Top Ten World Powers

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
How can anyone call China a world power when it could not even take Taiwan?

absent US intervention China could easily take Taiwan - not through an amphib invasion (see "million man swim") but through an air, naval and missile campaign against Taiwans commerce, that would destroy the islands economy. China doesnt pursue such a course because were they to do it without provocation (like an independence referendum), the US is likely to intervene in the air/naval/missile war and China is virtually certain to lose. Not being willing to risk a war against the number 1 power on the planet doesnt make China weak, just prudent.

Besides, do you think UK, France, or Israel has the ability (particularly the amphib assets) to take Taiwan? By your definition the US is the ONLY world power.

[GePap]

The US, France and the UK are alone in the ability to send significant military forces overseas by themselves- by this definiton only they are world powers- with the uS way ahead. If the ability that counts it o vaporize any spot on earth with only a half hour notice, only the US and Russia count.

The fact is that military definitons for a great power are not that good- after all, in 1941 the US was , besides the navy, a military second rate power. China's eocnomy is the rising star, and all of east asia is slowly gravitating towards it.

[GePap]

Interestingly, the Chinese can not take taiwan- but they can wipe it out. Which one counts more in the great power game?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
The US, France and the UK are alone in the ability to send significant military forces overseas by themselves- by this definiton only they are world powers- with the uS way ahead. If the ability that counts it o vaporize any spot on earth with only a half hour notice, only the US and Russia count.

The fact is that military definitons for a great power are not that good- after all, in 1941 the US was , besides the navy, a military second rate power. China's eocnomy is the rising star, and all of east asia is slowly gravitating towards it.

Not only east asia, but China is a more important player than UK, France or Germany in south asia and central asia as well. They are less important in Africa then they were 25 years ago, but that is more a matter of choice in how to use resources than a lack of resources. They could easily be influential in Africa and at least parts of the Middle East where they to choose to do so.

[Fake Boris]

To Bebro and those who disagree on my position about Europe and China.

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Europe wont be dead - it may be one of the best places to LIVE as far as into the future as anyone can see - but even the most powerful individual states are likely to continue their relative declines, as fast as the US or even faster (due to better demographics in the US)

True. No one will ever be dead for a long time. I did not say 'dead' as in they'll be like Mozambique in 50 years. But certainly as in 'look what they were in 1900'.

The best hope for european power lies in 1. Unification into a single power 2. Succesful incorporation of the new members 3. Economic revival in the core countries 4. dealing with the demographic issues, the aging of the population and the need to integrate immigrants.

Absolutely. And what does China have to deal with? Corruption, military efficiency, and economic growth. That is relatively easier to do. And no one can ever win the demographic race against India or China.

These are all problematic, and some conflict with each other (for example further integrations versus expansion) Even if all are achieved succesfully, that may at best move the EU ahead of the US, at a time when both enter long term declines relative to China and India.

Precisely.

About UK: well, I'd also add that France is the world's third exporter of weapons, and that they have an independant nuclear technology they can share (unlike UK who has more ties with the US)(the non-proliferation treaty is dubious). They also have the second-best jet fighter in the world, and they are the only country apart from the US that has nuclear aircraft carriers.
Can UK talk with Russia and Germany or Russia? F'course. But I'd guess France's better results in doing so must be, in some sort, a good measure of their influence.

About China: they don't need power projection anyway. As LOTM said, the Asian sphere of influence is sufficient. The day they'll get power projection, will be the day they surpass the US. I think their rise to power is close enough that most won't annoy them now, under the fear of soon to come reprisals. And the reason they can't take Taiwan is that it's defended by the US. Nothing else.

Japan: way understimated. America badly needs them. And their military spendings place them in 4th rank, just below Russia but above UK and France.

[GePap]

Well, soon enough they will be a big player in the world oil msrket as a major consumer, and in 50 years probalby consumer #1.

[muxec]

Power is not in war, but in peace

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I think their rise to power is close enough that most won't annoy them now, under the fear of soon to come reprisals. .

As long as their behavior is prudent, who has reason to annoy them? For the most part their behavior in recent years has been responsible(despite occasional sabre rattling on Taiwan) and in Korea the US is counting on China to act the responsible regional regional power.

Powers like France, UK, and Germany have neither the ability nor the need to annoy China. Russia has at least until recently attempted to keep open the China relationship to avoid being force into strategic dependence on the US. The global power with the ability to slow the growth of Chinese power is the US - which faces the classic dilemma of a status quo power facing a rising power - is conflict inevitable, in which case its best to nip the rising power in the bud early, when youre still dominant, or is the rising power likely to be satisfied with a place in the international system you can accommodate, and so its best to appease them? Remember, appeasement isnt a dirty word if the folk youre dealing with are reasonable. And if you guess wrong, can you assemble a balancing coalition later when you need to, when youre not strong enough to win on your own?

[lord of the mark]

my position re China, etc is largely based on a very simple view of history, gleaned from Paul Kennedy. The secret to world power since about 1600 has been the application of a particular set of legal and financial institutions to larger and larger population/resource bases. The institutions (property rights, banking and central banking, stock and commodity exchanges, insurance, etc) were brought to fruition in Holland (though some were invented in Ren Italy or elsewhere). When UK adopted them, with a superior demographic and resource base and better strategic geography than Holland, UK rose to number 1. When the US developed with those institutions, with a demographic and resource base and strategic geography superior to Britain, US rose to number 1. China has a demography greater than the US, and is developing industry and is well on the road to adopting the winning institutions. Ergo the Rise of China is inevitable.

Chinas real challenges long term are it weak natural resource base relative to its population (that hasnt mattered much since the global fall in commodity prices 20 years ago, but could that change?) and its less than ideal strategic position (its much more vulnerable to on its frontiers than the US or UK were - how much will that matter in a heavily nuclear world?)

[Fake Boris]

LOTM- your point is accurate and well defended.

I think it is in America's best interests to stop China now. The question is: how?

It seems to me that Americans tend to believe democracy and freedom is a done deal. However, history has always been cyclic. It is highly probable that we have reached a top and that we're near the falling edge of the curve.
The fall of America might spread a totally new era. Once then, Westerners will realize what it is to have other countries dictate what is good for them.

Not that I like America much, but I fear China might be even worse.

[DanS]

I think it is in America's best interests to stop China now.

It's in our best interests, and all of humanity's interest, to let them work themselves out of their grinding poverty and general backwardness.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by muxec
Power is not in war, but in peace

hippie alert!!!!!!!!!!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
LOTM- your point is accurate and well defended.

I think it is in America's best interests to stop China now. The question is: how?

It seems to me that Americans tend to believe democracy and freedom is a done deal. However, history has always been cyclic. It is highly probable that we have reached a top and that we're near the falling edge of the curve.
The fall of America might spread a totally new era. Once then, Westerners will realize what it is to have other countries dictate what is good for them.

Not that I like America much, but I fear China might be even worse.

First i think democracy and freedom largely are a done deal. As China approaches the per cap GDP figures necessary to challenge the US for #1, a combination of the legal framework required for growth (private property, contract rights, etc) and the social consequences of rising GDP per cap (universal literacy, a large middle class, etc) will undermine the authoritarian system. There are already hints of that, and that process will only accelerate as China develops.

Second - I think that China, should it attempt to become hegemoniacal, will easily be balanced by a coaliton of the US, Russia, Japan and India (it would be nice to have the EU on board, but not essential) If anyone asks why the US is not now being balanced by such a coalition, my answer is that despite all the rhetoric surround Iraq, Bush, neocons, etc the US is NOT in fact hegemoniacal now (one legally disputed 3rd world intervention doth not a hegemon make)

Third - if youre implying that "now we'll get a taste of waht the south experienced in the age of imperialism" i think youre quite wrong - the age of imperialism was driven not by this kind of power imbalance, but by the failure of southern societies to come close to adopting northern institutional ways - i cant see the US or the EU in the next hundred years becoming as rigid as 19th cent China or Turkey - indeed the US resurgence in the 1990's was driven to some extent by the wholesale adoption of Japanese manufacturing and business techniques - we continue to be able to learn from others. OTOH if youre saying the US may someday face the same kinds of frustrations France now faces, i think you may be right.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
It seems to me that Americans tend to believe democracy and freedom is a done deal. However, history has always been cyclic.

As far as states are concerned its cyclic. As far as IDEAS are concerned its linear. Where is Hollands hegemony now? Dead and gone. Where are the ideas that gave Holland power? Whereever US dominance runs, and beyond, and if replaced, only with new ideas that grew organically out of Hollands, NOT by reversion to the ancien regime.

[Fake Boris]

The US not hegemonical?

Seriously, I think it is, if we look at the success they have in lifting trade barriers. I don't want to debate AGAIN if this is good or bad to the rest of the world, but using force and diplomacy to impose your agenda is being hegemonical- whatever the consequences.

Say the USSR had not fallen, and that in most countries the communist guerillas had won (which is not the case). Of course, the Soviets would say "communism is a done deal, it is the winner system, and we are not being hegemonical because what we're doing is good anyway".

BZZZZT wrong.

If you claim that democracy is a done deal, then you are postulating the END of history and the beginning of 'post-history'. So far, there are no strong arguments to demonstrate that 'democracy/capitalism' is the ultimate system by which humans have found common ground for truth and efficiency. It is highly probable that within a two centuries or longer timeframe, a new system will rise and supplant the last one, just as things have been since 3000 BC. My question now: is China the last great empire of the democratic/capitalist tradition, or the first empire of the [insert semantico-sociological theory here].

My intuition on this (it is embryonic) is that possibly the end of history as we know it, or at least the coming of a new age, will come with an unified Earth government that undergoes serious space colonization. China might or not be the unifying power behind this- as 'power consolidation' is about a stronger force reuniting weaker ones long enough for the members to melt in a new nation (the birth of European identities followed this pattern during the Middle Ages up to the creation of a national identity).

I think post-modernism is about the spleen in the face of absurdity; i.e. capitalism's driving force is profit, which is quantitative in its nature, and thus necessarily unsatisfying. Nationalism-imperialism and evangelization (both children of cultural relativism) are probably over. What will be humanity's next qualitative goal? (this is where space colonization might come in)...