42RM
Banned
Except that human rights violations in the People's Republic of China remain systematic and widespread.
Russia or NATO without the US, Which is stronger?
Except that human rights violations in the People's Republic of China remain systematic and widespread.
Pegasusbank
New Member
China WILL become a world superpower within the next 50 years. They have nukes, they have the biggest army and their GDP, oh.... the GDP.....
Der Alte
Banned
I doubt it will ever become one. A superpower is a country that achieves dominance in ideas or ideology, an economic system, and military power.
In terms of ideas or ideology, the Chinese are probably more confused than anyone else in the world. In today’s China where money is king, people have become disillusioned with any notion of ideals. There has been serious moral decay in society.
Economically, China’s achievements are indeed impressive. In the past 30 years, China has sustained nearly double-digit growth. However, we need to keep in mind that China started from a very low level of GDP. Much of its growth comes from heavy investment in infrastructure. In 2009, China’s per capita GDP was only about $3,600, compared with $46,000 in the United States. Among the world’s top-10 largest companies, the United States claims five, and China has none. I believe that China’s economy will continue to grow rapidly over the next 10 to 15 years. After that, it will slow down when its per capita income approaches $10,000. That will make China’s economy close to the size of the U. S. economy.
Militarily, China’s military spending is only a fraction of what the U. S. spends. Until recently, China did not have a foreign policy or a global strategy. Even its current foreign policies are almost exclusively commercially-focused.
I think China’s influence in Asia will be limited. Who is China’s ally? Singapore? North Korea? India will be more likely allied with the U. S. than with China, and we know Japan’s position. However, China will be a major economic power. It will probably be the second most important country in the world after the United States on many critical international issues.
By all measures, China is not a superpower. With other major economies such as India and Russia on the rise, it is hard to see China ever becoming a superpower.
The main China's supremacy is their soft power which is based on the amount of positive vision and the reliability that people of the other countries have about them. Based on one BBC poll from 22 countries, more than 50% of world's people had a positive view about China and known them as a reliable country while about the US this statistic was less than 38%. The ME or even The South America are good examples.
Last edited:
That superiority was short lived. It was because the pilots of the MiG-29 had the Helmet mounted display.
It's not about trust. It's about reality. History is full of magnificent weapons that turned out worthless in battle.
That's why western powers rely heavily on near realistic programs as Top Gun or Red Flag.
Gator
U of B and B Alumnus
India and China have been a breath away from attacking one and other for a while now.
Border disputes mostly, as well as China being the main ally of Pakistan.
r.fox
Active member
agreed about the world being destroyed thing, but i know of a quote between a certian russian leader (at the moment, cant remember which one) directed at JFK " the United states has enough Nuclear weapons to blow up russia twice, while russia has only enough to destroy the USA only once" not sure how accurate that is, but which country is larger?
RayManKiller3
Active member
In terms of land space? Russia is by far larger than U.S. U.S is third behind Canada when it comes to total area.
Last edited:
r.fox
Active member
thats the point if the USA has more then enough nukes to blow russia twice, then the US has way more nukes the russa. but i believe that NATO even without the states is quite capable of standing its ground against russia. at least the countires to the west of germany...
RayManKiller3
Active member
I am not sure but if I am correct, most of the Soviet's population was in the western parts of Russia. Whereas U.S population was spreaded out. If this is so, U.S would only need to bomb the west parts where most of their civilization was.
It is stated on most statistics that the Soviets/Russia had more nukes than U.S.
NATO would be fine against Russia as most of their equipment is outdated, which Russia is trying to change. The only thing I feel NATO would have a hard time on is Russia's vast air defence system, which would make it difficult for air superiority. If they can not negate this, then I feel Russia would be able to win. All in all, Russia's population isn't doing so good, so I don't believe they have the troops (unless they conscript those they captured) to do it.
I am not going to bring nukes into the equation as we all know no one wins a nuclear war.
Damien435
Active member
NATO couldn't handle Yugoslavia/Serbia without the United States, how would they hope to deal with Russia? In the end it's a stalemate, the vast majority of both Russian and Non-US NATO forces are static defense forces. European nations lack the logistics capabilities to attack Russia because, quite frankly, nobody saw the need to be able to do so. The United States had to be able to rapidly move our armed forces vast distances because we're thousands of miles away from the potential warzone, the European members of NATO simply had to wait for the Soviets to attack and be able absorb the blow until the Americans could arrive in Europe in large numbers. As my company commander recently told me, "tactics are for amateurs, logistics is for professionals." But to actually address the question, I think NATO without the United States is stronger, but both dogs in this fight are ten feet away from one another on a four foot leash.
LeEnfield
Active member
I say would Russia as they would be more single minded to achieve their objective, where as all the EU would do is talk and form committees to look into it. Now the French would want to run it, Belgium would want to provide all the arms for it, Germany would become neutral and not want to provide troops and so it would go on.