NationStates Jolt Archive

I think there will be a war, within the next 40-50 years when China is finally ready to match the US military and economy. They will either make a move on Taiwan or the people in Taiwan could (but unlikely) declare independence causing the Chinese to invade, thus dragging the US into the conflict.

I think there will be a war, within the next 40-50 years when China is finally ready to match the US military and economy. They will either make a move on Taiwan or the people in Taiwan could (but unlikely) declare independence causing the Chinese to invade, thus dragging the US into the conflict.

No, if they do ANYTHING, which is doubtfull in and of itself, it will be economic and/or cultural.

No.

Trade with the U.S. makes up 40% of China's GDP.

'Nuff said.

No.

Trade with the U.S. makes up 40% of China's GDP.

'Nuff said.

seconded, plus the Us and china really have no reason to fight each other.

No.

Trade with the U.S. makes up 40% of China's GDP.

'Nuff said.

maybe now. but as the chinese economy grows for 40 years, exports will be a smaller portion of their GDP. im not saying exports will not be important, but the cost-benefit analysis over an independent taiwan will eventually tip the chinese to make a move at some point

I used to think that we would go to war, but if you think about it, it won't. "All" that will happen will be the economic dominance of the U.S.

seconded, plus the Us and china really have no reason to fight each other.

i guess didnt see my first post...the issue i mentioned was war over taiwan independence...there is a legislation in the united states called the "Taiwan Relations Act" that says it is the policy of the United States "to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan." Although it doesnt say the US must act in an event of foreign invasion in taiwan, it is nontheless binding in all practical sense if the US wants to maintain any level of credibility among its allies in asia and rest of the world

No.

Trade with the U.S. makes up 40% of China's GDP.

'Nuff said.

Making rice counts for another 30% :D

no, US foreign policy isn't based on morals it's based on money. the US would sooner dump Taiwan than go to war with such a major trading partner.

I don't think either China or the US's policy-makers are quite that stupid, but 40-50 years is a long time in world politics.

If both countries keep posturing as they are doing right now, and if China keeps on growing economically (as it seems to be set to do) then I might be inclined to predict a set of proxy wars, much like the US-USSR proxy wars of the 60's and 70's.

Though saying that, things like peak oil are going to come to a head in les than 40 years, so who knows...

no, US foreign policy isn't based on morals it's based on money. the US would sooner dump Taiwan than go to war with such a major trading partner.

Yeah, I really hope thats what we do.

i guess didnt see my first post...the issue i mentioned was war over taiwan independence...there is a legislation in the united states called the "Taiwan Relations Act" that says it is the policy of the United States "to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan." Although it doesnt say the US must act in an event of foreign invasion in taiwan, it is nontheless binding in all practical sense if the US wants to maintain any level of credibility among its allies in asia and rest of the world

What did Thomas Jefferson say? Something about how the US should avoid intangling alliances? WTF happened?

WTF happened?
Cheap plastic goods.

Simple. People stopped paying attention in school.:D

No.

Trade with the U.S. makes up 40% of China's GDP.

'Nuff said.

Exactly. And too many of our corperations have factories there.


There will not be a US-China war anytime soon. Itd be over 100 years away. We have too much of an economic intrest with each other.

I could see a China-India war happening at some point before the end of the century. In that case, I would be curious to see which side the USA would take; my hazy guess being China's. My money would be on Canada siding with India. I am sure that would have quite peculiar effects on North American relations.

maybe now. but as the chinese economy grows for 40 years, exports will be a smaller portion of their GDP. im not saying exports will not be important, but the cost-benefit analysis over an independent taiwan will eventually tip the chinese to make a move at some point

Except that as Taiwan remains independent for 40 more years, it becomes an increasingly distant echo in China's history and eventually vanishes from China's list of priorities altogether. Frankly, I think it's more likely China will invade Siberia. Think about it, all those resources, all that empty land, a Russia that can't replace it's own population.... But even that's SOMEWHAT unlikely (10% chance, I'd say).

China won't fight a war it can't win.

Chna as we know it won't last that long. Everyone said the japanese economy was going to over take ours and they colapsed and it shifted to Taiwan, now it china, they'll either go into a depression or have a civil war and it'll g somewhere else. Hopefully a country that isn't trying to spy on us. My guess is brazil.

China won't fight a war it can't win.

can't and will not is quite a bit different...and 40-50 years is a good bit of time

can't and will not is quite a bit different...and 40-50 years is a good bit of time

Uh huh.

Nevertheless, China won't fight a war it can't win.

Uh huh.

Nevertheless, China won't fight a war it can't win.

point being, that it could, even today win such a war, however unlikely...thus your statement was somewhat pointless to the current topic...

"Imminent" is a word I would use for "in the next 40 or 50 days", not "years". Who knows what will happen in decades? China will have a lot of trouble when all those young men who cannot ever have women grow to adolescence, and going to war is a good way to keep horny boys occupied and get the excess number of them killed off. But there are other directions to go than Taiwan, whose independence will come to seem normal the longer it goes on (the island has only been politically connected to the Chinese mainland for 160 years out of the last 400, and had no connection to China at all before then).

The only benefit I could see in a war between the US and China is and immediate reudction of the world population by at least a fifth. (Just because the chinese have a large army doesn't mean they can fight)

point being, that it could, even today win such a war, however unlikely...thus your statement was somewhat pointless to the current topic...

This isn't a school, I don't need to explain myself.

This isn't a school, I don't need to explain myself.

don't always need to do that in school either...but i was simply making my point...

i think i'll stop now before something stupid gets started...or further developes

That'd be a short war.
The US would utterly destroy all of China's naval and air assets in a matter of days, then blockade China. Japan would be only too glad to help.
The worst China could do, barring a nuclear conflict, is invade South Korea, cutting off the US supply of cheap and poorly made computer parts and cars.
Meanwhile, the US economy would no doubt suffer somewhat from the loss of Chinese goods, but with a decent orator as president it wouldnt be too difficult to get people onto a nice war footing to make up for the loss.
Plus we could always invade Mexico and Canada for a source of cheap labor.

No. Maybe past 50 years, a new cold war could take place, but not a conventional war.

The USA and China are like 2 giant beasts that you can never kill. Neither country could ever overpower the other, fighting a war would drag them both into ruin. No one, not even Bush, would be that retarded.

Don't you know, the US only fights wars that cause it to profit?

No; so long as this "Buy American" idiocy doesn't translate into significant protectionism, there is too much reciprocity between the United States and China for there to be a war. However, that being said, I do look favorably upon China being a counter-balance to the Federal Government's imperialism; the only limit besides legitimacy to the expropriations of the state is the competition of other states, and so long as there is some degree of multipolarity the self-interested particular interests behind the Federal government will be less able to bring the world under its control.

If either of those nations really want to fuck themselves with a war with each other, they'll reap what they sew, they'll get what they deserve.

As long as they don't draft me, I don't care. And if they do draft me I'll be headed to Europe anyway, so I still don't care.

That'd be a short war.
The US would utterly destroy all of China's naval and air assets in a matter of days, then blockade China. Japan would be only too glad to help.
The worst China could do, barring a nuclear conflict, is invade South Korea, cutting off the US supply of cheap and poorly made computer parts and cars.
Meanwhile, the US economy would no doubt suffer somewhat from the loss of Chinese goods, but with a decent orator as president it wouldnt be too difficult to get people onto a nice war footing to make up for the loss.
Plus we could always invade Mexico and Canada for a source of cheap labor.

wait doesn't china have stealth subs to obliterate the US navy with?

if anyone would realize the global alliances, they would realize that the only way for the US and China to stay economic powerhouses is to stay highly entwined business wise. Because, with the strengthening of the European union, and its control over Europe and South America (and the reason Europe and south America will grow closer is from a mutual hating of the US, sad but true). Also America need to also get India on bored as well, this way when one (most likely the US, China and India) get power hungry and are in need to feel more powerful, because they all just can't be equal. they will all still be able to function, but what will eventually will happen is a friendly aircraft is most likely going to be taken the wrong way, and wham bam thank you mam, nuclear winter.

wait doesn't china have stealth subs to obliterate the US navy with?
No.

They probably have lots of little things they don't tell anyone about, but nothing that would translate into being able to really dent the US Navy's dominance.

But seriously, what is it with people talking about a war over Taiwan but never actually looking at the place? It looks like the KMT is kicking ass at the moment over there, and the KMT's policy is one of not doing anything to upset Beijing. The status quo is the most popular option in Taiwan, and I have a feeling that as China gets richer and democratic reforms get finalised in Hong Kong in 20 years or so, that opinion may well shift towards joining the mainland first in a free trade and common currency zone and then eventually in a political union.

That process doesn't require the input or consent from Washington at all, it really is (as Beijing likes to point out) a purely Chinese affair. So really unless the Americans manage to elect a much worse maniac than the current one, I see no risk of either side doing something stupid.

if anyone would realize the global alliances, they would realize that the only way for the US and China to stay economic powerhouses is to stay highly entwined business wise. Because, with the strengthening of the European union, and its control over Europe and South America (and the reason Europe and south America will grow closer is from a mutual hating of the US, sad but true). Also America need to also get India on bored as well, this way when one (most likely the US, China and India) get power hungry and are in need to feel more powerful, because they all just can't be equal. they will all still be able to function, but what will eventually will happen is a friendly aircraft is most likely going to be taken the wrong way, and wham bam thank you mam, nuclear winter.
What are you talking about? The US is more reviled in China than it is in Europe.

wait doesn't china have stealth subs to obliterate the US navy with?

That sounds like a tautology to me.

US and China do have a reason to fight, it is oil. And BTW, I think the Chinese economy matches the US in next 20 years, their economical growth is so rapid. But no, the war is not imminent. That is thanks to nuclear weapons.

No. Maybe past 50 years, a new cold war could take place, but not a conventional war.

The USA and China are like 2 giant beasts that you can never kill. Neither country could ever overpower the other, fighting a war would drag them both into ruin. No one, not even Bush, would be that retarded.

Don't you know, the US only fights wars that cause it to profit?

So how did the war in Vietnam profit US?

So how did the war in Vietnam profit US?

The US as a nation? No idea. But I suspect its arms industry posted record profits.

In either case, Vietnam was just another tit for tat proxy war the US had with the Soviet Union.

I suspect it was also a good place to test the latest in Soviet gear against US gear to see how the two would stack up if it came to a big conventional war.

What has either side to gain from it?

Not a chance any time soon.

wait doesn't china have stealth subs to obliterate the US navy with?
No, it had 2 pop up when the US Navy was on exercise.

That submarines could take out the US Navy is a pretty dubious idea, seeing as the SOSAR network is still presumably active, and it has some pretty nice ASW equipment based both on its ships and their accompanying helicopter fleet.

not even remotely "eminent", but i'm sure there's plenty of right wing loonies that would love to cook up some off the wall excuse to make it so.

not that i have any argument with their treatment of tibet being messed up, but its the "peoples republic" of standard oil of california that's backing the bloodthirsty military government in myanmar.

there's plenty of big governments doing naughty things. america's still the biggest bully on the planet. too big for its britches and too big for its own good and damd sure too big for anybody else's.

=^^=
.../\...

I think there will be a war, within the next 40-50 years when China is finally ready to match the US military and economy. They will either make a move on Taiwan or the people in Taiwan could (but unlikely) declare independence causing the Chinese to invade, thus dragging the US into the conflict.

That's pretty dumb. If there is going to be such a significant war, you could at least speculate on why, not just the incident which might precipitate it.

That's pretty dumb. If there is going to be such a significant war, you could at least speculate on why, not just the incident which might precipitate it.

If anything, probably over dwindling oil reserves. By 2050, I expect very few of them to remain, and what superpowers there are to hunker over them like jealous lions over fresh kills in a famine.

"40-50 years"

The OP doesn't seem to know the meaning of "imminent".

Ni hao ma, mei guo ren.

Ni hao ma, mei guo ren.



wo shi meiguoren waiguoren ;)

wo ai zhong guo! wo ai guangdong!

ngo zhong yi guangdung!

If anything, probably over dwindling oil reserves. By 2050, I expect very few of them to remain, and what superpowers there are to hunker over them like jealous lions over fresh kills in a famine.

Well, I don't believe that, but at least it can be debated.

Dependence on oil is really economic dependence. The economy depends on it ... but not people's wellbeing. If we put that first, rather than the chimera of economic growth, it would be easy to build a world which doesn't need oil, or at least could make what oil there is last a century or so.

It's a nightmare scenario from the global warming perspective, but when the price of oil gets high enough we can replace most of the usage with coal, of which there is far more. Simply burn it to make electricity -- cars can run on that, agricultural machinery, trains and other transport. Shipping can burn coal directly (it's bulkier, but at some price point it becomes worthwhile.) Plastics can be made from gas instead of oil, fertilizers from gas or coal. Oil is not indispensible, even with our current technologies.

There's an economic cost, but it's spread over that forty years as oil becomes scarcer. Having a damn war is the stupidist possible way to "solve" such scarcity.

I honestly think the OP's suggestion is based more on "we big man, they big man, we fight" rather than any suggestion that such a war might have a real cause.

I agree with the view that both nations are too economically dependant on each other. Maybe well beyond 50 years. Its taken that long for China to get where it is now, so in the next fifty years they will be even greater- why squander such progress?

Dependence on oil is really economic dependence. The economy depends on it ... but not people's wellbeing. If we put that first, rather than the chimera of economic growth, it would be easy to build a world which doesn't need oil, or at least could make what oil there is last a century or so.


Military strength is also dependent on oil. Coal simply cannot replace the energy output of oil barring some miracle technology. Do you honestly think any superpower will idly sit by while an increasing number of their military branches become stagnant from lack of fuel?


It's a nightmare scenario from the global warming perspective, but when the price of oil gets high enough we can replace most of the usage with coal, of which there is far more. Simply burn it to make electricity -- cars can run on that, agricultural machinery, trains and other transport. Shipping can burn coal directly (it's bulkier, but at some price point it becomes worthwhile.) Plastics can be made from gas instead of oil, fertilizers from gas or coal. Oil is not indispensible, even with our current technologies.

Again, we have the energy output problem, not to mention returns on index. Coal must be mined. Oil on the other hand, simply requires you to have a pipe from the surface to the deposit (simplifying immensely).

Coal can't really replace oil. Not without an immense restructuring of all of the worlds infrastructure and economies.


There's an economic cost, but it's spread over that forty years as oil becomes scarcer. Having a damn war is the stupidist possible way to "solve" such scarcity.

Maybe so, but war over resources is a very time honored practice that I just cannot see humanity doing away with anytime in the near future.

And oil is the equivalent of liquid gold right now. Until someone comes up with cheap fusion power and nano-assemblers of course.

All of this is dependent on no real alternative to energy output and portability that oil provides naturally.

No, Both nations wouldn't profit from such a war, they would both economically declince, followed by Japan, Taiwan and the EU.

they both know that (I hope) therefor A war won't be held openly.
And aside from that, You've left NATO and that asian union out of it.
A war between US and China would essentially mean WW3.
Nobody wants that.

for what i have seen us cares for nothing more then money but a china-us war? i really doubt it us has military all over the place they are in japan 'they aren't supposed to have an army jet they have one of the most expencive arrmies of the world anyway us asured that they would protect japan in case of an inavion because they aren't allowed to have an army afther the second world war. thanks to this america has military bases all over japan meaning they can easly strike from there meaning china would need to invade japan and the fact there is the fact that japan HAS an army and altough they are not allowed to use it as they are doing now in the westren middle eastern war right now they will use it when china attack japan to get rid of us and remembering what the japanese did in china during wo II they would love to get some vengeance but just see what that small country japan compared to a large one like china did to them think that has really changed? china might have a hugely growing economy but they still have few recourses let alone the technologie or recouses for an army capible of fighting amerika japan and ofcourse europe will be dragged into it as well then tehre is the fact that usa and europe are making a move in the middle east with with the excuse of bringing peace democracy and freedom while usa is accually just going for the oil meaning a huge amount of cash for usa then japan is doign well in economy as well so is europe as far as i know i don't think these facts will all have turend into china's favor in 50 years as they recourses they require will not suddenly move to chinese soil for them to win so china couldn't start a war no matter how much cash they have because usa and/or europe won't be that stupid that they wouldn't notice that china is buying recourses just to prepare a war to destroy china there is just no benifit for china to start a war nor can they produce an army advanced enough to start a war

It's a nightmare scenario from the global warming perspective, but when the price of oil gets high enough we can replace most of the usage with coal, of which there is far more.
Accroding to an article that I read quite recently (in 'New Scientist' magazine, I think), the world's effective reserves of Coal are actually quite a bit lower than has previously been assumed: The UK has dropped its estimate of extractable coal by quite a bit, some nations (such as China) are still claiming exactly the same levels of reserves that they were several decades ago despite heavy use since then (and no major new coalfields being revealed there) which makes their figures seem unreliable, and people have opened up few if any of the new sources that were supposed to replace those currently being utilised.
It may be that all of the useable deposits have already been found...
The article's author suggested, on the basis of the figures he'd studied, Coal would also run out in just a few decades -- rather than lasting for a few centuries, as previously thought -- even without any major drive to use it as a replacement for oil...

I doubt a war would happen between the US and China.
If there was going to be a war it would occur in either Africa, South America, Middle East, or South East between small countries.

Possibility of war between China and Saudi Arabia though.

wo shi meiguoren waiguoren ;)

wo ai zhong guo! wo ai guangdong!

ngo zhong yi guangdung!

Let me try my Chinese: the original "Ni hao ma, mei guo ren." was "Hi, American!"? And the response is "I'm not American, [some-other]-country-person. I'm in China! I'm in Canton! something something something something"??

Military strength is also dependent on oil. Coal simply cannot replace the energy output of oil barring some miracle technology. Do you honestly think any superpower will idly sit by while an increasing number of their military branches become stagnant from lack of fuel?

Sure, jet fighters cannot burn coal. But just to take the case of the US, there are still sufficient reserves within US borders to supply military needs in that "two major wars" scenario the military (still?) plans for. It's sufficient to keep a reserve, since the military is a small fraction of petrol use.


Again, we have the energy output problem, not to mention returns on index. Coal must be mined. Oil on the other hand, simply requires you to have a pipe from the surface to the deposit (simplifying immensely).

The costs of extraction are comparable for the energy gained, and both follow the same curve. The easily accessible coal and the easily accessible oil were mined (or pumped) first.

There are more transport options with oil (pipelines, really), it's denser energy and far easier to fuel-up with. I'm not disputing it's better fuel -- it displaced coal in shipping in the space of a decade, a century ago. But if the cost is right, it's still practical fuel for many applications.

Electricity is the fundamental nowadays, aside from specialized roles like aircraft. Electricity can do almost everything we waste oil on.

Coal can't really replace oil. Not without an immense restructuring of all of the worlds infrastructure and economies.

Restructuring is good. Lots of fortunes to be made, challenges which give technology some direction (need I remind you of the spurts of practical knowledge which wars engender?). Were people whining when coal-powered ships were obsoleted virtually overnight? I mean, apart from stokers?

The real bitch is trying to cope with the move away from oil (forced on us by scarcity) and trying to reduce greenhouse emissions at the same time. Lots of social conflict there, as if there isn't already ... imagine trying to argue for the planet while civilian flights are being grounded to keep enough fuel available for gas-guzzling war-wagons. You'd be lynched.

In a sense, there's a narrow window of opportunity for emissions reductions, the next ten years or so.


Maybe so, but war over resources is a very time honored practice that I just cannot see humanity doing away with anytime in the near future.

If you're going to play the History card, it's time to mention the Easter Islanders. Cutting down the last tree to appease their gods, waiting for a miracle as their last canoe became unseaworthy and they starved.

The human race is playing for very high stakes now. We've got to play smarter.

Accroding to an article that I read quite recently (in 'New Scientist' magazine, I think), the world's effective reserves of Coal are actually quite a bit lower than has previously been assumed: The UK has dropped its estimate of extractable coal by quite a bit, some nations (such as China) are still claiming exactly the same levels of reserves that they were several decades ago despite heavy use since then (and no major new coalfields being revealed there) which makes their figures seem unreliable, and people have opened up few if any of the new sources that were supposed to replace those currently being utilised.

The New Scientist is always interesting, but does print some rather wild stuff. I'd read that though ...

I think there's probably very little exploration because of the percieved surplus of coal (it's not going to be flammable gold any time soon). They'd only be looking for easily-mined (opencut) reserves of black coal.

It may be that all of the useable deposits have already been found...
The article's author suggested, on the basis of the figures he'd studied, Coal would also run out in just a few decades -- rather than lasting for a few centuries, as previously thought -- even without any major drive to use it as a replacement for oil...

If the author was saying it's going to run out a few decades from now at current rates of use, they're talking bunk.

why is it that every slight change in the world has to be followed by paranoid fantasy's of WWIII?

is this just American phenomena or what?

i guess didnt see my first post...the issue i mentioned was war over taiwan independence...there is a legislation in the united states called the "Taiwan Relations Act" that says it is the policy of the United States "to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan." Although it doesnt say the US must act in an event of foreign invasion in taiwan, it is nontheless binding in all practical sense if the US wants to maintain any level of credibility among its allies in asia and rest of the world

See Belgian, British and German history in 1914

why is it that every slight change in the world has to be followed by paranoid fantasy's of WWIII?

is this just American phenomena or what?
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/we_must_all_do_our_part_to

Relevant.

See Belgian, British and German history in 1914

like we would of cared had it not been mainland Europe :p

why is it that every slight change in the world has to be followed by paranoid fantasies of WWIII?

is this just American phenomena or what?

All the world's a stage...

Hey, who wrote this crap script?

Actually according to pentagon papers from 7 years ago, when the US military wasnt in an abysmal shape, with pitiful levels of training and supplies. [Remember the average soldier in iraq does not get three meals a day, nor do they have the equipment they need.] The United states seventh fleet would be obliterated by the massive chinese air force in 15 minutes, Chinese ASAT missiles would [this is 7 years ago when china sucked] would eliminate american satellites over the pacific and thus destroy the american navies ability to defend itself properly. This combined with their archaic and outmoded naval tactics, [as proven in wargames against canadian naval ships, the american fleet strategies are only good if the enemy is doing exactly what they do, lining up in large flotillas and firing back and forth. If you come head on at american ships you can get 2-3 to one casualties as the missiles have trouble tracking moving targets at speed, this has happened many times in wargames between the US and canadian navies.] would lead to the inability to defend against over 5000 chinese fighters firing AS missiles. [Sorry but 200-400 american fighters wouldnt cut it..and japan would not help..they dont want to be a target of continous unending attacks from the air and shore missile and artillery batteries.]

It was this knowledge seven years ago that made american planners decide a war against china would be folly. First off, thanks to janet reno, China has all of the modern Canadian computer equipment, which is where America goes shopping for targeting and combat computers. If there was a war between america and china right now, with the rest of the worlds economy booming because they figured out the secret [ie USA is a rip off of epic proportions]...it would be over quickly. China would win and america would be humiliated worse then they have been in Iraq. The company I work with said it best. We have never been richer then when we stopped dealing with American companies. The third world is developing at an astonishing pace because they dont deal as much with american companies anymore. America's power is based on the whole world fearing things, and thus caving in to american demands. In 8 years we have seen america go from the sole superpower, to another france or britain or germany.

In the next ten years we will see china, using the same tactics america did to pump up its economy 70 years ago, rise to ascendance as the worlds premier economy. America's ONLY chance to survive economically is to deal with China. China also has no reason to fight america. Taiwan is a joke, Chang kai shek was a butcher, he killed far more people in china then the japanese imperial army did, if anything Taiwan belongs to china and america fighting over it is not realistic. The reason for this is as stated. America's economy is on the brink of collapse, while the rest of the world is getting richer. All this money America has stolen and coerced from the rest of the world over the last 60 years is now coming back home to roost as it were. We are seeing third world nations developing and modernising at a rate the USA never would have allowed before Bush. Also thanks to the idiotic obsession with outsourcing and cheap immigrant labour, american goods quality has suffered immensely.

For instance the Ford Focus is a pathetic joke. A car that literally breaks down after two years. So if america wishes to survive as a viable economy, and not have its three hundred million people descend even further in to the third world, it must stay friends with china. [Remember that over 75% of the american population lives under the poverty line, compared with 25% of any other G-8 nation. 97% of the money in america is owned by 500 people.]

So with this basic knowledge in hand, it becomes painfully obvious that a war with china would not be in the best interests of the United states. In fact it would be an unprecedented disaster. After all America cant simply build tanks and planes and ships the way it did in World war II. Thanks to good old Ronald Reagan, the country has been strip mined to build ICBM's. Right before 9/11 Bush was trying to push Europe around to give it cheap steel. They refused and this started to hurt the US economy immediately [not 9/11 as stated by republicans], as there is not enough wood nor steel nor oil to fuel america's housing market or industry left in the country. As for invading canada or mexico, with the sorry state of the US army right now, and the sheer amount of illegals in america, i dont see that succeeding.

First things first, Canada would shut down the power to the USA, remember 75% of america's power needs come straight from British columbia, Canada..and it would be simple to kill the damns that feed the US power market. Then the people, without light, TV and water would oust the president themselves. After all..how many americans would really stand up to be out of TV for a year...none of them would. So that simply wont work. As for cheap labour...America has it in spades. They fire good knowledgeable tradesmen who make 16-25 dollars an hour, and hire cheap illegals for 6.50 an hour. This is part of the reason the economy is crashing.

So will there be war with China? The answer is the same as the question, would the USA go to war with the moon. Its a ridiculous concept to even consider, especially right now when the world is rich beyond all belief, and america thanks to its laissez-faire capitalism, and rape of the third world which is finally coming back to haunt them. America is about to become another France or Germany. A decent economy, but far too many mouths to feed, and not enough raw material to fuel the industry. After all why sell steel to america when they demand it cheaper, then tax you 25% of its cost anyways, when china or india will buy it at cost with no taxes. No war with china, especially not right now. Hell america would likely be unable to defeat Iran in the sorry state its military and economy is in...after all they cant even win in Iraq. The idea of america going to war with any majour world economy right now is folly. Until the USA understands that its own policies are killing it..the USA will continue to decline.

Perhaps John Mccain can save the country, if he manages to become president. Barring John mccain you could get Hillary clinton..the first Female CEO of wal mart. 60 years of the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is finally catching up. The only thing keeping america running right now, is China's kindness in continuing to deal with them. Though even that is changing as they prefer the higher quality goods coming out of Canada, Europe and even some "developing" nations like India to cheap, shoddy american manufacturing these days. [American good's quality has steeply dropped off since bush came in to office, the combination of outsourcing and illegals as labour has really, really hurt.]

In 2000 America's economy was strong and Vital..even then they feared war with china as unwinnable folly. George bush managed to undo all the checks and balances Al gore and Bill clinton placed in to the economy, including the tying of the american dollar to oil. With George bush chasing the investors off to the EU, Canada, China and India, the American economy has become unsustainable. The Iraq war has ruined the military. Even 7 years ago, a war with china would have failed. To even consider that America's economic lifeline would risk war with america, or that america would risk war with them is foolish. The US would sooner attack Europe then China. Taiwan is either going to stay independent as it is, or fall and nothing America can do about it will stop it..even if the 500 rich men that run that country would allow it to happen. Unless something majour happens i dont see america going to war with even Iran, let alone china.

Its just silly to think, knowing just how good a shape the rest of the world is in, and just how bad a shape the USA is in to even consider the idea that america will go to war with China. Somewhere in the middle east or Africa...much better choice. Especially africa, as their are many nations with Uranium and resources ripe for the plucking, and utterly incompetent militaries the USA could still dominate in hours. Perhaps the USA should go liberate Zimbabwe [Rhodesia..its REAL name]. That may help their economy resource wise, and even their image. I for one would be happy to see that happen.

Let me try my Chinese: the original "Ni hao ma, mei guo ren." was "Hi, American!"? And the response is "I'm not American, [some-other]-country-person. I'm in China! I'm in Canton! something something something something"??

Nope!

"I am american foreigner"

"I love china, I love guangdong"

"I like guangdong" in cantonese

What are you talking about? The US is more reviled in China than it is in Europe.



Not according to anything Ive heard/seen...

why is it that every slight change in the world has to be followed by paranoid fantasy's of WWIII?

is this just American phenomena or what?


Most Americans are sensable enough to not be worrying about WWIII...

Most Americans are sensable enough to not be worrying about WWIII...

I'm concerned about it. Given the bull-headedness of our government, our lagging economy, China's new found power and resurgent nationalism, such a war is possible. Especially over Tiawan.

I honestly don't think that there will ever be a war between the US and China. The United States knows the kind of power that the Chinese would have over them if they even considered going to war.

China may certainly pass up the US economically, but that won't be any cause for the US to go to war.

I think it also will depend on the US leadership in the future. Different leaders will see different importance among issues in the world. If the commander in chief sees a threat from China (even if there really isn't one aka preemptive strike), then he/she might go for it, but the US may be focusing on different things in the future.

Finally, war is NEVER imminent. Ever. There is always an alternative option.

Not according to anything Ive heard/seen...

I'd like to know what this is?

I mean its not like we have a history of fighting American imperialism or anything unlike China

Most Americans are sensable enough to not be worrying about WWIII...

yes they seem far more concerned with the evil Mexican terrorists however that aside this debate never comes up in the UK and the only time I hear it come up is from US folk on-line

I'm concerned about it. Given the bull-headedness of our government, our lagging economy, China's new found power and resurgent nationalism, such a war is possible. Especially over Tiawan.

I'm sorry what? :p

yes they seem far more concerned with the evil Mexican terrorists however that aside this debate never comes up in the UK and the only time I hear it come up is from US folk on-line
Srsly, the article I linked you to will help you to understand this phenomenon, even if it is a slightly satirical take on things.

Srsly, the article I linked you to will help you to understand this phenomenon, even if it is a slightly satirical take on things.

well yes the overriding fear does seem to power America :p

but how comes we get so lucky with the ennui?

but how comes we get so lucky with the ennui?
Wait, what?

Lucky with the ennui? Lucky with boredom?

I'd like to know what this is?

I mean its not like we have a history of fighting American imperialism or anything unlike China

I just meant the Chinese dont hate us. I didnt mean to imply Europe does.


A war wont happen. China owes its sudden economic prosperity in large part due to trade from the US. A war would destroy the Chinese and seriously hurt America, if not destroy us as well.

China knows this. They arent stupid. And if China chooses to attacks Tawain anyway, America will ditch them in a second, economic interests always win out over loyalty at the state level.

Wait, what?

Lucky with the ennui? Lucky with boredom?

yes it seems to be the dominant feature of British culture

hence all the stand-up and brilliant shows like Spaced

yes it seems to be the dominant feature of British culture

hence all the stand-up and brilliant shows like Spaced
Aaaah kk.

Yeah, Spaced was great.

Taiwan would not be the trigger for a US-China war. The US would dump of Taiwan, no doubts. Taiwan is not worth the risk of taking a nuke for, in American eyes. In half a century time I do not see China as being dependent on raw induatrial exports ot the US as it is now. I forsee a much larger internal and global market for Chinese goods, as is already beginning to happen. Look in Egypt. Chinese motorbikes on every steet. Chinese trucks, buses on every street. Chinese goods in every shop. In Indonesia it is the same. In Turkey it is the same. And China itself has over a billion people, it will be much more self supporting as it's own people use more of their own resources. This would make a war mroe likely if it wasn't for hte fact that China could no defeat the US militarily and save itself, but it could bring about M.A.D. if both sides were determined.

Realistically I see proxy wars, the first possibly being in Sudan unless some horses can be traded. The US needs to respect Chinas position on certain issues, paticularly it's interests in Sudanese oil. If they don't there will clash through proxies, and the whole thing will get even more messy.

Taiwan would not be the trigger for a US-China war.

I'm not sure. Taiwan seems like a open pretext which either side could drop if they wanted to.

The only protection Taiwan has is the resolve of the US to make sacrifices (of soldiers' lives and of trade) to protect it. If that was entirely hollow, China would have called their bluff already.

Despite some peoples' mockery of the US military it remains their best asset compared to other major powers. It is conceivable that some future gung-ho administration might want to give it the five-yearly field test against a real opponent.

Frankly, the US could just throw Taiwan to the Chinese and the rest of the world would forget in a few years. They haven't chosen to do that because they are keeping the pretext on the table in case they WANT war in the future. Then it's a simple matter of lying to the Chinese about how they'll turn a blind eye, then 'honouring' their agreement with Taiwan.

The US would dump of Taiwan, no doubts. Taiwan is not worth the risk of taking a nuke for, in American eyes. In half a century time I do not see China as being dependent on raw induatrial exports ot the US as it is now. I forsee a much larger internal and global market for Chinese goods, as is already beginning to happen. Look in Egypt. Chinese motorbikes on every steet. Chinese trucks, buses on every street. Chinese goods in every shop. In Indonesia it is the same. In Turkey it is the same. And China itself has over a billion people, it will be much more self supporting as it's own people use more of their own resources. This would make a war mroe likely if it wasn't for hte fact that China could no defeat the US militarily and save itself, but it could bring about M.A.D. if both sides were determined.

Well said. Chinese technology is improving far faster than US. Hard to say exactly why, but probably has something to do with scale and the incentive of widespread poverty.

EDIT: I didn't read you very well, but second time around: well said.

Realistically I see proxy wars, the first possibly being in Sudan unless some horses can be traded. The US needs to respect Chinas position on certain issues, paticularly it's interests in Sudanese oil. If they don't there will clash through proxies, and the whole thing will get even more messy.

Oh dear yes.

Sure, jet fighters cannot burn coal. But just to take the case of the US, there are still sufficient reserves within US borders to supply military needs in that "two major wars" scenario the military (still?) plans for. It's sufficient to keep a reserve, since the military is a small fraction of petrol use.

Maybe so, but from what I've seen, the military isn't big on oil fuel efficiency. If anything, the reserves might not even last if they try to keep updating the military industrial complex while maintaining a fighting force.

And that two major wars scenario. Maybe now. But in 50 years? When energy starved economies start demanding a slice of the pie or collapse? Doubtful.


The costs of extraction are comparable for the energy gained, and both follow the same curve. The easily accessible coal and the easily accessible oil were mined (or pumped) first.

There are more transport options with oil (pipelines, really), it's denser energy and far easier to fuel-up with. I'm not disputing it's better fuel -- it displaced coal in shipping in the space of a decade, a century ago. But if the cost is right, it's still practical fuel for many applications.

Electricity is the fundamental nowadays, aside from specialized roles like aircraft. Electricity can do almost everything we waste oil on.


Almost everything. But not everything. And quite a few key industries are reliant on oil. Plastics come to mind. And don't forget. Current energy consumption means that to achieve an even parity, especially with coals lower energy density, you'd be mining coal like there was no tomorrow and still end up with brownouts.


Restructuring is good. Lots of fortunes to be made, challenges which give technology some direction (need I remind you of the spurts of practical knowledge which wars engender?). Were people whining when coal-powered ships were obsoleted virtually overnight? I mean, apart from stokers?


The problem here is that the restructuring was always for improvements. Build ups on existing infrastructure to take advantage of some higher efficiency development. What we're looking at here is a step back, towards less energy dense sources.


The real bitch is trying to cope with the move away from oil (forced on us by scarcity) and trying to reduce greenhouse emissions at the same time. Lots of social conflict there, as if there isn't already ... imagine trying to argue for the planet while civilian flights are being grounded to keep enough fuel available for gas-guzzling war-wagons. You'd be lynched.

In a sense, there's a narrow window of opportunity for emissions reductions, the next ten years or so.

That's one part of it, but if you ask me, the economies would plummet like a rock, and there'd be fuel riots, increasing pressure to control whatever fuel stocks there are left.


If you're going to play the History card, it's time to mention the Easter Islanders. Cutting down the last tree to appease their gods, waiting for a miracle as their last canoe became unseaworthy and they starved.

The human race is playing for very high stakes now. We've got to play smarter.

Just because the human race has to, doesn't mean it will. The wonders of immediate gratification means that major corporations won't invest too heavily in long term futures until it becomes too late, and shareholders certainly won't want a company "wasting" capital on unproven research when their holdings and profit margins are at stake.

I've always bet on human short sightedness and walked away a winner.

Maybe so, but from what I've seen, the military isn't big on oil fuel efficiency. If anything, the reserves might not even last if they try to keep updating the military industrial complex while maintaining a fighting force.

And that two major wars scenario. Maybe now. But in 50 years? When energy starved economies start demanding a slice of the pie or collapse? Doubtful.

Agreed to that.


Almost everything. But not everything. And quite a few key industries are reliant on oil. Plastics come to mind. And don't forget. Current energy consumption means that to achieve an even parity, especially with coals lower energy density, you'd be mining coal like there was no tomorrow and still end up with brownouts.

What Is also ironic is that a small tad of oil is also used in most modern medicines in which coal could not be used. Coal is actually a powerfull source of energy, but its emissions are a problem. There are some scientist who believe that spewing the gases into the ground would help plants grow without harming the atmosphere.


The problem here is that the restructuring was always for improvements. Build ups on existing infrastructure to take advantage of some higher efficiency development. What we're looking at here is a step back, towards less energy dense sources.

Oil does burn cleaner than coal, but just like chocolate or coffie, it is very addictive to society.


That's one part of it, but if you ask me, the economies would plummet like a rock, and there'd be fuel riots, increasing pressure to control whatever fuel stocks there are left.

Not to mention worldwide recessions, increased food prices, transportation lockdowns, as well as several wars.

Just because the human race has to, doesn't mean it will. The wonders of immediate gratification means that major corporations won't invest too heavily in long term futures until it becomes too late, and shareholders certainly won't want a company "wasting" capital on unproven research when their holdings and profit margins are at stake.

I've always bet on human short sightedness and walked away a winner.

Yep, that human short sightedness really proves to be a setback, no one nowdays seems to look at the longterm picture, rather they look towards short term gain.

no we'll all be dead in a few decades from a lack of oil or climate change

Nope!

"I am american foreigner"

"I love china, I love guangdong"

"I like guangdong" in cantonese
Thanks.

uhh, 40-50 years isn't exactly imminent. I certainly hope there won't be a war with China, but if they keep going on this trajectory I wouldn't be surprised.

Maybe so, but from what I've seen, the military isn't big on oil fuel efficiency. If anything, the reserves might not even last if they try to keep updating the military industrial complex while maintaining a fighting force.

In the year 2004 (a fair compromise between mobilization and peacetime) the US military used 144 million barrels of oil.

In the same year, the US as a whole used 8,300 million (8.3 billion) barrels of oil.

That's why I mentioned grounding civilian flights as a possible war emergency measure. Perhaps enforced car-pooling by license-plate curfew on successive days (this was used during oil shortages in the past, eg licenses beginning A-F only can buy fuel on monday, etc ... it worked in the short term, everyone got a bit of fuel if they were prepared to queue for it ... I believe that was in Britain in the 70's.)

Perhaps that glancing reference (and yes, I was going into a primitivist rave about our beautiful planet and the folly of consumerism...) didn't quite make the point. Just about any major power (not Japan I guess) has the oil reserves to fuel their military machinery, if they cut all other usage. That isn't what oil scarcity is about ... it's about coddling a stupid economic system which we have let grow too powerful. The real measure of military power is the ability to pay for the developement or purchase of the weapons, and to pay the wages necessary to attract talented military personnel.

Presenting military needs as a major part of strategic oil needs is ... well, rather silly. I know you can do better, NAS.

And that two major wars scenario. Maybe now. But in 50 years? When energy starved economies start demanding a slice of the pie or collapse? Doubtful.

"Two major wars" scenario is really quite retarded, I don't know why I mentioned it. No country needs a military beyond a "one major war" scenario: invasion of their homeland. Beyond that, is vanity or empire-building. And in the long term, wasted resources.

Almost everything. But not everything. And quite a few key industries are reliant on oil. Plastics come to mind.

Plastics can be synthesised from [i]elements if you invest enough energy. Gas is sufficient to make economical plastic ... the only contribution oil makes is in cheap plastics. I.e, convenient, throwaway pollution.

In many applications, plastics are superior to metal or organic materials. I grant that. Those applications can support a higher production cost from gas, or coal if necessary, or in extremis from grown hydrocarbons.

And don't forget. Current energy consumption means that to achieve an even parity, especially with coal's lower energy density, you'd be mining coal like there was no tomorrow and still end up with brownouts.

You're talking about an entirely different thing here. And not very coherently either.

Brownouts are a failure of planning, or if you are really cynical, they are market blackmail. "We are going to raise the price of power, don't run to your politicians because -look- we can take away your power."

I'm in favour of brownouts, whatever the cause. Without them, we just pay what it costs to get what we take for granted: the new aircon we bought will work, we can leave the PC on all day and all night, hey, I charge my car from the power-point so I'm not part of the global warming problem. MY power is 2% Green!

I waste power, I feel bad about that and I try to keep it under control. But I'm a damn sight more frugal than most people. Give 'em brownouts, let them try to watch their plasma TV by candlelight.

The problem here is that the restructuring was always for improvements. Build ups on existing infrastructure to take advantage of some higher efficiency development. What we're looking at here is a step back, towards less energy dense sources.

Thanks for running with the "more or less dense" evaluation of power sources idea. Because it really is crucial to military applications, and cars and agricultural equipe, and planes.

Lots of cheap electric power with moderate or no greenhouse tradeoffs is the holy grail. If we really get that going well, dense safe and closed-cycle fuels are relatively simple.

But realistically, we probably won't find a way to have unlimited amounts of energy with no downside. Producing the energy will still have a cost ... so to replace oil in the density-critical applications (particularly aviation, where weight is so important) we need a very high ratio of conversion from Electricity to Portable Fuel.

Hydrogen has been mooted, but it has obvious downsides. The efficiency isn't great, it is the most gassy of gasses, and it is moreover a goddam gas. Find a way to make it inert and liquid at ordinary temperatures, yet combinable with oxygen to return it to the water it was made from, under specific but easily devised conditions, and you have the cup part of the holy grail.

Then you need the stem to keep the grail upright (adoption by economies addicted to oil) and something to put in the grail: free energy.

Oil. Obsoleted. Then we move on to our real work as the thinking animal, the ethical and creative work which only we can do.

That's one part of it, but if you ask me, the economies would plummet like a rock, and there'd be fuel riots, increasing pressure to control whatever fuel stocks there are left.

Fuck the economies. I could expand on that, but this post is already too long.

Just because the human race has to, doesn't mean it will. The wonders of immediate gratification means that major corporations won't invest too heavily in long term futures until it becomes too late, and shareholders certainly won't want a company "wasting" capital on unproven research when their holdings and profit margins are at stake.

Do some Yoga. Or Meditation. Or Drugs.

You'll just get depressed thinking like that. We get better, we keep trying things that didn't work, sure, but over centuries or millennia we DO learn lessons.

Or else, the lesson would be "DON'T bang the rocks together, guys!"

Zoingo, I know you not, but I bid you: butt out. You bring nought but bunk.

Agreed to that.

It's a long passage. I too agree that the "two major wars" strategy was unrealistic (as a government attitude, by any government really).

It had great propaganda value. It was a claim to "we won the European WW2, and the Pacific WW2, AT THE SAME TIME, dude!"

It was directed at the USSR. Who else mattered, back then?

The Russkies folded their hand. Since then, we've seen what a bluff it was. The US can crush Puerto Rico and the Solomons at the same time. They can't crush even one of the dozen major powers. Glass them, yes. Make them go away without trace, no.

They can mess them up real bad, we know that. But make them do the US's will? Nah, that only applies to little islands with no internet. Or client states of the World Bank.

What Is also ironic is that a small tad of oil is also used in most modern medicines in which coal could not be used.

I majored in Physics. And Mathematics. But I do dig the Chemisty, and what you just exuded is none of those. It is, rather, bullshit.

Sorry, but yeah really. We pay huge premiums for the research costs of modern pharmaceuticals. That research is about the effects of the products on humans sick or well. It is about animal tests on speculative products which performed well in simulations of the proposed application. In Petri Dishes, if you will.

We don't pay that premium on medicine, for organic chemistry which was layed down in textbooks half a century ago.

"It's cheaper to make it this way" does NOT apply to pharmaceuticals. It's well established that production costs are a millicentile of retail medicine costs.

Or, if you didn't follow that: NO.

Coal is actually a powerfull source of energy, but its emissions are a problem. There are some scientist who believe that spewing the gases into the ground would help plants grow without harming the atmosphere.

May those scientists long roam free, and lay down their wisdom freely in big steaming piles, to enlighten the bold shroomers of the future. !

Oil does burn cleaner than coal, but just like chocolate or coffee, it is very addictive to society.

No, sorry to contradict you on even such a light-hearted point, but chocolate and coffee are addictive to the individual. Each one keeps buying it because they LIKE IT.

Oil isn't like that. People "buy" oil because they see transport or fertilizer as "needs" ... not wants.

I think I have done serious damage to your claims, but you're free to ignore me since I was kinda "butting in."

If Non-Aligned States wants to reply to you, I'll stay out of it. You were replying to N-AS, after all.

If you want to reply directly to the post which N-A S was replying to, I'm happy to debate with you. You spoke in support of N-AS ... that is not necessarily in contradiction of me.

If anyone else wants a piece of my bad attitude, just reply to this post. I have plenty more where this came from.

That's why I mentioned grounding civilian flights as a possible war emergency measure. Perhaps enforced car-pooling by license-plate curfew on successive days (this was used during oil shortages in the past, eg licenses beginning A-F only can buy fuel on monday, etc ... it worked in the short term, everyone got a bit of fuel if they were prepared to queue for it ... I believe that was in Britain in the 70's.)

Perhaps that glancing reference (and yes, I was going into a primitivist rave about our beautiful planet and the folly of consumerism...) didn't quite make the point. Just about any major power (not Japan I guess) has the oil reserves to fuel their military machinery, if they cut all other usage. That isn't what oil scarcity is about ... it's about coddling a stupid economic system which we have let grow too powerful. The real measure of military power is the ability to pay for the developement or purchase of the weapons, and to pay the wages necessary to attract talented military personnel.

Presenting military needs as a major part of strategic oil needs is ... well, rather silly. I know you can do better, NAS.

Oh no, no, no. You miss my point now. Although I suppose I am partially to blame for that since I didn't make it clear.

Part of the reason why the US has such a strong economy is because it funds a large and sprawling military industrial complex. The whole spending money to stimulate the economy angle.

Certainly it isn't the only aspect of the economy, but it's not an insignificant part of it.

Yes, the government could start curtailing private sector fuel availabilities in order to preserve fighting strength, but that's a downward spiral. North Korea is an extreme example, but it shows what happens when you prioritize too many resources into military spending, even if its just upkeep. You end up falling behind in the end.

It's a losing proposition, really. If they don't use the military to seize oil deposits, somebody else, who's economy will presumably last a little longer. If they do use it, they spark the risk of a larger conflict, which while good for short term economic stimulus, sucks dwindling fuel sources even faster.


"Two major wars" scenario is really quite retarded, I don't know why I mentioned it. No country needs a military beyond a "one major war" scenario: invasion of their homeland. Beyond that, is vanity or empire-building. And in the long term, wasted resources.

I suppose it's the whole two front war thing. A paranoid idea of invasion from the Pacific and Atlantic.


Plastics can be synthesised from elements if you invest enough energy. Gas is sufficient to make economical plastic ... the only contribution oil makes is in cheap plastics. I.e, convenient, throwaway pollution.

In many applications, plastics are superior to metal or organic materials. I grant that. Those applications can support a higher production cost from gas, or coal if necessary, or in extremis from grown hydrocarbons.


So if plastics become uneconomical to use, where does that leave many plastic dependent industries? Especially when there's no superior replacement like oil was to coal?

You can make a lot of things with enough energy, but that doesn't mean it's economical to do so. Or even profitable.


You're talking about an entirely different thing here. And not very coherently either.


Supply shortages. I know coal is a viable energy source, but when looking at current energy consumption trends, just cannot reconcile existing coal stockpiles and energy densities to the rate of consumption that oil makes up.


Thanks for running with the "more or less dense" evaluation of power sources idea. Because it really is crucial to military applications, and cars and agricultural equipe, and planes.

I presume you mean equipment? If so, how are you going to feed people when mass farming dries up due to the energy crunch?

I use a simple rule of thumb here. Rice, a basic staple. If the price of oil goes up by a few cents, an equivalent increase in rice prices goes up as well, including everything it is used for.


Lots of cheap electric power with moderate or no greenhouse tradeoffs is the holy grail. If we really get that going well, dense safe and closed-cycle fuels are relatively simple.

Barring cold fusion power or some form of hitherto unknown energy source, we're not going to get that.


But realistically, we probably won't find a way to have unlimited amounts of energy with no downside. Producing the energy will still have a cost ... so to replace oil in the density-critical applications (particularly aviation, where weight is so important) we need a very high ratio of conversion from Electricity to Portable Fuel.

Hydrogen has been mooted, but it has obvious downsides. The efficiency isn't great, it is the most gassy of gasses, and it is moreover a goddam gas. Find a way to make it inert and liquid at ordinary temperatures, yet combinable with oxygen to return it to the water it was made from, under specific but easily devised conditions, and you have the cup part of the holy grail.

Then you need the stem to keep the grail upright (adoption by economies addicted to oil) and something to put in the grail: free energy.

Oil. Obsoleted. Then we move on to our real work as the thinking animal, the ethical and creative work which only we can do.

Don't forget that hydrogen is extremely hard to store because of its tendency to slip through molecular bonds, being the lightest element on the periodic table.

Besides, room temperature liquid hydrogen would probably either require some exotic elements bonding or changing the way physics works. I really have no idea as to the feasibility of this proposal. One could say a high efficiency tokamak reactor would be a safer bet.


Fuck the economies. I could expand on that, but this post is already too long.


Maybe, but the economies are the typically the driving force behind new developments during peacetime.


Do some Yoga. Or Meditation. Or Drugs.

You'll just get depressed thinking like that. We get better, we keep trying things that didn't work, sure, but over centuries or millennia we DO learn lessons.

Or else, the lesson would be "DON'T bang the rocks together, guys!"

Oh, we do get better. But at what? And more importantly, do we have the foresight as a species to actually get better at the things that give us a future worth a damn?

Well said. Chinese technology is improving far faster than US. Hard to say exactly why, but probably has something to do with scale and the incentive of widespread poverty.
The poverty part is dubious, but I'll let that slide.

The reason that Chinese technology is improving 'far faster' than the US stuff (I'm not entirely sure that it is, but hey, let's go with it) would be due to an extremely rigorous selection process for the best schools in China, coupled with their population which is three times high than that of the US (hence three times as many extremely intelligent people) and a culture which has praised learning since the inception of the Chinese Empire about 4,000 years ago.

Also, they have learnt extremely quickly how best to cadge things off other people, knock off the more frivolous extras and sell it for a fifth of the price. Which is kind of handy for them, as it brings in a hell of a lot of money from clients who are interested in the product itself, not what it looks like and so on and so forth.

I think there will be a war, within the next 40-50 years when China is finally ready to match the US military and economy. They will either make a move on Taiwan or the people in Taiwan could (but unlikely) declare independence causing the Chinese to invade, thus dragging the US into the conflict.

No. The US will back down when it comes to defending Taiwan.

In the time span of 40 to 50 years it is possible for a war between the United States and the People's Republic of China. The two possibilities for such a war is over the Republic of China or energy reserves in the Middle East.

Oh no, no, no. You miss my point now. Although I suppose I am partially to blame for that since I didn't make it clear.

Part of the reason why the US has such a strong economy is because it funds a large and sprawling military industrial complex. The whole spending money to stimulate the economy angle.

I disagree. The only aspect of US military spending which makes US citizens richer in any real way is weapons exports. (Which, obviously, I disagree with.) Those exports directly or indirectly threaten the very lives of the citizens who subsidize the arms industry -- even when sold to "friendly" countries, weapons sales create an arms race, and there are no winners in an arms race.

Yes, arms spending is stimulatory. On a ridiculously long scale, too. But consider if that money had been 'pumped in' to the economy some other way, say on infrastructure or space exploration. Wouldn't the citizens be saying "enough already" when there was a railway station on every street, four different optical cables into every house to allow companies to compete head to head, including a government cable network, prenatal early education, and a government-provided maid in every home? Wouldn't people be asking to spend a bit of their own money now, please?

It's almost like the US government is communist. They want a huge stake in the economy, and military spending is seen as a legitimate role for government. More legitimate than educating kids! And certainly more legitimate than providing basics of survival to all the citizens. Or participating in the strategic parts of the economy, like infrastructure or energy research.

Certainly it isn't the only aspect of the economy, but it's not an insignificant part of it.

Yes, the government could start curtailing private sector fuel availabilities in order to preserve fighting strength, but that's a downward spiral. North Korea is an extreme example, but it shows what happens when you prioritize too many resources into military spending, even if its just upkeep. You end up falling behind in the end.

I refer you to my previous post. In 2004 (the only year I could find stats for both), the oil usage of the US military was less than 2% of the total oil usage of the US.

I don't think you can make a "downward spiral" out of that. And my mind boggles at you comparing the US with North Korea.

It's a losing proposition, really. If they don't use the military to seize oil deposits, somebody else, who's economy will presumably last a little longer. If they do use it, they spark the risk of a larger conflict, which while good for short term economic stimulus, sucks dwindling fuel sources even faster.

Right, we agree on that at least. You say the US may do it even though it's stupid. I say they've had half a century to come up with a response to oil scarcity, and can't possibly be that stupid.

I guess it comes down to optimism v pessimism. I have faith in the human race. I don't just look at history as a series of wars, but as a story of progress. Even though we seem painfully slow to learn lessons, we learn them.

So if plastics become uneconomical to use, where does that leave many plastic dependent industries? Especially when there's no superior replacement like oil was to coal?

It leaves them with the stokers and the farriers: looking for another job.

I find it disgraceful the way people starve, the way they are tossed aside when corporations find someone else who can work for less because they don't have such expensive commitments ... but then we're supposed to rush to their defense when their business is threatened.

So they go out of business making $2-a-metre carpet which people pull up after a year. Or cruddy toys which break on Boxing Day. Or disposable plastic bags. Good. Fuck 'em.

We will have enough plastics for the applications where they are really needed (in machinery, textiles, some parts of housing) but they'll cost more as oil becomes more expensive. Big whoop.

Supply shortages. I know coal is a viable energy source, but when looking at current energy consumption trends, just cannot reconcile existing coal stockpiles and energy densities to the rate of consumption that oil makes up.

I'll look at that again. I was under the impression there is something like ten times as much energy in unexploited coal as there is in unexploited oil. But for now, I'll just say you're wrong.

I presume you mean equipment? If so, how are you going to feed people when mass farming dries up due to the energy crunch?

Why do you do this, posit an extreme when there is only a trend? And what kind of monsters do you take humans for, that they need plastic junk so badly that they will give up on growing food?

I use a simple rule of thumb here. Rice, a basic staple. If the price of oil goes up by a few cents, an equivalent increase in rice prices goes up as well, including everything it is used for.

So it becomes more profitable to grow rice, relative say to providing jet holidays. That just balances out, albeit with more people going hungry.

I don't see where you get "collapse" out of that.

Barring cold fusion power or some form of hitherto unknown energy source, we're not going to get that.

We need it, badly. Every year that we keep "growing the economy" based on oil, the worse shit we'll be in as oil and then gas run out. ('As' not 'when' -- it's not a sudden or unexpected thing).

Don't forget that hydrogen is extremely hard to store because of its tendency to slip through molecular bonds, being the lightest element on the periodic table.

Or as I put it, "the gassiest of gasses." If I thought hydrogen was the 'bowl of the Grail' I would have said so -- I think I made it pretty plain that we need some other invention in dense and portable synthetic fuel.

Besides, room temperature liquid hydrogen would probably either require some exotic elements bonding or changing the way physics works. I really have no idea as to the feasibility of this proposal. One could say a high efficiency tokamak reactor would be a safer bet.

I used to be a fan of fusion, but at this point it isn't looking very feasible. Even if the reactors suddenly start working, they will be expensive to build. We'll still be looking at a centralized system where people have to buy power, and it needs to be transmitted across distance.

A breakthrough in solar panels would be ideal ... though we'd still need high-efficiency storage. Perhaps one and the same thing as high-density, high-efficiency synthetic fuels.

Maybe, but the economies are the typically the driving force behind new developments during peacetime.

I have a more jaded view there. Economies are a horde of camp-followers, parasites on real industries that create value by doing something useful like growing rice or styling hair.

Richer societies have a more top-heavy structure. More parasites, basically.

Oh, we do get better. But at what? And more importantly, do we have the foresight as a species to actually get better at the things that give us a future worth a damn?

I could easily slip into that despair. It just don't want to.

The poverty part is dubious, but I'll let that slide.

Thanks. However, what I meant was that Chinese factory workers work harder for lower wages because of the poverty they'd fall into if they didn't. Pretty simple.

The reason that Chinese technology is improving 'far faster' than the US stuff (I'm not entirely sure that it is, but hey, let's go with it) would be due to an extremely rigorous selection process for the best schools in China, coupled with their population which is three times high than that of the US (hence three times as many extremely intelligent people) and a culture which has praised learning since the inception of the Chinese Empire about 4,000 years ago.

Very good point. Far too often, people talk about education as though schools and universities are factories. Buy better machines, make better products.

Education is a part of culture, and it's a culture in itself. Sure, raising teacher wages attracts better teachers, sure spending on teaching resources makes a difference to outcomes, but both are insignificant compared to the quality and commitment of the students who are getting an education.

Eventually, despite the long history of Chinese scholarship, China will be in the same hole as we're in. You need the piece of paper to get the job, but you don't need the learning the piece of paper supposedly represents, so the whole thing just becomes a circus.

Also, they have learnt extremely quickly how best to cadge things off other people, knock off the more frivolous extras and sell it for a fifth of the price. Which is kind of handy for them, as it brings in a hell of a lot of money from clients who are interested in the product itself, not what it looks like and so on and so forth.

China has a very long history of trading in stuff. ;)

no, US foreign policy isn't based on morals it's based on money. the US would sooner dump Taiwan than go to war with such a major trading partner.

Hardly, the US is driven by prestige issues, just like everyone else. Why do you think that, during the Cold War, the US pushed it to the brink over the Cuban Missiles? The absolute insanity of Vietnam? Pursued a truly Carthaginian peace with a defeated Soviet Union?

More recently, why do you think the US has started to play nicer with the European demands for multilateralism? Why will there be no military action against Iran? Why none against North Korea? Why the increasing brinkmanship with Russia? There's a lot more to US foreign policy than the dollar, and that should be clear.

The poverty part is dubious, but I'll let that slide.

The reason that Chinese technology is improving 'far faster' than the US stuff (I'm not entirely sure that it is, but hey, let's go with it) would be due to an extremely rigorous selection process for the best schools in China, coupled with their population which is three times high than that of the US (hence three times as many extremely intelligent people) and a culture which has praised learning since the inception of the Chinese Empire about 4,000 years ago.


It's also quite important to remember that, while the PRC is pumping out engineers and other professionals at a nigh-ridiculous rate, they're being produced in exceedingly narrow fields, and they're an extremely limited portion of the population. Many times, students are locked into a rigorous college program that gives them a very specialized, precise education, but very little depth. You ought to see the difference between Western college transcripts and transcripts between students from the PRC at the graduate school I work at. I look at the number of GEC/Liberal Arts credits I take, and compare it to what they take, and it's hard to believe the disparity in breadth of education.

This specialization is extremely dangerous to the construction of a sustainable, industrial society, and a similar issue was one of the key weaknesses of the Soviet education system.

no we'll all be dead in a few decades from a lack of oil or climate change

Actually, the challenges of decreasing fuel supplies are certainly something to consider when discussing US-PRC relations in the long-term. As it stands, the West is well positioned to be able to utilize newer technologies as substitutes for petro-fuels. Indeed, the investments required to transform ourselves away from our hydrocarbon society have already begun to take the first baby steps. China, on the other hand, is not taking those steps, is embracing increasingly inefficient energy sources, and is growing its reliance on hydrocarbons at a rate that would make the US blush.

I do think that this element is dangerous, and could have unforeseen consequences.

I disagree. The only aspect of US military spending which makes US citizens richer in any real way is weapons exports.

Which incidentally comes directly from the funding the US spends on its military industry. I imagine that if they were affected by the fuel crunch, there would be less such sales.

It's an interesting parallel, especially when one compares it to equivalent era Soviet/Russian products and costs. General perception puts US weapons equipment as expensive but capable of high quality performance, while Russian/Soviet equivalents are cheap, but of average quality.

Rambling, I know, but it's an interesting thing to pursue, considering that both countries make significant profits on arms sales, yet seem to have markedly different production philosophies and costs.


(Which, obviously, I disagree with.) Those exports directly or indirectly threaten the very lives of the citizens who subsidize the arms industry -- even when sold to "friendly" countries, weapons sales create an arms race, and there are no winners in an arms race.

Nobody ever went broke overestimating the stupidity of the human race, I believe the line went.

I have this theory that the real long term thinkers and planners, at least those who have motivations more benevolent than self benefit, became ultimately pessimistic and went on to become equivalent era hermits.


Yes, arms spending is stimulatory. On a ridiculously long scale, too. But consider if that money had been 'pumped in' to the economy some other way, say on infrastructure or space exploration. Wouldn't the citizens be saying "enough already" when there was a railway station on every street, four different optical cables into every house to allow companies to compete head to head, including a government cable network, prenatal early education, and a government-provided maid in every home? Wouldn't people be asking to spend a bit of their own money now, please?


That's the beauty of military spending. Or rather, the ugly side to it. Spending on public works and infrastructure can only go so far before it's saturated. After all, you can only make so many roads, or streetlights, before there just isn't room for them anymore. Then you're stuck with money that you can't spend, which will probably lead to people asking for lower taxes.

But with military spending, the story is different. Well, different if they are used the way they are intended to, but I'll get to that. In principle, spending on military assets is essentially spending money on things for breaking other things which in turn will also get broken.

You see, one of the holy grails of product providing companies is to provide them with the hopes that it won't last very long, and, barring competitors, the customers have to come back and buy some more. Take printer companies for example. The printers go for cheap, but the ink cartridges will end up costing more than the printer in the long run, ensuring constant income.

How to apply that to a military industry? Simple. By having the country going to war every so often. There will be an influx of cash on the basis that weapons will always need replacing and improvement.

And if the people protest? Well, claim them to be traitors to the nation, that
the war is for their survival, etc, etc.

People, as a population mass, in general, are stupid and ignorant. In fact, they crave that ignorance. Too much information, and they just toss it out like trash, going for the basic questions of "where's my next meal coming from?"


It's almost like the US government is communist. They want a huge stake in the economy, and military spending is seen as a legitimate role for government. More legitimate than educating kids! And certainly more legitimate than providing basics of survival to all the citizens. Or participating in the strategic parts of the economy, like infrastructure or energy research.


Didn't you get the memo? America has been beholden to corporate interests ever since the days of political lobbying. It's not really a democracy. That's a lie they like to perpetuate. It's more of a corporatacy.

And as rulers have noted from the beginnings of information control, an educated populace is a dangerous populace. Ignorant people are easier to control, and fortunately for said rulers, easy to perpetuate.


I refer you to my previous post. In 2004 (the only year I could find stats for both), the oil usage of the US military was less than 2% of the total oil usage of the US.


Yes, but that is in times of relative oil abundance. What do you think the figure will look like 20 years in the future? I haven't the slightest what it will look like with any degree of accuracy, but it is a safe bet that it won't be 2% then.


I don't think you can make a "downward spiral" out of that. And my mind boggles at you comparing the US with North Korea.

From a question of economics, perhaps it boggles the mind, but given how the economy in the US is handled right now, it is not that much of a stretch for it to divert even greater resources into military spending and less into public works. North Korea is an extreme example of what happens when that sort of thing is overdone.


Right, we agree on that at least. You say the US may do it even though it's stupid. I say they've had half a century to come up with a response to oil scarcity, and can't possibly be that stupid.


Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on whether there is a sufficient groundswell of long term planners in the US to overcome the "get, get, get, now, now, now" crowd.

Given that American elections are basically American Idol contests with corporate sponsorship, I don't think so.


I guess it comes down to optimism v pessimism. I have faith in the human race. I don't just look at history as a series of wars, but as a story of progress. Even though we seem painfully slow to learn lessons, we learn them.


The lovely thing about pessimism is that all your surprises are pleasant ones.


It leaves them with the stokers and the farriers: looking for another job.

I find it disgraceful the way people starve, the way they are tossed aside when corporations find someone else who can work for less because they don't have such expensive commitments ... but then we're supposed to rush to their defense when their business is threatened.

It's a vicious cycle really. Adam Smith taken to its extremes where the whole framework cannot have a component removed without fear of the entire structure collapsing.


We will have enough plastics for the applications where they are really needed (in machinery, textiles, some parts of housing) but they'll cost more as oil becomes more expensive. Big whoop.


Or they just won't be available anymore. Companies that made economically unfeasible products had a tendency to go out of business real quick.


I'll look at that again. I was under the impression there is something like ten times as much energy in unexploited coal as there is in unexploited oil. But for now, I'll just say you're wrong.


But can you mine coal as quickly as you can pump oil? Not just kilo for kilo, but watt for watt? That is what I am talking about. There may be umpteen googol-joules worth of coal energy out there, but if you cannot extract them at an energy producing rate equal to oil, you end up losing.


Why do you do this, posit an extreme when there is only a trend? And what kind of monsters do you take humans for, that they need plastic junk so badly that they will give up on growing food?

What kind of monsters? The best kind. The kind that would eat their own.

But that's not really relevant to the matter. You're not understanding what I'm saying.

Mass agricultural farming is a must now unless we want to see more widespread global famine than there already is. And even with said mass farming techniques, which are incidentally quite energy intensive, we have famines just about everywhere, even in first world countries where they are confined to the "invisible" caste. The poor.

Rising energy costs and dwindling fuel stocks doesn't mean that there won't be anymore food. That's bunk. What it will mean is rising food costs. Increasing segments of the population across the globe simply will not be able to afford to feed themselves and will become the new poor.


So it becomes more profitable to grow rice, relative say to providing jet holidays. That just balances out, albeit with more people going hungry.

I don't see where you get "collapse" out of that.

Buh? How did you even get there? Quick question, have you studied economics? Or at least how intertwined oil is with the basic necessities of life?

And it's not "more people going hungry". It's "more people suffering from famine".

If you don't see the collapse, take a look at North Korea. It may not be collapsed in the standard sense, but there's no denying it's imploded.


We need it, badly. Every year that we keep "growing the economy" based on oil, the worse shit we'll be in as oil and then gas run out. ('As' not 'when' -- it's not a sudden or unexpected thing).


Oh we need it. There's no denying it. Just like we needed a cure for the black plague several centuries back. There's no guarantee though, that need will transform into a tangible solution.

I suspect that we're in for a lot more concentrated human misery and anguish across the globe in the coming years than we've seen as a species throughout our existence.


I used to be a fan of fusion, but at this point it isn't looking very feasible. Even if the reactors suddenly start working, they will be expensive to build. We'll still be looking at a centralized system where people have to buy power, and it needs to be transmitted across distance.

A breakthrough in solar panels would be ideal ... though we'd still need high-efficiency storage. Perhaps one and the same thing as high-density, high-efficiency synthetic fuels.

Solar panels are at best subject to the whims of fair weather though. Even if you came up with super high efficiency solar panels, you'd still be subject to the weather, and however long your batteries can last. In places in the tropics where day long storms can mean days without meaningful sunlight, I doubt it would be effective.

And really, you'd still be buying power in terms of capital investment and maintenance.

Tokamak's, if they become sufficiently efficient, won't be bound by that limitation.


I have a more jaded view there. Economies are a horde of camp-followers, parasites on real industries that create value by doing something useful like growing rice or styling hair.

Richer societies have a more top-heavy structure. More parasites, basically.


Actually, I would argue that it isn't industry that creates value. It's society. Or rather, not so much creating, but assigning value. Industry follows through by creating items from which the value is assigned to.

As to economies being a horde of camp followers, well, you'll have to explain that. My understanding of an economy is that it exists the moment you have a formalized system of exchange.


I could easily slip into that despair. It just don't want to.

Give in to your darkness young Mannequins. Strike the optimism down, and take your rightful place by my side. :p

Putting that aside, it's not a question of despair. It's a question of practicality. If humanity lacks in any meaningful amount, the foresight we need to survive as a species, then either someone will have to provide that foresight or we are done for.

And it would be a deserved done for too.

China is a paper tiger

remember when they invaded vietnam?

I think it would be cool...like a cold war or something and movies and stuff replacing former evil Russians/Soviets with evil Chinese.

China won't fight a war it can't win.

Why not, it has before.

US-China war? America would probably win, but both sides will probably not start a war because of economical issues.

(By the way, I do live in Taiwan)

Schrandtopia;13460501']China is a paper tiger

remember when they invaded vietnam?

that is a really narrow minded viewpoint. china has made giant strides from the time it invaded vietnam. myopia only comes at one's own peril.

I think there will be a war, within the next 40-50 years when China is finally ready to match the US military and economy. They will either make a move on Taiwan or the people in Taiwan could (but unlikely) declare independence causing the Chinese to invade, thus dragging the US into the conflict.

LOL.
Really, if things get hot between USA and PRC, it would eventually lead to some proxy war. Unlikely, though, because much of the sustainability of the US debt relies on China.

Personally, I don't know if there will be a war between the US or China but it doesn't sound all that surprising. However if there is a war between the US or China. I definitely won't be a War. More of a Nuclear Holocaust on a global scale.

Schrandtopia;13460501']remember when they invaded vietnam?
Yeah, they basically had a bit of a skirmish on, and about 10,000 Chinese died, and 40,000 Vietnamese soldiers and 80,000 civilians were killed.

Keep in mind also that China has gone through massive military reforms in the last nearly 30 years.

If the author was saying it's going to run out a few decades from now at current rates of use, they're talking bunk.
Sorry, I posted that while I was half-asleep: It was actually the "peak coal" point that's supposed to be within a few decades, not the total consumption of known reserves...

Schrandtopia;13460501']China is a paper tiger

remember when they invaded vietnam?

I also remember how 'successful' the US were in Vietnam. Are they a paper tiger too?

I also remember how 'successful' the US were in Vietnam. Are they a paper tiger too?

Yes, except, unlike China, the US-paper tiger is trying to swim...

Nobody ever went broke overestimating the stupidity of the human race, I believe the line went.

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public" is the exact quote (from P. T. Barnum)

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public" is the exact quote (from P. T. Barnum)

Excellent correction!

P.T. Barnum would have made a great NSGer. Probably take the "most sigged" crown off LG...

Within the next 50 years? Wouldn't surprise me.

Some of these reasons, forgive me, seem kind of outlandish and rediculous. US invade Mexico or Canada for cheap labour...? I think that was a joke. A war between the two superpowers would incite a world war, don't you think? It wouldn't be another Iraq, it wouldn't be one-sided. Either country would be pulling out the big guns (not the nukes) and so allies would become involved. It would just become another East vs. West, but rather than a cold war it'd become a heated thing taking out at least a fifth of the world population as someone said. It would never be JUST the US vs. China. Personally I don't think this war will occur in the next 40 years. On top of all that, they're both fairly large trading partners. The conflict would have to be started by so many unlikely variables. It's possible to walk through a wall, but how often do the particles move in such a way you can pass right through?