OT - Is America looking over its shoulder

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by RN7

China is a communist country there is only one class the Working Class. However the communist government has tried to create a middle class of consumers who have become well educated. But it doesn't give them any say in the running of the country, and certainly doesn't want to know their views because they certainly don't want to live in a communist country.

Yeah; essentially they looked at people who had suddenly become affluent* and said "Hey...it's all good! You can have a cell phone, a car, big screen TV...just work and shop!"

"Awesome; can we have votes now?"

"I said you can have a cell phone, a car, and a big screen TV!"

that's basically where China is right now.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by DigTw0Grav3s

A couple thoughts, divided by power category.

Economically, China is not the powerhouse that most make it out to be. We're talking about totally black box accounting, here. They claim near-maximum industrial output every year, but the power consumption statistics simply don't back that up. Same story with financing. Owning a significant percentage of U.S. debt is great for them in a strategic sense, but that's not a debt that they can simply call at any time. Debt between sovereign states doesn't work that way. They've also admitted to recessionary conditions domestically, which says a lot considering the sanitizing that usually goes into their press releases.

I would totally agree they cook their books. Everything about their economy is manipulated.

Originally Posted by DigTw0Grav3s

In terms of military capabilities, they are certainly developing quickly. That said, they are reminiscent of pre-war Germany in a lot of ways. You can only develop your forces so aggressively before other nations begin to coalesce against you. Look at the current situation; Japan is talking about becoming an independent military power again. New basing may open up to U.S. carrier groups for the first time since World War II. Australia is basing a MEF. Asia is scared, and that doesn't bode well for a nation with a military mostly stuck in in the 1950s, both technologically and culturally.

They can't expand their military capabilities too much as no nation in Asia trusts China or wants it to replace American power in the region. It will also force an arms race with powerful regional countries like Japan and India, might upset Russia its largest ally in the international arena and will annoy America who will certainly match any Chinese military build up and could retaliate with a trade war.

Originally Posted by DigTw0Grav3s

Culturally, well.. how many Chinese pop stars do you know? How about television hits? Films? Celebrities? Central economic planning and totalitarianism are both antithetical to cultural exchange. As is scaring the hell out of your neighbors.

None of note although Jet Li and Jackie Chan have become fairly big action stars and don't forget the legend Bruce Lee.

Originally Posted by DigTw0Grav3s

The technology transfer and cyber-espionage do scare me a lot, though. If anything, that will be the factor that bites the West (free world?) in the ass.

Its a major problem and is enhancing China's military and strategic capabilities. It will also be a big issue when China tries to sell (dump) copied products in the developed world.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by RN7

None of note although Jet Li and Jackie Chan have become fairly big action stars and don't forget the legend Bruce Lee.

Bruce Lee was born in San Francisco.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by kato13

Bruce Lee was born in San Francisco.

Well so he was but he was raised in Hong Kong and was known for his potrayal of Chinese martial artists

[kato13]

Originally Posted by RN7

Well so he was but he was raised in Hong Kong and was known for his potrayal of Chinese martial artists

But in the initial discussion of "Stars" it was in how a Chinese central authority is not good at creating them.

Of the ones you mentioned only Jet Li came out of the communist system and he would be considered to be more on the technical side rather than as an innovator (as I would generally consider Lee and Chan to be).

[RN7]

Originally Posted by kato13

But in the initial discussion of "Stars" it was in how a Chinese central authority is not good at creating them.

Of the ones you mentioned only Jet Li came out of the communist system and he would be considered to be more on the technical side rather than as an innovator (as I would generally consider Lee and Chan to be).

Well Chan and Lee are Chinese, but didn't grow up in communist mainland China. Li had a very tough upbringing as his dad died when he was young. He trained very hard and became a master of multiple martial arts and was 19when he got a part acting in Chinese/Hong Kong films. He was 36 when he starded in Lethal Weapon 4 and later became a big star. So there you have it the commies stunt all growth among the Chinese on the mainland unless your like Jet Li and have one chance in a billion of making it in the rest of the world. Bodes well for China's future under the communists doesn't it?

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by RN7

China is a communist country there is only one class the Working Class. However the communist government has tried to create a middle class of consumers who have become well educated. But it doesn't give them any say in the running of the country, and certainly doesn't want to know their views because they certainly don't want to live in a communist country.

While China certainly pust on the airs about being communist and only having one class etc this certainly is far from defacto situation. Firstly China has state capitalism to a level introduced imany parts of the country. Secondly they have allowed private capitalism to grow slowly but steadily the last few decades to the point were they are about to openly support it not just tolerate it.

China has a huge middel class and a relatively large ypper class if You look at the numbers. We are talking one hundred million people here.

As for Chinese culture , I do feel its narrowsighted to overlook Chinese influences in western culture. This years Nobelprisen prize for litterature went to a Chinese author if I am not mistaken. I do not think martial arts Movies would have been invented in the west. Think of how much this element alone influence the Movies You see.

I guess it is alright to feel queasy about a one party regime with no regard for human rights entering the race to lead globally. I do not beileve in a black and white depicton of us and them. Sure we have our strengths and values that
We hold high. But so do they.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by RN7

They can't expand their military capabilities too much as no nation in Asia trusts China or wants it to replace American power in the region. It will also force an arms race with powerful regional countries like Japan and India, might upset Russia its largest ally in the international arena and will annoy America who will certainly match any Chinese military build up and could retaliate with a trade war.

Who says they can't? You? Me?
The only things really stopping/slowing them down is money, and if they can be bothered to care what their neighbours think about it.

The US certainly can't compete in a military arms race, not with their economy so far down the toilet, so I think we can rule that out as a major factor. As for Japan - does anyone seriously think Japan can or even wants to do anything militarily?

[enrious]

Originally Posted by Targan

I agree completely with the rest of your post but the above quote is pretty sweeping. When you say "we have" do you mean the USA? The "western world"? The world in general?

The world in general, but y'know, the same could be said for the US in particular.

"Better healthcare" is true but don't you have a situation in the US (which as I understand it Obamacare tries to ameliorate) where if you are in a lower socio-economic grouping your healthcare choices are somewhere between very restricted and non-existant. So that's really "better healthcare for those with money".

There's a lot of ancillary benefit from our increases in medicine and science. Let's take someone without any medical insurance, but who does have a medical emergency (heart, cancer, loss of limb, etc.), then they can get that emergency care.

Can you think of a better time for them to need care? The Middle Ages? The Napoleonic or Civil War periods? WW1? WW2? Even the 1980s?

Now compare what the people today who can't afford emergency care with whether or not people in those prior periods would have even gotten emergency care.


To be clear, I'm not saying that things are peachy for everyone in the US or that health care is the same, but across the US and the world, those that can get health care have better health care than at any point in the past - and the number of people who can get that health care is higher than ever before.

I can't argue with "better technology" but once again there's an element of better technology for those that can afford it. Then there's economic pressure in a whole host of technology fields which can slow the uptake of or largely prevent better technology being rolled out. Look at the use of fossil fuels. We know the harm caused by their use. We know they are finite. For a long time we've had the technology to largely replace their use in many areas. Yet here we are, burning through our ever-diminishing stocks as fast as we can. And the turning of technology into usable items is in the hands of the technical classes. Large numbers of westerners wouldn't have a clue how most of their high tech items work and they'll happily use whatever gadgets they can afford, all the while living in an anti-science fairy tale world where they think there were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark and that the world (and the universe for that matter) was created 6,000 years ago.

And yet, that's been a trend since really the advent of specialization in society. So, thousands of years of being true.

On the other hand, it's allowed for those specialists to become (generally speaking) capable of feats unheard of in years past.

I do wish fundamental science was more accepted, but that rarely do you have gains without losses.

Ask the luddites.

"Ethics and morals"? Woah, that's hugely subjective. Most modern, western societies share many ethics and morals but there are some pretty big differences, too. I don't know if "better" is an easy label to use when it comes to ethics and morals. I mean, some people consider the issue of state-sanctioned killing to be a moral issue, and look upon China and many US states as being amoral in that area for that reason. And most of us westerners look upon Sharia law with disgust, but those who practice it look upon the rest of us as barbarians and unbelievers who will surely be going to hell.

And yet, think about it. We talk about ethics and morality, we're semi-knowledgeable about the ethics and morality from places and peoples half-way 'round the world...

We collectively, as a starting point for a plurality of nations in the world agree that things such as genocide, slavery, rape, murder, etc. are morally and ethically (and increasingly legally) wrong.

Take a look at the UN section on Human Rights...at what point in the past have we ever, as the majority of nations on the earth, ever cared about how other nations were treating their people or those of their neighbors?

Again, show me a time before where things have ever been better, a time where collectively strive to certain universal human ideals of ethics and morality?

"Food and leisure" is another area where the who is "we" question is very important. In general I wouldn't agree. In my country and in the USA, people from lower socio-economic backgrounds tend to eat very poorly. Sure they have access to lots af food but in many cases it's really nasty stuff in terms of long-term health. Even those of us firmly middle-class and higher don't necessarily have access to the best foods. Factory farming, pesticides, food processing, these aren't the makings of the best nutrition. I'd say that in many cases foods were better for us in the middle of the last century. And of course people at the bottom, socio-economically speaking, often just can't access enough calories at all. As for leisure, ever-increasing numbers of westerners watch TV and play video games as a major component of their leisure time. Is that "better"? I think not. Certainly not better for their health.

I find it interesting that you bring up bad food, factory farming food, pesticides, etc. without ever bringing up the simple fact that if it weren't for advances in food science, you wouldn't have that food to complain about.

Let me introduce you to someone named Norman. Norman worked on plant breeding, on helping to create plants and crops that were more resistant to pests, that could grow in areas where they weren't native and so on.

He worked through the famines of the 1960s, he introduced cereals to Latin America and Asia, and helped turn nations which had been having to borrow or steal for food for its people into nations with food surpluses...

Indeed, in 2006, the US Congress recognized him as someone who has saved more than 1 billion human lives.

Let me repeat that, Norman Borlaug has been credited with saving 1,000,000,000 human lives.

So tell me again...in terms of food, when has there ever been a better time in human history?

As to leisure...you essentially say tv and video games are bad for your health. Did you have anything more substantive that you'd like to articulate?

I mean, surely you're not suggesting its worse than back-breaking farm or factory work, 6 dawn-to-dusk days a week? Whats the average life expectancy now as any time before now?

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Webstral

No nation can be destroyed from without until it has been destroyed from within.

Something our government has had gotten a good start with. (Just for context, I consider myself an "Enlightened Liberal.")

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Who says they can't? You? Me?
The only things really stopping/slowing them down is money, and if they can be bothered to care what their neighbours think about it.

So how come they haven't expanded the size of their nuclear arsenal in over 30 years. Their economy is now about three times the size of Russia after all so what's stopping them?

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

The US certainly can't compete in a military arms race, not with their economy so far down the toilet, so I think we can rule that out as a major factor. As for Japan - does anyone seriously think Japan can or even wants to do anything militarily?

Japan is comfortable living under America's nuclear and defence umbrella although its own armed forces are far from insignificant. If another country threatens that or builds forces designed to control the seas and airspace in the Western Pacific which could intefer with Japanese security or commerce how long do you think Japan would tolerate it? Also how much does America currently spend on defence? America has bases all over the Pacific Rim from South Korea to California and Alaska to Australia, and its airforce and naval forces in the Pacific alone are far more powerful than anything China has.

The last time that China strategic ambitions threatened American security it led to this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...e-weapons.html

China's anti-satellite warfare launches have been remarkably quite since.