China, The World's Next Superpower?

Author: Yassine ,

Posts

Total: 45
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 319
1
1
5
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
1
1
5
- Discuss.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,598
3
3
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
3
8
--> @Yassine
It's not already?
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 319
1
1
5
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
1
1
5
--> @Greyparrot
- What do you think?
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,598
3
3
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
3
8
--> @Yassine
It's inevitable.

Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 319
1
1
5
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
1
1
5
--> @Greyparrot
- Any specific predictions on how this should occur? What's America's place then?
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,598
3
3
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
3
8
--> @Yassine
China has steadily moved toward a more open and relaxed market which means it won't be long before they outproduce any other country. America's place will be 2nd.
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 687
2
2
5
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
2
2
5
That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing in a world where the CPC wasn't in charge of the country. A large Chinese consumer base would make for a lucrative market for US exports, and maybe a liberal and democratic China could handle the global peacekeeping work that we're stuck with right now.

That having been said, it seems increasingly likely that China's gonna end up stuck in the "middle income trap". A communist regime will only allow economic reforms to a certain point, and Xi Jinping's one-man rule is making even these less certain.
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 319
1
1
5
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
1
1
5
--> @Greyparrot
- Being a superpower involves more than just sheer production, China has already surpassed all countries in production 5 years ago. How do you think the US & Americans would cope with China taking the global lead?
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 687
2
2
5
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
2
2
5
If we go to war with them in 2020 over Taiwan, and we end up winning, and the communist regime collapses, then it'll finally be safe for the US government to adopt a very insular focus. Putin and Erdogan aren't long-term threats to us.
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 319
1
1
5
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
1
1
5
--> @Swagnarok
- The CPC isn't going anywhere. Many things are uncertain in the world of future politics, CPC ain't one of them. Why do you think a liberal & democratic China would be better at global peacekeeping? The US is a liberal democracy & it's doing a sh*tty job keeping the global peace, in attacking, invading, bombing, pillaging, oppressing nations all over the world. China, so far, has not. In fact, their global vision 2049 is to connect the entire world in wed of globalized trade, initiating colossal projects such as One Belt One Road.

- Why do you think China is ending up in the 'middle income trap'? China's consistent growth in the past 3 decades is *unmatched* (10% average) is unmatched by any nation in History. The leading party has virtually always reached the goals it set for the nation. Why is this going to change now?

Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 319
1
1
5
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
1
1
5
--> @Swagnarok
- How do you suppose you are going to win against a nation with 1/5th the Earth's population & 1/5th its economy? Suppose you won, then what?
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 687
2
2
5
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
2
2
5
The People's Liberation Army would have its work cut out for it in trying to take the island of Taiwan. The geography definitely favors the defenders, who have a reasonably advanced and modern military, supported by a modern and fairly large economy. The Chinese would not be able to use any of their artillery in the battle, since the distance of the Taiwan Strait at its narrowest point is 81 miles. Instead they'd have to rely upon missiles, which are quite expensive per shot, unless the Chinese were desperate enough to resort to nukes, in which case of course the Taiwanese would lose in a moment's notice.

And at this time the US military is still stronger than that of the Chinese. The PLA has not fought a war in decades, whereas the US invaded Iraq in 2003. So there could be major flaws in the coordination, tactics, organization, etc. of the PLA that are not apparent to us now. The military forces of dictatorships are generally at a disadvantage in that its generals and officers tend to distrust each other and communicate with each other less effectively, in that the motivation to fight among the soldiers would likely be lower than that of the defending Taiwanese or even the Americans (though maybe not in this case since this would be about "reuniting" China), and in that innovation and outside of the box thinking are usually discouraged. That's a big part of why the Arab dictatorships/kingdoms consistently lost to Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973, despite Israel being much smaller. The US has most mastered combined arms doctrine (a force multiplier in any war), whereas the Chinese have not yet done so.

The Chinese would deliver a major blow to the US if they were to engage in kinetic anti-satellite warfare. However, doing so would render the entirety of Outer Orbit unsuitable for space travel and satellites, the latter of which the whole world relies upon for various purposes (such as GPS, weather forecasting, etc), for years, decades, or even centuries to come, and I'm skeptical that they'd do something so extreme just to conquer Taiwan.
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 687
2
2
5
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
2
2
5
It should be noted also that the bulk of China's economy is centered around manufacturing stuff. If the US were to convince the rest of the world (in response to an unprovoked Chinese invasion of Taiwan) to simply satisfy their manufacturing needs elsewhere, the Chinese economy would collapse overnight. So there's more than one way to skin a cat in regards to Taiwan.
If the Chinese economy were to collapse, and their military to lose a war against Taiwan and the US, that'd most certainly spell the collapse of the communist regime, or at the very least Xi Jinping would be ousted and replaced by more sane communist leadership (though I'm skeptical that the regime could survive this).
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
Tale of the tape on military strength(particularly naval) still overwhelmingly favors the US. China has 1 Soviet Era Carrier and working on 1 modern one similar to the Nimitz class that is being phased out of the US Navy already in favor of the Gerald R Ford class carrier. 

Not to mention China is heading right off the cliff for an economic downturn. Their population growth is at .5% and dropping still. Population growth and economic growth is linked AF, its one of the primary factors in economic growth after all. 

On top of that, China does have the trade route agenda, but the US already has that in place navally, and 90% of trade goes through waterways still. For China to make a dent in that influence they would have to make it cheaper to transport trade goods over mostly land.... Good luck with that one 😂. 

Not to mention, China has no plans on making trade free and fair as the US does with pursuit of zero-subsidy zero tariff trade policies. Nor does it charge access to trade routes, nor does it have the intention to ever do something like that as again, the agenda is zero-tariff zero-subsidy trade. 

For good example of how China still isnt close to the US, the recent trade war. They are hurting themselves more than its hurting the US. For example in soybeans. The US accounts for 40% of soybean imports, and their other main supplier, Brazil, cannot cover that amount. That leaves China short eventually on a vital component of their populations food consumption. 

Meanwhile, the EU has already agreed to purchase what China does not during this spat as a part of the in principle agreement for zero-tariff zero-subsidy trade. On top of that as has been pointed out, China is still dependent AF on exporting manufactured goods to other countries, mainly the US. And as was pointed out, if the US really wanted to take off the kid gloves, we can cut off all Chinese imports and watch as they burn 🤔. 

But beyond that, say China wants to invade Taiwan, have y'all never heard of a naval blockade? They do that, the US sets up a naval blockade, cuts off most of their trade, and watches as they starve to death. It appears y'all are gravely underestimating how tightly the US has a hold on the globes balls 😏

Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
10 Nimitz Class Carriers and 9 Wasp Class Carriers that each have their own complementary fleets, and battalions of infantry. All 19 prepares to remain self-sufficient for month should shit hit the fan like proposed. AC's are kings of the seas, period. And if you dont want to see a majority of your trade dissapear overnight, its best not to piss off the country that has a stranglehold on the worlds waterways 😏
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,829
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
I am sure it will be better than an Islamic State such as Iran
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,450
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
People think of Oriental Asia and they think of China.

Few realise how potent and efficient South Korea (RoK) is.

South Korea, when they do try hard at something, end up the best at it every SINGLE time. They have the single most efficient police force on Earth, single best eSports team in ANY game they enter teams into among other things. Their culture is brutal, don't get me wrong, and they don't flinch before silencing media etc but if you ignore the mafia-format of their politics, you have to sit back and admire how proficient a nation they are in all senses of the term.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,598
3
3
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
3
8
--> @RationalMadman
Few realise how potent and efficient South Korea (RoK) is.
South Korea is also Fascist.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,450
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Greyparrot
No, but it is capitalist.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,598
3
3
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
3
8
--> @RationalMadman
The Japanese would disagree that South Korea isn't fascist toward them.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,450
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Greyparrot
I am not going to listen to this bullshit.

Japan has been the SINGLE most fascist nation in the ENTIRE Asia (if we ignore the middle east as a separate entity).

Even after Japan 'reformed' it had the Yakuza. You don't know what you are speaking of when you listen to Japanese biased news about South Korea, Listen to both sides and you will see who the real fascists and bullsh**ers are.
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 933
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
I'm betting against it. Their one child policy is going to bite them in the ass HARD when it comes to healthcare costs while environmentally the whole country is going to complete sh*t. They will have to grapple with a lot of the problems the US slammed into in the late 20th century, but on a much more massive scale. 

The population demographics of European countries also effectively bars any of them from achieving superpower status, especially given the limitations on land they actually control. 

My money long term is on Canada of all places. If global warming really picks up, they are arguably in the best position for it as land becomes more fertile/arable and melting ice sheets unveil new access to natural resources buried underground. They recently overtook the US as having the healthiest middle class of any country, and as long as they dont go too far to the left with their policies they could certainly achieve powerful status by the end of the century (though they will still be borderline irrelevant for at least another 20 years) 
Earth
Earth's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 1,726
2
4
8
Earth's avatar
Earth
2
4
8
--> @Imabench
China no longer as a one child policy.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,598
3
3
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
3
8
--> @Earth
He is talking about the health costs for the aging Chinese population which won't be covered adequately by the youth. This view also presupposed that China gives a crap about the welfare of the elderly and prolonging elderly life after their productive use to China is long expired.
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
--> @Imabench
Canada's gonna have to pour billions into naval development if they're fonna hit that point fmpov. Though you are def on the right track with ur thinking imho