|
Post by Ganbare! on Mar 23, 2010 22:48:38 GMT -5
Because of China's potential to reach the superpower status and increasing regional integration, I believe there is evidence that the fall of the West will occur this century.
Culturally, economically and politically Asia has never been so influent, Taiwan, Korea or India all show impressive growth rate. Japan's soft power definitely demonstrated the existence of a worthy alternative to Western media and entertainment. Let's not forget possible emerging powerhouses like Brazil, Mexico or Turkey. The EU region is already afflicted by slow growth, an aging population and limited political weight. Time will just aggravate all these at unprecedented levels. How long do you think it will take the rest of the world to quit sustaining American growth through its currency and to challenge its hegemony diplomatically or even militarily?
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on Apr 17, 2010 15:15:45 GMT -5
Many American intelligence and military strategists foresee Turkey as the world's second military power by the end of the century (its population will triple while Europe's will shrink by 30%) behind the first world power: China. An islamist Turkey would trigger a conflict with the States in which China would remain isolationist because of its non-imperialist tradition and it could potentially mean the end of much of the West depending on the outcome.
We tend to underestimate developing countries in the global power balance but there is no doubt the economic then military hegemony shift will occur in the 21st century. If China did not miss the industrial revolution because of foreign political intervention, it would certainly already be the first World power.
|
|
quiapo
Junior Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by quiapo on May 4, 2010 22:29:11 GMT -5
Is there any reason for concern? With development and power comes moral obligation and it is to be hoped and expected that the next super power will act responsibly.
|
|
|
Post by betahat on May 5, 2010 2:32:25 GMT -5
^Many American intelligence and military strategists foresee Turkey as the world's second military power at the end of the century (its population will triple while Europe's will shrink by 30%) behind the first world power: China
Who? I think intelligence is a misnomer there. I definitely want to see some citations and arguments for that one. Even tripled Turkey will be half of what the EU is now, and while populations there will level off, I see no way in hell Turkey will overtake them in terms of population, let alone GDP. Of course Turkey won't catch the US either, and to think that it would surpass Japan (if it wanted to) or India (or even Pakistan) that already have nuclear weapons and much larger populations and natural resources is frankly ridiculous and that person should be laughed off the stage. Turkey is an emerging power but number two? Come on.
^If China did not miss the industrial revolution because of foreign political intervention, it would certainly already be the first World power.
That's certainly debatable. In fact, there's a rich economic history literature exploring the reasons why it took China so long to get its act together, but needless to say many of the problems were internal, though the Chinese government would certainly like you to think that all of its problems were the result of foreign devils. I'm sympathetic to arguments that colonialism and intervention by foreign powers held back a lot of developing countries including China, but it does not then follow that with no intervention they would all be as rich and powerful as the West already.
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on May 5, 2010 10:35:37 GMT -5
quiapo, Turkey has always been a belliquous country, a century ago the Middle East and much of Eastern Europe were under their rule. Concerning China, it will most likely remain neutral. ^I will link alternative sources as soon as I find the time, they roughly confirm a similar scenario excepted that in those China is the first World Power not the US. Keep in mind that half the predictions are most certainly wrong but there is some truth in there concerning the upcoming geography of political/economic power. George Friedman, CIA chief intelligence officer writes in his latest book: The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century: "Turkey has the largest and most competent army in Europe. It has influence in the Baltics, in the Caucasus and in Central Asia, no European country is acting as confidently and as unilaterally as Turkey" "A new global war will unfold toward the middle of the century between the United States and an unexpected coalition from the Middle East and Japan". IMO, it's not impossible given their respective pasts and current identitarian dynamics. Despite possessing nuclear weapons India/Pakistan have too many shortcomings, it's great to have a huge population but they still don't stand a chance because their projection force in conventional warfare is limited since their armies are underequipped and insufficiently trained while Turkey's contingent is colossal, modern and experienced because of regular participation in regional conflicts. Future warfare will most certainly not be nuclear as everyone is aware the risk is too important NK excepted maybe, future conflicts will be more skirmishes than total wars thus any excessive demographic advantage is nullified. What country has a real standing army in the EU? France, the United Kingdom and... that's it. GDP doesn't equal military might. China and Japan had an analogous History: several internal wars toward unification, in the early 19th Century, China was a World Power, it had plans to industrialize just like Japan but colonialism put an end to it. Industries, railroads and a large part of the territory were in the hands of Western countries. What prevented Japan from suffering the same fate is its insularity. Britain in particular played a key role in the central power's deliquescence by propagating opium in the imperial court and population, HK, opium wars etc. Similarly without WW2, the US would have never become a superpower so quickly, the first World Power would have remained an European one for at least a couple decades.
|
|
|
Post by betahat on May 5, 2010 18:06:18 GMT -5
^IMO, it's not impossible given their respective pasts and current identitarian dynamics.
Sure, but I wouldn't want to bet on that.
^Despite possessing nuclear weapons India/Pakistan have too many shortcomings
Well, we're projecting into the distant future, right? 60 years ago I woudn't have said China would be a bona-fide superpower but here we are. India has more people, more technological know-how (thanks to a much greater diaspora and a penchant for technology and maths), and will have a much bigger economy than Turkey. If we're talking right now, Turkey would have the edge in a conventional battle requiring projecting force at a large distance. If we're talking 60 years from now, my money is on India. But that's just speculation.
In any case, it's the claim that Turkey would supplant the US that struck me as really ludicrous. I'm sure you didn't mean that in any case- you meant the second military power after the US then China. Certainly in the realm of possibility though also very speculative, based on a lot of assumptions about what other European countries will do, potential growth of India and Pakistan, whether Brazil militarizes, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on May 5, 2010 19:37:43 GMT -5
^The Indian diaspora is successful in the science field but keep in mind it is not as large as Chinese's plus China is bargaining far more technology transfers everyday from top Japanese, Euro and American engineers through joint-ventures, the fastest train cannot be found in Germany nor France anymore but in Shanghai, the Maglev linking Shanghai International Airport with downtown. I might sound like I'm rooting for China as I'm learning Mandarin but I'm not, any country putting an end to the American violent, greedy rule gets my support.
India/Pakistan both have larger population growth rates than their economic rates, plus their economies are not so much focused on hard industrialization than they are on information systems.. unlike Turkey and China. Brazil is starting to militarize but honestly they are more likely to stay neutral unless some (necessarily) crazy communist dictator takes the power which is very unlikely. Unless the European Union becomes the European Federation with an unified political/military command they are just tools used by NATO/UN. A lot are mere conjectures and I don't believe all that I read but it's not impossible colored people take the place that is rightfully theirs by the end of the century, where we stand is another matter.
|
|
|
Post by betahat on May 6, 2010 11:26:46 GMT -5
^India/Pakistan both have larger population growth rates than their economic rates
That's just not true anymore. Indian growth has taken off, as evidence by maintaining high growth rates during the last two years when Turkey has had negative growth rates. Of course I'm not saying India will be as successful as China.
^their economies are not so much focused on hard industrialization than they are on information systems
That's undeniable though India produces more cars, steel, etc. I don't know how important information technology will be for the wars of the future, but I do know that Turkey will find it really annoying when during the great Turkey-India war of 2078 they call for technical support and the call center in Bangalore tells them to eff off.
|
|