PDA

View Full Version : By 2020 no clear superpower!!!!



Commando
14 Jan 05,, 22:51
India, China emerging as new global players, US position will erode, conclude CIA planners



BOB DROGIN


Posted online: Saturday, January 15, 2005 at 0141 hours IST



WASHINGTON, JANUARY 14: India and China will increasingly flex powerful political and economic muscles as major new global players by 2020, an in-house CIA think tank has said, likening the rise of the two countries to the emergence of the United States as a world power, a century ago.

The two nuclear-armed Asian giants—one a vibrant democracy, the other a one-party state—will ‘‘transform the geopolitical landscape’’ because of their robust economic growth, expanding military capabilities and large populations, the National Intelligence Council predicted.



‘‘The rise of these new powers is a virtual certainty,’’ the Council said in report titled Mapping the Global Future. Partly as a result, the Council expects the world economy to be about 80 per cent larger than in 2000, and per capita income 50 per cent higher.

The bad news: The United States ‘‘will see its relative power position eroded’’ and the world will face a ‘‘more pervasive sense of insecurity’’ from terrorism, the spread of unconventional weapons and political upheaval that could reverse recent democratic gains in parts of Central and Southeast Asia.

‘‘Weak governments, lagging economies, religious extremism and youth bulges will align to create a perfect storm for internal conflict in some areas,’’ the authors warned. ‘‘Our greatest concern is that terrorists might acquire biological agents, or less likely, a nuclear device, either of which could cause mass casualties.’’

The 120-page report is intended to help the White House and other policymakers prepare for probable challenges by tracing how key trends may develop and influence world events over the next 15 years. ‘‘It’s designed to stimulate thought,’’ Robert L Hutchings, chairman of the Council, said during a news briefing at the CIA Headquarters.

Although few of the forecasts come as surprises, Hutchings said the authors sought to challenge conventional thinking. ‘‘Linear analysis will get you a much-changed caterpillar,’’ he said, ‘‘but it won’t get you a butterfly. For that you need a leap of imagination. We hope this...will help us make that leap.’’

The report, the third in a project launched in the mid-1990s, is based on the thinking and comments of more than 1,000 US and foreign experts who participated in more than 30 conferences and workshops over the last year. The text and a computer simulation of possible scenarios are available online at www.cia.gov/nic.

The US will retain enormous advantages and will continue to play a pivotal role in economic, political and military affairs, the report concludes. But Washington ‘‘may be increasingly confronted’’ with managing fast-shifting international relations and alignments. Washington probably will face ‘‘dramatically altered alliances and relations with Europe and Asia,’’ for example, with the European Union increasingly supplanting NATO on the world stage. The United Nations and international financial institutions ‘‘risk sliding into obsolescence unless they adjust’’ to the changes in the global system, the authors wrote.

‘‘While no single power looks within striking distance of rivalling US military power by 2020, more countries will be in a position to make the United States pay a heavy price for any military action they oppose,’’ they said.

But unlike in the past, the likelihood that a local conflict could escalate into a total war or nuclear exchange is ‘‘lower than at any time in the past century.’’ Key to the future, the Council found, is the international flow of information, capital, goods and services. Those ever-expanding transfers will become so powerful and so irreversible, driven especially by the expanding middle class in Asia, such globalisation ‘‘will substantially shape all the other major trends in the world of 2020,’’ the authors said. LAT-WP

Veni Vidi Vici
14 Jan 05,, 23:03
The sky is falling... run and hide everyone.

dalem
14 Jan 05,, 23:33
Okay Commando, yet anotehr article on the same topic.

Do you believe it's true?

-dale

Bluesman
15 Jan 05,, 00:07
Of course it's true, dalem. He used FOUR exclamations points, fer Gawd's sake!

Purty much tells me all I need to know; what's it going to take for YOU to believe? You one o' them FIVE exclamation point types? :rolleyes:

Commando
15 Jan 05,, 00:16
Haha you guys make me laugh. No the sky is not falling. And i believe its true because google news get some very trustworthy sources.

http://news.google.com.au/nwshp?gl=au&ned=au&topic=w

Try that its the seventh story down.

Also i always use heaps of exclamation marks and fullstops.

dalem
15 Jan 05,, 07:02
Of course it's true, dalem. He used FOUR exclamations points, fer Gawd's sake!

Purty much tells me all I need to know; what's it going to take for YOU to believe? You one o' them FIVE exclamation point types? :rolleyes:

Go read my post in the Prediction thread. :)

-dale

dalem
15 Jan 05,, 07:03
Haha you guys make me laugh. No the sky is not falling. And i believe its true because google news get some very trustworthy sources.

http://news.google.com.au/nwshp?gl=au&ned=au&topic=w

Try that its the seventh story down.

Also i always use heaps of exclamation marks and fullstops.

Not why you believe people that write articles believe it's true. Why YOU believe it's true.

-dale

Commando
15 Jan 05,, 07:18
Because google news process information from trustworthy newspapers and journalists if it was bulldust it would never have made the page.

dalem
15 Jan 05,, 07:54
Because google news process information from trustworthy newspapers and journalists if it was bulldust it would never have made the page.

No thoughts of your own?

-dale

Commando
15 Jan 05,, 09:32
I think it may come true but are still undecided.

How insecure would that world be or would it be secure??

Ray
15 Jan 05,, 18:16
One should wait till it becomes the truth and forget these speculations for the time being.

There is many a slip between cup and lip.

dalem
15 Jan 05,, 19:22
I think it may come true but are still undecided.

How insecure would that world be or would it be secure??

What evidence leads you to believe that it may come true?

-dale

Bill
15 Jan 05,, 20:29
The world doesn't have any superpowers now.

There's the Hpyer-power, and then there's everyone else.

Ray
15 Jan 05,, 20:45
What evidence leads you to believe that it may come true?

-dale

A Commando doesn't require evidence. He just requires to ahve his nose pointed in the right direction and the word of command given, 'Go, boy, Go'.
:biggrin: :tongue:

dalem
15 Jan 05,, 22:11
A Commando doesn't require evidence. He just requires to ahve his nose pointed in the right direction and the word of command given, 'Go, boy, Go'.
:biggrin: :tongue:

:)

Veni Vidi Vici
16 Jan 05,, 22:41
The world doesn't have any superpowers now.

There's the Hpyer-power, and then there's everyone else.
Ahhh but you forget a class.

Theres the hyper-power, everyone else, and then france. :biggrin:

barrowaj
20 Jan 05,, 04:31
Technology is the key, IMO. Germany was able to take over Europe because of its advanced military technology. The US will maintain its superpower status as long as it has a technological hegemony over the rest of the world. China will be able to outproduce US, but we will still control them as long as they have to use our technology.

Praxus
20 Jan 05,, 04:38
To my knowledge German technology was not better then the allies, they just used it better.

CoyoteNature
20 Jan 05,, 05:12
Depends on what you mean by power, in terms of interconnectiveness, many nations are vulnerable including the US. Just like the US is vulnerable to China because of the economic links as well as the fact they also are the reason why we can continue to run on a defecit like we are doing. Or the US is vulnerable to Middle East Oil, etc. again depends on the perspective and what direction the power is.

Can the US continue on without materials flowing in from other parts of the world, or is it to a certain extent dependent on cooperation?

I mean its not just foreign oil, that you got to worry about, its everything else, uranium, various metal ores, textiles, certain rare chemicals, you name it America probably doesn't produce it, but instead comes from somewhere else.

Oh sure the US has the ability to commit suicide, probably take the rest of the world with it, has technological sophistication, but all that depends on what it gets elsewhere, Technological sophistication needs a a lot of stuff to keep it going, fact is not all of it we can produce ourselves.

tarek
20 Jan 05,, 05:18
You guys have mentioned technology, but organization should be given more thought.

SpartanKing
20 Feb 05,, 06:45
It is only a matter of time before China becomes the world's largest economy and with economic power comes the potential for increased military power.

They have 1.3 billion people and an excellent ability to adapt, reproduce, and outright steal any technology they require.

Also don't forget that the 100 million or so ethnic Chinese of the Pacific Rim countries (Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philipines, Singapore) have alot of wealth and are fiercely loyal to their Chinese roots.

And if you figure in Taiwan - which one day will reunify with the mainland - you have a formidable power.

dalem
20 Feb 05,, 07:31
It is only a matter of time before China becomes the world's largest economy and with economic power comes the potential for increased military power.

Oh no, one of these guys? Where do you get this stuff?

-dale

professional
20 Feb 05,, 08:13
By 2020 India and China may get much better than what they are today but They ll not go ahead of USA.

There was a news which could go right thaT by 2050 USA , CHINA and INDIA ll be the biggest powers ( Economic or military) resp.

I have one article :

China and India: From Global Marketplaces to Global Superpowers with Lord Meghnad Desai
Public Lecture
Thursday 19 August 2004 @ 06:00 pm - 08:00 pm
Basement Theatre, Sidney Myer Asia Centre

A recent report by Goldman Sachs argues that by 2050 the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China) would become a much larger force in the world economy with a combined output larger than the world's current six largest economies (the US, Japan, Germany, UK, France and Italy). Lord Meghnad Desai, one of the world's foremost authorities on the politics of global development, will discuss how this growing economic power is affecting geopolitical developments in Asia and beyond. Lord Meghnad Jagdishchandra Desai has been a Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics (LSE) since 1983 and became the Founding Director of the LSE's Centre for the Study of Global Governance in 1992. He is considered by many to be one of the world's foremost authorities on the politics of global development.


chech this one too :

2020 - Changing Geo-Politcal Landscape (http://hallofrecord.blogspot.com/2005/01/2020-changing-geo-politcal-landscape.html)

lwarmonger
20 Feb 05,, 23:18
Oh no, one of these guys? Where do you get this stuff?

-dale

Bah! How many times must we have this discussion?!

:)

lwarmonger
20 Feb 05,, 23:20
One should wait till it becomes the truth and forget these speculations for the time being.

There is many a slip between cup and lip.


But speculating is so much fun!

:biggrin:

professional
21 Feb 05,, 17:34
But speculating is so much fun!

:biggrin:


Speculation are based on the current situations .

India and China are doing so .

But speculations are part of discussion .

antelope
23 Feb 05,, 00:28
If current economic development trends in China continue it is only a question of time before they become the dominant power on the Earth. Although any country (including America for that matter) can implode unexpectedly from various internal stress, barring some kind of unforseen shock the only real question is when will China surpass America. 15 years may be a bit soon but by 2050 it may be a fait accompli.

America, barring an internal meltdown will however be a superpower into the forseeable future as it continues to have a vibrant economic model compared to the rest of the world and the third largest population base. It is even conceiveable long term, looking out 200 plus years that even if China becomes the dominant power America could in time eclipse them again both economically and in population as the vastness of America, its pro-immigrant and assimilation philosophy, religious values that foster birth among a significant segment of its population mean that America's population growth will continue forward in a time when China starts to look like a shrinking Japan after years of mandatory family planning, urbanization stresses, and lack of available land for families.

India will have to make some major structural economic changes if it is to become a superpower. Based upon decades of free elections it seems doubtful that the Indian people will adopt the kind of free market economy needed to unleash the inherent power their numbers provide.

Bluesman
24 Feb 05,, 03:41
If current economic development trends in China continue it is only a question of time before they become the dominant power on the Earth. Although any country (including America for that matter) can implode unexpectedly from various internal stress, barring some kind of unforseen shock the only real question is when will China surpass America. 15 years may be a bit soon but by 2050 it may be a fait accompli.

America, barring an internal meltdown will however be a superpower into the forseeable future as it continues to have a vibrant economic model compared to the rest of the world and the third largest population base. It is even conceiveable long term, looking out 200 plus years that even if China becomes the dominant power America could in time eclipse them again both economically and in population as the vastness of America, its pro-immigrant and assimilation philosophy, religious values that foster birth among a significant segment of its population mean that America's population growth will continue forward in a time when China starts to look like a shrinking Japan after years of mandatory family planning, urbanization stresses, and lack of available land for families.

India will have to make some major structural economic changes if it is to become a superpower. Based upon decades of free elections it seems doubtful that the Indian people will adopt the kind of free market economy needed to unleash the inherent power their numbers provide.


Emphatically disagree. Command economies (and although China's is the BEST working example of same, that's basically what they are) are excellent at propelling economic backwaters forward, they cannot sustain the pace. That requires entrepreneurism and the dynamism of a true free-market economy.

Look for China to roll off from the pace set over the last decade. At the same time, look for a restive population to become moreso, as a succeeding generation is disappointed in promises unfulfilled. And that spells political trouble for the Old Guard, trying to make some kind of meaningful distinction between eroding progress (oh, it'll still be there, but it will disappoint ever more acquisitive Chinese, much as our disquiet threatened the social order in the 'Seventies) and a counter-example in Hong Kong. The choice will be stark for the Long March types: reform out of any semblance to Communist Party pretensions, or allow the Masses to seek their own path. Either is Doom on a Bun.

What will NOT happen is another decade of 10+% growth while still under the heel of a Central Committee, or any other economic planning body. So extrapolation of current rates are about as accurate as our sixth-grade textbooks telling us we'd have flying cars ala Jetsons by now. :)

lwarmonger
24 Feb 05,, 23:13
Emphatically disagree. Command economies (and although China's is the BEST working example of same, that's basically what they are) are excellent at propelling economic backwaters forward, they cannot sustain the pace. That requires entrepreneurism and the dynamism of a true free-market economy.

Look for China to roll off from the pace set over the last decade. At the same time, look for a restive population to become moreso, as a succeeding generation is disappointed in promises unfulfilled. And that spells political trouble for the Old Guard, trying to make some kind of meaningful distinction between eroding progress (oh, it'll still be there, but it will disappoint ever more acquisitive Chinese, much as our disquiet threatened the social order in the 'Seventies) and a counter-example in Hong Kong. The choice will be stark for the Long March types: reform out of any semblance to Communist Party pretensions, or allow the Masses to seek their own path. Either is Doom on a Bun.

What will NOT happen is another decade of 10+% growth while still under the heel of a Central Committee, or any other economic planning body. So extrapolation of current rates are about as accurate as our sixth-grade textbooks telling us we'd have flying cars ala Jetsons by now. :)

Why is it not possible for them to continue to loosen control over the economy, while still maintaining authoritarian control over the population? That would enable sustained economic growth, while enabling the CCP to maintain power. It's a risky course of action (due to the fact that it discredits communism as an economic system), however it is the one that is available to the Chinese leadership, and it could work, at least for a while.

Ray
24 Feb 05,, 23:30
The likely emergence of China and India, as well as others, as new major global
players—similar to the advent of a united Germany in the 19th century and a
powerful United States in the early 20th century—will transform the geopolitical
landscape, with impacts potentially as dramatic as those in the previous two
centuries. In the same way that commentators refer to the 1900s as the “American
Century,” the 21st century may be seen as the time when Asia, led by China and India,
comes into its own. A combination of sustained high economic growth, expanding
military capabilities, and large populations will be at the root of the expected rapid rise in economic and political power for both countries.

• Most forecasts indicate that by 2020 China’s gross national product (GNP) will
exceed that of individual Western economic powers except for the United States.
India’s GNP will have overtaken or be on the threshold of overtaking European
economies.

• Because of the sheer size of China’s and India’s populations—projected by the US
Census Bureau to be 1.4 billion and almost 1.3 billion respectively by 2020—their
standard of living need not approach Western levels for these countries to become
important economic powers.
Barring an abrupt reversal of the process of globalization or any major upheavals in
these countries, the rise of these new powers is a virtual certainty. Yet how China and
India exercise their growing power and whether they relate cooperatively or
competitively to other powers in the international system are key uncertainties. The
economies of other developing countries, such as Brazil, could surpass all but the
largest European countries by 2020; Indonesia’s economy could also approach the
economies of individual European countries by 2020.

By most measures—market size, single currency, highly skilled work force, stable
democratic governments, and unified trade bloc—an enlarged Europe will be able to
increase its weight on the international scene. Europe’s strength could be in providing a
model of global and regional governance to the rising powers. But aging populations
and shrinking work forces in most countries will have an important impact on the
continent. Either European countries adapt their work forces, reform their social
welfare, education, and tax systems, and accommodate growing immigrant populations
(chiefly from Muslim countries), or they face a period of protracted economic stasis.
Japan faces a similar aging crisis that could crimp its longer run economic recovery, but
it also will be challenged to evaluate its regional status and role. Tokyo may have to
choose between “balancing” against or “bandwagoning” with China. Meanwhile, the
crisis over North Korea is likely to come to a head sometime over the next 15 years.
Asians’ lingering resentments and concerns over Korean unification and cross-Taiwan
Strait tensions point to a complicated process for achieving regional equilibrium.
Russia has the potential to enhance its international role with others due to its position
as a major oil and gas exporter. However, Russia faces a severe demographic crisis
resulting from low birth rates, poor medical care, and a potentially explosive AIDS
situation. To the south, it borders an unstable region in the Caucasus and Central Asia,
the effects of which—Muslim extremism, terrorism, and endemic conflict—are likely to
continue spilling over into Russia. While these social and political factors limit the
extent to which Russia can be a major global player, Moscow is likely to be an important partner both for the established powers, the United States and Europe, and for the rising powers of China and India.

With these and other new global actors, how we mentally map the world in 2020 will
change radically. The “arriviste” powers—China, India, and perhaps others such as
Brazil and Indonesia—have the potential to render obsolete the old categories of East
and West, North and South, aligned and nonaligned, developed and developing.
Traditional geographic groupings will increasingly lose salience in international relations.
A state-bound world and a world of mega-cities, linked by flows of telecommunications,
trade and finance, will co-exist. Competition for allegiances will be more open, less
fixed than in the past.

Rahul
25 Feb 05,, 05:37
That Goldman Sachs report on the "BRICs" that started this whole thing (or at least as far as I can tell):

http://gs.com/insight/research/reports/99.pdf

Karthik
25 Feb 05,, 06:00
Rahul, yeah you are right about that report.

Actually, I've been thinking of this for a while, and sometimes I dont find an answer to the question 'What is the criteria for a country to be called a superpower'?
Does it mean

(a) A powerful, massive economy that drives growth all around the world.

(b) Does it mean high standards of living and quality life? If so, then Norway and Sweden top the list. Because what's the use of being called a superpower if citizens of other countries have a higher standard of living than those of your own?

(c) Massive military and technological capability.

(d) Ability to influence other cultures around the world.

(e) Hegemony?

For India and China to achieve high standards of living, it would take a very very long time. :rolleyes:

lwarmonger
25 Feb 05,, 07:11
(b) Does it mean high standards of living and quality life? If so, then Norway and Sweden top the list. Because what's the use of being called a superpower if citizens of other countries have a higher standard of living than those of your own?



Don't think that should be used as a criterion for a superpower for several reasons. First of all, the Soviet Union was very definately considered a superpower, but their standard of living was not high. Second, what determines standard of living is highly subjective, and reports that compare standard of living can be made to say a lot of different things that really don't have any bearing on reality. Thirdly, standard of living really doesn't impact a nations' ability to project power abroad, or make others to conform to their will. That has always been the measure of a nations strength in the traditional sense, and is most often what is taken into account when determining great powers.

Karthik
25 Feb 05,, 08:50
Second, what determines standard of living is highly subjective, and reports that compare standard of living can be made to say a lot of different things that really don't have any bearing on reality.

I guess you can say that. My only source on that is the UN development index - I was refering to three aspects - education, health and employment. Unless economic growth lifts the vast majority of the needy, ain't it useless?



Thirdly, standard of living really doesn't impact a nations' ability to project power abroad, or make others to conform to their will.

I think thats true as well.

lwarmonger
25 Feb 05,, 20:23
Unless economic growth lifts the vast majority of the needy, ain't it useless?


Doesn't economic growth lift the vast majority of the needy ( :confused: )? The difference between the well being of the poor in the United States and the poor in Brazil is quite considerable. The difference between the two nations being sustained economic growth.

Over the short term, I don't think it matters so much, but taken over the course of decades, the difference between the nations that are growing and the ones that are not becomes quite considerable.

That's just always the perspective that I've taken.

Karthik
26 Feb 05,, 07:11
Doesn't economic growth lift the vast majority of the needy ?

Economic growth as measured by the GDP can often not tell the entire story. In many cases, the gap between those who are well off and those who are poor has widened.

But I agree with you when you speak of sustained, consistent growth.

Bill
26 Feb 05,, 16:25
"Does it mean high standards of living and quality life? If so, then Norway and Sweden top the list."

Hence Sweden and Norway having among the highest suicide rates in the western world....

SpartanKing
26 Feb 05,, 17:22
In 1830 according to the concept of Purchasing Power Parity China accounted for 1/3 of the world's entire economy, or pretty much the same as ALL of Europe (this info was in the Financial Times this past week). For ppl that believe history is cyclical, this is a very telling figure.

China has strong state elements but it also has a large amount of entrepreneurs; whether or not these ppl have links to the Chinese Communist Party is irrelevant, as they are still entrepreneurs.

China is a society based on "Confucian" social order and so any "revolution" towards democracy simply won't happen. It is not in the Chinese blood, history, or culture for this to occur.

It is imprtant to realise that China is totally different than the US and Europe; and as such it's development will be different.

Can they maintain growth rates of 10% of year ? Probably not. But they can maintain growrh rates high enough to close the gap with the US and over take them. Remember the Chinese half 4.5 times the population, so a per capita income 25% the US average (which is highly likely to happen) would give the Chinese the world's largest economy.

lwarmonger
26 Feb 05,, 23:22
Economic growth as measured by the GDP can often not tell the entire story. In many cases, the gap between those who are well off and those who are poor has widened.


You are correct, but just because a larger gap exists between rich in poor in one country does not mean that it's poor aren't a lot better off than the poor of neighboring countries. I've never felt that economic disparities within a society are bad things, as long as the lowest strata of the society in question is better off than the lowest strata of it's neighbors.

I'm not trying to argue with you by the way, I'm just elaborating how I view economics, because I realize that many view economic equality within a society as something to strive for, and I understand that my way of thinking is generally not in the majority.

Karthik
27 Feb 05,, 17:17
I've never felt that economic disparities within a society are bad things, as long as the lowest strata of the society in question is better off than the lowest strata of it's neighbors

Well, yeah, as far as those living in the lowest strata dont have to live in abject misery, I think its okay.

I guess such disparities are evident in almost every country. The Marxist communist ideologies have already failed all over the world in its aim of reducing those gaps.

So I suppose thats one thing we've managed to agree on. :)

lwarmonger
27 Feb 05,, 22:22
Well, yeah, as far as those living in the lowest strata dont have to live in abject misery, I think its okay.

I guess such disparities are evident in almost every country. The Marxist communist ideologies have already failed all over the world in its aim of reducing those gaps.

So I suppose thats one thing we've managed to agree on. :)

Indeed.

:)

Ironduke
28 Feb 05,, 15:24
The bad news: The United States ‘‘will see its relative power position eroded’’
America's relative power has been declining since WWII. The fall of the Soviet Union gave it a temporary boost.

dalem
28 Feb 05,, 18:13
America's relative power has been declining since WWII. The fall of the Soviet Union gave it a temporary boost.

Declining? Interesting. By what standards?

-dale

Karthik
28 Feb 05,, 19:10
I have a friend in my college who's very passionately in favour of America being the sole superpower of the world.

Only a few days ago he was kind enough to tell me that should the earth be on a collion course with a giant space asteriod, only NASA was capable of preventing a doomsday scenario from unfolding on this planet !

Lol, I couldn't argue much with him on that. :)

It was a nasty reminder for me of the overwhelming, unparalleled power that the US currently enjoys. :)

Officer of Engineers
28 Feb 05,, 19:24
Declining? Interesting. By what standards?

-dale

Strictly military? We are no longer capable of fighting a Fulda Gap. In fact, we see the strategic doctrine being eroded over time. From a two and half war strategy (Fighting the Soviets both East and West while holding down a North Korea or an Iraq at the same time) to the current modular force concept (build as you need).

Iraq is considered a half war by Cold War standards.

dalem
28 Feb 05,, 20:13
I have a friend in my college who's very passionately in favour of America being the sole superpower of the world.

Only a few days ago he was kind enough to tell me that should the earth be on a collion course with a giant space asteriod, only NASA was capable of preventing a doomsday scenario from unfolding on this planet !

Lol, I couldn't argue much with him on that. :)

It was a nasty reminder for me of the overwhelming, unparalled power that the US currently enjoys. :)

Actually the one area I wish we were more like the Russians is our space program. I think we're too delicate. We'd be arguing about how best to ensure that the asteroid would be destroyed with the maximum efficiency and in the meantime the Russians would have just launched a missile into the damned thing.

-dale

dalem
28 Feb 05,, 20:18
Strictly military? We are no longer capable of fighting a Fulda Gap. In fact, we see the strategic doctrine being eroded over time. From a two and half war strategy (Fighting the Soviets both East and West while holding down a North Korea or an Iraq at the same time) to the current modular force concept (build as you need).

Iraq is considered a half war by Cold War standards.

Fair point, but I think our capabilities have drawn down to meet expected threats. Dipped a little too far, yes, but on their way back up, and other measures of "relative power" (a debatable phrase to be sure) have actually increased due to the decline of Russia, Europe, etc.

As I've said before though, I do think that India (for instance) or a Southern Pacific Bloc with India heavily involved will probably rise to shorten that gap and in effect, decrease our "relative power".

-dale

jon_j_rambo
01 Mar 05,, 04:41
Agreed, considering the conditions which are going to be, that is.

-Legend

Ray
01 Mar 05,, 06:12
And what is that condition?

lwarmonger
01 Mar 05,, 06:37
Strictly military? We are no longer capable of fighting a Fulda Gap. In fact, we see the strategic doctrine being eroded over time. From a two and half war strategy (Fighting the Soviets both East and West while holding down a North Korea or an Iraq at the same time) to the current modular force concept (build as you need).

Iraq is considered a half war by Cold War standards.


And if you add the economic factors into the equation, the United States went from having around 50% of the worlds manufacturing capacity in 1945, to having approximately 17% in 1986 (sorry, but that is the most recent figure I can quote with confidence off the top of my head). That is measured in terms of industrial goods produced, and is a very considerable decline! While the United States is still the world's largest economic entity, our advantage is much smaller than it was 50 years ago.