China’s Not a Superpower

[Ordie]

China’s Not a Superpower


Image: Poeloq
By: Minxin Pei
…and won’t be anytime soon, according to Minxin Pei, who says its political and economic situation is more precarious than it looks.
With the United States apparently in terminal decline as the world’s sole superpower, the fashionable question to ask is which country will be the new superpower? The near-unanimous answer, it seems, is China. Poised to overtake Japan as the world’s 2nd largest economy in 2010, the Middle Kingdom has all the requisite elements of power–an extensive industrial base, a strong state, a nuclear-armed military, a continental-sized territory, a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council and a large population base–to be considered as Uncle Sam’s most eligible and logical equal. Indeed, the perception that China has already become the world’s second superpower has grown so strong that some in the West have proposed a G2–the United States and China–as a new partnership to address the world’s most pressing problems.
To be sure, the perception of China as the next superpower is grounded, at least in part, in the country’s amazing rise over the last three decades. Powered by near-double digit economic growth since 1979, China has transformed itself from an isolated, impoverished and demoralized society into a confident, prospering global trading power. With a GDP of $4.4 trillion and total foreign trade of $2.6 trillion in 2008, China has firmly established itself as a premier world economic powerhouse.
Yet, despite such undeniable achievements, it may be too soon to regard China as the world’s next superpower. Without doubt, China has already become a great power, a status given to countries that not only effectively defend their sovereignty, but also wield significant influence worldwide on economic and security issues. But a great power is not necessarily a superpower. In world history, only one country–the United States–has truly acquired all the capabilities of a superpower: a technologically advanced economy, a hi-tech military, a fully integrated nation, insuperable military and economic advantages vis-à-vis potential competitors, capacity to provide global public goods and an appealing ideology. Even in its heydays, the former Soviet Union was, at best, a one-dimensional superpower–capable of competing against the United States militarily, but lacking all the other crucial instruments of national power.
Meanwhile, the challenges China faces in becoming the next superpower are truly daunting. Even as its economic output is expected to exceed $5 trillion in 2010, per capita income in China will remain under $4000, roughly one-tenth of the level of the United States and Japan. More than half of the Chinese population still live in villages, most without access to safe drinking water, basic healthcare, or decent education. With urbanization growing at about 1 percent a year, it will take another three decades for China to reduce the size of its peasantry to a quarter of the population. As long as China has an oversized peasantry, with hundreds of millions of low-income rural residents surviving on the margins of modernity, it is unlikely to become a real superpower.
To believe that China is the next superpower, it’s also necessary to assume that China’s super-charged economic growth will continue. Unfortunately, relying on any country’s past performance to predict its future prospects is a risky proposition. China’s stunning economic growth performance since 1979 notwithstanding, its ability to sustain the same level of growth is by no means assured. In fact, the likelihood that China’s growth will slow down significantly in the next two decades is real and even substantial. Several favourable structural factors, such as the demographic dividend (derived from a relatively younger population), virtually unlimited access to the global markets, high savings rates and discounted environmental costs, will gradually disappear. Like Japan, China is becoming an ageing society, due in no small part to the effectiveness of the government’s stringent one-child policy (which limits urban families to a single child). The share of the population 60 years and above will be 17 percent by 2020, and this ageing will increase healthcare and pension costs while reducing savings and investments. Although the exact magnitude of the reduction in the savings and the increase in healthcare and pension spending is uncertain, their combined negative effects on economic growth could be substantial
More: http://apac2020.the-diplomat.com/feature/china’s-not-a-superpower/

[Loke2]

In world history, only one country–the United States–has truly acquired all the capabilities of a superpower: a technologically advanced economy, a hi-tech military, a fully integrated nation, insuperable military and economic advantages vis-à-vis potential competitors, capacity to provide global public goods and an appealing ideology.

Why does a "true superpower" need to offer "gobal public goods and an appealing ideology"?

Some would argue that even the US does not meet all those criteria.

How many poor and homeless in the US right now?

My prediction: By 2025-2030 China will be a global superpower according to most definitions. Militarly, economically and politically. There will still be poor people in China by that time, just like there are in the US already.

[DID]

Let me guess, according to the threads titles you started recently in Political Disscusions and Rants part you fantasm on India becoming more powerfull than China?

[custodes]

How many people do they have in the military again?

[brainplay]

Why does a "true superpower" need to offer "gobal public goods and an appealing ideology"?

Some would argue that even the US does not meet all those criteria.

Global goods are aid and support which can be used as bartering chips, political leverage, or just a way to expand it's ideology. An appealing ideology gets you friends and support from nations that want to follow your lead.

I don't understand where they're getting that the US is declining as a world superpower. Yes, the economy is a major issue but that's really it. The US still fills all of the other roles mentioned. If our economy stabilizes then we're all good and dandy. China has been intentionally playing with it's reported monetary value for a while now and may not be able to sustain any of the above. It hasn't deployed it's vast military in any large numbers since the Sino-Vietnam war which didn't exactly go in their favor.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I would say that China is in ascendancy and its probably only going to be in the next 10 years before the assume the superpower mantle. I still imagine a few bumps in the road for them though. ade

[artjomh]

In world history, only one country–the United States–has truly acquired all the capabilities of a superpower: a technologically advanced economy, a hi-tech military, a fully integrated nation, insuperable military and economic advantages vis-à-vis potential competitors, capacity to provide global public goods and an appealing ideology. Even in its heydays, the former Soviet Union was, at best, a one-dimensional superpower–capable of competing against the United States militarily, but lacking all the other crucial instruments of national power.USSR wasn't a superpower? This is ridiculous.

1) Technologically advanced economy? Yes, only the first civilian nuclear reactor, the first man in space, 7 Nobel laureates in physics and chemistry, high levels of industrialisation, one of the highest levels of science and technology university graduates, etc.
2) Fully integrated nation? What does this even mean? And does this mean that the US wasn't a superpower before the Civil Rigths Act?
3) Military and economic advantages over other nations? Need I even comment?
4) An appealing ideology? Right. Only half the world was under the Communist sway. That is one unappealing ideology!

Oh, right, the article means "ideology appealing to the author". How could I miss that!

Sapienti sat.

[Dankster]

This seems like another dismissive "USA untouchable" piece. I don't want to sound like a fear monger but China is almost certainly going to be a superpower in the next 5-10 years. And besides, who is the one who decides what is a superpower and what are the requirements?

[Laworkerbee]

USSR wasn't a superpower? This is ridiculous.

1) Technologically advanced economy? Yes, only the first civilian nuclear reactor, the first man in space, 7 Nobel laureates in physics and chemistry, high levels of industrialisation, one of the highest levels of science and technology university graduates, etc.
2) Fully integrated nation? What does this even mean? And does this mean that the US wasn't a superpower before the Civil Rigths Act?
3) Military and economic advantages over other nations? Need I even comment?
4) An appealing ideology? Right. Only half the world was under the Communist sway. That is one unappealing ideology!

Oh, right, the article means "ideology appealing to the author". How could I miss that!

Sapienti sat.

Maybe you should reread the line you quoted
Even in its heydays, the former Soviet Union was, at best, a one-dimensional superpower–capable of competing against the United States militarily, but lacking all the other crucial instruments of national power. That comment is spot on.

[artjomh]

Maybe you should reread the line you quoted That comment is spot on.

I did. The author listed his opinion of what the key criteria of a "superpower" are. In the author's opinion, USSR only fit the military criterion, while coming up short elsewhere. I have pointed out that the author must surely be joking, because USSR, in my opinion, fit all of his proposed criteria (even though I find the very notion of these criteria ridiculous).

Anyway, that's besides the point. The topic is about China, not USSR. Pardon me for straying off-topic.

[Russianlynxy]

Maybe you should reread the line you quoted That comment is spot on.

How is china a multidimensional one then? I mean if you look at China all it is is a ridiculously large population and large labor output of products that don't touch China's own scientific of developmental base or capabilities. It's been this way for a while now.

[custodes]

Maybe we at MP.Net need to establish what a World Superpower is?

[ALT-F5]

I would mind china rather not be a superpower, theres too much responsibility and it fits the definition of an empire. China should just focus on self defense and the economy. Most empires like superpowers have the urge to expand and then collapse.

[Hyde]

Maybe you should reread the line you quoted That comment is spot on.

" but lacking all the other crucial instruments of national power. "

What instruments? The author is obviously very confused if the thinks that just because he, or his part of the world, did not experience the Soviet Union as a superpower, that it was none. Just like the world under US hemisphere did not experience the Soviet Union as a Superpower (it having no influence on them), the other half of the world under Soviet hemisphere did not experience the US as a Superpower as they, too, had no influence on them.

[Russianlynxy]

I would mind china rather not be a superpower, theres too much responsibility and it fits the definition of a modern empire. China should just focus on self defense and the economy. Most empires like superpowers have the urge to expand and then collapse.

true, indeed...

[custodes]

I would mind china rather not be a superpower, theres too much responsibility and it fits the definition of an empire. China should just focus on self defense and the economy. Most empires like superpowers have the urge to expand and then collapse.

I think there are a few States that would say China has expanded.

[Solvent]

Surging power, maybe. Super power, far far from it. In fact, I doubt if we can ever get there.

[ALT-F5]

I think there are a few States that would say China has expanded.

And how many countries didn't expand in the past?? :roll:

[custodes]

I would mind china rather not be a superpower, theres too much responsibility and it fits the definition of an empire. China should just focus on self defense and the economy. Most empires like superpowers have the urge to expand and then collapse.


Just expounding on your post.p-)

[ALT-F5]

Just expounding on your post.p-)

Only if you'd agree to support movements to the following... free australia, new zealand, canada, america, south america, from non-native control, and independence for quebec, palestine, kashmir, chechnya, sri lankan tamils, aceh, southern philippines, southern thailand, basques, okinawa, southern vietnam, ethiopian somalis, iraqi kurds, turkish kurds, scottish independence, welsh independence, belgian flems, independece for bosnian and kosovar serbs from their current countries, and give northern ireland back to ireland.

[DaveDash]

Only if you'd agree to support movements to the following... free australia, new zealand, canada, america, south america, from non-native control, and independence for quebec, palestine, kashmir, chechnya, sri lankan tamils, aceh, southern philippines, southern thailand, basques, okinawa, southern vietnam, ethiopian somalis, iraqi kurds, turkish kurds, scottish independence, welsh independence, belgian flems, independece for bosnian and kosovar serbs from their current countries, and give northern ireland back to ireland.


What the fvck? In NZ the "natives" (who wern't actually here first anyway) are completely free, have their own political party, and own quite a disproportionate part of the countries assets. We were one of the first countries to achieve universal sufferage for all our people, so you can strike us off your little list of oppressors.

[micheal1234dd]

I don't know if it's a superpower ,but it will have the strongest ecomoy in 30-40 years maximum...a lot of time ,but it passes fast...

[MedVader]

I'd have to say that China is probably not aiming to be a global superpower in the sense of the author (she probably means hyperpower.) If superpower means being able to economically, culturally, and militarily dominate SE Asia, secure land energy routes to Iran and Caspian basin, and push the US out of the Western Pacific all the way back to Hawaii, then yes China will be a superpower within 10 years.

[deagle]

if you say that the USA is a "superpower", and China is comparably identical, then there's your answer.

but at any rate, we're still better than them, lol

[TheMiddlePath]

China is surrounded by 14 countries...more countries then any other. 4 of these countries are armed with nuclear weapons.
Thus what matters most to China is maintaining its territorial integrity and China's armed forces are geared towards that.
China cannot be compared with US. China is more a continental superpower.
US does not need such as large land army like China.
Just for border patrols alone, China deploy 200,000 active soldiers.

[custodes]

China is surrounded by 14 countries...more countries then any other. 4 of these countries are armed with nuclear weapons.
Thus what matters most to China is maintaining its territorial integrity and China's armed forces are geared towards that.
China cannot be compared with US. China is more a continental superpower.
US does not need such as large land army like China.
Just for border patrols alone, China deploy 200,000 active soldiers.

Plus it gives them a job.

[acosta]

china is far behind the united states, in a massive scale. and chinese need focus on domestic problems like poverty, healthcare, education,etc..

i don't think china is going to deploy military around the world, and which will benefit even slightly the chinese people. china's mission is simple, defend the nation, secure resources to feed the people and make them live better, to be a world police would be a huge burden.

[TheMiddlePath]

More about the PLA.

http://www.youtube.com/v/BOGW0HC0v44&feature=player_embedded

[Laworkerbee]

I did. The author listed his opinion of what the key criteria of a "superpower" are. In the author's opinion, USSR only fit the military criterion, while coming up short elsewhere. I have pointed out that the author must surely be joking, because USSR, in my opinion, fit all of his proposed criteria (even though I find the very notion of these criteria ridiculous).

Anyway, that's besides the point. The topic is about China, not USSR. Pardon me for straying off-topic.

Simple, try and name one consumer good that you purchased from the Soviet Union? That's right, there weren't any because they didn't make **** and what they did make was literally **** except for my beloved Big Muff Distortion pedal which was made in the Soviet Union, anything with tube electronics they did right.


How is china a multidimensional one then? I mean if you look at China all it is is a ridiculously large population and large labor output of products that don't touch China's own scientific of developmental base or capabilities. It's been this way for a while now.

Why would you be quoting me and asking me this question since what I wrote had nothing to do with China? China on it's present course in my opinion will far surpass the Soviet Union at the pinnacle of it's power.


" but lacking all the other crucial instruments of national power. "

What instruments? The author is obviously very confused if the thinks that just because he, or his part of the world, did not experience the Soviet Union as a superpower, that it was none. Just like the world under US hemisphere did not experience the Soviet Union as a Superpower (it having no influence on them), the other half of the world under Soviet hemisphere did not experience the US as a Superpower as they, too, had no influence on them.


You're thinking in terms of raw military power, which alone does not make a world super power. US influence both cultural and commerical influenced all corners of the globe including the Soviet Union, every Ruskie knew what McDonald's was. The Soviets had none of this.

Also, The United States could project power in a way Russians could only dream of courtesy of the United States Navy.


Surging power, maybe. Super power, far far from it. In fact, I doubt if we can ever get there.

A strong China is better able to serve the needs of world peace, I just hope the Chinese learn from our mistakes and don't piss all their money away on weapons like the West and the Russians did.

[Hyde]

You're thinking in terms of raw military power, which alone does not make a world super power. US influence both cultural and commerical influenced all corners of the globe including the Soviet Union, every Ruskie knew what McDonald's was.

You're wrong, and I am not thinking in terms of military power. A commercial product being popular does not project power nor does it influence someones life nor does it have any influence on a state if it is not vital to its existance, which bad hamburgers and jeans are not.


The Soviets had none of this.So if every yankee knew what a fur hat, a lomo camera and free education and medical care were, the Soviet Union had cultural and commercial influence on the USA? :roll:

The USA did influence the life of people in the Soviet hemisphere as much as the USSR did influence the life of people in the US Hemisphere. "You" were and are not ruling over the whole world, just over those that like to follow you. Get over it. And that's the reason China will never be a superpower, because no one will follow China nor do anything that China wants. China is being used as a cheap labor force for production and, together with them finally earning a little bit of money, used as a market to sell them for several monthly salaries what they have previously assembled for a few dollars a day. The day it gets unprofitable for Western firms to produce there and the day they are able tosupply themselves, production will move to another convenient location.


Also, The United States could project power in a way Russians could only dream of courtesy of the United States Navy."Whuhu, there's a carrier 500 miles off our cost, the mighty US really is mighty..." :roll:

Shipping around the world, bombing a third world country at a time, does not really project power. What is that "power projection" you mean? Blackmail? Comply with us or we can bomb you even if you're on the other side of the world? So could the Soviet Union. They had nuclear and conventionally armed cruisers and subs, they could erase every country they wanted just as good as the US.

[micheal1234dd]

They had more nukes then the US and more ground forces.

[Laworkerbee]

"Whuhu, there's a carrier 500 miles off our cost, the mighty US really is mighty..." :roll:

Shipping around the world, bombing a third world country at a time, does not really project power. What is that "power projection" you mean? Blackmail? Comply with us or we can bomb you even if you're on the other side of the world? So could the Soviet Union. They had nuclear and conventionally armed cruisers and subs, they could erase every country they wanted just as good as the US.

No Mr Butthurt German man, I mean power projection as the USN can land on your shores be it Norway or some small island in the Pacific, the Soviet's never had the ability to do so.

Cruisers & subs, are you serious? subs are sea denial weapons and can not project power and a cruiser isn't projecting much power either now is it?

Feel free to continue on with your little Anti US tirade, which I realize is the only point of your posts.

You might want to change your diaper first though because you're starting to smell like ****.

[Laworkerbee]

They had more nukes then the US and more ground forces.

Christ, those mean nothing as they cancel each other out.

[Hyde]

No Mr Butthurt German man, I mean power projection as the USN can land on your shores be it Norway or some small island in the Pacific, the Soviet's never had the ability to do so.

Cruisers & subs, are you serious? subs are sea denial weapons and can not project power and a cruiser isn't projecting much power either now is it?

Feel free to continue on with your little Anti US tirade, which I realize is the only point of your posts.

You might want to change your diaper first though because you're starting to smell like ****.

How is me trying to explain to you that the USSR was as much of a Superpower as the US an anti US tirade? Just because it shatters your old ilusion that the US is the only superpower and has influence on the whole world with their mighty hamburgers and Navy? Stop whining, the US had no more influence on the people in the Soviet hemisphere than the Soviets had on the people in the US hemisphere and that's all I was saying. Have you ever been to the world outside of direct US influence? If yes then you would know.

Now continue with your insultations.....and I'm the one who's butthurt... :roll:

[Laworkerbee]

How is me trying to explain to you that the USSR was as much of a Superpower as the US an anti US tirade? Just because it shatters your old ilusion that the US is the only superpower and has influence on the whole world with their mighty hamburgers and Navy? Stop whining, the US had no more influence on the people in the Soviet hemisphere than the Soviets had on the people in the US hemisphere and that's all I was saying. Have you ever been to the world outside of direct US influence? If yes then you would know.

Now continue with your insultations.....and I'm the one who's butthurt... :roll:

Oh I don't know, perhaps it was this quote "Whuhu, there's a carrier 500 miles off our cost, the mighty US really is mighty." As if keeping the sealanes free for commerce all over the world means nothing. I'm sure there are others in the world besides big strong German's who actually think twice when they see a US carrier or a Marine MEU off thier coast. Once again, that's raw power that no other nation on this planet has; the ability to land thousands of troops on a hostile shore and the ability to sustain those forces. The Soviet's never came close to such a capability except in the Baltic and even then they had no ability to sustain their naval infantry once they had been landed on hostile shores.

About cultural and economic influence,I'm still telling you you're wrong. The Soviet's craved our commerical goods and our entertainment, they defected to us in droves and had to be watched when visiting Western countries, so how can you say that they were not influenced by our power and culture? HOW? I visited the Soviet Union and have visited Russia since then, don't assume because I'm just a dumb American that I'm not well traveled.

[Mablod]

China is being used as a cheap labor force for production and, together with them finally earning a little bit of money, used as a market to sell them for several monthly salaries what they have previously assembled for a few dollars a day. The day it gets unprofitable for Western firms to produce there and the day they are able tosupply themselves, production will move to another convenient location.


I don't think you have too look far into the future before production in China will get to expensive. I think a great deal of the production in China will shift to India or other East Asian countries in the future.

[Synthe]

I don't think you have too look far into the future before production in China will get to expensive. I think a great deal of the production in China will shift to India or other East Asian countries in the future.


Yeah so??? the US barely produces and exports as much as in the past and its still a superpower.

[Hyde]

Oh I don't know, perhaps it was this quote "Whuhu, there's a carrier 500 miles off our cost, the mighty US really is mighty."

Okay, so you didn't get that I was mocking your high believes in "power projection" and your US NaVy StRonG!!! attitude.



As if keeping the sealanes free for commerce all over the world means nothing.In what kind of dream world are you living? Look outside the window, a bunch of pirates are disrupting the commercial sealanes for more than 3 years now with the US, EU and NATO navies having a hard time stopping them. Yes I know they are not in a full fledged war with them but it is a good display that the "sealanes for commerce" are anything but being held free, no matter how strong the US Navy is. Apart from that, who is the US Navy keeping the "sealanes free for commerce" from? It's not like there is or was anybody out there who would be threathening them, the whole world is using the sealanes for commerce, not just the US. What the US Navy does is not this devotional service of "keeping the sealanes free for commerce all over the world" but just ensuring that nobody interfers with the America's sea-based commerce, which forms or formed the backbone of the US economy, and that is their good right. But don't try to make it something else. I don't live in a fairytale world where we believe in such crap.


I'm sure there are others in the world besides big strong German's who actually think twice when they see a US carrier or a Marine MEU off thier coast.That is not power projection, that is clear cut military intimidation. Nowhere have I questioned the military potential of the US, but the Soviets simply didn't need to land thousands of troops on a coast because they weren't cut off from the world and everything was in their reach. Also, they had Airborne landing forces that could be landed anywhere.


About cultural and economic influence,I'm still telling you you're wrong. The Soviet's craved our commerical goods and our entertainmenthttp://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l57/Chaos92/HA_HA_HA_OH_WOW.jpg

Who taught you this stuff?


they defected to us in droves and had to be watched when visiting Western countries, so how can you say that they were not influenced by our power and culture? HOW? They didn't flee the Soviet Union because they wanted a hamburger, jeans or RocknRoll, they fled because they wanted to live a better life, which a communist regime did not offer. Especially not to educated people who had potential to make a lot more money on the free job market and live life a few classes higher than they could in a socialist/communist society. If their home country offered them the same oppurtunities and level of life they would have stayed.

Also, following your logic, it would be right of me to say the US and western Europe was influenced by Soviet power and culture because of Unions, "free" health care and other social securities? Let's not forget Vodka and Ballet, Americans craved for them.... :roll:



I visited the Soviet Union and have visited Russia since then, don't assume because I'm just a dumb American that I'm not well traveled.Where did I call you a dumb American? What is wrong with you? Seriously. insultations, then you say I'm on a anti US tirade if I tell you that the SU was a superpower, then you insinuate that I'm calling you a dumb american...??!

Visiting a country as a tourist has little to do with actually experiencing that country, that can only be done if you "live" there, means you do your shopping there like a normal person, you hang out like a normal person with regular people who live there etc etc... and the longer the time, the more accurate your view of said country is. A touristy visit and sightseeing is nice for having been there, but does not qualify you for knowing how life out there is. When you go to moscow and see a McDonald's you think "wow, they are really influenced by our culture", while other persons that know how life outside of the US curtain of influence looks like just sees a company that is trying to sell its products, people who live there are not influenced by the McDonalds, they aren't going inside the McDonalds like into a church for soaking in american culture and the McDonalds doesn't exactly emit mind-control radiowaves or something like that. It's just a company and a product. Just as Jeans were in fashion and popular, last few winters fur hats were in fashion, that doesn't mean the people here are influenced by the Soviet Union. It's just fashion, it comes, it goes.

[Elbs]

Yes I know they are not in a full fledged war with them but it is a good display that the "sealanes for commerce" are anything but being held free, no matter how strong the US Navy is.

Piracy attacks are poor example of sea denial. A good example would be when the Iranians attempted to close off the Strait of Hormuz in the 1980s. They learned mighty quick....


That is not power projection, that is clear cut military intimidation. Nowhere have I questioned the military potential of the US, but the Soviets simply didn't need to land thousands of troops on a coast because they weren't cut off from the world and everything was in their reach.
Also, they had Airborne landing forces that could be landed anywhere.
Yeah, is that so? Would they have been able to place 20,000 troops on a hostile shore in a far away against a country with decent armed forces like say, Brazil, or South Africa in 1991? Support them with nine squadrons of fighter bombers, four of attack helicopters and ten of heavy transport helicopters? In a place with no forward bases? That's ONE Marine Expeditionary Force. In case of a war, probably supported by a CVBG.

There is a big difference between waving a big stick around (nuclear arsenal) and having the ability to actually go halfway across the world and put and support boots on the ground for an extended period of time. Even at its height the Soviets lacked this capability.

[Laworkerbee]

Okay, so you didn't get that I was mocking your high believes in "power projection" and your US NaVy StRonG!!! attitude.

What I've been trying to get across is that I believe any country that lacks the Air & Sea Lift necessary to intervene virtually anywhere in the world at it's own choosing should not be considered a super power. This isn't about "Navy Strong" the USN is but one component.


Where did I call you a dumb American? What is wrong with you? Seriously. insultations, then you say I'm on a anti US tirade if I tell you that the SU was a superpower, then you insinuate that I'm calling you a dumb american...??!

I haven't had a cigarette in two days and I need someone to argue with, you're it.

[Loke2]

My favorite list when it comes to China:

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2009/08/top-20-list.html

Seems to me that China certainly has the potential to "become" a superpower, they will have the resources and the know-how to build "everything" including aircraft carriers in the future.

The question is though; will they do it?

[wilhelm]

In world history, only one country–the United States–has truly acquired all the capabilities of a superpower:I stopped reading this after the above sentence.

Britains Empire at it's height made them pretty untouchable. And therefore a superpower at the time in context to the other players.
The same applies to Rome at it's height.

Both had the ability to project overwhelming power over the length and breadth of their known world at the time, and in fact did so. Both had leading economies, with mature legal systems. Both were quite a bit more powerful than the next contendor. Therefor, they were the superpower at the time.


Context, context, context.

[Hyde]

Piracy attacks are poor example of sea denial. A good example would be when the Iranians attempted to close off the Strait of Hormuz in the 1980s. They learned mighty quick....

Yeah, is that so? Would they have been able to place 20,000 troops on a hostile shore in a far away against a country with decent armed forces like say, Brazil, or South Africa in 1991? Support them with nine squadrons of fighter bombers, four of attack helicopters and ten of heavy transport helicopters? In a place with no forward bases? That's ONE Marine Expeditionary Force. In case of a war, probably supported by a CVBG.

There is a big difference between waving a big stick around (nuclear arsenal) and having the ability to actually go halfway across the world and put and support boots on the ground for an extended period of time. Even at its height the Soviets lacked this capability.

Did the soviets had any business getting involved in Brazil or somewhere else halfway around the world? No, because their existance and well-being did not rely on it. The US on the other hand have the need to be able to do this.


What I've been trying to get across is that I believe any country that lacks the Air & Sea Lift necessary to intervene virtually anywhere in the world at it's own choosing should not be considered a super power. This isn't about "Navy Strong" the USN is but one component.

"Intervene"? It's nobody's job to intervene anywhere halfway around the world if one is not affected. America, being cut off from the rest of the world, can easily be affected by someone blocking one of its suppliers/trade partners, thus the need to "intervene" everywhere in the world. You see the ability that stems from this handicap as an advantage, while others may see it as a disadvantage or liability. The SU simply did not have that disadvantage, if it did have, the USN would have used it by "interveneing" in the countries that the SU relies on.


I haven't had a cigarette in two days and I need someone to argue with, you're it.

So we are argueing now?

[Ordie]

What makes the United States set apart from previous powers is the fact it holds very little overseas territorial possessions.
In fact if it wasn't for the US being the major victor in WW2, many nations today would not be independent.

After WW2 France, and Britian wanted to re-claim its overseas colonies and mandates. The Soviet Union wanted and got some territorial spoils as in the case with East Prussia, parts of Poland, Japan, parts of Finland, Romania etc...

China was modest since the KMT wanted to retrocede territory lost during the first Sino-Japanese war including Taiwan.

THe United States went the opposite. It immediatedly granted independence to the Philippines, it gave back many of the Pacific Islands to Japan including Iwo Jima and Okinawa. It left China relatively alone, it never fully back the French and British re-assert its empires (as in the case with the Suez Crisis).

What the US did, was to invest in global forums and organizations on the premise of stabilizing and mitigating war causing issues (economics, resources, and social). For example the IMF was set to service loans for countries. The World Bank was set up to provide funding for development projects. The WTO was set up to resolve issues of trade, ICAO was set up for regulating air travel, etc............

A world without the United States would be a world of perpetual conflict in a scale of the 19th century.

[Blaec]

In world history, only one country–the United States–has truly acquired all the capabilities of a superpower: a technologically advanced economy, a hi-tech military, a fully integrated nation, insuperable military and economic advantages vis-à-vis potential competitors, capacity to provide global public goods and an appealing ideology.

This is a stupid statement. Rome, Mongols, Britain, Soviets. As well as more I probably forgot/don't know about meet these criteria.

Anyway when did a superpower have to meet criteria, a superpower just has to be perceived as powerful by enough people IMO.


…and won’t be anytime soon, according to Minxin Pei, who says its political and economic situation is more precarious than it looks.

China is one of the most stable governments in the world.

They have also shown themselves to be pretty decent at economics for former communists.

[Ought Six]

I have heard this all before. People applied the exact same sort of "they will be a superpower for sure in x years!" thinking to Japan in the 1970s. By the end of that decade, the widely accepted conventional wisdom was that Japan would be the new superpower and American would be a second-rate nation by the turn of the century. People were also saying this same thing about the Europeans in the 1960s. I expect that once China goes down the tubes, India and perhaps Brazil will be deemed the new replacement superpowers for America. It could well happen, but it is neither obvious nor inevitable. Things are a hell of a lot more complex and unpredictable than that.

[Eventine]

As long as the term "superpower" is defined by military strength, I don't think there's too much to worry about from China. The truth is, Chinese people aren't very militaristic. The internet nationalists might make a big deal about China rising, but the conventional wisdom in China is still that "good men" don't become soldiers (or politicians). As long as that's the case, you won't see a world-dominating China.

The British, the Mongols, the Americans, the Romans, these people all had martial cultures at the time of their expansion. It used to be the case that no gentleman in Europe would go anywhere without a sword, and duels were the norm for solving serious disputes. Mao's China was pretty scary, because he did inculcate a powerful martial culture that made young men march willingly to their deaths for the glory of the "Great Helmsman," but modern China... Nope.

[Russianlynxy]

As long as the term "superpower" is defined by military strength, I don't think there's too much to worry about from China. The truth is, Chinese people aren't very militaristic. The internet nationalists might make a big deal about China rising, but the conventional wisdom in China is still that "good men" don't become soldiers (or politicians). As long as that's the case, you won't see a world-dominating China.

The British, the Mongols, the Americans, the Romans, these people all had martial cultures at the time of their expansion. It used to be the case that no gentleman in Europe would go anywhere without a sword, and duels were the norm for solving serious disputes. Mao's China was pretty scary, because he did inculcate a powerful martial culture that made young men march willingly to their deaths for the glory of the "Great Helmsman," but modern China... Nope.

From a psychoanalytical point of view perhaps.. But wait till China's industrial prowess, and large military drains the last of China's resources. They will have to somehow feed their 1.5 billion people population?

[artjomh]

From a psychoanalytical point of view perhaps.. But wait till China's industrial prowess, and large military drains the last of China's resources. They will have to somehow feed their 1.5 billion people population?

That sounds very.... Marxist-Leninist.

Corporate monopolies overproduce, saturate home market, turn to export markets, need to control export markets to attain market share, induce military expansionism and colonialism from home government to attain export market control (the gist of Lenin's "Imperialism is the Highest Form of Capitalism").

I am not sure I believe in that socio-economic dynamic.

[CaptMorgan68]

This is a stupid statement. Rome, Mongols, Britain, Soviets. As well as more I probably forgot/don't know about meet these criteria.

Anyway when did a superpower have to meet criteria, a superpower just has to be perceived as powerful by enough people IMO.



China is one of the most stable governments in the world.

They have also shown themselves to be pretty decent at economics for former communists.

here we go again with Chinese economic miracle.. in case you missed the memo on this the only reason China had so much success in the last three decades was because the US opened up its markets to Chinese manufactured goods... Chinese did not invent any of the products produced in China.. they either copy them or produce stuff based on the technology and know how transfer they received from the West.... the only thing they always had going for them economically was the abundant cheap labour resulting from migrations from rural areas to the cities.... and don't forget all hte foreign direct investment that was poured into China from the West... this was done to keep the good ol' USSR at bay during the Cold War as part of the containment policy first and foremost... and that is the only reason why China's got so much money right now... but with the middle class growing it is yet to be seen how stable the Chinese govt is going to be going forward with that chronic one party system of theirs... Problem is not so much the one party system but the fact that while the govt is still professing Marxist ideals and spends millions in Marxist theoretical research the rest of the country is engaged in booming capitalism... sooner or later something is going to have to give....

[Goggen]

From a psychoanalytical point of view perhaps.. But wait till China's industrial prowess, and large military drains the last of China's resources. They will have to somehow feed their 1.5 billion people population?

This is exactly why I'm sceptic to any "superpower predictions", or any related to material wealth for that matter. The impending fossile fuel shortage will overshadow any other issue in the near future to the detriment of all industrialized and developing nations. We have to deal with this first, after that people can play Nostradamus however much they want.

[Russianlynxy]

That sounds very.... Marxist-Leninist.

Corporate monopolies overproduce, saturate home market, turn to export markets, need to control export markets to attain market share, induce military expansionism and colonialism from home government to attain export market control (the gist of Lenin's "Imperialism is the Highest Form of Capitalism").

I am not sure I believe in that socio-economic dynamic.

I'm just saying that although China may never become a "superpower" and have enough leverage in international affairs (besides regional Asian ones), it will still be a military concern for its surrounding countries. Actually, It already kind of is.

Money certainly opens up a lot of possibilities for China, but money can only take you so far.

[CaptMorgan68]

ppl China still has to swallow that little chunk of Free China they call Taiwan just off the mainland coast before it can claim any sort of superpower status... until then it's a regional power at best ...

[CaptMorgan68]

I'm just saying that although China may never become a "superpower" and have enough leverage in international affairs (besides regional Asian ones), it will still be a military concern for its surrounding countries. Actually, It already kind of is.

Money certainly opens up a lot of possibilities for China, but money can only take you so far.

precisely... money can take you only so far... all the money that's been poured into Chinese aviation R&D and the best they could come up with so far is a crappy copy of the Russian Saturn engine that's already almost obsolete.... the successes they had so far were largely due to the sorry state the Russian mil industry was in during the 90's.. the Russians were willing to share their tech with China in order to keep some of their own R&D programs alive... nowadays that source pretty much dried up since long-term Russia perceives China as a potential adversary and is doing everything it can to prop up India militarily...

[artjomh]

I'm just saying that although China may never become a "superpower" and have enough leverage in international affairs (besides regional Asian ones), it will still be a military concern for its surrounding countries. Actually, It already kind of is.

Money certainly opens up a lot of possibilities for China, but money can only take you so far.

Chinese seem to have no problem buying arable land and food resources in Africa, Latin America.. hell, even in Russia.

The whole "Chinese Zerg Rush Siberia" theory seems so far-fetched, it's not even funny.

Sure, PLA and PLAN might be establishing foreign military outposts to maintain security of logistics, but that's hardly a precondition for a military clash with anyone. Especially considering that the Indian Ocean/South China Sea are the kind of places where ANYONE would want forward operating bases to maintain security of navigation.

[Blaec]

here we go again with Chinese economic miracle.. in case you missed the memo on this the only reason China had so much success in the last three decades was because the US opened up its markets to Chinese manufactured goods... Chinese did not invent any of the products produced in China.. they either copy them or produce stuff based on the technology and know how transfer they received from the West.... the only thing they always had going for them economically was the abundant cheap labour resulting from migrations from rural areas to the cities.... and don't forget all hte foreign direct investment that was poured into China from the West... this was done to keep the good ol' USSR at bay during the Cold War as part of the containment policy first and foremost... and that is the only reason why China's got so much money right now... but with the middle class growing it is yet to be seen how stable the Chinese govt is going to be going forward with that chronic one party system of theirs... Problem is not so much the one party system but the fact that while the govt is still professing Marxist ideals and spends millions in Marxist theoretical research the rest of the country is engaged in booming capitalism... sooner or later something is going to have to give....

Yeh im not saying they are economic miracles/geniuses.
But China has proved itself just as competent as Western powers at managing inflation and growth and other economic stuff.

The only problem with a one party state is staying dynamic and ahead of changing situations rather than becoming static and getting caught out by a big change (read various strong-man govts across the world).
China achieved that through changing to capitalism at the right time, and at the moment it seems they are playing it right with regard to climate change and other modern issues.

[Loke2]

I am actually worried about the democraphic aspects of China. The one-child policy in combination with a culture that considers boys to be more "valuable" to the family, means that there is a surplus of boys in China.

I think this will lead to a more male-dominated society -- and also enourmous pressure to obtain women. Let's face it, girls are important in most mens life.

So the question is: Where will all those Chinese men find girls and how will they go about doing it? Could we see an invasion of say, Thailand or Vietnam, both countries with millions of young, good-looking, sexy girls, driven in part by the desperate need to get women? Of course other reasons for such an invasion would be presented, however --- the need for girls could be a strong "hidden" driving force for such a seemingly irrational act. Through in some natural resources, and the land grab looks inevitable to me.

The Chinese probably learnt a lesson after their last invasion of Vietnam however, and I am sure they would strengthen their military to a considerable degree before trying something like that. However this will lead to a Chinese "military-industrial complex" just like in the US; you enter a vicious circle, and before you know it, China becomes a superpower also from a military point of view.

[Confuse]

I am actually worried about the democraphic aspects of China. The one-child policy in combination with a culture that considers boys to be more "valuable" to the family, means that there is a surplus of boys in China.

I think this will lead to a more male-dominated society -- and also enourmous pressure to obtain women. Let's face it, girls are important in most mens life.

So the question is: Where will all those Chinese men find girls and how will they go about doing it? Could we see an invasion of say, Thailand or Vietnam, both countries with millions of young, good-looking, sexy girls, driven in part by the desperate need to get women? Of course other reasons for such an invasion would be presented, however --- the need for girls could be a strong "hidden" driving force for such a seemingly irrational act. Through in some natural resources, and the land grab looks inevitable to me.

The Chinese probably learnt a lesson after their last invasion of Vietnam however, and I am sure they would strengthen their military to a considerable degree before trying something like that. However this will lead to a Chinese "military-industrial complex" just like in the US; you enter a vicious circle, and before you know it, China becomes a superpower also from a military point of view.



currently with the wife shortage there is negative trade of women for marriage internally in china with financial resources as the "key" , most are from rural to urban with the urban having much more money to offer.. the other factor is mail order type brides neighouring countries, most recently being vietnam, laos, other south east asians in the south of china and russians and north koreans in the north of china.. for the most part the lack of wifes in china is not a major thing yet, it remains to be seen in 15 to 20 years it could get more severe as the problem grows larger

[CS1.6]

china is far behind the united states, in a massive scale. and chinese need focus on domestic problems like poverty, healthcare, education,etc..

i don't think china is going to deploy military around the world, and which will benefit even slightly the chinese people. china's mission is simple, defend the nation, secure resources to feed the people and make them live better, to be a world police would be a huge burden.

i have to say most of we chinese hold this opinion,

we really really dont care of this “superpower” thing, we just want to focus on the domestic problems, mostly the education, the R&D, and the largescale of corruption;

it is funny that in the 60s 70s, chinese are talking about the internatioal politics and the revolution the ideology everyday, now no one really cares about it, but seems to me the westners are more aware of the ideology things than chinese now;