Will America always be a superpower?

the SU-47 also rivals the F-22, it's all about whether or not you can manufacture enough for it to be relevan

Su-47 is just a technology demonstator. The PAK-FA has technology on par with the Raptor and is significantly cheaper. The Raptor just cannot compete with the PAK-FA on a cost basis. Being roughly equal yet one third of the price is a major advantage.

Xer07, sorry if my quip was a bit harsh, but just because the US has technological superiority to most nations in most areas doesn't mean that others cannot compete.

Quoting Xer07,

reply 571

1. Not necessarily true, that's like saying that the USSR's army, in 1991 the largest in the history of mankind, is still around today. It's not, my point being that even if the Chinese army has a Chinese state to support it, given China's large population and unruly population, such an existance would have trouble lasting, let alone being a threat.

This is a good comparison, though I don't think China will "willingly" disintegrate like the Soviets did...its a lot easier to maintain a military than it is to expand it or invest in new technology/prototypes...what I'm getting at here is that, though a floundering economy may affect china's ability to increase its military power, a "crash in the stock market" or any economic disaster is not going to make the current military disappear...

Quoting Xer07,

reply 571

3. You appear to have selective hearing, I heard no mention of the Republic of China (AKA Taiwan) in that.

I don't really think Taiwan is a major concern, and here is why...

Quoting Xer07,

reply 571

...given that at least every 2/3 Chinese citizens live within 150 miles of the Pacific Coast, I'm fairly sure that a naval blockade would impact morale more than trade.

You hit a great point there...lack of resources may not hurt the military too much, but it will affect the people (who already have enough problems as it is)...the regions most likely to revolt or simply give up on supporting the PRC (if that's even possible) will not be on the coast, but more inland...these regions will be low priority for garrison, and the communal farming system means the people don't even need the government to continue living...Taiwan isn't going to be able to do much about inland areas...if low morale causes dissent or revolt on the coast where most of the population is, I don't think Taiwan is going to be able to do much there either...its a lot of people, and a lot of land to cover...Taiwan isn't exactly the greatest military power...my feeling is, the Chinese people are going to either revolt or not...Taiwan may fill the power vacuum, but I don't think its going to be the cause of any revolt, and without the support of the people I doubt Taiwan would amount to much more than a convenient naval/air base for the US...it just doesn't have the resources to do much more than clean up after the PRC is severely beaten...

Quoting Xer07,

reply 571

What I'm getting it is that Russia is just as much, if not more of, a potential superpower than the EU, India or Brazil, but yet again I iterate that Americans DO. NOT. CARE.

I never really understood this, but it is true...for whatever reason, Russia is severely overshadowed by China and Iran...if I had to guess why, I'd say because Russia is not a new threat...but that's just a guess...

Quoting Xer07,

reply 571

I try to be as thorough as I can in debates such as this.

You do a good job

JuleTron: Didn't say they couldn't compete, just said that as a nation, the USA is ahead, but every other nation can compete in select theatres, the USA can just compete in them all.

Seleucia:

1. Not sure that the USSR "willingly" disintegrated either, but you sad yourself that a bulk of Chinese military power is paramilitary, for one, and for two, given that the "Great Recession" did little to affect Chinese military strength, I reluctantly agree with you here, however, a sustained conflict under harsh economic conditions would prove challenging to the PRC's military to maintain itself. TBH, that they have such a large military confounds me, there's no need for it; their diplomatic relations abroad are quite stable, and they're not in any large, conflicted alliances like NATO...

2. You'd by suprised by the military strength of the RoC. The population is comparable to that of Texas, but it's extremely advanced, up there with Japan, and has quite a large military. Taiwan, I will admit, can't take over mainland China on it's own, but with USA help, will replace the PRC and re-establish China far more quickly than a US-Placed democracy would.

3. Again, blame the media.

4. Bah, tell that to my english teacher. Bastard failed my research paper on globalization because I took both sides on whether it was good or bad.

Xer0 \^/

Quoting Xer07,

reply 578

That they have such a large military confounds me, there's no need for it; their diplomatic relations abroad are quite stable, and they're not in any large, conflicted alliances like NATO...

I agree...I understand them focusing on research/prototypes in order to stay on par with or surpass (technologically) the US, but having a large military for...the sake of having a large military? I don't know...understandably, they have no reason to trust NATO or the US or Japan, and probably not even Russia...but it seems that they'd be better off making the West dependent on them economically instead of militarizing and threatening their diplomatic relationships....honestly, I'd guess their large military (in manpower, at least) is more the result of fear from their own people...a large military, simply by its existence, prevents dissent from turning into revolt...I don't really think a full revolt is in the least bit likely, but then again, paranoia isn't about what's likely, and any totalitarian government is probably paranoid...

Looked at some things about the Taiwanese military...I was under the impression they had focused solely on defending their islands with land forces/defenses and some air support...apparently they are moving to focus more on navy/air force instead of land capabilities...this actually seems like good news since Taiwan would be able to provide great support to other nations in the area should the need arise...

The only issue is that most countries (including the US, in order to increase diplomatic relations with China) see Taiwan as the 23rd Province of the PRC, so any military action it takes will result in counteraction by the PRC, or reprimandation from whatever nation Taiwan is attacking to the PRC.

As for the Chinese military; along with everything you listed, the only other possible reason for their having such a military is to scare the RoC (the two are still technically at war) and, like their first nuke, scare off other countries.

Richter {^}

Quoting Richter_Abend,

reply 580

The only issue is that most countries (including the US, in order to increase diplomatic relations with China) see Taiwan as the 23rd Province of the PRC...

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/economy-and-business/China-to-Sanction-US-Companies-That-Sell-Arms-to-Taiwan---83329797.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35065824/ns/world_news-asiapacific/

I disagree.

The only issue is that most countries (including the US, in order to increase diplomatic relations with China) see Taiwan as the 23rd Province of the PRC

I'm pretty sure it's one of China's competitors. It mass produces goods, but to a higher quality in order to rival China. That's part of the reason why China is so keen to get its hands on the country.

Alpha, you never heard of the Chinese Civil War and the Communist takeover of China? Taiwan started off as the government-in-exile of Chiang Kai-Shek's Nationalist government when Mao took over mainland China. The Chi-Coms haven't forgiven Taiwan for being able to escape their thumb, and they probably never will.

@MichaelCook

Good articles...selling arms to Taiwan, well, that's to be expected...though I'm more interested in how the US is going to help Tibet...I doubt selling them Blackhawk helicopters is the answer...

Blackhawks? No.

APACHE'S!

Richter {^}

Quoting Richter_Abend,

reply 585

Blackhawks? No.

APACHE'S!

Richter {^}

Blackhawks are a bit old, but they're better in a defensive role, where the Apache leans toward offense. Still, if China was really threatening Taiwan, the U.S. would likely sell them Apaches, in addition to other hardware.

Still, that sale would depend on Obama's foriegn policy. Although I support the guy, I have mixed opinions on his foriegn policy. He calls it "more diplomatic", I call it a bit on the wimpy side. Though the reconciliation with Europe and the speech in the Middle East was good, there have been oppertunities that he could have done a lot better. First of is the Iran Protests. We all know about that, with demonstrators having the shit beaten out of them on the orders of a crazed anti-semite and an even crazier towelhead who calls himself a supreme leader. As all this happened, Obama did a few speeches, basically saying "The demonstrators are being repressed. That really sucks." No throwing massive support behind the demonstrators, many of whom are pro-U.S., no pressure on the UN to try to stop Iran, nothing. If Obama and the EU had done that, the demonstrators may well have surged past the riot police and sent the clerics packing.

The other was the recent sinking of a South Korean ship by North Korea. Again, nothing major was done. He simply got the UN to investigate, instead of showing strength and threatening the North with war, which would have ended within days with Kim Jong Il's little regime collapsing.

I know my views aren't very diplomatic, but it's foolish to soften your perspective on an enemy who won't do the same to you.

Quoting GeneralEtrius,

reply 586

Quoting Richter_Abend,
reply 585
Blackhawks? No.

APACHE'S!

Richter {^}

Blackhawks are a bit old, but they're better in a defensive role, where the Apache leans toward offense. Still, if China was really threatening Taiwan, the U.S. would likely sell them Apaches, in addition to other hardware.

Still, that sale would depend on Obama's foriegn policy. Although I support the guy, I have mixed opinions on his foriegn policy. He calls it "more diplomatic", I call it a bit on the wimpy side. Though the reconciliation with Europe and the speech in the Middle East was good, there have been oppertunities that he could have done a lot better. First of is the Iran Protests. We all know about that, with demonstrators having the shit beaten out of them on the orders of a crazed anti-semite and an even crazier towelhead who calls himself a supreme leader. As all this happened, Obama did a few speeches, basically saying "The demonstrators are being repressed. That really sucks." No throwing massive support behind the demonstrators, many of whom are pro-U.S., no pressure on the UN to try to stop Iran, nothing. If Obama and the EU had done that, the demonstrators may well have surged past the riot police and sent the clerics packing.

The other was the recent sinking of a South Korean ship by North Korea. Again, nothing major was done. He simply got the UN to investigate, instead of showing strength and threatening the North with war, which would have ended within days with Kim Jong Il's little regime collapsing.

I know my views aren't very diplomatic, but it's foolish to soften your perspective on an enemy who won't do the same to you.

Funny, how we go from "Will America Always be a Superpower" to "Let's have War with China! HELLZ YEA!" to "Obama Talk: What's ur Opinion"...

anyway, Obama's foreign policy, to me, says that he wants the U.S. to step down from it's current responsibilities and just be another big country on the block, not THE big country on the block. He's saying, in his diplomacy, that "We, as the US don't give a $#*! what you do, just make sure we get our trade goods and you'll be fine".

That's, at least, IMO.

Richter {^}

died without a single shot being fired.

Meh, that could be disputed. Many uprisings (Shay's Rebellion... etc) that led to the formation of our current USA did indeed feature violence. Of course, then you could argue whether or not the uprisings really had any impact on the writing of the Constitution and all that and we could argue for a while...

so history contadicts what you are saying.

But yeah, if history tells us anything its that you can't be number one forever and you can't be around forever. Also, the Roman Empire is a great parallel to the United States in a limited sense. While its legacy does live on, we certainly do not have a country called the Holy Roman Empire any more. For the United States to fall, it certainly will NOT be before hell freezes over and it certainly will NOT be before all "Americans" (used rather loosely, because being "American" is very arbitrary) are dead.

Quoting Seleuceia,

reply 564

Quoting Bask3tCase, reply 563

Anyway, out here in the real world, China's military technology sucks.

The quality of the Chinese military may be inferior to say, Israel or the US or Russia...but its good enough to hold the line, and still better than most nations...the issue isn't the current state of its military quality, but the future...there is a significant gap, but China is closing in on the US...

By the way, cheers for using a Sins analogy

It's amazing how much wisdom can be found in computer games.....

China is not "closing in" on the U.S.; China is just about up to their first manned moon flight--which the U.S. did in 1969. Big whoop, the Chinese are only forty years behind! They're catching up to where we were, but in that space of time we've pulled even further ahead--we're now at the point where force fields and cloaking devices actually seem possible, and military laser weapons are already in the field (though they're more of a defensive anti-artillery weapon than anything else).

Watch. Two centuries from now we'll build our first Illuminator frigate, and CNN will report that the U.S. has become a bunch of LRF spammers......

Getting back on topic:

Wrapping this fascinating conversation up, I think that America will only cease to be a superpower when the phrase "Superpower" becomes irrelevant, AKA, the day when all countries have the ability to "Project dominating influence anywhere on the globe", as the definition for Superpower stands.

All in favor?

Richter {^}

Quoting Richter_Abend,

reply 590

Getting back on topic:

Wrapping this fascinating conversation up, I think that America will only cease to be a superpower when the phrase "Superpower" becomes irrelevant, AKA, the day when all countries have the ability to "Project dominating influence anywhere on the globe", as the definition for Superpower stands.

All in favor?

Richter {^}

Well, given the rapid globalisation of the economy and increasing technology leading to weapons which have greater and greater range, we will all be superpowers soon

I'm thinking the new definition of "Superpower" will have to include the ability to project power to other stellar bodies at some point, and other starsystems, if or when FTL is discovered.

China will be the next superpower

., no pressure on the UN to try to stop Iran, nothing

Obama actually is imposing sanctions on Iran and getting the U.N. in on it too. Also sanctions have been in place against North Korea for quite a while now. We just can't jump into wars anymore after all the cowboy shootin that Bush did.

Project dominating influence anywhere on the globe", as the definition for Superpower stands.

If that's the definition then china is already a superpower too and america is only being ignorant in thinking its the only one.

This is all wonderful conversation, and a truly fascinating discussion. I have learned so much, trying to follow all the threads in this conversation. The greatest question I have is simply this: when are corporations going to really begin governing directly, openly, and not through the smoke and mirrors of 'governments." I await that day, because, only then, will the masses of people know who is really is in charge, and only then will they then be able to begin making the corporations accountable for their generally draconian decisions. "I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half," is still, sadly, closer to the truth, than not.

Sorry, had to do it.

The Forums Are Now Closed!

The content will remain as a historical reference, thank you.

Will America always be a superpower?