NationStates Jolt Archive

Jesus, for all the "US vs China" and similar debates I've seen over the years, this webpage best demonstrates just how easily the US Navy could curbstomp any real attempts to cross the Pacific (or hell, the South China Sea).

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm

:eek:

I swear, when our carriers are so large that they have their own freaking zip code, you know anyone who messes with them is just asking to be anally violated. The funny thing is that the British are going to build two supercarriers comparable to the Nimitz class. This means that the only other supercarriers in existance un-owned by the US will be the property of our closest ally. Yeah for English speakers?

China's navy and airforce is minimal at best. They have almost no dedicated long range transportation. Yes they do have a 2 million man army, but can't arm most of them, or give them the level of training that US and Brit soldiers have. Invading China would be very difficult, but it is almost imposible for them to invade anyone but their neighbors.

China invading the US, if they could get their equipment and men here, would be the death of a thousand cuts for them.

The U.S. would not succeed in an invasion of China for one reason they have over 1 billion freaking people. we would win a great victory then they would send in reinforcements and we would be right back to where we started no chance to beat china if we invade no matter what. (actually we could bomb them to oblivion but im not counting that)

Jesus, for all the "US vs China" and similar debates I've seen over the years, this webpage best demonstrates just how easily the US Navy could curbstomp any real attempts to cross the Pacific (or hell, the South China Sea).

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm

:eek:

I swear, when our carriers are so large that they have their own freaking zip code, you know anyone who messes with them is just asking to be anally violated. The funny thing is that the British are going to build two supercarriers comparable to the Nimitz class. This means that the only other supercarriers in existance un-owned by the US will be the property of our closest ally. Yeah for English speakers?

Unfortunately, Carriers are targets big enough to justify using a nuke on. The main threat to enemy SeaLift are attack subs.

;) When the Us does die (its enebitable, sorry guys) if history is anything to go by, and, history allways repeats itself, america wont die because of a foreign invader, most likely a economic reason, or a social reason (pretty much like the romans) The reason it, like youve said, america and my coutry have HUGE aircraft carriers, noone darnt invade you, well, the romans were the worlds only superpower (like america) but it eventually dies because of social and religous reasons,

IE when rome started out, people were devoted to ROME, not themselves. After a few centurys however, that changed and people became bothered by themselves,

Same with america, at first, the founding fathers were all about freedom and not repeating the mistakes of europe, now look at it, its changing, people are changing in america, exackly like the romans did. People are becoming more about themselves and less about america, less about the communnity

(if you say, hey ire british , what do you know?! ) i have a greencard and go there a LOT, and im emigating there in 3 years

anyway, the relevence to the topic is, yeah, have these huge asskicking war machines, war isnt americas biggest threat, its the people and money that will be the eventual death of america (unless you change, like my country did , whicih is why ots still alive)

we arent going to invade china. china is not going to invade the US.

its all a made-up scenario designed to get more money into the military and into nuclear weapons.

we could have a bit of a fight over taiwan but with luck we'll just let taiwan be taken by the chinese. no sense losing that many people in the fight.

;) When the Us does die (its enebitable, sorry guys) if history is anything to go by, and, history allways repeats itself, america wont die because of a foreign invader, most likely a economic reason, or a social reason (pretty much like the romans) The reason it, like youve said, america and my coutry have HUGE aircraft carriers, noone darnt invade you, well, the romans were the worlds only superpower (like america) but it eventually dies because of social and religous reasons,

IE when rome started out, people were devoted to ROME, not themselves. After a few centurys however, that changed and people became bothered by themselves,

Same with america, at first, the founding fathers were all about freedom and not repeating the mistakes of europe, now look at it, its changing, people are changing in america, exackly like the romans did. People are becoming more about themselves and less about america, less about the communnity

(if you say, hey ire british , what do you know?! ) i have a greencard and go there a LOT, and im emigating there in 3 years

anyway, the relevence to the topic is, yeah, have these huge asskicking war machines, war isnt americas biggest threat, its the people and money that will be the eventual death of america (unless you change, like my country did , whicih is why ots still alive)

How I wish could disagree

Unfortunately, Carriers are targets big enough to justify using a nuke on. The main threat to enemy SeaLift are attack subs.
And the moment the situation goes nuclear the boomers will turn china into a great glass bowl, and probably lob a few at North Korea while they're at it.

Good job. America has once again wasted money when they could've become a lot friendlier, thus reducing the amount of threads that bash America in forums.

Yes, as has been determined 1,001 times on this forum, in a US-China war, the aggressor would be annihilated. That's why a US-China war is extremely unlikely.

Yes, as has been determined 1,001 times on this forum, in a US-China war, the aggressor would be annihilated. That's why a US-China war is extremely unlikely.

Doubtful. China doesn't have enough nukes that reach and wipe out the West Coast, much less the US. Meanwhile America has the ability to turn it into glass several times over. That's why there won't be a war; China knows it can't go MAD against the US.

Doubtful. China doesn't have enough nukes that reach and wipe out the West Coast, much less the US. Meanwhile America has the ability to turn it into glass several times over. That's why there won't be a war; China knows it can't go MAD against the US.

Hello. Heard of the Chinese space program? If they can send a man into orbit, I think they can build an ICBM. Besides, a manned trans-atmospheric rocket is little more than an ICBM anyways.

Either way, why would China bother with attacking the USN in the pacific which is their field of control? Their naval doctrine focuses entirely on regional defense, hence their construction of green water and brown water vessels. An uninvited carrier task force trying to close in on China would probably be greeted by a lot of incoming munitions including the shiny new Russian Sunburns and Yakhont cruise missiles.

A big enough saturation effect would probably overwhelm most CIWS platforms and deal some serious damage.

Hello. Heard of the Chinese space program? If they can send a man into orbit, I think they can build an ICBM. Besides, a manned trans-atmospheric rocket is little more than an ICBM anyways.

Either way, why would China bother with attacking the USN in the pacific which is their field of control? Their naval doctrine focuses entirely on regional defense, hence their construction of green water and brown water vessels. An uninvited carrier task force trying to close in on China would probably be greeted by a lot of incoming munitions including the shiny new Russian Sunburns and Yakhont cruise missiles.

A big enough saturation effect would probably overwhelm most CIWS platforms and deal some serious damage.

Except, of course, the fact that a carrier's fighters have a longer maximum range than both the Sunburn and the Yakhont. Requires extra fuel tanks to get above equal, of course, but it's all the same.

Doubtful. China doesn't have enough nukes that reach and wipe out the West Coast, much less the US. Meanwhile America has the ability to turn it into glass several times over. That's why there won't be a war; China knows it can't go MAD against the US.
They wouldn't really have to nuke us. They could just destroy our economy.

Blah blah blah. You screw with the Chinese people, you screw with yourself. When is it going to get through your heads that China will not engage in open war with the United States? We've lived through more wars than any other nation, and we're much smarter than that. What you should beware, though, is the infiltration of your societies by Chinese nationals. We will gradually squeeze your economy and culture until nothing remains! *evil laugh*

sometimes I wish someone would attack America just to give you yanks what you've been asking for :mad:

(calls Canada impersonating Bush)

"Hello this is Mr George Bush...of the U.S.A I've called to say…um you eat your buggers!” slams phone down

(evil laugh) now we will see how America does against mounty’s and Eskimo’s! :D

sometimes I wish someone would attack America just to give you yanks what you've been asking for :mad:

(calls Canada impersonating Bush)

"Hello this is Mr George Bush...of the U.S.A I've called to say…um you eat your buggers!” slams phone down

(evil laugh) now we will see how America does against mounty’s and Eskimo’s! :D


OH SHIT! MONTIES! RUN FOR YOUR GOD DAMNED LIVES!

:D

And no ones been asking for it (well, seriously, even the follish political pundits are just beating their chests), we're just tired of people acting like anyone could actually beat the US in a conventional war.

Hello. Heard of the Chinese space program? If they can send a man into orbit, I think they can build an ICBM. Besides, a manned trans-atmospheric rocket is little more than an ICBM anyways.
How's about you do some research next time before you go and talk about something you know nothing about. They have a total of 24 DF-5 ICBMs (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/china/icbm.htm) with only a range of 13,000km, the majority of them can only be armed with a single warhead and their production of more missiles has been slow-going the whole time.

Either way, why would China bother with attacking the USN in the pacific which is their field of control? Their naval doctrine focuses entirely on regional defense, hence their construction of green water and brown water vessels. An uninvited carrier task force trying to close in on China would probably be greeted by a lot of incoming munitions including the shiny new Russian Sunburns and Yakhont cruise missiles.
And all of those shiney new missiles would be picked up by E-3s and AEGIS radar systems and be engaged by the multitude of fighters, missiles and CWIS guns in a single CVN battlegroup alone, much less several working together.

A big enough saturation effect would probably overwhelm most CIWS platforms and deal some serious damage.
That's the problem, being able to bring enough to overwhelm defenses that can track and target hundreds of in-bound objects at once and getting past a literal wall of lead.

They wouldn't really have to nuke us. They could just destroy our economy.
China will be hurt the most though, considering the US is its number one exporting partner (23% to be exact (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html#Econ)) while the US only exports 4% to China, and there are plenty of Asian countries who would be more then willing to take up China's slack.

And no ones been asking for it (well, seriously, even the follish political pundits are just beating their chests), we're just tired of people acting like anyone could actually beat the US in a conventional war.

cough cough what was that I was watching re-enactments of Vietnam and Korea

consider yourself lucky The British empire collapsed from fighting 2 world wars all the way though or we would give you an old school ass whopping

or maybe that’s what we wanted you to believe (evil laugh as presses button)

Suddenly prince Harry put on his SS outfit and the Queen transforms into Hitler :eek:

China will be hurt the most though, considering the US is its number one exporting partner (23% to be exact (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html#Econ)) while the US only exports 4% to China, and there are plenty of Asian countries who would be more then willing to take up China's slack.

No. The West's spending on consumer goods is really on Chinese goods. Look around the house and see what's not made cheaply in China. And imagine one day without those goods.

The Asian countries...what Asian countries? Do they have political and regional stability like China? Do they take bribes like the officials in China?

An uninvited carrier task force trying to close in on China would probably be greeted by a lot of incoming munitions including the shiny new Russian Sunburns and Yakhont cruise missiles.

A big enough saturation effect would probably overwhelm most CIWS platforms and deal some serious damage.

Problem: due to major design flaws, the SS-N-22 and SS-NX-26 (Sunburn and Yakhont B respectively) are unreliable at best; as is the SS-N-27 Sizzler. The SS-N-10 Sandbox is their better option, which really doesn't say much.

No. The West's spending on consumer goods is really on Chinese goods. Look around the house and see what's not made cheaply in China. And imagine one day without those goods.

The Asian countries...what Asian countries? Do they have political and regional stability like China? Do they take bribes like the officials in China?

Chine loses $132.94 Billion in exports if it stops trading with the US, a good 1/5 of their export economy that's waiting around in warehouses trying to find someone to buy cheap doggie toys and T-shirts. Meanwhile the US tightens its belt and starts buying cheaply from countries like Japan, S. Korea and Taiwan, just to name a few stable Asian nations (which is what I'd hardly call China atm, considering there's been an increase in rebellions across the country that even the long arm of the State Party hasn't been able to keep hidden from Western media)

sometimes I wish someone would attack America just to give you yanks what you've been asking for :mad:

(calls Canada impersonating Bush)

"Hello this is Mr George Bush...of the U.S.A I've called to say…um you eat your buggers!” slams phone down

(evil laugh) now we will see how America does against mounty’s and Eskimo’s! :D

No shit? It's a good thing you clarified that it was Bush you were impersonating, because I don't think the "Hello this is Mr George Bush" was enough of a tell. :rolleyes:

China will be hurt the most though, considering the US is its number one exporting partner (23% to be exact (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html#Econ)) while the US only exports 4% to China, and there are plenty of Asian countries who would be more then willing to take up China's slack.
"All Beijing has to do is to mention the possibility of a sell order going down the
wires. It would devastate the U.S. economy more than a nuclear strike."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/FA23Dj01.html
China is buying up American Debt faster than any other country. If they wanted to fuck us over, they would use that.

Meanwhile the US tightens its belt and starts buying cheaply from countries like Japan, S. Korea and Taiwan, just to name a few stable Asian nations (which is what I'd hardly call China atm, considering there's been an increase in rebellions across the country that even the long arm of the State Party hasn't been able to keep hidden from Western media)

Those countries aren't as cheap as China anymore. I mean with 1/6th of the World's population, we have the people to make things cheaply. (did that make sense).

And FYI, Taiwan IS China.

Chine loses $132.94 Billion in exports if it stops trading with the US, a good 1/5 of their export economy that's waiting around in warehouses trying to find someone to buy cheap doggie toys and T-shirts. Meanwhile the US tightens its belt and starts buying cheaply from countries like Japan, S. Korea and Taiwan, just to name a few stable Asian nations (which is what I'd hardly call China atm, considering there's been an increase in rebellions across the country that even the long arm of the State Party hasn't been able to keep hidden from Western media)

Hahahaha. Tell the US consumers that one. With all the expensive oil around, which their government is partially at fault for, most people would want the cheapest goods available. And the cheapest goods available are from China.

Not to mention how many American corporations invest in China. One order and all those assets gets nationalised. We'll see what you do about that.

Not to mention how many Chinese nationals live in the United States and hold important roles in your economy.

Do not mess with the People's Republic of China. :D

"Asian central banks have been financing America’s $500 billion current account deficit mostly via the purchasing of US Treasuries. To get a better grip on this number, try to understand that America needs $1 million of Asian capital every minute in order to maintain its current standard of living. Asia presently holds over $2 trillion in foreign exchange reserves and shows no sign of reversing this trend."

http://www.depression2.tv/nwo-2/archives/000115.html

I don't know how much I trust the site... but that claim is staggering.

How's about you do some research next time before you go and talk about something you know nothing about. They have a total of 24 DF-5 ICBMs (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/china/icbm.htm) with only a range of 13,000km, the majority of them can only be armed with a single warhead and their production of more missiles has been slow-going the whole time.

Fair enough. Although if it does come to a nuclear exchange, both lose.


And all of those shiney new missiles would be picked up by E-3s and AEGIS radar systems and be engaged by the multitude of fighters, missiles and CWIS guns in a single CVN battlegroup alone, much less several working together.


That's the problem, being able to bring enough to overwhelm defenses that can track and target hundreds of in-bound objects at once and getting past a literal wall of lead.


You realize that the new cruise missiles being designed by Russian Arms companies were specifically made with this in mind? If it was hundreds of the old Exocets, yes, you might have a point, but not with the new missiles which have both supersonic speeds and violent end term maneuvers designed to avoid CIWS fire.

As for fighters with drop tanks outranging coastal batteries with said cruise missiles, I will concede on that point. Although one wonders if the same missiles can be air launched.

EDIT: I also came across another missile design type by the Russians. Granit and Shipwreck. Range of 500km. Can a carrier borne fighter with drop tanks outrange that?


China will be hurt the most though, considering the US is its number one exporting partner (23% to be exact (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html#Econ)) while the US only exports 4% to China, and there are plenty of Asian countries who would be more then willing to take up China's slack.

A US without cheap goods would probably be hurt more. Especially when the economy starts feeling the hit.


Problem: due to major design flaws, the SS-N-22 and SS-NX-26 (Sunburn and Yakhont B respectively) are unreliable at best; as is the SS-N-27 Sizzler. The SS-N-10 Sandbox is their better option, which really doesn't say much.

And these design flaws are?

Hahahaha. Tell the US consumers that one. With all the expensive oil around, which their government is partially at fault for, most people would want the cheapest goods available. And the cheapest goods available are from China.

Not to mention how many American corporations invest in China. One order and all those assets gets nationalised. We'll see what you do about that.

Not to mention how many Chinese nationals live in the United States and hold important roles in your economy.

Do not mess with the People's Republic of China. :D

I'd like to see you put in charge of the CCP. Then I'd like to see you do the above.

Then I'd like to see the surprise on your face as China's economy dives much further than any damage you did to the US.

See? I told you China and Asia are going to kick the US' butt in covert and smarter ways than open warfare. We've been cheating for 5000 years, you know? We've mastered that art. :D

No shit? It's a good thing you clarified that it was Bush you were impersonating, because I don't think the "Hello this is Mr George Bush" was enough of a tell. :rolleyes:


that was part of the joke haven’t you ever phoned for porn pretending to be Mr Bush (senior) when you was a kid?

I'd like to see you put in charge of the CCP. Then I'd like to see you do the above.

Then I'd like to see the surprise on your face as China's economy dives much further than any damage you did to the US.

No. If I was in charge of the CCP I would first democratise the country. Then I would explore even slyer ways of overtaking America. :D *mind you, not destroying, but overtaking*

we could have a bit of a fight over taiwan but with luck we'll just let taiwan be taken by the chinese. no sense losing that many people in the fight.

Why let them take Taiwan? We could easily prevent the Chinese from even getting across the Straight.

Why let them take Taiwan? We could easily prevent the Chinese from even getting across the Straight.

Why bother though? You'll just be spending taxpayer's money on some silly little Chinese issue.

That's right, it's our problem so let us deal with it in our own way, which currently we're doing diplomatically. But Taiwan is just a rogue state, and we want it back.

We wouldn't butt in if say, Hawaii wanted to become a nation and you wanted it back.

No. If I was in charge of the CCP I would first democratise the country. Then I would explore even slyer ways of overtaking America. :D *mind you, not destroying, but overtaking*

I hear the White House is for sale if you can bet on the right political party ;)

Those countries aren't as cheap as China anymore. I mean with 1/6th of the World's population, we have the people to make things cheaply. (did that make sense).

Starting out with the cheap goods and moving up is a time-honored East Asian economic strategy. It worked for Japan, it worked for Taiwan, and it worked for Korea. China is not the only country in East Asia that realizes this, and if they decide to stop shipping cheap goods to America, their slack will be taken up by developing countries like Malaysia and Thailand.

Why bother though? You'll just be spending taxpayer's money on some silly little Chinese issue.

That's right, it's our problem so let us deal with it in our own way, which currently we're doing diplomatically. But Taiwan is just a rogue state, and we want it back.

I think that what the Taiwanese want is most important in this case. If they decide as a group that they want to rejoin China, fine. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.

We wouldn't butt in if say, Hawaii wanted to become a nation and you wanted it back.

Of course you wouldn't. China doesn't believe in self-determination.

I hear the White House is for sale if you can bet on the right political party ;)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I WILL RULE THE WORLD!! :D

sighs. Did you ever expect DB to be so ambitious? :p

Of course you wouldn't. China doesn't believe in self-determination.

That's true. Asians have a different set of mentality, called "society first, individual second".

Starting out with the cheap goods and moving up is a time-honored East Asian economic strategy. It worked for Japan, it worked for Taiwan, and it worked for Korea. China is not the only country in East Asia that realizes this, and if they decide to stop shipping cheap goods to America, their slack will be taken up by developing countries like Malaysia and Thailand.

I didn't say they wouldn't. What I meant was, China has been doing this for a long time, developing countries such as Malaysia and Thailand will take time to reach the productivity of the current China.

Really though, the whole Taiwan issue is entirely tied to the fact that the ROC is still a component of the American's overall scope of interests. There's no purpose trying the Hawaii comparison, as regardlessly what the US thinks about Taiwan/ROC's status and regardlessly if it is still run by a KMT dictatorship or a democracy, it is still part of the US' interests. Abandoning it would only weaken the Americans' resolve and their committment to their other allies in Asia.

See? I told you China and Asia are going to kick the US' butt in covert and smarter ways than open warfare. We've been cheating for 5000 years, you know? We've mastered that art. :D

What you're still failing to understand is that any drop in trade between the US and China will inevitably hurt China more and permanently. It's basic economics, any failure to buy a product hurts the seller more than the buyer. The US stops buying stuff from China, the economy slows down until either native production picks up the slack or we start buying from some other third-world country with sweat shops and the like.

China permanently loses a gigantic chunk of its export market that it isn't going to make up for in a long, long time.

Not to mention that you've been cheated in bigger ways than you've ever cheated ;)

*CoughOpiumWarsCough*

The U.S. would not succeed in an invasion of China for one reason they have over 1 billion freaking people. we would win a great victory then they would send in reinforcements and we would be right back to where we started no chance to beat china if we invade no matter what. (actually we could bomb them to oblivion but im not counting that)

Yup, as much as I hate to admit it. That's why nuking them and making them all glow green would be a better option. The Chinese have close to 153 million military fit men should they decide to draft them.....

Yup, as much as I hate to admit it. That's why nuking them and making them all glow green would be a better option. The Chinese have close to 153 million military fit men should they decide to draft them.....


Well, landing forces to seize and hold Chinese nuclear assets then Nuetron bombing the entirety of their army sounds like a viable strategy...

;)

What you're still failing to understand is that any drop in trade between the US and China will inevitably hurt China more and permanently. It's basic economics, any failure to buy a product hurts the seller more than the buyer. The US stops buying stuff from China, the economy slows down until either native production picks up the slack or we start buying from some other third-world country with sweat shops and the like.

China permanently loses a gigantic chunk of its export market that it isn't going to make up for in a long, long time.

Not to mention that you've been cheated in bigger ways than you've ever cheated ;)

*CoughOpiumWarsCough*

The chinese have almost an infinite amount of patience. They can wait a very long time before acting on a plan, something US presidents cannot.

*CoughOpiumWarsCough*
...and is China in August 2005 a collapsing empire at practically its lowest point in the time period? I think not.

Yup, as much as I hate to admit it. That's why nuking them and making them all glow green would be a better option
Yeah, and we'll give Taiwan nukes... Oh wait, don't forget South Korea and Japan... And then we'll use nukes on Iran as an alternative to ground forces... And oh, maybe nukes against insurgency in small unstable nations as well... Oh don't forget, give Israel more nukes against Iran... and oh yeah, let's give every non-nuclear nation in NATO nukes too!! That'd be so cool1!!!!11

And let the world nuke itself away, in the hands of utterly incompetent leaders who fails miserably at international relations and diplomatic maneuvers!

That's true. Asians have a different set of mentality, called "society first, individual second".

Yeah, I think I remember discussing this with you in the past. We're at virtually opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to the issue of the individual's role in society, and neither of us is going to convince the other of anything in that department.

Nevertheless, the U.S. government's views on the subject are a lot closer to mine than to yours, and that's why I can say with a fair degree of certainty that the U.S. will defend Taiwan with force if push comes to shove. Like Omz222 said, America has a vested interest in seeing Taiwan remain democratic and capitalist, and like I said, we really do believe all that stuff about people having the right to determine the shape of their government.

Well, that's not entirely what I mean (since its undeniable that Taiwan/ROC was a dictatorship-then-oligarchy, and that the United States still had a history of supporting nations with dictatorships and oligarchies), but basically, Taiwan is still an American interest obviously. In my view however, it has to do more with sphere of influence and strategic importance.

The chinese have almost an infinite amount of patience. They can wait a very long time before acting on a plan, something US presidents cannot.

I think you missed EG's point. Yes, China's economy would eventually recover from the trade loss. In the meantime, though, they'd be up a creek.

Well, that's not entirely what I mean (since its undeniable that Taiwan/ROC was a dictatorship-then-oligarchy, and that the United States still had a history of supporting nations with dictatorships and oligarchies), but basically, Taiwan is still an American interest obviously. In my view however, it has to do more with sphere of influence and strategic importance.

Right... I just looked back at your post and realized I'd misrepresented it a little. Yes, strategic importance is a, if not the key factor, and sure, if Taiwan were an oligarchy again, we'd likely still support them, though possibly a little more grudgingly. If they ceased to be capitalist... well, I don't know about that. A lot of their value seems to be in their importance as a trade partner.

I hear the White House is for sale if you can bet on the right political party ;)
They did that with Clinton, and it was actually pretty successful.

What you're still failing to understand is that any drop in trade between the US and China will inevitably hurt China more and permanently. It's basic economics, any failure to buy a product hurts the seller more than the buyer. The US stops buying stuff from China, the economy slows down until either native production picks up the slack or we start buying from some other third-world country with sweat shops and the like.

China permanently loses a gigantic chunk of its export market that it isn't going to make up for in a long, long time.

Not to mention that you've been cheated in bigger ways than you've ever cheated ;)

*CoughOpiumWarsCough*

I'm not advocating any drop of trade between the US and China. On the other hand, I want more trade between them, so we would be more dependent on each other and war would be unlikely to happen. Isn't that great? We can do better than the Europeans and have no war in 50 years! :D

The Opium Wars were fought and loss by non-Chinese people - the Manchus!!

They did that with Clinton, and it was actually pretty successful.

Bah. Both sides do it and you know it. Where do those billions of dollars in advertising come from during election year eh? Private citizens? Yeah right. Corporate America is more than just a name now. It's a reality.

Yeah, I think I remember discussing this with you in the past. We're at virtually opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to the issue of the individual's role in society, and neither of us is going to convince the other of anything in that department.
That's true, and that's great!

Nevertheless, the U.S. government's views on the subject are a lot closer to mine than to yours, and that's why I can say with a fair degree of certainty that the U.S. will defend Taiwan with force if push comes to shove. Like Omz222 said, America has a vested interest in seeing Taiwan remain democratic and capitalist, and like I said, we really do believe all that stuff about people having the right to determine the shape of their government.

That's why we are waiting for you to spark more wars with other states. You will spread your military so thin that you won't be able to defend Taiwan. :D Beware, America. Beware.

;) When the Us does die (its enebitable, sorry guys) if history is anything to go by, and, history allways repeats itself, america wont die because of a foreign invader, most likely a economic reason, or a social reason (pretty much like the romans) The reason it, like youve said, america and my coutry have HUGE aircraft carriers, noone darnt invade you, well, the romans were the worlds only superpower (like america) but it eventually dies because of social and religous reasons,

IE when rome started out, people were devoted to ROME, not themselves. After a few centurys however, that changed and people became bothered by themselves,

Same with america, at first, the founding fathers were all about freedom and not repeating the mistakes of europe, now look at it, its changing, people are changing in america, exackly like the romans did. People are becoming more about themselves and less about america, less about the communnity

(if you say, hey ire british , what do you know?! ) i have a greencard and go there a LOT, and im emigating there in 3 years

anyway, the relevence to the topic is, yeah, have these huge asskicking war machines, war isnt americas biggest threat, its the people and money that will be the eventual death of america (unless you change, like my country did , whicih is why ots still alive)

Nothing is inevitable. Ever hear of China? They've been around a few thousand years now. Rome isn't a very good example: it was an ancient Empire, not a modern Republic. Social and religious reasons? In the US? Heh. Turn off the TV and go outside, eh? ;)

Changed? Britain? Hardly.
The only reason why Britain is in the shape it is today is because it had to weather two world wars in back to back generations. This is also why France, Italy, and Germany are no longer leading powers: the US and USSR took primacy.

Before anyone gets huffy: Yes, they are major countries, and important. But Germany isn't fielding a cruiser fleet in the Pacific these days, nor has the ESA ever launched anyone into space... nor is French cinema a major cultural force these days, etc. Basically, one can't really compare Italy to the US as a world power.

Had France and Britain countered Hitler on Czechoslovakia, there is a very good chance that WW2 would have been over by 1940, with a new Weimar in Germany, Franco toppled in Spain, Mussolini reined in in Italy, and the Fourth Paritition of Poland never occuring. In short, the world would have been very, very different.

Nothing is inevitable. Ever hear of China? They've been around a few thousand years now.

China has had a bunch of Empires and ruling dynasties now, and each change has usually been earmarked by a lot of blood spilt. Additionally, they got invaded a few times too. Their power level has risen and fallen through the times. As a nation China has and will probably continue to survive. But as an example of an enduring powerhouse? Hardly.

The US will probably still be around as a nation, but whether they will remain a world power as it is in the next 50 years remains to be seen.

That's why we are waiting for you to spark more wars with other states. You will spread your military so thin that you won't be able to defend Taiwan. :D Beware, America. Beware.

You tricky, tricky Asians. :p

Actually, you could probably do it right now... we don't even have the troops to get Darfur under control.

China has had a bunch of Empires and ruling dynasties now, and each change has usually been earmarked by a lot of blood spilt. Additionally, they got invaded a few times too. Their power level has risen and fallen through the times. As a nation China has and will probably continue to survive. But as an example of an enduring powerhouse? Hardly.

The US will probably still be around as a nation, but whether they will remain a world power as it is in the next 50 years remains to be seen.

In about 230 years, the US mainland has been invaded by the British twice (1776 & 1812), and the Mexicans once (Pancho Villa). We started with the Articles of Confedartion, became the US, split in two and had a Civil War, and have changed leaders 42 times. The US's power level has generally risen, but faltered after the Civil War and between the World Wars. :)

An example of an enduring nation? Absolutely. As is China. Or Japan, Russia, France, Poland or India.

You tricky, tricky Asians. :p

Actually, you could probably do it right now... we don't even have the troops to get Darfur under control.

My pet theory is that the US is deliberately leaving Darfur alone to have something to point to when certain EU countries complain about the US acting as the world's policeman.

Blah blah blah. You screw with the Chinese people, you screw with yourself. When is it going to get through your heads that China will not engage in open war with the United States? We've lived through more wars than any other nation, and we're much smarter than that. What you should beware, though, is the infiltration of your societies by Chinese nationals. We will gradually squeeze your economy and culture until nothing remains! *evil laugh*

Economics are the way to go... and China's got one big freakin scary economy! Even the vaunted Harvard and Princeton grads are gonna have to learn Mandarin pretty soon.

Long live Asia!
Maharlikana

, and the Mexicans once (Pancho Villa).

I'm not sure if that one should really count. As someone who hears about it on a regular basis, it doesn't factor into the history of the US too much... But then again, that's just my opinion.

My pet theory is that the US is deliberately leaving Darfur alone to have something to point to when certain EU countries complain about the US acting as the world's policeman.

If this turns out to be true, I will be very sad.

You tricky, tricky Asians. :p

Actually, you could probably do it right now... we don't even have the troops to get Darfur under control.

The National guard could do it..easy. Make those guys work for that college money.

In about 230 years, the US mainland has been invaded by the British twice (1776 & 1812), and the Mexicans once (Pancho Villa). We started with the Articles of Confedartion, became the US, split in two and had a Civil War, and have changed leaders 42 times. The US's power level has generally risen, but faltered after the Civil War and between the World Wars. :)

An example of an enduring nation? Absolutely. As is China. Or Japan, Russia, France, Poland or India.

And China has been around as a nation for what? 3000 years or more? I'm not debating whether the US would or would not endure as a nation. What is debatable is whether it will have as much power globally in 50 years time compared to others as it has now.

Nothing lasts forever. And probably nothing ever will. Except maybe human stupidity. But that is until humanity succeeds in wiping itself out. So yeah, nothing lasts forever, particularly something as erratic as power scales.

Economics are the way to go... and China's got one big freakin scary economy! Even the vaunted Harvard and Princeton grads are gonna have to learn Mandarin pretty soon.

Long live Asia!
Maharlikana

And I'll make a living out of teaching Mandarin!!

Yes, as has been determined 1,001 times on this forum, in a US-China war, the aggressor would be annihilated. That's why a US-China war is extremely unlikely.

Unless it is a nuke war, in which case it could be described as a draw...

Economics are the way to go... and China's got one big freakin scary economy! Even the vaunted Harvard and Princeton grads are gonna have to learn Mandarin pretty soon.

Long live Asia!
Maharlikana

On another thread about here somebody pointed out that rather than taking over america with military might the Chinese look more likely to simply buy the place. You gotta admit they have the national patience to do it and sure as hell have the economy powerhouse required to pull it off.

I thought it was quite an ironic way to defeat capitalism... buy it out.

On another thread about here somebody pointed out that rather than taking over america with military might the Chinese look more likely to simply buy the place. You gotta admit they have the national patience to do it and sure as hell have the economy powerhouse required to pull it off.

I thought it was quite an ironic way to defeat capitalism... buy it out.

China won't bother buying out America in a large sum probably. They'll possible buy it out in small pieces, slowing co-ercing the cheaper states (like Utah...urgh) to hear them, for a little bit have nothing happen, but still keep them under their watch, and they will attempt to have them flourish. If that is the case, they will use the capitalist weakness and the other states will follow willingly, under the guise that they will be in the same economic flourishment as the others.

But that's if China's economy can keep itself on the same path. China is riding the swift car of economy, but can it keep it on the winding road long enough to reach the finish line? As a Chinese person who has lived in China for quite a while, and fluent in both Cantonese and Mandarin, I myself am scared that China will screw up. It has happened before, but I hope it doesn't happen now.

And China has been around as a nation for what? 3000 years or more? I'm not debating whether the US would or would not endure as a nation. What is debatable is whether it will have as much power globally in 50 years time compared to others as it has now.

Nothing lasts forever. And probably nothing ever will. Except maybe human stupidity. But that is until humanity succeeds in wiping itself out. So yeah, nothing lasts forever, particularly something as erratic as power scales.

Ah, that's clearer, then.

Yep, but 50 years is a very small timeframe. If anything, the US will probably be *more* powerful, not less. If the "Pax Americana" lasts as long as the "Pax Britania" (and that's much shorter than the "Pax Romana" -- even though people have begun comparing the US to the Roman Empire...) then the US will remain dominant until at least 2047...

Only time will tell. But odds are very much against the #1 planetary economy (accounting for 20% of Earth's GDP, allied with the EU, which combined accounts for another 20%...) falling very far very fast. :)

I'm not sure if that one should really count. As someone who hears about it on a regular basis, it doesn't factor into the history of the US too much... But then again, that's just my opinion.

The US is still being invaded by 1,000,000 Mexicans every year. ;)

(For you European types, imagine one quarter of Ireland getting up and moving to France. Or, better, imagine the 1 million Irish-decendents in the greater-Boston area going BACK to Ireland and demanding cold beer and to watch the Pats games in the bars...)

The U.S. would not succeed in an invasion of China for one reason they have over 1 billion freaking people. we would win a great victory then they would send in reinforcements and we would be right back to where we started no chance to beat china if we invade no matter what. (actually we could bomb them to oblivion but im not counting that)

our air force and navy could take out most, if not all, of their military bases with strategic strikes. (or would those be tactical strikes?)

The US is still being invaded by 1,000,000 Mexicans every year. ;)

(For you European types, imagine one quarter of Ireland getting up and moving to France. Or, better, imagine the 1 million Irish-decendents in the greater-Boston area going BACK to Ireland and demanding cold beer and to watch the Pats games in the bars...)

...or Notre Dame games. hehe

the idea of a serious armed conflict between China and the US is laughable.

why?

because China exports too many cheap goods to the US to risk losing such a huge proportion of their export revenue by starting a war. Around 30% of the US government is owned by the Chinese government, they bought it .... thus neither side would start a war.

Yep, but 50 years is a very small timeframe.

Not with power scales. After all, in less than 2 years, Germany rose from a bankrupt state with spiraling inflation to an extremely powerful nation with both an immense military and economic potential did it not? Come to think of it, America also rose out of its recession in an extremely short period to become an immense manufacturing hub. Conversely, many SE Asian countries went from strength to near ruin due to currency speculation in 1997 and were further hobbled by the IMF loan policies in an exceedingly short amount of time.


If anything, the US will probably be *more* powerful, not less. If the "Pax Americana" lasts as long as the "Pax Britania" (and that's much shorter than the "Pax Romana" -- even though people have begun comparing the US to the Roman Empire...) then the US will remain dominant until at least 2047...

The Soviet Union lasted at best 70 years if memory serves, and it collapsed due to economic pressures that it could no longer keep up with.

All it takes is for investors to lose confidence in the American market or for someone high up to screw with the American economy badly enough. In todays age of increasing knowledge networks, the ripple effect would travel a lot faster than any time before.

In fact, assuming that America faces oil shortages and subsequent price hikes, as is the case now, production and the economy suffers. Given the current debt the nation is operating under, you have to ask if it can or cannot keep up it's own export ratios to generate the neccessary income to keep the treasury liquid.

Militarily, America does have the widest ranging forces to date. But without the economy to support it, something is going to give somewhere. And besides, you can't use the military to force trade issues unless you want everyone to stop dealing with you. It would be like saying "Buy my goods, or I'll shoot you."


Only time will tell. But odds are very much against the #1 planetary economy (accounting for 20% of Earth's GDP, allied with the EU, which combined accounts for another 20%...) falling very far very fast. :)

Yes, time will tell. But thanks to todays economic infrastructure, things move very quickly. A lot quicker than say 1960. All it takes is a series of blunders somewhere and the economy will suffer a lot before corrective measures can be taken. Black Friday only lasted a day, but it's effects lasted for years.

Not with power scales. After all, in less than 2 years, Germany rose from a bankrupt state with spiraling inflation to an extremely powerful nation with both an immense military and economic potential did it not?

Er... are you talking about Nazi Germany? If so, no. Citing a pirate economy based totally on ransacking occupied territories while sinking all production into war materials isn't a really viable example.

Come to think of it, America also rose out of its recession in an extremely short period to become an immense manufacturing hub.

When? The US was a considerable economy as early as the 1860s, and expanded all through to WW1, which gave a major boom. Then a bust, then another big boom for WW2. But it was most certainly a building process.
Even the crash industrialization of Russia under the Communists took decades.

Conversely, many SE Asian countries went from strength to near ruin due to currency speculation in 1997 and were further hobbled by the IMF loan policies in an exceedingly short amount of time.

So... it's a cycle. Especially for countries which "gamble" on one thing. But none of the "Tiger" economies are in ruin now. They aren't rapidly booming like they were then, but who is? Now consider more stable countries like UK, Italy, or even Russia. I can't think of a single country (second world or better) that's ever economically imploded. Consider Japan. Over a decade of stagnation, and it's still in the top 5 economies of the planet.

The Soviet Union lasted at best 70 years if memory serves, and it collapsed due to economic pressures that it could no longer keep up with.

Right. Bad choices. And even in the early 60s (it's economic heydey) they still needed special commissions as to why they couldn't produce enough washing powder. Citing another system that couldn't possibly work doesn't help your case. :D

All it takes is for investors to lose confidence in the American market or for someone high up to screw with the American economy badly enough. In todays age of increasing knowledge networks, the ripple effect would travel a lot faster than any time before.

The the whole planet goes. Period.
Even the EU wouldn't be much of a bullwark: supposed that happened and investors withdrew a bit. Cut invenstment in US economy/firms by 10%. The planet just lost about $1,750,000,000,000 from it's GDP. Tack on the ripple effects due to multinational corps (most are US based such as Microsoft, GE, Ford, etc). Financial cataclysm that would make the dot com bust look like paying the fines for some overdue library books.

In fact, assuming that America faces oil shortages and subsequent price hikes, as is the case now, production and the economy suffers. Given the current debt the nation is operating under, you have to ask if it can or cannot keep up it's own export ratios to generate the neccessary income to keep the treasury liquid.

The US survived oil shocks before. I remember the gas lines in the 70s.
Debt is not a factor. Seriously. Almost all nations operate in the red. Yes, a trade deficit is something to worry about. Especially since we're dealing with Communists that artificially peg their currency.

As for exports, most of what America exports these days isn't heavy machinery... and, ironically, the global economy means others will suffer. For example, almost ALL the cotton in t-shirts made in Asia comes from the US.

Militarily, America does have the widest ranging forces to date. But without the economy to support it, something is going to give somewhere. And besides, you can't use the military to force trade issues unless you want everyone to stop dealing with you. It would be like saying "Buy my goods, or I'll shoot you."

Doesn't really matter -- the rest of the world needs to EXPORT to the US as much as we need to export to us. Maybe more. Simply put, that situation would never arise: who's going to actually PAY for Sony's or Krupp's goods if they lost the US market?

Yes, time will tell. But thanks to todays economic infrastructure, things move very quickly. A lot quicker than say 1960. All it takes is a series of blunders somewhere and the economy will suffer a lot before corrective measures can be taken. Black Friday only lasted a day, but it's effects lasted for years.

Right. And the economy of the rest of the world was paused, too. As with the recession back when the dot-com boom busted in 2000. Or the 1929 crash.

Jesus, for all the "US vs China" and similar debates I've seen over the years, this webpage best demonstrates just how easily the US Navy could curbstomp any real attempts to cross the Pacific (or hell, the South China Sea).

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm

:eek:

I swear, when our carriers are so large that they have their own freaking zip code, you know anyone who messes with them is just asking to be anally violated. The funny thing is that the British are going to build two supercarriers comparable to the Nimitz class. This means that the only other supercarriers in existance un-owned by the US will be the property of our closest ally. Yeah for English speakers?


Well, carriers are very large targets, in and of themselves they have very little power (this is why they travel with a fleet of other ships, amphibs, subs, cruisers, destroyers, etc.).... A lone carrier is going to be coral building material in any major engagement, size matters little.

But for the most part the analysis is correct. China's major power comes in a large army... Their air-power and sea-power is very limited, comparibly... And they would have a hard time pulling off any major invasion that is not a land-based neighbor.

Er... are you talking about Nazi Germany? If so, no. Citing a pirate economy based totally on ransacking occupied territories while sinking all production into war materials isn't a really viable example.

Fair enough.


When? The US was a considerable economy as early as the 1860s, and expanded all through to WW1, which gave a major boom. Then a bust, then another big boom for WW2. But it was most certainly a building process.
Even the crash industrialization of Russia under the Communists took decades.


I seem to recall America being caught in the throes of recession during the 1930s did it not? And in just over a decades time, it had a considerable war machine running and massive loans to other countries didn't it?


So... it's a cycle. Especially for countries which "gamble" on one thing. But none of the "Tiger" economies are in ruin now. They aren't rapidly booming like they were then, but who is? Now consider more stable countries like UK, Italy, or even Russia. I can't think of a single country (second world or better) that's ever economically imploded. Consider Japan. Over a decade of stagnation, and it's still in the top 5 economies of the planet.

Economically imploding? Does a nation really have to economically implode to become significantly weaker? And thank you for your acknowledgement of the cycle. Just as there are highs and lows, one cannot expect any economy, much less the American economy, to maintain a comparitive high to everyone else forever.


Right. Bad choices. And even in the early 60s (it's economic heydey) they still needed special commissions as to why they couldn't produce enough washing powder. Citing another system that couldn't possibly work doesn't help your case. :D

Couldn't possibly work as in as it was or according to the ideals set forth by the original writer? In the former, history is our judge. In the latter, we have no comparitive example to use.


The the whole planet goes. Period.
Even the EU wouldn't be much of a bullwark: supposed that happened and investors withdrew a bit. Cut invenstment in US economy/firms by 10%. The planet just lost about $1,750,000,000,000 from it's GDP. Tack on the ripple effects due to multinational corps (most are US based such as Microsoft, GE, Ford, etc). Financial cataclysm that would make the dot com bust look like paying the fines for some overdue library books.


Then it becomes a matter of who can recover first. Those with natural resources to exploit and the infrastructure to industrialize them will most likely have an advantage. But as far as I can tell, America has very little in natural resources left other than lumber and some untapped oil deposits correct?


As for exports, most of what America exports these days isn't heavy machinery... and, ironically, the global economy means others will suffer. For example, almost ALL the cotton in t-shirts made in Asia comes from the US.

Of course everyone will suffer. Such is the nature of a global economy. However, what matters is not whether everyone will suffer or not, but who will suffer more and who can recover quickest. To that, I would not venture a guess. The candidates are simply too varied.

I have left the rest of the points out because I feel that they cover the same areas of debate. Hopefully, my replies will suffice as they are.

Why would China invade you? You seem quite content to let them buy you out of the market, falsy maintain your currency and propergate those who hate you (Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba etc, etc).

The Soviets had a great long term plan for destroying the Western world's ecconomy, buy lots and lots of your cash at higher than nessicary pricess, forcing up your rates of exchange and thereby forcing up the prices of your exported goods, then radicaly devaluing their currency, making their products much more cost effective - as your ecconomy heads into freefall, sell the saved up currency to put the final nail in the ecconomic coffin of Uncle Sam in particular. They never did it because a change in their attitudes to the Chinesse, of course that is not to say that the Chinesse haven't got a similar plan....

I seem to recall America being caught in the throes of recession during the 1930s did it not? And in just over a decades time, it had a considerable war machine running and massive loans to other countries didn't it?

The recession started in 1923, became a depression in 1929, and didn't really end until 1940. But what then about the massive loans the US made post WW1, when it was basically funding Germany to pay back France, Italy and Britain under the ruinous Treaty of Versailles? Or indeed the Allies' own war debts to the US?
My point here is that the US in WW2 was less of a sudden leap than it was a major overhaul of pre-existing capacity. Remember, this is the nation that build little things like the Empire State Building, the Hoover Dam, and the Panama Canal... all before WW2 (and, come to think of it, all during bad economic times).
Basically, Kenya will not morph into an economic powerhouse in 2011. The US or Japan will not suddenly become irrelevant then, either.

Economically imploding? Does a nation really have to economically implode to become significantly weaker? And thank you for your acknowledgement of the cycle. Just as there are highs and lows, one cannot expect any economy, much less the American economy, to maintain a comparitive high to everyone else forever.

Pretty much, yeah. Case in point: France. There's no reason why they are taken seriously these days. At best, they're a second rate power that militarily, economically, and culturally is inferior to the UK, and dwarfed by the US. Yet it maintains its importance, due to its location, stability, and

Not at all, after all, the cycle does exist. :)
True, true. I just don't see a major realignment in the offing.

Couldn't possibly work as in as it was or according to the ideals set forth by the original writer? In the former, history is our judge. In the latter, we have no comparitive example to use.

Communism as a theory only works if there is no currency: you can't be economically equal so long as there is a way to measure wealth.
That's why the ancient Spartans are the only successful Communist state, ever. (NB: Aboriginies and various tribes don't count for several reasons, not least of which being that there aren't any which maintained cities for hundreds of years. Even the Toltecs had currency. Sparta banned it.)

Vis a vis the Manifesto: it was doomed from the start, just as Rousseau's "The Social Contract" is: it makes certain assumptions which are just plain wrong. Both are basically first drafts, and neither takes into account Nationalism as a unifying force.

Then it becomes a matter of who can recover first. Those with natural resources to exploit and the infrastructure to industrialize them will most likely have an advantage. But as far as I can tell, America has very little in natural resources left other than lumber and some untapped oil deposits correct?

Er... nope. The US has massive natural resources, including absurd amounts of coal, nevermind the Alaskan oil reserves. It's not like the US imports 100% of it's oil, you know. ;)
The US is the world's #3 oil producer and #2 natural gas producer.
World oil production: http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2173rank.html
World natural gas production:
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2180rank.html

The thing of it is, that the US also consumes a lot of energy, as it's 20% of the planet's economy.

Of course everyone will suffer. Such is the nature of a global economy. However, what matters is not whether everyone will suffer or not, but who will suffer more and who can recover quickest. To that, I would not venture a guess. The candidates are simply too varied.

I don't think it possible. Suppose the whole US was wiped off the map. The world economy would lock up. There's no way around it. Realistically speaking, the world economic markets would cease to function, and the world would simply stop trading. For recovery, it'd probably take at least 5-10 YEARS for the world to recover to an economic level comparable to 1890.
Impossible? Consider how a China or EU with 30% unemployment would function... what would Sony do?

I have left the rest of the points out because I feel that they cover the same areas of debate. Hopefully, my replies will suffice as they are.

This is the best discussion I've had on NS in quite some time, thanks!

The recession started in 1923, became a depression in 1929, and didn't really end until 1940. But what then about the massive loans the US made post WW1, when it was basically funding Germany to pay back France, Italy and Britain under the ruinous Treaty of Versailles? Or indeed the Allies' own war debts to the US?
My point here is that the US in WW2 was less of a sudden leap than it was a major overhaul of pre-existing capacity. Remember, this is the nation that build little things like the Empire State Building, the Hoover Dam, and the Panama Canal... all before WW2 (and, come to think of it, all during bad economic times).
Basically, Kenya will not morph into an economic powerhouse in 2011. The US or Japan will not suddenly become irrelevant then, either.

Hmmm, this only proves that the production capabilities of a host nation are critical to it's economic capability and how those capabilities are employed does it not?


Pretty much, yeah. Case in point: France. There's no reason why they are taken seriously these days. At best, they're a second rate power that militarily, economically, and culturally is inferior to the UK, and dwarfed by the US. Yet it maintains its importance, due to its location, stability, and

Not at all, after all, the cycle does exist. :)
True, true. I just don't see a major realignment in the offing.

If the ITER project does successfully work, leading the way to cheap, renewable energy, we might just see that realignment happen. Particularly among energy firms.


Er... nope. The US has massive natural resources, including absurd amounts of coal, nevermind the Alaskan oil reserves. It's not like the US imports 100% of it's oil, you know. ;)
The US is the world's #3 oil producer and #2 natural gas producer.
World oil production: http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2173rank.html
World natural gas production:
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2180rank.html


So aside from energy resources, what else does it have at the moment? Surely the US does not produce all the natural resources it consumes?


The thing of it is, that the US also consumes a lot of energy, as it's 20% of the planet's economy.


But part of this is because of the lack of interest in developing energy efficient means of consumption. Case in point, SUVs with poor MPG.


I don't think it possible. Suppose the whole US was wiped off the map. The world economy would lock up. There's no way around it. Realistically speaking, the world economic markets would cease to function, and the world would simply stop trading. For recovery, it'd probably take at least 5-10 YEARS for the world to recover to an economic level comparable to 1890.
Impossible? Consider how a China or EU with 30% unemployment would function... what would Sony do?

Unfortunately, your scenario would not work short of thermonuclear exchange or a similar "end of the world" play occuring. The most likely worst case scenario short of that would be an economic crash, say a repeat of Black Friday. Assuming China manages to avoid their own predicted crash, they would be able to alleviate some of the missing demand for goods and raw materials. Additionally, they would be able to take up the slack in export that the US used to do with heavy machined goods. India as well is also proving to be a developing market with many advances in economic and industrial strength.

Yes, world markets would suffer, but whether it will be as bad as 1890, we cannot say with any accuracy.


This is the best discussion I've had on NS in quite some time, thanks!

Mmm, that is good to hear.

Hmmm, this only proves that the production capabilities of a host nation are critical to it's economic capability and how those capabilities are employed does it not?

Yeah... what are you getting at? I'm just trying to point out that the capacity is built upon many years of progress.

If the ITER project does successfully work, leading the way to cheap, renewable energy, we might just see that realignment happen. Particularly among energy firms.

Nope. I have faith that marketing will screw us. Remember, people now buy water and pay for music they used to just download for free.
If you ever go to England, be sure to visit Warwick Castle. In the mill, there's an electric car on display from the 1800s. Believe it: even if ITER does come to fruition, you KNOW somebody will sell it out and it'll be sold as a "hot new product".

So aside from energy resources, what else does it have at the moment? Surely the US does not produce all the natural resources it consumes?

What do you mean about what else? :confused:
Of course not. No country does. Or at least Iran says that's why they need nuclear power.

But part of this is because of the lack of interest in developing energy efficient means of consumption. Case in point, SUVs with poor MPG.

That's not quite accurate: there are high MPG vehicles for those that want them. (I personally drive a Chrysler 300M, it gets about 19/25 MPG). However, it's a matter of choice and style. I'd like to see SUV's pay a special tax per gallon, since they burn more than most other cars.

Unfortunately, your scenario would not work short of thermonuclear exchange or a similar "end of the world" play occuring.

That's exactly right. Because there's no way the US will tank in any such manner otherwise.

The most likely worst case scenario short of that would be an economic crash, say a repeat of Black Friday. Assuming China manages to avoid their own predicted crash, they would be able to alleviate some of the missing demand for goods and raw materials.

That is HIGHLY optimistic, IMHO. Black Friday was bad, no question about it. What we're talking about would make BF look like the Dow dropping 100 points in a day.

Additionally, they would be able to take up the slack in export that the US used to do with heavy machined goods. India as well is also proving to be a developing market with many advances in economic and industrial strength.

Yes, world markets would suffer, but whether it will be as bad as 1890, we cannot say with any accuracy.

Um... China artificially pegs its currency to the dollar. With no dollar, and the loss of Wal Mart and the US in general, they would lose 22% of their trade right off the bat. That's economic cataclysm.
Never mind all the dollars and US gov't bonds that are held by foreign governements that are now worthless. To say nothing on the chaos the exchange rates would suffer.

Simply put, without the US, China and India would flood the markets and drive prices very, very far down. Possibly to the point of collapse for some industries.

You're forgetting the fact that China is actually paying some American debts for them, and that if America wants to plunge into an even bigger debt, then China doesn't have to stop their economy. They can just pull back the money they've given to America to pay back some of their debts.

You're forgetting the fact that China is actually paying some American debts for them, and that if America wants to plunge into an even bigger debt, then China doesn't have to stop their economy. They can just pull back the money they've given to America to pay back some of their debts.

What are you talking about?

What are you talking about?

There's investment on both ends, but China's 'investments' are more of a way for them to help America repay some of their debts.

Hahahaha. Tell the US consumers that one. With all the expensive oil around, which their government is partially at fault for, most people would want the cheapest goods available. And the cheapest goods available are from China.

Not to mention how many American corporations invest in China. One order and all those assets gets nationalised. We'll see what you do about that.

Not to mention how many Chinese nationals live in the United States and hold important roles in your economy.

Do not mess with the People's Republic of China. :D

I would LOVE to see the fallout from that.

And what's this I hear about the Chinese government being a bit peeved about those upstart Europeans restricting Chinese imports? What, threatened by a bunch of rag tag nations that wouldn't form a common policy if someone held a nuke to their collective heads?

Don't make me laugh. Maybe when the Party stops fining people for using search terms like "democracy" and "freedom", people will be more willing to invest in China. Until then, the very fact that "one order and all those assets get nationalised" is your biggest failing. What multinational corporation would want to invest too heavily in something with that kind of a risk?

You're forgetting the fact that China is actually paying some American debts for them, and that if America wants to plunge into an even bigger debt, then China doesn't have to stop their economy. They can just pull back the money they've given to America to pay back some of their debts.


What are you talking about?

There's investment on both ends, but China's 'investments' are more of a way for them to help America repay some of their debts.

Whaaaaa? How on earth do you come to that conclusion?
ANY investement is made to make money, period. What are you talking about, anyway? Treasuries and bonds?

Whaaaaa? How on earth do you come to that conclusion?
ANY investement is made to make money, period. What are you talking about, anyway? Treasuries and bonds?

Something like that, but I'm not exactly sure. When I find the link I'll post it to you.

I would LOVE to see the fallout from that.

And what's this I hear about the Chinese government being a bit peeved about those upstart Europeans restricting Chinese imports? What, threatened by a bunch of rag tag nations that wouldn't form a common policy if someone held a nuke to their collective heads?

Don't make me laugh. Maybe when the Party stops fining people for using search terms like "democracy" and "freedom", people will be more willing to invest in China. Until then, the very fact that "one order and all those assets get nationalised" is your biggest failing. What multinational corporation would want to invest too heavily in something with that kind of a risk?

Yes...the rag-tag nations of Europe is so collectively weak. (sarcasm)

Europe has more influence than you seem to take it for, and I highly doubt they would stop if someone held a nuke to their heads.

Plus, we're not trying to make you laugh. You are. As for the corporation, type in 'Wal-Mart' and tell me what you see.