The Rising Sun?

[Paladin Solo]

The US is busy policing its will around the globe. The middle East, south and central America, Africa, and southeast Asia. Its forces stretched across the globe, its economy, in shambles, in a matter of speaking. However, with all the world's attention focused on the US, and its policies and actions, this presents a perfect time for a capable nation to rise to the ranks of superpower, especially now when the US is in a financial crisis. Could that future superpower be...China?

China now has more foreign investors than the United States, and it is modernizing very quickly. With a military force of 250 million, and a dictatorial government, this should be an alarming wake up call for the world, but it isn't. Why? The world right now would rather think the US as a bigger threat. I'm not here to argue about loyalty or hatred towards the US, just to present you with a "what if"

What if, China does become a superpower? Right now, the way the US is heading, in the future, we might become a nation in revolutions, civil wars, anarchy, and possibly even capitulation. Why? How are we going to keep ourselves from this time bomb called deficit? Will the US be capable, and willing to handle another dictatorial superpower? Or perhaps, by some miracle, another democratic one might step up to the plate? The EU could very well be that one, if certain circumstances were put in motion. What would the world be like with 2 superpowers again? Can we really assume it will be all good, or like that of the Cold War? Perhaps there won't be two, perhaps the US will decline in its military might, and lose influence, allowing China, or maybe even the EU to step up to the plate alone?

Well how about now? The US and China have been locked in diplomacy, and tense strain over the island nation of Taiwan for a very long time now. The US wants a democratic China, or at least did, now it just wants a democratic Taiwan at the very least. China wants Taiwan. Each side is capable of taking the tiny nation military if needed, and each side is very well capable of bringing destruction the the globe. So why isn't China considered a superpower?

Maybe it's playing the smart, silent, waiting game. Allowing the US to take its course, and deteriate? Or perhaps, it needs a certain war? China is now the third nation to put a man in space. It has an acceptable amount of nuclear weapons, and the largest military force on this planet, very closely as large as the population of the United States, the 3rd most populace nation in the world, China only has to fear the will of the US. Russia might present China with some threats as well, for now, but Russia has its own problems to have much concern with China's rising place in this world. But is China setting itself for collapse?

China has many social problems to deal with, and their citizens haven't forgetten Tiamen (sp) Square, but the USSR had even more problems, and yet it nearly brought the world to annihilation. China also may be focusing to much into modernizing itself. Turkey, shortly after it got itself rid of Ottoman rule, tried to modernize heavily as well, but it didn't end up any superpower, or world power at the least. Perhaps this is just another one of China's attempt to catch up with the world? It tried to do the same after English, Dutch, and other European powers began to mass colonize this world. Following the results of the Opium War, it signed an agreement which would make it a weak and poor nation for decades to come. But the US and China haven't gone to war, and the only thing Chinese citizens are getting high off of right now that the US is trading is money, but the US isn't the only investor. So how does the US deal with China?

Can it, is the more appropriate question. With so much trouble coming in from the middle East, the current hotspot for American activity, does the US have the willpower, and manpower to deal with a growing China? Or should we allow it to grow and prosper? What could be the consequences of such actions?

A superpower would no doubt go after its own interests. Power and wealth corrupt more than any other force on this planet. No nation is safe from it. China would begin off rough, the US is already set in its grasp over the world. But it does have one major weakness, oil. Picture Uncle Sam injecting himself with oil, the new "high" of our day. The US under Bush has already shown the world it is willing to go to war over it. The need to so, is not yet necessary, but how long will petroleum last us? Picture in your minds, a day, perhaps fifty years from now, when all the US's oil reserves are exhausted, and the petroleum quantity in the world is dropping like flies by the minute. If China had capable money, and force, it could put a tight grasp on the US's neck, and leave it choking for air. Then again, this is just another scenario.

Let's get back to what would a world under superpower, communist China be like? Well, for one, I'm sure people would find better things to do now than to protest America's influence and spread of this world. So maybe, we might want a superpower China to enforce it's will around Asia and possible other parts of the globe. But who's to say we would end up the lone survivor again? Maybe it will be us to collapse this time around. Or perhaps, the EU might step up as well, and we will have three superpowers. Well that would leave very little room for communist China to breath if two democratic superpowers were to exist. Then again, who's to say the US and EU would align against China?

Again, none of this is necessarily going to happen. It's just a "what if?" scenario for you dwell on. Personally, I think it will happen, especially now that the US is having problems not just globally, but internally as well. Perhaps none of it will happen, perhaps all nations would just spontaneoulsy collapse one day, and we would be living under absolute free will. I'll drink to that, just as long as some barbaric horde won't pillage my home if it does happen.

 

[John Uskglass]

tl;dr.

China is alot more likely t odescend into anarchy, I stopped reading after that faulty assumption.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Dude, if you're going to input, then read the whole thing. If you would have read, you would've noticed the last paragraph where I clealy stated

Again, none of this is necessarily going to happen. It's just a "what if?" scenario for you dwell on.

Now read damnit, so you can ridicule some more.

 

[Bradylama]

its economy, in shambles, in a matter of speaking.

Not in any manner of speaking. Even in conservative estimates it would take China 40 years to meet the same kind of per capita expenditures that the US does.

China is a LONG way off from becoming a world power. And even when they reach that point their concerns still wouldn't venture beyond Taiwan or Korea.

 

[Buckle]

Bad article. It makes too many assumptions and never fully explores them. For example:

Picture in your minds, a day, perhaps fifty years from now, when all the US's oil reserves are exhausted, and the petroleum quantity in the world is dropping like flies by the minute. If China had capable money, and force, it could put a tight grasp on the US's neck, and leave it choking for air. Then again, this is just another scenario.

I could write a book on the adaptability of the market and how this would never come to pass.

 

[Zaij]

Plus, doesnt the treaty not to drill/dig for fossil fuels in antarctica end in less than 50?

 

[Murdoch]

Are we to believe that you wrote that PS? Reference, boy, reference!

Besides something like this did happen in Fallout, maybe in real life too?

250 million man army? Thats a quarter of the population, PS, in other words half of the male gender is serving. Even if you meant to include reserves this figure is absurd. I assume an army of maybe 15 million tops, both active and reserve.

And you couldn't spare the time to look up how 'Tiananman' is spelled? Sloppy writing is discarded without serious consideration, PS.

And I could go on, but until you cite sources to back up your statements its not worth it. Although you do continue to surprise me with your inability to listen when we say that you need sources, not to mention amateur mistakes.

 

[John Uskglass]

Well, I've put on the musical Carmen, and I have my entire CD collection on the X-Box ready to go, I've decided to fucking bury this article


Why China will never be a real superpower.

1) Econonmy

A)The Chinese food industry is grossly dependant on foriegn food. China, with it's population of 1.2 billion, has maybe 20% of the farmland in the world, and that farmland is ineffefctive when compared to the US. Thus, in case of war, China would have an extremely hard time producing enough food for it's army, especially if it's a large, wasteful conscription army.
B) At the moment the vast majority of the booming Chinese economy is dependant on foriegn invetment. That means that in case of war with the US, Taiwan, Vietnam or Russia, half it's economy goes up in the dust
C) The Chinese economy is nowhere near as powerful as some would belive. The majority of it's growth is due to how totally fucking weak the Chicoms have made the Yuan, artificially. Now, at some point, that thing's going to go up, and when it does invetment will slow down.
D) China, so far, has proven itself only able to copy designs. It has yet to show astounding innovation in any field, be it militarily or industrial. The vast majority of the Chinese air force is based on acient Migs, it's wepons largely of Russian design
E) China has almost no natural rescources. In this way it's similar to Japan in WW2....it's main problem is it's total fucking lack of oil, coal or anything like it. It would have to expand it's influence into Central Asia, something Russia, the more powerful nation at the moment, would get REALLY pissy about.

2) Industrial
A) The vast majority of Chinese industries is centerd in the coastal south-namely Shanghai and Hong Kong. And, if we assume America has the air power advantage in any kind of conflict, it could easly destroy all of China's industrial economy within more or less two months
B) Similar things where thought about America by Germany at the beggining of WW2, but China could not turn it's industries into military ones on the flip of a dime. Thier induestries are largely the result of foriegn investment, and most of the time they're semi-industries, things like toys, fireworks.....they can't even build cars yet effectively.
C) Again, China has no natural rescources, and it could very likely NOT have all the rescources to keep up it's current industry (or even some kind of massively expanded industry) without ports at Shanghai or someshit.

3) Internal and Foriegn Policy
A) China is roughly Larry in the three stooges (Moe being North Korea, Joe Curly being Russia) in terms of foriegn relations. When it tries to seem like it's being friendly, it can't stop talking about Taiwan, when India gets too powerful it gives Pakistan the bomb-not realizing that because of the supressed Muslim population in NE China it's as much a target of Islamafundies as anybody, and it's invasion of Tibet has only turned the global opinion against her for no natural rescources.
B) It's a fucking despotism. It's ineffective too. Despite how many Deng Ziaoping endourced capitalist reforms, it will always be a Maoist dictatorship at heart, and that means rampant stupidity and corruption upstairs. You know what that means? Ineffective infrastructure and rampant lies about it's army.
C) It's extremely centralized. Meaning that unless China cathes up to America's half century lead in terms of aviation technology in the next few years, Beijing is as open as a drunk skank's legs on her birthday. Which means a collapse of the totally massive beaurocracy, which makes it just as likely that it will fall after Beijing burns cause the Chicoms could not possibly have an effective government after the fall of Beijing.

4) Demographics
A) The Chinese population is expiriancing a baby boom effect that will make Germany's look like an Arab nation. Which means a drastic fall in population, which means even less agricultural output, and alot less soldiers. Not to mention the strain on the Chicom economy.
B) There's a huge descrepancy interms of the male/female ratio. Why? Because of the one child policy. When you choose to have one child, as many Chinese have after Mao's reforms, you will more likely choose a male so he can support you in you're old age (I know a woman could do that just as well here, problem being that's not the case in China). What does that mean? A large excess male population. Which means another weird population fluke. Not only that, but a male/female population out of sync can often lead to crazyness; hell, it's entirely possible that one of the main problems in the Mid East is such a ratio (Maher suggested a "Skank Brigade" in the mid east with Fareed Zakaria on, pretty funny).
C) The Chinese economy, for the reasons above and the simple facts that a growing economy like China's cant grow forever like that, will hit some major problems pretty soon regardless.

India, IMHO, is more likely to be a superpower, due to it's innovative population, it's style of government and it's ties with Iran, which have more then enough natural rescources for India. Problem is the population growth.

 

[mhsun]

you make a good point~~~

 

[John Uskglass]

5) In case of War
A) China has no allies in Central, South or North America. Comparitively America's influence on Mongolia is huge, not to mention our bases in South Korea, Japan the Phillipenes and SE Asia.
B) Again, if Shanghai and Beijing falls, either due to massive bombing or costly invasion, China is essentially dead, and the only thing that would be needed would be a constant bombardment of infrastructure, thus making the massive Chinese army oilless, food less and ultimately without the ability to get out of the jungle or the forest. In such a situation, the only thing that would be nessicary is to wait for the Chinese population to go against the failing Chicoms
C) While an invasion of China would be relitively simple due to the closeness of Taiwan, Japan and Korea, China could under no circumstances land troops on the west Coast, as the Chinese navy is almost 30 years behind ours.
D) Again, no natural rescources.

 

[Sander]

Dude, don't spam. "I agree" posts that don't add anything at all are not allowed, because they're basically spam.
And you've made two nonsensical and useless posts with silly "~~"s added to it.

That said:
China as a superpower should be interesting, though, mainly because it would finally offer a decent counterweight to America. You cannot possibly ignore a counry which has as large a population as China has.
I do disagree, CCR, with you one on point:

B) It's a fucking despotism. It's ineffective too. Despite how many Deng Ziaoping endourced capitalist reforms, it will always be a Maoist dictatorship at heart, and that means rampant stupidity and corruption upstairs. You know what that means? Ineffective infrastructure and rampant lies about it's army.

This is not true. China is going through a lot of reforms, and because it's going through those reforms, you can't claim that it's a Maoist dictatorship anymore. It's probable that eventually, due to the same sort of sequence of events that happened in the USSR, China's communist system will collapse and they will enter the "modern" "western" world.

 

[John Uskglass]

This is not true. China is going through a lot of reforms, and because it's going through those reforms, you can't claim that it's a Maoist dictatorship anymore. It's probable that eventually, due to the same sort of sequence of events that happened in the USSR, China's communist system will collapse and they will enter the "modern" "western" world.

Ignorant. Tianemn was an isoletd incident; if Democratic reforms where going to happen, it was then.

Sense then no; I repeate NO; democratic reforms have happened, and thier smothering of Hong Kong's garenteed rights have shown them to be another totalitarian beast.

Not to mention that the Chinese population, outside of Hong Kong, has heald no vigils for Tianamen, and outside the party poltical apathy is rampant.

China as a superpower should be interesting, though, mainly because it would finally offer a decent counterweight to America. You cannot possibly ignore a counry which has as large a population as China has.

Okay, so you're willing to have a totalitarian (or atleast authoritarian) beast achive superpower status simply to keep down the Yanquis?

Not to mention China's consistently almost psychopathic nature, weather it be Taiwan or Tibet?

 

[Sander]

Ignorant. Tianemn was an isoletd incident; if Democratic reforms where going to happen, it was then.

Sense then no; I repeate NO; democratic reforms have happened, and thier smothering of Hong Kong's garenteed rights have shown them to be another totalitarian beast.

Not to mention that the Chinese population, outside of Hong Kong, has heald no vigils for Tianamen, and outside the party poltical apathy is rampant.

So, you know, all those economic reforms and orientations on a capitalist market have actually not happened according to you? interesting...

Okay, so you're willing to have a totalitarian (or atleast authoritarian) beast achive superpower status simply to keep down the Yanquis?

Not to mention China's consistently almost psychopathic nature, weather it be Taiwan or Tibet?[/qutoe]
It's not like superpower status is actually definable and is rewarding in itself. You become a superpower because you're powerful, that's it.
The point, however, is that we now have the USA as the single most powerful nation in the world, allowing it to get away with a lot of things: this is bad. But if it had a counterpart then the two could balance eachother out.
Meaning that I'd rather not see a totalitarian nation as a superpower, but the nation IS there and it IS the largest nation in the world: you can't call that a minimal player on an international level. I can't just go around ignoring it.

 

[John Uskglass]

So, you know, all those economic reforms and orientations on a capitalist market have actually not happened according to you? interesting...

I did'nt deny that China was de-socializing (why I mentioned the much more intellegent Deng Ziaoping then Mao, the dumbest most lethal ma n in history), it's just that the Ziaoping strategy was to capitalize the economy but keep the Totalitarian aspect.

The point, however, is that we now have the USA as the single most powerful nation in the world, allowing it to get away with a lot of things: this is bad. But if it had a counterpart then the two could balance eachother out.

That EXACT same reasoning lead to WW1, and unlike 1914, we have wepons that can annihalate all life on earth.

Frankly, you Euros seem more bent on stabbing us in the back then the stability of the world which would be assured by having a single-superpower world.

Meaning that I'd rather not see a totalitarian nation as a superpower, but the nation IS there and it IS the largest nation in the world: you can't call that a minimal player on an international level. I can't just go around ignoring it.

I'm not ignoring it. I think it does'nt have the potential to be a superpower with the Chicoms at the healm, and I think that people like you trying to help a psychopathic nation become as powerful as the US is foolhardy and dangerous.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Are we to believe that you wrote that PS? Reference, boy, reference!

Yeah, I wrote it. Sorry, I forgot, you seem to think me of nothing, and incapable of writing, my bad, next time I'll mention if I wrote what I wrote just for you.

Besides something like this did happen in Fallout, maybe in real life too?

It was a simple idea. My bad, I guess you're against me expressing ideas. Sorry Murdoch, I forgot this world was made for you.

250 million man army? Thats a quarter of the population, PS, in other words half of the male gender is serving. Even if you meant to include reserves this figure is absurd. I assume an army of maybe 15 million tops, both active and reserve.

You are right, it was 2.50 million. But not sure about the actual number including reserves. And even if it were 250 million, it wouldn't be a quarter, since China's population is at 1.3 billion, roughly. Meaning 250 million could very well be possible if China enforced military service requirements hard.

The Ticker

And you couldn't spare the time to look up how 'Tiananman' is spelled? Sloppy writing is discarded without serious consideration, PS.

And you couldn't spare the time to look up how "that's" and "it's" is spelled? Sloppy writing is discarded without serious consideration you gramatarian nazi.

Why China will never be a real superpower.

1) Econonmy

The US's economy wasn't the world's greatest either at one time.

B) Again, if Shanghai and Beijing falls, either due to massive bombing or costly invasion, China is essentially dead, and the only thing that would be needed would be a constant bombardment of infrastructure, thus making the massive Chinese army oilless, food less and ultimately without the ability to get out of the jungle or the forest. In such a situation, the only thing that would be nessicary is to wait for the Chinese population to go against the failing Chicoms

You know, we thought that bombing the hell out of North Vietnam would win us the war too.

Frankly, I agree with Sander, there needs to be an equalizer. I'm fine living like I am now, and I'm not saying I will be if China was that equalizer, sort of like the USSR, but balance is good. Picture the man who holds the world on his shoulders, the weight would be much easier to bear if it were distributed.

 

[John Uskglass]

The US's economy wasn't the world's greatest either at one time.

Yes, it was. In 1920 America had the greatest economy in history; the Chicoms have never gone close to that.

If you're point is that an economy can expand extremely rapidly given the right circumstances, I proved that wrong.

You know, we thought that bombing the hell out of North Vietnam would win us the war too.

Totally ignorant. Vietnam not only grew it's own food, it imported it from China and Cambodia. Due to American air power in such a conflict, China would not be able to do likewise.

Frankly, I agree with Sander, there needs to be an equalizer. I'm fine living like I am now, and I'm not saying I will be if China was that equalizer, sort of like the USSR, but balance is good. Picture the man who holds the world on his shoulders, the weight would be much easier to bear if it were distributed.

Again, ignorant. We came so close to the eradication of life during the Cold War (and unlike the Chicoms the Soviets where sane), I don't think you want to play dice on those terms again, do you?

 

[Murdoch]

Blah blah blah I take criticism personally and misconstrue every point people make

Whatever, at least this thread got hijacked by people who understand how to debate and not resort to personal attacks.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Blah blah blah I take criticism personally and misconstrue every point people make

Whatever, at least this thread got hijacked by people who understand how to debate and not resort to personal attacks.

What? You're saying you are one of them? If you're so understanding on how to debate, why call me out like you did Murdoch? Why not keep it to PM's? All you contributed to this topic, Murdoch, was your correction on my mistake about the number of active duty troops in China. If you feel you have a personal grudge against me, then keep it to PM's please, unless you have something to input in this topic debate.

*sigh* CCR when I said

The US's economy wasn't the world's greatest either at one time.

You may have missed the AT ONE TIME part of it. I didn't say it was or wasn't in the Roaring Twenties. And how are my ideas completely ignorant if you yourself won't even consider the possibility of China's emergence of a world power, or even as a superpower?

Vietnam not only grew it's own food, it imported it from China and Cambodia. Due to American air power in such a conflict, China would not be able to do likewise.

Are you saying the Chinese would be incapable of growing their own food? If a dictatorial China decides to fight a nation of far superior strenght, how do you think they'll go about it? Fairly? They would be crushed in a matter of months. They would fight guerrilla tactics, and play dirty. Unless of course they were a superpower, or world power, and even then they might play dirty.

We came so close to the eradication of life during the Cold War (and unlike the Chicoms the Soviets where sane), I don't think you want to play dice on those terms again, do you?

I never anywhere stated I would enjoy that fear. I said we need balance, never said anywhere that the only way to achieve balance was war.

ignorant

You know, when someone states a simple idea, with only taking the side of saying it could happen, and you call it and/or them ignorant for it, that says something about you, something quite hypocritical.

 

[Sander]

I did'nt deny that China was de-socializing (why I mentioned the much more intellegent Deng Ziaoping then Mao, the dumbest most lethal ma n in history), it's just that the Ziaoping strategy was to capitalize the economy but keep the Totalitarian aspect.

This is true, but I predict that due to the increasingly capitalist environment, included the now allowed private property, the communist system at the least will collapse. Whether the totalitarian system will then collapse is another thing, but I think it eventually will.

That EXACT same reasoning lead to WW1, and unlike 1914, we have wepons that can annihalate all life on earth.

Frankly, you Euros seem more bent on stabbing us in the back then the stability of the world which would be assured by having a single-superpower world.

*smack smack smack smack*
1) That exact same reasoning did NOT lead to WW1. A series of unfortunate incidents and grave diplomatic errors led to WW1, but the coalition blocks didn't actually force anyone to join in. Great-Britain could've stayed out of WW1 without any legal trouble at all, but it chose not to because of "honor".
2) Did I ever say I wanted them to become a superpower? I'm merely propogating the facts: China is a huge country, and can therefore not be ignored. That does have an advantage, and I named that advantage just now.

And frankly, you Americans seem to be more bent on private power than on ensuring the peace and stability in the world. Give me a break, CCR, and don't start on your "The USA must be the sole superpower because it is really really good!" rant.

I'm not ignoring it. I think it does'nt have the potential to be a superpower with the Chicoms at the healm, and I think that people like you trying to help a psychopathic nation become as powerful as the US is foolhardy and dangerous.

Trying to help it? Bwaha! Yeah, I'm really trying to help them become a superpower.
How exactly am I doing that? By saying "China is a huge country" and "the communist system will collapse, probably leading to a firmer position in the world for them."
Psch.

Whatever, at least this thread got hijacked by people who understand how to debate and not resort to personal attacks.

Stop it. Seriously, you're being much worse than PS here.

 

[Loxley]

So how would the US crush china in a few months PS?
They have a population of more than 1,298,847,624 people, And the worlds, in numbers largest army. The country is slightly smaller than the US but with a much larger population.
The thing is, the US can never launch an attack on china and expect to win the following war, they cannot capture china like they have in Iraq, not a chance. Not if the population oppose, and they will if you continue to bomb infrastructure. even if you gathered the whole american army, you would never be able to take all of china.