New major military powers

[mexsoldier]

china is far to be as the united states

first, we don't know if china will enter to a depression, after big economic grow follows a depresion, (like the great depression in 1929, or the economic slowdown of the united states after the 90's), if that happens china will never become a superpower, or the ambiental impact over china, each year millions of people die because of the bad conditions of the chinese waters and air, we don't know if china will start to buy large quantities of food, if chinese internal market of rice and wheat is in a bad condition because poor soils due to pollution, it wouild be a very very big problem, and last, because of the high oil prices, altough the chinese uses more coal that produces 4 times pollution than oil or 25 times pollution than natural gas...china will be powerful, but not as the united states in at least 30 or 40 years..

 

[XaNDeR]

No, it's not. Look at China and the US. One is an indestructible superpower and the other one is on the way to becoming one. And groups of countries coming together based on a common ideology, religion or enemy is nothing new.

I agree , but nobody is indestructible

And we can't know for sure how china is gonna go on in the future , thats just speculations

 

[f-22fan12]

I don't understand what your trying to say with this post , as i agree somewhat with your assumption that america did mobilize so fast and produced alot of tanks and weapons , but germans and soviets produced more tanks and aircraft ..
You said british are very good but lack 10 or more million college students that can go to war? hm i dont understand that at all , what do college students have to do with war? and britain has enough soldiers , they don't need 2 million like China because they have a powerfull airforce and navy , in modern warfare soldiers are good , but having air or naval supriority is more important.
You said French have tehnology but they lack the people , ok , they have quite good tehnology , and they have enough manpower , they don't need 2 million soldiers like I already said before..
French have a powerfull navy and airforce and for example if your comparing a war with iran , they would not need 2 million soldiers , this is not World War I anymore , where soldiers on the battlefield were the most important factor , today its all about tehnology , range , airforce supriority , naval support..
You said Russia has big numbers of weapons but they are old as 20 years , first of all how old is US F-15? or 90% of weapons in USA , its more than 40 years old yet still 1st class , because its beeing modernized , all the old russian stuff is modernized its not from 80's anymore.. and they are also making so much new tehnological advanced things , Pak-Fa, Pak-Da , Frigate, Borei SSBN , anti air systems .. new battle tank .. etc
Your assumption of China is quite correct they have a huge army but lack tehnology , but you forget China is improving at a incredible rate , and if they keep it up they can quicly become very strong , we will have too see but china does have the best potential to became a powerfull millitary force..

Thank you for making me understand and realise that China is not so powerful. In the U.S. it is common to "overestimate" China. I now feel confident about the fact that they are not powerful. Thank you for making me understand China's lack of capability.

I do however think within 80 years time, China will overtake the U.S. to become the #1 military power. Their budget is growing VERY rapidly and they spend alot on arms and R&D. 1.3 billion people and an amazing economy will fund a very powerful military.

 

[f-22fan12]

The era of one superpower v/s the other super power, like the usa v/s. soviot union.These days are over. I think the future conflicts are going to be betwees a group of countries comming together. The days of superpowerism are OVER. The future of conflicts belongs to alliances.Maybe the communist alliances,the islamist alliances, maybe geographical alliances etc. :unknown

You are ABSOLUTELY WRONG. China, is rising to become a superpower, maybe the same with India too. And there is always the world's #1 country/superpower the U.S.A. The U.S. will remain a superpower for a long time. And alliances between countries are not new.

 

[XaNDeR]

Thank you for making me understand and realise that China is not so powerful. In the U.S. it is common to "overestimate" China. I now feel confident about the fact that they are not powerful. Thank you for making me understand China's lack of capability.

I do however think within 80 years time, China will overtake the U.S. to become the #1 military power. Their budget is growing VERY rapidly and they spend alot on arms and R&D. 1.3 billion people and an amazing economy will fund a very powerful military.

Anything is possible in 80 years , but nothing is for sure , personaly I don't like China so much , don't take it the wrong way i like the country and all , beautifull country , im thinking of visiting it sometime in the future , but im talking that Im not really a big fan of chinese military , and I don't like the fact that China could be world's most powerfull army 1 day , that thought kinda scares me ..
Personaly id like that USA and Russia to keep ahead of china even in 80 years , but we will just have to see ..

Btw F-22 can you please search at my previus post from which you quoted , i asked you a few questions there to comment

 

[T-95]

IMO Russia will become a superpower before India does. Everything Russia has puts it at an advantage over India:influence(IMO 2nd to the US), military tech (probably the best), civilian tech, GDP. The one advantage India might have is population and thats not always a good thing.

 

[mexsoldier]

yeah, china is scaring

Anything is possible in 80 years , but nothing is for sure , personaly I don't like China so much , don't take it the wrong way i like the country and all , beautifull country , im thinking of visiting it sometime in the future , but im talking that Im not really a big fan of chinese military , and I don't like the fact that China could be world's most powerfull army 1 day , that thought kinda scares me ..
Personaly id like that USA and Russia to keep ahead of china even in 80 years , but we will just have to see ..

Btw F-22 can you please search at my previus post from which you quoted , i asked you a few questions there to comment

yeah, i agree with you, the united states has a culture of democracy so i think UNITED STATES won't get crazy and start destry every country in the planet, like china and its communism

 

[T-95]

yeah, i agree with you, the united states has a culture of democracy so i think UNITED STATES won't get crazy and start destry every country in the planet, like china and its communism

Yet in another thread you say that the US would vaporize th ME if the oil prices get to high.

 

[XaNDeR]

IMO Russia will become a superpower before India does. Everything Russia has puts it at an advantage over India:influence(IMO 2nd to the US), military tech (probably the best), civilian tech, GDP. The one advantage India might have is population and thats not always a good thing.

I agree with you but 1 thing , military tech , russia has many tehnological advanced things , but then they are other things that usa has more advanced , so usa or either russia have all the tehnological advanced things mostly , then they are few other country's that also have some advanced things in other area's , like germany , or similar NATO country's.

 

[T-95]

I agree with you but 1 thing , military tech , russia has many tehnological advanced things , but then they are other things that usa has more advanced , so usa or either russia have all the tehnological advanced things mostly , then they are few other country's that also have some advanced things in other area's , like germany , or similar NATO country's.

If you really look at it you'll find that Russia almost always surpasses the US in military technology with the US excelling in some areas. Also note that Germany isn't able to develop advanced military technology because it's a NATO member it is because Germany has the money and expertise to do so. Look at Turkey for example, it's defense industry , as far as indigenously developed military technology goes, it's not that far along. Pakistan is ahead of it. NATO nations that are capable of developing indigenously designed advanced military technology are capable of doing so because they are developed countries with lots of money and the expertise not because they're NATO.

 

[eckherl]

If you really look at it you'll find that Russia almost always surpasses the US in military technology with the US excelling in some areas. Also note that Germany isn't able to develop advanced military technology because it's a NATO member it is because Germany has the money and expertise to do so. Look at Turkey for example, it's defense industry , as far as indigenously developed military technology goes, it's not that far along. Pakistan is ahead of it. NATO nations that are capable of developing indigenously designed advanced military technology are capable of doing so because they are developed countries with lots of money and the expertise not because they're NATO.

Okay - in what areas do the Russians almost always surpass the U.S in military technologies, and why isn`t Germany able to develop adavanced military technolgy.

 

[riksavage]

Both China and India have the economic potential to be come superpowers under the right circumstances. However both differ from the US because they are likely to face huge internal problems as they transform from rural based economies to industrialized urban societies. The gap between rich and poor is increasing exponentially and this WILL cause major problems in the same way the industrial revolution caused social problems in the West.

A large proportion of both Indians and China's military will be involved in maintaining internal law and order. The Naxalite’s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naxalite) in India for example are becoming an increasing problem, particularly in areas where revenue generating natural resources are located. India also suffers from appalling infrastructure and rampant corruption (I’ve experienced both firsthand). These internal issues will affect a country’s ability to project influence and power. China’s military has always been geared towards maintaining the Communist state and was equipped and disbursed geographically to meet this requirement. Only in the last few years have we see the Chinese change and try to bring elements of their armed forces up to what can be described as an all arms strike force using technology instead of shear numbers (Korean War). China also suffers from a lack of experienced general staff, officer and NCO corps. Only recently have they established what in the West would be considered military academies, staff courses, NCO battle schools along the lines of West Point, St Cir, Sandhurst, Warminster and / or Brecon. They also suffer from a culture, which stifles initiative and focuses on rote learning Confucius style. Again I’ve spent many years travelling and working in China and have firsthand experience. One thing China does have in its favour though is a rapidly expanding infrastructure.

Manpower, weapons and equipment are one thing, leadership, tactical competency and experience are another.

 

[mexsoldier]

yeah, i agree with you...

Both China and India have the economic potential to be come superpowers under the right circumstances. However both differ from the US because they are likely to face huge internal problems as they transform from rural based economies to industrialized urban societies. The gap between rich and poor is increasing exponentially and this WILL cause major problems in the same way the industrial revolution caused social problems in the West.

A large proportion of both Indians and China's military will be involved in maintaining internal law and order. The Naxalite’s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naxalite) in India for example are becoming an increasing problem, particularly in areas where revenue generating natural resources are located. India also suffers from appalling infrastructure and rampant corruption (I’ve experienced both firsthand). These internal issues will affect a country’s ability to project influence and power. China’s military has always been geared towards maintaining the Communist state and was equipped and disbursed geographically to meet this requirement. Only in the last few years have we see the Chinese change and try to bring elements of their armed forces up to what can be described as an all arms strike force using technology instead of shear numbers (Korean War). China also suffers from a lack of experienced general staff, officer and NCO corps. Only recently have they established what in the West would be considered military academies, staff courses, NCO battle schools along the lines of West Point, St Cir, Sandhurst, Warminster and / or Brecon. They also suffer from a culture, which stifles initiative and focuses on rote learning Confucius style. Again I’ve spent many years travelling and working in China and have firsthand experience. One thing China does have in its favour though is a rapidly expanding infrastructure.

Manpower, weapons and equipment are one thing, leadership, tactical competency and experience are another.

i agree with you. one of the main problems of china and india are their superpopulation, for example in india, how many time can they live without the importation of foods and energy products, i think one of the most important aspects that a country should keep is how many time can they live autosufficient, there is not a autosufficient country, but in case of war, it could be win or lose, china and india can't live for a long , they just gonna starve without their customers or vendors, i think they should keep their large numbers and start their military development with a strong economy, manpower is one thing, and the men that manages a country is another...

 

[Snayke]

To some people argueing about modern militaries, I thought this thread was about emerging military powers?

 

[f-22fan12]

Anything is possible in 80 years , but nothing is for sure , personaly I don't like China so much , don't take it the wrong way i like the country and all , beautifull country , im thinking of visiting it sometime in the future , but im talking that Im not really a big fan of chinese military , and I don't like the fact that China could be world's most powerfull army 1 day , that thought kinda scares me ..
Personaly id like that USA and Russia to keep ahead of china even in 80 years , but we will just have to see ..

Btw F-22 can you please search at my previus post from which you quoted , i asked you a few questions there to comment

Xander, I also think China is a country rich with history and I also want to visit Shanghai. It is a great city with good people. But like you, I do not like China's Communist government, their military, or their foreign policies. I hate the fact that China is rising so quickly and I regret that they may 1 day be the #1 military power. This also scares me alot. They have bad relations with many countries over the "Taiwan" issue. They also have a border dispute with India, which they attacked before. I certainly agree that China being #1 in military power would not help at all. I don't believe in their "peacful rise" strategy. My hope is that the U.S. will remain the #1 for a long time and close behind would be Western Europe and Japan. Yet I know(we all know) that China's economy will become the world's largest in 20-30 years. After which they will have more spending capability for weapons. And in a decent amount of time, they will develop superior tech. They will be able to simply outspend the U.S. This makes me worry. Russia is a country whose military I don't like much. (you probobly know So I would like Russia to be a little bit powerful, but not too powerful. Its Russia that sells the arms to China, North Korea...

What questions did you want me to answer?

Thanks

 

[f-22fan12]

IMO Russia will become a superpower before India does. Everything Russia has puts it at an advantage over India:influence(IMO 2nd to the US), military tech (probably the best), civilian tech, GDP. The one advantage India might have is population and thats not always a good thing.

You are WRONG. Russia will NEVER again become a superpower. They have only 140m. people. (population is shrinking) And now, Russia's economy is smaller than Italy's. nfloorl: (whose pop. is only 60million) The Indian economy is a lot better than the Russian economy. And their military tech is not the best. They have good tech. thanks to the amount the Soviets spent on arms. Their edge in advanced weapons will fade quickly. Why? They can't afford to spend all their money on the military and leave the economy in shambles anymore.

Again their GDP is smaller. In official exchange rates India is $804billion and Russia is only $733billion. In Purchasing Power Parity? India, $4.1Trillion Russia, $1.7 Trillion. Those are all CIA world factbook figures. They are real.

And how could a country with a military budget of less than 55 billion have better tech than a country that spends 500 billion? Get real. nfloorl:

 

[f-22fan12]

Both China and India have the economic potential to be come superpowers under the right circumstances. However both differ from the US because they are likely to face huge internal problems as they transform from rural based economies to industrialized urban societies. The gap between rich and poor is increasing exponentially and this WILL cause major problems in the same way the industrial revolution caused social problems in the West.

A large proportion of both Indians and China's military will be involved in maintaining internal law and order. The Naxalite’s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naxalite) in India for example are becoming an increasing problem, particularly in areas where revenue generating natural resources are located. India also suffers from appalling infrastructure and rampant corruption (I’ve experienced both firsthand). These internal issues will affect a country’s ability to project influence and power. China’s military has always been geared towards maintaining the Communist state and was equipped and disbursed geographically to meet this requirement. Only in the last few years have we see the Chinese change and try to bring elements of their armed forces up to what can be described as an all arms strike force using technology instead of shear numbers (Korean War). China also suffers from a lack of experienced general staff, officer and NCO corps. Only recently have they established what in the West would be considered military academies, staff courses, NCO battle schools along the lines of West Point, St Cir, Sandhurst, Warminster and / or Brecon. They also suffer from a culture, which stifles initiative and focuses on rote learning Confucius style. Again I’ve spent many years travelling and working in China and have firsthand experience. One thing China does have in its favour though is a rapidly expanding infrastructure.

Manpower, weapons and equipment are one thing, leadership, tactical competency and experience are another.

China has the People Armed Police (about 1+million men) to keep internal security. And as the country gets richer, people won't be as unhappy and rebellious.

 

[merocaine]

@ GD

Am I right in reading that the British hold a 12 year technological advantage over the Chinese, and the Americans a 16 year?

Here is something for you to ponder.

http://www.defenceandsecurity.ca/pub...20dec 05.pdf

 

[Snayke]

About Chinese relations with other nations. They cannot be so bad if most nations but a single digit amount recognise Beijing instead of Taipei. If they were truly bad, nations would not recognise Beijing. Taiwan is an issue with USA, China and Taiwan and them alone. Sorry to burst your bubble but no other national interests lie in this issue. Bad relations don't result from a topic that the rest of the world does not care about.

You dislike China's isolationist foreign policy? Oh wow. You'd rather they regularly invade and interfere with the sovereignty of other nations? I don't think that's a very wise belief. I'd prefer they stay peaceful.

You don't like their military? Why's that? Is it because they answer to the government, like every other military?

That border dispute with India happened 55 years ago and it's not really a hot issue between India and China, especially when the two nations have high level state officials and military leaders visiting each other to strengthen relations.

You're thinking of an Maoist China, a China that has passed.

And your referrence to population, you beleive population defines a superpower? Asia was dormant throughout the industrial revolution except for Japan which was helped by the West. If population was a true indicator of a superpower, why aren't we bowing to our Imperial Chinese masters right now? Because its not true. Britain had much less population than her colonies back in the times of the British Empire and Asia, yet they had how much of the world? I think it was like 1/3 of the world under British rule. Your point of relating population to superpower status is invalid.

You've quoted economic figures without knowing what they mean.

"India is $804billion and Russia is only $733billion."

That's the total amount of goods and services produced in a year. This only proves that the Russians are much more productive than the Indians per capita. MUCH MORE productive. Russia has a labour force of 73.88 million producing $733 billion worth of goods and services while India has a workforce of 509.3 million producing $803 billion worth of goods and services.

See how easy it is to manipulate economic figures to make a country look good or bad?

"as the country gets richer, people won't be as unhappy and rebellious."

Not necessarily. That wealth is being generated in the urban areas of China. Rural China is being left in the cold and are not benefitting from this economc boom in the Chinese economy. Guess where all the unrest is? Out in rural China.

The Chinese police does a well-enough job of maintaining law and order in the cities. They don't even need to be armed with a firearm. I don't really know where the PAP is used but they are made up of mostly those who have come out of the PLA from the cuts in recent years so I guess its just a renamed army(although I'm not sure what equipment they use).

 

[f-22fan12]

About Chinese relations with other nations. They cannot be so bad if most nations but a single digit amount recognise Beijing instead of Taipei. If they were truly bad, nations would not recognise Beijing. Taiwan is an issue with USA, China and Taiwan and them alone. Sorry to burst your bubble but no other national interests lie in this issue. Bad relations don't result from a topic that the rest of the world does not care about.

You dislike China's isolationist foreign policy? Oh wow. You'd rather they regularly invade and interfere with the sovereignty of other nations? I don't think that's a very wise belief. I'd prefer they stay peaceful.
You don't like their military? Why's that? Is it because they answer to the government, like every other military?

That border dispute with India happened 55 years ago and it's not really a hot issue between India and China, especially when the two nations have high level state officials and military leaders visiting each other to strengthen relations.

You're thinking of an Maoist China, a China that has passed.

And your referrence to population, you beleive population defines a superpower? Asia was dormant throughout the industrial revolution except for Japan which was helped by the West. If population was a true indicator of a superpower, why aren't we bowing to our Imperial Chinese masters right now? Because its not true. Britain had much less population than her colonies back in the times of the British Empire and Asia, yet they had how much of the world? I think it was like 1/3 of the world under British rule. Your point of relating population to superpower status is invalid.

You've quoted economic figures without knowing what they mean.

"India is $804billion and Russia is only $733billion."

That's the total amount of goods and services produced in a year. This only proves that the Russians are much more productive than the Indians per capita. MUCH MORE productive. Russia has a labour force of 73.88 million producing $733 billion worth of goods and services while India has a workforce of 509.3 million producing $803 billion worth of goods and services.

See how easy it is to manipulate economic figures to make a country look good or bad?

"as the country gets richer, people won't be as unhappy and rebellious."

Not necessarily. That wealth is being generated in the urban areas of China. Rural China is being left in the cold and are not benefitting from this economc boom in the Chinese economy. Guess where all the unrest is? Out in rural China.

The Chinese police does a well-enough job of maintaining law and order in the cities. They don't even need to be armed with a firearm. I don't really know where the PAP is used but they are made up of mostly those who have come out of the PLA from the cuts in recent years so I guess its just a renamed army(although I'm not sure what equipment they use).

Their foreign relations, I'm sure that if Taiwan was just as prosperous as China and had the same sized economy... that people would recognize DEMOCRATIC Taiwain instead of COMMUNIST China. But the fact is that if you want to have cheap products you have to befriend China. They are very powerful economically.

When did I say I would rather invade other nations? You just came up with that. That's a wrong assumption.

China's military is loyal to the CPC rather than the country. Thats one thing I don't like. Second, There are better militaries out there.

About the GDP. I know exactly that the per capita is higher in Russia yet the person I quoted just said GDP so I responded to just GDP.


Anyways, enough of the argueing. I'll stop. This thread isn't for this.