NationStates Jolt Archive

1 China spends a relatively big percentage of it's GDP on it's military. The US still spends a bigger percentage, and it's a bigger GDP as well. Plus the USA has a big head start on military technology. China's running a race against a faster opponent who has a head start. Only massive growth of the Chinese economy or a shrinkage of the US economy will even it up. I don't think China's economy can continue to grow at it's current rate for too much longer.

2 Oil is running out. It's a finite commodity. As prices rise China will not be able to afford as much. The USA is richer and can continue to buy a big share of the world's oil. This means China's economy will be hit harder by the oil shortage and also that China's military may have to make do with less fuel. Meaning they'll need lighter tanks, smaller ships, etc.

3 The US has alliances with many nations that maintain strong militaries. UK, Israel, Australia, India, etc. China's allies tend to be weaker, poorer nations.

What do you folks think?

Perhaps, but I think it would be folly not to believe that China will eventually become a military superpower.

I see a tri-polar world emerging over the next few decades: a slowly weakening USA, a rapidly unifying EU, and China. It looks like the only one of these still deserving to be called a democracy would be the USA, as the current unification of the EU is very much imposed from above over the wishes of the people, and I don't see China becoming a democracy of _any_ kind within the foreseeable future.

At China's growing rate, they'll have an economic collapse before to long. Then its going to be awhile before their economy recovers.

THat doesn't mean that China won't become a military super power. It might but it'll still be years before then.

At China's growing rate, they'll have an economic collapse before to long. Then its going to be awhile before their economy recovers.

THat doesn't mean that China won't become a military super power. It might but it'll still be years before then.
I think that Americas Power, both militarily, and economically, depends on whether or not we elect good leaders, instaed of electing people we think will piss off the other party. Take the last presidential election. Im sure there were millions who voted concience, but there were also millions who voted "ha ha , this will piss off the Democrats/Republicans. We need to get away from this whole 2 party system. I'm just not sure which other party I like.

I know that as China's power rises the US's decreases. :rolleyes:
As far as allies are concerned I know that they are all waiting for the moment when US falls to step on it with maximum strength. Revenge is served cold. :cool:
Notice that as soon as US looses its influence the standards by which power is measured will also change. :D
:p AH! The world without IMF...

1 China spends a relatively big percentage of it's GDP on it's military. The US still spends a bigger percentage, and it's a bigger GDP as well. Plus the USA has a big head start on military technology. China's running a race against a faster opponent who has a head start. Only massive growth of the Chinese economy or a shrinkage of the US economy will even it up. I don't think China's economy can continue to grow at it's current rate for too much longer.

2 Oil is running out. It's a finite commodity. As prices rise China will not be able to afford as much. The USA is richer and can continue to buy a big share of the world's oil. This means China's economy will be hit harder by the oil shortage and also that China's military may have to make do with less fuel. Meaning they'll need lighter tanks, smaller ships, etc.

3 The US has alliances with many nations that maintain strong militaries. UK, Israel, Australia, India, etc. China's allies tend to be weaker, poorer nations.

What do you folks think?


1 - In 10 to 20 years, China will be the world second economy in the world. Then, the difference of amount spent in weapons wont be so big.

2 - Oil is running out for everyone.. and China has foresaw this too. They have made oil contracts with - that's right - Iran, to keep them supplied.

3 - Well, yes.

At China's growing rate, they'll have an economic collapse before to long. Then its going to be awhile before their economy recovers.

THat doesn't mean that China won't become a military super power. It might but it'll still be years before then.

Considering the US deficit, your military expense and your commercial balance, your economy will probably collapse before them

Considering the US deficit, your military expense and your commercial balance, your economy will probably collapse before them

HA! We actually have checks in place to make sure that doesn't happen. Thank you FDR for those same checks.

I do believe that power is rising in the East, I do not believe it's necessarilly from military stand points, but mainly from economic ones. Also most of you are forgetting a key point:China will be having a massive population decrease in the next few decades, due to the lack of women. I believe the ratio of men to women is 9 to 1(please correct me if I'm wrong).

I know that as China's power rises the US's decreases. :rolleyes:
As far as allies are concerned I know that they are all waiting for the moment when US falls to step on it with maximum strength. Revenge is served cold. :cool:
Notice that as soon as US looses its influence the standards by which power is measured will also change. :D
:p AH! The world without IMF...
As one nation's economy picks up it becomes a competitior for resources like fossil fuels, iron, rare metals, and others. Yes, as China's economic power grows America's is diminished. But so is everyone else's because every nation ends up paying more for resources.

Yeah, sure. England is just waiting for the US to weaken so that they can take back Massachusets. :rolleyes:

Power has always been measured by three standards. How many strong nations you can count on to support you, Economic power, and Military power. The US has weakened somewhat in the first two (Thanks W), but overall it remains strong.

1 - In 10 to 20 years, China will be the world second economy in the world. Then, the difference of amount spent in weapons wont be so big.

2 - Oil is running out for everyone.. and China has foresaw this too. They have made oil contracts with - that's right - Iran, to keep them supplied.

3 - Well, yes.
1 At their current rate of economic growth, yes. But can they support this rate of growth? Maybe, but I wouldn't count on it.

2 Yep, and as oil gets scarce the price will go up. Rich nations will still be able to afford it, poorer ones will have to make due with less. Less oil hurts an economy accross the board. Not even agriculture is immune.

No, the UNITED KINGDOM - not ENGLAND does not want America to fall; America is our greatest ally, especially after our fights with our other greatest ally, France. However, although the Americans and we Brits hope that China won't become the super-power it is most likely that in 10 - 15 years China will be the super-power, no matter how much denial we enjoy at this current time.

Considering the US deficit, your military expense and your commercial balance, your economy will probably collapse before them
These are serious problems with the US economy. But the sheer size of the economy can buy us some time to fix them.

I see a tri-polar world emerging over the next few decades: a slowly weakening USA, a rapidly unifying EU, and China.
South America may be in better shape on the long run: petrol (Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil) and offshore, lots of rich/available land, increasing food production, Brazil as an industrial powerhouse, Buenos Aires as the regional financial center, decent climate, mineral deposits, not many deserts.

HA! We actually have checks in place to make sure that doesn't happen. Thank you FDR for those same checks.

Would you please elaborate on what your magical checks is and on how it will affect your economy. Because a deficit and a debt don't disappear. Most of your goods are now produced in China.

The prices for Oil will rise skyhigh(if it isn't already high enough)

soon(as soon as we can do it) we will turn to Mars for Iron and all other resources that exist there) seeing that our resources are running out.

the World's Econamy WILL collapse sometime in the future(if we keep up with the pace it will collapse) but if we slow down it won't collapse as fast.

We, as Humans, will continue to wage Wars until one of us(united peoples) dominates the globe and it's resources.

the Moon would be our first target for resources of Iron and other stuff used in building Space Ships, it would be our launching pad for Mission's to Mars(for colonization efforts)

I'm done teaching others to get along(no one listens, as my talks fall on deaf ears).


eventually I see a great power rising to dominate Earth (sometime in the future but I'm not giving out an exact date because it will be random)


I know this seems like nonsense, but you will all see.


I know most of our goods are produced in China(I have over 6,000 pruducts produced in China).

Would you please elaborate on what your magical checks is and on how it will affect your economy. Because a deficit and a debt don't disappear. Most of your goods are now produced in China.

We have the Federal Reserve who does the interest rates
we have the FDIC
WE have mechanisms for the stock market to halt trading after a certain point.

Alot of this went into place after the economic collapse of 1929. I have to look up most of them but suffice to say that we'll have knowledge before anything happens to the economy so that we can make sure that it doesn't collapse.

China's one child policy will soon make any extended conflict politically impossible, unless it's in self defence.

The British, French and Americans have demonstrated to the Chinese that agressive imperialism is not an effective way to keep your nation strong over time.

China's somewhat slow and uneven transition towards democracy will eventually help defuse internal political tensions and reduce the likelyhood of unpredictable elements gaining power.

To continue rapid economic growth will require China to be open to the rest of the world, which gives the rest of the world an opportunity to show they mean China no harm. There are only two things we need fear. Paranoia among the Chinese leadership, and internal strife/conflict in China.

The prices for Oil will rise skyhigh(if it isn't already high enough)

soon(as soon as we can do it) we will turn to Mars for Iron and all other resources that exist there) seeing that our resources are running out.

the World's Econamy WILL collapse sometime in the future(if we keep up with the pace it will collapse) but if we slow down it won't collapse as fast.

We, as Humans, will continue to wage Wars until one of us(united peoples) dominates the globe and it's resources.

the Moon would be our first target for resources of Iron and other stuff used in building Space Ships, it would be our launching pad for Mission's to Mars(for colonization efforts)

I'm done teaching others to get along(no one listens, as my talks fall on deaf ears).


eventually I see a great power rising to dominate Earth in 2525(when the conquest begins) 3090 when it ends.


I know this seems like nonsense, but you will all see.


I know most of our goods are produced in China(I have over 6,000 pruducts produced in China).
Mining other planets for resources would be tremendously expensive. If the moon were made of solid gold it wouldn't be profitable to send a shuttle there to bring it back. As resources dwindle costs for space flight will soar as well. The solid fuel booster rockets on the space shuttle burn aluminum for thrust. It's actually aluminum powder, an oxidizer, and an epoxy type material to hold it together an make sure it doesn't burn fast enough to blow up. Aluminum is expensive to produce. If aluminum starts to run out, if the fuel used to poduce electricity that converts bauxite to aluminum metal starts to run out, aluminum will be too costly to burn.

Alot of this went into place after the economic collapse of 1929. I have to look up most of them but suffice to say that we'll have knowledge before anything happens to the economy so that we can make sure that it doesn't collapse.

More mechanisms went in to place following Black Monday, so the stock market is even better protected than it was after 1929. However, the Federal Reserve has a tendency to overtighten and push the economy in to recession, much like it did in 2000 after the dot-coms collapsed. This might prove dangerous to our economy, but the FOMC is still the best inflation tool we have.

More mechanisms went in to place following Black Monday, so the stock market is even better protected than it was after 1929. However, the Federal Reserve has a tendency to overtighten and push the economy in to recession, much like it did in 2000 after the dot-coms collapsed. This might prove dangerous to our economy, but the FOMC is still the best inflation tool we have.

Also true. Thanks :)

I don't think US economy could literally collapse. But still, a great depression is near. The tools you mentioned are standard tools most nation use these days.

We have the Federal Reserve who does the interest rates

This one can affect the commercial balance by affecting your currency and artificially raising foreign goods cost and therefore forcing people to buy local goods. It will help, but it will still lower your buying power

we have the FDIC, FOMC

?, please explain for a non-american citizen

WE have mechanisms for the stock market to halt trading after a certain point.


If you block foreign import, other nation will block your export. Coming from a nation preaching for free trading for decade, this wont help you make friend in the world.



These tools can affect your commercial balance on short terms, but it wont solve the very nature of the problem

A) Your government spend much more money than he have
B) Your society (like your government) want a standard of living way above of what it can afford (we have the same problem in Canada)

I don't think US economy could literally collapse. But still, a great depression is near. The tools you mentioned are standard tools most nation use these days.

This one can affect the commercial balance by affecting your currency and artificially raising foreign goods cost and therefore forcing people to buy local goods. It will help, but it will still lower your buying power

?, please explain for a non-american citizen

If you block foreign import, other nation will block your export. Coming from a nation preaching for free trading for decade, this wont help you make friend in the world.

These tools can affect your commercial balance on short terms, but it wont solve the very nature of the problem

A) Your government spend much more money than he have
B) Your society (like your government) want a standard of living way above of what it can afford (we have the same problem in Canada)

A Depression is not near because the things that caused the last one (isolationism, lack of market controls, oppressive tarriffs, economic imbalance between developed economies) don't exist anymore. The economy is more efficent in its resource usage, so the worst an oil shock could do would be a recession, one that would likely lift once prices fell.

The Interest rates do not affect the price of imports/exprts. They regulate how much money costs to borrow, which controls inflation by constricting money supply. It actually makes foreign goods cheaper by making the dollar stronger. This actual hurts domestic manufacturing.

The FOMC, or Federal Open Market Committee sets the Federal Funds Rate, which controls inflation and the growth of the economy.

The FDIC, (don't know exact name) insures money in US banks so that there isn't a repeat of the bank panics in 1929.

The stock market controls only keep prices from falling too fast, which helps the global economy because the entire world invests in the US. Stocks are not affected by tarriffs.

The government spends too much, which is why we have to restrain spending. After a while, other countries won't continue to buy our debt in the form of bonds (that's how the deficit is financed).

The standard of living only hurts when we buy huge amounts of foreign products, which hurts GDP growth and thus all economic growth by widening the trade deficit.

I don't think US economy could literally collapse. But still, a great depression is near. The tools you mentioned are standard tools most nation use these days.

I don't forsee a Great Depression. I think we'll hit another recession but I don't think we'll see another great depression. Reason being, if we're having a great depression, the world will suffer one too. Remember what happened the last time there was a great depression?

This one can affect the commercial balance by affecting your currency and artificially raising foreign goods cost and therefore forcing people to buy local goods. It will help, but it will still lower your buying power

If we raise it, interest rates for credit cards, and others will go up so yea but if they lower it, our buying power will go up and thus we'll be able to stave off a depression.

?, please explain for a non-american citizen

I'm not 100% on the FOMC (since I didn't put it there) but the FDIC is the Federal Deposit Insurence Company. If a bank fails, my money that I have in the bank is insurable upto roughly 100,000 dollars. Therefor, I don't lose any of my money unless I have more than $100,000 in the bank.

If you block foreign import, other nation will block your export. Coming from a nation preaching for free trading for decade, this wont help you make friend in the world.

Where did this come from? I said the stock market. It's different from what your describing here.

These tools can affect your commercial balance on short terms, but it wont solve the very nature of the problem

No but it'll prevent a nation wide economic collapse.

A) Your government spend much more money than he have

Happens when your 1) fighting a war, 2) have to many social programs that eat into a budget, 3) People who spend more than their department budget allowes them too and 4) having nearly 300 million people.

B) Your society (like your government) want a standard of living way above of what it can afford (we have the same problem in Canada)

Its what happens when people don't understand the finer points of economics.

I'm not 100% on the FOMC (since I didn't put it there) but the FDIC is the Federal Deposit Insurence Company. If a bank fails, my money that I have in the bank is insurable upto roughly 100,000 dollars. Therefor, I don't lose any of my money unless I have more than $100,000 in the bank.

And do you know what state you can thank for coming up with the idea behind the FDIC?

And do you know what state you can thank for coming up with the idea behind the FDIC?

FDR!

FDR!

Ah yes, the great state of FDR. Off the coast of California, yes?

Ah yes, the great state of FDR. Off the coast of California, yes?

Ok, sorry, I couldn't resist. I honestly do not care what state came up with it. The fact is we have it so it doesn't bother me where it orginated.

Ok, sorry, I couldn't resist. I honestly do not care what state came up with it. The fact is we have it so it doesn't bother me where it orginated.

Yeah, well, it came from Massachusetts, and you'll forgive me if I gloat. :D

Yeah, well, it came from Massachusetts, and you'll forgive me if I gloat. :D

Go ahead. No skin off my nose if you want to gloat.

Mining other planets for resources would be tremendously expensive. If the moon were made of solid gold it wouldn't be profitable to send a shuttle there to bring it back. As resources dwindle costs for space flight will soar as well. The solid fuel booster rockets on the space shuttle burn aluminum for thrust. It's actually aluminum powder, an oxidizer, and an epoxy type material to hold it together an make sure it doesn't burn fast enough to blow up. Aluminum is expensive to produce. If aluminum starts to run out, if the fuel used to poduce electricity that converts bauxite to aluminum metal starts to run out, aluminum will be too costly to burn.

We will never run out of aluminum. It is the most abundant metal in the the Earth's crust. We haven't even made a dent in the enormous amounts still in the crust.

Estimated Crustal Abundance: 8.23×104 milligrams per kilogram

Estimated Oceanic Abundance: 2×10-3 milligrams per liter

I read something about a trio power thing. U.S. EU and China. The only problem with this is, the EU is weaking if not collapsing, France and Belgium (I believe) have rejected the EU. It is causing major problems for individual countries, and in respect towards any Euros on this board, for the life of me I cant see why the hell you would want to unite all the European countries and lose your individuality.

We will never run out of aluminum. It is the most abundant metal in the the Earth's crust. We haven't even made a dent in the enormous amounts still in the crust.

Estimated Crustal Abundance: 8.23×104 milligrams per kilogram

Estimated Oceanic Abundance: 2×10-3 milligrams per liter
Yeah. Try to extract it from aluminium silicates, now.
Ooh what do you mean, you can't?

We will never run out of aluminum. It is the most abundant metal in the the Earth's crust. We haven't even made a dent in the enormous amounts still in the crust.

Estimated Crustal Abundance: 8.23×104 milligrams per kilogram

Estimated Oceanic Abundance: 2×10-3 milligrams per liter
We may run out of the fossil fuels used to generate electricity that turns bauxite into aluminum. That would make aluminum scarce.

The Interest rates do not affect the price of imports/exprts. They regulate how much money costs to borrow, which controls inflation by constricting money supply. It actually makes foreign goods cheaper by making the dollar stronger. This actual hurts domestic manufacturing.

If interest rate goes up, people will invest there money instead of buying things. Foreign people will purchase US dollar to invest in your country. Therefore raising the demand/value of the US dollar making imports cheaper.

If interest goes down, the opposite will happen

There is no win/win situation, A) you help local industry, but people don't bought them because they don't have the money, B) you help people spending more but they bought foreign stuff

The government spends too much, which is why we have to restrain spending. After a while, other countries won't continue to buy our debt in the form of bonds (that's how the deficit is financed).

The standard of living only hurts when we buy huge amounts of foreign products, which hurts GDP growth and thus all economic growth by widening the trade deficit.

This is why I'm saying the current situation is not good for the future of north-america and the world. We will be starving if we lost our number 1 consumer.

We will never run out of aluminum. It is the most abundant metal in the the Earth's crust. We haven't even made a dent in the enormous amounts still in the crust.

Aluminum cost A LOT to produce in term of energy and mining, and it is even worst if you want to transform it into fuel.

Is point is that spending say 100 000 000$ on aluminum transformation to dig 10 000 000$ of gold from the moon is not worthy

I read something about a trio power thing. U.S. EU and China. The only problem with this is, the EU is weaking if not collapsing, France and Belgium (I believe) have rejected the EU. It is causing major problems for individual countries, and in respect towards any Euros on this board, for the life of me I cant see why the hell you would want to unite all the European countries and lose your individuality.

France and belgium denied one constitution of the EU, thats hardly the EU collapsing. People act like the US constitution just came easily, with everyone immediatly agreeing.

As to the person said the EU doesnt deserve to be called democracy, well, I would say moreso than the US. At least they directly vote for things like constitutions.

They won't fight us because they already beat the US. They own have the Freaking Government money bonds. The companies outsource there. They've won people.

France and belgium denied one constitution of the EU, thats hardly the EU collapsing. People act like the US constitution just came easily, with everyone immediatly agreeing.

At least our states ratified it. All of them. We bickered and argued during conventions but in the end, the Constitution was ratified. In the EU, they wrote a constitution that is unworkable and it was voted down by the Netherlands and the French. Thus now they are contemplating starting over.

As to the person said the EU doesnt deserve to be called democracy, well, I would say moreso than the US. At least they directly vote for things like constitutions.

And what do you think we did when the STATES ratified the Constitution? If memory serves me right, there were two options for ratification, public referendum or assembly vote. France and Holland had referendum vote and they voted it down flat.

They won't fight us because they already beat the US. They own have the Freaking Government money bonds. The companies outsource there. They've won people.
It's a long race. So far they've only closed the gap. They're no longer several laps behind, but they're not exactly passing us yet.

At least our states ratified it. All of them. We bickered and argued during conventions but in the end, the Constitution was ratified. In the EU, they wrote a constitution that is unworkable and it was voted down by the Netherlands and the French. Thus now they are contemplating starting over.



And what do you think we did when the STATES ratified the Constitution? If memory serves me right, there were two options for ratification, public referendum or assembly vote. France and Holland had referendum vote and they voted it down flat.
The constitution of the USA was passed only after the failure of the Articles of Confederation. We got it right on our second try. Maybe Europe will do the same.

The constitution of the USA was passed only after the failure of the Articles of Confederation. We got it right on our second try. Maybe Europe will do the same.

I'll grant you that one but the fact is that we did ratify it by vote. First a vote in the Constitutional Convention itself followed by the state assembly votes.

The point is the EU isnt good for Europe. The nations lose their individuality. And as for competing with the U.S. well you guys just have to face it. America is better than Europe, however; Germany is doing quite well, third biggest economy in the world if I recall, maybe the reason why Europes countries are doing so bad is because of how socialist they have become. Labor unions practically run Europe (England is a very good example). You cant have a world class economy with above-the-law labor unions. America straightend those bad boys out back in the 20th century. ;)

The point is the EU isnt good for Europe. The nations lose their individuality. And as for competing with the U.S. well you guys just have to face it. America is better than Europe, however; Germany is doing quite well, third biggest economy in the world if I recall, maybe the reason why Europes countries are doing so bad is because of how socialist they have become. Labor unions practically run Europe (England is a very good example). You cant have a world class economy with above-the-law labor unions. America straightend those bad boys out back in the 20th century. ;)

You realize if america was 13, or 50 seperate nations(depending...), it wouldnt be nearly as powerful as it is now? So just because the individual european states arent as powerful as the US, its quite possible the EU would be, given time.

yes but the U.S. states have been rasied together from birth (almost) The Euro countries have been totally individual for hundreds, in some case thousands of years some even fighting. Its kinda like when raise a kitten and a puppy together...they grow up loving each other. But when they're old if you try to put them together they dont like it and they fight. Does that make sense?

It depends on the future of the EU, Britain may drop out sooner or later, especially if Turkey and Russia are allowed in (Why not let Russia in? it would be suicide from a democratic point of view, 180 million russian votes vs 60 million Brits, 60 million French, 90 million Germans ASSUMING that the big 3 work together........).
As for China hmmmm im not sure how that one will turn out, all end in tears if im not much mistaken, and perhaps we can make hydrogen panzers.....
And somone said America was our greatest ally, thats a laugh, our greatest allies are the Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders and South Africans, when we needed them they came to our aid, they didnt count the financial or human cost of war,or demand reparations, or say "European Wars are European business", they came in swingin for the 'old country' fighting for democracy and freedom. God Bless their little cotton socks.

yes but the U.S. states have been rasied together from birth (almost) The Euro countries have been totally individual for hundreds, in some case thousands of years some even fighting. Its kinda like when raise a kitten and a puppy together...they grow up loving each other. But when they're old if you try to put them together they dont like it and they fight. Does that make sense?

Depending on the us state, some were standing for nearly as long as they have been a unified state. In 1776, im sure you could make the argument "Some states have been around for more than two centuries, you cannot unify them now!". Besides, before that, the indians were here.

A unified europe can work, as long as power is not too centralized. Its things like the treaty of rome, etc, that made europe's economy boom in the 50's to 70's(Marshal aid too, obviously). Unification, at least for economies, is usually the best thing. Isolationism does not work.

Europe is currently trying to find a good balance in integration versus national autonomy. It may take years to reach a solid, definitive agreement.
Such an integration of multiple states with different, often conflicting cultures, has never been attempted through history. Except in repressive, short-lived empires maybe.

The closest thing that comes in mind when I think of Europe, is the Indian federation. So many people, so many religions/gods/beliefs, so many languages (hundreds are official languages in various states), traditions, climates, skin colors. But it has its problems: centralization, persecution of some minorities (Tamils, Muslims, a few ethnic groups in Sikkhim). And they push real hard to have everybody speaking Hindi and English.

Yet, Europe will never be as integrated as India. It will be more of a confederation of independent states (stupid reference intended), more compartimented, with a stronger national identity.

Now let's look at some failed experiments at regional integration:

- the CIS (Community of Independent States), a short-lived organization that has tried to keep some kind of loose regional concertation after USSR dissolved. Central Asia.

- Simon Bolivar's dream of a unified South America (at least, the parts speaking Spanish). It broke down under foreign pressure, emerging regional powers, wars.

- Pan-Arabism (Nasser's dream). After a few experiments in regional "federations", Egypt+Syria, Egypt+Sudan... uniformization of flags, and so on. It just dissolved in a pool of petrol.

- The Austro-Hungarian empire. A highly multicultural empire with 2 official cultures and languages, 2 capital cities (Vienna, Budapest), 2 parliments... and dozens of conquered nations. Trying to crush minorities is never a good idea, even if you have 2 heads. Talk about this empire, and see Croats or Romanians spitting on the sidewalk.

You realize if america was 13, or 50 seperate nations(depending...), it wouldnt be nearly as powerful as it is now? So just because the individual european states arent as powerful as the US, its quite possible the EU would be, given time.
It's possible the EU could become as powerfull as the USA, but it would require nations like Germany and France cutting back on their generous social programs, and that's not very popular with many Europeans. The EU with the same social programs as France would face the same economic problems but on a continent-wide scale. Now if they follow the British example, they can have solid social programs and still maintain a strong economy. Then they'd be a rival.

The point is the EU isnt good for Europe. The nations lose their individuality. And as for competing with the U.S. well you guys just have to face it. America is better than Europe, however; Germany is doing quite well, third biggest economy in the world if I recall, maybe the reason why Europes countries are doing so bad is because of how socialist they have become. Labor unions practically run Europe (England is a very good example). You cant have a world class economy with above-the-law labor unions. America straightend those bad boys out back in the 20th century. ;)

hey, i like europe, the disagree entriely with the section in bold, its the socialism that helps europe, its the whole point of the EU.

you appear to be very distorted views. i would add more but proabably be warned or banned

3 The US has alliances with many nations that maintain strong militaries. UK, Israel, Australia, India, etc. China's allies tend to be weaker, poorer nations.
In all of those nations there are sizable oppositions to working too close together with the US. An exception might be Israel, because it is dependent on US support.
The past few years (iraq etc) have shown to the world that the US no longer has Allies in the traditional sense. Once they disagree, they are dropped and villified. There'll be less and less people willing to be treated like that in the future.

I...It looks like the only one of these still deserving to be called a democracy would be the USA, as the current unification of the EU is very much imposed from above over the wishes of the people, and...
1. Who gives a shit about whether a nation is a democracy or not? It's not like that's a prerequisite for superpower status.
2. Quit the EU-Bashing.

In all of those nations there are sizable oppositions to working too close together with the US. An exception might be Israel, because it is dependent on US support.

Apparently not that strong. As for Israel, I think they can actually hold their own without US support.

The past few years (iraq etc) have shown to the world that the US no longer has Allies in the traditional sense. Once they disagree, they are dropped and villified. There'll be less and less people willing to be treated like that in the future.

Ahh do we have to look at why we have villified a few of those allies? Most notably France? I never considered Russia an ally though the former USSR did help us defeat the Germans in WWII. If the rest of the world starts keeping their promises then we won't villify them!

1. Who gives a shit about whether a nation is a democracy or not? It's not like that's a prerequisite for superpower status.

No its not but democracy will also help curb some of the wars. Democracies don't go to war with eachother after all. Also it takes alot to get a democracy to go to war.

2. Quit the EU-Bashing.

Not until people stop the US-Bashing :p

1 China spends a relatively big percentage of it's GDP on it's military. The US still spends a bigger percentage, and it's a bigger GDP as well. Plus the USA has a big head start on military technology. China's running a race against a faster opponent who has a head start. Only massive growth of the Chinese economy or a shrinkage of the US economy will even it up. I don't think China's economy can continue to grow at it's current rate for too much longer.

2 Oil is running out. It's a finite commodity. As prices rise China will not be able to afford as much. The USA is richer and can continue to buy a big share of the world's oil. This means China's economy will be hit harder by the oil shortage and also that China's military may have to make do with less fuel. Meaning they'll need lighter tanks, smaller ships, etc.

3 The US has alliances with many nations that maintain strong militaries. UK, Israel, Australia, India, etc. China's allies tend to be weaker, poorer nations.

What do you folks think?


Ahem...

While this logic is fairly sound, this thread seems to misproperly titled. Maybe you should have titled it "Why China won't overthrow the US as THE world's military superpower in my lifetime."

That said, consider this. I'm not sure of the relationship between the Mid East (the world's Vegas buffet of oil) and China, but I am sure of the relationship between the Mid East and the US, and it's not pretty. In fact, the Mid East could very easily refuse to sell its oil to the US and in turn sell it to China for a cheaper price, just knowing that China is a threat to the United States.

Additionally, I doubt whole-heartedly that China will EVER attempt threatening US territory. US troops, citizens, companies, etc. in its sphere of influence however, is an entirely different story. If China does not what the United States in its backyard and wishes to push the US out, I do not really see why any of the US's allies would choose to get involved if they felt that China was not trying to threaten any nation's sovereignty. In fact, when you consider that China is probably in the top 10 most powerful nations, from a military standpoint, it'd make more sense for American allies to avoid war with China, as they would not want to see World War 3.

Regardless, Battlefield 2 has got it mostly right. World War 3 is fought between the United States and China over oil assets in the Middle East. And this supposed Middle East Coalition that exists in Battlefield 2 is really just Hamas, Al Qaeda, and other various "terrorist" organizations that are just looking for their own soveriegnty.

The British called the founding fathers terrorists, and the Continental Congress was a terrorist organization, etc. And honestly, some of the things that were done by American patriots in the last part of the 18th century truly were terrorist activities. It all depends on point of view.

Ahh do we have to look at why we have villified a few of those allies? Most notably France?
Preferrably not, but let me just summarise: They had a different opinion about the war, and they acted upon that - contrary to US interests. No more, no less.


Democracies don't go to war with eachother after all. Also it takes alot to get a democracy to go to war.
Why is that? Is there some sort of unwritten rule or something? I can't think of one right now, but there'll be democracies fighting each other somewhere in our long history.
And it really isn't that much. All it takes is
a) a lot of hatred towards other people or politics (the US would've been ready to strike at the USSR for example, and not for defense either)
b) some sort of justification (and it doesn't even have to be very realistic either if the media plays its' part)

Preferrably not, but let me just summarise: They had a different opinion about the war, and they acted upon that - contrary to US interests. No more, no less.

Actually, read up on Colin Powell statements regarding the last Iraq resolution. "Don't vote for it if your going to vote against the 2nd one." France voted for it then vowed veto of 2nd one.

Why is that? Is there some sort of unwritten rule or something? I can't think of one right now, but there'll be democracies fighting each other somewhere in our long history.

Hasn't happened yet. Democracies tend to talk things out with eachother instead of fighting.

And it really isn't that much. All it takes is
a) a lot of hatred towards other people or politics (the US would've been ready to strike at the USSR for example, and not for defense either)

Ahhh but the USSR wasn't a democracy.

b) some sort of justification (and it doesn't even have to be very realistic either if the media plays its' part)

Something will always get out regardless.

Actually, read up on Colin Powell statements regarding the last Iraq resolution. "Don't vote for it if your going to vote against the 2nd one." France voted for it then vowed veto of 2nd one.
Now, I'm not an international law buff, so I don't know the texts of the proposals. But Colin Powell has no right to tell any nation how to vote, or even to suggest it. He is merely one of 200 or so people there.
If the first one was about establishing whether Iraq had WMDs, and threaten (not attack) it if it was found to be hiding them, then that may have been in France's interest. Going to war wasn't, primarily for reason of principle.
Ahhh but the USSR wasn't a democracy.


Ahhh but the USSR wasn't a democracy.
Point is that a democracy will attack someone (regardless of that other state's political system) if it feels the need to do so (or creates it).

Hmmm, but what if Canada and the US merge into one giant country?

Think of the economic possibilities...all the untapped resources that Canada can't reach because of it's population, and the fact it doesn't have enough space to put the population even if they had them.

Sure, it'd be kinda hard....seeing as how Canada think Americans are warmongering idiots....and they're liberal socialists........but meh.

=D

Now, I'm not an international law buff, so I don't know the texts of the proposals. But Colin Powell has no right to tell any nation how to vote, or even to suggest it. He is merely one of 200 or so people there.

However, it was an agreement made between the nations of UNSC that if Saddam didn't comply with 1441 then a 2nd resolution was going to be introduced. Saddam didn't comply with 1441, the 2nd resolution was introduced and France immediately threatened veto. That is what sparked that outrage.

If the first one was about establishing whether Iraq had WMDs, and threaten (not attack) it if it was found to be hiding them, then that may have been in France's interest. Going to war wasn't, primarily for reason of principle.

It wasn't in there interests for a war with Iraq because of all the illegal kickbacks from Oil-For-Food.

Point is that a democracy will attack someone (regardless of that other state's political system) if it feels the need to do so (or creates it).

Considering they were a threat to democracy, I would've been surprised if we didn't have a plan to attack them if provoked. Luckily we never had to put it to the test. Came close but the line was never crossed.

It wasn't in there interests for a war with Iraq because of all the illegal kickbacks from Oil-For-Food.
No, no, now you're thinking of the outrage itself. Those bits of mud were only slung after France said they weren't gonna play a part in it.
The idea that a person (namely Chirac himself and his foreign minister) really is a pacifist seemed to strange for the US public to swallow, and so all kinds of ideas were created out of nothingness. The "illegal kickbacks" is one of those.

No, no, now you're thinking of the outrage itself. Those bits of mud were only slung after France said they weren't gonna play a part in it.
The idea that a person (namely Chirac himself and his foreign minister) really is a pacifist seemed to strange for the US public to swallow, and so all kinds of ideas were created out of nothingness. The "illegal kickbacks" is one of those.

Actually, the illegal kickbacks to France have been proven thanks to the investigation into Oil-For-Food. :rolleyes:

Europe's economy is hardy " falling apart". In western europe economies are growing slower(1%-2%), but in eastern europe their GDP's are growing at 5-7% per year.

Actually, the illegal kickbacks to France have been proven thanks to the investigation into Oil-For-Food.
Sure, they were. France being
a) some French businessman
b) Chirac himself
c) every single citizen of French nationality
d) all of the above?

Considering the US deficit, your military expense and your commercial balance, your economy will probably collapse before them

Hmmm, you don't understand how the US economy works do you. The government would has measures to prevent a economic collapse. They learned alot since the "great" deppression. Also you point out "your" economy. Let me point out that the Canadian economy is so intertwined with US economy there is no clear distinction. "ours" goes down so does "yours".

Europe's economy is hardy " falling apart". In western europe economies are growing slower(1%-2%), but in eastern europe their GDP's are growing at 5-7% per year.

No Europes economy isnt falling apart. But compared to other "westren" nations it appears stagnant. Until "social" spending can be reigned in there wont be any high growth rates. I bet if one was to check how much "Eastren Europe" vs "Westren Europes" social spending rates were compared. One would find that Eastren Europes is far less. That would be an indication of why growth is much higher in the former Warsaw Pact nations. Also there is natural growth just catching up to its Westren European neighbors.

...The government would has measures to prevent a economic collapse...
Yeah? Explain.
Feel free to use all the economics you want, it's my forté.

a few points

The US has had deficits since the 1930s, without suffering severe harm to its economy at any point because of those deficits (by themselves). The only time the deficit has factored in was during the late 70s, and it was part of the problem of a Recession caused by relatively high energy prices (especially when compared to earlier decades), the transition from an Industrial economy to a Post Industrial Economy (as Japan, Korea and other nations including Germany moved into markets traditionally dominated by the US), and high interest rates caused by the shortage of available money because of government deficits.

However, although National Debt of the US is in the Trillions, it is still less than 10-20% of the GDP of the US. The annual deficit is even lower as compared to the actual GDP.

The US also easily managed the greatest military arms buildup in history in the 1980s without suffering serious economic damage because of it.

I wouldn't worry about the US going broke any time soon short of a major disaster like another Great Depression, climatic shift of catastrophic consequences, or a major war involving much of the West.

As far as energy supplies go, and access to them. The US gets most of its oil from Nigeria, Venezuela, Mexico, the Caribbean, Canada, and its own sources. It gets a portion of its oil from the Middle East, but the importance of the Middle East has more to do with its affect on prices, and the fact that it is the primary source for most of Europe and Japan and now China and increasingly is important to Russia for supply purposes.

That is why a stable Middle East is so vital to the United States. Stability of energy supplies allows for stable economic conditions.

As far as actually controlling the Middle East goes.... the US has a far greater capability to project power into the Middle East than anyone else. Only the EU comes close, and then only if Turkey allows it (the EU lacks the air transport fleet and the sealift capability the US has). China has essentially neglible ability to project military forces outside of its borders and can't even really project much against Taiwan for that matter.

So the US has de facto control of the Middle East and will continue to do so for some time to come.

In a absolute worst case scenario, the US has on other card. It has the capability of using nuclear weapons to deny Middle East oil to anyone else. It also has the capability of absolutely destroying any other state on the planet as a civilized entity in extremis. Only Russia still has sufficient weapons to even threaten that, and it no longer can defend itself with conventional forces so must rely on that alone now. That is why the US is considered a Super Power. No other nuclear power even comes close to that very real ability.

For China to become a Superpower would require it to rise to the level of military power that the Soviet Union had in 1988. It would have to develop sufficient nuclear forces to seriously threaten the existance of the US (not just a half dozen cities), and develop sufficient conventional military forces so that it can compete with the US on an equal footing outside of China.

It took the Soviet Union from 1945 until about 1970 to reach that equality with the US, and it only retained that for about 20 years before collapsing economically because the US changed the rules of the game with the computer revolution.

So at this point, even if China started tomorrow to do what the Soviet Union did, it would most likely take them at least a couple of decades to become a Super Power as compared to the US.

For China to become a Superpower would require it to rise to the level of military power that the Soviet Union had in 1988. It would have to develop sufficient nuclear forces to seriously threaten the existance of the US (not just a half dozen cities), and develop sufficient conventional military forces so that it can compete with the US on an equal footing outside of China.
.

But if China launches nuclear attacks at just the three main West Coast cities (Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles), basically the US can say good night. America can also destroy Shanghai, Beijing and Guangzhou and we'll still have enough to keep us running.

But if China launches nuclear attacks at just the three main West Coast cities (Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles), basically the US can say good night. America can also destroy Shanghai, Beijing and Guangzhou and we'll still have enough to keep us running.

Something tells me they'd flatten the entire country.

Something tells me they'd flatten the entire country.

Then you'll spread radiation to all your allies in the area, like the island of Taiwan, the quasi-state of southern Korea, Japan, whatever of the Philippines that is under Manila's control etc. etc.

Then you'll spread radiation to all your allies in the area, like the island of Taiwan, the quasi-state of southern Korea, Japan, whatever of the Philippines that is under Manila's control etc. etc.

Actually, hydrogen bombs are quite clean.

Actually, hydrogen bombs are quite clean.

.......

ok....

Never mind. We shall settle with buying America out through its nose. :D

.......

ok....

Never mind. We shall settle with buying America out through its nose. :D

Just like Japan.

Just like Japan.

Yeah...except that we'll blow Japan away too! :D:D:D:D

We're not supposed to like Japan too much, says Grand-daddy Beijing - even though we all use Sony digital cameras, drive Toyotas, and watch amazing Japanese anime. :D

Yeah...except that we'll blow Japan away too! :D:D:D:D



And how many centuries has the Chinese mainland been trying to annex Japan?

*almost went the other way before WWII*

:D

And how many centuries has the Chinese mainland been trying to annex Japan?

*almost went the other way before WWII*

:D

Twice! Only twice! Both during the Yuan Dynasty by Kublai Khan. Botched because of typhoons, or "kamikaze".

Then you'll spread radiation to all your allies in the area, like the island of Taiwan, the quasi-state of southern Korea, Japan, whatever of the Philippines that is under Manila's control etc. etc.

if China kills several million Americans, than the American people would settle for nothing less than the complete destruction of China as a state....

targets would be every major military airfield, every army division, the Chinese fleet, Beijing, several other cities (principally communications hubs), and of course the Chinese space and nuclear programs and their facilities.

a mixture of conventional and nuclear attacks would be made and after China used up its few missiles, it would have no way to retiliate. The Chinese Communist Party would have no way to control the country anymore, nor would it have a military, nor would it have a way to rebuild one.

China of course realizes this, and would most likely not launch an attack to begin with.

Such an attack would probably be carried out in stages to avoid excessive climatic effects and to ensure all targets were destroyed. Chinese casualties would be exceptionally high not only from the attack itself, but the post attack effects and general collapse of social order almost certain to occur. You can't tell me that the local leaders are going to look out for the national interest of China when the central government has been blown to shreds.

Friendly casualties would be regretted, possibily, but accepted nonetheless

[QUOTE=Dragons BayNever mind. We shall settle with buying America out through its nose. :D[/QUOTE]

If and when the Yuan is revaluated, China will lose the competitive advantage of low prices and with that revaluation, the actual worth of the bonds China holds will go *poof*.

US will end up having its cake and eating it too, at the expense of the poor Chinese slave working in the sweatshops.

Democracies don't go to war with eachother after all. Also it takes alot to get a democracy to go to war.

Israel/Palestine just popped into my mind

We migth also see US/Iran pretty fast

Israel/Palestine just popped into my mind

You have 1 minor problem here, or a major one. Palestine is NOT a state.

We migth also see US/Iran pretty fast

Only if the EU negotiations fail as I suspect they will since Iran is still pursuing nuclear weapons.

No Europes economy isnt falling apart. But compared to other "westren" nations it appears stagnant. Until "social" spending can be reigned in there wont be any high growth rates. I bet if one was to check how much "Eastren Europe" vs "Westren Europes" social spending rates were compared. One would find that Eastren Europes is far less. That would be an indication of why growth is much higher in the former Warsaw Pact nations. Also there is natural growth just catching up to its Westren European neighbors.

Actually, if you measure in relative spending, eastern europe uses more money on social programs. The big reason that eastern europe is growing so quickly is that the soviet oppression and the closed market kept it down so long and it has only now begun to catch up. This however ought to be quite fast, considering the massive completely open market the eastern side of the EU now has access to, the relatively cheap labour and the very bussiness-friendly politics. Because of this east actually draws much of the growth from the west, as factories etc are simply cheaper to maintain in hungary or poland than france or germany, and in many cases are moving there. After the economies reach the same level, the situation will normalize.

This economic redistribution is also the strongest reason western european countries are having second thoughts about the EU. Go read any story on the french referendum, they did not vote non becuase they cared about national sovereignity or somesuch, they voted non because they were afraid of losing their jobs to the poles. Again, it's time to play the waiting game, we are talking about the biggest peaceful integration of countries ever, it simply wont happen overnigh, or in a few decades.

As far as relative economies go, the EU doesn't have to catch up the USA, [because we already did. :eek: Depending who you ask, this either happened sometime in 2004 or in early 2005. There is however nothing special about this, simply because EU has about 1,5 times the population of the USA.

Hmmm, you don't understand how the US economy works do you.

Maybe you could prove you know more than me by actually using some argument?
A)You have a deficit problem and your debt is growing really fast. More and more of your budget is used only to pay interest on the dept. Also, the more your dept is growing, the more you're gonna be screwed in interest rate raise
B)Your military spending is out of control, and it doesn't look Bush is gonna lower them anytime soon
C)Your people are buying cheaper foreign goods witch kill your local job, witch lower the money you collect from tax, witch lead you to problem A)

The government would has measures to prevent a economic collapse. They learned alot since the "great" deppression. Also you point out "your" economy. Let me point out that the Canadian economy is so intertwined with US economy there is no clear distinction. "ours" goes down so does "yours".

I know this perfectly and this is why I criticize your economy. Otherwise, I wouldn't care. I say "your" because in Canada we got rid of the deficit

You have 1 minor problem here, or a major one. Palestine is NOT a state.

add Germany/rest of the world from WWII

add Germany/rest of the world from WWII

Germany wasn't a Democracy. Japan wasn't a Democracy. USSR wasn't a Democracy. Italy wasn't a Democracy

Japan, Italy, Germany formed the Axis powers. All totalitarian governments. USSR, USA, Britain from the Allied Powers. Two of which were Democracies. France was a Democracy fighting against Germany and they lost.

Democracy fought the Nazis and Japs and won.

Now do we have to go through this again?

Germany wasn't a Democracy. Japan wasn't a Democracy. USSR wasn't a Democracy. Italy wasn't a Democracy

Japan, Italy, Germany formed the Axis powers. All totalitarian governments. USSR, USA, Britain from the Allied Powers. Two of which were Democracies. France was a Democracy fighting against Germany and they lost.

Democracy fought the Nazis and Japs and won.

Now do we have to go through this again?

Hitler was elected.

Hitler was elected.

And take alook how he got elected! Germany wasn't a democracy.

Germany wasn't a Democracy. Japan wasn't a Democracy. USSR wasn't a Democracy. Italy wasn't a Democracy

Japan, Italy, Germany formed the Axis powers. All totalitarian governments. USSR, USA, Britain from the Allied Powers. Two of which were Democracies. France was a Democracy fighting against Germany and they lost.

Democracy fought the Nazis and Japs and won.

Now do we have to go through this again?

But Finland was a democracy.

The orginal site wasn't up, so try this cache page, hope it works:

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:U-_wWU1VEHAJ:users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm+democracy+war&hl=en&client=firefox

And take alook how he got elected! Germany wasn't a democracy.
When he took over government, it wasn't democratic...but he got elected the same way FDR did...and I don't see anything that's not democratic about that...and for that matter...that's pretty much how Mussolini got elected.

Then Hitler and Mussolini basically said if the people of their nations wanted to get out of the depression they were suffering then they'd have to give Hitler and Mussolini more power...and from there, a downward spiral.

FDR got elected the same way, by promising fixes to a very broken nation...the difference is that the American public knew where to stop him and he knew where to stop himself and he never got too much power like Hitler and Mussolini.

Israel/Palestine just popped into my mind

We migth also see US/Iran pretty fast

Iran and Palestine are not democratic. At least not yet. So that point is still valid.

But Finland was a democracy.

The orginal site wasn't up, so try this cache page, hope it works:

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:U-_wWU1VEHAJ:users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm+democracy+war&hl=en&client=firefox

Yes Findland is a Democracy that was attacked, attacked mind you, by the USSR who wasn't.

Democracies don't go to war with eachother.

Iran and Palestine are not democratic. At least not yet. So that point is still valid.

Iran had election 1 week ago,
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/06/25/iran-050625.html

Palestine have elected a new leader after Arafat died. I concede it is not a state...

Iran had election 1 week ago,
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/06/25/iran-050625.html

And yet how many people were barred from actually running?

Palestine have elected a new leader after Arafat died. I concede it is not a state...

PALESTINE IS NOT A STATE!!!!!!

Yes Findland is a Democracy that was attacked, attacked mind you, by the USSR who wasn't.

Democracies don't go to war with eachother.
What about WWI? Great Britain, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary and the US were democracies; if we are to apply the standards of 1914, that is.

BTW, in 1941 Finland attacked the USSR, not vice versa.

What about WWI? Great Britain, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary and the US were democracies; if we are to apply the standards of 1914, that is.

Ok. Austria-Hungary was not a democracy. It was a monarchy. As was Germany and Russia. Why do I have to constently explain this?

Britain and France were Democracies yes as is the US. However, Britain and France didn't wage war on eachother. They waged war on Kaiser Bill and Austria Hungary and the Ottoman Empire (also not a democracy) Russia (not a democracy) waged war on Germany and Austria-Hungary.

BTW, in 1941 Finland attacked the USSR, not vice versa.

I'll grant you that one but how does that disprove that democracies don't go to war with eachother when the USSR wasn't a Democracy?

Yes Findland is a Democracy that was attacked, attacked mind you, by the USSR who wasn't.

Democracies don't go to war with eachother.
Congratulations for ingoring my explanation of Italy and Germany.

Ok. Austria-Hungary was not a democracy. It was a monarchy. As was Germany and Russia. Why do I have to constently explain this?

Britain and France were Democracies...

Britain wasn't a monarchy in 1914??? Wow...

Well, what's your definition of democracy-1914?

...

I'll grant you that one but how does that disprove that democracies don't go to war with eachother when the USSR wasn't a Democracy?

Well, Finland was at war with the US and the UK as well...

BTW, in 1941 Finland attacked the USSR, not vice versa.
That Finland versus USSR thing is complicated.

To get the full picture and not fall into a bickering "who attacked who first" war of words, here's an excerpt from a history website:

=-=-=-=-=-=-=
(...) Finland was blighted by constant battles with Russia and severe famines. From 1696-97, famine killed a third of all Finns. The 1700s were punctuated by bitter wars against Russia, culminating in the eventual loss of Finland to Russia in 1809. With nationalism beginning to surge during the latter half of the 19th century, Finland gained greater autonomy as a Grand Duchy, though new oppression and Russification followed, making Finns emotionally ripe for independence.

The downfall of the tsar of Russia and the Communist revolution in 1917 made it possible for the Finnish senate to declare independence on 6 December 1917. Demoralising internal violence flared up, with Russian-supported 'Reds' clashing with nationalist 'Whites' who took the German state as their model. During 108 days of a bloody civil war, approximately 30,000 Finns were killed by their fellow citizens. Although the Whites were victorious, Germany's weakened position after WWI discredited it as a political model and relations with the Soviet Union were soon normalised. Political salves did little to heal the wounds of civil war, however, and stories of 'peacetime' massacres are still emerging from these dark days of Finnish history.

Further anticommunist violence broke out in the early 1930s and, despite the signing of a nonaggression pact in 1932, Soviet relations remained uneasy. The Soviet Union's security concerns in the Finnish Karelian territory led to the Winter War in 1939. After months of courageous fighting, Finland lost part of Karelia and some nearby islands. Isolated from Western allies, Finland turned to Germany for help and slowly began to resettle Karelia, including some areas that had been in Russian possession since the 18th century. When Soviet forces staged a huge comeback in the summer of 1944, the Finns sued for peace. Finland pursued a bitter war to oust German forces from Lapland until the general peace in the spring of 1945. Finland's war experience was not only an enormous military defeat; it was an economic disaster because of the burden of reparations imposed by the Soviets.

A weakened Finland took a new line in its Soviet relations, ceding the Karelian Isthmus and agreeing to recognise Soviet security concerns in defending its frontiers. (...)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Britain wasn't a monarchy in 1914??? Wow...

Well, what's your definition of democracy-1914?

Britain is a constitutional monarchy. Still is. However it had an elected parliment. The Question is, who did the declaration? The King or did Parliment?

Well, Finland was at war with the US and the UK as well...

Did the US actually engage any Finish soldiers? Did the US actually declared war on Finland? Did Britain delcare war on Finland? I can see that Britain did. But I'm not seeing that the US did.

Britain is a constitutional monarchy. Still is. However it had an elected parliment. The Question is, who did the declaration? The King or did Parliment?
Corneliu, in the UK going to war is a Royal Prerogative. George V exercised it upon the advice of Mr Asquith...



Did the US actually engage any Finish soldiers? Did the US actually declared war on Finland? Did Britain delcare war on Finland? I can see that Britain did. But I'm not seeing that the US did.
I don't think that the US declared war upon Finland - America stayed out of that inhospitable land. The Britons bombed Finland a little, IIRC.

Germany was a semi democracy in 1914, it had an elected Reichstag, admitedly the Kaiser and the Chancellor could ignore it, but it had some democratic checks...

Corneliu, in the UK going to war is a Royal Prerogative. George V exercised it upon the advice of Mr Asquith...

Ok so if it was the King that did it then, that doesn't make it a Democracy. The US can only declare war via congress or Congress can authorize the use of Force.

I don't think that the US declared war upon Finland - America stayed out of that inhospitable land. The Britons bombed Finland a little, IIRC.

Yes I know that Britain bombed them some. As for British being a democracy, it is one to a point.

Ok so if it was the King that did it then, that doesn't make it a Democracy. The US can only declare war via congress or Congress can authorize the use of Force.
...
Queen Elizabeth II still has that power (last used in 2003). Is the UK a democracy, as of 2005?

Queen Elizabeth II still has that power (last used in 2003). Is the UK a democracy, as of 2005?

Didn't Parliment vote on using British forces in Iraq?

Didn't Parliment vote on using British forces in Iraq?

I'd like to quote this passage:

Prior to British involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Prime Minister Tony Blair, in a major break with precedent, sought parliamentary approval for British participation in the war. However Parliament's decision was in constitutional terms advisory as the actual decision would be taken by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. Blair indicated that should parliament not approve, he would not formally advise Queen Elizabeth II to exercise the Royal Prerogative and declare war. Given that Blair had an overwhelming Labour majority in the British House of Commons and had the support of the opposition Conservative Party, there was little likelihood that parliament would vote down the motion recommending participation in the war. It remains to be seen whether a future government with a small majority or in a minority in the House of Commons will seek parliamentary approval prior to the exercise of the Royal Prerogative.

Palestine have elected a new leader after Arafat died. I concede it is not a state...

PALESTINE IS NOT A STATE!!!!!!

hum... reading 101?

But it still prove your point wrong. Because you have 2 populations electing a leader witch can't agree and use violence.

I'd like to quote this passage:

Thanks! Not really up on how british government functions so this was helpful. I say it is a democracy to a point but it is still technically a Monarchy.

hum... reading 101?

But it still prove your point wrong. Because you have 2 populations electing a leader witch can't agree and use violence.

Hmm no it doesn't. It doesn't prove a point because Palestine isn't a state. So the point still holds. If it was a state then you can make a case but since it ain't a state, you don't have a case.

Thanks! Not really up on how british government functions so this was helpful. I say it is a democracy to a point but it is still technically a Monarchy.
Erm... does monarchy exclude democracy?

Erm... does monarchy exclude democracy?

Constitutional monarchy doesn't. Monarch is restrained by constitution and a Parliament.

There is one primary reason that has been overlooked as to why China will not become a military superpower in the near future. The current communist/socialist government of the People's Republic uses blatant nationalism to continue their control over the nation, especially since they openly started allowing a free market economy in many regards. Deprived of an economic philosophy to justify their strict control, the Chinese government has once again turned to the age-old animosity of blaming Japan-and to a lesser extent Taiwan-for many of their problems.

With this as the primary motivator, the Japanese have become increasingly assertive in regards to their foreign and "military" policy, while still enjoy the protection of operating under the general US umbrella. Over the past year, the issue of amending the constitution so that Japan could have a standing military again has been brough before the Parliament, with noticeably increased levels of support due to Chinese tendencies and the North Korean situation. The Japanese are continuing to aid and support the Taiwanese government, seemingly taking over the role of the United States in this regard. Recently Japan has been bullying South Korea to relinquish claims to several disputed island groups between the two nations, and is rumored to be raising the "Sakhalian issue" again with the Russian Federation. The Japanese are also pursuing a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, justifying their claim by repeated attempts by Germany (supported by several members of the European community) to gain permanent member status.

Finally there is the fact that Japan can exploit its desires with other nations: the Japanese have no desire to see a Chinese hegemony over East Asia, and their are many like minded nations that Japan could draw support from. Taiwan, which has a formidable navy, and South Korea do not want to see a resurgent China seize them again (which China has historically tended to do everytime it tries to reassert itself and reach a power status). The Japanese could probably county on the support of other nations that are reticent to see China grow stronger on the periphery of East Asia--like Thailand or by exploiting the long-running border conflicts between China and India.

The simple fact of the matter is that even if China does overcome a host of internal problems and dispute (Tibet, running a communist government with a free market economy, population restrictions, popular demand for more civil and political rights, et cetera) it still has to overcome the considerable obstacle of being surrounded by states that do not trust it and would do anything in their power to stop China from dominating the region. At the very least, China will have to assert itself over Taiwan and at this point that means challenging Japan. Given an outside reason to, I am willing to bet that the international community would be surprise how little time it would take for the supposedly "pacifistic" Japan to reemerge as a serious military-political power, especially in its own region.

1967 in Greece two days before elections, likely to be won by the liberal George Popandreous, the CIA backed a military coup which resulted in the "Reign of the Colonels". During the next six years of military control, the use of torture and murder against political opponents becomes the norm in Greece. The new military dictator, George Papadopoulos, had been a paid CIA employee since 1952 and prior to that distinguished himself as an effective leader of the Nazi "Security Battalion" in Greece that effectively hunted down and killed Greek resistance fighters to the Nazi occupation of Greece. Papadopoulos immediately declared martial law and in the first month of his regime counted some 8,000 victims. He then appointed himself prime minister. The US finally admitted its support for the Greek fascists in 1999.

Well I guess technically this isn't two democracies going to war with eachother but supporting coup's is a pretty fine line wouldn't you think?

snip .

good analysis

...They waged war on Kaiser Bill and Austria Hungary and...
His name was Wilhelm II.
Not "Bill". Are you trying to make fun of him? Bill may be Wilhelm in English, granted as Heinrich is Henry. But the way you people use "Kaiser Bill" seems very demeaning to me...

If and when the Yuan is revaluated, China will lose the competitive advantage of low prices and with that revaluation, the actual worth of the bonds China holds will go *poof*.

US will end up having its cake and eating it too, at the expense of the poor Chinese slave working in the sweatshops.

But we're not going to revalue the yuan soon, are we?

Many Chinese workers are now elevated above sweatshop conditions, mainly because foreign companies (especially American) are investing. These firms and factories pay higher than the average Chinese factory, and living and working conditions are actually quite good. Of course there is a lot of room for improvement, but "Chinese sweatshops" are rapidly becoming part of history.

Constitutional monarchy doesn't. Monarch is restrained by constitution and a Parliament.
Exactly. A constitutional monarch is a figurehead who has nothing to do with administening the Government, except giving his assent.

If you ask the immense majority of the Queen's subjects by what right she rules, they would never tell you that she rules by Parliamentary right, by virtue of 6 Anne, c. 7.

She [the Queen of the UK] must sign her own death-warrant if the two Houses unanimously send it up to her.

And Corneliu IMHO attaches undue importance to the Government power to declare and/or wage war as a main criterion of whether the country is democratic or not. What about civil rights and free elections?

His name was Wilhelm II.
Not "Bill". Are you trying to make fun of him? Bill may be Wilhelm in English, granted as Heinrich is Henry. But the way you people use "Kaiser Bill" seems very demeaning to me...

Sorry Leonstein. Yes I am trying to make fun of him. I can do that. I'm American and I doubt highly he plays this game :D

His name was Wilhelm II.
Not "Bill". Are you trying to make fun of him? Bill may be Wilhelm in English, granted as Heinrich is Henry. But the way you people use "Kaiser Bill" seems very demeaning to me...

seeing as its a name used historically, that the British came up with, I see no reason not to use it. Especially since the last Kaiser of Germany died in 1941 in Holland.

Germany was a semi democracy in 1914, it had an elected Reichstag, admitedly the Kaiser and the Chancellor could ignore it, but it had some democratic checks...
The cabinets fell upon losing a Reichstag vote quite often. Germany in 1914 had civil rights, multiple competing political parties, and universal male suffrage, so I think it is possible to qualify the Second Reich as a democracy.

The Chinese economy is built upon dangerous soil.

By and large, much of the sudden economic growth of China is limited to the cities, in the form of rapid foreign investement from nations all over the world. The bulk of the population lives in conditions similar to those in which their grandparents lived, peasants on farms. As time wears on foreign investment will subside, the quality of life in the cities will rise, which will cause a rise in wages, which will cause the foreign investment to go elsewhere (perhaps India, perhaps SE Asia, who knows) and if the Chinese are lucky they'll be able to stabilize their economy into a stable, self sustaining growth pattern.

But the oil issue strikes again. Oil. While western nations are beginning a programme to wean their economies off of oil, China is gearing up for an oil economy, similar to that of the US over the last 3/4 of a century. The problem being the increasing scarcity of the oil, the much larger population size of China (as compared to the US during the same phase) and other reasons, the Chinese economy will not be able to do what the oil economies of the west did during the forties, fifties and sixties.

Beyond that, China lags severely in the technological sector, a navy that is still basically composed of aging frigates and a few submarines, a handful of antiquated Soviet style ICBMs and a pair of ancient Ballistic Missile Submarines constitute their global striking force. Their regional nuclear arsenal is sizable, and the number of US allies within range is a concern (Japan, ROK, the Phillipines) but not a global one.

The Chinese air force, while large, is mainly composed of jets such as the J-7, a knockoff of the Soviet MiG-21, with far fewer newer jets. The replacement of the J-7s would be expensive, and while China is undergoing a military build up, the price is prohibitive.

If anything, Chinas behavior screams that they're driving to become a regional power, not a global superpower. They want to eventually push the US out of East Asia, but the success of such behavior is doubtful, espescially with our strong military ties to Japan, the ROK, the Phillipines, Guam, Taiwan and the like. Beyond that, the Chinese will have the perpetual thorn of big nations sticking in it's side, Vietnam (remember, they fought a nasty little border war in the seventies and the PRC got trounced.)

No, for various military, economic and similar other reasons, the PRC will not become a global superpower anytime soon. Perhaps if they took over Siberia, but that's the realm of fanciful Tom Clancy novels, not the real world.

We should cleanse the middle east!

they have much Oil and have been nothing but trouble makers in the past 30 years!

Germany and Japan learned their lesson, now it's time to teach the Terrorist nations that they shouldn't mess with the USA!

If I had a choice, then I'd hunt these Bastards down and slaughter them where they stand! the only common language that we share with these terrorits is violence.


China is draining us dry(by us I mean the United States) and all Americans I speak for,


Hitler has seen their domination of the Oil industry, and tried to pervent it!

he drew apon many men to help him, sure he was an Evil person(and I even consider him evil) the Jews are God's people, most likely they would share the oil, by the will of god, God will Malice toward none, and Charity for all, Hitler did the opposite, he provided Malice toward all, and Charity toward none.

I'm only Anti-Sematic, I will exclude Jews because they are God's Chosen people, the ones who represent him on Earth!

Until his return, God will not force people to follow him, he will come when the time is right.

Here's a good link to China's current military capibilities, equipment, tactics, troop numbers and weapons.

www.sinodefence.com (http://www.sinodefence.com)

I expect China and India to become super-powers soon, and on the long term to be head and shoulders above the USA. Asian people are, on average, more intelligent and more hard-working than "caucasian" people.

I expect China and India to become super-powers soon, and on the long term to be head and shoulders above the USA. Asian people are, on average, more intelligent and more hard-working than "caucasian" people.

On average, that is not true.

I expect China and India to become super-powers soon, and on the long term to be head and shoulders above the USA. Asian people are, on average, more intelligent and more hard-working than "caucasian" people.

Yes we are! :D

On average, that is not true.

OI! IT SO IS! :mad:

OI! IT SO IS! :mad:
The Truth hurts, eh? :D

The Truth hurts, eh? :D

YOU LIVE IN DENIAL! MONGOLOIDS ARE SMARTER THAN CAUCASIANS! It's a scientifically proven fact - somewhere. Heh.

1 China spends a relatively big percentage of it's GDP on it's military. The US still spends a bigger percentage, and it's a bigger GDP as well. Plus the USA has a big head start on military technology. China's running a race against a faster opponent who has a head start. Only massive growth of the Chinese economy or a shrinkage of the US economy will even it up. I don't think China's economy can continue to grow at it's current rate for too much longer.

2 Oil is running out. It's a finite commodity. As prices rise China will not be able to afford as much. The USA is richer and can continue to buy a big share of the world's oil. This means China's economy will be hit harder by the oil shortage and also that China's military may have to make do with less fuel. Meaning they'll need lighter tanks, smaller ships, etc.

3 The US has alliances with many nations that maintain strong militaries. UK, Israel, Australia, India, etc. China's allies tend to be weaker, poorer nations.

What do you folks think?
"Superpower" may be a bit of an overstatement, but they have several advantages. For one, the US military may contract the IBM syndrome. IBM, in the eighties, was the biggest PC manufacturer in the world, and was so confident with itself, that it got lazy. That sent the company to the brink of collapse, and they came back only when they realized that they need to fight to stay on top. The US military is in no danger of that now, as it has too much purpose and innovation. But it may not be true in the future.
Also, the natural resource issue will not be significant in the long run. If anything, it will allow China to use oil-based hardware, as the US military will start to move away from oil, and assumably many forms of metals. It's already beginning, in which the US military, through its contractors, is already one of the leading researchers in "alternative" fuels.