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: 12
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 09:40 PM
link   
I thought Ford owned Land Rover. Sheesh, that company gets passed all over the place.




posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by aryaputhra

FDI is China is higher since China opened its market a long time ago. in 1960s where as India opened in 1990s.


I was talking about per year basis, see graph middle of page: China has approx 10x higher investments.
www.djurdjevic.com...

Blobber


[edit on 21-11-2004 by Blobber]



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword2004
You still missed my point on Russia and Japan. Japan had far more modern weapons and training than the Russians did when they fought them, and at the time there wasn't as large a technology difference. There's a big difference between conducting warfare with 1930s and 40s era weapons and using modern nuclear submarines and carriers.


To my understanding they were equal, but even so it shows that the Japanese performed well when it was for them the first time of modern warfare: so your assumption was wrong that a force cannot perform well without experiences.


Originally posted by Broadsword2004And Blobber, economic models have predicted things for years that have not come to occur. I wouldn't really rely on them

Yes, but I prefer economic models (who can predict accurate at two decimals) rather than the opposite -that is thinking China won't be the biggest economy based on nothing. Furthermore your assumption that the US can maintain their techical supremacy is based on nothing at all.


Originally posted by Broadsword2004
The Chinese have years to advance in terms of communications and electronics technologies military-wise; it is impossible for them to catch up to the U.S. in that; they need to reform their military all around and although their navy and airforce are making advances, their army is still next to nothing; it is mostly obselete.

That's a so called static analysis, you look at the status quo and make your judgement: you must look beyond the status quo.

And again, China has in almost all fields the knowledge but not the economic structure. Although China's economic structure is way behind, it's comparable to the problem of the EU: they have the knowledge but make fighters which are below US quality due to lack of economic infrastructure. Or comparable with the problem of Japan, or Russia.


Originally posted by Broadsword2004
And no, population does not equal more research that a country like the U.S. couldn't match; only soooo many people do research man; the Soviet Union had far more people than the U.S. did, and it did not outdo the U.S. in research during the Cold War era.

Wrong again, the USSR lost because of their economic structure (non optimal because of communism). If the USSR had an economic structure as the US, but having more people thus more output and more R&D etc, they had good chance of winning it.

Blobber


[edit on 21-11-2004 by Blobber]



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 10:26 PM
link   
My basis that the U.S. can remain technically superior is based on that it is right now at least 20 years ahead of China in the known types of military hardware, let alone the classified stuff. It also has been pouring far more money into research. By the time China is able to do this, it will be very far behind.

And you still missed my Russia vs. Japan point: WARFARE THEN WASN'T SO COMPLICATED. These days, there are loads more variables involved, with computers, electronics, communications, etc....the notion that a military with no real experience can't do well in battle depends, but the notion that a military that has no fighting experience with modern weapons can actually match the most technologically sophisticated military in existence that has been trained in how to use that technology to its advantage is another.

Back in WWII, fighter planes fought each other rather simply. They flew at each other, and the idea simply was to shoot down the other enemy plane before he could hit you. During the Korean War, the "unofficial" battle that raged on between the North Korean/Russian (Russian and North Korean pilots trained by the Russians) migs that flew against the American jet fighters, this changed a lot. At first, most of these pilots being WWII flying aces or trained by them, flew into combat fighting the WWII way. But as the fighting went on, it became clear to both Russia and the U.S. that dogfighting in jet planes is a lot different then in planes with propellers.

Same thing with carrier groups. How to command and control and conduct a carrier group in battle is a complex ordeal. It isn't as simple as the old "battleship versus battleship" ordeal, where the difference often came in who could load their guns the best.

Same thing happened with battle tanks too. In the old days, tank warfare basically meant two tanks engaged each other and shot at one another 'till the other one was destroyed pretty much.

These days, it is far more complicated. You've got aerial threats, anti-tank stuff carried by individual soldiers, and of course other tanks.

The U.S. has years of research and fighting experience in all of the above. China has none. The U.S. is still like 20 years ahead of the Chinese technologically in the Air Force and Navy, and like 30 or 40 years ahead Army-wise. The U.S. has a lot of very classified communications and electronics and electronic warfare research going on; it has a brand new GPS system getting ready to go active soon even. China's is barely started.

China has a looooooong way to go before it will ever catch where the U.S. is currently, and by then, the U.S. will have advanced a lot farther in its research.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Blobber, I suggest you read the following link:

India vs China: Startling economic facts

It is quite startling that there are other analysts prophesizing the impending eventual implosion of China! Wow, I never woulda thought...

China: From mismanagement to collapse



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword2004
And China wouldn't have half the money they have if the U.S. didn't buy their stuff either; no one "owns" anybody man, sheesh.


Your on wrong tracks, US doesnt even trade military technology with China and its true that US Export most 21,1% from China, while imports from US is only 8,2%, so your a bit blinded and dont see rest of the world. Its true that US is big part on whole system but its not directly connected to Chinas growth, US and other developed countrys import from S-Korea, Taiwan, Japan most Asian market goods while China manufacture the actual parts. Signs show that China is slowly going to progress to run the whole chain on its own mainland and take full benefit by being exporter / importer without middle hands. Conclusion is that China wont bankrupt without US trading partnership, it would only have slowing effect.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 05:53 AM
link   
It would slow it down drastically, probably cut its growth rate by a third. But they would eventually recover, as would the US, but the US will most likely find itself in a 2nd fiddle position for the remainder of the 21st century....UNLESS They are the first to develop a post-nuke superweapon. I'll give you guys a hint, it isn't an Anti-Matter bomb, it's not a new type of "clean nuke", not space based lasers. Think small really really small, then Read Engines of Creation by K. Eric Drexler, then you guys should get the picture. However should China or the EU be first then they would be top dog for the 21st. It's how it happend in the 20th with the A-Bomb, It could happen again....



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by aryaputhra

Yea, like this one...

Factory worker who helped to organize a strike during China's 1989 pro-democracy protests has been released after nearly 15 years in prison. God knows how many more souls are still languishing in jails even now, where's the international outrage?

www.newsday.com...

*clap* *clap* *shut* *your* *clap* *trap*


If you can feed the world's 22% population with 7% agriculturally usable land, I praise everything you say.
Screw your human rights, people need to eat first.
Human desire to be better doesn't mean you can screw over everyone else's life, unless you want to be the one that is been screwed over, lol.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by plutonian

Originally posted by aryaputhra

Yea, like this one...

Factory worker who helped to organize a strike during China's 1989 pro-democracy protests has been released after nearly 15 years in prison. God knows how many more souls are still languishing in jails even now, where's the international outrage?

www.newsday.com...

*clap* *clap* *shut* *your* *clap* *trap*


If you can feed the world's 22% population with 7% agriculturally usable land, I praise everything you say.
Screw your human rights, people need to eat first.
Human desire to be better doesn't mean you can screw over everyone else's life, unless you want to be the one that is been screwed over, lol.



Im detecting genocidic tones here..."Screw human rights you say?"
And plus so you agree democracy is better than whatever china has now?Because you said


Human desire to be better doesn't mean you can screw over everyone else's life, unless you want to be the one that is been screwed over,



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
It would slow it down drastically, probably cut its growth rate by a third. But they would eventually recover, as would the US, but the US will most likely find itself in a 2nd fiddle position for the remainder of the 21st century....UNLESS They are the first to develop a post-nuke superweapon. I'll give you guys a hint, it isn't an Anti-Matter bomb, it's not a new type of "clean nuke", not space based lasers. Think small really really small, then Read Engines of Creation by K. Eric Drexler, then you guys should get the picture. However should China or the EU be first then they would be top dog for the 21st. It's how it happend in the 20th with the A-Bomb, It could happen again....


Hmm...a particle cannon type thingy from CNC Genrals?I don't know,what is that clean nuke



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Broadsword2004,

You are thinking too much in absolutisms. You assumed that a country that has no experiences in modern warfare cannot fight well, I have showed you that your assumption is flawed with the Japan-Russia war of 1904-1905. But you defend your assumption with an "absolute perspective" by pointing to another assumption that current warfare is complex. That assumption is wrong when you view it with relativity: wars in 1904-1905 were complex for the soldiers who were fighting in that timeframe. They didn't had radar, supply was more complex as ships were very limited, they had no guided missiles or guided guns etc. So for their timeframe their wars were complex -you cannot look at our current technological standard with absolutisms and then claim our modern warfare is complex. No, even wars during the Roman empire were very complex viewed in their timeframe with the limitations of their technology.

I think I haven't explained well what I meant with economic infrastructure. Now, read this carefully. Theoretical technological knowledge is relatively easy to get: e.g. by scientific journals, espionage, acquisition, deduction etc. But, economic infrastructure is a much more challenging task when it comes to military hardware, or in fact any other goods.

Suppose one wants to make a stealth fighter. One needs a (super)computer to calculate the stealthy unstable aerodynamics, software to make the plane stable and materials to absorbs radar emitions. The theorical knowledge is relatively easy to get, but now comes the hard part.

The airplane maker needs someone who can make the frame. The framefactory needs someone who can deliver the composite materials. The supplier of the composite materials needs a supplier for the basic materials etc. etc... An economist has calculated even for one pencil one may need 100 subcontractors and subsupliers! For a complex airplane with thousands of parts, imagine how many subsupliers and subcontractors the airplane maker needs to efficiently build (price/performance) a fighter.

In a planned economy there is only ineffecient planning of production as a mechanism to reach an artificial equilibrium of the market. This implies also that clusters of (sub)supliers do not reflect the needs of demand: thus to make a product it will be below the "optimum" of the current technological state, furthermore output is below the optimum of what economists called "the natural equilibrium". It is this flaw of communism that caused the defeat of the USSR. The superiority of capitalism lies in the marketmechanism which create a much better link between supply and demand, thus a more natural clusters of (sup)suppliers which reflects the needs.

This is what the Chinese found out after decades of trying to make their airplanes, they lack the economic infrastructure to build complex airplanes. Thus as a temporary meassure they buy licenses from Russia (e.g. SU-27) or buy complete military materials to modernize their forces. In the mean time they concentrate on reorganizing their economic structure.

Now let us lay the polical and economic environment of the US on China. This will mean that China has the potential to have an output which is 4-5x higher than the US. We all know that R&D for the military also depends on the GDP (output) of a nation, now this implies that China has the potential to have a R&D which is 4-5x higher. Even if China is 40 years behind in technological knowledge (which as explained above they are not), still they can catch up in perhaps 10 years. But they are not 40 years behind in (all) technolocial knowledge, they are way behind in their economic structure as explained above.


Originally posted by Broadsword2004
China has a looooooong way to go before it will ever catch where the U.S. is currently, and by then, the U.S. will have advanced a lot farther in its research.


You are again thinking in absolutisms. As shown above China has the potential to leap frog any technical gap, if they have it. History has shown us that no superpower will remain forever. Given economic data and predictions, there is great chance China will be a leading superpower 40 years after now.

Of course we cannot rely one hundred percent on economic models. But these (econometric) models is used everyday for any political decisions and monetary, economic predictions. It's much better to rely on something that is proven (although sometimes which generates mistakes) rather than based your assumptions on nothing: it's better to have an educated guess. Just like the prediction of weather: if it's predicted that next week there will be a storm, you just cannot denounce it by saying, "yeah but how many times were the weather forcast wrong?" And then saying, based on nothing, "I think there will be sunshine."

Furthermore, your assumption that America will forever "lead" in the technological field, is based on what actually?

Blobber



[edit on 22-11-2004 by Blobber]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Blobber, excellent analysis. I agree with what you have said with the exception of one thing.

In order for China's market infrastructure to equal America's market infrastructure vis a vi' matching production capabilities with modern production complexities, the Chinese government would have to allow for the same amount of freedom in it's business and social structure (or at least the same flexability and stability...essentially the same thing).

What trends do you see lead you to believe that the Chiense Communist Party has any intention of sharing political / economic power with another entity? Or even loosening it's grip on information flow to allow more natural matching in this process?

They can only loosen thier grip on the economic structure so much before the government loses power.

Actually, I see a chance for major regression in the chinese model. If thier biggest customer were to suddenly dry up I could see massive political unrest spawning due to high unemployment in the cities.

While we have a boatload of problems that need addressing we have a fundumental political structure that allows for market forces to align to new economic realities fairly quickly. Unless the Chinese government makes a fundumental change they will always be 2nd or 3rd in the world power pecking order.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Well MrNice, China has been making major steps in that area, and they may be slowing down for now. Change will always be apart of the landscape of china. It's part of her history, that ebb and flow but never go away. China is surging now and if they keep it up, and political changes continue then if 40 years time well it will be interesting wont it.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrNice
Blobber, excellent analysis. I agree with what you have said with the exception of one thing.

In order for China's market infrastructure to equal America's market infrastructure vis a vi' matching production capabilities with modern production complexities, the Chinese government would have to allow for the same amount of freedom in it's business and social structure (or at least the same flexability and stability...essentially the same thing).

What trends do you see lead you to believe that the Chiense Communist Party has any intention of sharing political / economic power with another entity? Or even loosening it's grip on information flow to allow more natural matching in this process?

They can only loosen thier grip on the economic structure so much before the government loses power.

Actually, I see a chance for major regression in the chinese model. If thier biggest customer were to suddenly dry up I could see massive political unrest spawning due to high unemployment in the cities.

While we have a boatload of problems that need addressing we have a fundumental political structure that allows for market forces to align to new economic realities fairly quickly. Unless the Chinese government makes a fundumental change they will always be 2nd or 3rd in the world power pecking order.



Yes you are correct. When I wrote that when the US economical and political environment is projected on China -thus China having an huge potential- I also (implicitly) assume that there is some political reforms in China.

Other Asian countries have learnt that capitalism require the basic foundations of democracy to counter what economists call imperfections: e.g. free press to counter corruption and nepotism, free information for transparant markets etc. These were the lesson they have learnt from the economic crash in Asia at the end of the 90's. So I believe the Chinese government have seen that too.

I have read an article where it is believed that part of the Chinese government acknowledge the hegemony of our system (capitalism/democracy) in this world, that implies they understand that they must push some reforms in their country over time. But unfortunately I cannot find the article at this moment, I hope I can give the link later tonight.

Blobber



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by W4rl0rD

Hmm...a particle cannon type thingy from CNC Genrals?I don't know,what is that clean nuke


A clean nuke is simply a megaton+ explosive device that produces very low(or no) radiation and no fallout. I believe this may be achieved with fusion or anti-matter I don't know though becuase both releases an awful lot of radiation. Basically to sum it up, clean nukes was an Idea I first heard about on these boards. I have no idea wether such a device is possible or not. I hope it isn't then there would be less holding back in using nukes....

BTW A Particle Cannon like in C&C:G would be cool but i don't think its practicle. Pay attention to my Think small, and then Read Engines of Creation comments, all will become clear then


Here's the link to the whole book online(its been released under Creative Commons so its a legal copy)

Engines of Creation

Pay close attention to this chapter

Engines of Destruction



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I think the Indians are jealous... They see China as a competitor, but China doesn't see India as a competitor; the Indians have several languages, one far different from the other, so their off. language is ENGLISH!
just because they grow a little (less than Brazil, I think) and have two AC (almost sinking) they think they will be the next superpower !


meanwhile, they try to find articles saying China will collapse so they will rule the world! bwahahahahahahha! feah me da maaad indian!


* erm, just overdid a little


[edit on 22-11-2004 by poirot]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Observer83, when I said about the U.S. buying China's stuff, I mean the products overall (toys, electronics, etc.....all the "Made in China" stuff), not military technology. Sheesh, the U.S. are complaining over Germany and France trying to lift that arms embargo on China; the U.S. is the last one to trade military technology with China.

Blobber, I see your point on economics, but I think you are wrong on military. No, you did not prove anything with your Japan vs. Russia example, because I already told you how it was flawed. And no, warfare then was not as complicated as it is today; for the soldiers fighting in 1904-1905, warfare was still complex, but not to the degree that it is today. I already gave you examples of that.

Also, I told you already, China is too far behind to catch the U.S. right now. The U.S. is not some "empire" that eventually must fall; it hasn't conquered anyone, it doesn't make people pay it taxes or anything.

I understand what you mean about building airplanes and such though, you need an economy proper to do it. But you also need to develop the technology and then KNOW HOW TO USE THAT technology, which China is years behind the U.S. in.

First China has to develop their economics infrastructure enough, then they need to research the technology, develop it, test it, and learn how to use it. All of this they are years behind the U.S. in. They would have to spend enormous sums of money to catch up to the U.S., let alone surpass it, which means the U.S. will in turn start doing the same, and you end up with another arms race most likely.

I do not see how China can surpass the U.S. militarily in the future for a loong time.

A country cannot simply get a good economy going, then just "leapfrog" its way up to world superpower status. It takes a lot of time and money and research.

How modern warfare is conducted is a lot different from in the old days.

And no, in Roman times, war was NOT as complicated for soldiers then as it is today. Back then, soldiers marched into battle and fought. The Romans had a specific method of how to march into battle even, which a few of the smarter enemies learned how to exploit and thus defeat the Romans.

Newer technologies like radar and radio only "simplified" warfare for the few years that the opponents didn't have them. Once both sides had such technologies, things got a lot more complicated.

Like Germany didn't realize at the time, but their WWII U-boats basically gave away their positions with relative ease because the Allies learned how to hone in on the radio signals, which basically said "I am a U-boat." Germany was unaware of this though, and thus most U-boats near the end of the war never came back.

Modern technology made war a lot more complicated.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 03:22 PM
link   
And yes, army-wise, China is about 40 or so years behind the U.S. Navy and Airforce-wise, more like 20-25 years.

And the U.S. is not like most other superpowers. The British, Roman, etc...empires all had too much land conquered, more then they could handle. The U.S. has not done that.

And I already understood perfectly what you were explaining in your economic description in regards to building complex military things (like aircraft); that is a rather simple concept that most anyone would know I would think.

One of the reasons the Soviet Union failed to develop the stealth plane before the United States was because they lacked the computers to process the mathematics needed.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Also, on a side not, for those political reforms to take place essentially means the Communist Party in China losing its ruling power, which it won't like too much.

That Party cruised over democratic protesters in 1989 with battle tanks, they aren't gonna give up their freedom so easily just for the "good of China."



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Heres hoping that some natural calamity cleanses the World of the plague that is the Northern Hemisphere whacko, and lets the mighty nation of Samoa take it's rightful place as the Worlds dominant Superpower
ah ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
China, India, United States.....kiss my a-s-ssssssssssss



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join