


As for supercomputers, that is sort of an ongoing battle, all the big countries into tech are busy building bigger and badder super computers, with U.S., China, and Japan trying to outdo each other constantly. I don't really know the point of the argument there.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 03:59 PM
link   
OOPS:


Originally posted by plutonian

Originally posted by Broadsword2004
More idiots again (exclusing SweatmonicaIdo).

It also shows here that you seem to have no idea of how a carrier would go into battle. The Chinese mainland? I don't think the U.S. has any plans of invading China. That would be political suicide right now, plus, despite what politicians might ever want, the people themselves of the U.S. have no such interests. Also, aircrafts? China has no forward sea projection. All their aircrafts have to come from the mainland pretty much. Which means in a real war scenario, the carriers would be sitting out of range of those aircraft. And if any of those aircraft somehow came near the carrier, the carrier has its own anti-aircraft missiles, AND its own aircraft to fight those aircraft. The carriers would be out of range of the missiles too. The only way to take out a carrier would be to use a nuclear missile, and everyone knows where that would lead.

You also seem to forget that carrier groups train for such scenarios all the time!! You think the U.S. Navy hasn't already thought of, "What if, in a real battle scenario, the enemy tries to swarm a carrier battle group...." etc....etc....they are plenty aware of all that. No carrier would ever come close enough to China to get into such danger.


lol, ok, I am not gonna argue about carrier groups' maximum computing capacity simply because I am studying in this field, let me just say it is general knowledge to me and it is not worth my time to debate on the "US must have ..." assumptions. It is the current "technological limitation", including GPS's vulnerability to interference and limitations on the deployment of UCAVs, please, at least do some homework before you talk, it is not "if US Navy haven't thought of", it is "they are not able to atm".

PS: I think COWlan does have a point, no offence.


Well Plutonian, you obviously missed my point entirely. You seem to forget that all those missiles have to be able to REACH the carrier. The carrier just parks outside of their range thus. They are all land-based at the moment.

And the U.S. doesn't buy technology from anyone military-wise, except in terms of rifles. It was found that buying foreign made designs and manufacturing them here was in general better. But everything else, aircraft, ships, battle tanks, etc.....is all homemade U.S. stuff.

Also, population is not going to cause a country to jump a technology gap like that; only sooo many people can go to the universities and such to study. Also, it costs lots of $$$ to fund research projects.

Yes, in the future, China will probably have carriers, but my point is, their knowledge of how to go into battle with those carriers will still be years behind the U.S.'s.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 04:04 PM
link   
And yeah, the Soviet AK-47 is one of the greatest rifles ever made!!



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 04:06 PM
link   
By the way, those two posts up there above my AK-47 one were meant to be one post, that is why the supercomputers are randomly mentioned in that post even though they are not in the quote above it.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 04:07 PM
link   
broad sword what about the sunburn?
you havent commented on it.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Yeah Sunburns. You gotta love the sunburns. THe looks, the range and the sheer destruction it can wreck. US has no way of defending from a sunburn missile except to destroy the ship of the aircraft that is going to launch them. This is basically the only thing that China can use to effectively destroy CBGs without MAD. THis can sink all US surfacecombatants in one hit except for the carrier which may take as much as ten but one or two is all it needs to stop aircraft launches and landings.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword2004
Also, population is not going to cause a country to jump a technology gap like that; only sooo many people can go to the universities and such to study. Also, it costs lots of $$$ to fund research projects.

Yes, in the future, China will probably have carriers, but my point is, their knowledge of how to go into battle with those carriers will still be years behind the U.S.'s.


These were reports conducted by professionals: and in 2015 China already can "power project" in Asia if she wants to.

May I also remind you that history has shown us that economic output can be very decisive in wars? Think WWII -where the US had a military technical gap compared to the Germans but an huge economy (also for research)- and the Cold War where the USSR lost because of economic output. It is assumed that when China has an economic structure like that of the US, universities and any other kind of facilities will be (ceteris paribus) in the same ratios (thus 4-5x as the US).

Your main assumption is that China has no experiences in wars. Japan defeated the USSR in the beginning of the 20th century, while Japan didn't have experience in modern warfare. In fact, in those years the west had an assumtion that no Asian nation could beat a western nation: it was a complete shock for the west.

So again, in 40 years when China has the biggest economy in the world (already calculated), and when she has reorganized her economic structure into a capitalistic production machine, I believe there is a real chance China will be the leading superpower.

Edit: although parts of the US and Chinese military believe that war between USA and China is unavoidable, I don't believe there will be a war between the US and China, unless it's about Taiwan. But the last will soon be found out as Chinese leaders vowed to annex Taiwan before 2020.

Blobber

PS: if you read reports about exercise summer pulse '04, some analysts believe that China can now destroy 2 carrier groups. In that operation, the US -probably also as a signal to China- put 7 of her CG's out of the harbour.

www.washingtonobserver.org...
www.globalpolicy.org...

quote: Officials have downplayed the timing of both military exercises, but analysts say few nations - particularly China - believe such reassurances. "Obviously, I don't think anyone buys such remarks," Tan said. "The largest naval exercise the United States has ever held is meant to send a direct signal to the Chinese. It's gunboat diplomacy and its point is to warn China not to step over the mark when it comes to Taiwan."


[edit on 21-11-2004 by Blobber]



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 05:56 PM
link   
I doubt that anyone who is really familiar with the military capabilities of the United States vis-a-vis the PRC would disagree that a typical full-scale military action in the near future might go like this:

1. PRC invades Taiwan.
2. The US fleet supports Taiwanese assets in beating back the invasion.
3. The PRC strikes, one or two US carrier battle groups go away.
4. The US strikes, the PRC navy and their entire C4I2 capability goes away.
5. The PRC strikes, Los Angeles goes away.
6. The US strikes, China goes away.
7. Kofi Annan and France issue a strong protest.
8. Russian real-estate investors wait for the radiation levels to drop.

In fifteen years, though, it might not be so cut-and-dried. One of the commonly-held beliefs is that once a dictatorship opens up its economy, a similar loosening of its political activities happen as well. Free markets lead to free minds and a free society.

That doesn't seem to be the case in the PRC. Obviously, they're jumping on the capitalism bandwagon, probably because they realize that's the only way a country can progress in the 21st century.

But there hasn't been a concomitant lessening of political repression to go along with the lessening economic repression. I am sure that this factor is causing American military planners some concern. If you have a country with the economic power brought about by capitalism, yet retaining a political dictatorship with a strong hegemonistic streak, it just might make sense to launch a pre-emptive strike while the military balance is still in our favor.

But that will be President Rice's problem, not ours.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Well an efficient capitalistic system without so called imperfections needs the foundations of a democracy (e.g. free press to counter corruption). So I tend to say that China will once become a democracy. Thats why I said I don't expect a war between US and China, unless of course over the issue of Taiwain, especially when the democratic reforms take place in the later stadium of her economic growth (in that case it's already too late as war has already been waged).

Blobber


[edit on 21-11-2004 by Blobber]



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Blobber says:

"Well an efficient capitalistic system without so called imperfections needs the foundations of a democracy (e.g. free press to counter corruption). So I tend to say that China will once become a democracy."

I'm a big believer in conventional wisdom, so that's what I'd have said, too; but I don't see the PRC becoming any more "democratic" than it has since the Long March of 1937, have you?



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Blobber says:

"Well an efficient capitalistic system without so called imperfections needs the foundations of a democracy (e.g. free press to counter corruption). So I tend to say that China will once become a democracy."

I'm a big believer in conventional wisdom, so that's what I'd have said, too; but I don't see the PRC becoming any more "democratic" than it has since the Long March of 1937, have you?


Well, imperfections lead to the Asian economic crisis in the end of the 90's. So yes I think they have seen that somewhere -in the growth of their economy- to counter imperfections they must have democratic reforms. In fact some Chinese leaders already stated they believe in the future there will be a hegemony of one doctrine in this world. I believe when he said that he meant democracy/capitalism, the problem is though that they don't want to reform their one party system at this moment, probably out of fear of the chaos that has been seen after the collapse of the USSR.

It is my hope, that this party reform will be conducted before their "power projection". So in essence we may be living in a time full of "suspense".

Blobber


[edit on 21-11-2004 by Blobber]



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword2004

Well Plutonian, you obviously missed my point entirely. You seem to forget that all those missiles have to be able to REACH the carrier. The carrier just parks outside of their range thus. They are all land-based at the moment.

Yes, in the future, China will probably have carriers, but my point is, their knowledge of how to go into battle with those carriers will still be years behind the U.S.'s.


No, you missed my point, the computing capacity of the carrier group is easily overwhelmed and overloaded by Chinese forces in large number due to the technological limitations. And not to mention China has stealth cruisers and nuke subs. 100+ fake and real missiles, if 10 of them made it is more than enough. The further the carrier front the battlefront, the further aircrafts have to fly and the larger area they have to cover, which weaked both offence and defence, and who is going to protect the aircrafts with firepower? AWACs are just eyes in the sky you know. (Because the aircrafts take off from a carrier, there is no way they are loaded with dozens of weapons and fuel, it is common sense.) Sunburn is a frontier showcase, I am sure the Chinese got some surprises hiding in the back, the Chinese government are good at hiding things off the media.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Okay, from my understanding, the U.S. NEVER sent any seven carrier battle groups near China as some show of military force; that was some rumor made up that spread all over the internet and got everyone tricked cuz everyone fell for it. But the U.S. never did that, from what I read (not saying that what I read it totally right, but that is what I read; now I wish I could find WHAT it was I read to provide a link).

As for the Sunburn, yeah, that is a cool missile, I wouldn't go so far as to say the U.S. has no counters (not that it does), but remember, U.S. military research is kept very under-the-hood.

However, there was an admiral quoted as saying that the U.S. carrier groups can do their job up against or not up against the Sunburns. I don't think he'd be speaking out of blind pride about a carrier group.

I wouldn't use Japan versus China as an example really of warfare cuz the Chinese really had no military at the time to face the Japanese. It wasn't like Japan was some powerful military or very formerly powerful military that was going up against the more powerful Japanese military; the Chinese military had been obselete in the 1800s, and before then even I believe. Also, at that time, no one, not the United States, Japan, or anyone had too much experience operating battle ships and carriers and submarines except for WWI. Japan by then had already been modernizing its forces and there wasn't a huge technology gap to catch up on.

I also would not use industrial output as an example as much. This isn't the old days. Stuff is very complex nowadays. Aircrafts have to go through tons of testing and such before they are put into service. Tanks, and guns, and the likes, as well. You can't simply put up factories and expect to pump out such things WWII-style

For modern China, the have a larger technology gap and warfighting gap USING that technology to catch up on. Like I said, it takes a lot of knowledge on how to operate nuclear submarines and carrier groups in battle.

I also don't think at the current moment that the U.S. would lose 2 carrier groups in a battle with China (current China). Remember, they train for most of those scenarios, and if something like the Sunburn was too large a threat, the U.S. would probably bomb the hell out the Chinese naval yards if it needed to, or engage the ships that are launching the Sunburn via submarine.

There is also the electronic warfare part, which is an entirely different realm even.

In 15 years though, probably a different story of such a confrontation

And also, I wouldn't keep using the economies of the countries (U.S. and China) as an example anyhow; NO ONE has any real clue as to how economies will be in like 30 years, let alone 40 years. There are variables that can happen to change things. But history has shown that many people who try to make economic predictions are often found dead wrong some years later.

Not that China won't become an ecnomic power, they probably will, but not that the U.S. won't remain one either, I mean.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by plutonian

Originally posted by Broadsword2004

Well Plutonian, you obviously missed my point entirely. You seem to forget that all those missiles have to be able to REACH the carrier. The carrier just parks outside of their range thus. They are all land-based at the moment.

Yes, in the future, China will probably have carriers, but my point is, their knowledge of how to go into battle with those carriers will still be years behind the U.S.'s.


No, you missed my point, the computing capacity of the carrier group is easily overwhelmed and overloaded by Chinese forces in large number due to the technological limitations. And not to mention China has stealth cruisers and nuke subs. 100+ fake and real missiles, if 10 of them made it is more than enough. The further the carrier front the battlefront, the further aircrafts have to fly and the larger area they have to cover, which weaked both offence and defence, and who is going to protect the aircrafts with firepower? AWACs are just eyes in the sky you know. (Because the aircrafts take off from a carrier, there is no way they are loaded with dozens of weapons and fuel, it is common sense.) Sunburn is a frontier showcase, I am sure the Chinese got some surprises hiding in the back, the Chinese government are good at hiding things off the media.


Okay, yeah, I see your point there, however I wouldn't say the computing capacity it "overwhelmed." The F-14 Tomcat had a targeting system that could simultaneously track 14 different targets at once, and lock on to all of them, and that is old technology. Modern carriers are pretty well equipped. Remember, the U.S. Navy is pretty good at hiding things too as well. You think they don't have some tricks up their sleeves as well??

Also, the U.S. has nuke subs as well, remember.

Also, I wouldn't put all this faith in the Sunburn missile. As I just said, U.S. Navy has some tricks too and I don't think they don't have a counter to the Sunburn as much as people think.

Remember, the arms industry holds some real power in this country of America, so they can get politicians to say stuff about the U.S. "not having this or that" so that they can get a contract for some billions of dollars to build the thing.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword2004
Okay, from my understanding, the U.S. NEVER sent any seven carrier battle groups near China as some show of military force; that was some rumor made up that spread all over the internet and got everyone tricked cuz everyone fell for it. But the U.S. never did that, from what I read (not saying that what I read it totally right, but that is what I read; now I wish I could find WHAT it was I read to provide a link).


Yea, I think from what I read before, it was an exercise that involve the coordination of the 7 carriers around the world. Don't think they actually send all 7 carriers near China.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Also, the arms industry is going to put lots and lots of pressure onto politicians through lobbying to make China sound like a legitimate threat to the United States so that they can get these weapons contracts. The arms industry loves this "China is a growing threat" type of mentality cuz for them it means lots and lots of $$$$$



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword2004
Okay, from my understanding, the U.S. NEVER sent any seven carrier battle groups near China as some show of military force; that was some rumor made up that spread all over the internet and got everyone tricked cuz everyone fell for it. But the U.S. never did that, from what I read (not saying that what I read it totally right, but that is what I read; now I wish I could find WHAT it was I read to provide a link).


I will not argue further because it seems for America you make great assumptions: e.g. America can maintain her technological supremacy almost indefinately, yet for China you make the assumptions as if China in 40 years cannot be the biggest economy -while economists have calculated that they will be the biggest- because of...

Anyway, regarding Summer Pulse '4, I have never stated that the US put 7 carriergroups near China (read my post), but this exercise was unprecedented. Some analysts claim this is a direct signal to China, "we know you have a doctrine to cripple 2 of our carriergroups, now look how many we can put on sea."

Just read the quote I have given you in my earlier post, or read the links.

Edit:


Originally posted by Broadsword2004
I wouldn't use Japan versus China as an example really of warfare cuz the Chinese really had no military at the time to face the Japanese. It wasn't like Japan was some powerful military or very formerly powerful military that was going up against the more powerful Japanese military; the Chinese military had been obselete in the 1800s, and before then even I believe. Also, at that time, no one, not the United States, Japan, or anyone had too much experience operating battle ships and carriers and submarines except for WWI. Japan by then had already been modernizing its forces and there wasn't a huge technology gap to catch up on.


I wrote Japan versus Russia by the way, the west was shocked that an Asian nation could defeat a western one - they assumed back then it was impossible. Japan defeated Russia, while Japan didn't have any modern warfare experiences back then. I used this example because you assume that China doesn't have war experiences (with carriers).


Blobber


[edit on 21-11-2004 by Blobber]

[edit on 21-11-2004 by Blobber]



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword2004

Okay, yeah, I see your point there, however I wouldn't say the computing capacity it "overwhelmed." The F-14 Tomcat had a targeting system that could simultaneously track 14 different targets at once, and lock on to all of them, and that is old technology. Modern carriers are pretty well equipped. Remember, the U.S. Navy is pretty good at hiding things too as well. You think they don't have some tricks up their sleeves as well??

Also, the U.S. has nuke subs as well, remember.

Also, I wouldn't put all this faith in the Sunburn missile. As I just said, U.S. Navy has some tricks too and I don't think they don't have a counter to the Sunburn as much as people think.

Remember, the arms industry holds some real power in this country of America, so they can get politicians to say stuff about the U.S. "not having this or that" so that they can get a contract for some billions of dollars to build the thing.



"You wouldn't say"? Is that skeptical or what, prove me wrong with figures, not assumptions.

Yeah, maybe the 200 tomcats of yours are targeting the same 14 closest targets. Their limited radar need guidance from carrier command center and awacs, that coordinated calculating power is not on the aircraft. Is that a difficult concept or you just ignored it?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join