China as a Super Power

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Perhaps I was misled by articles in NYT about life in Mississippi and Alabama. But I heard this description first from a friend after her first visit to the US nearly forty years ago. In the mean time she studied in Madison, Wis., Steubenville, Pa. and Washington D.C. and, I understand, especially Steubenville is no place to live.

Hmmm small rural towns 40 yrs ago? LOL no wonder your perception of the US is so skewed!
 

vesicles

Colonel
Perhaps I was misled by articles in NYT about life in Mississippi and Alabama. But I heard this description first from a friend after her first visit to the US nearly forty years ago. In the mean time she studied in Madison, Wis., Steubenville, Pa. and Washington D.C. and, I understand, especially Steubenville is no place to live.

Yep, 40 years is a long time...
 

Red Moon

Junior Member
No. 40 years is not such a long time! The thing is that poverty is not the same as undeveloped. People are pointing to the poverty that exists in cities, but these cities, obviously are not "third world", I don't care if a third of the population is unemployed and 20% homeless. This is a completely different problem. Probably, what delft's friend saw in various small towns was also great poverty, and this type of stuff exists today as much as 40 years ago.
 

Red Moon

Junior Member
By the way, the economist recently carried an article that was not too bad, and related to another article that was posted on this thread not long ago. The article is called
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. The previous article was the one where they spoke about Goldman Sachs' prediction that China would overtake the US in GDP by 2019. It was linked to an interactive chart where you could put in your own figures for inflation, real gdp growth, and currency appreciation. As the title suggests, it is about the difficulties others, and China itself, may have in coping with these changes.

There is a second article from December:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. For the initial 2/3 or 3/4 of the article, on various military systems, we have better sources in this forum. I included a quote from the last few paragraphs where they make some interesting points.

For all the uncertainties in this debate, three things are beyond dispute. First, China has already forced American ships to think about how and when they approach the Chinese coast. The closer American vessels come, the more missiles and submarines they face and the less time they would have to react to a strike. Anyone sailing a carrier worth $15 billion-20 billion with a crew of 6,000 would think twice about taking on that extra risk. To deny America possession of seas it has dominated for decades, China does not need to control its own coastal waters; it just has to be able to threaten American ships there. Hugh White, a former Australian security and defence official, foresees the western Pacific becoming a “naval no-go zone”.

Second, China’s ability to project power is improving. Its submarines, fighter aircraft, missiles, and cyber- and electronic warfare, once poor, now pose a threat. China’s weapons will continue to improve, and its forces will gather experience. Provided that the economy does not fall over, budgets will grow, too, absolutely and possibly as a share of GDP. Other things being equal, China can project power into its backyard more easily than America can project power across the Pacific Ocean. At risk is what Mr Gates has called “the operational sanctuary our navy has enjoyed in the western Pacific for the better part of six decades”.

Third, although the United States is able to respond to China, it will have to overcome some obstacles first. America’s military spending in Asia is overshadowed by the need to cut overall government spending and by other military priorities, such as Afghanistan. Jonathan Pollack, of the Brookings Institution, points out that some ideas, such as replacing aircraft-carriers with more submarines, would inevitably run into opposition from the navy and from politicians whose constituencies would suffer. “For many officers the navy’s core institutional identity is indelibly tied to carriers and the power-projection mission they perform,” he says. “Reducing their numbers is going to be a very painful process.” Above all, big shifts in military planning take decades: America needs to think now about China in 2025.

All this points to an important principle. Military planning is framed differently from diplomacy. Diplomats are interested in what they think states intend to do, but military planners have to work with what they think states can do. Intentions change and states can mislead. If you are charged with defending your country, you need to be able to meet even improbable threats.

That logic works in China, too. America has not been shy of going to war in recent years. Not long ago a retired Chinese admiral likened the American navy to a man with a criminal record “wandering just outside the gate of a family home”. American strength in the 1990s made China feel insecure, so it transformed the PLA to shore up its policy on Taiwan and protect its economically vital coastline. Yet by adding to its own security, China has taken away from that of its neighbours and of the United States. Perhaps China does not mean ever to use its weapons aggressively. But American defence planners cannot rely on that, so they must respond.

In this way two states that never intend harm can begin to perceive each other as growing threats. If you do not arm, you leave yourself open to attack. If you do, you threaten the other country. A British historian, Herbert Butterfield, called this the “absolute predicament and irreducible dilemma”. It is one reason why relations between China and America will probably sour.
 

delft

Brigadier
I read articles last year in NYT about areas in Mississippi and Alabama that reminded me of what my friend said in 1973.

SampanViking's remarks seem to me entirely relevant. Let's look within EU at Germany. The country was heavily damaged during WWII. Rearmament started in 1956 and by then the country was already busy renewing much of its infrastructure. This advantage has not yet been lost. On the other hand Japan had the same advantage but lost it in the late '80s when the economy was stimulated by letting civil engineering firms pour excessive amounts of concrete along the riverbanks and coasts and the like. Keynes said that in a recession governments should spend more money, not waste more money.

The next Chinese president is said to be the first lawyer in that position.The Chinese must make sure, that lawyers remain in the minority at the top. Lawyers have often a different, to my mind lesser, creativity.
Is this my bankers and lawyers are paid more in the West than engineers and scientists? Bankers and lawyers measure their worth in what they earn, engineers and scientists in what they achieve ( or is this libel?).
 

Red Moon

Junior Member
The next Chinese president is said to be the first lawyer in that position.The Chinese must make sure, that lawyers remain in the minority at the top. Lawyers have often a different, to my mind lesser, creativity.
Is this my bankers and lawyers are paid more in the West than engineers and scientists? Bankers and lawyers measure their worth in what they earn, engineers and scientists in what they achieve ( or is this libel?).

I have the same prejudice as you on this question, and it is a matter that greatly intrigues me. It is not only the amount of money people make, nor their status proper in a society. Certain societies, I suppose all, culturally favor a given psychological temperament more than others. So scientists are "nerds" in the US, but highly regarded in Russia. The "artisan" temperament is highly valued in Brazil (sportsmen, musicians, and Lula -- to me one of the most capable "tacticians" of all times), while, at least I have read, teachers revered in Finland. But this is a whole different topic.
 

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
I think it is a problem at the root of Anglo Saxon culture, although I think it would be difficult to accuse all of western culture as it is varied.

I actually liked that quote from delft

Bankers and lawyers measure their worth in what they earn, engineers and scientists in what they achieve.

This is a reflection not just on profession but on culture itself and will determine which professions are valued above the rest. By this definition Bankers and Lawyers stand for easy money, while the Engineer and Scientist stand for hard work. What the ethos of Bankers ans Lawyers stand for is actually lazyness and unfortunately the countries which prize these professions are those which have become culturally lazy.

It could all be cyclical of course with the Engineers and Scientists being the Illustrious Empire Building fathers and the Bankers and Lawyers the lazy feckless children that squander away the fortune.

Today there is no doubt as to which country occupies which part of the cycle or indeed that this is a complete reversion of the situation 150 years ago.
 
Top