Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is it the best interest of China to become a super power military and economically? They have the U S to do the military part of policing the world and spending their treasure doing so. Why would China want that role when they have the stupid Americans doing it for them? China or any other country are not that stupid to take that on.
Nobody asked USA to police the world and USA has never done any policing either.
USA is doing everything to protect its national interest. That is all.
Yesterday during a newscast, I heard China referred to as "The rising super power" and I started to wonder how China as THE super power nation will impact the rest of us.
How do you think things will change as China takes position as the super power nation?
Interestingly, it is us who have made this possible by shipping manufacturing to China and funding its rise. I wonder if we'll regret that decision.
I don't know if China will ever become a superpower. Their modernization has taken a terrible toll on the environment such that their food production has declined significantly every year since 2000 due to lack of clean water. They are also using up their coal reserves at an unprecidented rate and this is coupled with problems in securing enough water for mining. Once more they are likely in a housing bubble and that could be a disaster for their untested, and relatively new financial sector. I wouldn't assume the rise of China is a given.
Nobody asked USA to police the world and USA has never done any policing either.
USA is doing everything to protect its national interest. That is all.
I am aware that the U S will do everything to protect the petro dollar. But we are policing, are we not drone striking in Africa and other countries? Are we not still occupying other countries? sounds like policing to me. Is there a dispute anywhere in the world that the U S does not stick its nose in?
Well China is not the war monger that the US is so maybe our days of invading countries will come to an end.
One can hope…..
Uhhh... they're banging war drums over the Senkaku islands, which Japan claims. China will inevitably seek revenge for what Japan did to them leading up to WWII. They may not be war mongers now, however they are building their military which means expansion.
Last week:
China has rapidly expanded its military in the past year, and plans to spend aggressively in the hopes of creating a military that can match the country’s growing economic might. Last week, China announced ambitious plans to expand its space program and put a person on the moon in the next five years. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/wo...rism.html?_r=0
Japan says China raised no objections to the San Francisco deal. And it says that it is only since the 1970s, when the issue of oil resources in the area emerged, that Chinese and Taiwanese authorities began pressing their claims. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11341139
^^^ this dispute has the potential to become a war at a time when Obama is increasing our military presence in the Asia theatre.
I am aware that the U S will do everything to protect the petro dollar. But we are policing, are we not drone striking in Africa and other countries? Are we not still occupying other countries? sounds like policing to me. Is there a dispute anywhere in the world that the U S does not stick its nose in?
YES, we are the police of the world. According to the 2010 military bases report; We have more than 650 bases in nearly 40 countries. Ron Paul claims we have over 900 bases in 130 countries. Consider there are barely 200 countries on the planet.
A State is a super-power not because it has nuclear weapons and not because it has a large economy. A State is a super-power because it can push its hegemony on other States anywhere at anytime. In the Modern Era --- let's call that the post-WW II Era -- to be a super-power requires nuclear weapons, a vast military, a powerful economy, and a global currency.
It takes more than harsh words to influence -- push hegemony on -- other States.
It requires the ability to terrorize other States with military threats and/or economic threats.
The Soviet military was defensive, not offensive, and the Ruble was barred from global trading, so it's absurd to suggest the Soviets were a super-power. Likewise, Chinese currency is not global, and neither is their military.
Mircea
Just curious where you're getting those specific qualifiers for being a superpower?
As far as I know, the term came into modern popular usage precisely to describe the United States and the Soviet Union's roles in global politics in the mid 20th century.
I certainly don't see how it's "absurd" to refer to the USSR as having been a super power.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
