China's Emergence As A Global Superpower

How is a Tomahawk 7000 times less expensive when you have to drag along a goddam aircraft carrier and an airplane? That's one of the first problems with your answer. Another problem is that you haven't used any methods to estimate the increased carrying capacity of any launch vehicle when it transports cargo with no humans aboard. When the vehicle is restricted to 3 Gs of acceleration, a solid third of the fuel used is simply thrown away to fight the Earth's gravity. Just looking for a ballpark figure, you have about a third of the weight of the vehicle at launch dedicated to simply overcoming gravity. A 5 G launch makes that 20 percent, and a 7 G launch makes that 14 percent, very roughly. This gives you a lot of room to add payload. Five times the payload is well within the wiggle room this gives you. We can be talking about better than a quarter of a million tons of payload. Suddenly 7000 times the cost is reduced to 1400 times the cost, even if you didn't have to use a billion dollar ship to transport your missile to within a couple of thousand miles of the target.

Also, actually, it's easy to see our way clear to placing 100 missiles on the moon for 100 million dollars versus placing 100 missiles somewhere on a body of water for a billion dollars.

Again, you don't have to call it stupid. That doesn't help your case no matter how much of a habit you like to make of it, BillyT.
 
MetaKron said:
How is a Tomahawk 7000 times less expensive when you have to drag along a goddam aircraft carrier and an airplane?
No Carrier required. - I told you before aricraft cariers can not fire Tomahawks. Even if they could, we bought them for other many reasons. Tomakawks are normally launched from small escort ships like Aegis class or subs, both of which we have also for many other reasons - I.e. unlike the moon launch facilities your system will require new funds for, at least 100 mobil Tomahawk lauch platfoprm are already at sea. Zero incremental cost for the platforms, not billions of dollars more than NASA´s cumultively total expenditures since creation. It would cost more than that to put up a permanent manned launch facility on the moon. (As deep in debt as the US is, your moon launch system is not even an affordable option.)

About 1000 Tomahawks have already been fired, and this was not even a significant percentage of the cost to operate the US Navy.

Quit your nonsense while you still claim to be just ignorant, instead of obviously stupid.

PS please recall that the 7,000 times cheap was derived using your numbers for the fuel weight requirements, except I did estimate that the rocket fuels (liquid hydrogen and oxygen or other exotic chemicals) were only 5 times more expensive than kerosene. (a gross underestimation to avoid arguement, I might add)

As stated before, the true cost advantage of the much more accurate Tomahawk is in the ball part of 700,000 times cheaper when cost of the permanently manned moon launch base is included. I only included the fuel costs in the 7,000 times cheaper number.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MetaKron said:
Perhaps you could figure out if you didn't waste a lot of time and energy calling me stupid.
I did not call you stupid, just suggested you quit before that conclusion is obvious to all. I will not reply to you more on this as not only are you very wrong, you will not learn, and are obsesed with millitary conflict when China has no reason to lose everything in a conflict they are already winning. - the economic struggle for world dominance.
 
And you don't seem to understand that there is a chess game going on. The threat of obliteration is something that any country can gain a lot of capital on. I agree that total war may be profitless, not that it has proven so in the past, but we definitely have a situation where dominance can be gained relatively bloodlessly if someone gains the high ground, where they can shoot without being shot at, and where they can shoot at anything on the globe at any given time without having to move a billion dollars worth of hardware.

You really haven't proven much with your objections, either.
 
While announcing the closing of 14 plants in USA, Ford Motor's CEO also said:

"In the Asia-Pacific region a couple of our target areas for growth; India, ASEAN in China has a market and we have new plants under construction. We have invested in engineering in the past that covers architectures and kind of a footprint in place that allows us to launch new products and applications. There is a little bit of a time lag on that but I think you will see a lot of new announcements of new products introduced this year. We have increased our sales in China by 46% versus last year and a lot of exciting plans and products coming."

Billy T opinion & note: Ford lost more than a billion dollars in the US in 2005 and probably will declare banruptcy (in US) only a few years after GM does, certainly in less than a decade. Ford stock will probably do well, thanks to rapidly growing sales in China. (GM stock is at a 25 year low - they will not make it, even with Chinese sales. - Too little, too late in China.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just announced revision to 9.9% GDP growth in 2005, put China ahead of both England and France at end of 2005. Also note their GDP is in things that mater, not rock concert sales, NFL game related economic activity, etc. but in new roads, powerplants (approximately one per day), new dams, new factories, etc. with only a few yuan spent on firecrackers and red flags to celebarte the Chinese new year. etc.

Let the masses work long hours for low pay - then they will be too tired to want to go to rock concerts they can not afford anyway. This "success plan" is begining to show flaws. There is a rich middle class, rapidly growing. In fact, in 2005 domestic consumption of China was second only to the US, and growing much more rapidly (Middle class wages up 28% in China while those in US declined for fourth year straight in 2005. - CNN report.)

In a few years, the top2.5% of the chinese population will have on average 10 times the average US income. (Some Chinese are much "more equal" than others as Orwell would say.) This stated in other terms is:

The top two and one half percent of the chinese population will soon have more purchasing power than 100% of all Americans! (Very soon if US average wage keeps going down and China's going up at the current rate.)

No wonder all the big car makers are frantically building new plants in China, while closing them in the US.

The time for US to wake up passed a few years ago. Napolean had it wrong. It is the US, not China, that is a "Sleeping Giant."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Text I made bold in prior post now has Forbes list of the 400 richest in China (Note the wealth figures are in billions, not millions, of dollars.) Some are "much more equal than others", and none of these businessmen are Communist Party managers, who no doubt are also getting rich quick!

get full list at:
www.forbes.com/lists/2005/74/Worth_1.html
but top 25 are:

Rank __ Name __ Net Worth ($bil) __ Age __ Company (Sorry alignment did not copy well.)
1 Larry Rong Zhijian 1.64 63 CITIC Pacific Group
2 Zhu Mengyi 1.43 46 Hopson Development, Guangdong Zhujiang Invest
3 William Ding Lei 1.27 34 Netease.com
4 Wong Kwong Yu 1.25 36 Gome Appliances
5 Liu Yongxing 1.16 57 East Hope Group
6 Liu Yonghao 1.12 54 New Hope Group
7 Guo Guangchang 1.09 38 Fosun High-Tech Group
8 Xu Ming 1.05 34 Shide Group
9 Hui Wing Mau 1.00 55 Shimao Group
10 Chen Tianqiao 1.00 32 Shanda Interactive Entertainment
11 Zhang Li 0.81 51 R & F Properties Group
12 Lu Guanqiu 0.80 60 Wanxiang Group
13 Wu Guodi 0.68 45 Alison Group
14 Du Sha 0.62 57 Home World Group
14 Zhou Zerong 0.62 51 Kingold Group
16 Zhang Rongkun 0.61 32 Fuxi Investments & Feidian Investments
17 Robin Li 0.53 37 Baidu
18 Shen Wenrong 0.53 59 Jiangsu Shagang Group
19 Chen Lihua 0.49 64 Fu Wah International HK Group
20 Liu Fang 0.49 NA Ping An Insurance
21 Lou Zhongfu 0.47 51 Guangsha Holdings
22 Jin Fuyin 0.45 55 Shanghai People enterprise group
23 Zhou Furen 0.44 54 Xiyang Group
24 Zhu Yicai 0.42 41 Jiangsu Yurun Food
25 Liang Xinjun 0.41 37 Fosun High-Tech Group
 
Billy T said:
I read today article by Howard W. French, (translated into Portuguese) that must have been in the New York Times a few days ago, so my translation back of parts into English is not exact and to save typing, I am also condensing the facts and ideas:

1) 58 year old Princeton U. prof (Andrew Yao), world leader in computer sciences, & Yale genetist Xu Tian, and nuclear physicist Yan Fujia are among the dozens highest level professors that China has already bought home to well equipped new labs in a "billions of dollars" plan to make 30 mainland universities "superior to Harvard." Money is no objective /problem thanks to the great trade surplus. Because of the low general wage levels etc the cost of the new buildings is less than US $50/ square foot.

2) Already each year China graduates in engineering alone: 442,000 new engineers, plus 48,000 with masters degrees, plus 8,000 Ph.D.s Since 1998, when Jiang Zemin began to transform higher education in China, it has been transformed. In 2004 alone, US$10.4 billion was spent on improving the graduate schools and "buying professors" from the world's best universities. Ex MIT's mathematician, Tian Gang is heading up a new advance math research center that will soon exceed western-trained "brain power" at Princeton’s Center for Advanced Studies, where Einstein et al worked.

Living outside of US, in a city with great news papers (They ought to be as they copy from all the world's best and have staff on site around the world.) one is not as "thought controlled" as in the US. Thus three year ago I became aware that western world has already lost engineering leadership to Asia and is in the process of losing scientific leadership during this generation as well. That is why I wrote Dark Visitor - more details soon at web site under my name. (Currently site is down but in a few days should be back up.)

Most Americans don't realize how much they have got out of imported talent and how it is decreasing fast.

However, there is a lot more talent to import outside of China, so while it helps them it may not hurt the US. I think a lot of Chinese Universities actually teach in English, but even so, I don't know if these Chinese developments will draw in non-chinese talent. Yet, anyway. English is still the international language and the world would have to change in many ways before a broad range of people can build their life based on going to China. There are still a lot of Chinese who go to the US to study, but they are going back home a lot more often.

American higher education is one of the reasons I find it hard to imagine the US falling very far, even if it goes below China. 30 very high quality universities might get them the most universities of that quality, but it will probably take a longer time to match the amount of high and regular quality universities.
 
Welcome Exhumed.

You are right. Most Americans still think the "brain drain" is bringing talent to the US, and it is true to some extent in that many foreign students do still come to study, but the trend is that few of them will remain in the US as opportunities in US are closing, especially in the main field of scientific advances (biology, which will be to this new century what physics was to the past century) The US policy on stem cell research, not only will injure those who will need the medical treatments it can provide, but everyone as other parts of the world take the scientific leadership role in this new century. The crudely administrated anti-terror immigration policy is also contributing to the collapse of US scientific leadership. I.e. the US is no longer the "land of opportunity."

I remember that the goal of the Chinese education program was 50 "Harvard of Better" new universities, not 30, but see I said 30, at time I made the post you quoted, so probably the 30 is correct - does not matter as the point is China will soon be able to attract "the best and the brightest" from all the world, instead of the US.

Recent US policy has made most of the world really hate the US (My wife will no long drink coke, or buy any US made product.) This is another reason why the student who do come to study will not stay as they did in past years. Many foreign students will not even come, but select China, the clear "up and coming land of opportunity." - This is not just my opinion, but the opinion of most of the world's investors -China is the first nation in the history of the world to receive more than 100 billion dollars of Foreign Direct Investment in one year ($102 billion FDI in 2005.)

I have always admired the industrious and serious nature of the Chinese students I taught. As I said in a prior post, the student attitude towards learning is at least as important as the quality o the professors teaching them. I have not the least doubt that with all the funds being made available to the new superior-level-education expansion in China (China is effectively "buying" many of the world's best professors) and the Chinese culture of hard work and respect for your elders, that China will have, in only about 5 years, 30 "Harvard or Better" new university centers. Then very few of the world's "brightest and best" will chose to come to US to study, especially if its stupid restrictions on research in biology, the "ID is science" movement, etc, are still in effect. They will go to the new "land of opportunity" where educational opportunities are better, more available, and cost of living is much lower, not to mention the fact that they also get to perfect their skills in the language that will clearly be the most important one in their lifetimes. (If I were 55 years younger, I would be applying to a Chinese university now, to beat the rush.)

In a generation or two, America will sink to "has been" status, (or sooner if its currency is essentially worthless before that). America will not even be able to compete with Brazil, et. al, as a suppliers of food stocks, raw materials, and low-valued-added, semi-finished, goods to China, the world's new high-value-added production center.

Every one knows that the GDP growth rate of China is at least three times that of the US and has been for more than a decade. I have previously pointed out that this does not reflect the true extent of the problem as one must look at what is in the GDP. - The US's GDP has a lot that does not contribute to industrial capacity: - Rock-concert sales, NFL related economic activity, etc. but China's GDP is mainly new railroads, chemical plants, car plants, dams, ports, power plants (almost one per day!). I now can give this effect more quantitatively:

US industrial production growth in 2005 = 2.8%
China industrial production growth in 2005 = 16.6%
data from:
http://indiastockblog.com/article/6413 {despite being a blog, if you visit a few times, you will learn as I have that it is a center for fast and accurate financial news of Asia - I bought ADRs of Tara motor, 1.5 years ago because I learned here that they are building the plant that will sell the $2,200 four-passenger, no-rust car - see eariler post}

Thus in areas where it matters for the future, China's growth rate is 6, not 3, times greater than the US's growth rate.

There is a very convenient, and surprisingly accurate, way to calculate the number of years any growth rate (with practical interest) REQUIRES TO DOUBLE. - Just divide 72 by the percentage. Thus, China's industrial might will double in 12 years. China has already passed France and England in general GDP, and although I do not have hard data, I think in "important GDP"* China has also passed Japan and Germany.
___________________________________
*I.e. Gross GDP with the items that do not last for at least a few years, such as last year's vacation-travel expenditures, etc., stripped out. Unfortunately, much of he US's GDP is for items that have short (some times only hours, like a rock concert) of value. I am not sure there even is a word in Mandarin Chinese for "vacation." Many young Chinese workers are working such long hours, then studying late into the night in their shared one-bedroom apartments, that they are too tired to take a vacation anyway.

As you said, few Americans can see what is happening, fast. It is a form of "mass denial" - a psychological disturbance, IMHO, caused by years of clear leadership, taken for granted as unchangeable.

See First post in politics forum of thread "State of the Union" where I wrote a truthful State of the Union message, for GWB to use, but his was the customary "pep-talk" and self-congratulation nonsense. I wrote Dark Visitor because all my grandchildren live in the US and their future looks bleak as a result.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Exactly. Forget the all this talk about bombs and bullets: focus on technology and China's unprecedented advancements in education and their new economic plans (the "863 Program") that far exceeds any effort put forth in the history of the world in any country ever.

China's global GDP growth since 2000 has been almost twice as large as that of the next three biggest emerging economies, India, Brazil and Russia, combined.

Further, China is now meticuously and strategically embarking on the world's largest nuclear powerplant plan ever, using the more efficient and safe "pebblebed" technology that the rest of the Western world ceased research on forty years ago. If they succeed in this endeavor, through shared contractial relations with France that are now in progress, they will be able to provide themselves with an excellent alternative to the filthy coal resources that they are now forced to use. And, if successful, they will become the major exporter of this new efficient power source to the rest of the world. Their major problems will have to focus on interior environment pollution.
See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11080908/site/newsweek/

For Chinese to come to the United States solely for advanced education is now a thing of the past, and as Billy stated above, "China will soon be able to attract "the best and the brightest" from all the world, instead of the US."" Also, China no longer teaches their technologically advanced courses in English. The new emerging international language is now Chinese!
 
Well, whatever we might theorize as the reason, the United States is busy keeping its collective thumb up its collective butt so that we can stand still long enough for China to catch up. We've been helping them big-time.
 
That's an unsubstantiated cynical comment that has no merit worth stating. The closest I can come to interpreting what you are referring to is that you think that the United States or any other developed country should not allow other underdeveloped emerging countries to advance themselves in any way to "catch up" to developed countries. This view is counterproductive to our overall human achievements on Earth and to the advancement of utilitarian achievements and ideals. Should we regress in knowledge and technology just because another country learns, researches, and develops a technology that is superior to what we have in the U.S.? Of course not! What right do we have to inhibit the advancement of another nation? So be it if they surpass us.

We have learned a lot from China and they have learned a lot from us. I admit that there is a strategic balance that has to be maintained, but that balance cannot be achieved by limiting their growth. That balance can only be achieved through cooperative dialogue and communication, and the mutual exchange of ideas and business cooperation: economically, politically, and scientifically.
 
Valich are you sure that they no longer use English much? I also saw earlier that you said Mandarin is more important. I won't argue that it probably will be, but why is it already? Mandarin has a bit under three times more speakers than English. Hindi also has a greater number. But isn't English still the language of business? The vast majority of Mandarin speakers are still Chinese, the same case as atleast the last half century. To become more important it has to be spoken by others.

The world seems comfortably adapted with English and changes take a while. How long will it be until they speak Mandarin as they now do English in Africa, India, the Middle East...?

Latin was spoken a long, long time after Rome lost it's dominance. Admittedly Latin is a great language and also shaped the native languages where it continued, but English is pretty convenient too. Mandarin is a far more difficult language. I've known Chinese who prefer to write in English and I doubt it is that uncommon for native Mandarin speakers who know English.

Not to say Mandarin doesn't have it's benefits:
http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD002864.html
http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~lera/papers/mandarin.pdf
 
I was trying to find some world wide university rankings to see where Chinese universities are now, and, as of now, they have a ways to go in order to catch up.

A Chinese site ranking the top 500 world wide universities for 2005:
http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005Main.htm
In their own words, "Our original purpose of doing the ranking was to find out the gap between Chinese universities and world-class universities, particularly in terms of academic or research performance. It has been done for our academic interests without any outside support.

Upon the request of colleagues and friends from various countries, we published the ranking on our website and update it annually. We hope our Academic Ranking of World Universities will help you to compare and identify universities worldwide by their academic or research performance."

It has Asia as a whole with 1 top 20, 8 top 100, 23 top 200. A far ways back from the Europe, farther back from the US. Also, it barely improved from 2004.
http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2004/Statistics.htm 2004
http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005Statistics.htm 2005
There is also 2003 on the site, but no chart so I haven't looked at the stats.

This is an overall ranking for a broad range of subjects. There is a limit to what you can find with statsitics. Research citations and published articles doesn't measure quality or importance of subject. With regard to subject, I think it is important to note what Billy T said about stem cells.

If China 'overtakes' the US, most likely that would impact the rankings eventually in publication and research citations. But why would China surpass India and Japan? India typically has half of the top ten science institutions in Asian rankings. Japan is also ahead, and not just in science.
 
Last edited:
Exhumed said:
But why would China surpass India and Japan? India typically has half of the top ten science institutions in Asian rankings. Japan is also ahead, and not just in science.

It's more of an issue of manpower. Japan is no obstacle for both India and China, as they both will surpass the US.
 
China over the past two years has built 20 Harvard/Yale-like universities at a cost-is-not-an-issue mindset. I can't find a source right now but you bet your ass those chinese ivy league schools will make a difference.

America is paying about 2 billion anually to keep chinese scientists in the country to teach, and they will soon be leaving for those newly built chinese universities.

Plus, have you ever looked at a university in north america or europe? Half of the students are asian!
 
Back
Top