Forums | MacLife

ScifiterX wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

The US is still technically a military superpower however our days as a scientific, cultural, and economic superpower have definitely passed.

I'm not sure what you're basing that on.

The former our ability to wipe life off Earth several times over. The latter our weak dollar, our trade deficit, the fact we've exported many of our businesses, the fact that  many technologies are outstretching our growth, the fact that many other countries have better heath care systems, better environmental policies, the degrading of our media quality, the fact that the records we once held have fallen to other countries, the fact that we wasted our nation's good will, need I go on.

I think you might be just a bit on the bleak side.

For the others here that think out superpower status depends on cheap oil, remember that the people you think are going to replace us also face the same challenges.

Farmerkev wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

I'm not sure what you're basing that on.

The former our ability to wipe life off Earth several times over. The latter our weak dollar, our trade deficit, the fact we've exported many of our businesses, the fact that  many technologies are outstretching our growth, the fact that many other countries have better heath care systems, better environmental policies, the degrading of our media quality, the fact that the records we once held have fallen to other countries, the fact that we wasted our nation's good will, need I go on.

I think you might be just a bit on the bleak side.

For the others here that think out superpower status depends on cheap oil, remember that the people you think are going to replace us also face the same challenges.

Being a superpower, or ceasing to be a superpower, is not contingent on there being a viable successor.

Personally I think that, if the Pax Americana really is doomed, it will not be replaced by anyone else. The only possibility, and it's a faint one, is some sort of multilateral approach to world politics -- the kind of stuff that makes neocons scream.

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

I think you might be just a bit on the bleak side.

For the others here that think out superpower status depends on cheap oil, remember that the people you think are going to replace us also face the same challenges.

Being a superpower, or ceasing to be a superpower, is not contingent on there being a viable successor.

Personally I think that, if the Pax Americana really is doomed, it will not be replaced by anyone else. The only possibility, and it's a faint one, is some sort of multilateral approach to world politics -- the kind of stuff that makes neocons scream.

Only because every attempt at it has been a joke outside of Roddenberry's fantasies.

Naw, I think there was a multilateral trend forming in the 90s before it was scuppered. Probably too late to revive it, tho.

One word. . . Iraq.

I see the US is proving it's military mettle over there quite convincingly. . . nudge nudge, wink wink. . . to the tune of a couple of trillion dollars. . . thank you. . .

The only way we'd ever beat China would be to get all our nukes off first with. . . like. . . a 50% hit rate. . . in terms of manpower China's standing army would keep coming and coming and coming. . .

Tallgeese wrote:

That China has long-range cruise missiles that we can't counter, that China has a substantial submarine fleet, that China could take out some carriers, and that the U.S. would have a difficult time besting China in a conventional war.

We could easily keep them contained in the mainland. Occupation would be impossible, but occupation isn't required.

For that missile:
link

Its Russian made, and pretty well designed to take out aircraft carriers. Tests to defend against it will start in 2014.

Submarine thing:
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/04/s … rrier.html

The US could indeed keep China fairly isolated. But if China was able to take out some carriers, then the US has a much more complicated problem to deal with. I dont think the US would be able to win in any sort of decisive fashion, and the costs of such a war would bring the US economy to its knees (just look at what the comparatively minor costs of Iraq are doing).

Steyr AUG wrote:

The sizzler would get the nulka kicked out of it.

From my link:

March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile, according to current and former officials and Defense Department documents.

Now, I can't comment on if the nulka would be effective or not, hardly my area of expertise. But it would seem strange for the Defense Department to be talking about "not having a plan" if it was just as simple as deploying a decoy against it.

Nulka is but one of many technologies that compromises the layered defenses of the US surface fleet. The sizzler destroying the navy is hardly realistic.

[Tycho?] wrote:

Submarine thing:
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/04/s … rrier.html

Fun. I was on watch on #76 there for that picture.
But anyway, that article hardly supports the idea of a substantial Chinese submarine fleet.  Compared to most of the world, sure. Compared to what our fleet was geared to fight against (the arguably superior Soviet submarine fleet), hardly.

I merely used Iraq as an illustration, we're still there, still fighting and haven't won squat yet. You people who blithely think we'll beat a nation the size of China make me laugh.

[Tycho?] wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

[Tycho?] wrote:

Submarine thing:
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/04/s … rrier.html

Fun. I was on watch on #76 there for that picture.
But anyway, that article hardly supports the idea of a substantial Chinese submarine fleet.  Compared to most of the world, sure. Compared to what our fleet was geared to fight against (the arguably superior Soviet submarine fleet), hardly.

I'm not saying the US is going to be overrun by Chinese subs, or that they'll be picking off US carriers left right and center.

I'm saying that the technology gap is no longer wide enough that the US will be able to comfortably wipe the floor with China, especially if it plans on fighting other wars in the meantime. They're obviously not up to Soviet level threat, but to think that China is incapable of damaging the US military is foolish.

And you came to this conclusion based on..... two little news blurbs?

StaticAge wrote:

[Tycho?] wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Fun. I was on watch on #76 there for that picture.
But anyway, that article hardly supports the idea of a substantial Chinese submarine fleet.  Compared to most of the world, sure. Compared to what our fleet was geared to fight against (the arguably superior Soviet submarine fleet), hardly.

I'm not saying the US is going to be overrun by Chinese subs, or that they'll be picking off US carriers left right and center.

I'm saying that the technology gap is no longer wide enough that the US will be able to comfortably wipe the floor with China, especially if it plans on fighting other wars in the meantime. They're obviously not up to Soviet level threat, but to think that China is incapable of damaging the US military is foolish.

I think you have a point, but I think it is a future possibility, not the current situation. If it happened today, I think your assessment would be wrong. But if the current economic situation and fuel shortage blah blah blah, then the defense pipeline might get a lot tighter and there will be nothing new coming to replace/upgrade older models and if China on the other hand was able to keep funding its own development, then you'd have the situation you're talking about.

Yeah. I still personally think the US would have a very hard time, but looking at this question on a timeline is perhaps more useful. 10 years ago I certainly wouldn't be making this argument. But China has come a long way in those 10 years, and the US has only seen problems. And thinking 10 years into the future, I can't help but think that China is rapidly gaining, and that this is not going to slow down any time soon.

Farmerkev wrote:

isaly wrote:

I merely used Iraq as an illustration, we're still there, still fighting and haven't won squat yet. You people who blithely think we'll beat a nation the size of China make me laugh.

You're trying to connect two different things.

All I'm saying is we can't even kick Iraq's ass, short of an all out nuclear exchange how does one even begin to think we can kick China's.

ummm. . . we'd be fighting the chinese people. and they have LOTS more of them than we have.