Topic: What caused the "fall" of the British Empire? (Brits wanted)
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
India which has far worse ethnic and social problems.
China's Family planning is already relaxing, rural areas can have more then one child, if you and your spouse were single children then you can have more children, if yuor a minority you can have more then one etc.
Its already on review and I don't see how an aging population = lack of super power status.
IP: Logged |
posted
> I don't see how an aging population = lack of super power status.
1. Because it means a coming shortage of labor, unless they start to import it like the U.S. does. 2. Because the aging population wants medical care spending, not military spending.
Posts: 99 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Britain started slipping in the first world war. It was tough, during the war for the whole of Europe. It prematurely aged the whole continent's countries, including those who were just beginning to rival Britain's influence- such as Germany. Everyone fell, but Britain was spared the worst of it until the Second World War, when the same thing happened again. There's only so much direct war a country/continent can take without slipping.
I believe 1956 (Suez Crisis) was the year when it was clear that the U.S. was taking over- Britain's bid for power failed. Nail in the Superpower coffin.
I do not believe that the empire-building had much to do with Britain's fall, other than the fact that when you start to take responsibility for other countries and more land, it's more difficult to hang on. Like having more and more children. It's hard to be economically viable when you have so many mouths to feed, especially faced with a war situation!
Yes: so my answer = WWI, WWII.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Even if it is aging it just means that more care and better working conditions will come faster.
Even if it is aging per se it is also having more new children and there's plenty of labour, esp if more machines are imported to do work.
Also China and most Asian countries aren't big on health/welfaire anyways, if you don't work you don't eat.
IP: Logged |
posted
I do think the Brits could have held on to, say, India for another twenty, maybe thirty years, had they been willing to use machine guns and tanks to do so. They might not have profited by it, even in the short run, but it would have been possible. In my opinion, the peaceful pullout is one of the finer achievements of an Empire noted for accomplishing many good things.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How long could we last without our luxury goods?
Ask the Germans, they learned what we were capable of doing in WWII. I hope to never experience anything like that myself, of course, but if there is one thing you show little understanding of, Blayne, it is your own country....both it's past, and it's likely future.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I knew this would get more fun once Blayne got here.
I don't see the crisis in China really Eric. Their people don't have the access to healthcare that most of the western world does, and quite frankly I think millions of them could die from disease and old age and they could easily be replaced through government control of the birth rate.
The problem with China in the coming decades is going to be social reform. The people aren't going to put up with the Chinese government forever. They'll demand higher wages, they'll demand freedoms, more democracy, etc. It might be the slowest process in history, but it will happen.
As for this continual boring as all hell America vs. China military debate. Who cares? It doesn't matter. I honestly can't see us going to war with each other based soley on the fact that neither side can have total victory and thus there is no point. Neither of us can win a land invasion, and if it really comes down to it, as of right now, America would win a nuclear war. They couldn't take out half our population with their nukes at the moment, but we have enough to turn China into a smoking cinder.
Regardless, China will never be the "end" of America Blayne, and I don't even know what you mean by that. End of us as a nation? as a superpower? as an economic and cultural influence? Be more specific. Even with that list of items, no, no, and no no no. They won't be.
If it really comes down to it, Europe WILL side with America on a lot of issues. As for Iran, Europe is more gung ho about it than we are, there's a chance there to reunify Western solidarity, it isn't another chance for the US to piss off Europe (well, it could be, but it won't be, that's the important part). I think perhaps you misunderstand the situation there, and overestimate China's political influence. They're arrogant, and arrogance to Europe, a continent of people with a history just as old if not older than China's, dating back to ancient Greece and Rome, arrogance is not welcome, and it gets you in trouble.
The military debate is a moot point Blayne. Your continual assertions about tank battles don't matter, because barring a Chinese invasion of Israel or Eastern Europe, they will never take place. Air superiority is in the hands of the US right now, and it will be for the coming future.
Regardless of technology you're ignoring the fact that the US has made warfare into an art. We don't spend all our money on soldier paychecks and equipment, BILLIONS goes into communications, surveillance and training. We can contact any unit, track any unit, and move any unit anywhere in the world in a second's notice. The Chinese don't have that kind of far reaching military communication system in place. And don't forget that they GPS system is controlled by the US, and during a war, I highly doubt we're going to allow them to use it. Unless you wait for the European version of GPS to come online in 20 years, but I think they'd side with us too.
Training is the biggest equalizer. Our pilots have hundreds if not thousands of hours of flight logged, and a great many of them (if not all as of now) have combat hours logged. We have trained military who are all battle hardened. You can' underestimate experience, and for that matter the fact that we're been using modern equipment to fight in modern warfare 50 years longer than they have. You can't make up for that experience gap in that short amount of time, not without spending way more time and money than the Chinese are.
And I resent the "how long will Americans last without their luxury items" bit. That's just bullshit and offensive. You think Americans are so soft that they will simply give up and surrender because they can't buy a plasma screen tv from China? Man are you in for a surprise when we get pissed off. Many haven't forgotten the rationing that went on during WW2, and even more will remember and step up if such a drastic step, FAR AND AWAY more drastic than luxury items, is ever required of us again. Ridiculous and insulting.
America will just have to move over and make room for new superpowers, because we aren't going anywhere.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for this continual boring as all hell America vs. China military debate. Who cares? It doesn't matter. I honestly can't see us going to war with each other based soley on the fact that neither side can have total victory and thus there is no point. Neither of us can win a land invasion, and if it really comes down to it, as of right now, America would win a nuclear war. They couldn't take out half our population with their nukes at the moment, but we have enough to turn China into a smoking cinder.
Gah, I swore I wasn't going to get into the China-US thing, but this is just too silly to let go. Since when has total victory been a prerequisite for going to war, except in the mind of the American public? Consider the Seven Years' War, fought on three continents and all the seas, the end result of which was that Prussia retained Silesia, and some bits of wasteland in America changed hands! Consider even Korea, which indeed was fought by the US, and not pushed to a final conclusion for fear of nukes - was it a pointless conflict? Or would you perhaps prefer that Kim should extend his tyranny over the whole peninsula? There are any number of conflict points over which China and the US could in principle come to blows, without having to invade each others' mainland. Access to African markets and Middle Eastern oil; Taiwan; North Korea; even Afghanistan, should the Chinese decide they want to extend their old influence over Central Asia again.
Now, had you said "There is no war the Chinese can win, and therefore they won't start one", that would make a certain amount of sense. But this about a total war is just nonsense, especially in a nuclear age.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have just realized why the british empire is no more! Its because of their bad teeth, taste for expensive tea, need to feel like they can be as big and bad as their creators/conquerers (the Roman Empire), and the fact that they never figured out that marching in strait lines is not a smart battle plan.
(I am joking on some of this, some I'm a little more serious about)
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for this continual boring as all hell America vs. China military debate. Who cares? It doesn't matter. I honestly can't see us going to war with each other based soley on the fact that neither side can have total victory and thus there is no point. Neither of us can win a land invasion, and if it really comes down to it, as of right now, America would win a nuclear war. They couldn't take out half our population with their nukes at the moment, but we have enough to turn China into a smoking cinder.
Gah, I swore I wasn't going to get into the China-US thing, but this is just too silly to let go. Since when has total victory been a prerequisite for going to war, except in the mind of the American public? Consider the Seven Years' War, fought on three continents and all the seas, the end result of which was that Prussia retained Silesia, and some bits of wasteland in America changed hands! Consider even Korea, which indeed was fought by the US, and not pushed to a final conclusion for fear of nukes - was it a pointless conflict? Or would you perhaps prefer that Kim should extend his tyranny over the whole peninsula? There are any number of conflict points over which China and the US could in principle come to blows, without having to invade each others' mainland. Access to African markets and Middle Eastern oil; Taiwan; North Korea; even Afghanistan, should the Chinese decide they want to extend their old influence over Central Asia again.
Now, had you said "There is no war the Chinese can win, and therefore they won't start one", that would make a certain amount of sense. But this about a total war is just nonsense, especially in a nuclear age.
Ah good you made my point for me. We're in a nuclear age. Please explain how the US and China are going to escalate to the point of war and NOT go nuclear over it. As soon as the US or Chinese attain any sort of dominance over the other, and it will all happen very, very fast, within a matter of days, in air or sea, the other will put their finger on the button and it either becomes hellfire and brimstone, or both sides stand down and the status quo returns. And somewhere in there, Taiwan is invaded.
Knowing this, there's especially little point in discussing a land war, because I don't see any set of circumstances, barring a viable missile defense shield or mutual nuclear disarmament, that would ever allow for a land war to happen. And I fail to see what is to be gained by just shooting down their planes and sinking what little bit of a navy they have compared to ours, as it will gain us no concessions and will probably lose Taiwan in the process. So for these reasons, I don't see the US starting a war. And I don't see China starting a war because they need us right now, and for the forseeable future they will continue to need us. The bigger and more complex their economy gets, the more it will come to rely on the US consumer to continue to fund it. It's a two edged sword that hurts both sides, but if they ever declared or us, then they lose more than a hundred billion dollars in sales to US consumers. Someone will make the argument that we'll simply get those goods via Europe, but I'd be a little surprised.
Anything with a Made in China sticker on it will be sacrosanct to purchase. It might doom both our economies, though I think we'd eventually pick up the pieces. Our stuff will cost a lot more to purchase, and in general you'll see a massive downturn in the luxury/electronics industry, at the end of the day we can still buy from Japan, domestically, and Europe. But China will be hardpressed to find another 100+ billion dollars from somewhere to buy their products. Which means massive layoffs in China, and according to Blayne, massive starvation and death.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would recommend to you an old book, called "Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy", by Henry Kissinger. It contains, among other bits of wisdom, this statement : "Merely because one side is being disadvantaged in a limited war, it does not follow that they could gain advantage from a nuclear war." In other words, one side would back down after its armies or navies lost some battles, because that is still better than suicide. What, you think China is going to lose Beijing, not to mention their existence as a modern industrial nation, rather than concede a few trading rights in Africa? Likewise, is the US going to choose the destruction of the West Coast over, say, agreeing to the re-annexation of Taiwan? Even Bush isn't that nuts.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would China destroy the west coast? Besides, in any situation, the US would go to NW first. Americans, if you haven't noticed, will go yo ANY length to win. Otherwise, Lyrhawn posed every point I could think of; and more.
What I don't get, is why all other countries think America cares SO MUCH about luxuries. I mean, we do, yes. But, if needed, we wouldn't miss them too much. I believe someone said that do to China's large population size, they would have more men, mand eventually win because of it. Americans, as mentioned above, will DO ANYTHING TO WIN. Most are also loyalists, and hate many other nations. One of America's greatest aspects, is that we are afraid to lose our position. Some say the WWII generation was the greatest and bravest ever. I however, think that if the time were to come, we would do it again. Furthermore, on the soldier scale, America actually has a larger population growth then China. Besides, when would you need 60 million+ troops? Even China tried to train these troops, they couldn't afford it, without major economic collapse.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah and yes, as of this or last year, the US is STILL the richest nation in the world. The EU, is slightly less rich then US. And yes, it is in OUR dollars. So, in conclusion, we are still richer, even when their money becomes worth more. Ha HA Europe!
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stating something as if it were true does not make that thing true. Some of you really need to learn this. Provide backing evidence for your statements.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I would recommend to you an old book, called "Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy", by Henry Kissinger. It contains, among other bits of wisdom, this statement : "Merely because one side is being disadvantaged in a limited war, it does not follow that they could gain advantage from a nuclear war." In other words, one side would back down after its armies or navies lost some battles, because that is still better than suicide. What, you think China is going to lose Beijing, not to mention their existence as a modern industrial nation, rather than concede a few trading rights in Africa? Likewise, is the US going to choose the destruction of the West Coast over, say, agreeing to the re-annexation of Taiwan? Even Bush isn't that nuts.
You're missing my point, and I don't really get how. Bush isn't going to nuke China over trade rights, and they know that, so why would they make the concessions? Any conventional war will fight to either a standstill, or a minor advantage by one side, but neither side can with any sort of lasting victory through conventional means, and if we tried to carpet bomb them, or they us (which isn't viable given their lack of materiel), the side being attacked would threaten a nuclear attack, and I don't blame them. No one is going to sacrifice their industrial infrastructure to aerial bombing. Not when it's the lifeblood of their economy or military.
So that leaves both sides back to the nuclear question. And I doubt either side is going to push the button over trade rights, so I think the whole question is moot, because it brings us back to the status quo. Unless whoever "wins" the conventional side of the "war" can get the either side to give up concessions, but I just don't see why they would, unless one side just outbluffs the other, which is very possible I suppose. But again it doesn't come down to anything involving the military, that's brass balls and statesmenship.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Advent 115: Just a rumor I heard from my cousin who lives there. He says alot of the people there drink tea. And quite frequently.
Wasn't referring to your post above mine. I should have made that clearer.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
In 50 years if China's peaceful development continues at its ~9.4% growth rate and assuming no wars or natural catastrophe (the random tsunami doesnt count as we've seen it barely scratches the economy) I think China could over take the US based on simple math.
USA's growth rate is 3.5% China's is 9.4% thus, how many years before China overcomes the states in PPP/GDP? The average income might take longer but by the time the PPP surpases America's PPP it won't matter.
America's reign as "the" sole super power with the ability to strike anywhere in the world barring the consequences is what will end, I do not mean that America will collapse on the scale of the USSR, the USA's economy and national determination is to strong.
But there will be a slight tarnishing of America's might and this WILL happen unless within a term a US President comes up with a brilliant strategy of ballancing the budget and making up for the collassal debt.
As for luxury goods, your tolerance for pain is lowering, 500,000 in WWII but you won, 50,000 in Vietnam and you lost, 2000 in Iraq and there's a hooha over it and people wanna pull out.
How many casualties in China could you take assuming a limited conventional war; combine arms operations, marines landings to disrupt communications and power generators, airwar, sea war.
And as I said before unless the PRC is STUPID enough to launch a bloody nuke on American soil as a provokation TO start the war you'll not get the American public supporting the war full throttle, you'll have your Pro's, your's Cons and of course the Democrats.
And unless there is a Pearl Harbour type of event to start the war the war would be of limited scope and thus giving the defencive bonus to the Chinese.
quote:"Getting into a war with China is easy," says Michael Vickers, a former Green Beret who developed the weapons strategy for the Afghan resistance in the 1980s as a CIA officer and is now at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, in Washington. "You can see many scenarios, not just Taiwan—especially as the Chinese develop a submarine and missile capability throughout the Pacific. But the dilemma is, How do you end a war with China?"
Very interesting article about the Second Cold War.
quote:Like the nations involved in World War I, and unlike the rogue states everyone has been concentrating on, the United States and China in the twenty-first century would have the capacity to keep fighting even if one or the other lost a big battle or a missile exchange. This has far-reaching implications. "Ending a war with China," Vickers says, "may mean effecting some form of regime change, because we don't want to leave some wounded, angry regime in place." Another analyst, this one inside the Pentagon, told me, "Ending a war with China will force us to substantially reduce their military capacity, thus threatening their energy sources and the Communist Party's grip on power. The world will not be the same afterward. It's a very dangerous road to travel on."
And THIS is interesting:
"There are many ways in which the Chinese could use their less advanced military to achieve a sort of political-strategic parity with us. According to one former submarine commander and naval strategist I talked to, the Chinese have been poring over every detail of our recent wars in the Balkans and the Persian Gulf, and they fully understand just how much our military power depends on naval projection—that is, on the ability of a carrier battle group to get within proximity of, say, Iraq, and fire a missile at a target deep inside the country. To adapt, the Chinese are putting their fiber-optic systems underground and moving defense capabilities deep into western China, out of naval missile range—all the while developing an offensive strategy based on missiles designed to be capable of striking that supreme icon of American wealth and power, the aircraft carrier. The effect of a single Chinese cruise missile's hitting a U.S. carrier, even if it did not sink the ship, would be politically and psychologically catastrophic, akin to al-Qaeda's attacks on the Twin Towers. China is focusing on missiles and submarines as a way to humiliate us in specific encounters. Their long-range-missile program should deeply concern U.S. policymakers."
IP: Logged |
quote:Bush isn't going to nuke China over trade rights, and they know that, so why would they make the concessions? Any conventional war will fight to either a standstill, or a minor advantage by one side.
They would make concessions because conventional forces can put them in a very painful position, where concessions are less painful. Suppose the US navy blockaded China's coastline, a task well within its capabilities at the moment. Do you know just how much oil the Chinese import? That is real pain, right there. Not to mention all those cheap electronics they suddenly have to sell overland. The Silk Route isn't travelled by camels anymore, but it's not exactly a highway. Minor trade concessions are a lot less painful than this; that's how limited warfare works. For that matter, I strongly suspect the US army can manage to hold at least one or two coastal cities against any Chinese counterattack. Moving out into the open plains, no, they don't have the numbers; but I think they can hold a limited perimeter. Damn good tanks, don'tcherknow.
Really, why do you think countries sign peace treaties, anyway? Total, unlimited war is the aberration, not the normal state of affairs. Most wars have been quite limited things, fought for small objectives and ended when one side decided that minor concessions were better than whatever the other guy was doing. That 'whatever' has almost never included a full-scale invasion and occupation of the heartland of the losing country; even the Great War didn't end that way, for any major combatant.
[ March 02, 2006, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Passing through American-controlled territory in the Middle East, by any chance? If not, there's certainly no difficulty in bombing the things from bases in Afghanistan.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
those pipelines go through Iran and Pakistan. Also Chinese tanks are as good or better then US tanks. look up T-99/98/96 www.sinodefence.com
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: In 50 years if China's peaceful development continues at its ~9.4% growth rate ...etc
50 years at 9.4% is unsustainable, Blayne, though China could certainly become the largest economy even before that.
Assuming a US-China war is far enough in the future, I think post-nuclear technology and weapons would decide the issue. In 50 years nukes will probably be obsolete. Even if it's in 2020, an American air campaign would probably have few live pilots, instead using RPVs aka UAVs or possibly even space-based weapons.
Whoever had the dominant technology would win.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to mention that the (consistent) 9.4% is widely regarded as an exaggeration. More realistic estimates are a 6 or 7% average growth -- still very impressive.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's probably something that should be given more consideration Morbo, you're right. China is starting an aggressive space program, and if any sort of military applications were to take off within it, the US would start the same rush, starting a combination of the Space Race of the 20th century, and the nuclear arms race of the same. First person to get a weapons satellite in orbit wins, so they can shoot down the other satellites. To be honest, I would be very surprised if the US military didn't already have something on the books already for a weapons satellite, be it part of the missile shield defense, a satellite designed to destroy other satellites, or a satellite that can attack stationary targets on the ground.
But history has proven that we usually don't find out about top secret advanced military technology (a la SR-71 Blackbird & B-2 Spirit bomber) until a decade after it's already been in service. I don't know if nuclear weapons will ever become obsolete entirely, but certainly the next generation of destructive weapons is already on the books. I know lasers are getting smaller, and the US military is looking to put lasers on fighter jets and on naval vessels. It'd be the ultimate point based defense system for a carrier group, if a beam can be sustained for a protracted period of time.
Though I'm sure if we're that advanced, the Chinese already have phasers and photon torpedos on their fighter planes, since everything they have is better than the US. They probably have cloaking devices too, except their stealth technology is still 20 years behind ours.
Also consider the next generation of naval war ships is about to start construction, and the Chinese aren't on board with that. New carriers will be smaller and stealthy (as stealthy as a carrier can get). They will use less energy (allowing for more system), give off a smaller radar profile, and have better defensive capabilities. The newer warships, probably of some trimaran design will be faster, harder to sink, and have advanced stealth, weapons and radar. Assuming the new navy doesn't get the axe from congress, which is a possibility, the US will leave most of the world in the 20th century with its new navy.
PS. They friggin shouldn't cancel the new navy planned. Let them sell the old carriers to Britain or France, an ally we can trust not to use them against us to finance the new navy. But with all the new money appropriated to the military, and the actual reduction in some spheres of forces within the military, they should be able to afford new toys for the navy (Other than the F-35 anyway, teehee). And they've cancelled too many next gen technologies and weapons systems that were close to being finished as of late. Time to get modernization back on track.
Bring on the hypersonic warplanes!
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Though I'm sure if we're that advanced, the Chinese already have phasers and photon torpedos on their fighter planes, since everything they have is better than the US. They probably have cloaking devices too, except their stealth technology is still 20 years behind ours.
posted
Fair enough Blayne. I apologize. But the only way you knew it was about you is that you always throw down that site. There are other sources.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
That will undoubtable say the same thing, this isn't a PRC gov't sponsered site, there are American servicemen as well who contribute to that site as well. So for other sources there probly are but probly more official and less likely to gain the proper responce. For example: "Its propoganda!"
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm wondering what training the Chinese are giving their naval folk for when the US shuts off the GPS system that a lot of their advanced weaponry is based on.
posted
?? A) I concentrate mostly on their ground forces and only a little on their navy and airforce.
What do you mean shut off their GPS? The China launch their own Sat's, and can even knock out the USA's GPS sat (though the states could probly do the same back blinding each other).
IP: Logged |
posted
The Chinese show no signs of doing so. They have no plans that I know of to create their own GPS system, and it takes something of a commitment to launch that many satellites into space and sync them all up. Do you know of Chinese plans to do so?
And while I don't doubt they could, what missiles would they use to take out satellites in geosyncronous orbit over the Earth? Either way, as soon as they did so, the US would launch an all our air assault on whatever platform was being used to take out the satellites, and quite frankly I think they'd get it.
That is, if the war were to happen in the next decade. Beyond that, the Chinese might have a GPS system set up, but at the moment they, and the world, have to count on the Americans to provide GPS service to the world. Until the Europeans get theirs going anyway.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am sorry, I scanned some of this thread, but I read most of it. Did anyone explain why China and the US will want to go to war? Its not like the US would really start it over not being the sole superpower. So is supposed to start over control of limited world resources, Oil, iron ect?
I mean if it were ideological reasons it would have happened a long time ago. China is becoming more and more capitalist everyday, and I can't imagine us going to war with China over Human rights.
Posts: 555 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
*shrug* who would've thought the Balkans would've started WWI?
Anything could spark the war, a series of unfortunate events one might say.
An article I linked to earlier however suggested something that I didn't think of, that what might happen is not a hot war between 2 great powers but a Cold one. A second cold war spanning decades.
"It is likely that even if the US tried to deny GPS signals to China, the PLA’s cruise missiles could still function via the Russian GLONASS, or in the future the European GALILEO navigation signals."
IP: Logged |
posted
Europe would deny at the same time, and Russia relies so much on western aid they'd likely comply as well, at least anytime in the foreseeable future.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Russia may rely somewhat on Western aid but not completely on western aid, they are self sufficient enough to be able to side with the Chinese, and with recent military joint maneuvers, and from what I'm looking at a Russian will to not let other people get the better of them, I seriously doubt the Russians would listen to any west european "demands", the Russians paid off ALL of their debts and are rich in gold, diamonds and other resources the Russians need no western aid.
IP: Logged |
posted
Heh. Russia self-sufficient. You tell good jokes, Blayne.
If Russia didn't have nuclear weapons, even its aging military hardware wouldn't be enough to make Russia a major power. Russia's economy is shot, and it continues to receive billions of dollars in aid through various channels. Russia's remaining "riches" are almost exclusively in nuclear technology and oil -- hence why they're so eager to sell nuclear technology to just about anyone and why they keep trying to put oil-related pressure on states they don't like (Ukraine, anyone?). And they rely to a huge extent on foreign investment to fund their oil industry; did the west withdraw support they lack the expertise and funds to continue development.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: *shrug* who would've thought the Balkans would've started WWI?
Anything could spark the war, a series of unfortunate events one might say.
Ridiculous. In 1914 there were any number of points of friction between the Great Powers; further, those points of friction were seen as being vital interests of the nations concerned. Also, people expected there to be a war; everybody knew there was a big shakeup coming, the only question was when. Some people even welcomed it; the German General Staff felt that the war should start as soon as possible, lest Russia's growing industry begin to make a two-front war really impossible. (Indeed, had the Agadir incident in 1911 kicked off the Great War, I'm not convinced the Entente powers would have won. And in 1905 Germany would have had a complete walkover - too bad for them that there wasn't a good pretext.) Nowadays people just don't think like that, and also the technology lends itself much better to stopping a crisis once started.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it me, or does Blayne severly hate the US? I have never heard him say a single good thing about us. (Pardon the pun ) Ok, so Blayne, right now, do you honestly think China would have ANY chance?
Explain all reasons you think the US would win, and their advantages.
Do the same for China.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I have the usual Canadian student dislike of the States, but I don't outright hate, I simply dislike the USA as a whole, its government and its hypocrism. I liked Jimmy Carter and felt he was the best President the USA had and I do like many American's as INDIVIDUAL's but c'mon my mom went to florida and people kept asking her how she learned such great english, and asked about how she rode polar bears to work and how we all live in Igloo's.
:rollseye:
I think depending on the circumstances the China has a good chance based on the 2006-2008 premise to defend itself from the American's and knock a good many planes out of the sky and easily resist a land invasion. American land assaults have always depended on such an overwhelming air support that I highly doubt that the American's could make any significant gains on the mainland, there is simply too much people, too many para military personal to raid supply lines, too many helicopters.
The very newest PLAAF air assets and ground to air assets have a reasonable chance of dealing with the American air given proper circumstances. Mostly keeping forces dispersed and then concentrating them for decisive air/land battle until the American air advantage has in the short term been evened out enough to allow more full scale mobilization of air assets on a conventional pattern.
I do not believe and I have stressed this, I do not believe that the Chinese can win an air war in a way that the Americans could win an airwar with Iraq. But the Chinese can make the American's pay a high bill for controlling limited area's of operations.
I do not believe that EITHER side could successfully invade the other's heartland or for that matter crush each others industry, bombs are too expensive and to hard and long to produce.
The navy war? I don't know I am not a naval buff, I like the Japanese carriers and super battleships but I really do not know enough of naval logistics to say much. But, China has a large coast, alot of places to hide ships and really all the PLAN has to do is try to keep the American USN carriers as far away from the coast as possible. This would be hard and would require a certain amount of air support but it might be possible, it all depends on which side makes the most mistakes.
In the IMMEDIATE timeframe I do not think it would be desisive in any way unless both sides only put the most limited level of assets into a small skirmish then its becomes debatable to the point of foolishnish since it would depends on the individual decisions of captains and Admirals.
IP: Logged |
That's a single communications satellite, not a network of GPS satellites, so far as I can tell on there, there's no plan to send up dozens of them into geosync orbit to provide anything close to what GPS provides. Also, Europe would deny use of their system once it gets going and would side with the US over China. Russia, well, they could go either way, but at the end of the day Russia needs the west, especially Europe, more than the west needs them. Their resources are necessary, but Europe is way ahead of the game in conservation and in nextgen energy implementation. By the time a war does break out, Russian oil won't be needed by Europe.
quote:I have the usual Canadian student dislike of the States, but I don't outright hate, I simply dislike the USA as a whole, its government and its hypocrism. I liked Jimmy Carter and felt he was the best President the USA had and I do like many American's as INDIVIDUAL's but c'mon my mom went to florida and people kept asking her how she learned such great english, and asked about how she rode polar bears to work and how we all live in Igloo's.
People in Florida make the igloo/polar bear jokes about everyone that lives north of the mason dixon line, that wasn't just a Canada joke. Not that that matters, but I'd always hoped Canadians were more opened minded than to judge a nation of 300 million based entirely on what some people said in Florida.
And you'll have to elaborate on what the usual Canadian student's dislike of America is. Most of the Canadians I talk to don't really have a problem with Americans, though, if that's just because we spend so much money in Windsor, then I wonder who is really being hypocritical.
I also wonder what Canada would do were it to ever be invaded. You wouldn't have a chance in hell at repelling even a half hearted attempt at invasion from any major world power. I think your government has been very irresponsible in handling it's military, and is expecting that were it to be invaded, the US would defend them. Which also strikes me as hypocritical for a population of people who seems to dislike America. Also, for a nation that slams the US on environmental concerns, your last environmental report from the US wasn't exactly spotless. I'd check to your own harms first.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will never happen Reticulum. Earth can't sustain those kinds of populations, especially when you consider the total population of the earth at that point would probably me something like 12 billion.
Population estimates that I've seen show the world population exploding to something like 9 billion or maybe even 10, but then dying back down to settle around 8 billion. But in 200 years, we'll literally be colonizing space. There will be a mass exodus off Earth. I just don't think that sort of estimate is very likely. Our population exploded in the last hundred years sure, but the only reason it has been growing at such a pace, especially in the last two dozen years, is immigration, and that issue is coming to a head. Plus, there won't be as much in 200 years.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, as for space colonization, and exodus off Earth, that won't likely happen untill it is very cheap, which won't probably for another 300-400 years. Plus, who do you think will be among the first to build colonies? Certainly the US, China, and Europe, with only very intelligent and athletic people.
Posts: 2121 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's worth noting that the last time the US invaded Canada, they got their ass handed to them. As for other world powers, well, they'd still have to cross the oceans, and the Royal Navy might have something to say about that.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Think so do ya? I don't think space colonization is 300 years away. It was only fifty years ago that the idea of landing on the moon sounded crazy. And now we have hundreds of satellites around the planet, we've been to the moon in back, we have landers on Mars, and we have men living year round in space stations. Private commercial interests are building spaceports in Mew Mexico and the UAE and Spaceship One won the Ansari X Prize by making two flights into space within a two week period.
A fleet of those things will have hundreds of people taking trips into space. NASA has plans on the books to use shuttle booster to launch massive amounts of equipment into space for a possible Moon base. And the next gen shuttle will be in service in twenty years. By then private interests will have more people in space than NASA does.
Yes sure the US, China and so on will colonize the moon I suspect in the next hundred years, even if it is limited to mining and production facilities, it will be done, and it's not long until that turns into biodomes or what not.
But Mars is of course the main objective isn't it? Private interests will want to get a foothold on Moon for the resources there, and for that matter, the first person to set up a fueling station on the moon will be in a very good position for when the eventual flood of Mars expeditions comes about, and that will happen this century. More likely, Mars will have to be terraformed, which will take a long time, but people will get there first to start setting things up, to explore, to go experiments, etc etc. People will go and mine asteroids, and mine the moon, and live in space stations, it's all coming, and I think 300 years is probably twice what it will really take for this to happen.
1800 we were in horse and carriage, 1830 we had railroads and locomotives. 1860 we had steamships. 1890 we had cars. 1903 we had airplanes. Between the first flight of the wright brothers and mankind's first human in space took just over 60 years. My point is, the kind of progress made between 1800 and 1960 was incredibly, and surpasses the speed of gains made by any previous period in man's history.
Between 1960 and today we've gone from slow planes to supersonic, and are working on hypersonic. We went from Apollo 11 landing on the moon to space shuttles, international space stations and landing robots on Mars in a little over 30 years.
JPL is working on ion drives, and other advanced forms of space propulsion. Several companies are working on habitats for space, and for private space faring interests. NASA is also working on terraforming plans for Mars. Who knows where we will be in another fifty years? Great leaps are being made by the decade in science and technology. Thus, I don't think 150-200 years is a bad estimate for how long it will take until we have a serious presence in space.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I should have made that clearer.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) Ok, so Blayne, right now, do you honestly think China would have ANY chance? 
