Which country will be 'top dog' this century?

[wonkishere]

Originally Posted by thaddeus6th

Shale!

Which means us and America

On resources: don't China have an absolute stack of coal, or stuff which will become useable as coal in the next few decades?

And couldn't they just use nuclear as well?

People tend to as that oil and gas = global warming, but coal is actually a worse contaminant than oil is. It kicks out more CO2.

So if your argument is that they will stop using oil because of this and turn to coal, that doesn't make any sense.

[wonkishere]

Originally Posted by Fishbowl Helmet

China is my guess. They may not have the scientists to invent all the cool toys, but they have the cash, spies, and hackers to get their hands on anything they want. Their share of US debt is enormous. If the States aren't careful, the Chinese could literally own the country in a few years. Bad policies, stupid politicians, and a stupider electorate won't help the US stay on top. By comparison the Chinese government is genius. Not endorsing, just saying.

Their government may suck, but they've had how long to winnow down the loud mouths? With so many people then can disappear entire towns and no one will notice. Their brand of Leninism may not have worked on the small scale, but they're the largest "communist" country on Earth. There's no telling how long they can last on that scale.

.

While they have an extremely authoritarian government, something gets lost very often, in part because of the way we describe China an an evil empire out here.

The truth is, they have been liberalizing somewhat for a long time. They are still a ruthlessly authoritarian power with extreme powers of censorship, but actually when I talk to Chinese people, the thing they mention is the things they see happening lately, which they feel would never been allowed even ten years ago. They allow more dissent then they used to, and the control the government once had over media is not what it once was. Occasionally news slips out despite their best efforts.

For instance, Liu Xiabo is a political prisoner in China who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010. When a rep from Amnesty International managed to talk to him, despite his house arrest for speaking out against some things he disliked, they asked him how he thought things were going. And he himself pointed out, while still speaking out against political issues of the time, that he was thankful there was a new liberal spirit in China because in another time, he might be dead, and he certainly wouldn't be speaking to any reporters, ever. He'd know. He was then asked if he felt things were getting better or worse,and he said better.

The new generation of young Chinese are far more likely to accept dissent then the older generation, and as that generation grows older, it becomes more difficult for the ruling party to take the sort of brutal actions it used to all the time. That isn't just Liu Xiabo's opinion, it's the opinion of a lot of people.

One of the leaders of China's banks, one of the wealthiest people in China, recently went to a huge public gathering and was quoted by numerous newspapers as saying that China needed to be more open, and talked about speech being more free in very specific terms, for several minutes. A generation ago, that would never have happened, and we're talking about one of the most powerful men in China.

So I don't think we should worry about a worsening state in China. It's not the direction they are going in, and it doesn't fit in with the hard drive they are making to try to develop a larger, more energetic educated class, so they can modernize their society.

You shouldn't take things said in the US media too seriously. A lot of the comments about Chinese debt have zero basis in reality. The reality is that China holds about 8% of our debt. More of the debt is owned in the form of bonds by our own government, and by American citizens. It's a fairly large sum compared to everyone else, but not enough for them to leverage anything.

I agree with you that the US is in serious trouble and there is a very real chance that our government will tear itself apart soon, but that's something we will do to ourselves. The Chinese are occupied with their own problems, and frankly do not have the economic leverage you think they do. People on the right in particular like to cast them as some sort of huge existential threat, but it's simply not the case.

They bought our debt because it looked like a good investment. They are probably regretting the investment now though.

Here's a humorous aside, for anyone interested. At one time Amnesty International has gone to almost every country in the world and interviewed political prisoners including China.

Recently someone asked one of the people there which government was most uncooperative and unwilling to work with UN sanctions, he immediately said, "The United States."

Since we began using Guantanomo Bay for holding prisoners, we've broken a lot more international conventions then the Chinese, and unlike the Chinese, we won't allow any reporters in from anywhere, including our own nation, onto the grounds. China however, will allow reporters to come in occasionally.

As their country begins to awaken, ours begins to feel sleepy.

[Fishbowl Helmet]

"As their country begins to awaken, ours begins to feel sleepy."

And that's the first line of your next piece. At least 4000 words. Go.

No really, go. I want to read that one.

[Venusian Broon]

Originally Posted by Fishbowl Helmet

China is my guess. They may not have the scientists to invent all the cool toys, but they have the cash, spies, and hackers to get their hands on anything they want. Their share of US debt is enormous. If the States aren't careful, the Chinese could literally own the country in a few years. Bad policies, stupid politicians, and a stupider electorate won't help the US stay on top. By comparison the Chinese government is genius. Not endorsing, just saying.

Despite me downplaying China a little, I'd agree you'd have to put them as first in the line behind the current US for the hot seat for no 1 at the end of the 21st Century. I think it's finely balanced with the positives and negatives

But!

This talk about US debt is the wrong way around. As banks all over the world have found to their cost - if the debtor can't pay or won't pay - then you lose even bigger time. The chinese are in a much more precarious position than the states! And I think the US will still have the muscle: political, economical and military to dictate to China what it can do for a lot longer than you think.

But even then, China has the manpower. They could field more troops than all nations that went to Iraq and Afghanistan combined, and still have more troops left at home than the US and several top countries combined. Over 1,000,000 troops is nothing to sneeze at. And that's not taking into account the 1 billion Chinese citizens.

To be frank with modern warfare and if it's going to be something big like a an enormous world war 3 - manpower is such a 19th-20th century concept, and irrelevent. You have to be on top of the tech race with weaponary and systems to be on top.

On the other hand if you are wanting to subdue a country for 'peacekeeping' purposes or to 'free' the people then of course having a lot of men on the ground really does help. (although we see time and time again, in the long term it really doesn't work.)

There's no telling how long they can last on that scale.

I completely agree, the Chinese are the Chinese. When Mao took the communist revolution to the people he knew that a Soviet inspired industrial communisum would never work so invented an agrigarian communism that fitted the Chinese people much better. (Btw not saying it actually worked well, it just suited the aspirations and thoughts of the Chinese people better. Mao's plans caused millions of needless deaths.)

Then when the communist party in the late 1980s saw the chaos and mess that the Soviet style centralised command econmony was making, and no doubt recognised in their own, they instead went towards free market reforms.

Actually I think one of the main strengths of their government is that they are in fact technocrats, and as others have pointed out, with long-term plans and visions. If they have any ideology then it's to help their base beliefs which are that the ethnic Chinese are united and expect to be ruled by a strong (emperor-like!) authority

All they have to do is wait for their tokamak to start paying off--which was build at something like 1/20 the cost of European tokamaks (go lack of labor rights)--and they're that much closer to energy independence.

mmmm, is this the technology that 50 years ago was said to be 50 years to develop to fruition. That currently they are saying will take 50 years to develop to fruition.

My background is physics, and I'd love fusion to really work, but I'm sure in 50 years time someone will be saying "We've done this, now with another 50 years development fusion technology will come to fruition"

Ask a British national to predict the fall of the Empire while it was still at its height. You'll have the same luck with most US citizen now. But, I am one, so there's a spot of irony for you.

I, as a British national, think the US will last longer than the doomsayers are currently saying as top dog. And I'd put them as most probable as still top dog by the end of 2100. But who knows what events and breakthroughs, wars and miracles will happen in the next 90 years?

[River Boy]

I think China won't sustain its no.1 spot for very long and will slip up sooner rather than later. They've only been successful economically through bleeding off the Western worlds debt bubble, rather than through any economic wisdom or political strength of their own.

Unsure about India, because of the amount of poor there and development needed, though I've give them more of a chance than China. Think Brazil will definitely do well though.

Another factor - only if you go into ice cap melting theories - could be that the transforming of the northern seas will bring real change to Canada and Russia, if they don't blow each other up in pursuit of oil. Their economies could really grow.

Even if there is a new No.1 though I can't see anyone succeeding in dwarfing the US in the same way the US now dwarfs the UK.

[wonkishere]

Originally Posted by Fishbowl Helmet

"As their country begins to awaken, ours begins to feel sleepy."

And that's the first line of your next piece. At least 4000 words. Go.

No really, go. I want to read that one.

Thanks, maybe I'll take you up on that. For right now I'll pass. Politics can get kind of depressing, and that writing job sounds like it could be particularly depressing.

[JimBraiden]

[QUOTE=wonkishere;1611671]

Since we began using Guantanomo Bay for holding prisoners, we've broken a lot more international conventions then the Chinese, and unlike the Chinese, we won't allow any reporters in from anywhere, including our own nation, onto the grounds.

Not true I am afraid- reporters from most of the major broadcast and print media outlets have visited the holding facilities at Gitmo.

[Ursa major]

It seems pointless to forecast who will be the new (sole?) superpower. However, I would like to mention a couple of things.

First Power. In amongst all its problems, Europe (including the UK) does have one thing in its favour: immediately to the south, there's a vast area with a relatively small population, that's ideal for generating solar electricity, i.e. the Sahara. Yes, one needs ways of producing power during the night, or storing power during the day, and yes, there'll always be an issue with energy security (so other power sources will be needed), but no other area, apart from Australia and the countries to its immediate north, are as well-blessed with such a nearby resource. (China does have the Gobi, I suppose, but that's much farther north, and China has far more people than Europe.)

Regarding China's stability. One consequence of China's one child policy is that there is, I believe, an imbalance in the population: there are a lot more men than women. I recall reading an article in The Economist some years ago that said that previous imbalances of this nature had led to revolts in China: to put it simplistically, when you have millions of unmarried young men with little or no prospect of finding a partner, you have a big problem on your hands if anything else happens to go wrong (like the economy stalling).

[wonkishere]

[QUOTE=JimBraiden;1612332]

Originally Posted by wonkishere

Since we began using Guantanomo Bay for holding prisoners, we've broken a lot more international conventions then the Chinese, and unlike the Chinese, we won't allow any reporters in from anywhere, including our own nation, onto the grounds.

Not true I am afraid- reporters from most of the major broadcast and print media outlets have visited the holding facilities at Gitmo.

They've talked to prisoners held their, and lot of officials nearby, but never in their own cells, and even those meetings have been limited access. Repeatedly over the years different groups have asked to be allowed inside the actual facility where they stay during the day, and it has not been allowed. They have asked many times. Being allowed to see the prisoners is nice, but it's difficult to make judgements about what is going on when nobody sees the real process of the prison.

[JimBraiden]

As I said journalists have been allowed to visit the holding facilities. As for not being allowed to interview the prisoners this might be because the Marine Corp General in charge of the camp is clearly familiar with the Geneva Convention.
Photographing, filming or indeed interviewing prisoners of war can be construed as a violation of their rights under the Geneva Convention and allowing any such filming or interviewing might well earn the OC a Court Martial.

As for your friend from Amnesty Internationals attempt to paint the US record on human rights as being on a par with China's I am afraid that is arrant nonsense. If he needs proof I suggest he calls as witnesses the tens of thousands of Tibetans who have been murdered, raped, beaten and imprisoned by the Chinese forces who invaded and occupied their country. Or the hundreds of Uigars who have suffered a similar fate fate in recent years. Or indeed the 3700 Chinese citizens murdered in Tianamen Square.
The US is not by any means perfect but compared with the Peoples Republic of China it is a virtual utopia.

With regards Amnesty it is very sad to see an organisation that was formed to draw attention to and obtain freedom for political prisoners around the world degenerate in a group that is happy to share a platform with those who support Jihadi terrorists and endorse Wahhabi Islamicism

[wonkishere]

Originally Posted by JimBraiden

As I said journalists have been allowed to visit the holding facilities. As for not being allowed to interview the prisoners this might be because the Marine Corp General in charge of the camp is clearly familiar with the Geneva Convention.
Photographing, filming or indeed interviewing prisoners of war can be construed as a violation of their rights under the Geneva Convention and allowing any such filming or interviewing might well earn the OC a Court Martial.

Sigh.

Well I'm going to go ahead and address a factual issues and move on. I'm sure none of this will matter to you, but for the benefit of anyone else who reads...

As a matter of fact, one of the things done specifically because of, and called for by the geneva conventions, was that the conditions at a prison would be reviewed by an outside official. That's why everybody else has consented to do it under certain limited circumstances. There is no implication of there taking pictures of or doing anything else to violate that agreement. And in point of fact, it isn't 'my friend' from Amnesty International saying that the US is less compliant than every other state they've approached. It's all of Amnesty International.

Is China worse? Yes, it is. It's unfortunate that this is the standard these days. Matters of law aren't really relative, you either broke them or you didn't.

Sorry to turn this into some sort of left versus right argument, didn't want to get drawn into this, and from now on, I won't be.

[JimBraiden]

Sigh.

The Geneva Convention is quite specific- photographing, filming or interviewing individual prisoners can be construed as using them for proaganda purposes and is forbidden under the Geneva Convention.
You are correct - the Geneva Convention does call for conditions to be reviewed by an outside and neutral party- normally the Red Cross.
And the Red Cross has been visiting Guantanamo since 2002.
"Geneva (ICRC) - The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has been regularly visiting the US detention facility at Guantanamo Bay since early 2002 for the purpose of monitoring that persons held there are treated in accordance with applicable international laws and standards."
That's from a Red Cross press release.

[Nerds_feather]

the US only really became "top dog" because the European powers engaged in two suicidal world wars (from the perspective of maintaining Western European hegemony, that is).

it was already the top industrial dog before that, but it only became a superpower because of that...which both weakened the previous top dogs AND made the US actually interested in world affairs, which beforehand it generally wasn't.

China isn't actually all that interested in world affairs at the moment.

[Nerds_feather]

Originally Posted by JimBraiden

Sigh.

The Geneva Convention is quite specific- photographing, filming or interviewing individual prisoners can be construed as using them for proaganda purposes and is forbidden under the Geneva Convention.
You are correct - the Geneva Convention does call for conditions to be reviewed by an outside and neutral party- normally the Red Cross.
And the Red Cross has been visiting Guantanamo since 2002.
"Geneva (ICRC) - The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has been regularly visiting the US detention facility at Guantanamo Bay since early 2002 for the purpose of monitoring that persons held there are treated in accordance with applicable international laws and standards."
That's from a Red Cross press release.

they have not, however, been all that approving of the treatment of prisoners at guantanamo bay:

http://assets.nybooks.com/media/doc/...crc-report.pdf

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by JimBraiden

The Geneva Convention is quite specific- photographing, filming or interviewing individual prisoners can be construed as using them for proaganda purposes and is forbidden under the Geneva Convention.

That has almost nothing to do with Guantanamo Bay's detainees, though, because George W Bush made it clear that the detainess were not protected by the Geneva Convention.

Additionally, the US has admitted torturing detainees, plainly against the letter of the Geneva Convgentions.

While the Red Cross has had access, it has only been very limited.

More here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantan...detention_camp

After the US Department of Justice advised that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp could be considered outside U.S. legal jurisdiction, the first twenty captives arrived at Guantanamo on January 11, 2002. After the Bush administration asserted that detainees were not entitled to any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on June 29, 2006, that they were entitled to the minimal protections listed under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.[4] Following this, on July 7, 2006, the Department of Defense issued an internal memo stating that prisoners would in the future be entitled to protection under Common Article 3.[5][6][7] Susan J. Crawford, who was appointed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to review practices used at Guantanamo Bay, told Bob Woodward of the Washington Post in an interview in January 2009 that Mohammed al-Qahtani was tortured while being held prisoner at Guantanamo Bay, making her the first Bush administration official to concede that torture occurred there.[8]