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: 15
0
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:
Nox

posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 07:19 AM
link   
I swear, if Chinese and Americans would stop dreaming of competing each other they could dominate the world.

I have ties to both countries and I long for the day that these two countries would set their differences aside and focus on dominating everyone else


Why do Asians have to hate each other so much.
Mainland China and Taiwan.
China and India.
Korea and Japan.
US and China.
etc etc...

Whatever. Sino-America has such potential, its a crying shame we can't all pull our heads out of our arses.




posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nox
I swear, if Chinese and Americans would stop dreaming of competing each other they could dominate the world.

I have ties to both countries and I long for the day that these two countries would set their differences aside and focus on dominating everyone else


Why do Asians have to hate each other so much.
Mainland China and Taiwan.
China and India.
Korea and Japan.
US and China.
etc etc...

Whatever. Sino-America has such potential, its a crying shame we can't all pull our heads out of our arses.



Same answer if you ask "why African hate each other so much"----history reason caused by western super power in last centuries, those British people or Frenchman. or others. they themselves make arrangement how the land was arranged for each country that they support but they never thought about different culture, different religion. So...problems.

Samething for Asian, USA help to defeat Japan, but never want to compeletely detroy that monster, instead, want to raise it and use it. That is why so many Asian still hate Japanese and Japnese itself hate others cause they donot know their histories. Taiwan never should be problem for China if there is no involvement with Japan and USA, ...and such such...
By the way, it was also British cause the current situation between India and Pakistan...
Now you see .........


And there shall never be big problem between China and USA if USA donot show too much arrogant around this world (it was pathetic, American help the world so much but also damage their own reputation by showing bully all around, so the world only remember his bully not his contribution many times).......of course, energy resource could be potential problem between two giant countries. But, if somebody find the alternative energy resource...




[edit on 3-12-2004 by proteinx]

[edit on 3-12-2004 by proteinx]



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Well, the U.S. has sent more aid worldwide then any other country in the world, but I mean, hey, politicians, you know how they are.

Yeah, I always thought that too; imagine the great things we could achieve if all the countries could just put their brains together and work together.

But humans are simple-minded and competitive by nature.

And also many are brainwashed, too.

And also many don't know the whole story cuz the media of like every country is biased and prints their own version of the truth.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 06:32 PM
link   
@Nox

I am talking in terms of GDP per capita. Plus there is a difference between GDP in gross terms and PPP terms. You probably never took an introductory macro-economic course.

Here you go:

Total GDP in gross terms: US $10 trillion; china $1.4 trillion
Total GDP in PPP terms: US $10 trillion; China $4.0 trillion
GDP per capita in gross terms: US $30,000 per capita; China $1000 per capita
GDP per capita in PPP Terms: US $30,000 per capita; China $4000 per capita

These numbers are close enough



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Your insult was sort of "fudged in" man; you should know that.

>>Where I don't know what you are referring to unless you point it to me.

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.

>>Well, like I said, to compensate our lack of technology and logistics ability, we had to use more numbers. That's just how everyone did and we achieve our strategic objective and that's what counts. Same thing happened in the American Revolutionary War. But, today it is a whole different ball game. Not only the technological gap is much smaller than it was in Korea, our two armies will probably never duke it out again, which is a bad news for warmongers.

>>With the kind of technological advantage US had, we would have slaughtered the entire US contigent in Korea. US morale was extremely bad due to the bravery of PLA and the harsh condition in Korea. GIs all wanted to go home by Christmas, remember?

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.

>>Well, since WWII, US has never fought an enemy with comparable technology level and it was defeated 1.5 times in Korea and Vietnam. That tells you that technology is not everything. Remember, Vietnam with the help of China also routed the technologically more advanced French troops.

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).

>>Whatever branch of the armed forces you are talking about, we are not afraid because what we saw in Korea. We didn't even have a navy back then and very little air force. But today, it won't be so. Also, you probably don't know much about our missile forces: the Second Artillery Force. We have a very advanced and indigenous missile/space industry and our anti-air and anti-ship missiles are not for nothing. Don't kid yourself, how are you going to bomb china when you can't attain air superiority due to our vast number of airplanes and advanced anti-air forces? Again, like I said, the world's No.1 or No. 2. or No.3 will not go to war at all. Again, bad news for war mongers.

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

>>You mean the way you are enslaving the Iraqis and attempted to enslave the Koreans and the vietnamese?

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

>>I got no problem with nuking japan.

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.

>>So will US. Plus both are nuclear power. As a result, due to MAD, we will never go to war. Again, bad news for war mongers.

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.

>>We all know that, but it is the chinese who committed the predominant amount of force and it is the PLA that had left strong impressions for US generals and the our tactics are still being studied by US war colleges. That's why it is called the "forgotten war" by americans because it is just such a painful experience for the world's dominant force right after a huge victory in WWII.



posted on Dec, 3 2004 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Couldn't have said it better myself.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Ummm about other countries not having the tec hto send a man into space..i doubt that...I bet the EU could do it right now if the wanted to but its a point not worth proving...Similarly India has made it clear that it has not will not pursue the manned program as it is too expensive and lacks any objective...IMHO India is about 5 to 10 years away from sending a Man on the Moon...and that too in infrastructural terms, technically..say about 2 to 3 years...the cryogenic and re-entry parts are the loose ends to be tied up.Btw India is sending a lunar orbiter/lander slated for 2008..No manned missions planned yet though..
Incidently the first Indian is space was Sqdrn. ldr. Rakesh Sharma, who went up onboard a Soyuz way back in 1984, in a joint space program between the Russians and the Indians..

Infact, the europeans,americans, Indians, and Israelies went up before the chinese launch hence china had a reason for a manned program. The israelis,indians and europeans have the luxury of piggy backing on russian/US vehicles..



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Hawks, the Chinese continue to study U.S. military tactics as well. And the Chinese have not had any actual fighting experience since the Korean War, aside from maybe a few very small things. They are even trying to modernize their army to be speedier and quick like the U.S. military.

Combat experience counts a good deal.

The Chinese aircraft lack the advanced avionics of the U.S. aircraft; they would be shot down before ever getting in range to fire. On top of that, U.S. pilots get a lot more airtime and some of the best pilot training in the world. Also, the Chinese pilots HAVE NO COMBAT EXPERIENCE.

Even in the Korean War, the U.S. F-86 Sabres shot down a lot more of the Russian Migs (flown by both Russians and Koreans) then the Migs shot down Sabres, yet the Mig was capable of accelerating faster and climbing faster than the F-86, and ALSO was better armed. If you shot at the Mig, you had to be pretty skilled to get it to go down. In the first fights, some pilots used up almost all their ammo trying to get one Mig to go down. On the flipside, if your F-86 Sabre got hit by the Mig, no question, you were going down. The F-86 had only .50 caliber machine guns, which were lousy. The Migs had better guns.

Yet the Migs lost a lot more. Because the U.S. had far better pilot training. Chinese pilots in aircraft containing inferior electronics, with less piloting skill, and much less knowledge of air tactics would stand no chance fighting U.S. fighters.

As for missiles, that all depends. That is one reason the U.S. Air Force wants the F-22 Raptor, because it is much harder for a missile to follow it, and no other plane is a match for it. Also, do not forget the U.S. has lots of missiles too.

Of course the Chinese and Korean troops would have more morale in the Korean War, they were fighting for their homelands. The U.S. soldiers just were tired and didn't feel like fighting as much.

As for Vietnam, the U.S. could have blown Vietnam to smitherines, but that was never declared a war. Also, there was too much politics involved. Vietnam is one of the reasons why the U.S. military has made it where the military information flowing into the military command can't be accessed directly by the gov't; because the gov't are civilians who often screw things up, which they did in the Vietnam War. Now, it is the job of the command to brief the gov't on how a war is coming along.

The troops in Vietnam were underfed, underarmed, and under-supplied. They were hearing reports of how people hated them in the United States, they were given rifles with tiny ammunition clips, and even the helicopters were too piss-poor.

A modern Blackhawk helicopter has kevlar armor on it, but the Hueys had no armor; bullets would go through them like tinfoil. Which made them pretty easy to shoot down, and pretty easy for a soldier to get injured in since the bullets came through so easily.

And then also tactics was another thing, the U.S. wasn't used to fighting jungle warfare then; but it has learned a lot. Same way it is learning how to fight desert warfare in Iraq right now.

The French were overconfident and had no idea what they were doing in Vietnam. They also had no helicopter support or anything; they pretty much just went into the jungle and got slaughtered.

As for technology, technology wasn't all that different between the Koreans and China and the U.S. and its allies in the Korean War. Tanks were tanks, guns were guns.

And you should not underestimate the U.S.'s missile forces; the U.S. has its own indigenous arms corporations as well and a much higher military budget than China; it does not announce what it creates. When the U.S. recently bombed Afghanistan a few years ago, it utilized bunker-buster bombs that the world had never even seen before and shocked everyone. Don't underestimate the U.S. either.

And in fighting China at all, it would most likely be naval and aerial warfare, which the U.S. proved in the Korean War it was superior to the Koreans and Russians at.

And since when is the U.S. "enslaving Iraqis" or "trying to enslave Koreans and Vietnamese?"



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 10:44 AM
link   
@indian

We will believe you when we see your stuff going to the moon. You indians are very willing to make some promises and fail to deliver. Exampels, Arjun and LCA. Also, you don't even have an ICBM, how can you go to the moon in 3 years? You also reported to build a carrier in 2 years yet you can't even built any decent DDGs or frigates or subs.

Please man, I am not bashing you, but you should know how bureacratic your government works and how slow things are in your government.

Also, I don't know if EU has the capability. At least they haven't done it. They either lack the will or the resources. Again, I will believe it when I see it because talking is cheap.



posted on Dec, 4 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Europe technically doesn't need to send people into space because all they do currently is send commercial satellites and military satellites into space.



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hawkssss
@indian

We will believe you when we see your stuff going to the moon. You indians are very willing to make some promises and fail to deliver. Exampels, Arjun and LCA. Also, you don't even have an ICBM, how can you go to the moon in 3 years? You also reported to build a carrier in 2 years yet you can't even built any decent DDGs or frigates or subs.

Please man, I am not bashing you, but you should know how bureacratic your government works and how slow things are in your government.

Also, I don't know if EU has the capability. At least they haven't done it. They either lack the will or the resources. Again, I will believe it when I see it because talking is cheap.



Hmmm..Btw the Arjun is already inducted into the army..I saw in the last republic day parade...LCA is not overambitious..its on track..2006 induction..
The air craft carrier is lsted for 2015 or 2020, thats why the Gorhskov is filling in the gap till then...no indigenous carrier for 15 years more..
We do not need ICBMs, no perceived threat at that distance, GSLV capability means we have ICBM capability(GSLV means the ability to put satellites into synch orbit at 30000km)..even Japan has ICBM capability but no perceived threat you see...Again the lunar mission is unmanned..Only Japan has a launch vehicle problem, their satelite tech is way advanced..Indians are okay in both departments...Btw the last 4 ISRO GSLV launches have been successful...
www.spacetoday.net...

here are two neutral links on the lunar program ..but very sketchy..
Can't translate one though


astro.zeto.czest.pl...
translate.google.com...://www.isas.jaxa.jp/docs/ISASnews/No.276/symposium.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3DChandrayaan1%26hl%3 Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG

[edit on 5-12-2004 by Daedalus3]



posted on Dec, 5 2004 @ 08:00 PM
link   
We are not here to talk about India dadeleus,we are here to talk about China remember? Either way,not many people percieve India as a country which is growing as fast as China.The LCA was developed late and always would be late,2006,thats like 1 and a half years from now,our own J-10 has already entered service and is currently being mass-produced.Being a mix between a F-18 and a F-16 it should be comparable to both,but the LCA,2006 is a little late don't you think?



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Oh no I know we are talking about China, but I was just responding to hawkss query on the capabilities of the European Union,Japan and India vis-a-vis putting a man in space and going to the moon(unmanned)...But then Hawksss diverted to the LCA..



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 10:44 PM
link   
I don' think India is going to the moon any time soon since you don't even have an ICBM. End of story on that and go away.



posted on Dec, 7 2004 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Dunderhead!!
for you ICBM=space flight!!
No!!
Japan has gone to the moon and beyond..and they don't have ICBMs..go check the jaxa site..



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Dunderhead!!
for you ICBM=space flight!!
No!!
Japan has gone to the moon and beyond..and they don't have ICBMs..go check the jaxa site..


I heard your indian are going to send people to mars on.............Jan 1st 2005?.........and by...........your LCA?
sounds cool. good luck.



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 07:35 AM
link   
no we are not..but im feeling sorry i have to explain that to you...simple logic really

Btw where do you stay proteinx..you have avoided taht question for eons..



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 08:14 AM
link   
I heard that our analysts as well as many foreign analysts think it will be about 10-20 years until their GDP is the strongest in the world and not much longer until they are the major superpower. Which isn't good for Australia if it's true since atm we have much better relations with the US than China, however we are working to further improve relations with them so hopefully by 2020 we will have very good relations with them.

[edit on 9-12-2004 by Trent]



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 08:43 AM
link   
China is already a superpower in the asian arena. They will never be the sole superpower that America is today. They import more of their oil than America does today. America is in control of the worlds oil supply. Look at Americas military bases around the richest oil deposits in the world. America has the strongest navy in the world controlling the worlds shipping lanes. China spends a fraction of its gdp on military expenditures and most of their expenditures go to buying foreign made weaponry. They are making progress but still fall short in this area. They would have to secure with force oil for their economic engine. that would mean an invasion of the middle east. If china invaded the middle east they would be stomped on by the America and Europe. A lesson from history shows Germany was becoming the envy of the world for its manufacturing and innovation and they were crushed 2 times for it. They were manipulated by the British and big banking to ensure their downfall. I suspect something similiar will happen to china. Look at the tension between china and the US before 9-11 happened and shifted Americas focus. At some point China and America will come to blows over oil and I do not think China has enough time to build up their military to take the US on and militarily defeat them. Just my 2 cents worth.



posted on Dec, 9 2004 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
China is already a superpower in the asian arena. They will never be the sole superpower that America is today. They import more of their oil than America does today. America is in control of the worlds oil supply. Look at Americas military bases around the richest oil deposits in the world. America has the strongest navy in the world controlling the worlds shipping lanes. China spends a fraction of its gdp on military expenditures and most of their expenditures go to buying foreign made weaponry. They are making progress but still fall short in this area. They would have to secure with force oil for their economic engine. that would mean an invasion of the middle east. If china invaded the middle east they would be stomped on by the America and Europe. A lesson from history shows Germany was becoming the envy of the world for its manufacturing and innovation and they were crushed 2 times for it. They were manipulated by the British and big banking to ensure their downfall. I suspect something similiar will happen to china. Look at the tension between china and the US before 9-11 happened and shifted Americas focus. At some point China and America will come to blows over oil and I do not think China has enough time to build up their military to take the US on and militarily defeat them. Just my 2 cents worth.


The future is not just the next two years you know. The future of China is 40 years later when USA is no longer dominating the world and CHina and India (maybe Russia) dominate. Look at Great Britain in WWII and WWI. World power but soon after the war, their political influence on the world decreased and eventually became like they are now. America in the nineties under president Clinton was the height of its history (dominating the world in every field, booming economy, giant budget surplus). Now America is falling and is being plagued by problems, job loss to India and China, big trade deficit, war with "terrorism" (when they're the biggest terror around), internal conflicts, bad growth, violence, GIGIANTIC budget deficit rising by one billion dollar per day. People have to know the higher you are the harder you fall and when there's a up there will always be a down.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join