 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - North Korea's got Nukes.....and I care, why? |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
SamuraiX Broom Hatter                   Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| The funny thing is, the mental stigma of attacking someone with a machine gun with a knife could very easily guarantee that one heavily-armed person can in fact defeat a massive number of ill-equipped people. I don't think that China will surpass the US unless they fix their socio-economic problems first. It's important to pay attention to the small problems, before they become big ones that one needs to think about more. | |||
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| It's true that China has many internal problems (which I can only hope will one day lead to a democratic revolution), but remember that China only needs about 1/4 as much per capita wealth as the US has in order to equal the US' total wealth, because China has 4x our population. True, China's population will decline a bit in the near future because of their one child rule, but I still don't see China ever having less than 3x the US population in the foreseeable future. Also, if China puts a system of satellite based lasers into space, they could cancel out much of the US' power in a single day. This technology (which could be used to shoot down missiles, planes, ships, and even other satellites) isn't feasible at this very moment, but is coming very soon. I think the US will probably be capable of deploying such a system a few years before the Chinese will (and it may be one of the last inventions that we make before the Chinese). But my fear is that the US will be sluggish about deploying such a system because of the "militarization of space" stigma, whereas China may rush the system into orbit as soon as it is competed. I think that is the most likely scenario of China replacing the US as the world's hegemon. The second most likely scenario behind that one IMHO would be a very slow weakening of US economy, military, and influence over many decades along with a slow increase in the Chinese economy, military, and influence. | |||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES  Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Koryo China won't be a world "hegemon". What you're going to see is the growth of non-state actors and micropower challenges to Big Powers. There will never be some sort of world hegemon in the hyper-power sense of 19thC Britain or the modern USA. That time is past. The world is too drawn between flash points in Africa, Central Asia, the Middle East, Latin America, and elsewhere due to the effects of globalization on general political knowledge. The world right now is in a massive state of change and we won't be able to see it fully yet. It is probably best to stop thinking in the black-and-white world of the Reagen years (which, I swear, most Americans can't seem to escape) and start to seriously re-evaluate world operations. As for your space-warfare conspiracy fears. Yeah, not going to happen. Anyone with a brain and a subscription to Popular Mechanics will realize that laser-based anti-missile systems IN SPACE are fundamentally useless because it is easier to change your warhead generation than it is to update a giant space network of death ray satellites. The economic incentive isn't there. MAD is sitting over anyones head who decides to fuck around too much with nukes. |
|||
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| Man, people really need to stop thinking of geopolitics like a Realtime Strategy Game. | |||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Not if my Chinese zerglings take over your American democrotanks first! Then you'll see! | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| I believe China will indeed be a world hegemon. China needs oil just as much as the US does (or will soon). I don't see China developing any alternatives to oil in the near future. The way I see it, there are two incentives to develop an oil alternative. The first is simple economics, and the second is environmentalist pressure groups. The economics part is simple. Oil is an incredibly cheap energy supply in terms of what it costs to get crude oil out of the ground and turn it into refined products. However, the price of crude oil is also influenced by a very small number of people (and more than a few third world dictators). Still, oil is cheap. China (and America) will continue to use oil as long as it is still cheaper than the alternative. Converting an oil based economy to one based on ethanol, hydrogen, or something else will cost quite a bit of money up front, even if it does pay off in the long run. People don't always think in the long run. So I would say that both the US and China will be equally beholden to oil as long as it remains cheaper than the alternatives. The environmentalist pressure groups are different, though. A side affect of oil is CO2 emissions, which matters to environmentalist groups, but not so much to economic minded world leaders (such as the leaders of the US and China). These environmentalists groups do have a small bit of power, though, and they are far more prevalent in the US than in China. Therefore, I believe China will be slightly less likely to convert away from an oil based economy than the US (though neither will do it as fast as we might like).
So, China will continue to slurp up oil and will one day surpass our own demand for it. China is going to need the ability to project its military around the world (as the US can today) to secure this oil. If a significant portion of our oil suppliers suddenly stopped exporting, you can bet that the US would be bombing somebody until we got our oil back. This isn't as bad as it sounds. No modern economy can function without oil. So, in 50 years, with two or three times the oil demand as the US currently has, China will not tolerate any hiccups in their oil supply. China will not allow some coup or rebellion in some third world country to hinder their economy because of decreased oil exports. I'm not accusing China of anything sinister here. This is what any country with such a massive thirst for oil would do. Therefore, I can easily see China putting military bases in Iran, Venezuela, and other Middle Eastern and African oil exporting countries. Because of this reason alone (and there are others), China will need the ability to project power in the form of troops and missiles all around the world. This means they will have long range airplanes, complete with flying fuel tankers, aircraft carriers, and strategically placed air bases in foreign countries. Basically, everything the US has today. I doubt China will have some of the same problems the US has had, too. If China wanted to invade Iraq for oil, for instance, and assuming a scenario in which they have all the resources that America has today, I think they would have been much more efficient. They wouldn't have bothered with any "nonsens" (as they would see it) about building a democratic Iraq. They would have secured the oil fields, and installed a strong enough Iraqi leader (a military dictator, if need be) who could exert enough control over Iraq so as to keep it from total civil war, while still being friendly toward the Chinese. For that matter, I doubt the Chinese would have evicted Saddam, as long as he was willing to sell them oil. I think we will see plenty of instances of Chinese covert (and overt) support for dictators in oil rich countries, as long as that dictator is willing to sell them oil. Again, I'm not accusing the Chinese of anything outlandish here. Just imagine the US with two or three times as disparate a thirst for oil. That will be China in a few decades. This is just one reason why the Chinese will become an imperialist world power. And satellite based lasers are not a fantasy. |
|||
Alkis Since: 12-28-06 From: Arletpolis < FA < Arletland Last post: 6304 days Last view: 6302 days |
| ||
| Actually, China's going to brag and show-off an entire fleet of hydrogen-powered buses for the 2008 Olympic games. | |||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Alkis Imperialism at its height! Although Koryo. Is this an admission of American imperialism? Because that's what your post indicates. China is doing what is its "biological" (to carry on your hilarious metaphor) detiny. Which is what America has done. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| I agree, I find it rather funny that China's exposition of a few hydrogen powered buses proves anything.
As for American Imperialism: I'm sure a studious person like you has heard of the biological theory which suggests that countries/nations/empires/whatever else often behave the same if given the same conditions and the same situation. This is clearly not 100% true, as the US would never put 6 million Jews in concentration camps as the Nazis did, no mater what the circumstances. But the theory holds in most other cases. A country whose economy is based on oil cannot survive without said oil. Whether that country is a fascist dictatorship, a communist dictatorship, a constitutional monarchy, or a democratic republic, the country will try to get access to oil again. That's just life. Point to a country that will sit idly by and do nothing while its economy falls apart. I can't think of many. In order to qualify for this category, the country in question must actually have the ability to regain its lost oil. If, for instance, Belgium was being denied oil by Iraq, there's not much Belgium could do about it. But if you're hoping to get me to sputter and cough and act as if you caught me admitting some dark fact that I was hoping to keep hidden, you'll be disappointed. There are obviously some similarities between America and some of the old empires (the British Empire, the Roman Empire, etc). I still consider America to be the most benevolent of empires that we have yet seen. I firmly maintain that American influence in the world has caused far more good than bad. Just as you won't upset me by calling me a neocon, you can't upset me by calling America an empire, especially when there are many other empires to which I can compare the US, all of which are more oppressive and have a higher death toll (Nazi Germany, the USSR, the British Empire, the Spanish Empire, the French Empire, the Roman Empire, etc). |
|||
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| If any country will put the effort, money and time into making alternative energy sources pay off, it will likely be China. They can afford to do it, and its not like The Party has to worry about being voted out if it doesn't immediately pay off.
As expensive as it would be to develop alternative energy sources, it would likely be considerably cheaper then building and maintaining a massive international military presence, just to protect an energy source that's not going to last forever anyway. |
|||
|
Alkis Since: 12-28-06 From: Arletpolis < FA < Arletland Last post: 6304 days Last view: 6302 days |
| ||
| China has the money, the manpower, and the factories to mass-produce anything they like. They also have many, many universities and research centers to create new technologies. They are well on their way on becoming the world superpower. | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| But never forget that people don't think in the long term. China is concerned with what will benefit it now. Like a kid with a credit card who doesn't stop to think about what happens when the card is maxed out and he has to start paying back interest, China (and the rest of the world, most likely) will continue to use oil until it is scarce enough that drilling for oil is more expensive than developing alternative fuels.
And as for China "having the money", the US has more money than China, and we also have the environmentalist groups pressuring us to move away from oil. I doubt China will change over any time soon, and probably not before the US does. If anything, the US might finally be forced to develop alternative fuel sources when we China starts importing so much oil that there is no longer enough for us. Edit: Alkis, knock it off. I don't know what it is, (perhaps you gain sexual pleasure from the idea that the US will one day be removed from its pedestal) but your claims of China's power are just false. I find it very interesting that I am forced to both argue for and against the strength of China in this thread. Any factories and universities that China has, the US has more of them. The US is the most likely and the most capable nation right now of leading the way toward a non oil based economy. (edited by Koryo on 12-29-06 03:15 AM) |
|||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Even if it hasn't always worked out great, the Chinese government has a history of thinking in the long term. With skyrocketing oil consumption, they're obviously going to have to do something. Also, you ignored my second paragraph. | |||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| The richest man in China is a photovoltaics (that means solar panels) magnate who studied at my university, and China's vehicle emission standards are tighter than Europe's. I think you'll find that, in keeping with the pseudo-Communist tendency to plan things (and be less pressured by short-term electoral cycles and stuff), they're recognising the basic realities of oil dependence and global warming and planning for all their options.
That's why they're developing entirely new types of nuclear reactor at present, that's why they're going heavy into hydro-electric power, looking at sustainable urbanisation models (near Shanghai for example), aiming to produce at least 20% of their energy through renewables by some target date or other, throwing subsidy and investment money at solar magnates... as well as making friends in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America to secure those precious hydrocarbons. Really, aside from the skyrocketing coal consumption and rising (slower but still rising) oil consumption... the main concern is the impact of Chinese industrialisation on global warming, not on the military implications. It would be stupid not to do these things, especially when the alternative would be to risk so much political capital on a pointless and counterproductive attempt to strongarm the world into handing over all its oil or something. They've been doing this diplomacy and foreign affairs thing for five millennia, give them some credit for forsight and subtlety. (edited by Arwon on 12-29-06 06:07 AM) |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| One thing I recall from early in this page is that Koryo made the insinuation that China would continue to expand its military power so that it could have a global reach and projection power like the United States. The Chinese lack a very powerful navy (but they are buying old Russian stuff which is fairly decent) and will only want direct power projection over their portion of the globe. The ability to interdict any potentially destabilizing conflicts on its door steps on the Pacific is their hoped scope of military power. China will only want to insure that that is the case on their homefront. On the frontiers of their nation (that being Central Asia and South Asia) they will only position enough troops to counteract the influence of a threatening forward position of what they see, rightly so, as enemies. Remember, China is caged in on all sides with regimes that aren't all that friendly with it. Japan to the east with a lot of US support, India to the sout west, a hornets nest of historically unstable regimes and lots of US support to the direct south. On the direct west China is boxed in with a gigantic desert and then the Xianjiang area. This is where they will have the most headaches soon, from a public relations point of view. Muslim Turkic peoples inhabit this region and at present the Chinese do not see this is as a primary threat, at all. Also in the west is the great game that they, Russia, and the US are playing in Central Asian nations like Kyrgz, Kazakh, Turkmen, Tajik, Afghan, and Uzbek. Luckily for China they forged the SCO early enough to get that issue sorted out, but the US is beginning to prop up regimes that will allow it to use forward military positions in a theoretical conflict with China. Additionally, in the North, is the old constant rival of Russia that is currently eyeing sinification of its Eastern areas with a great amount of disdain. Again, SCO kind of irons out those difficulties. Then also in the N. is the constant bitch of a thorn in the side of China - North Korea. That embarassing little prick of a friend that China has to prop up to avoid geo-political tumults on a scale that we have never seen. China is boxed in enough, they don't need to spend the hundred of billions that the US needs to to upkeep a globalized military force. They're more than content enough to stay on their coastline and protect the atheistic ideology of the Chinese Communist Party while only minimally spreading out into the world. The world is going to China. They don't need to run out to greet it with a stick.
As for power influence, I'd imagine that the China is going to continue to make friends. But, in this process China is really empowering the other BRIC nations and raising them to a new level of power that they've not seen before. Additionally, China's power plays in Africa may have an unforeseen side-effect. They're dabbling around with the new centre of world Christianity and they may begin to have reciprocal effects. China may have more Christians in their nation (which is not a pretty prospect for Christians or the government) due to an increasingly large exposure. However, there may be an upside to this. China may be able to influence world Christian bodies in fairly minor ways. But they're tied up enough right now with paranoia over resurgent Buddhist beliefs in China and want to really put their foot down on that issue. Also, I just wanted to see if you would agree with me on the point that the US was an imperial power. Although I'm agreeance with you that it is the most palatable empire that has been around. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| As if the Chinese government of today is anything like the old Chin dynasty. As was mentioned earlier, you can't judge France by Louis the XIV.
China is already setting themselves up for this. Iran and Venezuela already sell plenty of oil to China, and both worry about the US military, to some extent. It wouldn't be too difficult or inconceivable within the next 20 years for China to convince those countries (and others) that allowing Chinese air force bases on their soil is the only way to protect against "American expansion." China is also making friends with African oil producing nations. The cost of a world wide military will not deter China from building one, and will also not factor into the "price" of keeping an oil based economy in any way, as this military has many other applications. It would allow them to control oil prices, to an extent. It would allow them to control a great deal of other economic things, such as taxing ships that go through the straight of Hormuz, the Panama Canal, and the straight of Malaka. It will allow China to ensure that no threats to Chinese hegemony will arise quickly and unnoticed. Just look at the US military presence in Europe. Are any of those European nations in which we have basses hostile toward us? No. But those basses serve several purposes. If the USSR had ever invaded West Germany, the troops would have been much closer to the front line, rather than having to move them in from the US. But this was only a vary small part of the purpose of those European military bases. As long as there are US military bases in European countries, those countries will never become a true enemy. If a country started to develop into something like Nazi Germany, the troops would be right there to, dare I say it, Regime Change them. And if the US had been a bit more aggressive, like a true evil empire would have been, then there would be no threats to US global power. A true evil empire would have nipped China in the bud before they became so powerful. A true evil empire would have destroyed North Korea before allowing it to build nuclear weapons. But Chinese military basses will serve the same function. As long as there are Chinese military basses in, say, Iran and Venezuela, the oil will keep flowing. And China will also want to put military bases in other, more powerful countries, to keep those countries from becoming a military threat. I assure you that China is not concerned with global warming, and will soon be the world's largest contributer of greenhouse gases. Come on. You people are treat the Chinese government like a benevolent force that will not carry on America's "evil" legacy of oppression and imperialism. China will set itself up as a (the) world power, and it will do everything the US has done, and then some. China will be more heavy handed in its occupations, China will back the dictators over the democrats, China will be less careful about civilian collateral damage, and China will not care about environmental consequences. China already has plenty of cities that are suffering from massive amounts of pollution (as in rivers running red with dye poured out of nearby factories), and Chinese factories put out more pollution per unit of production that American or European factories. And the world is not changing to that extreme. Empires have behaved the same way for thousands of years. The tools of maintaining power have changed, but the methods remain the same. Most of those changes you mention, such as an emphasis on corporations at the expense of state sovereignty, the rise of non state (terrorist) actors, and the decline of conventional warfare, is precisely because the US is the world's hegemon, not in spite of it. Many of the modern day terrorist tactics will not work on China, because the US is too soft. Would China use racial discrimination to find terrorists on airplanes? Of course they would. Would China kill hundreds of civilians (collateral damage) to kill a single anti Chinese terrorist? Of course they would. Would China bomb Iran if that an Iranian nuclear bomb was a threat to them? Of course they would (and even if Iran hid their nuclear research under heavily populated cities, which would deter the US). Would China constantly show demoralizing images like the beheading of captured Chinese troops on Chinese owned news stations? of course not. America looses to the terrorists because we are not cold hearted killers. Every image of an American soldier being decapitated or strung up in the street demoralizes us. Every image of an Iraqi child accidentally killed by an American bomb demoralizes us. We would not bomb Iranian nuclear research sites if they were build under large cities. And we spend thousands of American lives and billions and billions of dollars on Iraq pursuing this "foolish" goal of a stable, democratic government when we could have just installed a military strongman to keep the country in line and keep the oil flowing. For that matter, we didn't even need to remove Saddam, if all we wanted was oil. Saddam gave us oil. The terrorists win against America because we care about human lives, and we're not willing to stoop to the lowest levels and respond to the terrorists in kind. These tactics will not work against China, especially if the Chinese government uses the vast censorship powers already available to them to keep that information from the Chinese people. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| I don't like the idea of Chinese hegemony or empire, if you're trying to insinuate that. I'm merely stating that your characterization of China is too MS Cold War-esque. China was the third pole in the Cold War. Likewise, today, there isn't going to be a uni-, or bi- polar world. It is going to be multi-polar with various regions of influence that are going to degrade the traditional (past decade) power of the US. Non-state actors and micropowers (whether they are declared or undeclared (like Turkestan or Tran-Nister) are going to be a headache for the Old Powers like the US, China, and anyone else stuck in the world today with a large economy. However, it is my feeling that the US is going to be supplanted in sheer non-military power by the EU, which is going to become radically more centralized and exp But really, "China will be more heavy handed in its occupations, China will back the dictators over the democrats, China will be less careful about civilian collateral damage, and China will not care about environmental consequences." on all those counts they just learned it from their hitherto unannounced rival. |
|||
|
Alkis Since: 12-28-06 From: Arletpolis < FA < Arletland Last post: 6304 days Last view: 6302 days |
| ||
| I am against world hegemony of any country. | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| I doubt the EU will truly eclipse the US. The European countries have much more history and nationalism to overcome before they can ever become as unified as the US, and I don't believe they can easily surpass the US as long as they still see themselves as individual countries. For now, the EU is a glorified trading block, and I don't see that changing very quickly. Great Britain has rejected the Euro dollar, and the French people had rejected the EU constitution in a national referendum, last I heard. Don't get me wrong, I'd very much like to see a unified Europe. As a rule, I think unity is the way of the future, and a unified power with 800 million people would provide much stronger resistance to the anti democratic forces that I believe will take power and become the majority in the next few decades. But honestly, for the future of democracy and the human race, I would like to see a unified Europe, so don't try to twist this as a selfish thing.
China was not "the" third pole in the cold war. China was much weaker then. The only asset China had was a massive army. It had almost no technology and no ability to project its power very far beyond its borders. It also was not a great idealogical influence in the world. And, as I said in my last post, which you didn't make reference to, many of the changes away from a uni or di polar world are precisely because the US is in power. China will be far less affected by terrorists or other non state actors, and China will have the capability to overpower any oil suppliers that try to assert themselves as regional powers. Hugo Chavez is indeed trying for form a South American union, but I doubt that will ever happen. Even if it does, China will have no problem breaking it up, should China choose to do that. Alkis, I'd appreciate it if you can write more than one line per post. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Really, it wasn't? I guess that the Sino-Soviet split and the issues that it caused were absolutely nothing. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - North Korea's got Nukes.....and I care, why? |
| |
