posted
Let's face it; Britain has basically gone from being THE most powerful nation in the history of the world, covering 1/4 of the Earth's surface and population, to... a dinky little island. That isn't to say they aren't powerful. Oh heavens no; Britain is still one of the world's most powerful nations. Somewhere between 3rd-5th.
So, going from world spanning, to dinky island. Obviously, there was something that caused this. Bad rule? Their reach excedeing their grasp? Overwhelming power? Could it be a mix of these things, or different ones? A MIX of different ones? Perhaps it was because they just conquered TOO much, and they could not keep their empire. I don't know, I'm not an expert on the British.
One thing is for sure though: They probably had the overall "least" blood shed over independant nations in the 20th century.
My personal opinion is a mix between their reach exceding their grasp, (not militarilly, just culturally) , and my theory: "You cannot conquer a people unless they want to be."
So, fellow Hatrackians, give your opinions! I would like to hear yours. Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Dinky little island" and "one of the world's most powerful nations" don't seem to go together.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if you think of it, they do. For one, Britain is really, a small island, in a narrow term. However, militarily, economically, culturally, and influentally, they are quite powerful.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, how about the fact that you have no evidence of this whatsoever, besides your apparent conception (right word?) of the fact. You might be thinking of the "influence" it has over commonwealth countries like Australia. It has none, just a title. It means as little "militarily, economically, culturally, and influentally" to the commonwealth as the royals mean to the rest of Britain.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright. First off, Britain is powerful. There is no disputing that; right. They DO have a strong military. They have a strong economy. They have very rich culture. They have influenceed most of the wolrd's governments; maybe indirectly, but still did.
And YES, an American is saying all of these nice things about another nation.
Also notice this pattern.
After Rome fell, it basically gave birth to Britain, which took its place. Britain in turn, gave birth to the US, which tool its place. Where will this pattern end?
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It still commands a great deal of respect. Nations like Australia, New Zealand, and Canada are tied economically and culturally to Britain, and the word of the Queen and the word of the PM of Britain carries enormous weight with those nations. That isn't to say they can order them around, but they can can support on a great range of issues.
I think the real decline of their empire came just after WWII, and it is directly tied to the death of their navy. America could overpower the next three most powerful navies in the world combined. Britain cancelled much of it's shipbuilding operations, including what would have been a new line of carriers. It doesn't have the ability to project force in the world like it used to.
India, South Africa and it's other holdings would have been gone eventually. With the way the world was working, they were already on the path to getting out from under British rule, but all hope of holding onto a position as a major world power player died when they slashed their navy.
Edit to add: Reticulum. Your Rome to Britain theory. Nope.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
For a start, it doesn't take a genius like you to notice that.
Besides that, your speaking as if Britain is still at its Zenith. Rome (Italy) still has some influence because of Roman Catholicism. Britain actually used Roman Catholicism to conquer a lot of the world. The Church of England doesn't command half as much respect.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, respect doesn't equal power, but INFLUENCE often can, and Britain has it. They have economic, cultural, social, military, and allying influence over traditional friends, and all that put together equal influence that they can throw around and get a bit of what they want. More so than a lot of other western and first world nations can, maybe even most of them. Britain is seen is one of the main leaders of the EU, their word carries weight.
As for the Pax theory. Rome's fall didn't create Britain as a power. A fantastically large amount of factors came into play to make Britain into a huge power, and a great many of them had zero to do with Rome. The biggest was their undefeatable navy. Another biggie was their form of government, and things like the magna carta. They were a people apart, and innovated their way to the top.
In the same way, Britain's fall didn't create America's rise to power. They were already powerful before WWII, they just didn't exercise that power, and they have Germany, Italy and Japan to thank for that. Japan especially forced America to build a massive navy that gave them the power to project force anywhere in the world, and all three powers refused to let America stay idle, and once invested, they were trapped in international affairs. To be involved meant to control, and so they did.
If you're talking about parent nations, then yes, Rome seeded Britain in the same way that Britain seeded America, but really that's incidental, it's not the primary cause.
As far as power at the zenith, that's a result of technological advances. As time goes on, nations will only become more powerful, not less powerful, barring a nuclear winter.
Following your theory, the next big power will come from a US seed, of which, quite frankly, none exist. With all the foriegn world's talk of imperialism, when it really comes down to it, America barely dipped it's toes in the water compared to Europe. The Phillipines was our only real dabbling (and it was brutal), but we got out of that relatively fast compared to the centuries that Europe meddled.
Otherwise, the obvious odds on favorite for the next world power is China, but their power would have to either be a military one or a economic one, it will never be a cultural one as America has created. At least, not with their current government and culture. And either way, you can't predict the rise of the next power until you also predict the decline of the current one.
(waits for Blayne to jump in)
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The nation does though. Saying Britain is at its Zenith is like saying the US is still at its Zenith. (Which it is not, sad to say. ) Currently, it is the Chinese who are destined to become a superpower. God only knows what China would with superpower status, though.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Following your saying that China will never reach a cultural status like America, I can whole-heartedly agree with that. There are a few reasons.
1. Britain really spread the English language around the world. This spread was followed by the further spreading by America, which enforced it also. So, you have the two most powerful nations in history (debatable somewhat), who spread their language for over 250 years. On top of this, you have the fact that the current WMPN, is ignorant and will refuse to learn Chinese. And a LOT nations will do as America does. This is a huge factor, since the Chinese language will not spread, as English did. Regionally it will spread, but not globally. Since Chinese movies talk in Chinese assuminglingly, their films, and culture will not spread like America's, thus limiting their power.
2. America has been the sole superpower for over a decade, and been a regular superpower for just over 60 years. We have had a LOT of time to spread. We were unarguably more culturally influential the USSR, so that gives us 60+ to spread our language and culture. Now, when China becomes a superpower, they will have to deal with a language that has been the world's "norm" for 250+ years, culture that been influencing the world for 60+ years, competeing with another very powerful superpower who are ignorant and will not adopt their ways, and finally, the rest of the world, with other such nations as Britain, and France of whom America already holds sway.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not sure how much that matters. First of all, China is, and will continue to grow as a major economic player in the world. Eventually their growth will level out and slow, and their currency will float free, putting them more or less on the same level of economic development as the rest of the world. At that point, they'll be on par with the US and EU. Other nations will be forced to learn Chinese to do business with them. Right now, Chinese people learn English because they need/want to crack English speaking markets, but that won't always be the case. Learning Chinese will become a necessary component to the business world for the West.
But I think you're right in that, it will never become as ubiquitous as English, barring extreme circumstances. Likewise, I don't see the combo Chinese/English a la Firefly ever coming to pass.
But I think you are ignoring the European Union as a pontential superpower player. If and when the EU becomes a single unified nation, and really, I would be very surprised if that didn't happen this century, their economy will be on par with that of the US and China, and their military, once repositioned and consolidated, will be an incredible force to be reckoned with. Britain's naval infrastructure, and that of Scandinavia's could produce some awesome ships for a truly powerful navy. They would certainly have America's help too, if they wanted to build modern carriers, and Britain already has Trafalgar-Class Submarines, which are better than anything that the Russians or Chinese have. Plus, when all their internal military forces are moved to the borders, it will leave them with a lot of resources to play with as far as being an international military force.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far the European union, I don't think they will ever become a single nation. They are too diverse, and they have too much national pride.
I will be glad to see which language will become the more powerful and common in the business world. Due to the statements in my upper post, I think English will win.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering the progress they have made in just the last ten years, I don't think it's that far off. Draft constitutions have already been written, and rejected yes, but progress is always being made. Remember that the modern EU hasn't existed for all that long, it will take time to work out the growing pains. But it WILL happen. I'd say in the next forty to fifty years.
Though, it will be MUCH longer if they allow any more new nations, which I think is a mistake. Where they are now is where they need to stop, before they become too divided to survive as a single entity. Turkey should not be allowed admittance.
Their biggest issue is that they don't want to lose the power they have at the UN and Security Council by solidifying into a single nation with only one vote, but I think they'd get over that, or the UN will be remade at that point, which I think is also a major posibility. It's lack of functionality has been shown greatly in the last decade, and I could see the birth of a unified EU nation working in tandem with a new UN being remade, giving India and Japan more status, and giving the US, EU, and China overlordship over the earth basically. Africa won't be able to do anything about it, except maybe secure themselves a couple permenant African rotating Security council seats.
Africa will become a major topic of discussion for the leaders of the world in the next fifty years. It's the last great consumer farm of the world, and the powerhouses of the world will fight over who gets to exploit it the most.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still don't think Europe will ever become a unified naition. It just doesn't seem likely. First, you would see the fall of century spanning empires, such as England, France, and such.
Africa, will become economically good in the next couple of centuries, but I do think that breaking off from France and Britain were bad ideas for them.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
News flash, those empires already fell, and they know it. That isn't their concern anymore. Besides, they're more worried about immigrants destroying their cultural fabric than they are that driving from France to Italy no longer means passing through customs.
And why was breaking from oppressive colonialist powers bad for them? Other than the fact that they were kicked out before they had a chance to clean up their messes.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Plus, eventually, China becoming a superpower will cause bad relations with America. Rensions will rise, and we will both plunge into war. America will use the perfect excuse that China cannot make such claims to own so much land, and oppress so many people.
America, due to our large military, economic, and cultural dominance would have a GREAT advantage. With allies such as GB, France, and the world's most powerful nations, I cannot see an American defeat.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Africa, being ruled very powerful nations, with strong economies, could have been 50-75 years ahead, of where it is now. They would have been thoroughly developed, and when have been economic powers; THEN they should have revolted.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: Plus, eventually, China becoming a superpower will cause bad relations with America. Rensions will rise, and we will both plunge into war. America will use the perfect excuse that China cannot make such claims to own so much land, and oppress so many people.
America, due to our large military, economic, and cultural dominance would have a GREAT advantage. With allies such as GB, France, and the world's most powerful nations, I cannot see an American defeat.
All of that is where you lost me. It's gibberish.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would America have an advantage? Sure we still have military construction here in the states, but think about what would happen to our economy if the Chinese denied us their products? What do we make here? Cars, sure, but less and less. Electronics come for the orient, Japan and China. Major manufacturing in the U.S. has drastically diminished and moved over seas.
If you are talking about a brawl, gun for gun, than the U.S. might have the edge, but China has a lot more people, the possibility for a lot more troops, and their military is nothing to sneeze at.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't bother discussing anything with Reticulum. He takes 10 minutes to come up with 25 word defenses. He uses his age as an excuse for not making sense, and still thinks hes right. I could go on...
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
For a start, it doesn't take a genius like you to notice that.
Besides that, your speaking as if Britain is still at its Zenith. Rome (Italy) still has some influence because of Roman Catholicism. Britain actually used Roman Catholicism to conquer a lot of the world. The Church of England doesn't command half as much respect.
No, Reticulum did not speak as if Britain was still at it's zenith. Hence the arrows. Umm, and his thread title.
England left the Roman Catholic Church almost 500 years ago, before founding their empire. So how did they use the RCC to conquer the world? *sets stopwatch*
(Focusing on Western Civilization), we'll just ignore the Byzantine Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Spain, and France? You might be able to fit in the Ottomans at some point, and you can't really forget the Mongol Empire...
posted
I believe what destroyed the British Empire, and turned it into a declining empire, was WWI. By WWII they were already in decline, hence the attempts at appeasement. They lost a major portion of their youthful population in WWI, their invincible navy was unable to project power into Europe as they hoped, (while the battle of Jutland was not a defeat for the Grand Fleet--it certainly was no victory. It showed a weakness in what was the strongest part of the empire.), and many of their colonies, most importantly India, were struggling for freedom.
PS, I agree with Bok. Check your history. They jump from Pax Romana to Pax Brittanica is about 1000 years. Between the two Brittian faced major influences from invasions from Danes and the French/Normans.
The Holy Roman Empire kept Europe organized enough to withstand Islamification. The Spanish Empire spread European colonization around the world, though its poor use of those resources left it very short lived. The Fench Empire took much of Italy's rennaisance and fashioned it into an empire that defined European culture, and influences it to this day. The Mongul empire was extremely large and influencial, and planted the seeds for much of the Russian/Soviet Empire that we saw at the end of the 20th century. The Chinese Empire was should not be ignored either, just because they sought to ignore the rest of the world.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe what destroyed the British Empire, and turned it into a declining empire, was WWI.
I'm actually going to go out on a limb here and say the following: what killed the British Empire was its attempt to maintain a landed gentry in an age of mass manufacturing.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
1. Technology. 100 years ago, the relatively technical nations were US, UK, France, Germany. Now it's spread, and it's harder for a country without a huge population base to be a world power.
2. WWII exhausted the UK; like other European nations, it needed a while to recover. The US was not nearly so stretched, and despite being invaded, neither was the USSR. The UK would have certainly recovered by now (and did), but in the meantime...
3. The elites in the UK's colonies took to heart what they learned in the west about self-determination, and weren't going to put up with colonial status any more. The UK was too stretched to expend serious effort to keep them by force; the population didn't want to (they booted Churchill out for Labour at a time when Labour was ready to let India go); and the UK didn't really have the population to force colonialism on a seriously unwilling colony population. So the UK lost its empire, and without it, it's just not that big. (The US and the USSR expanded, too, but they expanded over land, and made their new territories part of their nations.)
So to me, it's not that the UK mysteriously lost power; it's that it was unusual circumstances that made that power possible to begin with. Now, it's certainly powerful for a nation its size: seat on the Security Council, nukes, a relatively able military, and a rich population. But to reach US, India, China, or Russia levels of population, UK isn't enough; you essentially need Europe.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Okay to all those who wants to know Chinese military capabilities: www.sinodefence.com an unofficial website that is pretty informative.
As for England there are many reasons:
-England was an "island of shopkeeper's" and stayed that way they rarely industrialized the colonies and prefered to import rare materials for industry. Good for them bad for colonies.
-England with one war after an other to secure its naval monopoly found itself in constant confrontation with France, forcing it away from other events such as Russian domination of the Far East, growing American troubles, etc.
-The Napoleanic war was the first time England fought in a total war like situation putting its full monetary strength into the war by distracting Napolean on the periphery to kill him through attrition of his best troops and constantly forming collalitions whenever Napolean was about to gain his breathing space.
-After the war, for the first time England found itself with nearly total hegemony of the oceans, but were weakened by the American split and for the first time defending Canada became important. Also England with its new found strength in maritime trade and a large production capacity thanks to the steam engine and the industrial revolution began taking on military obligations around the globe in India, North America, South America, etc.
-Then game the Opium wars in China and the founding of Hong-Kong as a British Possetion for the next 150 years and the start of a string of British obligations in the Far East.
-England with its great wealth and influence can maintain its empire with the doctrine of "A navy big enough to take on any other 2 navies" and did so, but such a maritime expansion came at a price. England's ability to maintain a strong army was lacking, focusing on long proffesional carreer soldiers whose tour of duty were 7-10 years and maintained a relatively small colonial army and garrisons.
-The cost to maintain these forts and garrisons, as well as the naval infastructure to maintain such a navy as England was fielding was encredibly expensive. And their pretensions oversea's kept England in a certain amount of animosity with the French and Continental Europe. Also England prefering to maintain its Empire was by the end of the 18th centuary was finding itself too big to expand anymore and the costs of maintainance was increasing with new technologies.
-But thing's werent all bad, until 1860's where Russia attempted to expand at Turkey's expense. This war showed England's military weakness and further isolated England as Europe became suspisious of England's goals. Russia found itself too internally messed up to do anything in central europe, and Prussia with Von Molke's reforms managed to cream Austria so thouroughly that Austria could only watch the coming conflict and thus France was the only power able to chalenge the growing military and economic might of Berlin. With the end of the Franco-Prussian war came the beginning of the end of England's Hegemony in the long term.
-With a Unified Germany and Italy in Central Europe the Balance of power was shifting. Germany's huge manufacturing potential was enough to begin with the dismissing of Bismark a rivarly between the "water rat and the land rat".
-Also Germany was not the only new power to challenge England, with the end of the Civil War the United States found itself in a great economic position, with the potential to build ships in a rate that England found unnerving and America possessed the economic capacity to challenge England.
-England's oversea's obligations, coupled with the need to build up the naval forces in competition with Germany and America, as well with the growing pains with the Shilling's value with the growing protectionism of various nations was forcing England in an uncomfotable position. The actual politics of this time is in my mind cloudy I know the great powers divided Africa and intervened in the Boxer Rebellion in China (sowing the seeds for somwthing more recent). And all this increased the frition between the Detente, and the Central Powers.
Finally with the spark of the powder keg, the Balkans forced the eruption of WWI. England was neutral until the German DOWing of the Low Countries. So with WWI England sent its BEF (British Expeditionary Force) to aid the french and fought well keeping the one little belgian town in Allied hands. Anyone who makes any pretensions to know hsitory should know anough of WWI to not need me explaning it, but the financial costs of the war and the massive loans from the states is what finally and ireparitly put England on the path to obscurity in the coming decades.
-Post War england found itself establishing commitee's and think tanks trying to figure out how to maintain the Empire and prevent a fall (kinda like what the States is doing now). It's navy they had no choice with the Washington and other naval treaties to reduce overwhelmingly the size of the Royal Navy and decrease the size of her Battleships per treaty specifications. The loss of her Navy and the gorwing autonomy of her Colonies was also distrissing to England forcing the Commonwealth into more and more of a loose confederation of equal members led at first officially and now unofficially by the Queen of England.
-Post war debts, an pacifist populace, a growing inability to deal with Fascism... all these were heavy upon British policy makers. But finally it was WWII that ended it. The collapse at Dunkirk and the close call during the Battle of Britain showed the World that England had fallen a great deal and England was thus forced a second time in her History to rely on the Arsenal of Democracy within the United States.
-England gave away her gold reserves to Fort Knox to pay in part her debts and to gain new aid for the crisis and with the American entry into the war England was saved from occupation from the Nazi's but found itself worse off in the world influencially, economically and militarily then before.
The end of WWII found England forced to accept a subordinate role in politics with the USA at the helm to defend the West from the threat of Soviet Aggression who were so much bigger and more powerful then the British and French that American help was mandatory or else they'ld be doomed to fall under the Iron Curtain themselves.
We look at history and analyze what went wrong for the British and we also see the signs of wear and tear in America as well. If anything rather then American beating China, it is China who will be the end of the United States and its position as the sole super power.
China is a nation who has the populace, the manufacturing potential (whose growth is powered by foreign investment), military determination to prevent what happened in the Boxing Rebellion (where 8 european countries invaded China), and the technological know how and the potential to become technologically affluent.
They've only just begun exporting their own car brands and are developing indiginous software/hardware components how long before cheap Chinese designed and manufactured Computers are flooding the markets? If anything soon China will become the second major super power in regards to the United States and then exceed it.
But its likely they're will be a conventional war the result? No one knows.
IP: Logged |
posted
Uh, Blayne, England industrialized so much they stripped the entire island of trees and coal, nearly completely. What small groups of trees survived became black with soot. Hardly an island of shopkeepers.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Why would America have an advantage? Sure we still have military construction here in the states, but think about what would happen to our economy if the Chinese denied us their products? What do we make here? Cars, sure, but less and less. Electronics come for the orient, Japan and China. Major manufacturing in the U.S. has drastically diminished and moved over seas.
If you are talking about a brawl, gun for gun, than the U.S. might have the edge, but China has a lot more people, the possibility for a lot more troops, and their military is nothing to sneeze at.
Do you know anything? Honestly? If China denied us their products, who would they sell them too? In case you didn't notice, you proved my point why the US would have an advnatage. I may not have said it, but you backed it up. The US buys and WASTES a lot of things. If they stopped selling to the US, they would have to find a MAJOR buyer to replace us, thus damaging our economy.
Yes, major manufacturing in the US is gone, but do not think we don't have enough military, or allies to buy from to be supported? There is a reason why America is the most powerful nation. YOU make it sound as if, war was broken out, then we would have to buy everything, and that we have nothing here.
Ah yes, and for their military. Yes, they have been updating in the last few years, but their military is GREATLY outdated by the US. They lack carriers, and other such things. The US is dominant on land sea and air, and if a war broke out, we would go to any length to win.
Numbers, the Chinese military is only slightly larger then US's. IF needed the US could get mass numbers too and supply. Sure, China has a big population, but you have to have a LOT of money to supply your troops. Something, China could not support millions of troops. The US however could; being the richest nation.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reticulum, I think you dramatically underestimate the Chinese military. Neither we nor they could successfully assault either mainland. If such an assault were attempted, I think we'd wind up in a nuclear exchange out of necessity.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
You make it sound like the entire western world will support America. What makes you think they will after the Iraq debacle and a possible round 2 with Iran? NATO can only act in the Atlantic and Europe not Asia. And Russia/China can veto any UN attempt to peace keeper it.
So your stuck to just America and China.
Next, the West is also buying in bulk from China in the States so if you buy from the the EU you are in the end buying from China second hand problem solved EU makes a little more money this way and China isn't harmed long term, they can also redirect some of their sales to Russia or make new deals with the EU for lower tarrifs.
Do yuo realize what the American rate of consumption is? If you stopped buying from China prices would A) Skyrocket B) they'ld be shortages decreasing moral.
How long can America last without its luxery goods neh?
Your dominance in land and sea is being challange day by day my friend, the Abrams could be theotetically blown up by a T-72, and the Chinese have the T-99 of their own design. the A1A2 is toast. The ground forces I'ld say were equal.
The airforces, will America has a certain egde yes but not decisevly, the Chinese can match the F-14-18 and the J-14 when its developed will have capabilities matching the F-22 and the F-35 can be outmaneuvered by a J-10/11 in a dogfight.
The Chinese have AWAAC's and UAV's and a sophistocated CIRSC (or whatever the abbreviation is) system.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Also the "Island of Shopkeeper's" is a quote by Adam Smith, you know the famous economist. A shopkeeper, as in a store or a money lender. A trades man.
IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I think the rest of the western world is much more likely to support America than Britain, with Japan somewhere in between.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was referring to in the sense you were using it, though I could just have been misunderstanding due to the atrocious grammar.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, yes, any attempt on each others mainland would be insane. However, Militarily, yes America is FAR FAR FAR more powerful then China. The Chinese navy is absolutely nothing. Yes, China is almost definitely the 2nd most powerful nation, but they are still outdated by the US. And, even if China DOES have a fairly sophisticated, or VERY military, do you think America would leave ours the same? Do you think we have just stopped developing? WHAT do you think the hundreds of Billions of dollars are being spent on?
And, as you just said, if we stopped buying from China, we would just buy from the EU. Yes, prices would go up, but we could afford it.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
WHo are still buying from China. Also China's ascention to the WTO would actually prevent America from breaking off trade deals unless there is a war, in that case buying from EU even if second hand chinese goods would take a while afew months minimum.
Even with billions of dollars going into your military China is still catching up at a ridiculas rate, your military-industrial complex is also becoming inefficient with the fall of the Soviet Union. Your military while first rate has alot of its budget directed towards pensions, payment, alot of it isn't going into military efficiency or purchasing of new planes.
China's PLA actually is rather self-sufficient owning many farms, factories, even schools the PLA is very much a major part of the average citizens life in some area's. Only recently did many of this possetions were stripped away to lower corruption and to make many of these state owned firms more efficient and compete with public/private firms and defence contractors.
The PLA budget is more purely military then America's is and more efficient overall. America's recent burst is also unsustainable, with such a huge debt and a trade dificit, a corroding society etc how long before a new Democrat comes in and makes 70-90% cut backs across the board to redirect it into balancing the budget?
IP: Logged |
posted
If for some reason the US and China were at war, the US would have one major advantage. Through airbases in Europe, the US could potentially strike at industrial centers in China. It would be far from easy, but it would be pretty much impossible for China to do that to the US. In any kind of a prolonged war, that sort of loss would be devastating. That said, I still think that any sort of land invasion would be really hard to pull off.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
All the predictions about China as the next world superpower seem to ignore the coming demographic crisis as its population ages and the "one child policy" started in 1980 makes its full effects on the workforce.
If I had to pick the most likely successor to the U.S. as the major superpower, I would say India.
Posts: 99 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
) Currently, it is the Chinese who are destined to become a superpower. God only knows what China would with superpower status, though.
