The Age of America is coming to an end - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29449459]Compared to the US, the Soviet Union during the Cold War had a noticeably inferior ability to project power since its maritime power was built on SSBNs rather than aircraft carriers. The Soviet Naval Infantry weren't like the US Marines (they were amphibious "shock troops" and the task to carry the fight further inland would be done by motorized rifle and tank troops from a subsequent echelon instead. Not only that, but they were tailored to operate in the Baltic and Turkish Straits) and its chance of building a "real" carrier fleet was lost after Dmitriy Ustinov became Defense Minister in 1976 - who effectively killed off carriers like the Project 1160 in favor of [i]Kiev[/i]-class monstrosities. With this in mind, I believe that a power with an inferiority in power projection can still challenge a dominant superpower. On the US losing power, I've heard a few former officers in the US military who are confident that eventually "we're well on the way to bankrupting ourselves like the Soviet Union did with unnecessary and expensive equipment".[/QUOTE] Thats just navel power projection, aside there is nothing wrong with the Kievs which were a great mix between battleship and aircraft carrier. And I think the fact that the USSR had better tanks and their airforce was (sometimes) ahead of the US.

[QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29454816]Forced labor is still around. You're forced to work or else how are you going to buy food? You gonna steal it, and maybe get arrested?[/QUOTE] :downs:

[QUOTE=yaik9a;29455391]Thats just navel power projection, aside there is nothing wrong with the Kievs which were a great mix between battleship and aircraft carrier. And I think the fact that the USSR had better tanks and their airforce was (sometimes) ahead of the US.[/QUOTE] Um, no. In terms of tanks, the Soviets had a definite edge over NATO when GSFG started to receive T-64As in the 1970s. When NATO introduced the Leopard 2, Challenger 1 and M1 Abrams to their frontline forces and the Groups of Forces started to get T-80Bs and T-64Bs, the pendulum swayed to balance, but slightly in favor of NATO tanks. Unfortunately, the blown Soviet economy meant that by the time that the Soviet Army got T-80Us, T-80UDs and T-72Bs in large numbers, the country ceased to exist. You can't deny that political meddling screwed the Soviet carrier program. Defense Minister Andrei Grechko once said: [quote]Why are you splitting hairs here? Make an aircraft carrier like the Americans have, with that kind of aircraft fleet.[/quote] Of course when Grechko died in 1976, Dimitri Ustinov took over and did not share his predecessor's ideas of big-deck carriers, leading to the Kievs.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29455772]Um, no. In terms of tanks, the Soviets had a definite edge over NATO when GSFG started to receive T-64As in the 1970s. When NATO introduced the Leopard 2, Challenger 1 and M1 Abrams to their frontline forces and the Groups of Forces started to get T-80Bs and T-64Bs, the pendulum swayed to balance, but slightly in favor of NATO tanks. Unfortunately, the blown Soviet economy meant that by the time that the Soviet Army got T-80Us, T-80UDs and T-72Bs in large numbers, the country ceased to exist. You can't deny that political meddling screwed the Soviet carrier program. Defense Minister Andrei Grechko once said: Of course when Grechko died in 1976, Dimitri Ustinov took over and did not share his predecessor's ideas of big-deck carriers, leading to the Kievs.[/QUOTE] That was political but there was nothing wrong with kiev in anti submarine engagements if it was scaled down.

What the title made me think of. [img]http://i53.tinypic.com/ifpc8m.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Deet;29453423]I doubt China's economy matters when the citizens hate their government.[/QUOTE] Not to mention their trade dependence on the United States, for both the exporting of goods and importing of raw materials and natural resources with which they build said goods. And then there's the issue of their age demographic gap. By 2030, China will have 320 million elders which the government will have to support in regards to (above all) health care. That's going to seriously hurt their economy, particularly when one considers what little attention their government has paid to this issue. (Read a little more about this serious problem here, for those who are interested: [url]http://www.prb.org/pdf10/TodaysResearchAging20.pdf[/url]) I'd like to see how the IMF came up with their figures- for both the United States and China. Because it honestly sounds like nothing more than a quick trend analysis, in lieu of the above. That and, as plenty of others here have said, fearmongering.

Why are you guys happy about this. Would you really rather have China be the leading world power? America's government is full of tons of people that care about the environment, and their policies reflect that. The worst thing america does is start a war in a middle-eastern country that is unstable and full of taliban. China gives no fucks about the environment, it's a fucking shithole to the point where the smog gets so thick at times that you can see two suns. And the worst thing China's done? First off, their human rights violations are off the charts. And to top that off they don't give nearly the same amount of rights to their citizens as the US does to theirs.

If it's cyclical, we might come back to the top, If we kill all the old farts who are running the country like it's the 1700's.

Grats on china

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;29454579]This is the attitude most people had in the dying days of Rome, and that is why it fell.[/QUOTE] Tell me more about the average citizen's daily life during the decline of Rome. P.S. High class philosophers and writers aren't average people.

[media]http://www.politicolnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/tiananmen-square-tank1.jpg[/media] The Chinese deserve a better government, and I'm afraid of what will happen if they surpass the US before there is a major shift in power.

I like how this got rated 30 winners. Hey guys how about rating "disagrees" or something. Unless you are all a bunch of slant eyes. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Dumb reply/Racism" - Pascall))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=-Matt-94;29456837]I like how this got rated 30 winners. Hey guys how about rating "disagrees" or something. Unless you are all a bunch of slant eyes.[/QUOTE] Holy shit you're racist.

[QUOTE=JerryK;29452890]all they have to do is give China a bunch of women :v:[/QUOTE] And a lot of Extenze.

[QUOTE=-Chief-;29449053]Whatever. Those human rights violations are going to catch up to China eventually.[/QUOTE] This. I wouldn't have any problem with China's ascension if they were a bit more keen on civil rights.

The thing is, almost all countries are directly influenced by the American culture, because it was almost imposed to them because of the whole globalization thing. It was far easier for the US to have power over these countries because of the similar culture, we all know it. Yet I haven't seen any influence from Chinese culture on my country

I don't understand this perception that the rise of China means America has to end up poor. The United States will still have a sizeable cock to wave around. I think the future is bright and the two superpowers, being so economically interdependent, will be forced to get along even if they don't always see eye-to-eye.

Hey look guys - globalization!

[QUOTE=smurfy;29458037]I don't understand this perception that the rise of China means America has to end up poor. The United States will still have a sizeable cock to wave around. I think the future is bright and the two superpowers, being so economically interdependent, will be forced to get along even if they don't always see eye-to-eye.[/QUOTE] That's not necessarily a good thing, if China is as economically powerful as the US, then little pressure can be put on them to raise their standards of human rights (not that I believe the US is the model for this). It would be great if they could maintain equal power because neither could perform unfair trade relations outside of their own region, but if China can provide better for the Asia and middle east regions then the US will be hardpressed to keep up.

[QUOTE=smurfy;29458037]I don't understand this perception that the rise of China means America has to end up poor. The United States will still have a sizeable cock to wave around. I think the future is bright and the two superpowers, being so economically interdependent, will be forced to get along even if they don't always see eye-to-eye.[/QUOTE] In a different world China and the U.S. would be best buds. We're so interdependent on each other it is insane. But yeah this by no means is the end of the U.S. 'age', not that we ever really had one anyways.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;29448812]I like how you as a person not living in China, is trying to describe the Chinese life to a person living in China. Edit: Also 20 hours a day labour sounds very unreasonable.[/QUOTE] So you live in China? no.

China is motherfucking poor for the average citizen. 40 cents per hour anyone? Didn't think so. We'll be stronger, just because they have a "bigger army" with their population, doesn't mean they have better military technology. We'll put a boot up your ass, it's the American way.

[QUOTE=Redcow17;29458724]China is motherfucking poor for the average citizen. 40 cents per hour anyone? Didn't think so. We'll be stronger, just because they have a "bigger army" with their population, doesn't mean they have better military technology. We'll put a boot up your ass, it's the American way.[/QUOTE] Top country doesn't mean having the strongest military in the world, it just contributes to it.

[QUOTE=Redcow17;29458724]Didn't think so. We'll be stronger, just because they have a "bigger army" with their population, doesn't mean they have better military technology. We'll put a boot up your ass, it's the American way.[/QUOTE] "Merely because technology plays a very important part in war, it does not follow that it alone can dictate the conduct of a war or lead to victory." Case in point, Vietnam, Somalia and countless battles at the National Training Center during the 1990s.

[QUOTE=_Kent_;29456796][media]http://www.politicolnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/tiananmen-square-tank1.jpg[/media] The Chinese deserve a better government, and I'm afraid of what will happen if they surpass the US before there is a major shift in power.[/QUOTE] It's a good thing they won't, then. [editline]27th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Tac Error;29459296]"Merely because technology plays a very important part in war, it does not follow that it alone can dictate the conduct of a war or lead to victory." Case in point, Vietnam, Somalia and countless battles at the National Training Center during the 1990s.[/QUOTE] The PLA is primarily geared towards a range of regional scenarios with little experience, whereas the US has (frequent) experience in conflicts at a great deal away from them.

[QUOTE=_Kent_;29456796][media]http://www.politicolnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/tiananmen-square-tank1.jpg[/media] The Chinese deserve a better government, and I'm afraid of what will happen if they surpass the US before there is a major shift in power.[/QUOTE] If the progressive faction of the Communist Party in the 1980s acquired more power than the hardliner faction and wasn't arrested, then the PRC would indeed have a better government - in our Western eyes - by now. [editline]26th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=yaik9a;29456106]That was political but there was nothing wrong with kiev in anti submarine engagements if it was scaled down.[/QUOTE] Don't be a Soviet apologist. Soviet military doctrine was wrong basing the majority of their naval power on ballistic missile submarines, which only have deterrence value and are only useful in actual war if said conflict turned nuclear. [editline]26th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Contag;29459300]The PLA is primarily geared towards a range of regional scenarios with little experience, whereas the US has (frequent) experience in conflicts at a great deal away from them.[/QUOTE] Experience in expeditionary operations against foes which are not regarded as "peer enemies" and said operations are of a low-intensity nature, yes, but the last time that the US military trained to fight against a peer foe was over 20 years ago. As an example: The IDF had over 10 years of experience fighting against the Palestinians in the 1990s. When it came to invading Lebanon in 2006 they get a nice surprise from Hezbollah indeed. But then again the PLA isn't an expeditionary force. It is tailored toward different strategic, operational, and tactical requirements than the US military and mirror-imaging the two is apples and oranges.

Except their deterrence strategy means that any conflict would be entirely localized and unable to progress beyond the usual territory disputes.

Good thing I moving to Canada in 2 years :buddy:

[QUOTE=Contag;29459473]Except their deterrence strategy means that any conflict would be entirely localized and unable to progress beyond the usual territory disputes.[/QUOTE] What? Care to clarify what you mean?

[QUOTE=TAU!;29451319] It sends a simple, immature message along the lines of "Hey! Our economy's growing a bit, the US doesn't have shit on us guys!"[/QUOTE] The author of this article is Stacy Curtin, using information from the IMF. The amount of Chinese influence on this article is about zero.