Second Cold War

[DarthAmerica]

Enough with Japan please.

Do you even understand why? It was impossible in the 1940's when they did it as well. They even understood that. Yet they did. Also do you think the Japanese aren't aware of their population issues? Or do you think they built Asimo for the hell of it?

-DA

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Do you even understand why? It was impossible in the 1940's when they did it as well. They even understood that. Yet they did. Also do you think the Japanese aren't aware of their population issues? Or do you think they built Asimo for the hell of it?

-DA

You read Friedman Darth? He's not the only one who views China's growth as unlikely to continue at comparable rates. If you don't mind economic jargon "The Writing on the Wall; China and the West in the 21st century" by Will Hutton provides a much more detailed analysis of the Chinese economy. It's a scary read to be honest.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Enough with Japan please.

It has been covered, and it is nearly impossible for them to go against the US in the first half of this century atm, second half we will wait and see... but even if they tried to by then they would be a shadow of their former self... With an ageing population they have better things to deal with.

Your other theories on potential adversaries however are at least worth discussing.

A well armed, assertive Japan is aligned with US strategic interests in the short term.

 

[DarthAmerica]

You read Friedman Darth? He's not the only one who views China's growth as unlikely to continue at comparable rates. If you don't mind economic jargon "The Writing on the Wall; China and the West in the 21st century" by Will Hutton provides a much more detailed analysis of the Chinese economy. It's a scary read to be honest.

You might be referring to "The Next 100 Years"....

Yes I've read it

-DA

 

[Armoredpriapism]

Not sure I agree with your analysis here Tom.

All states have permanent interests, and so called democracies may change governments, but they rarely change policy in any radical sense. The UK is an island dependent on maritime trade and sea routes, with global economic interests and an Atlanticist perspecitve - it makes no difference who is in government, none of that is going to change.

Any objective analysis of the last few decades would surely indicate that the US is the only state with either the capability or the intent of world domination. I think it's a mistake in any analysis to assume that democracies are somehow benign and short termist whilst authoritarian regimes are malevolent planners. As I said before, I believe that all states have quasi permanent interests which they pursue, or ought to, most of the time.

From what Tom said I took that China, being controlled by the party, can think in the long term. I don't think he was suggesting that China bad, America good. I also think it's absurd to suggest that America wants world domination. For now it's true that America is the only state that has the capability to do so, but that speaks nothing to its intent. America wants to keep regional powers from becoming global powers, free trade, and influence. That's all. It simply isn't able to focus for decades on a plan for world domination. China, on the other hand, though not capable to enact a plan yet is the only state capable of doing so in the future. America, with 4.5 percentish of the world population, absolutely does not need to control it, and so on the long term will not commit resources to risk doing it; China, on the other hand, with Twenty percent of the population, might have incentive. I'm not saying this is their plan but they are the only state in the foreseeable future that might benifit from such a plan.

Like DA clearly has, I've also read The Next 100 Years, and loved it. It was a good read but the entire theory rested on China collapsing off the world stage. If that doesn't happen, and if Turkey and Japan aren't allowed to amass large stockpiles of nukes, and if Poland doesn't become the dominant European power, I just can't see much of what DA has suggested playing out (though George Friedmen didn't mean to actually forcast those events, but only play out, for the intrigue of the reader, a "what if" based off "what could".)

If there is to be a cold war in the future it's going to be between juggernaughts who can really hurt each other. That's what keeps cold wars cold, right? If not for nuclear weapons, cuba would be the 51st state right now. If not for nukes, Europe would be under Soviet control. The two sides resorted to all the rigormaroll because they knew they couldn't just duke it out. So we should be asking ourselves, when thinking about future cold wars, what states could have the potential to threaten each other vitally yet not be able to wage war and survive?

China and India
China and India will be adversaries. Logic demands it. Neither will want to go toe-to-toe with America simply because there will be a slightly less powerful, slightly pissed off, adversary much closer to both of them. They will compete with each other over regional power first before worrying about the globe. I think the US role will be to use the global stage to influence the regional competition to keep both countries focused on each other, and I think every other global player will do the same on a smaller scale to serve its own interest.
I think Friedmen was right when he put demographics first as the driver of policy and national action decades from now, though. America still has much room to grow, something neither China nor India has. And I think that's pretty much going to be it. The majority of power will rest in Southeast Asia, but neither of the entities that make it up will have individual power or influence enough to overcome the US. At least for the next few decades, until we get warp drives and can just take out all our rage on the klingons ^^

If our kids use the term cold war for anything I think they'll be talking about space and cyber space.

 

[DarthAmerica]

China is not viable long term as it exist today. They are wholly dependent on US willingness to allow manufacturing and shipping of goods to the USA. That's because it still takes flesh a blood to do the bulk of the work. But there are plenty of nations with cheap labor and soon automation and robotics will eliminate the much of the human cost. This is going to shift manufacturing back to the US and Japan because with human cost removed shipping cost will be noticeable. What happens when all those people are put out of work?


-DA

 

[Armoredpriapism]

China is not viable long term as it exist today. They are wholly dependent on US willingness to allow manufacturing and shipping of goods to the USA. That's because it still takes flesh a blood to do the bulk of the work. But there are plenty of nations with cheap labor and soon automation and robotics will eliminate the much of the human cost. This is going to shift manufacturing back to the US and Japan because with human cost removed shipping cost will be noticeable. What happens when all those people are put out of work?


-DA

I've wondered this, too. I'm concerned that China is putting such a national emphasis on education. The tech gap is closing between them and America, and if all of the sudden they can do what America can do America will lose its advantage. Because so much of economics these days is based on innovation we should be paying as much attention to education and technology as we do military strategy, imo. Forget how much either country spends on its military; focus on how much money each country spends on education and infrastructure. I doubt a cold war will exist, and if it does I doubt it'll go hot, but the battle over economic influence will depend on the new foot soldier - the graduate.
And lets not forget that not only do those ipod factories temporarily employ cheap labor, they are also permanent infrastructure, which is a national resource. When the next ipod comes out, or the chingxiu pod, China will be able to make it itself.

I think the idea of America telling China tough luck on its debt would be the start of an economic war. Though it would make the US default on its debt I doubt it would ruin the US economy. Who would people invest large amounts of capital in? China? No, it just lost it's economic stake. There would be no one else but America to store large sums in. So I wonder, if China were ever at a tipping point, if America might actually threaten to do that?

 

[Sampanviking]

I've wondered this, too. I'm concerned that China is putting such a national emphasis on education. The tech gap is closing between them and America, and if all of the sudden they can do what America can do America will lose its advantage. Because so much of economics these days is based on innovation we should be paying as much attention to education and technology as we do military strategy, imo. Forget how much either country spends on its military; focus on how much money each country spends on education and infrastructure. I doubt a cold war will exist, and if it does I doubt it'll go hot, but the battle over economic influence will depend on the new foot soldier - the graduate.
And lets not forget that not only do those ipod factories temporarily employ cheap labor, they are also permanent infrastructure, which is a national resource. When the next ipod comes out, or the chingxiu pod, China will be able to make it itself.

I think the idea of America telling China tough luck on its debt would be the start of an economic war. Though it would make the US default on its debt I doubt it would ruin the US economy. Who would people invest large amounts of capital in? China? No, it just lost it's economic stake. There would be no one else but America to store large sums in. So I wonder, if China were ever at a tipping point, if America might actually threaten to do that?

Wow I think this should be renamed the wishful thinking thread.

Yup thats right guys close and eyes, click your heels three times and say "China go away" and guess what ? - err China's still there and bigger than ever.

No the PRC is not about to collapse, it is not wholly dependant on the US economy (if it was, it too would be in deep sh*t already, as well, not growing at 10% pa) and a debt default would hurt the USA many times more than the PRC as nobody would touch the US with a 10ft pole for investment.

Reality please and less Coolaid.

 

[Twinblade]

China is not viable long term as it exist today. They are wholly dependent on US willingness to allow manufacturing and shipping of goods to the USA. That's because it still takes flesh a blood to do the bulk of the work. But there are plenty of nations with cheap labor and soon automation and robotics will eliminate the much of the human cost. This is going to shift manufacturing back to the US and Japan because with human cost removed shipping cost will be noticeable. What happens when all those people are put out of work?


-DA

They have created a sufficiently large internal market for nearly every technology available, with the internal markets in some sectors bigger than those in the United states. This is going to offer them more insulation, rather than less, in case of another global meltdown.

 

[Armoredpriapism]

Wow I think this should be renamed the wishful thinking thread.

Yup thats right guys close and eyes, click your heels three times and say "China go away" and guess what ? - err China's still there and bigger than ever.

No the PRC is not about to collapse, it is not wholly dependant on the US economy (if it was, it too would be in deep sh*t already, as well, not growing at 10% pa) and a debt default would hurt the USA many times more than the PRC as nobody would touch the US with a 10ft pole for investment.

Reality please and less Coolaid.

If you're going to quote me please respond to what I wrote. I didn't say anything that should have made you think I was suggesting China would go away. I said that a US default on chinese debt could start an economic war, and that a default on China wouldn't mean the end of the US economy. If you noticed what happened with the US credit downgrade, the world didn't want to touch the US with a 10 foot pole, but they didn't want to touch anything else with a 20 foot pole. Relative to the rest of the world the US was still the most stable economy large enough to issue debt on a national scale. Though China's economy is big, the US also big, and few question whether it'll be around in 20 years. Would you want to invest billions in China when its political system might collapse due to aggravated competition with the US? When its economic plan had just been thrown a wrench? I'm not saying an American default on the debt is a good idea, and in fact never suggested whether it would be good or bad, simply that it wouldn't be the end of America. So you might want to hold off clicking your heels till ole oz grants you a new brain, imho.

Admin. You need to change your approach re the last sentence. Its not helpful and does nothing to forward the debate or your position. A bit of self editing is needed here.

 

[Bonza]

Let's keep it civil guys, I'm sure you can appreciate that this is a loaded topic so it really should be approached with maturity and respect. Thankyou.

 

[TESamFisher]

Hey buddy

So you might want to hold off clicking your heels till ole oz grants you a new brain, imho.

I think you need a new brain buddy and after that go to school. What you basically said is that China can just go away. Haha, that is your wishful thinking. If China could go away, the US would have had its jobs back by now.

Admin. You need to Report the Post (Red Flag radio button in the bottom left of each post) rather than get dragged down into the mud. Reacting to baits does nothing for the quality of debate and does nothing to further your position.

 

[Bonza]

Thread locked pending moderator review. Apparently I didn't get my point across in my last post, so let me be specific - if a thread degenerates into pointless trash talking and provocation, the mod team can and will put a stop to it. I would strongly advise posters to exercise some discretion and maturity in their responses and to reconsider before getting caught up in wasteful bickering.