World of the future?

[Kagemusha]

What do you think,how the situation in global scale will develop during the next 50 years? To me it seems that China and USA are the only real contenders currently of the leading country in the world. There are other serious players,like EU,Japan,India and Russia, but i dont think any of them will be able to challence US as the leading power on the global scale, not that i would even wish that either.
There has been lot of talk about China lately and it seems some are ready to create a boogey man, like good ole Soviet Union out of it. Some think that China is trying to turn into a military superpower like US and some even think that there will be war between US and China in the future.
My question is why China would like to go to war with US or even try to challenge US as military power? With its economical growth and potential, could it be possible that in matter of fact China is just bluffing. Playing its politics pretty much like US did to Soviet Union during the Cold war. While US constantly increases its defence spending,which is already over half of its federal budget. Here is a pie chart of the US federal budget for 2008:

https://img240.imageshack.us/img240/4764/edfederalbudgetc08grhf1.jpg

There arent much to know about Chinese budget figures, but it seems that while China has large army, the spending is not that heavy,when one looks at the equipment of the soldiers,their navy and airforce. Infact the army doesnt look like that it is in state to start any major conflicts, nor end those succesfully.Could it be possible that Chinas simple plan against US is to simply outgrow US economically and can that be achieved by China with its three times bigger GDP growth?

[Lemur]

I'm picturing something like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TL4XZdyo3g).

[Kagemusha]

I'm picturing something like this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TL4XZdyo3g).

Ahh the classic Madmax scenario. So should i assume that things will go from bad to worse after Lemurs have taken over?:sweatdrop:

[Boyar Son]

US and china both need each other (so I dont think there will be a war, or at least not yet), china's biggest trading partner is the US and if the Chinese $$ passes the dollars worth than the US will probably buy less from china and more from the next cheapest country.

[HoreTore]

There arent much to know about Chinese budget figures, but it seems that while China has large army, the spending is not that heavy,when one looks at the equipment of the soldiers,their navy and airforce. Infact the army doesnt look like that it is in state to start any major conflicts, nor end those succesfully.

I don't think that's very true. China is buying a buttload of equipment from Russia. Subs, planes, gadgets, boats(and I believe some hangars?), etc. They already have a bunch of more than adequate tanks, and the AK-47 is more than good enough...

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army#Military_technology - it seems they are even more high tech than that...

[Kagemusha]

I don't think that's very true. China is buying a buttload of equipment from Russia. Subs, planes, gadgets, boats(and I believe some hangars?), etc. They already have a bunch of more than adequate tanks, and the AK-47 is more than good enough...

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army#Military_technology - it seems they are even more high tech than that...


But the spending is nowhere near the US spending.It seems that that China is now updating their somewhat outdated army,but i cant see any indications of trying to create a significantly larger military power and power projection abilities.

[HoreTore]

But the spending is nowhere near the US spending.It seems that that China is now updating their somewhat outdated army,but i cant see any indications of trying to create a significantly larger military power and power projection abilities.

Well, we don't really have a clue as to how much they're spending, do we?

And remember that a big part of the US spending is eaten up by science - something the chinese doesn't have to worry that much about, since they're just buying stuff as they come on the market, and the US won't put their own new stuff into full use until 20-30 years have passed, and by that time the design are widely known and ready to be copied. For proof on that, just look at tank design. No tank in action today are state-of-the-art, they're all from the 80's or earlier.

The way I see it, unless it's part of a 3rd world war, the US has absolutely no chance at invading china(the same applies to china though).

[Kagemusha]

Well, we don't really have a clue as to how much they're spending, do we?

And remember that a big part of the US spending is eaten up by science - something the chinese doesn't have to worry that much about, since they're just buying stuff as they come on the market, and the US won't put their own new stuff into full use until 20-30 years have passed, and by that time the design are widely known and ready to be copied. For proof on that, just look at tank design. No tank in action today are state-of-the-art, they're all from the 80's or earlier.

The way I see it, unless it's part of a 3rd world war, the US has absolutely no chance at invading china(the same applies to china though).

I agree that invasion is very unlikely and would be very costly. Ofcourse currently US could defeat Chinas air defence and airforces pretty easily. I think that the race will not be decided with military, rather with economics. And there we come back to my original question. Can US defeat China in Economical race, if they are spending their money to global military campaigns and creating new weapon technology, while China is just using "military sale´s basket" for their needs. About the linked econmy. What i have found out.Here are some figures from CIA´s World fact book:

China

GDP (purchasing power parity):

$10.17 trillion (2006 est.)

GDP (official exchange rate):

$2.518 trillion (2006 est.)

GDP - real growth rate:

10.7% (official data) (2006 est.)

GDP - per capita (PPP):

$7,700 (2006 est.)

GDP - composition by sector:

agriculture: 11.9%
industry: 48.1%
services: 40%
note: industry includes construction (2006 est.)

Labor force:

798 million (2006 est.)
Labor force - by occupation:

agriculture: 45%
industry: 24%
services: 31% (2005 est.)

Unemployment rate:

4.2% official registered unemployment in urban areas in 2005; substantial unemployment and underemployment in rural areas (2005)

Population below poverty line:

10% (2004 est.)

Household income or consumption by percentage share:

lowest 10%: 1.8%
highest 10%: 33.1% (2001)

Distribution of family income - Gini index:

44 (2002)

Inflation rate (consumer prices):

1.5% (2006 est.)

Investment (gross fixed):

44.3% of GDP (2006 est.)

Budget:

revenues: $446.6 billion
expenditures: $489.6 billion; including capital expenditures of $NA (2006 est.)

Current account balance:

$179.1 billion (2006 est.)

Exports:

$974 billion f.o.b. (2006 est.)

Exports - commodities:

machinery and equipment, plastics, optical and medical equipment, iron and steel

Exports - partners:

US 21%, Hong Kong 16%, Japan 9.5%, South Korea 4.6%, Germany 4.2% (2006)

Imports:

$777.9 billion f.o.b. (2006 est.)

Imports - commodities:

machinery and equipment, oil and mineral fuels, plastics, optical and medical equipment, organic chemicals, iron and steel

Imports - partners:

Japan 14.6%, South Korea 11.3%, Taiwan 10.9%, US 7.5%, Germany 4.8% (2006)

Reserves of foreign exchange and gold:

$1.034 trillion (2006 est.)

Debt - external:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
$305.6 billion (2006 est.)

USA

GDP (purchasing power parity):

$13.13 trillion (2006 est.)

GDP (official exchange rate):

$13.21 trillion (2006 est.)

GDP - real growth rate:

3.2% (2006 est.)

GDP - per capita (PPP):

$44,000 (2006 est.)

GDP - composition by sector:

agriculture: 0.9%
industry: 20.4%
services: 78.6% (2006 est.)

Labor force:

151.4 million (includes unemployed) (2006 est.)

Labor force - by occupation:

farming, forestry, and fishing 0.7%, manufacturing, extraction, transportation, and crafts 22.9%, managerial, professional, and technical 34.9%, sales and office 25%, other services 16.5%
note: figures exclude the unemployed (2006)

Unemployment rate:

4.8% (2006 est.)

Population below poverty line:

12% (2004 est.)

Household income or consumption by percentage share:

lowest 10%: 1.8%
highest 10%: 30.5% (1997)

Distribution of family income - Gini index:

45 (2004)

Inflation rate (consumer prices):

2.5% (2006 est.)

Investment (gross fixed):

16.6% of GDP (2006 est.)

Budget:

revenues: $2.409 trillion
expenditures: $2.66 trillion; including capital expenditures of $NA (2006 est.)

Public debt:

64.7% of GDP (2005 est.)

Current account balance:

-$862.3 billion (2006 est.)
Exports:

$1.024 trillion f.o.b. (2006 est.)

Exports - commodities:

agricultural products (soybeans, fruit, corn) 9.2%, industrial supplies (organic chemicals) 26.8%, capital goods (transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts, computers, telecommunications equipment) 49.0%, consumer goods (automobiles, medicines) 15.0% (2003)

Exports - partners:

Canada 22.2%, Mexico 12.9%, Japan 5.8%, China 5.3%, UK 4.4% (2006)
Imports:

$1.869 trillion f.o.b. (2006 est.)

Imports - commodities:

agricultural products 4.9%, industrial supplies 32.9% (crude oil 8.2%), capital goods 30.4% (computers, telecommunications equipment, motor vehicle parts, office machines, electric power machinery), consumer goods 31.8% (automobiles, clothing, medicines, furniture, toys) (2003)

Imports - partners:

Canada 16%, China 15.9%, Mexico 10.4%, Japan 7.9%, Germany 4.8% (2006)

Reserves of foreign exchange and gold:

$69.19 billion (August 2006 est.)

Debt - external:

$10.04 trillion (30 June 2006 est.)



I think there are many pretty intresting things shown in these figures. For example the trading dependence that K Cossack mentioned. 21% of Chinese exports go to USA. The percentage is 5,3 for US Exports that go to China.

[Bijo]

It is economy that is a powerful driver indeed. It can control politics which controls the military (or generally an armed force). Economy can also control an armed force without political intervention, though politics is usually a question anyway.

I think one must heed international banks, the current superpowers, their economies, and related politics (among other factors of course).

I do not know what to conclude, other than to utilize caution and simply observe what will happen. It is difficult to make precise extrapolations in this matter.

[Marshal Murat]

The Chinese problem is that if they expand, then all the surrounding countries get antsy.

Vietnam, after absorbing the South had to combat Chinese expansion.
India, while it is growing, faced with Chinese troops in the Himalayas and the source of their rivers.
Japan, an economic superpower with a bone to pick.
Taiwan, it's losing allies every day to Chinese industrial movements.

China cannot continue expanding indefinitely and rapid urbanization has never been good for anything but the economy, and that isn't always re-invested.

Rant over.