Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 13 Jul '09 02:18
    With declining growth rates in developed countries and huge nations experiencing double-digit growth, who do you think will be a leader in the world in 50 years?

    Who no longer will be?





    http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090710-704390.html

    L'AQUILA, Italy (Dow Jones)--The system for managing the global economy and other challenges is evolving rapidly in response to the financial crisis, with this week's meeting of the Group of Eight rich nations representing another mutation in a system that until last year had seemed likely to change only slowly.

    From their questioning of the dollar's role as the global reserve currency to their stance on climate change, China, Brazil, India and other developing economies staked out distinct positions, no doubt causing headaches for negotiating teams from the developed nations.

    The hope in Washington, Berlin and Tokyo is that the pain is worth the gain. For the traditional powers, progress on major global challenges looks impossible without support from developing powers.

    The major developing nations won a formal seat on the world stage last November, when the spreading financial and economic crisis led then-President George W. Bush to invite more than 20 leaders to Washington for a summit. The so-called Group of 20 then met in London in April for a major summit aimed at trying to stabilize the global economy.

    With Italian host Silvio Berlusconi proving liberal with the invite cards, most were back at this week's G8 summit in earthquake-hit L'Aquila, some 70 miles north of Rome. As well as Brazil, China and India, the leaders of Mexico and South Africa were attending. Russia, as a G8 member, has an automatic seat.

    From the start, it was these countries that grabbed attention.
  2. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    13 Jul '09 02:23
    Originally posted by eljefejesus
    With declining growth rates in developed countries and huge nations experiencing double-digit growth, who do you think will be a leader in the world in 50 years?

    Who no longer will be?





    http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090710-704390.html

    L'AQUILA, Italy (Dow Jones)--The system for managing the global economy and other challenges is e ...[text shortened]... r, has an automatic seat.

    From the start, it was these countries that grabbed attention.
    I hear the Duchy of Grand Fenwick is poised to take its rightful place on the world stage.
  3. 13 Jul '09 02:49
    probably no country will be considered a world leader by then. too bad for china, they were just shuffling up to the bar!
  4. 13 Jul '09 04:09
    Originally posted by rwingett
    I hear the Duchy of Grand Fenwick is poised to take its rightful place on the world stage.
    Well let's roll out the welcome mat, I guess... what ever happened to Franz Ferdinand anyway?
  5. 13 Jul '09 04:10
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    probably no country will be considered a world leader by then. too bad for china, they were just shuffling up to the bar!
    I'm sure their gi-normous economy will make it's presence felt one way or the other.

    I think it would have to slow considerably for a sustained period of time to avoid becoming incredibly influential.
  6. 13 Jul '09 04:45
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower

    A superpower is a state with a leading position in the international system and the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests; it is traditionally considered to be one step higher than a great power. Alice Lyman Miller (Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School), defines a superpower as "a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time, and so may plausibly attain the status of global hegemon."[1] It was a term first applied in 1944 to the United States, the Soviet Union, and the British Empire. Following World War II, as the British Empire transformed itself into the Commonwealth and its territories became independent, the Soviet Union and the United States generally came to be regarded as the only two superpowers, and confronted each other in the Cold War.

    After the Cold War, the most common belief held that only the United States fulfilled the criteria to be considered a superpower,[2] although it is a matter of debate whether it is a hegemon or if it is losing its superpower status.[3] China, the European Union, India and Russia are also thought to have the potential of achieving superpower status within the 21st century.[4] Others doubt the existence of superpowers in the post Cold War era altogether, stating that today's complex global marketplace and the rising interdependency between the world's nations has made the concept of a superpower an idea of the past and that the world is now multipolar.[5][6][7][8]
  7. 13 Jul '09 05:19
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower

    A superpower is a state with a leading position in the international system and the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests; it is traditionally considered to be one step higher than a great power. Alice Lyman Miller (Professor of National ...[text shortened]... oncept of a superpower an idea of the past and that the world is now multipolar.[5][6][7][8]
    I'm one of those that says China has the potential, and the growth rate will be key, if they level off dramatically, they may not reach that point. If they maintain double digit growth average for the next 25+ years, it may be virtually inevitable to be a superpower in at least a generation, maybe more.
  8. 13 Jul '09 05:30
    unless the definition of superpower is redefined to subtract the quality "military", they're not gonna be cr@p.
  9. 13 Jul '09 05:48
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    unless the definition of superpower is redefined to subtract the quality "military", they're not gonna be cr@p.
    There's the rub:



    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=aVsYPKCY1aNg

    China’s actual military outlays are about 70 percent higher than they report publicly, said Tim Huxley, executive director in Asia for the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. They don’t include weapons purchases from overseas, research and development spending, or revenue generated by China’s own arms exports, according to Huxley.

    The U.S. spends about 4 percent of gross domestic product on defense compared with about 1.4 percent in China, Li said. The CIA World Fact Book puts China’s spending at about 4.3 percent of GDP compared with 4.1 percent in the U.S.

    Fighting Pirates

    In December, China deployed three ships to the Gulf of Aden to help protect commercial shipping in the area from pirates. The nation is also seriously considering building an aircraft carrier, Senior Colonel Huang Xueping said in December.

    The Asian country approved a new space-launch center in its southern island province of Hainan and will start construction soon, the official Xinhua News Agency reported on March 2, citing unidentified military sources. The center, approved at the end of last year, will launch rocket carriers as well as providing meteorological and telecommunications services, the report said.

    In 2007 China destroyed a weather satellite with a missile launched from a mobile platform, technology that poses “a significant risk to both civilian commercial systems and military systems,” U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff General Michael Moseley said in April 2007.

    Arms Race

    Chinese President Hu Jintao promised his country wouldn’t spark an arms race with its neighbors or pose a military threat to “any country” during a visit to Japan last year.

    Japan had called on China to justify its military spending ahead of Hu’s visit, with then Chief Cabinet Secretary Nobutaka Machimura saying he couldn’t “comprehend” why it has risen by more than 10 percent each year for the past 20 years.
  10. 13 Jul '09 06:20
    Just how much of a current power is China's millitary is sitll up for debate, but the future seems a little less debatable if China continues to grow based on its savings rate and current low base it has a long way to go based on current economic models given its savings rate.

    Here are some estimates of China's CURRENT millitary spending:




    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China

    "In 2009, the US Department of Defense's annual report to Congress on China's military strength offered several estimates of actual 2008 Chinese military spending. In terms of the prevailing exchange rate, Pentagon estimates range between US$105 and US$150 billion,[2] the second highest in the world after the US.
    The last year that many international institutes provided estimates of Chinese military spending, in comparable terms, was 2003. In terms of the prevailing exchange rate, SIPRI, RAND, the CIA and the DIA estimated the budget at between US$30 and US$65 billion. In terms of purchasing power parity, or the relative purchasing strength of the expenditure, the SIPRI estimate is as high as US$140 billion.[3] The Chinese government's published budget at that time was less than US$25 billion.
    A RAND Corporation study states that People's Republic of China's defense spending is higher than the official number but lower than United States Department of Defense estimates. The defense spending of the People's Republic of China is estimated to be between 2.3-2.8% of China's GDP. This is 40-70% higher than official figures, but substantially lower than previous outside estimates. Chinese military spending nevertheless doubled between 1997 and 2003, nearly reaching the level of the United Kingdom and Japan, and it continued to grow with an annual rate of greater than 10% during 2003-2005.[2] If the RAND study is correct, China could be the second highest spender by percentage of GDP, among the countries in the below tables; as well, it would surpass Japan and Russia in absolute terms.
    A SIPRI study also comes to the conclusion that the military spending of the People's Republic of China is higher than the official budget, but its estimate is lower than that of the RAND study. Of the major powers, the military spending of the People's Republic of China surpasses only that of Japan in relative terms and Russia in absolute terms.[3]"



    and here's the start of a very fascinating report from heritage, I highly recommend reading it in its entirety, but I'll just post a portion for the forum for now:


    http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/wm1389.cfm

    "A Chinese Military Superpower?
    by John J. Tkacik, Jr.
    WebMemo #1389
    On March 4, China's National People's Congress announced that it would increase the country's military budget 17.8 percent in 2007 to a total of $45 billion.[1] Despite the fact that this was the biggest single annual increase in China's military spending,[2] the Chinese government reassured the world that this spending hike was normal and need not worry anyone. "China is committed to taking a path of peaceful development and it pursues a defensive military posture," a spokesman said.[3] But the evidence suggests instead that China's intent is to challenge the United States as a military superpower.

    A closer look at China's military spending raises profound questions about China's geopolitical direction. In terms of purchasing power parity (PPP), China's effective military spending is far greater than $45 billion, or even the U.S. Department of Defense's $105 billion estimate.[4] In fact, it is in the $450 billion range, putting it in the same league as the United States and far ahead of any other country, including Russia.[5] This figure reflects the reality that a billion dollars can buy a lot more "bang" in China than in the United States.

    Within a decade, perhaps much sooner, China will be America's only global competitor for military and strategic influence. Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell told the Senate on February 27 that the Chinese are "building their military, in my view, to reach some state of parity with the United States," adding that "they're a threat today, they would become an increasing threat over time."[6] Nor is this a revelation to Washington policy-makers. McConnell's predecessor John Negroponte testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee in February 2006 that "China is a rapidly rising power with steadily expanding global reach that may become a peer competitor to the United States at some point."[7] "
  11. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    13 Jul '09 14:07
    This month's issue of Foreign Policy (yes, I subscribe) has a cover story about how the future of Asian superpowers is overhyped and how China and India and co. are not even on track to being superpowers. It's an interesting article.

    There's also a great feature on the fall and rise and fall again of the Baltic states, in case you're interested. Personally, I'll read anything with shadows of Word War II.
  12. 13 Jul '09 15:15
    Probably quite balanced. China will most likely have the biggest army, but they seem to be busy enough oppressing minorities within their own borders. They might invade Taiwan, but that's probably about it as far as their imperial ambitions go. I guess the EU will be the biggest economy for quite another while, especially since Eastern Europe has a lot of growth potential and new countries are likely to join the union.
  13. 13 Jul '09 17:01
    Originally posted by sh76
    This month's issue of Foreign Policy (yes, I subscribe) has a cover story about how the future of Asian superpowers is overhyped and how China and India and co. are not even on track to being superpowers. It's an interesting article.

    There's also a great feature on the fall and rise and fall again of the Baltic states, in case you're interested. Personally, I'll read anything with shadows of Word War II.
    I didn't even know there was a Foreign Policy magazine. Unfortunately I can't subscribe. I already play chess, collect coins and I like Star Trek.

    If I add one more nerd thing it would be the end of me with my army buddies.
  14. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    13 Jul '09 17:11 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    I didn't even know there was a Foreign Policy magazine. Unfortunately I can't subscribe. I already play chess, collect coins and I like Star Trek.

    If I add one more nerd thing it would be the end of me with my army buddies.
    LOL!

    Maybe you could hide it under your mattress. In case anyone does an inspection, put it under a copy of Playboy.

    Foreign Affairs is probably a better all around magazine. But, FP is in color and has pictures. And, you know how we Americans feel about color and pictures.


    Edit: I see they have the story online for free. So, if you want to see the story:

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/06/22/think_again_asias_rise
  15. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    13 Jul '09 18:42
    Originally posted by eljefejesus
    With declining growth rates in developed countries and huge nations experiencing double-digit growth, who do you think will be a leader in the world in 50 years?

    Who no longer will be?





    http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090710-704390.html

    L'AQUILA, Italy (Dow Jones)--The system for managing the global economy and other challenges is e ...[text shortened]... r, has an automatic seat.

    From the start, it was these countries that grabbed attention.
    USA, EU, Russia and China.