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: 14
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Whups, my analysts description sounded kind of silly; I mean a lot of analysts are former military guys, but a lot of them come up with just some ludicrous ideas about warfare and such.

And then others are very good and know what they are saying.

You know the ludicrous ones are ludicrous when you can pretty much argue over their point on a lot of different forums; if they know what they are saying, you use their argument and it is pretty much infallible.




posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 09:39 PM
link   
"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."



The above quote, Blobber, was what I interpreted as you meaning the U.S. forces are super-reliant on technology (even if you didn't mean it that way, that is how I interpreted it).



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword2004

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



What do you mean by "EMP proof"? Could you explain it in more detail about the technological concept? (I know what you mean, but not how it works.)



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 03:32 AM
link   
Not really sure on that here, but from what I have read, most of the equipment in the U.S. military is supposed to be able to function after an electromagnetic pulse so that if this country was ever nuclear bombed and all the cars went dead and such from the EMP in the areas that weren't actually blown to smitherines, military equipment and vehicles would still be functional and able to operate.

I am sure googling it a bit can get you your answers. Also, maybe "HowStuffWorks.com" has like a "How EMP Protection Works" article or something; they have lots of other articles on military tech.



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword2004
Whups, my analysts description sounded kind of silly; I mean a lot of analysts are former military guys, but a lot of them come up with just some ludicrous ideas about warfare and such.

And then others are very good and know what they are saying.

You know the ludicrous ones are ludicrous when you can pretty much argue over their point on a lot of different forums; if they know what they are saying, you use their argument and it is pretty much infallible.



You should not overestimate your opponent, but you should never underestimate either. The EMP weapons were used by me in this thread only as an example where technology always leads to new countertechnology ( which are sometimes cheaper) and should not be the focus of a debate whether a nation is a supperpower. As outlined, superpowers have the power to project their interest in a given region, although military hardware is necessary -it is not the single dominant factor in being a superpower.

Your argument is that the US is safe from an EMP or HPM weapon, and you point us to howstuffworks.com. I rather base my opinion regarding EMP weapons on the warnings which the US congressional panel (see my previous reply) has given regarding this subject in June 2004, and on some other articles which (credible) professional military analysts have published.

Blobber


[edit on 24-11-2004 by Blobber]



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 10:34 AM
link   
IF there is ever any conflict between the US and China(and thats a BIG IF), in the next 15-20 years(before the next-gen superweapons come out) both sides will be bombed back into the stone age, no one would win. In 40-50 years however war will be radically different(just look at the difference between 1905-1945 or even 1945-1960 war is ever changing so in all probability alot of the arguments for or against(in this thread) military supremacy of either side will probably be moot in 40 years) so there is no way(almost) tell what the capabilities of each side. We can give educated guesses. But thats all they are guesses. Einstein said somthing like this "I know not what weapons world war 3 will be faught with but I know that WW4 will be faught with sticks and stones" That still holds up today but it may not hold up in the future.



posted on Nov, 24 2004 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Oops, meant just for this to post:

I never ever said the "U.S. is safe from EMP or HPM weapons" and then used Howstuffworks.com as any example. I simply said for a layman's terms description, maybe that site has one on how such things work.
Like if you are talking chemical warfare, and want the basics on how a gas mask protects you from gases or biological things, that site is good for the very basics.

But it was professional military analysts who have said stuff before that was dead wrong. And I told you, military lobbying is very powerful in our government. They are going to make things sound like a bigger threat than they are because they want another Cold War. Not the whole government will do that, but portions of it will because of the lobbying.

And the U.S. has known about the EMP threat for a looooong time now. Military hardware is supposed to be pretty much EMP resistant.

I would rely more on the overall bigger picture, not solely on what military analysts say



posted on Nov, 27 2004 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Transmission Deployment
i beleive china will be taking the USA's place as the most power contry in the nation..after all, china just finished a massive Dam thats is 8 times bigger then the hoover dam..it will supply electricity and water to over 40 million homes..they just finished what they call the "Li Quary destination" that gave them 10 thousands more troops and 50 million clips of ammuntion and thousands of armor, bullet proof vests, weapons and there goverment are getting very organized... and i dont know if most of you know this but.. chinese politcal leaders are having some (whisper) chatting with officals of north korea..After all look at america.. bare with me for a sec hear..america has been so strong over the past 50 years..the empire (army) has expanded very widely..if you look at history ..and look at spain the 1 BC - 100 AD..maybe the biggest empire of all time .. its was taking most hits so they were getting nervous so they hand the empire to a dictator jose monrallas the thirdd..after that they the army collapsed..another example..Germany..big army..started taking some hits here and there..they got nervous and handed it to Adolf Hitler .. after that army broke apart.. Frances army was giganitc...army was takin some hits AGAIN they hand it to a dictator called Napoleaon.. i think the same thing will happen to america and china will be the worlds super power

I strongly disagree with you.Even 40 years later ,he still can not be the most powerul in the world.Too many countries can build dams.I am a Chinese,and I know the fact.China is the most developed in ancient times,but now he cannot totally recover in such a short time.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 02:26 AM
link   
ok, much closer to the topic, on my take why China will NOT be the superpower. it's this mentality.

Copying. Copying. Copying. Lack of creativity. From the International Herald Tribune.

www.iht.com...


SHANGHAI International pressure on China to stop its counterfeiters is producing an unexpected twist. Rather than just copying another company's product, many Chinese businesses are filing patents and claiming other intellectual property rights to the counterfeits locally, in effect becoming the legal owners, at least in China



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by aryaputhra
ok, much closer to the topic, on my take why China will NOT be the superpower. it's this mentality.

Copying. Copying. Copying. Lack of creativity. From the International Herald Tribune.

www.iht.com...


The Chinese are aware of this, it's the educational system... Copying is oftenly a "learning method", sometimes if someone can't solve a maths problem he just copy it again and again, until he "learns". The theory is priorized, there aren't many pratical lessons in China (currently). The Chinese lack creativity, but this is changing [I hope] :up

[edit on 29-11-2004 by poirot]



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword2004

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.


I would just like to put in my 2 cents in here and say that China has been fighting wars for over 5000 years so im pretty sure they know how to conduct land warfare. Learning the operation's of carrier battle groups and submarine warfare should not be that difficult for them because they can learn from the US and Russia so im pretty sure it will not be a problem.



posted on Nov, 29 2004 @ 07:43 PM
link   
"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"

Technology is very easy to incorporate given today's advances. We sent a man into space and put our own GPS system into space, so how hard is submarine warfare compared with that?



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Killak, they need to get the info off of the U.S. and Russia to copy first, and most of the U.S. Naval technology is kept secret, as well as its tactics. Remember, tactics and technology are two different things.

And sending a man into space is different then modern submarine warfare. Both require lots of technical knowledge, but the man in space part pretty much ends with that; it doesn't require near the tactical ability, or near the technology. The U.S. Navy doesn't have some of the most world-reknowned engineering programs for nothing.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Of course manned space mission is much more complex. That's why you have only China, US and Russia having the capability while many, many countries have mature and well-devloped military complex. It is much more logistically and technologically difficult to sent a man into space.

Thanks but no thanks, we did alright in Korea and pushed you guys back from the Yalu back to the 38th parallel, where the war stopped without your shiny high tech toys. Today, the gap is much narrower than 50 years ago. Plus, we have the great equilizer, nuke. So there won't be another direct confrontation between our two countries. Is that bad news for war mongers?



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Quit with the insults; and the tech then wasn't all that different; tanks were tanks, guns were guns, unless you meant like radio or radar or something. And the only reason China and Korea proved so much trouble was because like I said before, the U.S. didn't want another war, and thus never fully committed, and also, there were so many Chinese to fight! The First Marine Division alone took on 8 Chinese divisions and fought them all off (though not all 8 at one time).

I don't know what the big deal on this submarine stuff is anyway, I am just stating basic facts, not trying to knock anyone's country. If you notice, none of those country's lacking space power have any real naval power either.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Sorry misread your post; you said "without the shiny toys" I thought you said with.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 08:22 PM
link   
However, don't fall for that stupid adage that the U.S. has some average military that relies on high-tech stuff; the U.S. has some of the best-trained, most professiona soldiers on the planet, and many of the infantry are volunteer.

The U.S. has always had a tough military, high-tech or not, willing to fight. Even the old South, in the Civil War, one reason so many were slaughtered was because of how bravely they fought.

And not that China isn't the same way, but I mean don't try to use the old "The U.S. is wimpy, just has high-tech" type of argument.



posted on Dec, 2 2004 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Where did I insult you? You are getting over sensitive here.

Well, to equilize your technological advantage, we had to have the number advantage. What if we switch position and let the PLA have similar technologies in Korea. What do you think the outcome would be? There is a reason why American general called the Korean War a wrong war at the wrong time with the wrong enemies, also it is called the forgotten war. We not only did well with numbers, we did well with our superior tactics and morale. Our logistics capability was so appallingly poor that we were only able to sustain offensive for up to a week, hence the "chinese weekly offensive".

Also, the casualty on both sides are similar: China+N. Korea=US+S. Korea.
That's why we are not afraid of the US at all.

It was not a totally committed war due to many reasons. First, it is only a regional confrontation. Second, you need troops in Europe to watch over CCCP. However, you had helps from over 10 allies, many of which were well equipped and most of the soldiers were veteran soldiers that just came off the battlefields of WWII.

All in all, your excuses wer not really valid at all.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Your insult was sort of "fudged in" man; you should know that.

As for superior tactics and morale, I don't know what you're talking about, tactics-wise, as all the Chinese did was attack in waves and were thus gunned down constantly. The problem was the U.S. and its alies couldn't advance because of that. The First Marine Division once guned down 25,000 Chinese in a single attack. The Japanese did the same thing in WWII (attackingi n waves and getting gunned down). In the recent Iraq War at the beginning, waves of extreme Saddam Loyalists even attacked a Light Armored Reconnaisance battallion in waves, and were also gunned down; thing is, they still kept charging, which was brave. Korea was just the start of a bunch of stupid little conflicts that the Soviet Union and the U.S. would have in which neither fully committed themselves.

There was no way the U.S. and its allies could outnumber the Soviet Union, China, and Korea. Those are some huge countries that were known for big populations. And no, manpower doesn't make up for superior tech these days, as long as one has large enough military with enough good weapons (and good training!), a huge opponent can't do much, unless they are equally armed.

Also for fear of the U.S., we were discussing naval power, not land warfare. Land warfare is a different scenario. Most likely if the U.S. ever had to actually go to land warfare with China, the U.S. would bomb the hell out of it first to obliterate a good deal of the army. Because even with superior tech, it would just be too troublesome and cost too many people to try to invade straight out (which is why I think such a scenario is more of pure fantasy even, not just pure fiction).

And to invade after bombing a whole lot would still be stupid, unless the U.S. planned on enslaving the Chinese people.

One of the main reasons they nuked the Japanese was because it was considered invading Japan would be too costly troops-wise.

Even China itself knows it would lose lots of people trying to just overtake Taiwan by manpower alone, because Taiwan has some serious coastal defenses, thus they'd bomb it first.

They never bombed in the Korean war, because both sides were too afraid of the other using nuclear weapons; there was a secret war going on involving the Soviet Migs vs. the U.S. F-86 Sabres, but that was never mentioned 'till later cuz neither side wanted to officially acknowledge it was fighting the other.


Nox

posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hawkssss
I don't china will become the kind of superpower that the US is.

1) the US will continue to grow (it's actually growing at a rate of3% per year now) and EU will become more unified and will play a bigger role in the future. it will be more or less a multi-polar system in which several blocks will compete: US/allies, China, EU, Russia, etc.

2) We are a land country throughout history while the recent powers in the past 300-400 years have all been naval powers: UK, Spain, Dutch, US, etc. This is also true for CCCP. Even in its heyday, CCCP could not rival the US in terms of geographic advantage, such as military bases and allies around the world.

3) Even if one day we catch up with the US in terms of GDP (currently, the US GDP is about 10 times that of China on a gross basis and 2.5 times based on PPP, purchasing power parity; on a per capita basis, the US is about 30 times on gross basis and 8 times on PPP basis), our cummulative wealth will still be a fraction of that of the US. Remember, the US has been and will continue to be the world's largest economy for many years and the wealth that it accumulated is astonishing despite its huge fiscal debt .

Believe me friends, China will only be a better place in the future and hope you guys will come to visit us and see for yourselves. 2008 Olympics would be a perfect occasion.

Cheers


You must be speaking of GDP per capita. The US GDP is NOT 10x that of China's. Even if you were speaking of GDP per capito, the figure is close to about 7x.

Straight from CIA world factbook:

China GDP: $6.449 trillion (2004 est.)
US GDP: $10.99 trillion (2004 est.)

China currently has the second highest for GDP in the world.

EDIT: Added links.

[edit on 3-12-2004 by Nox]







 
0
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join