Canada may have to consider hedging its future..

[whowhere]

A large population in and of itself doesn't mean much. In fact, it can be a hindrance if the majority are low-income.

I would say a rising power that China is worried about is India; it sounds as if it may be experiencing faster economic growth than China. So should we fear India, too? But since you later include the EU in GDP comparisons, you'd have to look at their land mass (not sure what that would be) and population (around 5,000,000) too, and the fact that more countries seem to be joining on a pretty regular basis, it's hard to say where they are headed.

I don't know how/if 'per capita' figures into the meaning of the GDP; does a higher GDP$ per capita mean anything, or is it just the total that matters? -- does anyone know?

Take money out of the equation and look at what is. China has equal land mass as the US. China has 4 times the population. China is the world leader in producing goods. They also have advanced understanding of technology. They also have a large pool of rural people to prey upon to get work done at low prices and sell the fruits of their efforts to the world at world prices.

Once could say this is because of the greedy us corporation. Where would china be if were not for the greedy us corporations?

[whowhere]

OK...so in keeping with you nautical theme, you are saying that Canada is just a large barnacle on the USA?

The us is a one trick pony and they better come up with some new ones or the US is going to become irrelevant.

[whowhere]

I don't know why everyone brings up that China holds x amt. of debt of the US. So they hold it, so what? You and I know they don't have the guts to call that debt in, it would be foolish to do so. To think the chinese can force the americans to give them 950 billion dollars on a whim is laughable.

To those who think that sheer manpower always trumps technology, refer to the conquests of Alexander the Great. Also of note was the sheer kill ratio of the Americans vs. the Iraqis in Desert Storm.

950 Billion in US treasury bills. Treasury bills are suppose to be as good as cash. As for technology, I suggest you look at where everything is being manfactured. China has rockets, nuclear weapons, and all the wests manufacturing know how. So who is really the laugh? The chinese will continue to dance with the US.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The real threat of the bigger populated countries/economies is the harm they will do to the environment and ecosystems we all rely on and we can't respond fast enough to help them get even bigger.

China and India are literally racing towards a cliff and the rest of the world is cheering them on in hopes of selling them the commodities that hundreds of millions of new up and coming Chinese and Indian consumers will need to join the race.

The citizens of China and India simply want what we already have. They are working to make that happen as we speak. The fact that there is so many of them makes their effort look massive. Yes production causes pollution, everywhere and almost always, but technology is making it easier. The reality is those citizens do not yet have what they want and simply are not there yet.

The rest of the world can go suck eggs from their perspective, they are going to get what they want. MY problem with this is the fools who dare to call themselves the leaders of the nations seem to be diving into a cesspool of political stupidity. We (citizens) have no obligation to achieve things for them and we have no responsibility to fund their activities. Yet our governments are fully willing to send our tax dollars for their clean development. I would like to think that we can claim high moral ground here but that is not the case. Our cities stink, our air is bad and our water polluted from our own efforts. Should we not clean up our own act first?

Edited December 20, 2009 by Jerry J. Fortin

[bush_cheney2004]

....The only way for the US to regain its edge is to assault the Corporations with outsourcing tarriffs and use that money to build up America.

Nonsense...how do you think the US got its "edge" in the first place. Save your silly solutions for Canada and barnacles.

[blueblood]

950 Billion in US treasury bills. Treasury bills are suppose to be as good as cash. As for technology, I suggest you look at where everything is being manfactured. China has rockets, nuclear weapons, and all the wests manufacturing know how. So who is really the laugh? The chinese will continue to dance with the US.

Yet the Chinese can't pull off an invasion of Taiwan. Nor could they stop the US from invading Iraq. What would China do if the Americans told the chinese to go fly a kite if they tried to cash in on that 950 billion dollars?

Based on the US's kill ratio's vs. the Chinese, and the US performance in Desert storm, my money is still with the US. The US flat out is a killing machine. Not only that, they are able to accomplish these impressive feats with all sorts of restrictions.

[bush_cheney2004]

950 Billion in US treasury bills. Treasury bills are suppose to be as good as cash. As for technology, I suggest you look at where everything is being manfactured. China has rockets, nuclear weapons, and all the wests manufacturing know how. So who is really the laugh? The chinese will continue to dance with the US.

Treasury bills are not as good as cash...they are better, interest yielding instruments. However, they cannot be called on a whim. As for technology, China even copies our mistakes.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Based on the US's kill ratio's vs. the Chinese, and the US performance in Desert storm, my money is still with the US. The US flat out is a killing machine. Not only that, they are able to accomplish these impressive feats with all sorts of restrictions.

You have succinctly demonstrated that in fact China keeps financing US policy and stability because its the best game in town. Just ask the Japanese.

[ToadBrother]

Yet the Chinese can't pull off an invasion of Taiwan. Nor could they stop the US from invading Iraq. What would China do if the Americans told the chinese to go fly a kite if they tried to cash in on that 950 billion dollars?

They might be able to pull it off, they certainly have been beefing up their navy. But the problem isn't so much victory, it's the cost of victory. While gaining Taiwan back is a clear objective of the Chinese government, they are not insane, and would not plunge themselves into a damaging war with the United States just to get it.

Based on the US's kill ratio's vs. the Chinese, and the US performance in Desert storm, my money is still with the US. The US flat out is a killing machine. Not only that, they are able to accomplish these impressive feats with all sorts of restrictions.

The US is severely overextended, in the midst of economic crisis, and appears to be on the verge of a retraction. The US is not invincible. But it's ludicrous to even talk like this. China and the US are too reliant upon each other to ever go to war. But China is not Iraq, and it's armed forces are rapidly modernizing. What's more, it does have long-range missile technology, and while its nuclear arsenal is nowhere near as large as the United States', that's kind of irrelevant in a way.

Comparing China to Iraq is just plain stupid on so many levels.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Based on the US's kill ratio's vs. the Chinese, and the US performance in Desert storm, my money is still with the US. The US flat out is a killing machine. Not only that, they are able to accomplish these impressive feats with all sorts of restrictions.

Pretty much anyone could take out the Chinese. Battle of Kapyong 1000+ dead Chinese, 44 UN forces dead.

I like this bit

The initial Chinese attack at Kapyong engaged 3RAR on Hill 504. The Chinese then struck at the Canadian front. Wave after wave of massed Chinese troops kept up the attack throughout the night of 23 April, but the Canadians held them back. After a night of fierce fighting, Major Bernard O'Dowd, Officer Commanding, A Company, 3 RAR, managed to get through on a radio phone to a general of the 1st U.S. Marine Division. The general was incredulous, thinking it was an enemy agent speaking. He told O'Dowd that the unit no longer existed, that it had been wiped out the night before. O'Dowd replied "I've got news for you. We're still here and we're staying here." [2]

The Chinese outnumbered the UN forces 5 to 1 and still got their asses kicked.

Edited December 20, 2009 by TrueMetis

[bush_cheney2004]

They might be able to pull it off, they certainly have been beefing up their navy. But the problem isn't so much victory, it's the cost of victory. While gaining Taiwan back is a clear objective of the Chinese government, they are not insane, and would not plunge themselves into a damaging war with the United States just to get it.

If the cost of victory (or defeat) is too high, then they are not even close to rivaling the sole superpower. It's not just having the means...but the will.

The US is severely overextended, in the midst of economic crisis, and appears to be on the verge of a retraction. The US is not invincible. But it's ludicrous to even talk like this. China and the US are too reliant upon each other to ever go to war. But China is not Iraq, and it's armed forces are rapidly modernizing. What's more, it does have long-range missile technology, and while its nuclear arsenal is nowhere near as large as the United States', that's kind of irrelevant in a way.

It is not irrelevant....China's strategic nuclear forces are antiquated and vulnerable.

Comparing China to Iraq is just plain stupid on so many levels.

That's what Saddam thought too.

[blueblood]

They might be able to pull it off, they certainly have been beefing up their navy. But the problem isn't so much victory, it's the cost of victory. While gaining Taiwan back is a clear objective of the Chinese government, they are not insane, and would not plunge themselves into a damaging war with the United States just to get it.

Agreed, my point is that the US isn't as irrelevant as some would think.

The US is severely overextended, in the midst of economic crisis, and appears to be on the verge of a retraction. The US is not invincible. But it's ludicrous to even talk like this. China and the US are too reliant upon each other to ever go to war. But China is not Iraq, and it's armed forces are rapidly modernizing. What's more, it does have long-range missile technology, and while its nuclear arsenal is nowhere near as large as the United States', that's kind of irrelevant in a way.

The US was in a much worse economic crisis in the 1930's yet was able to muster a massive army. The US army's weakness lies in the fact of political will more than anything. Vietnam was an example of that, the US won the battles but lost the war.

I don't think China would go to war with the US, it would destroy their economy. Which is why saying China "owns" the US is nonsense. The US could tell the chinese to fly a kite and the chinese would be milking a dry cow.

Comparing China to Iraq is just plain stupid on so many levels.

At 1990 it wouldn't be. Iraq had one of the largest armies in the world with the best soviet arms their oil money could buy. A fat lot of good that did them.

[ToadBrother]

If the cost of victory (or defeat) is too high, then they are not even close to rivaling the sole superpower. It's not just having the means...but the will.

By the same token, I don't exactly see the US marching into Tibet to liberate that country. Does that mean the United States is weaker than China? Or does it mean even a potential victory

It is not irrelevant....China's strategic nuclear forces are antiquated and vulnerable.

You're overstating things substantially. They have long range missiles and armaments to stick on top of them. They have a rapidly modernizing navy. China could harm the US in a nuclear war. Enough that I don't think any American, even the nut-job Neo-cons that were pulling GWB's strings ever meaningfully planned an invasion of China. The closest anybody has come since WWII was the Korean War, and at that time the Administration and the Joint Chiefs had little interest in getting into a war with the Soviets.

The US will never take on China militarily. The day that China could be attacked thusly ended in the 1950s.

That's what Saddam thought too.

Saddam thought he could bluff the Yanks. Your comparison is moronic.

[bush_cheney2004]

By the same token, I don't exactly see the US marching into Tibet to liberate that country. Does that mean the United States is weaker than China? Or does it mean even a potential victory

Tibet is not an American interest. There is ample evidence that America has acted on interests in the past and present. China has not done so, for several reasons. Means + will = Policy Action

You're overstating things substantially. They have long range missiles and armaments to stick on top of them. They have a rapidly modernizing navy. China could harm the US in a nuclear war. Enough that I don't think any American, even the nut-job Neo-cons that were pulling GWB's strings ever meaningfully planned an invasion of China. The closest anybody has come since WWII was the Korean War, and at that time the Administration and the Joint Chiefs had little interest in getting into a war with the Soviets.

Again, by your own admission, the Americans have vastly more experience in such matters, even pitting the Chinese against the Soviet Union.

The US will never take on China militarily. The day that China could be attacked thusly ended in the 1950s.

China has been attacked from internal and external forces since 1950...several times.

Saddam thought he could bluff the Yanks. Your comparison is moronic.

Of course...and your comparisons are very brilliant for a barnacle.

[blueblood]

You're overstating things substantially. They have long range missiles and armaments to stick on top of them. They have a rapidly modernizing navy. China could harm the US in a nuclear war. Enough that I don't think any American, even the nut-job Neo-cons that were pulling GWB's strings ever meaningfully planned an invasion of China. The closest anybody has come since WWII was the Korean War, and at that time the Administration and the Joint Chiefs had little interest in getting into a war with the Soviets.

The US will never take on China militarily. The day that China could be attacked thusly ended in the 1950s.

And what the Americans are just sitting with their thumbs up their ass? The Americans are becoming even more modern. That's the price to pay with being a superpower.

China will never take on the US militarilly. The day the US could be attacked militarilly ended in 1945.

[bush_cheney2004]

....At 1990 it wouldn't be. Iraq had one of the largest armies in the world with the best soviet arms their oil money could buy. A fat lot of good that did them.

You are correct Sir! China watched the US forces (and allies) systematically destroy every weapons system and tactic that the Soviets (and Chinese) held so near and dear. Example: Iraqi tanks retrofitted with cheap Chinese stadimeters were no match for M1A1s with laser ranging...it was a slaughter.

That's why China is scurrying to catch up and find a match for American "full spectrum dominance".

[bjre]

You are correct Sir! China watched the US forces (and allies) systematically destroy every weapons system and tactic that the Soviets (and Chinese) held so near and dear. Example: Iraqi tanks retrofitted with cheap Chinese stadimeters were no match for M1A1s with laser ranging...it was a slaughter.

That's why China is scurrying to catch up and find a match for American "full spectrum dominance".

I don't know that, but even China did that, I don't think they did anything wrong.

The United States is the largest threat to the whole world, it will launch a war any time and any place, and kill any number of people there. How many Iraqi civilians dead, how many dead in Yugoslavia? how many dead in Somali in Clinton's time, how many dead in Vietnam and in Korea, If there were no US in the world, who knows how many wars can be avoid. Any nation has the right to seeking ways to protect its own people.

Saddam is silly, because he thought if he give up all weapons, the US will not attack him. I think maybe it is because his WMD was given by US to fight Iran supported the by Soviet Union. I guess if Saddam really had some WMD at that time, the US might hesitate in attacking him. That is the correct way how to obtain peace and live a peaceful life.

It is western logic that if anyone try to protect from being attacked by US is a threat to US.

A thief often believes all others are thieves.

Edited December 20, 2009 by bjre

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't know that, but even China did that, I don't think they did anything wrong.

It was very wrong for Iraqi tank crews....BOOM!

The United States is the largest threat to the whole world, it will launch a war any time and any place, and kill any number of people there. How many Iraqi civilian dead, how many dead in Yugoslavia? how many dead in Somali in Clinton's time, how many dead in Vietnam and in Korea, If there were no US in the world, who knows how many wars can be avoid. Any nation has the right to seeking ways to protect its own people.

No balls...no blue chips. China doesn't have the means or will. They had trouble just sending about 100 riot police to Haiti in 2004 after Canada helped to overthrow and expel Aristide. Such dominance!

It is western logic that if anyone try to protect from be attract by US is a threat to US.

It is eastern logic for Japan to invade Manchuria and wait for western nations to rescue them.

A thief often believes all others are thieves.

Hey, I always pay for my pirated DVDs from China. LOL!

[bjre]

It is eastern logic for Japan to invade Manchuria and wait for western nations to rescue them.

The reason why China failed when war began was that Chiang Kai Sek try to protect his own army and use Japanese to kill his potential rivals. The most important force to drive Japanese out was Chinese themselves.

Edited December 20, 2009 by bjre

[ToadBrother]

And what the Americans are just sitting with their thumbs up their ass? The Americans are becoming even more modern. That's the price to pay with being a superpower.

China will never take on the US militarilly. The day the US could be attacked militarilly ended in 1945.

Quite frankly, I don't think there's much chance of any of the nuclear powers being attacked by any other power. That's why Iran and North Korea have been pursuing nuclear programs like nuts. Once you enter that club, no one wants to touch you.

[ToadBrother]

I don't know that, but even China did that, I don't think they did anything wrong.

The United States is the largest threat to the whole world, it will launch a war any time and any place, and kill any number of people there. How many Iraqi civilians dead, how many dead in Yugoslavia?

How many people did the Iraqi regime kill? And Yugoslavia, have you any idea what the Serbs were doing?

how many dead in Somali in Clinton's time,

That was from fellow Somalis. The country is a basket case, it hasn't had a meaningful government in years. What happened during Clinton's era was a bunch of weak-kneed people screaming "oooh my, our boys did bad" with no understanding of what a lunatic asylum that country was and is. And what's our reward for pulling out, piracy and Islamism.

how many dead in Vietnam and in Korea,

Best ask the Soviets and Chinese, they backed these guys. Heck, China is stilling back that lunatic in North Korea.

If there were no US in the world, who knows how many wars can be avoid. Any nation has the right to seeking ways to protect its own people.

If there was no US in the world, most of Europe, North Africa and Central Asia would be sitting under a fascist empire. China and Russia, if they survived at all as independent states, would be driven far into the interiors of their land masses. I don't think you want to imagine a world where the US hadn't existed.

Saddam is silly, because he thought if he give up all weapons, the US will not attack him. I think maybe it is because his WMD was given by US to fight Iran supported the by Soviet Union. I guess if Saddam really had some WMD at that time, the US might hesitate in attacking him. That is the correct way how to obtain peace and live a peaceful life.

Saddam wasn't silly, he was a monster. Yes, he was the US's monster, and the US bears a lot of the blame, but let's not try to make him out to be some sort of a buffoon. He was, to put it mildly, a very bad man.

It is western logic that if anyone try to protect from being attacked by US is a threat to US.

That's general military logic. Any defensive force can be, with appropriate application, turned to the offensive.

A thief often believes all others are thieves.

Indeed, just as the Tibetans.

Edited December 20, 2009 by ToadBrother

[Halfempty]

If there was no US in the world, most of Europe, North Africa and Central Asia would be sitting under a fascist empire. China and Russia, if they survived at all as independent states, would be driven far into the interiors of their land masses. I don't think you want to imagine a world where the US hadn't existed.

Very true. I suspect that you've read Fatherland as well? If America didn't land at D-day Hitler would've only had one major war front to deal; the one with the Soviets, and late in the war Stalin was literally begging the allies to open up a western front to take the pressure off his borders. In a nut shell, Russia would've fallen fast without the US assult on Normandy. Britain, the last major Euro power, would've been next on the hit list, and seeing how effective German U-boats were at destroying the British navy (Britain's one key advantage) the war would've been over quickly. Once this happened all (not most) of Europe would've fallen before facism, and the world would've been much more fudged up then we know it today. Most people don't realize how close the world came to this terrible outcome.

The U.S. many not be a perfect superpower, but they're still better then Nazis.

[nicky10013]

Yet the Chinese can't pull off an invasion of Taiwan. Nor could they stop the US from invading Iraq. What would China do if the Americans told the chinese to go fly a kite if they tried to cash in on that 950 billion dollars?

Based on the US's kill ratio's vs. the Chinese, and the US performance in Desert storm, my money is still with the US. The US flat out is a killing machine. Not only that, they are able to accomplish these impressive feats with all sorts of restrictions.

What would happen if the US defaulted on it's debt? The world wouldn't just automatically say, oh well it's just the Chinese, it's all good. The world economy would go into a tail spin. The US dollar would crash due to the utter lack of credibility of the institution and the US would no longer be able to sell bonds. Who wants to buy debt from a guy who spits into your face? Any resultant war would be automatically won by the Chinese because the US wouldn't be able to raise the capital needed to send the troops overseas. As for war bonds bought by regular citizens, how can Americans afford it with so many owning mortgages worth more than their houses, credit card debt etc. etc. etc. It's not a pretty picture. US consumer madness has put the US in such a compromising position. Not much can be done when you have a savings rate of almost -10% and a country with a federal government running a current account deficit which is projected to go as high as 25% of GDP.

[Riverwind]

The U.S. many not be a perfect superpower, but they're still better then Nazis.

The Nazis come into power because the US intervention that broke the stale mate in WW1. If there was no US, WW1 would have eventually ended years later with some truce that kept the status quo. Subsequent wars would have broken out and facism would have taken over some states but it is rather simplistic to assume that Europe without the US would have become a Nazi empire.

[Halfempty]

I don't remember where I heard this phrase, but it went something like "China is the saving power of the world while America is the spending power". Having said that they pretty much need eachother, and China's economic growth and mass production continues only to meet the consumer depand of people in America. If the two powers were to go to war, well, China would lose it's biggest client and it's economy would suffer.

What Canada can do is...just trade with everyone and prosper while the major powers try to gain superiority over eachother.