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: 13
0
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3

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,


Yes, I prefer food over human rights.
Would you rather not exist if the world has no human rights?

No, I do not believe that democracy is better than whatever china has now.




posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 06:30 PM
link   
@zero point

lolololol

Seems some members are lauding indian kind of so-called democrazy.. Hum, what kind of democrazy is it??? It is a democrzy in which people are discriminated by their ancentors race by the caste syste til this day and people are called dalits, aka untouchable. It is a democrazy in which the average age of people is 60 years. It is a democrazy which has the world's largest population of poor, illiterate people. It is a democrazy which has half the GDP of the communist China.
It is a democrazy in which huge human rights violations are being committed against the muslims, the sikhs, the buddists, the christians. It is a democrazy in which women are burned alive because they didn't bring enough dowry to the man's side. It is a democrazy where people are still using their left hands to wife their arses (this is true. why don't you ask your indian friends how they took care of themselvs after discharging themselves. lol)

Well I will prefer China's communism over this so-called and failed democrazy any day.

[edit on 22-11-2004 by Hawkssss]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Oh gimme a break democracy always does better than communism.

Communism isn't real; not REAL communism. In real communism, there wouldn't be a rich, ruling party that tells you what to do.

Democracy has its ups and downs, but in general, it is a lot better than the so-called communist countries.

I think you are thinking more of capitalism than democracy, and capitalism does damn fine too; the problem is, in capitalism you need a whole lot of laws so that the people doing the brunt work don't get walked on (i.e. 1800s United States, where life for the average factory worker was terrible).



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 09:58 PM
link   
No. What I think is every nation has a form of governmental and political system that suits its own needs. For example, China probably will never devlope the kind of democrazy of the west. Neither will Russia. Neither will india. By the way, it is only brainwahsed people that still call china a communist country; we are a mix of socialist and capitalist systems.

Many african and latin american countries are so-called democrazy but they don't get along so well, do they? It is not a rule or a divine destination that democrazy will always be better for every nation.

The reason that China won't probably have the kind of democrazy of the west is rahter complex and very hard to explain to people with very little or knowledge of our history, such as broadsword.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 10:58 PM
link   
What on earth gives you the idea I have very little knowledge of Chinese history??

Sigh; man, just explain yourself fully, people are reading, don't do that stupid "I would explain this but it is too complicated to explain" type of B.S.

And I know China is not Communist in the same way it used to be, that it is more socialist and capitalist now. That has been mentioned on these forums alone what, 4 or 5 times now? (not this thread, but these forums).

Democracy doesn't work too well in other countries usually because they are adapted to a different type of lifestyle usually and have trouble changing over to decmocracy.

But countries that start out as a democracy usually always are better off than countries that do not. Which is why those countries end up trying to change over to democracy. The problem is changing to democracy is a hard thing to do.

And China still is communistic in certain senses. The government in China still is the main authority, and you cannot speak out against the government or anything. It's just not as communistic as it used to be because they realized if they are they will never advance as much as they would like.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 11:41 PM
link   
hi

i rule the islet of vanuatu. i wish to be added to the list of -would-be- superpowers.





posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Umm...I dont want to go off topic again but im going to post this every time somebody claims India to be undemocratic or a failed democracy.

Hawksss whatever you talk about had existed 50 to 100 years ago.The caste system does nto exist in modern India anymore. I know I live in india. The downtrodden (dalits, tribals etc.) are given concessions in education (graduate level) and have reservations in every public sector undertaking.

You say that India is carrying out ethnic cleansing an opressing the minority community right?
Well check this out commie:


Our Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh is a Sikh!!
Our President Dr. A.P.J. Kalam is a Muslim!!.
And the most powerful political personality in the country now who is rumored to possess the "reins" of the government in power,
Sonia Gandhi is of foreign origin( Italy) and is a Christian!!

Not a single Hindu up there!!Thats the power of democracy.
We voted out the so called communal government.You cannot do that in China.
The will of the many can overcome the albeit loud rantings of the the few religious fanatics, which ever religion they may be from..

I doubt China, even the US, can ever exhibit such unity in diversity esp at the political level.
Another thing plutonian, we in India are feeing the poor too..and we're democratic so there


And tell me one thing, out of all the chicoms on this forum, does even one reside in China?!!

Or do you all just go home on "vacations" to see the rosy side of your country w/o knowing the problems that exist at the grassroot level?
All a bunch of frauds you are if you hide away in foreign lands and lament about the situation in China....Shameful..




[edit on 22-11-2004 by Daedalus3]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 11:55 PM
link   
@ daedalus



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 12:32 AM
link   
I think people have to differentiate between concept and execution.

There is no question that democracy is basically a sound concept. It offer a midway between order and chaos, therefore a midway between political stability and political progress. Most importantly, it allows general public's participation. It wasn't a new idea. A lot of philosophers through out history and through out the world, including philosophers in China, has come up with basic idea of democracy, or part of it.

The execution is another story. There are a lot of poor execution of democratic system, but there are also a lot of successful ones.

I don't think Chinese has to refuse or deny democracy simply because of culture, history or tradition. A lot of culture and traditions have been lost in recent 50 years anyways....Every democratic nation has a different democratic system, but the basic idea is the same. And I believe China can have a democratic system if it choose to.

The question is, will the current government of China allow democracy now or in the future?


[edit on 23-11-2004 by twchang]



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Broadword2004,

No, you haven't explained to me why warfare in the past is less complex than nowadays. Today, if we want to bomb a target, we can do that by sending one bomber. In WWII you may need hundreds of bombers and several bombing raids to destroy that same target. Do you have any clue how many support personnel (thousands), logistics and planning is involved in such a task? You seriously can't say, "oh warfare was less complex back then". Even in the time of the Roman Empire, warfare was very complex. Unless you think of course that supporting legionaires, thousands of miles from Rome, with horses and communicating using couriers, is much less complex than the click on a button of a satelite link requesting supply via a Chinook helicopter.

Current warfare has a faster pace yes, but it's not more complex than warfare in the past. Main difference with the past is the information technology: online/realtime gathering and analysing of data (it's an advantage).


Originally posted by Broadsword2004
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.


Actually, what I have told you is from a study which someone has done regarding this subject (not me). It took him some time to analyse and understand the Chinese problem, but perhaps you and your surrounding are brilliant that you already understood this "simple concept".

Like I said the Chinese are not 40 years behind with their technology (they are behind with their hardware, but not with their technology). But even so, as it is acknowledged, technology makes the US forces strong but at the same time it is the US weakest spot. As warned by experts, using an EMP blast, the technology of the US forces can be levelled thus making the US forces very ineffective. It is believed that China has such EMP bombs, and it is rumoured they have made some bombs specifically for carrier groups. See this article from a panel who warned the US government of such an event. Read this article on Jane's defence:
www.janes.com...

Again, when you talk about superpowers it is all about powerprojection. I have already given you the reports of the RAND Corporation (a think tank), and they predict that China in 2015 already can power project in Asia. Although the term is somewhat debatable, China can then already be regarded as a superpower. It is clear that if such an event occured, the US will lose her geopolitical powers in Asia, and can less "power project" in that region. In fact, when we look at the current schism between the US and EU (e.g. Iran), I believe that we may already be living in an era where the US will increasingly lose her status of the single superpower, i.e. where she will lose more regions to project her policy, interest etc.

Here is another report about China's power projection in the near future. It's interesting to read in the conclusion on the last page which spheres of geopolitics will be created due to this event. The report comes from a research conducted by the Deutsche Bank.
www.dbresearch.com...

About your posts regarding communism, if you have read Das Kapital, you would have known that there has never been a communist country on this world.

Blobber


[edit on 23-11-2004 by Blobber]



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
frnce has a good military. also isnt tibet where the gurhkas come from?


sorry, gurkhas are not from tibet, r frm NEPAL.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blobber
As warned by experts, using an EMP blast, the technology of the US forces can be levelled thus making the US forces very ineffective. It is believed that China has such EMP bombs, and it is rumoured they have made some bombs specifically for carrier groups. See this article from a panel who warned the US government of such an event. Read this article on Jane's defence:
www.janes.com...

they could harden them against EMPs



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 08:47 AM
link   
I think perhaps the world will be ready to acknowledge Chinas economic/military power or should be. But will China be able to acknowledge that the rest of the world has culture, race and history which are legitimate as its own? Only a question, not a statement! I'm not going to engage in a flame war .


[edit on C:Tueocu11e11 by Opus]



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by poirot

Originally posted by Blobber
As warned by experts, using an EMP blast, the technology of the US forces can be levelled thus making the US forces very ineffective. It is believed that China has such EMP bombs, and it is rumoured they have made some bombs specifically for carrier groups. See this article from a panel who warned the US government of such an event. Read this article on Jane's defence:
www.janes.com...

they could harden them against EMPs


Well I have mentioned the EMP weapons just to show, as an example, that it can be dangerous to rely too heavy on technology, as it often can be countered with a different technology (which are sometimes cheaper).

It's not clear wether all the military hardware is (can be) shielded for 100% against EMP weapons. But even then there are HPM weapons which are much more difficult to defend against, in this case military hardware cannot be shielded using the same defensive methods as against EMP.

Anyway, here is an interesting article from globalsecurity regarding "secret" weapons of China.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Blobber


[edit on 23-11-2004 by Blobber]



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Im off topic here, but The Three Gorges Damn was mentioned earlier. This does get back to what I was kind of driving at earlier though.

www.probeinternational.org...

Examine those involved in its construction.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Blobber, the U.S. military does not rely solely on technology; the notion that the U.S. military is totally tech-reliant and otherwise weak is a wrong argument; one of the things that makes the U.S. Marines the best even is that they often have the older technology.

The Marines to date use gas masks two generations behind the Army, and until recently their Cobra attack helicopters were using 1980's technology.

America's forces are the best because they are the most highly trained in the world, and then the advanced technology is a bonus.

I do not know where people get the idea that America has lame forces that are just tech-reliant totally, but without the tech wouldn't stand a chance in the face of other countries. The truth is, without the tech, America's forces would be crippled a good deal, but they would still be a hell of a match for pretty much any other country's forces out there (assuming the tech was equal).

Dude, you really think the U.S. doesn't have similar EMP weapons that it could use to attack the Chinese with?

The U.S. doesn't advertise what it has; when it went into Aghanistan a few years ago, all the world military experts were saying how they would need to napalm the area, that bombing it was no good because of the caves in the area, and the U.S. used new bunker-buster bombs that shocked everyone cuz they had no idea the U.S. even had such capability.

Remember, the U.S. has been putting money into all of this stuff far longer than China has. I wouldn't go too much on what the media says.

And your economic thing, yours or not, IS common sense. It is common sense that to build something like a fighter plane, with complex electronics, software, engines, fuel, metals for body parts, factories to make those metals, etc......that you need a strong economy to do it cuz you need to supply all the parts. Exactly WHAT you need may require a skilled analysis, but the overall fact that you need a heck of a lot of stuff is should be pretty apparent.

And I see your point on warfare but you are failing to see mine.

Commanding a carrier battle group in modern warfare or conducting modern submarine warfare is something that requires a LOT of knowledge and skill. Same thing with modern aircraft warfare and land warfare. You cannot simply go up against a skilled opponent with no experience. The Germans in WWI and WWII took out lots of ships, but eventually the Allies figured out how to hunt those submarines and eventually the submarines became the hunted. The U.S. and the Soviet Union both did lots and lots of trials on warfare scenarios on how to battle each other's submarines. You are telling me China, with no experience whatsoever in using submarines in battle, can actually know how to use one against an opponent with superior technology and 50+ years of knowledge and experience in using them??

Same thing with carriers. Commanding carrier groups is a complex ordeal. China, when they get their carriers, still has to learn how to command them in battle and how to command them overall, something they have absolutely no experience in. They have to learn how to defend against enemy submarines, missile attacks, etc.....all that takes time, unless the Chinese military becomes totally tech reliant.

Even when modern airforces do trials with each other, like the British airforce and the American airforce, they keep each other's advanced tactics secret from one another.

China has no experience in any of the above. Utilizing mdoern weapons is something that has to be learned, and it cannot be learned overnight.

Warfare in the past was complex due to slowness in communication, but not near to the extent that modern warfare is, regardless of communications.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Whups; mis-explained the Marines; I mean one of the things that makes the U.S. Marines the best is that they are among the best in the world (British Royal Marines are real hard-asses too), yet they get by still utilizing older technology.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword2004
Whups; mis-explained the Marines; I mean one of the things that makes the U.S. Marines the best is that they are among the best in the world (British Royal Marines are real hard-asses too), yet they get by still utilizing older technology.


To the great credit of the US Marines. I think the idea of relying on cheaper, tried-and-tested tech then training the crap out of all your troops seems to have paid off in style..



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword2004
Blobber, the U.S. military does not rely solely on technology; the notion that the U.S. military is totally tech-reliant and otherwise weak is a wrong argument;

I have never stated that without the technology the US forces are weak or badly trained (show me the line where you got the opposite impression). BUT the US forces relies heavy on technology -which you also have stated numerous times in your replies- therefore with every warfare the US can put relatively less forces against the enemy: e.g. 120,000 soldiers againt 400,000 enemies.
It is weapons like the EMP and HPM, that even the US government fears because they may lose their technological advantage. In a warning, the panel (see previous reply), warns that even "small" countries or terrorists organizations can develop these kinds of weapons in 2015. Now, imagine America losing it's technological edge, that means that e.g. a war as in Iraq has to be fought with much greater force. Like I said, with every technology there will be a counter technology, and the last may cost less.
I know that the US has EMP weapons too, but suppose there is a war with China, and both use conventional EMP and HPM weapons. Surely you must understand that in such a case, the US is in a disadvantage as she has lost her technological supremacy while China still has the numerical supremacy. And it is this scenario what fears some analysts.



Originally posted by Broadsword2004
Dude, you really think the U.S. doesn't have similar EMP weapons that it could use to attack the Chinese with?

The U.S. doesn't advertise what it has...

The Chinese do not advertise what kind of projects they have, but if you follow the articles made by defence analysts, then you can have a rough image what kind of weapons are in development for all the countries. But even then, there will still be surprises, such as recently the Chinese Yuan class submarine.


Originally posted by Broadsword2004
And your economic thing, yours or not, IS common sense. It is common sense that to build something like a fighter plane, with complex electronics, software, engines, fuel, metals for body parts, factories to make those metals, etc......that you need a strong economy to do it cuz you need to supply all the parts. Exactly WHAT you need may require a skilled analysis, but the overall fact that you need a heck of a lot of stuff is should be pretty apparent.

In every reply you stated that China is with regard to their technological level decades behind. I have shown you -from a study that someone has made- that China cannot make superior hardware yet, not because they don't have the knowledge (which is relatively easy to get) but more importantly because they lack the economic infrastructure. Then you say, "ah I know that, that's a simple concept."


Originally posted by Broadsword2004
And I see your point on warfare but you are failing to see mine.

Commanding a carrier battle group in modern warfare or conducting modern submarine warfare is something that requires a LOT of knowledge and skill...


I understand perfectly what you mean, and I have stated several replies ago that you cannot think in absolutisms. I know modern warfare is complex due to faster communication and online/realtime processing of datas. But still you cannot say that the wars nowadays are more complex than the past.

In the past when you commanded your army, in all the chaos and slaughter, still you must make sure that -as a commander- your army performs as you desired.
Armies must be moved to the right place, then you will encounter the enemy. The pikeman must stay in certain formations, left flank, right flank must be coordinated. Archers must know their places, horsemen must be put in place, and all these units in "this complex ballet" must go, attack, defend at the right time and the right place. They did this with no modern communication methods, or enchanced supply vehicles as we currently have. Just think of the complexity of Alexander the Great who conquered till the borders of India, or Hannibal who crossed the Alps with elephants to attack Rome.

So you cannot say -absolutely- that the warfare of the past is less complex. You can say however that current warfare demands more of the information technology, due to real time and online processing of data (voice, images, radar, satellite etc).
And surely regarding implementation of the information technology, the US has a clear advantage compared to other forces: putting 7th Cavarly at the right place to outflank the enemy after seeing a satellite image, knowing almost directly where to put the 1st Infantry, seeing (via Awacs or J-star) hostile squadrons taking off and immediately sending the F14's etc. So yes, the US has an advantage in implementing the information technology beside the other technological advantages of their hardware. Even for the commander of the foot soldiers, is a real time/online overview at sqaudron level possible, allowing him/her to give the right tactical orders. Better yet, even an indvidual soldier may have the complete overview of the battle he/she is fighting.

Blobber



[edit on 23-11-2004 by Blobber]



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 09:26 PM
link   
I would not say that China has a numerical advantage; you have to be able to equip and supply and feed all those numbers, which would be very difficult to do.

Most U.S. equipment is EMP proof; the other weapon (the microwave one; I forget its acronymn) I am not sure.

If you mean trying to invade China (disregarding nukes used by either side), without technology, the U.S. probably would not succeed. But I would not consider numbers a factor too much otherwise; numbers have never been a huge deciding factor in military power throughout history; China had more people in WWII then Japan, yet still Japan marched into there. So did Russia, yet Japan gave them a lot of trouble.

I honestly would not rely too much on military analysts opinions (and this is my own opinioning here) because most of them that I have seen are often dead wrong on certain military subjects, or they don't know what they are talking about. Many do, but many are also just self-appointed experts who seem to think that just because they were once in the military, that they actually know what they are talking about.

I am sure the U.S. has been aware of EMP threats for a while now; the U.S. military has been prepping for that threat since the Cold War, because if there was ever an all-out nuclear war with the Soviets, U.S. carrier groups and aircraft and all that would have to be EMP-proof to carry on their mission. I think they are more prepared for that then they let on.

I also do not see why that would scare any military analysts; in such an event, pretty much both the Chinese and the U.S. forces would be rendered unable to battle each other if they are that vulnerable, and China has no forward power projection at the moment, meaning they could not threaten the U.S. itself.

In terms of technology, no, that knowledge is NOT easy to obtain; you cannot simpyl obtain 50+ years of experience in operating carrier battle groups, submarines, how to conduct land warfare, etc......that sutff has to be learned. So does the technology have to be learned in terms of how it works and such.




top topics



 
0
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join