Support NeoGAF

[goodcow]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4272577.stm

China emerges as global consumer
China has overtaken the US in the consumption of basic agricultural and industrial goods, a survey has found.

With a booming economy and 1.3bn people, it is now the world's largest consumer of grain, meat, coal and steel, said the Earth Policy Institute.

But China's insatiable demands are putting ever more pressure on the country's natural resources.

Air and water pollution are already serious problems, and there is talk of a looming ecological crisis.

China is well ahead of the US in the consumption of goods such as television sets, refrigerators and mobile phones, according to the Washington-based Earth Policy Institute.

However, per capita consumption in China - the world's most populous country - remains far below that of the US.

According to the report:

* 64m tons of meat were consumed in China in 2004 compared to 38m tons in the US

* 258m tons of steel were used in China in 2003 compared to 104m in the US

* China's factories and homes burned 40% more coal than in the US

* The number of PCs in China is doubling every 28 months.

The latest official figures for the Chinese economy, the sixth-largest in the world, show it is growing at an even faster rate than expected.

It expanded by 9.5% in 2004, its highest rate for eight years, the figures show.

"China's eclipse of the United States as a consumer nation should be seen as another milestone along the path of its evolution as a world economic leader," Lester Brown, the institute's president, said.

"China is no longer just a developing country," he said. "It is an emerging economic superpower, one that is writing economic history".

Illegal timber

The report said China's massive appetite for goods ranging from grain to platinum had placed it "at the centre of the world raw materials economy".

One of these raw materials is wood - and the illegal trade in stolen timber is stripping Asia of its last substantial forests, according to a report by the US and UK-based Environmental Investigations Agency and Indonesian campaigning group Telapak.

Indonesia is now suffering the fastest rate of deforestation in the world, losing a wooded area the size of Switzerland every year.

According to investigators, Chinese factories process one stolen Indonesian log every minute of every working day.

Deforestation is not the only unwanted consequence of China's huge consumption of natural materials, says the BBC's Louisa Lim in Beijing.

Coal-fired power plants supply much of the country's energy and according to government estimates, 60% of Chinese cities have serious air pollution problems, she says.

The Kyoto Protocol considers China a developing nation, and it is currently exempt from cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Experts also say that more than three-quarters of the water flowing through China's cities is unsuitable for drinking because of pollution from industrial waste, according to our correspondent.

Scores of rivers have dried up and water tables are getting ever lower.

An official from the Chinese environmental watchdog, Panyue, said the nation's resources and its environment had already reached the limits of their capacity to cope.

Initial moves are now being taken to enforce environmental laws, but moves in this direction could ignite new tensions between government agencies and big business.

 

[Blackace]

It is times like these I am sad that we banned phrases like "sell............"

This would be a perfect time to tell people to move their US bonds :lol

 

[sprsk]

kids poop anywhere they want in china!

 

[Smiles and Cries]

CHANGE O TIMES congrats to China

Bonzai muthaphuckers!

uh wait...

 

[Do The Mario]

Every week I see China edging closer to Hegemony looks like some people on GAF will owe me an apology sometime in the near future.

 

[Boogie]

Every week I see China edging closer to Hegemony looks like some people on GAF will owe me an apology sometime in the near future.

It takes more than economic strength to make a superpower, so dude, stfu.

edit: I mean, honestly, the world's most populous country leads the world in agricultural consumption? INCONCEIVABLE!

 

[Do The Mario]

It takes more than economic strength to make a superpower, so dude, stfu.

What else does it take boogie?

Ten to fifteen years was my prediction and it's supported from some of my professors.

You never really post much more then insults do you? Please tell me why china will NOT become the world’s super power in this time?

 

[sprsk]

What else does it take boogie?

Ten to fifteen years was my prediction and it's supported from some of my professors.

Its true china is booming an extreme rate. But many countries have done this and fallen pretty hard (brazil?)

Im not saying its possible, but i wouldnt count my chickens just yet.

 

[speedpop]

Sickly enough, I can agree with DTM.

Maybe not so much as the next decade, but easily by the 20th-30th year.

 

[Boogie]

What else does it take boogie?

Ten to fifteen years was my prediction and it's supported from some of my professors.

Military strength.

I mean, hegemony can basically mean "we can do whatever the fuck we want because we are the world's uncontested leader".

Even if China becomes a competing superpower with the US in 10-15 years, they won't be hegemonic; certainly not in a military sense, anyway.

 

[Do The Mario]

Military strength.

A standing army of over 2.3 million check.

All they need is the military technology, which a country with there manufacturing potential could mass produce with ease.

 

[Azih]

Well it's settled then, the one super power days are over. All Hail the new super power, number 2 in a 2 way race but jonesing for the top spot, China.

 

[teepo]

you guys are streching it.

 

[Timbuktu]

Howabout the EU?

 

[Inumaru]

Well it's settled then, the one super power days are over. All Hail the new super power, number 2 in a 2 way race but jonesing for the top spot, China.

Not even close, by any standard other than size. And China has a lot of resource demands to take care of before they could think about fast-track modernizing their military. Either that, or they've gotta start making a lot less Furbies, furniture, Barbies, etc.

 

[Boogie]

A standing army of over 2.3 bilif lion check.

All they need is the military technology, which a country with there manufacturing potential could mass produce with ease.

Yes, China has a huge ass army. And that's almost it.

China can match the US in military technology "with ease"? Are you aware of just how far ahead the US is in terms of military capability?

The USA has 12 aircraft carriers. China has none. In fact, here's what fas.org says about China's navy: "Currently, only seven Chinese ships, of the Luhai, Luhu, and Jiangwei classes, approach world standards for modern major surface combatants. " Oh yeah, that's real impressive.

Also, the US has 27 Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers, around 50 modern Arleigh-Burke-class guided missile destroyers (a few still not completed yet), etc., etc.

Should I go on to army and air force capabilities?

 

[NetMapel]

Until China catches up to US in terms of consumption per capita (AKA standard of living), China is still far far away from being a superpower. The country has 1.3 billion people, of course it consumes the most amount of materials in the world !

 

[Blackace]

Yes, China has a huge ass army. And that's almost it.

China can match the US in military technology "with ease"? Are you aware of just how far ahead the US is in terms of military capability?

The USA has 12 aircraft carriers. China has none. In fact, here's what fas.org says about China's navy: "Currently, only seven Chinese ships, of the Luhai, Luhu, and Jiangwei classes, approach world standards for modern major surface combatants. " Oh yeah, that's real impressive.

Also, the US has 27 Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers, around 50 modern Arleigh-Burke-class guided missile destroyers (a few still not completed yet), etc., etc.

Should I go on to army and air force capabilities?

I think the point is China doesn't have to match the US... They just have to gain some tech... it isn't like it is a fantasy baseball stat match

 

[Do The Mario]

Howabout the EU?

Yes good point the EU and maybe India (that’s stretching it a bit) have the potential for such growth, I would assume the “self interest” of each faction in the EU may prevent it from becoming the worlds hegemonic power. It could potentially strip countries of there sovereignty (which I don’t see happening anytime soon).

 

[Che]

Two superpowers are better than one. They too busy sabotaging each other to hurt others (although they always find time to this too). Btw remember this: USA is killing innocent people for oil, China will do it for water.

 

[Boogie]

I think the point is China doesn't have to match the US... They just have to gain some tech... it isn't like it is a fantasy baseball stat match

Well, DTM was talking about China being "hegemonic", of being far-and-away the world's leading power. I'm just trying to point out that regardless of China's growth rate, the US is still top dog, and will be for some time.

 

[Blackace]

Well, DTM was talking about China being "hegemonic", of being far-and-away the world's leading power. I'm just trying to point out that regardless of China's growth rate, the US is still top dog, and will be for some time.

I have also heard that China will be a power to reckon with in the future. I believe it. I don't know if they will overtake the US, but they have the population to do it. As someone said the standard of living has to go up in order for this to happen. I suggest they STOP selling their people for slave labor to companies from the US and Japan. If they start making more brand products and paying normal wages to their people then this could really improve the standard of living... Now only if it was that easy....

 

[SKluck]

If anything its just going to speed up China's inevitable imploding.

 

[Che]

Yes, China has a huge ass army. And that's almost it.

China can match the US in military technology "with ease"? Are you aware of just how far ahead the US is in terms of military capability?

The USA has 12 aircraft carriers. China has none. In fact, here's what fas.org says about China's navy: "Currently, only seven Chinese ships, of the Luhai, Luhu, and Jiangwei classes, approach world standards for modern major surface combatants. " Oh yeah, that's real impressive.

Also, the US has 27 Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers, around 50 modern Arleigh-Burke-class guided missile destroyers (a few still not completed yet), etc., etc.

Should I go on to army and air force capabilities?

IMO military has nothing to do with being a superpower. USA doesn't need all these weapons. In the impossible scenario that USA starts a war with China there won't be a winner -trust me on this. There will be a loser though, humanity. The only reason USA has such a vast amount of weapons is that your goverment loves making weapons dealers rich. Economy is the crucial factor of who's gonna be the next superpower. I mean let's take as an example Soviet Union. Their military was undoubtedly superior to USA's for many years. Look at them now.

Howabout the EU?

It's my worst nightmare...

 

[Boogie]

I have also heard that China will be a power to reckon with in the future. I believe it. I don't know if they will overtake the US, but they have the population to do it.

Certainly. They are absolutely an emerging superpower. But I think to make any claims that China will be "hegemonic" like DTM keeps pushing down our throats, and within 15 years at that, is a completely premature conclusion.

 

[Do The Mario]

Well, DTM was talking about China being "hegemonic", of being far-and-away the world's leading power. I'm just trying to point out that regardless of China's growth rate, the US is still top dog, and will be for some time.

Them’s fighting words, bookmarks thread for 15 years!

The truth is boogie it’s all purely speculation at this moment there are many events that could happen in the next decade that could total change both our arguments. If American gets stuck in the Middle East it won’t help there cause. On the other hand China will be looking down the barrel of resource and energy problems.

I think you will agree that with China’s population it is inevitable but we just disagree when it will happen. Anyway I’m back to Uni next week so at least I am posting in a thread that is somewhat intellectually stimulating.

 

[Boogie]

IMO military has nothing to do with being a superpower. USA doesn't need all these weapons. In the impossible scenario that USA starts a war with China there won't be a winner -trust me on this. There will be a loser though, humanity. The only reason USA has such a vast amount of weapons is that your goverment loves making weapons dealers rich. Economy is the crucial factor of who's gonna be the next superpower. I mean let's take as an example Soviet Union. Their military was undoubtedly superior to USA's for many years. Look at them now.



It's my worst nightmare...

My government? I'm Canadian.

And I feel fairly confident in saying that the Soviet Union's military was never superior to the USA's, so that kinda makes your point rather moot.

 

[Do The Mario]

Just to kick my own argument in the teeth, china is going to have a shocking aging population in 40+ years.

Source: United Nations (1999): World Population Prospects. The 1998 Revision. New York (electronic data files)


http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/ChinaFood/data/anim/pop_ani.htm

 

[Timbuktu]

If anything its just going to speed up China's inevitable imploding.

I seriously hope it doesn't, the next century is going to depend very much on whether China can deal with its problems and dope with its pace of development. If China fails, then the world will be worst off. US and China need each other at this moment. It is all in the economy and I think the Chinese leadership is aware for the need to slow down its growth, lets hope they succeed.

 

[Blackace]

IMO military has nothing to do with being a superpower. USA doesn't need all these weapons. In the impossible scenario that USA starts a war with China there won't be a winner -trust me on this. There will be a loser though, humanity. The only reason USA has such a vast amount of weapons is that your goverment loves making weapons dealers rich. Economy is the crucial factor of who's gonna be the next superpower. I mean let's take as an example Soviet Union. Their military was undoubtedly superior to USA's for many years. Look at them now..

I am a peace loving guy myself. But let's be honest, when was the last worldwide super power that didn't have vast military strength? If you can find one please tell me. Also Russia was a standing super power until they sunk themselves...


And the USSR was as powerful as the US in their hayday... I mean the US could blow up the world about 40 times and the USSR about 30... But both could blow up the world oncem and that was more than ebough

 

[Blackace]

Just to kick my own argument in the teeth, china is going to have a shocking aging population in 40+ years.

Source: United Nations (1999): World Population Prospects. The 1998 Revision. New York (electronic data files)


http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/ChinaFood/data/anim/pop_ani.htm

Have they lifted taht one child per family law yet? (sorry if they did years ago, but I never heard about it.)

 

[Che]

My government? I'm Canadian.

And I feel fairly confident in saying that the Soviet Union's military was never superior to the USA's, so that kinda makes your point rather moot.

Hehe sorry for offending you, I was generally speaking. And btw you're watching too many Hollywood movies if you think that Soviet Union's army was never superior to USA's. "Undoubtedly" was a strong word but Soviet Union had many times the military advantage especially on air. Anyway that's not my point, my point is that Soviet Union didn't lose the cold war because USA had better guns but because Gorbatsov was a total idiot and fucked their economy. I can't understand what's your point when you're comparing military strengths like a 10 year old. In case China and USA go to war they'll probably nuke each other and that's the end of humanity - it's that simple.

 

[ge-man]

I seriously hope it doesn't, the next century is going to depend very much on whether China can deal with its problems and dope with its pace of development. If China fails, then the world will be worst off. US and China need each other at this moment. It is all in the economy and I think the Chinese leadership is aware for the need to slow down its growth, lets hope they succeed.

Good point. I'm not sure if many people realize how much are country is attached to China's hip and vice versa.

 

[whytemyke]

Every week I see China edging closer to Hegemony looks like some people on GAF will owe me an apology sometime in the near future.

You are stupid.

 

[Do The Mario]

You are stupid.

Wow with a quality post like that it must be at least a case the pot calling the kettle black, please read the whole thread.

Do you have any political qualifications? Or do you just like getting personal in these threads?

Plus Boogie knew I was talking to him.

 

[Che]

I am a peace loving guy myself. But let's be honest, when was the last worldwide super power that didn't have vast military strength? If you can find one please tell me. Also Russia was a standing super power until they sunk themselves...


And the USSR was as powerful as the US in their hayday... I mean the US could blow up the world about 40 times and the USSR about 30... But both could blow up the world oncem and that was more than ebough

I'm not saying military strength is marginal. I'm saying that noadays a country can reach to a point that military isn't that important. Before the atomic bombs a superpower could invade another superpower and overtake them. Then you could compare the military strength of the two enemies. Nowadays if they both have many atomic bombs and they both have strong economies what are you gonna do? Compare who can destroy the world more times? I think it all depends on economy now. If USA's economy decays the military will eventually decay too like USSR.

 

[Do The Mario]

Have they lifted taht one child per family law yet? (sorry if they did years ago, but I never heard about it.)

No it’s still there and yes I support it (as a 3rd year Environmental Biology/ Politics student).

The Biologist in me supports the theory I mean the world is set to close double its population over the next 40 years. Let’s think about the chronic resource, disease
And pollution issues we are facing now. Many believe the Earth is close to carrying capacity right now I shudder to think about what conditions in some countries will be with such population explosion.

Of course there are some people that believe there will be some kind of new “black death” in that time but nobody truly knows.

The problem is the One child policy doesn’t seem to be working that well in practice.

It’s probably why I will chose to adopt children in the future rather then have my own.

 

[Boogie]

Hehe sorry for offending you, I was generally speaking. And btw you're watching too many Hollywood movies if you think that Soviet Union's army was never superior to USA's. "Undoubtedly" was a strong word but Soviet Union had many times the military advantage especially on air. Anyway that's not my point, my point is that Soviet Union didn't lose the cold war because USA had better guns but because Gorbatsov was a total idiot and fucked their economy. I can't understand what's your point when you're comparing military strengths like a 10 year old. In case China and USA go to war they'll probably nuke each other and that's the end of humanity - it's that simple.

A) Regarding the ultimate cause of the Soviet Union's collapse, you are right. Economics played the greatest role there, most likely.

B) I'm having trouble finding Cold War military comparisons, but here's something, though it speaks of NATO and the Warsaw Pact as a whole:

Standing Armies and Ground Forces

This subject will be approached through a brief examination of three historical points.

In 1976, NATO outspent the Warsaw Pact, had more soldiers, and (if a commonsense definition of reservists is used) had more reservists.36

In 1982, the U.S. and NATO countries had some 5 million people in uniform,15a the Warsaw "Pact" 4.8 million. The Soviets themselves had only 3.7 million people in uniform, of which one million were stationed on their long border with China. In Europe, NATO had 2.1 million, the "Pact" 1.6 million, and the Soviets less than one million. The respective figures for ready reserves were 5, 7.1, and 5.2 million. So, even if the Warsaw Pact had been a bona fide military alliance, the West had enjoyed ground forces superiority in Europe and the world.

In 1987, NATO had a total of three million active ground forces, of which 2.4 million were stationed in Europe and 0.8 million in the alleged immediate area of conflict (Central Europe). For the Warsaw Pact, the respective figures were 3, 2.4, and 1 million. The numbers of active reservists were also roughly comparable.

There is still another static element which must be introduced into the total equation and which concerns the question: What is a soldier? Their definition was broader than ours, so more support personnel on their side were included in the overall numerical comparisons.13c Thus, even before the massive 1989 withdrawal of Soviet troops began, the actual numerical balance was more in our favor than a reading of official statistics suggests.

At the very least, a rough East/West parity in standing armies in both Europe and the world has prevailed in the 1980s. Combined with nuclear overkill and Soviet comparative rationality (Chapters 1, 7) in nuclear and foreign affairs (and not taking into consideration recent pullbacks of Soviet troops from Eastern Europe and the recent breakup of the Soviet Union itself), this parity suggests that aggression in Europe was "a high-risk option with unpredictable consequences."15b In other words, and contrary to most official pronouncements on the subject, it would have been insane for either side to launch a non-nuclear attack against the other.37

Airplanes

According to former Defense Secretary Brown, in 1980 we had air superiority "because our airplanes and pilots are superior to those of the Soviets, although their numbers are somewhat greater." By the mid-1980s, however, the qualitative gap was expected to be narrowed and not to be "sufficient to compensate for the quantitative advantage the Soviets will have by then."31b The issue is still controversial, and perhaps the Soviets were our equals by 1991. But it is likelier that our war intellectuals underestimated the importance of quality and that the skies would have been ours in conventional wars by 1991 too. Thus, in one engagement, the Syrians probably had the best equipment and training the Soviets were capable of giving, the Israelis the best the Americans were capable of giving. The final score: some 92 Syrian airplanes and 23 surface-to-air missile sites destroyed for 2 or 3 Israeli airplanes38a and one or two helicopters.39 Similarly, the Persian Gulf War's score sheet suggests a qualitative gap between American and Soviet flying machines.

Tanks

In central Europe, the Warsaw Pact had many more tanks.40a But this edge was probably offset by NATO's superiority in the air (airplanes can destroy tanks), by the higher quality of its tanks, and by the greater number and superior quality of its anti-tank weapons.

In fact, Soviet over-reliance on tanks could have been a handicap. Former Secretary Brown asserted that anti-tank weapons might have "a revolutionary impact by the mid-1980s."31b Another expert stated that "both technical and cost considerations seem to point to a stronger position for anti-tank weapons in relation to tanks."38b To be sure, these appraisals could be mistaken and the tank might be as important in the future as it had been in the past. All the same, one thing is clear enough: we shall be ill-advised to defer resolution of this aspect of the military balance to mainstream Western pundits.32 In all probability, if the Soviets had more cavalry divisions, our analysts would have lost much sleep over a "cavalry gap."

Navies

Despite the Soviet Union's long coastline, it had limited access to the oceans, especially in winter. Owing to geographic limitations, the Soviet Navy has been actually divided into four separate fleets with little ability to provide mutual support.13d Furthermore, the Soviet Union hasn't yet fully developed the traditions of a sea-faring nation and its efforts to develop a navy like our own often began from scratch. Many other factors must be considered in working out the overall naval balance, some of course favorable to the Soviets. But I shall not go into details here since most independent analysts share the view that the "navies of the United States and her Allies have more and better warships and remain more capable than the Soviet Navy."

So it is hard to get a good picture. You seem to be right as far as size of the Soviet air force, but when it comes to capabilities/effectiveness, I still feel that it can't be said that the Soviets were superior.

I realize that all this is irrelevant, but I'm a history student who enjoys such military comparisons. Sorry

C) Actually, in a nuclear exchange, as horrifying as that would be, I don't think the US would be completely wiped out, as China's inventory of ballistic missiles seems to be rather small. Some reports from as of the mid-90s said that China only had about 20 ballistic missiles with a range of 13 000km.

U.S. National Air Intelligence Center reported that as of 1998, China's deployed DF-5 force had "fewer than 25" missiles

China is also developing a modified version of the DF-31, the DF-31A. With an extended range of up to 12,000 kilometers, the DF-31A is sometimes confused with the DF-41, now canceled. Its precise range is unknown. Deployment is predicted to occur between 2006 and 2010. It may replace or supplement the DF-5A. According to the CIA, the DF-31A may be targeted against the United States and be tested "within the next several years." With a shorter range and a lighter payload than its predecessor, the DF-31A will be less capable of penetrating a potential U.S. missile defense system. [1]

So I'm not quite convinced that China has MAD capability like Russia or the USA does.

 

[Shig]

So how long until our gov't realizes they're still communist and tries to "spread freedom" there?

 

[Boogie]

So how long until our gov't realizes they're still communist and tries to "spread freedom" there?

Never.

 

[whytemyke]

Wow with a quality post like that it must be at least a case the pot calling the kettle black, please read the whole thread.

Do you have any political qualifications? Or do you just like getting personal in these threads?

Why should I read an entire thread when one of the people in it doesn't even study figures enough to know that the odds of China becoming a hegemony is a cop out argument. Most economists are predicting that the Chinese economy will overtake the US economy. Everyone and their mother knows that. What people do not really stop to consider is that the economy of India will overtake that of China within ten years of when China takes over us. However, this entire paradigm is flawed because it doesn't take into effect the fairly good chance that the EU will all pass their Constitution and probably push their own way up into the fold. The reason the idea of a hegemony is a cop out is because it generally is one country that holds influence over all of it's allies. But if you have four superpowers in the world (USA/North America; EU; China; India), well, what's the point of saying either one of those is a hegemony? They're all just hegemonic babies just waiting to grow up (or in our case, waiting for the others to grow up).

So really, Mario, my reason for calling you stupid lies in two areas. First, you say that your prediction for China being a hegemony is such a far-out prediction, when every political scientist in the world has been saying the same thing since their government instituted their S.E.Z.'s throughout their business areas. This is not something to brag about as being your own idea. Second off, it appears to me that your lack of mentioning either the EU or India means that either you haven't considered too deeply the idea of a multipolar system, or that you have and chose to ignore it so that you can stick by someone elses prediction.

 

[Blackace]

I'm not saying military strength is marginal. I'm saying that noadays a country can reach to a point that military isn't that important. Before the atomic bombs a superpower could invade another superpower and overtake them. Then you could compare the military strength of the two enemies. Nowadays if they both have many atomic bombs and they both have strong economies what are you gonna do? Compare who can destroy the world more times? I think it all depends on economy now. If USA's economy decays the military will eventually decay too like USSR.

Well of course it would! But in order to be an economic power you need a military, with powerful weapons or a country with one will step in and make sure you do not become a economic super power, or at least make sure they get a piece of the pie.

 

[Azih]

i don't agree that living standards have a big impact on whether a nation is a superpower or not. All that's required is having a huge impact on the other nations. Basically the more the rest of the world has to adjust itself to you, the more of a power you are. The USSR after all had crap living standards but was most definetly a super power.

 

[Blackace]

i don't agree that living standards have a big impact on whether a nation is a superpower or not. All that's required is having a huge impact on the other nations. Basically the more the rest of the world has to adjust itself to you, the more of a power you are. The USSR after all had crap living standards but was most definetly a super power.

Well there are few ways to do that. The cold war USSR way with brute military force or the 1980s Japanese with a super strong economy, which includes a high standard of living. Or the US way, a mix of both

 

[karasu]

If China has nukes, their miltary is strong enough. It's all hypothetical, and the hypothetical detonation of a nuke owns everything else. No air carriers? big whoop.

 

[Blackace]

If China has nukes, their miltary is strong enough. It's all hypothetical, and the hypothetical detonation of a nuke owns everything else. No air carriers? big whoop.

Well if they have nukes do they have means to strike almost anywhere in the world? if so then you make a valid point

 

[Do The Mario]

So really, Mario, my reason for calling you stupid lies in two areas. First, you say that your prediction for China being a hegemony is such a far-out prediction, when every political scientist in the world has been saying the same thing since their government instituted their S.E.Z.'s throughout their business areas. This is not something to brag about as being your own idea. Second off, it appears to me that your lack of mentioning either the EU or India means that either you haven't considered too deeply the idea of a multipolar system, or that you have and chose to ignore it so that you can stick by someone elses prediction.

Yes good point the EU and maybe India (that’s stretching it a bit) have the potential for such growth, I would assume the “self interest” of each faction in the EU may prevent it from becoming the worlds hegemonic power. It could potentially strip countries of there sovereignty (which I don’t see happening anytime soon).

I did acknowledge India but it lacks the infrastructure at the moment IMO, it’s more a sleeping giant at this stage.

It’s always takes one Idiot to get personal in these threads.

I was also open mined by acknowledging several problems China will face over the next 40 years.

 

[Che]

A) Regarding the ultimate cause of the Soviet Union's collapse, you are right. Economics played the greatest role there, most likely.

B) I'm having trouble finding Cold War military comparisons, but here's something, though it speaks of NATO and the Warsaw Pact as a whole:



So it is hard to get a good picture. You seem to be right as far as size of the Soviet air force, but when it comes to capabilities/effectiveness, I still feel that it can't be said that the Soviets were superior.

I realize that all this is irrelevant, but I'm a history student who enjoys such military comparisons. Sorry

C) Actually, in a nuclear exchange, as horrifying as that would be, I don't think the US would be completely wiped out, as China's inventory of ballistic missiles seems to be rather small. Some reports from as of the mid-90s said that China only had about 20 ballistic missiles with a range of 13 000km.






So I'm not quite convinced that China has MAD capability like Russia or the USA does.

First of all I can't reply to the comparisons: a) because I don't care and it's strongly against my ethics speaking about weapons b) because I could be wrong - I hate any kind of weapons and I haven't really searched into it, I've just heard a couple of things about MiGs being superior and USSR being extremelly secretive about their weapons' programs which led many people to underestimate them.

Secondly do you honestly believe that in case a nuclear war had started any of us would be alive now?

 

[Boogie]

If China has nukes, their miltary is strong enough. It's all hypothetical, and the hypothetical detonation of a nuke owns everything else. No air carriers? big whoop.

Aircraft carriers are an example of what is required for power projection. It is a pretty useless "superpower" that is only capable of using its military to prevent the invasion and attack of other nations against it. The US has military bases around the world and is capable of deploying forces almost anywhere. That is simply another aspect to being a "superpower" that I felt wasn't addressed.

 

[Boogie]

, I've just heard a couple of things about MiGs being superior and USSR being extremelly secretive about their weapons' programs which led many people to underestimate them.

On the contrary, it is widely agreed that US intelligence consistently overestimated Soviet military capabilities throughout the Cold War.

Secondly do you honestly believe that in case a nuclear war had started any of us would be alive now?

In a hypothetical exchange between just the USA and China, possibly, yes.