The 21st Century Satan

[ICantSpellDawg]

I know what most of you will say, but this is closest to my view of this century. Part of me can't wait for the coming global race war. It will be a doozy that I think we will lose. The other part of me is utterly interested and concerned to see how this plays out.

Why China is the REAL master of the universe
By ANTHONY BROWNE - More by this author » Last updated at 23:18pm on 11th April 2008
LINK (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=559133&in_page_id=1811)

Cecil Rhodes, the businessman-imperialist of Africa, the creator of Rhodesia, suffered no flicker of doubt about who were the masters.

"To be born an Englishman," he mused, "Is to win first prize in the lottery of life."

It wasn't idle boasting. In the jingoistic triumphalism of the late 19th century, when waving the Union Jack was a simple pleasure, people sang: "Rule Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves" without any irony. It was a statement of fact.

A quarter of mankind lived under the British flag in the largest empire the world had ever known.

And many of those parts that weren't under Britain's rule - such as the U.S. - had been created by Britain.

British missionaries had opened up the Dark Continent almost unchallenged.

The British Army found it easier to invade troublesome nations - or most of them - than it does nowadays.

Britain was the workshop of the world, dominating science, manufacturing and trade.

To many Victorians, unquestioning of the ideology that underpinned much imperialism, British supremacy was a simple matter of racial supremacy - Europeans, and the English in particular, were fated to be the masters.

The truth is that we are masters of the world no more.

The global power shift from the West to the East is no longer just a matter of debate confined to learned journals and newspaper columns - it is a reality that is beginning to have a huge impact on our daily lives.

What would those Victorian masters of old have made of the fact that Chinese security men were on the streets of London this week, ordering our own police about and fighting running battles with British protesters while bewildered athletes carried the Olympic torch on its relay through the capital?

It was a brazen display of how confident China has become of its new place in the world, just as the British Government's failure to take a firm stand on Chinese abuses of human rights shows how craven we have become.

The dire warnings from the International Monetary Fund this week that the West now faces the largest financial shock since the Great Depression, while the Asian economies are still powering ahead, simply underlines our vulnerability in this new world order.

The desperately weakened American dollar appears to be on the verge of losing its global dominance, in the same way as sterling lost it a lifetime ago.

The credit crunch has brought home to all of us in Britain how over-reliant our country has become on financial services. Meanwhile, the loss of our manufacturing industries to Asia continues unabated.

Last month, an Indian company, Tata, bought up what was once the cream of British manufacturing - Jaguar and Land Rover.

A couple of years ago, Nanjing Automotive, a Chinese company, snapped up MG Rover.

Just as the 19th century was the British century, and the 20th century was the American century, the 21st century is the Asian century.

But the handover of global power from the UK to the U.S. was trivial compared to what is happening now.

The U.S. was Britain's offspring, based on the same values and the same language.

It, too, was an Anglo-Saxon country, and passing the baton across the Atlantic ensured the continuation of the Anglo-Saxon world order, based on democracy, free trade and a belief in human rights, upheld through international institutions that both powers supported.

But the world order we have grown used to - and comfortable with - over the last century is coming to an end.

Napoleon III compared China to a sleeping giant and warned: "When China awakes, she will shake the world."

After a long hibernation, China, and her 1.3 billion people - twice the population of the U.S. and EU combined - is awaking almost overnight.

And not just China. The world's second most populous country, India, is industrialising at a historically unprecedented pace.

Their economies are growing on a long-term basis about four times the speed of the UK's and that of the United States. Goldman Sachs, the bank, recently predicted that by 2050, China and India would have overtaken the U.S. to be the world's first and second biggest economies.

We have long heard about the benefits this brings, in terms of plentiful cheap goods from toys to TVs, and huge opportunities for Western companies to sell their wares in these booming markets.

But there are also downsides, which are becoming more apparent. Unskilled workers in the West have become unsettled by the threat to their jobs as production moves East.

The most vulnerable Western workers have found their wages stagnate as they struggle to compete in an increasingly global market place.

And competition for raw materials is pitting East against West.

The economic explosion of China, and to a lesser extent India, has given them an almost overpowering hunger for raw materials with which to build their factories, homes and cars.

Wherever you turn, the rise of Asia is making its impact felt on our existence.

Every time you complain about the price of petrol being over £1 a litre, it is to the Far East you have to look to find the culprits.

There are even reports that manholes in Britain have been disappearing to feed the monstrous appetite for scrap steel in the other side of the world.

China is spending 35 times as much on crude oil as it did eight years ago, and 23 times as much on copper.

As it builds gleaming skyscrapers on its fields, China alone consumes half the world's cement and a third of its steel.

What is happening is so extraordinary that economists have had to invent a new word for it - this is not an economic cycle, but a supercycle, a shift in the world economy of historic proportions.

When demand increases and supply stands still, prices shoot up. Iron, wheat and oil are all at record prices, despite slackening demand in the faltering Western economies.

The cost of living in Britain is now rising faster than wages, making the British on average poorer year on year.

Asia's expansion means that its influence is starting to be felt more directly around the world.

Asian countries are not just buying up foreign raw materials, but as their companies try to become global leaders, they are buying up Western companies.

It is not just Land Rover, Jaguar and MG Rover. The Malaysian company Proton owns Lotus. Indian company Tata owns Corus, once British Steel, as well as Tetley Tea.

The hunger for raw materials is also making China lose its shyness and venture out into the world. Like Germany and Russia, China has traditionally been a land empire, focusing its expansionist energies on countries it had borders with, and it eschewed the world-conquering exploits of Europe's sea-faring maritime nations.

Europeans have, for half a millennium, been unchallenged as the global colonisers, but last month the respected Economist magazine dubbed the Chinese "The New Colonists".

While the Congo in central Africa was once over-run by Belgians, it is now the Chinese that can be found wondering around its mining belts.

In Lubumbashi, the capital of the Congo's copper-rich region Katanga, the Economist reported "a sudden Chinese invasion".

Troubled Angola recently shunned Western financial aid because of the amount of Chinese money pouring into it, in return for commodities.

From Kazakhstan to Indonesia to Latin America, Chinese firms are gobbling up oil, gas, coal and metals.

Canadian authorities were recently alarmed to find the Chinese interested in exploring the Arctic Ocean, in a bid to get a share of the minerals beneath the thawing icecap.

In eastern Siberia, Russians worry that China is by default taking over their empty land.

The West has long seen Africa as its backyard, but Western diplomats now worry that not just Africa, but South America, too, is being lost to China.

And Western governments are concerned that the rules of the game are changing. Most worryingly, as China's brutal suppression of the once independent Tibet shows, this is not a superpower that respects Western standards on human rights.

From Darfur to Myanmar, China is cuddling up to murderous dictators.

At home, it holds mass executions of criminals with bullets in the back of the head while transplant surgeons stand by to harvest their still pulsating organs.

Yet Western governments have been in such awe of China's looming power that their response has not been to challenge its abuses, but to try to silence their own protesters at home.

From the UN to the IMF to the World Bank, the international institutions that attempt to govern the planet were made in the image of the victors of World War II. Now power is shifting from West to East, the whole liberal democratic world order will face its first serious challenge in decades.

Many fear that things could get ugly.

There is only one thing worse than an unchallenged superpower - it is a superpower with a victim mentality, which feels the world owes it a favour.

And the bitter truth is that, after centuries of humiliation in foreign affairs, there is a nationalist mood in China that the country's time has come again, that it can again claim its rightful place as the world's most powerful country.

Its comparative weakness over the last few centuries is, in fact, but a blip in the last 2,000 years, during which China was the world's most economically and culturally advanced nation.

It is an accident of history that Europeans took advantage of their window of opportunity in the last half of the second millennium to take over the world.

The cause was a combination of factors such as the development of maritime technology in Europe, the competition between European countries that drove them to look outwards and find new ways to increase prosperity, and the fact China remained firmly locked in its agrarian, introspective past.

Now things have changed, and already the shift in the world economy is starting to have dramatic effects on migration patterns.

The emigration of poor people from China and India to the West is slowing down, as their citizens see more hope in their own rapidly advancing nations.

Instead, their expanding middle classes are paying large fees for their children to enjoy a Western university education, before returning home.

There are now 60,000 Chinese students in Britain, more than from any other country.

Westerners have become accustomed to being the only tourists in the world's tourist hotspots, but the Chinese and Indians want to enjoy the fruits of their labour by expanding their horizons, too.

Chinese tourists are likely to replace American tourists as popular irritants in Britain, and replace the Germans as competitors for the ski lifts.

As the opportunities flow from West to East, so too do the people.

India is luring the global Indian diaspora back, with laws that would be judged racist in Britain, offering visas to anyone living in the West with Indian blood in their veins.

Even some non-Indian Westerners are heading East for opportunities greater than they find at home.

The West's cultural supremacy is likely to be as challenged as its economic supremacy.

As their economic confidence grows, Asians are discovering pride in their own cultures and are less inclined to mimic Western ones.

There is an infectious confidence in Bollywood, and the price of Chinese antiques is rocketing as the newly rich Chinese decide they want a slice of their history. Western culture, like the dollar, will soon find its heyday behind it.

But Western attitudes will change as well, with a likely shift to the political Right. White liberal guilt, the driving force behind political correctness, will subside as Westerners feel threatened by the global order changing, and their supremacy slipping away.

Anti-Americanism will disappear as Europeans realise how much better it was to have a world super power that was a democracy (however flawed) not a dictatorship.

There is even speculation that the intense economic pressure on countries such as Britain will cause them to trim down their bloated welfare state, simply because it will no longer be affordable at present levels.

Western attitudes of superiority to China and the rest of the East will also subside, as Westerners realise they are no longer the masters of the world.

The U.S. company Orient Express complained when Tata tried to buy it, that any association with the Indian company would damage the Orient Express's premium brand.

Responding, R K Krishna Kumar, a senior Tata executive, thundered that "Indian companies ... will take their rightful place in the international arena.

"Enterprises and individuals must recognise and adapt to these fundamental economic changes. We believe that those with a fossilised frame of mind risk being marginalised."

In a world in which we are no longer masters, it is a warning that we ignore at our peril.

[Samurai Waki]

"I'm not afraid!"

"Bors, Chop it's head off!!"

[Watchman]

What coming global race war ? :inquisitive:

[ICantSpellDawg]

What coming global race war ? :inquisitive:

Oh, you don't know? You're in for a shocker https://img440.imageshack.us/img440/6428/shockersf0.jpg

[Watchman]

I must've missed the schedule announcement. Care to enlighten me ?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yea - people are going to just start killing each other one day. In the streets.

[Watchman]

What's that, the T-virus ?

[ICantSpellDawg]

What's that, the T-virus ?

Yes. Only a way more racist version.

[Watchman]

Oh. So who stands in for Umbrella, Inc. ?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Oh. So who stands in for Umbrella, Inc. ?

China. In conjunction with the full cast of zoobalyzoo.

[Lemur]

"The coming global race war"? Dude, that's so sixties.

[ICantSpellDawg]

"The coming global race war"? Dude, that's so sixties.

the 2060's *zing

[Watchman]

China. In conjunction with the full cast of zoobalyzoo.And you base this on what exactly ?

[ICantSpellDawg]

And you base this on what exactly ?

a terrible case of hemorrhoids. They are turning blue and giving me vivid hallucinations of the future and the nature of Jesus Christ.

[Watchman]

Why am I not surprised ?
Probably because the whole thing sounded like being pretty well in the Tinfoil Hat zone from the start, with some good old Yellow Peril and suspiciously archaic-looking terminology thrown in for good measure...

[ICantSpellDawg]

Why am I not surprised ?
Probably because the whole thing sounded like being pretty well in the Tinfoil Hat zone from the start, with some good old Yellow Peril and suspiciously archaic-looking terminology thrown in for good measure...

No, the article is straight-up legit.

[Marshal Murat]

It's basic economics really. China and India can whore her population out to create cheap stuff, use the money to absorb raw materials from Chile to Congo, and buy out other companies. I think he has a good point in that Western nations can't really compete for materials without being just as ruthless as China, and the Chinese have an entitlement complex. So the competition for resources will probably be something along the lines of proxy wars for control of governments and resources.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It's basic economics really. China and India can whore her population out to create cheap stuff, use the money to absorb raw materials from Chile to Congo, and buy out other companies. I think he has a good point in that Western nations can't really compete for materials without being just as ruthless as China, and the Chinese have an entitlement complex. So the competition for resources will probably be something along the lines of proxy wars for control of governments and resources.

Absolutely. I think the century (and a half) of human rights is ending. We have seen the begging of the ebb towards selfish, economy-centric nationalism again. Unless China sees the civil war that has been predicted for 50 years (and isn't going to happen)

BTW - the United States economy is overvalued. We are starting to see the rotten fruits of overvaluing it for so long.

We have ignorant, lazy workers who expect the best and produce crap. Juxtapose this with other countries who have ignorant, less lazy workers who expect the least and produce more crap. Plus there are tripple the amount of those workers.

Our children are going to 8-10 years of school to understand their sexuality and feelings. They ridicule work because they have no understanding of it.

What do you get? A failed U.S. economy. We have no niche - Europe has luxury because of its archaic geography. We used to have manufacturing prowess and created good products cheaper. Now China produces comparable products even cheaper than we ever could. What is the United States? What is our niche?

[discovery1]

What is our niche?

How about ridiculously advanced technology? Aerospace, medical, etc? Course, I would be one of the people building it.

[Lemur]

Disco, I honestly thought he was kidding. TuffStuff, the future of America is bright, my man. Don't let the doom-sayers getcha down.

[Incongruous]

Disco, I honestly thought he was kidding. TuffStuff, the future of America is bright, my man. Don't let the doom-sayers getcha down.
Can I please have an opinion as to why?
Why is this no defferent than believing Al Gore?
It's fact right? Proved by economics?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Disco, I honestly thought he was kidding. TuffStuff, the future of America is bright, my man. Don't let the doom-sayers getcha down.
Lemur-no offense, but I don't see it. I see a dearth of insight in my generation. It's like the well dried up. We expect quite a bit, but nobody does anything other than service jobs. Really poorly to boot. We arn't the working poor either. Motivation is either dead or misguided.

Maybe Wisconsin is different.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Race war? Bah, if anything it'll be a religious war. :juggle2:

CR

[Lemur]

Can I please have an opinion as to why?
Why is this no defferent than believing Al Gore?
It's fact right? Proved by economics?

Lemur-no offense, but I don't see it. I see a dearth of insight in my generation. [...] Motivation is either dead or misguided. Maybe Wisconsin is different.
Who knew that suggesting America's future is bright would be so controversial?

Let's look at some basics. America's greatest strength is our ability to re-invent ourselves. We're like Madonna, adjusting our economy and our persona every couple of years to better exploit the gay dance market, or in our nation's case, the world economy. But the gay dance market and the world economy aren't that different, really.

I don't know how to respond to broad generalizations about "my generation" except to say that such talk is a constant, no matter what time period you examine, and it never means much of anything. I'm sure Napoleon's Hussars were peeved about how standards had slipped by 1816, and would grouse into the night about these new, soft little Hussars who barely deserved the name much less the uniform. Pick a time period, pick a subject, and there's going to be grumbling about how the new kids have it so much better than the old kids, and they're such brats, etc. etc. etc.

So let's get back to America, and why we're gonna rock the 21st Century like a hurricane.

Wanna get into software development? Better get your butt to the U.S.A. Wanna design any high-tech device worth talking about, whether it's an Intel chip, a 3G iPhone or a shiny new medical device? Better get to the U.S.A., kids. Wanna study aviation? Better learn the universal language, English, and study at one of our schools. Wanna get ahead on the internet tubes? Well, the best development is happening in the U.S.A.

Wanna get next to the latest and greatest drugs and medical advances? You ain't gonna find them in Mumbai or New Delhi, friend. And forget about Shenzen. U.S.A., baby! And even the fields we've shamefully neglected, such as green power, are advancing faster here than elsewhere. Who's building the neatest and newest home fuel-cell devices? We are. Who's making the most efficient solar cells? We are.

Nah, there's two things you can count on: (1) Things are usually getting better, and (2) people are saying things are getting worse.

It's early days yet in the American Hegemony. We're not encumbered with an expensive empire (as were the Brits and the Romans), we're still vigorous and strong, and a long ways off from rotting from within (as with the Byzantines and the Ottoman Empire), and as soon as we can get our sandy buttocks out of Iraq, we'll start building goodwill amongst our friends and allies again.

We are a great power, and we've the potential to become much greater. I laugh at those who say America's best days are behind her. Hang around, friend, and watch what happens. Things are going to be interesting in the best sense of the word.

[Incongruous]

Ok, thanks.
How do you approach the growing economic crisis in the west?
It is a crisis isn't it? I am not in sync with economics btw.

[Lemur]

How do you approach the growing economic crisis in the west?
It is a crisis isn't it? I am not in sync with economics btw.
Sure, it's a crisis, and a darn tricky one to address. Here's the broad-stroke summary:

Markets are very efficient, but they have inherent dangers
Governments attempt to regulate markets to moderate those dangers
Our credit market went kablooey in a big way, and some of the worst-behaved bits were the most-regulated
Conversely, some of the better-functioning bits were some of the least-regulated (hedge funds, anyone?)
Just to complicated matters, the Bush Admin. has made a point of downplaying all regulation, and generally setting the pythons to watch the snake house, which makes it even harder to tell where the regulation failed versus where the regulators failed versus where the market failed versus ...

So ...

Cleaning up this current credit mess will be an interesting task. But it's hardly the end of civilization as we know it.

[Big_John]

Don't let the doom-sayers getcha down.uhh.. did you just tell Tuff to assume some sort of optimism? mmm.. he don't roll like that.

[Geoffrey S]

Just can't stop attacking wind-powered spinning things?

[Tachikaze]

The death of the US will come from within, not without.

[Big_John]

The death of the US will come from within, not without.mtv?

[Banquo's Ghost]

It should be noted that anyone who endures reading an opinion piece from the Daily Mail is bound to become depressed.

Crikey, the paper's masthead is "And Get Off My Lawn!"

[Tribesman]

It should be noted that anyone who endures reading an opinion piece from the Daily Mail is bound to become depressed.

Come on its funny , people stealing manholes :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Amatuers what you do is go down the motorway and steal the railings off the bridges , its easier and has a much better return .

[Adrian II]

Race war? Bah, if anything it'll be a religious war. :juggle2:

CRYup. And a spectacular one it'll be. From afar, that is. :coffeenews:

[ICantSpellDawg]

Sure - I can be optimistic. I realize that people are always talking about how things are better on the other side, but sometimes they are right. The 20's were a decent example. Sure things got "better" in the last century, but the fixes to the rot were sorted out in a massive, suicide inducing economic catastrophe... one that we are better for now, but I'm sure that people living in that period would have rather been on the receiving end of the deal than the work to the bone end.

Maybe it is because my adrenal cortex burned out and I have a liver disease, but I don't view the future through a bright lens. In fact, the only thing I'm looking forward to is a land grab, take no prisoners civil war... maybe that's not true, but it would be interesting.

I majored in history and don't want to be a teacher - I have to go back to school and learn a whole new deal. I work with a Chinese company (I am the only white guy there and I don't speak much mandarin) and I'm not very good at the job.

uuuugh. It is much easier to stock up on guns and put a motte and Bailey around my house than to plan for an internationally competitive future.

[Watchman]

Pff. You think the US is on the decline ? It ain't got anything on China. If that place doesn't undergo some direly needed reforms (which its leaders don't want to carry out) sometime fast to fix at least the worst of its mounting domestic troubles, my bet is they're going to have another honest-to-God Communist revolution, civil war or somesuch in a few decades.
And being the police state they are, the problem-solving instruments they have in place mostly involve violence against dissidents. Not quite what's going to be needed to avoid a major domestic rupture and/or economic meltdown I'd say.

The poor have always demonstrated a willingness to only put up with so much crap before the choice between dying of starvation and dying with a weapon in hand trying to take down the system starts tilting in the favour of the latter.


Yup. And a spectacular one it'll be. From afar, that is. :coffeenews:Meh. It's not religion they're fighting about but the usual murky soup of politics, conflicting interests, cultural schism and whatever. Religion just gets its usual role as the convenient rallying point and blunt instrument for the radicals.

[Vladimir]

Pff. You think the US is on the decline ? It ain't got anything on China. If that place doesn't undergo some direly needed reforms (which its leaders don't want to carry out) sometime fast to fix at least the worst of its mounting domestic troubles, my bet is they're going to have another honest-to-God Communist revolution, civil war or somesuch in a few decades.
And being the police state they are, the problem-solving instruments they have in place mostly involve violence against dissidents. Not quite what's going to be needed to avoid a major domestic rupture and/or economic meltdown I'd say.

The poor have always demonstrated a willingness to only put up with so much crap before the choice between dying of starvation and dying with a weapon in hand trying to take down the system starts tilting in the favour of the latter.

Meh. It's not religion they're fighting about but the usual murky soup of politics, conflicting interests, cultural schism and whatever. Religion just gets its usual role as the convenient rallying point and blunt instrument for the radicals.

Our economy does tend to have a boom/bust cycle but China tends to have a boom/kill the ruling dynasty burn the country cycle. However that's usually measured in the hundreds of years.

What you say is most certainly true. Without dramatic reform the one party system China has will eventually fall like those of the Soviet block. It will just take a long time.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Our economy does tend to have a boom/bust cycle but China tends to have a boom/kill the ruling dynasty burn the country cycle. However that's usually measured in the hundreds of years.

What you say is most certainly true. Without dramatic reform the one party system China has will eventually fall like those of the Soviet block. It will just take a long time.

I don't agree. I think that we are more likely to fall before they do if we allow them unhindered growth in the way that they have pursued it. The world will be a much more terrible place with China as the hegemon and the United States in a collapse. Imagine what would happen if our Presidents during the cold war had acted towards the USSR with as much cold indifference as they do now with China.

They haven't collapsed yet and have only become exponentially stronger and more willing to flex their muscles. It needs to be addressed by a President who is not a lightweight.

[Fragony]

Pff. You think the US is on the decline ? It ain't got anything on China. If that place doesn't undergo some direly needed reforms (which its leaders don't want to carry out) sometime fast to fix at least the worst of its mounting domestic troubles, my bet is they're going to have another honest-to-God Communist revolution, civil war or somesuch in a few decades.


Much sooner probably I give them 5 years.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Much sooner probably I give them 5 years.

Well that is going to add to the deficit of "years given" by western sooth sayers. We have been saying it for sixty years; when China had a system that couldn't work. They have since changed it to one that can. A few more adjustments and they are go, all the way. They have a massive population that incinerates the population of the entire west - all in one country. You would have to believe that whites are superior racially to hold onto the idea that we can defeat them economically.

What would you say if China was the future and we were the past?

[Fragony]

Well that is going to add to the deficit of "years given" by western sooth sayers. We have been saying it for sixty years; when China had a system that couldn't work. They have since changed it to one that can. A few more adjustments and they are go, all the way. They have a massive population that incinerates the population of the entire west - all in one country. You would have to believe that whites are superior racially to hold onto the idea that we can defeat them economically.

What would you say if China was the future and we were the past?

If China grows too much it will inevitably lead to a conflict with Russia (they are already getting ready for that, some Russian area's are Chinese in Chinese schoolbooks). Massive economic growth and a huge mostly poor population that can't keep up are a recepy for a disaster China has major problems alright. If we are the past, been fun. But we are not nor will we be we are here to stay.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If China grows too much it will inevitably lead to a conflict with Russia (they are already getting ready for that, some Russian area's are Chinese in Chinese schoolbooks). Massive economic growth and a huge mostly poor population that can't keep up are a recepy for a disaster China has major problems alright. If we are the past, been fun. But we are not nor will we be we are here to stay.

And China would incinerate Russia. Russia has been allowing China to fill their lands to the east for years now. It is kind of like a Mexico - U.S. relationship with teeth. Lets say that Russia and China go at it and Russia loses land. Then what?

Why are we talking so much about inevitability?

[Vladimir]

Well that is going to add to the deficit of "years given" by western sooth sayers. We have been saying it for sixty years; when China had a system that couldn't work. They have since changed it to one that can. A few more adjustments and they are go, all the way. They have a massive population that incinerates the population of the entire west - all in one country. You would have to believe that whites are superior racially to hold onto the idea that we can defeat them economically.

What would you say if China was the future and we were the past?

China is the past, they're just catching up the the present. One thing that's holding America back is not the age of our culture, like in China, but our aging population. What will happen when the baby boomers die? We will have a proportionately much younger demographic then we have now. The economic "decline" (by decline I mean slowly growing) of America will end in our lifetime. Well, maybe now Kurki's.

We haven't even factored in the unknown such as new technologies, space exploration, etc. I don't expect China to suddenly break with thousands of years of tradition and become a country of explorers. What happened when Germany tried to build a navy? America will continue to be the place where people come to liberate their minds to explore the unknown. Hopefully we'll get smart soon and stop them from stealing everything that isn't nailed down.

[Fragony]

And China would incinerate Russia. Russia has been allowing China to fill their lands to the east for years now. It is kind of like a Mexico - U.S. relationship with teeth. Lets say that Russia and China go at it and Russia loses land. Then what?

Why are we talking so much about inevitability?

They would still need somebody to buy their things, China is cheap labour it's depends on our demand for their products. Where would they take their stuff isn't like their own population is getting that much goodness out of it, no real self-sustaining market like we have here. If the west stands strong nothing can touch us. China is gonna fall like everything that moves too fast takes only a tackle. If it doesn't we will probably only benefit from it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

China is the past, they're just catching up the the present. One thing that's holding America back is not the age of our culture, like in China, but our aging population. What will happen when the baby boomers die? We will have a proportionately much younger demographic then we have now. The economic "decline" (by decline I mean slowly growing) of America will end in our lifetime. Well, maybe now Kurki's.

We haven't even factored in the unknown such as new technologies, space exploration, etc. I don't expect China to suddenly break with thousands of years of tradition and become a country of explorers. What happened when Germany tried to build a navy? America will continue to be the place where people come to liberate their minds to explore the unknown. Hopefully we'll get smart soon and stop them from stealing everything that isn't nailed down.

C'mon - look at the Zulus and Native Americans - when the west first found them, I'm sure that they couldn't foresee them with guns in their hands. Where would they get the guns from for god's sake?

HUMAN BEINGS (which it seems I must remind everyone is what we are dealing with) want to defend themselves. The natives decided that the best way to defend themselves was to go on the offense and use the most effective tools to do so.

China should have a similar response. They have been awakened to the fact that preemption is the best way to defend themselves and their culture in the 21st century.

They realize that they have a major advantage numerically and maybe even with their style of governance. They can effectively decide policy with little domestic opposition. Imagine if we could do that! They are most likely going to branch out further as the HAVE BEEN DOING (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Chinese#Waves_of_immigration)

This is not a different animal - they will do what works to keep themselves safe and in power. That tends to include aggression.

[ICantSpellDawg]

They would still need somebody to buy their things, China is cheap labour it's depends on our demand for their products. Where would they take their stuff isn't like their own population is getting that much goodness out of it, no real self-sustaining market like we have here. If the west stands strong nothing can touch us. China is gonna fall like everything that moves too fast takes only a tackle. If it doesn't we will probably only benefit from it.

How about themselves? With close to 1.7 billion people, with a little elbow grease they are their own international market.

How did the west do it? BY SELLING TO THEMSELVES!

[Fragony]

How about themselves? With close to 1.7 billion people, with a little elbow grease they are their own international market.

How did the west do it? BY SELLING TO THEMSELVES!

And that is why China has a problem, they can't. Cheap as their products may to us, to the average chinaman it's still a fortune, they are overstretching and they know it. The wild west in china is dirt-poor, and in the developed parts they already have a tv. Watchman is right but I expect it to collapse much sooner, they are running harder then their legs can carry them.

[ICantSpellDawg]

And that is why China has a problem, they can't. Cheap as their products may to us, to the average chinaman it's still a fortune, they are overstretching and they know it. The wild west in china is dirt-poor, and in the developed parts they already have a tv. Watchman is right but I expect it to collapse much sooner, they are running harder then their legs can carry them.

So what is going to happen? The average Chinaman can't afford to buy products from anywhere else and will need the prices to go lower. The national economy will most likely oblige and such an action will cripple the west further. China has the means to really do a number here. There is no inevitable fall for them scheduled. If anything, we look closer to collapse.

I don't think that either will fall any time soon, but you can already see Asian markets rebounding while ours are still falling into the abyss. This suggests a more independently sustainable Asian market than we have previously known.

[Watchman]

How about themselves? With close to 1.7 billion people, with a little elbow grease they are their own international market.

How did the west do it? BY SELLING TO THEMSELVES!
But that requires buying power. Which the majority of the Chinese, being kind of on the dirt poor side, don't have.

EDIT: Beat to it.

Anyway, as things go, China still has to import its higher-end military hardware (the last I heard the electronics and computers on their most up-to-date warship were French); and numbers mean remarkably little if geography and weapons technology gets in the way. It doesn't matter a jack that there's 1.7 billion mainland Chinese and, well, however many there now are Taiwanese, as long as the PLA has no credible means of getting to that island without the still quite primitive navy getting blown out of water. (You know the US sells Aegis-grade warships to Taiwan right ?) Nevermind now starting a war with the US and in all likelihood quite a few others it has no chance of winning...

Russia ? I may be kind of ramshackle but even then its gear is still at least a generation ahead China, plus it has lots of nukes. "Feeling lucky, punk?"


Plus as already repeated ad nauseum, Beijing has no shortage of domestic problems to deal with as is (Tibet, the Uighurs, socioeconomic shifts, corruption, pollution, gross domestic shortage of raw materials...) and has more coming down the road. God forbid should the Party for some reason start to "fail to deliver" on the economic growth to the appropriate important segments of society...

[Watchman]

So what is going to happen? The average Chinaman can't afford to buy products from anywhere else and will need the prices to go lower.Well, the poor could always do with lower prices. Tends to be they have to settle to just not buying though.

When that starts including food, you get trouble big time.

[Vladimir]

And that is why China has a problem, they can't. Cheap as their products may to us, to the average chinaman it's still a fortune, they are overstretching and they know it. The wild west in china is dirt-poor, and in the developed parts they already have a tv. Watchman is right but I expect it to collapse much sooner, they are running harder then their legs can carry them.

There is a lot of merit to that statement. Like a bee colony many are working themselves to exhaustion; very productive but short-term. Their labor conditions will have to dramatically change. Also since the Chinese government doesn't care about the local or global environment it's poisoning it's people at a greater rate to a greater extent every day.

OPEC is pricing itself out of business and if current oil prices are maintained or continue to rise, China will literally have a fossilized economy. Imagine if all the money spent to import energy was suddenly reinvested in domestic energy production.

[Watchman]

Funny detail: manufacturing is also now starting to leave China and move into the few locales of cheaper labour stable enough to run a factory in... The "China effect" doesn't discriminate.

I actually recently heard a rather noted analyst observe the world's basically gradually running out of such pools of lower-cost labour to exploit; it's partly built into the system really...

[Fragony]

Funny detail: manufacturing is also now starting to leave China and move into the few locales of cheaper labour stable enough to run a factory in... The "China effect" doesn't discriminate.

Ya to the philipines mostly. I wouldn't want to be the guy pretending to act for the collective. Here in the west we don't have that we believe in reprocacity by individuals, such a big country, so many problems, certain bye if you ask me.

edit, another thing I like to bring up, the buying Blitzkrieg of western stock, that sounds bad but in the end it forces them to play by our rules. They could drop the $-bomb but it would be like nuking theirselves. Suicide never was a sound survival strategy.

[Watchman]

You wouldn't believe the rhetorical gymnastics the Chinese have came up with to explain how what's basically naked greedy capitalism is, supposedly, "in fact" Communism... :dizzy2:

I don't think anyone there particularly cares about that being a very small and transparent fig leaf either, though. Going through the motions as it were.

[Fragony]

I am not a capitalist, some of my best friends are poor, always suspect ~;)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

China also has a much bigger demographic problem than the West, as well. What's the ratio man to woman now? 8:1, once the currect generation start to die off there will be a massive population crash much worse than anything going on here right now.

We just have to hang on for thirty years or so.

[Strike For The South]

We have coal! and baseball!

[Marshal Murat]

And Texas.

[Papewaio]

Lemur-no offense, but I don't see it. I see a dearth of insight in my generation. It's like the well dried up. We expect quite a bit, but nobody does anything other than service jobs. Really poorly to boot. We arn't the working poor either. Motivation is either dead or misguided.

Maybe Wisconsin is different.

Same thing has happened in Taiwan. The current graduating population is seen as lazy and not wanting to work.

The same thing will happen in China but only quicker.

Combine the one child policy that creates little Emperors (the term for 4 grandparents who spoil their one and only grandchild) with a growing middle class and you will have one of the most spoilt generations in next to no time. The only thing that possibly could stop the lazy generation from widening is internal problems where the farmers rise against the richer city kids. But even the farmers have lots of little Emperors running around and what to just look after their grandchildren. So they in turn are encouraging them to go to the city and get more money.

So either a generation of very western "I'm the center of the universe Gen Y+1" will be in abundance over the next decade OR internal decent boils over and China goes through another cultural revolution and is no longer the manufacturing hub.

They will become either western or non-competitive.

Now for India it is a different story, they have large families, greater depth of English speakers, and are democratic. What slows down their economic growth to half that of Chinas is the caste system and very poor penetration of infrastructure which in turn curtails true long term growth.. In the end a vibrant India will also go throw the leisure industry growth, and I don't think India is to be worried about as much as China... after all India plays cricket. :2thumbsup:

[Watchman]

And Texas.I would classify that as a disadvantage though.

[Kaidonni]

It should be noted that anyone who endures reading an opinion piece from the Daily Mail is bound to become depressed.

This really explains a lot of what is going on in my life at the moment...A LOT...*yes, I read the Daily Mail, much to my detriment - call the funny farm, one of their inmates has escaped and is posting in this post*

[ICantSpellDawg]

Same thing has happened in Taiwan. The current graduating population is seen as lazy and not wanting to work.

The same thing will happen in China but only quicker.

Combine the one child policy that creates little Emperors (the term for 4 grandparents who spoil their one and only grandchild) with a growing middle class and you will have one of the most spoilt generations in next to no time. The only thing that possibly could stop the lazy generation from widening is internal problems where the farmers rise against the richer city kids. But even the farmers have lots of little Emperors running around and what to just look after their grandchildren. So they in turn are encouraging them to go to the city and get more money.

So either a generation of very western "I'm the center of the universe Gen Y+1" will be in abundance over the next decade OR internal decent boils over and China goes through another cultural revolution and is no longer the manufacturing hub.

They will become either western or non-competitive.

Now for India it is a different story, they have large families, greater depth of English speakers, and are democratic. What slows down their economic growth to half that of Chinas is the caste system and very poor penetration of infrastructure which in turn curtails true long term growth.. In the end a vibrant India will also go throw the leisure industry growth, and I don't think India is to be worried about as much as China... after all India plays cricket. :2thumbsup:

Sure - these things are all possible. I have never feared India.

I just don't feel as comfortable relying of games of wit, rhetoric and theory when there is an ominous totalitarian powerbeast hanging over our heads.

[drone]

Combine the one child policy that creates little Emperors (the term for 4 grandparents who spoil their one and only grandchild) with a growing middle class and you will have one of the most spoilt generations in next to no time. The only thing that possibly could stop the lazy generation from widening is internal problems where the farmers rise against the richer city kids. But even the farmers have lots of little Emperors running around and what to just look after their grandchildren. So they in turn are encouraging them to go to the city and get more money.

So either a generation of very western "I'm the center of the universe Gen Y+1" will be in abundance over the next decade OR internal decent boils over and China goes through another cultural revolution and is no longer the manufacturing hub.
Regarding China's 1 child policy: what are their plans for the time when this skews the demographics and they end up with lots of old people and not enough workers? I'm not really familiar with their health care/social security, but I would imagine this will be a problem even worse than the one we are going to face here when the baby boomers stop working.

Also, are they being affected by the rising food costs yet? Word on the street is that rice is getting kind of pricey. Surely this will not go over too well in the rural areas.

[Fragony]

baby boomers stop working.

Just globalwarm them. Didn't know they use that one in your habitat as well. Baby boomer$, good one. Could somebody kindly explain to me why governments are in any way different then the mafia.

[Vladimir]

Regarding China's 1 child policy: what are their plans for the time when this skews the demographics and they end up with lots of old people and not enough workers? I'm not really familiar with their health care/social security, but I would imagine this will be a problem even worse than the one we are going to face here when the baby boomers stop working.

Also, are they being affected by the rising food costs yet? Word on the street is that rice is getting kind of pricey. Surely this will not go over too well in the rural areas.

It's a great way to have enough near-term manpower to fill an army. Chinese tend to plan for the long haul and it would be interesting if this was intended.

How strictly is this policy enforced anyway? Is it just a fine or do they suck the other ones down a vacuum tube?

Whoops. Not the old people, but all the males who can't find a wife.

[HoreTore]

Regarding China's 1 child policy: what are their plans for the time when this skews the demographics and they end up with lots of old people and not enough workers? I'm not really familiar with their health care/social security, but I would imagine this will be a problem even worse than the one we are going to face here when the baby boomers stop working.

As you note with the baby boomers here, this will happen everywhere, almost no matter what. China would have gotten this problem sooner or later anyway. In fact, since "regular" reproduction is so unstable and prone to booming, regulations are the only way to limit this problem.

Look at it long term: while we in the west will have this problem until the end of time, the chinese will just have it one more time.


Also, are they being affected by the rising food costs yet? Word on the street is that rice is getting kind of pricey. Surely this will not go over too well in the rural areas.

I would be very surprised if the price wasn't fixed by the government. And I'd guess that the chinese have a lot of money to blow on subsidies.

[Watchman]

Could somebody kindly explain to me why governments are in any way different then the mafia.Well, they're a whole lot more polite about missed payments due for one. And when you pay them to "protect" yorself, it actually means they do it rather than them refraining from busting your knees and nailing your cat to the door.
Plus you get to actually have a say in who runs the show, or at least in my neck of woods anyway.

How's that for starters ? ~;p

[Furious Mental]

China's income tax system is very lax, as I understand it. As it becomes more efficiently run and more people enter the tax brackets it will be able to support a much larger welfare state than the one which exists now (which is in an extremely shoddy state). Also the government could stop expanding the PLA's budget by so many billions of dollars a year.

[Abokasee]

Also the government could stop expanding the PLA's budget by so many billions of dollars a year.

Yeah it seems something cooking... lets have a look at its neigbours...

https://img508.imageshack.us/img508/8769/chinaw1la2.gif

All its neighbours are weak (With the exception of russia which can be said "Golden age" if far over, and India which just dosnt match up) so its got alot of pickings it can just eat.

[Watchman]

I thought large-scale wars between industrialised nations were kind of passé these days ? What with their bad habit of becoming very very expensive, drawn out, and/or potentially nuclear. Plus sheer territorial conquest is really a pretty bad way to try to get resources, not that I could off the top of my head think of any really important one China could theoretically aquire by neighbourhood expansionism...

Plus then there's the geography. And the SE Asians' noted tradition of warm welcomes into their jungles.

[Quirinus]

Oh, wow. I was laughing at this genius of a thread until I realised that you guys were serious. :eeeek:

Is the Daily Mail generally taken as legitimate journalism in the West? I was under the impression it was a tabloid rag.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Oh, wow. I was laughing at this genius of a thread until I realised that you guys were serious. :eeeek:

Is the Daily Mail generally taken as legitimate journalism in the West? I was under the impression it was a tabloid rag.

Why does it matter who wrote the rag?

Does China exist? Is their government stable and totalitarian? Do they incinerate dissent? Are they a burgeoning economic powerhouse with over 1.6 billion people? Is their nationalism growing at an incredible rate?

What can history and common sense tell us about the possibilities of a dangerous potential enemy?

I'm sorry, they couldn't possibly wage an aggressive war because they are China - land of the happy tiny people who make tiddlywinks really cheap and have cute funny accents.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I thought large-scale wars between industrialised nations were kind of passé these days ? What with their bad habit of becoming very very expensive, drawn out, and/or potentially nuclear. Plus sheer territorial conquest is really a pretty bad way to try to get resources, not that I could off the top of my head think of any really important one China could theoretically aquire by neighbourhood expansionism...

Plus then there's the geography. And the SE Asians' noted tradition of warm welcomes into their jungles.

These days meaning what? The past 50 years? Did you notice a variable?

The U.S. Hegemony. the USSR folded pretty early on and only really had the threat of nuclear war and the domino theory after that. China has all of that, 1.7 billion people and an incredibly hungry economy.

Do you believe large scale wars are over? If not, when will we start having them again?

What would be the conditions in which you could foresee such a massive conflict as a possibility?

[Kralizec]

1.6 billion people


1.7 billion people

Where'd you get the idea that their population grows THAT quickly ~;) ~D

It's a mere 1.3 billion according to the CIA factbook.

[Quirinus]

Why does it matter who wrote the rag?
News of the World reports that aliens have landed in DC and have taken over the White House! The end is nigh!

Oh.... wait.



I'm sorry, they couldn't possibly wage an aggressive war because they are China - land of the happy tiny people who make tiddlywinks really cheap and have cute funny accents.
There you go again. When you're done attacking that strawman, I'm right here.

:strawman3:


Don Corleone (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1891776&postcount=70) said it best:

When I was a wee little lad, it was the Japanese that were going to own me and force me into indentured servitude. Didn't quite work out that way. Something about inadequate banking systems and a 2 decade recession.

Then I remember the "Asian Tigers", and how if I wanted to have any chance of putting my degree to use when I graduated from University, I ought to start looking to move to ROK, or Taiwan, or Hong Kong.

Then, when I graduated from school, and I had gotten my first job, there was another Far Eastern menace that was taking over the economic world. This time it was Malaysia and Indonesia.

And through it all, amazingly, the USA is still here.

I'm not making light of the situation. Our students ARE lazy. Not enough of them enter science and engineering cirriculum, and of those that do, the majority under apply themselves. As a result, the average graduating class of engineering students, at least the ones I come across, decline year over year.

This is not a universal phenomenon. There are bright, hardworking kids that you come across. You hire these guys, by the way.

But the whole "the scale is tipping too far" paranoia model... it ignores two things.

1) China can try all they want to artifically restrain inflation. Sooner or later, the pressure will become too great and they'll have to let the Yuan go, and the longer they wait, the worse it will be for them in the end. Can you really expect a factory worker to earn $8.00/day, when his residential costs rise to $300/month?

2) As wages rise, demands for a better standard of living rise. Do people really think that the average Londoner in 1888 wasn't saying the same things about the USA that we currently say about China? Did the UK go belly up when the USA grew past it?

Trust me, speaking as somebody who has been to China, worked there, talked to the people... the average Chinese doesn't care one whit about reclaiming lands lost to Russia, and they don't fantasize about invading the USA. (In fact, the commonly accepted Chinese term for the USA is Mei Guang, which means 'the beautiful land'. For a people we fought a war with 50 years ago, they're incredibly friendly and open).

What I predict? A much, much larger segment of the world will join the 'global middle class'. As they do, their wages will rise and some other new place will be the "IT" labor market, possibly Vietnam or Laos. Meanwhile, Chinese society will take its place in the global market as a mature market force, both in terms of demand (its middle class will want I-pods too) and supply (Huawei is gaining on Motorola every day).

And this is a good thing. It's how the world grows up. Yes, there will be competitive pressure on us from China. This is good for them, as they win some accounts, and its good for us too, as our own labor pool and entrepreneurs responds to the competion and steps it up a notch or two. And as a consumer, it's always better for you to have more and more choices.
Clickety. (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1891776&postcount=70)

[TevashSzat]

Okay, lots of questions that I feel have to be answered. (I was born in China btw and lived there until I was 6 when I moved to the US. Still go back to China every other summer to visit family, ect...)

One Child Policy:

Well, the official rule is that you can only have one child per family, BUT most of the wealthy can get away with more since the government just gives you a fine and your placed at a lower priority on some things like housing (well, thats what happened a decade, ago, but now I suspect its even less strict.) These restrictions, however, can only be reasonably enforced among the urban middle class: the rich don't care about the punishments while the poor farmers MUST have lots of children and are basically never punished.

Products:

Actually, China is getting alot better now in living conditions. True, the truely poor which are the poor rural farmers do really have a horrible life, but even for the lower urban class (which is what a majority of my relatives in China are), life isn't THAT bad. I have cousins who although aren't rich by any standards, still have pretty nice cellphones, mp3 players, ect ... The truth is, the standard of living in China has improved tremendously since my parent's generation and is continuing to improve at a faster rate even.

Population:

Umm, there aren't 1.7 or even 1.6 billion people in China, most estimates are around 1.35-1.4 billion people right now atm I believe.

Internal Issues:

Most of the people in China aren't all crying out for independence or calling for the removal of corruption as some might think. Actually, many have come to terms that China is not a democracy and won't be one anytime in the near future. I bet that more of the Chinese popluation approve of the government than that of the American one. If a democracy wasn't installed at the height of the Great Leap Forward when so many died, I can't see how the current Chinese government could fall or even moderately undermined unless something really big or drastic occurs.

Chinese military:

Yeah, we have a large army, but the navy is something to be desired. Truth be told, I highly doubt China will enter any wars. China's real leverage power is its economic ones which are most likely more influential that its military powers. I agree with Watchman, large wars between industrialized nations seem to be a thing of the past. Its even more so given the major powers' power to essentially kill everyone with nukes. That makes sure that no one will win a prolonged, serious war.

China's military budget is growing quite quickly but get this, the US estimates the Chinese military's budget to around 125 billion dollars, compared to the US 550 billion budget. Thats what, only a factor of about 4.5? The Chinese military, although modernizing, is still quite old in some aspects which should quell doomsayers who are fortelling Chinese invasions. They aren't happening.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Where'd you get the idea that their population grows THAT quickly ~;) ~D

It's a mere 1.3 billion according to the CIA factbook.

I don't know where the hell I got that number. Maybe because I got the population of China and the world mixed up (1.3 vs 6.7 b). Oops - you called me out. Sorry.



Quirinus - I am aware of doom sayers. Legitimate threats tend to go by population in the modern age. Japan was never a true threat to us. Asian tigers were never a true threat. Sure they could take a bigger piece of the pie, but we have a pretty substantial population and an even more substantial portion of the power. In a more even tiered world, a nation that dwarfs ours under a totalitarian regime is legitimate threat. The real threat would have come when they allied with other tigers, but that wasn't really likely.

We overtook the economies of the various European nations largely because of our population and growth. had we been under a totalitarian government, the world would be very different.

[Watchman]

These days meaning what? The past 50 years? Did you notice a variable?Post WW2. You may notice a major shortage of open tussles between any two "first rate" powers. Probably something to do with the way two World Wars taught strategists and decision-makers a few lessons concerning what kind of opponent it is sensible to fight with, not that the nukes hurt either.

Quite simply, this isn't the ******* Middle Ages anymore. Access to resources etc. isn't very well realized by military power and the seizure of real estate; it generally works much better to instead send in people with suits and briefcases full of cash and enticing contracts. Seems to be working pretty well in Africa too.

Plus China's kind of short of the actual ability to expand territorially to about enywhere else than the damn Russian Siberia, which would be A) kind of pointless B) really, really dangerous. I sincerely doubt if they're stupid enough they would commit the patent strategic error of sending the tanks into the hornets' nest of Central Asia, rife with tinpot dictators in cahoots with the US and/or Russia, intractable hill tribes armed up to their turbans, and potentially volatile religious currents.

To the south, into India and SE Asia ? It's bloody mountains in the way, India has nukes and odds are a Vietnam trip would not turn out very well. Plus there's nothing worth the gamble down there anyway AFAIK.

The sea, Taiwan and Japan ? They need to build up a real navy and air force first (something which they're quite far away enough ATM), and then ask themselves if they really want to pick a fight with at least the US and quite possibly a big chunk of the wole NATO...

[Strike For The South]

Post WW2. You may notice a major shortage of open tussles between any two "first rate" powers. Probably something to do with the way two World Wars taught strategists and decision-makers a few lessons concerning what kind of opponent it is sensible to fight with, not that the nukes hurt either.

Quite simply, this isn't the ******* Middle Ages anymore. Access to resources etc. isn't very well realized by military power and the seizure of real estate; it generally works much better to instead send in people with suits and briefcases full of cash and enticing contracts. Seems to be working pretty well in Africa too.

Plus China's kind of short of the actual ability to expand territorially to about enywhere else than the damn Russian Siberia, which would be A) kind of pointless B) really, really dangerous. I sincerely doubt if they're stupid enough they would commit the patent strategic error of sending the tanks into the hornets' nest of Central Asia, rife with tinpot dictators in cahoots with the US and/or Russia, intractable hill tribes armed up to their turbans, and potentially volatile religious currents.

To the south, into India and SE Asia ? It's bloody mountains in the way, India has nukes and odds are a Vietnam trip would not turn out very well. Plus there's nothing worth the gamble down there anyway AFAIK.

The sea, Taiwan and Japan ? They need to build up a real navy and air force first (something which they're quite far away enough ATM), and then ask themselves if they really want to pick a fight with at least the US and quite possibly a big chunk of the wole NATO...

quit making sense

[Furious Mental]

"I thought large-scale wars between industrialised nations were kind of passé these days "

There has never been a war between nuclear powers, unless you count the Sino-Soviet border conflict, which I don't because it was just a series of clashes and in any case given that China only tested an IRBM that year its nuclear deterrent was pretty dubious. This is because a war is likely to escalate to the point where the two sides wipe eachother out with nuclear weapons, making the costs of the war greater than any potential benefit. The idea of military expansion isn't to start a war with other nuclear powers, it's to make them accept some sphere of influence, which no doubt China would want to include the Yellow, East and South China Seas. However I can't see that happening because the credibility of the US govt depends so heavily on the commitments it has made to South Korea, Japan, the Phillipines, and, of course, Taiwan, to maintain the military balance in the region. On top of that keeping control of the Malacca Straits is something of a trump card.

[ICantSpellDawg]

"I thought large-scale wars between industrialised nations were kind of passé these days "

There has never been a war between nuclear powers,

There hadn't been nuclear powers before the middle part of this past century. 60 years is not long enough to start establishing rules about "what could never happen".

If there is one thing I've learned studying history, it's that humans will find ways to kill one another on a massive scale.

[Watchman]

That's not much to build alarmist scenarios on though. At least, if you want them taken seriously here.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That's not much to build alarmist scenarios on though. At least, if you want them taken seriously here.

What is?

[Watchman]

:shrug: Not particularly my business, as I detest them and have no interest in concoting one - nevermind now uttering it in public.

But I can tell you that if you start out with a rather specific doomsday scenario and in the end are reduced to muttering vague general platitudes about the human condition, that's a Grade A lame-duck argument.

[Kralizec]

A statement amounting to "X could never happen" is begging to be proven wrong, given enough time.

The chance that it will happen in our lifetimes seems pretty insignificant, though.

[Furious Mental]

I didn't say X could never happen, I said it has never happened, and it hasn't. People (usually military officers) have repeatedly predicted that it would but it hasn't. If it does I suspect it will because of an accident or miscommunication rather than conscious decision by the political leadership of a country to start nuclear war, because it is a war that has no victor.

[Papewaio]

But what happens when you are already losing and have nukes?

Surely starting a nuclear war or better supplying nuclear weapons to a terrorist organisation would not put you in any worse position.

Mind you most of the time they just rattle the nuclear sabre for food.

"North Korean Dictator, Out of Funds, Will turn off nuclear weapons program for food." :help:

[Furious Mental]

Like I said, this is why countries with nuclear weapons don't start wars with each other; they know that if they are about to win the other side may launch nukes, and thus before the war begins it is impossible to gain anything from it.

[Vladimir]

Like I said, this is why countries with nuclear weapons don't start wars with each other; they know that if they are about to win the other side may launch nukes, and thus before the war begins it is impossible to gain anything from it.

Yes, because wars are nice tidy things which never happen in less by mutual consent. All countries leaders are always in complete control of their armed forces, internal politics, and populations. Nothing trivial such as a murder in a backwater country could spiral out of control and lead to a Great War.

Move along, nothing so see here. :bobby:

[Furious Mental]

"Yes, because wars are nice tidy things which never happen in less by mutual consent."

That isn't what I said. I said that a war with a nuclear power is one which is impossible to win, so it is pointless to start one. It has nothing to do with mutual consent, just the fact that anyone with half a brain knows that aggression against a nuclear power would be futile. Someone here said that 60 years isn't of much significance. Well, no period of time provides a basis to make absolute statements about human behaviour, but the post-WWII period is the longest in modern history without a conflict between great powers.

"All countries leaders are always in complete control of their armed forces, internal politics, and populations. Nothing trivial such as a murder in a backwater country could spiral out of control and lead to a Great War."

Again, replying to something that wasn't said. I said above that a nuclear war would be more likely to start through an accident or miscommunication than a decision by the political leadership, in other words there is always room for the unexpected, although the grave consequences provide a strong incentive to minimise the likelihood.

[ICantSpellDawg]

"Yes, because wars are nice tidy things which never happen in less by mutual consent."

That isn't what I said. I said that a war with a nuclear power is one which is impossible to win, so it is pointless to start one.

Why? Vietnam and Korea waere at war with the United States, even though we had nuclear power. Argentina - United Kingdom. People know that we will most likely not use it against them, at least not when our 50 states aren't threatened.

Would that stop China from moving into the Middle East or South East Asia? They don't have nuclear weapons (for the most part) and we wouldn't be likely to use any to deter them.

What then? Massive war.

[Vladimir]

Why? Vietnam and Korea waere at war with the United States, even though we had nuclear power. Argentina - United Kingdom. People know that we will most likely not use it against them, at least not when our 50 states aren't threatened.

Would that stop China from moving into the Middle East or South East Asia? They don't have nuclear weapons (for the most part) and we wouldn't be likely to use any to deter them.

What then? Massive war.

I don't think that was his original point was but his argument is proven false in a way due to Vietnam. Although somehow we classify it as a military "victory." :juggle2:

Sorry, I bit my tung in my last post. ~;p

[LittleGrizzly]

I think the leaders of China are aggressive and probably have little care for human life, but i think they have become like the west, its all about the money, wars are expensive and usually unpopular two things i think the Chinese goverment trys to avoid, what is there for China to gain from starting a massive war ? considering the trade that they would lose, the unpopularity of the war at home and the cost of it all.

[TevashSzat]

Why? Vietnam and Korea waere at war with the United States, even though we had nuclear power. Argentina - United Kingdom. People know that we will most likely not use it against them, at least not when our 50 states aren't threatened.

Would that stop China from moving into the Middle East or South East Asia? They don't have nuclear weapons (for the most part) and we wouldn't be likely to use any to deter them.

What then? Massive war.

Well, Vietnam and Korea still had a tentative backing from the Soviet Union. Even though the Soviets didn't help alot, a nuke from the US would have probably be met with nukes from the Soviet Union and no one wanted that.

Furthermore, China has no quarrel with SE Asia nor the Middle East. Trade is strong in both areas and there aren't strong anti-China governments there. China really has no big advantageous in invading these countries.

Seriously, just because China is growing in power and may rival the US in superpower status in the future, doesn't mean that we're all going to conquer the world. Just look at the US when it rose to the superpower status. Did it grow in international influence significantly? Yes, but the US certainely didn't start invading countries for world domination.

[Furious Mental]

A non-nuclear power can start a war with a nuclear power if it doesn't threaten the latter's vital interests. North Korea and North Vietnam correctly bet that the US would not use nuclear weapons because to do so would be to invite international condemnation and of course create a very dangerous situation with the USSR. However if two nuclear powers confront each other over anything the risk of escalation to nuclear conflict makes it not worth starting a war in the first place. This is why the US never officially fought a "war" in North Korea and North Vietnam, to declare a war would be very risky.

[Redleg]

Yes a non-nuclear power can start a war with a nuclear power if it doesn't threaten the latter's vital interests. North Korea and North Vietnam correctly bet that the US would not use nuclear weapons because to do so would be to invite international condemnation and of course create a very dangerous situation with the USSR and China. However if two nuclear powers confront each other over anything the risk of escalation to nuclear conflict makes it not worth starting a war in the first place. This is why the US never officially fought a "war" in North Korea and North Vietnam, to declare a war would be very risky.

A generalization, :laugh4: . One needs to delve deeper into the circumstances of the Korean conflict and how nations came involved in the fighting. A little research will find you this quote. Truman Liberary is an excellent source on United States thoughts and involvement in Korea.


Washington first learned of the attack in Korea at 9:04 Saturday night, when the UP called the state department to confirm that an attack had in fact taken place. President Truman was home in Independence, Missouri for vacation when the war began. Secretary of State Dean Acheson first notified him by phone at 9:20 Missouri time. He told Truman: "I have very serious news. The North Koreans have invaded South Korea." Truman believed from the moment he heard the news that this might be the opening round of WW III. Truman approved of getting a vote from the Security Council condemning the attack. As the word from Korea worsened, Truman hastened back to Washington. On the way, Truman reviewed his options and concluded that he would not allow another "Munich" to occur on his watch. If Hitler had been stopped in Czechoslovakia, maybe WW II would not have occurred; thus, if WW III was to be averted, the Communists must be stopped in Korea. His thinking, which was mirrored by his advisors, was that the Soviet Union was behind the attack. The United States was successful, thanks to the Soviet boycott of the Security Council, in obtaining a resolution calling for the North Korean withdrawal. Truman gave the green light first for speeding arms to South Korea and then using the Airforce to attack the North Koreans in the South. Under Acheson's direction, the US went back to the UN and had the Security Council vote on a resolution which called on member states to "furnish such assistance as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area." Thus, the US was armed with authority to act on behalf of the UN to intervene in the Korean conflict.

Now one can look into why war was not offically declared by the United States against China and North Korea but one has to take into account that the United States went through the United Nations before making anyother assumption. Now MacAurther was fired because he wanted to expand the war because he did not want it to end in a stalemate. So worries about expanding the war did play a part in the decision making process during the fighting, but it would be incorrect to assume that it was initially the major reason.

[Furious Mental]

It isn't a generalisation. It seems to me that you don't get the relationship between a UNSC Resolution and a declaration of war. The two are not mutually exclusive. If the US government had wanted it could have sought an appropriately worded UNSC Resolution and declared war accordingly, but it refrained from doing either precisely to make clear its intention not to escalate the conflict.

[Redleg]

It isn't a generalisation. It seems to me that you don't get the relationship between a UNSC Resolution and a declaration of war. The two are not mutually exclusive. If the US government had wanted it could have sought an appropriately worded UNSC Resolution and declared war accordingly, but it refrained from doing either precisely to make clear its intention not to escalate the conflict.

As clearly stated in my response of --"One needs to delve deeper into the circumstances of the Korean conflict and how nations came involved in the fighting. " and "So worries about expanding the war did play a part in the decision making process during the fighting, but it would be incorrect to assume that it was initially the major reason."

Now what was Truman's initial concern? Was it to prevent another world war, to stop the conflict before it went farther, or was he concerned about preventing the conflict from escalating? Now if one reviews the documents of the time, items that can be found in historical documents if one bothers to actually look. From Truman's memior's of that day.


On the way there I was going over in my mind the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931 . . . . And then I thought about Mussolini's entrance into Ethiopia and Haile Selassie's protest to the League of Nations on that invasion. I also thought about Hitler's march into the Saar Valley, which could have been stopped by the French and the British if they had acted in unison on the subject. Then Hitler's march into Austria and his overthrow of Czechoslovakia and Poland, and it occurred to me that if the Russian totalitarian state was intending to follow in the path of the dictatorships of Hitler and Mussolini, they should be met head on in Korea . . . .

I was sure that they [the Russians] had trained the North Koreans in order to create a communist state in Korea as a whole and that their intention was to overthrow the Republic of Korea which had been set up by the United Nations with the Russians' approval. . . . The conclusion that I had come to was that force was the only language that the Russian dictatorship could understand. We had to meet them on that basis . . . .

President Harry S. Truman
Presidential memoirs interview, August 21, 1953
Papers of Harry S. Truman: Post-presidential Files


Doesn't sound like wanting to prevent an escalation but one of wanting the conflict to be halted in general, to stop the Soviet Union from expanding Communism. Which if one takes the time and read the comments of those involved in making US policy at the time would discover that the United States was not concerned about preventing an escalation but wanted to cause a halt to the conflict. From a copy of a memo concerning a meeting that happened in June of 1950 - preventing an escalation of war was far from the minds of those involved with policy - in fact it was geared towarded something else.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/korea/large/week1/elsy_5_1.htm

Then there is this statement to congress.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/korea/large/week2/kw_108_1.htm

Now you attempt to accuse me of not knowing the relationship between a UN Resolution and a declaration of war - I would say you don't understand why the President of the United States decided not to ask the United States Congress for a Declaration of War. Especially given that the United States does not require nor did it require in 1950 authorization from the United Nations to declare war. Nor do you realize the committment of armed force that the United States actually did to South Korea to halt the communist advance - the term police action comes into being for a specific reason which I havent said if I disagree with you concerning or not - only that your initial statement was a generalization and a false one at that. The initial response was to halt the war and take it to the Russians if necessary - when the fighting continued the desire to prevent escalation did indeed fall into the decision making process - hence the reason Truman decided to fire MacArthur was in part due to his aggresive desire to escalate the war.

To futher demonstrate the scope of your generalzation, North Korea believed something else entirely when it attack South Korea then betting that the United States wouldn't use nuclear weapons. Border conflicts began happening much earlier then the full scale attack, in fact both Korea's were preparing for war since about 1948 with North Korea being more aggresive in its preparation. So North Korea wasn't betting on no nuclear engagement by the United States it was betting on something else. So your generalization here as stated before is incorrect. Here is a historical document from the time from the United States and how they viewed the scenerio.


Intelligence Memorandum No. 302
July 8, 1950

Subject: Consequences of the Korean Incident

I. Soviet Purposes in Launching the Northern Korean Attack

A. Apart from immediate strategic advantages, the basic Soviet objectives in launching the Northern Korean attack probably were to: (1) test the strength of U.S. commitments implicit in the policy of containment of Communist expansion; and (2) gain political advantages for the further expansion of Communism in both Asia and Europe by undermining the confidence of non-Communist states in the value of U.S. support.

B. The Soviet estimate of the reaction to the North Korean attack was probably that: (1) U.N. action would be slow and cumbersome; (2) the U.S. would not intervene with its own forces; (3) South Korea would therefore collapse promptly, presenting the U.N. with a fait accompli; (4) the episode would therefore be completely localized; and (5) the fighting could be portrayed as U.S.-instigated South Korean aggression and the Northern Korean victory as a victory of Asiatic nationalism against Western colonialism.

The desire to halt the initial conflict was Truman's key concern. His secondary concern was to prevent what he deemed was an attempt by the Soviets to expand communism. As the war continued past the initial response he began to become concerned about preventing the escalation of the conflict. This is way your statement is a generalization - you left out the scope of the initial US response to the invasion of South Korea.

Now that is why the United States initially went to the United Nations to halt the war, and then used the United Nations to conduct the war. The reason he sacked MacArthur is because of the escalation of war and possible nuclear strikes by both sides if MacArthur had his way.

So I am not confused about the relationship between a United Nations resolution nor a declartion of war.

Or do you have a fundmental flaw in your ability to accurately review history?

[Furious Mental]

You seem to be taking things to be mutually exclusive when they are not. I never said that Truman did not want to halt the spread of communism, etc. The point is that from the outset these things were done in a manner that would prevent escalation of the conflict into a war with the USSR. You provide redundant evidence stating the obvious- that Truman believed North Korea was put up to it by the USSR and the USSR's proxy offensive had to be stopped. But you have no explanation as to why, that being the case, retaliating against the USSR and China was off the table from the outset. The US intelligence memorandum shows that the US government believed that USSR was wanting to "test the strength of US commitments". If you consider that this document was of some import, then you must also consider that the American response was measured so as to send what the US government considered an appropriate message to the USSR.

That is the same reason why he refused offers of help from Jiang Jie Shi. And if you read the speech you cite you will find it is hardly accusatory towards the USSR and China at all.

"ow you attempt to accuse me of not knowing the relationship between a UN Resolution and a declaration of war - I would say you don't understand why the President of the United States decided not to ask the United States Congress for a Declaration of War. Especially given that the United States does not require nor did it require in 1950 authorization from the United Nations to declare war."

Of course the US does not need authorisation from the UNSC to declare war. However, Truman could have sought it and got it and he did not, he chose at the outset to fight what he could have made an open-ended conflict with North Korea, USSR and China under a limited mandate to defend the South.

"To futher demonstrate the scope of your generalzation, North Korea believed something else entirely when it attack South Korea then betting that the United States wouldn't use nuclear weapons. Border conflicts began happening much earlier then the full scale attack, in fact both Korea's were preparing for war since about 1948 with North Korea being more aggresive in its preparation. So North Korea wasn't betting on no nuclear engagement by the United States it was betting on something else."

Of course North Korea took into account the fact that the US is a nuclear power in planning for the war. The presumption that the US would not use nuclear weapons to defend its ally and stop communist aggression was a necessary precondition of the decision to attack.

"Doesn't sound like wanting to prevent an escalation but one of wanting the conflict to be halted in general"

In case you hadn't noticed, part of halting a conflict is to stop it escalating.

[Redleg]

You seem to be taking things to be mutually exclusive when they are not. I never said that Truman did not want to halt the spread of communism, etc. The point is that from the outset these things were done in a manner that would prevent escalation of the conflict into a war with the USSR. You provide redundant evidence stating the obvious- that Truman believed North Korea was put up to it by the USSR and the USSR's proxy offensive had to be stopped. But you have no explanation as to why, that being the case, retaliating against the USSR and China was off the table from the outset. The US intelligence memorandum shows that the US government believed that USSR was wanting to "test the strength of US commitments". If you consider that this document was of some import, then you must also consider that the American response was measured so as to send what the US government considered an appropriate message to the USSR.

Some rethorical questions you can feel free to answer or not.

What forces did the United States have in South Korea on June 24, 1950?
What forces did the United States have in the Far East on June 24, 1950?
What was Truman's first reaction and thoughts upon hearing of the attack by North Korea on South Korea?
What was the United States first plan to support South Korea?
Is committing one's troops to a non-allied friendly nation's defense after it is attack an action of preventing escalation? If the your answer is yes, how does it prevent escalation? If your answer is no why is it an escalation?
Is the position, stop the attack or face the United States/United Nations forces meant to prevent escalation or is it a warning about escalation? You have answered this on partially but not enough to fully explain the difference in opinion.
Are these the actions of an adminstration that was focused on preventing an escalation of a conflict?

For instance, my answer the queston of is the position, stop the attack or face the United States/United Nations forces meant to prevent escalation or is it a warning about escalation?
This is a warning about escalation meant to stop the current conflict. The reason why is that the sole bargianing chip is one of increasing the conflict not minimizing it. Its a tactic meant to intimadate an oppenent into complying with the request to stop a course of action or face a bigger oppenent. It is a tactic that is meant to escalate the conflict if one does not heed the warning.

So in short I am stating that since the United States had no combat forces in South Korea, there were however 200 military advisors, no committment to the defense of South Korea in 1950, and that President Truman's initial reaction was to force North Korea to stop its attack or face the United States and its allies. That Truman with willing intent to escalate the conflict went to the United Nations to force the Soviet Union's hand, and to force North Korea to withdraw to the DMZ on its own or face the United Nations forces. That these actions were not geared toward the preventing the escalation - but to force the issue. I get this conclusion from reading the first hand source information in the Turman Library.

None of your responses address what Truman's initial reaction nor the initial circumstances and situation surrounding the event, you focus solely on that going to the United Nations was by itself meant to prevent escalation. To claim only this is indeed a generalization because the initial response by Truman was to get the United States involved in the fighting on the Korean Pennisula - ie an escalation of the conflict. Now as the fighting became a stalemate this was indeed the United States desire - to use the United Nations to prevent further escalation of the conflict, but it was not the initial concern.

You are seemly arguing that by going to the United Nations that the goal was to prevent escalation? Now how does one prevent escalation when one is planning to involve themselves in a conflict that one was not initially involved in because of the desire to prevent the spread of communism or allowing another world war to develop from inaction? This seems a disjointed arguement when one understands that the United States had no committment to defend South Korea from aggression in 1950.


Of course the US does not need authorisation from the UNSC to declare war. However, Truman could have sought it and got it and he did not, he chose at the outset to fight what he could have made an open-ended conflict with North Korea, USSR and China under a limited mandate to defend the South.

The subsequent invasion of North Korea by the United Nations Forces sort of defeats this postion in total. You should also read some of Truman's comments about why there was no declaration of war needed.


Of course North Korea took into account the fact that the US is a nuclear power in planning for the war. The presumption that the US would not use nuclear weapons to defend its ally and stop communist aggression was a necessary precondition of the decision to attack.

Military planners would of first asked questions along these line and then made assumptions based upon how they answered it.

What effect would the United States nuclear weapons have on our combat operations?
When and where would they most likely use nuclear weapons?

Depending on how they answered those questions they would have established their assumptions about the United States response concerning their attack. Now the CIA document alreadly quoted would have the most likely necessary preconditions and assumptions made by the North Korean's concerning their attack. Frankly knowing what I know about Nuclear Weapons, their deployment, effects, strenghs, the Korean Terrian and North Korean battle doctrine, I doubt very seriousily that the no use of nuclear weapons was a necessary precondition for the North Korean war planners. They would of considered it as a factor but the decision to attack or not attack would have been more in line with some of the conclusion listed in the CIA document.