I might add on to this later but here is just some rough info to start with…
I've heard common estimates of 20-30 years (10-15 years ago)
Ranking the nations of the world based on current available firepower.
www.globalfirepower.com
Comparison of two world military powers in side-by-side format.
www.globalfirepower.com
1. Economic Power: China is
projected to surpass the U.S. as the world's largest economy by nominal GDP sometime in the 2030s. However, when considering purchasing power parity (PPP), China has already surpassed the U.S. in 2014 according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
This remains to be seen but they grown at a faster rate than the US historically. But the US is 5% of global population and 60% of the global stock market.
The US has the largest GDP in the world, which was worth $25 trillion in 2022, or about a quarter of the global GDP. This is more than 40% greater than China's GDP, and more than five times that of Japan and Germany, the next two largest economies
2. Technological Advancement: In fields like artificial intelligence, 5G technology, and renewable energy.
CIA Engaged In "Infinite Race" With China For AI, Other Tech | ZeroHedge
Ranked: Artificial Intelligence Startups, by Country - Visual Capitalist
Industrial Automation: Who Leads the Robot Race?
Visualizing AI Patents by Country
Where are the top 100 universities in the world located? We look at the World University Rankings 2024 to find out.
www.visualcapitalist.com
The US is currently leading in AI development. China may be catching up. Europe is in third. I will say, perhaps biased, I am very impressed with the ingenuity of this country. A big solution to America's problems is entrepreneurship. It is certainly a great concern about all the Chinese spying especially in universities.
3. Military Strength: While China has significantly increased its military spending and capabilities, the U.S. still maintains a
considerable lead in terms of
technology, global reach, and experience. Estimates for when China might surpass the U.S. militarily range from a few decades to the latter half of the 21st century, if at all.
China does have more sheer numbers of manpower. (So is North Korea… in terms of sheer troop numbers).
4. Political Influence: China's Belt and Road Initiative and increasing involvement in international organizations indicate its growing influence. However, the U.S. has a long-established network of alliances and soft power.
US culture basically dominates the world in many ways.
The timeline here is less clear and depends on global political dynamics.
In my mind, a Superpower can project power anywhere in the world at several places at once without putting strain on the country. A Global/World Power can potentially project power across most of the world, but it would be more difficult for them to do so. A regional power can project power in their region, or if they work together they can project more power. Some of those countries are regional powers, small regional powers at that too.
Power - Regional influence
Superpower - Global Influence
There are lots of Powers in the world, their is only one Superpower currently.
Pre WWI, Britian was a superpower. France, Germany, and the US were on the verge.
Between the Wars it was Britian and France but Britian and both were rapidly falling.
Post WWII, it was the US and Soviets
Then in 1989 the Soviets collapsed
Now there is only the US.
China is on the verge right now and is looking to get over the hump.
Britian is still on the verge but is definitely below superpower. They have some international influence but its not at superpower level. There is no political will in Britian to attempt to get back their either.
Before the 19th century it was Britian and France and before those two there was Spain.
Spain was the first superpower, they were shortly joined by the Dutch, who used trade to influence everyone for a time.
No superpowers before Spain becuase there was no global trade or transit
Portugal while a great power, wasn't really a superpower, and was quickly supplanted by Spain when they fell into a personal union, uniting the crowns of Iberia. Beginning their long decline.
Today, Russia is one of the few debt-free nations in the world, is consolidating its influence over the CIS and other former Soviet republics, and has a world-class military with little power projection but still orders of magnitude more than what it had twenty years ago. Military wise- America and Russia. Only 2 countries that will send troops to foreign battles on their own (no coalitions). France has been doing this for decades. (They also have the third largest nuclear arsenal.) Economically- America and China. European Union would be here if they were more united in their foreign policy. Nowadays, our world is becoming increasingly multipolar. With the example of Russia, they have a niche of military and cybersecurity in which they project their power, and this is generally the most visible to the public, compared to a country like Germany that asserts its power through political means and by financial dominance of the EU. Russia is a declining power. Like Britain after the world wars, Russia is settling down from superpower status to great power, or perhaps even middle power status. A large, nuclear backed military, sizable economy, access to vast resources, and an incredibly large expanse of land all help Russia hold on to great power status.
China is a rising power. It's unclear whether it'll actually become a superpower in the short or medium term, or whether it'll stagnate like Japan did in the 1990s. Regardless, China is a nuclear weapons state, a P5 member, it's experiencing a booming economy (though slowing as of late), and has a massive labor force and incredible natural resources.
China is the second largest economy in the world, it's an emerging superpower and the United States is threatened by China. Otherwise it wouldn't be such a kerfuffle. Their economy, at least historically, has been growing faster than the United States and its entirely possible that it could continue to do so into the future. 1.4 billion people. The Soviet Union competed with the United States with a fraction of the population and a fraction of the economy. China is even in proximity to a huge part of the global population. They basically dominate Asia. Obviously the United States has its little alliances with Japan and Australia counter balancing the Chinese in that respect. But they're a big player in Asia. The most populace region and country in the world.
I mean China doesn't need to invade the United States. They just wanna control their region and they want access to Europe and Africa. I mean basically we kind of have them like pinned in on the water because you have the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan and Japan (possibly Vietnam and Singapore) are all our allies so its like a ring around China. So we could really interrupt their sea lanes. And they get a lot of their oil obviously from the middle east and they have to ship it and there's a lot of narrow straights we could cut off. But once they develop that belt and road initiative they're like connected to Europe and Africa through pipelines and roads and stuff. I mean China doesn't have to spend as much as the US. They can't invade us. They should be able to control their area around China to free up their sea lanes. They don't need to conquer the United States to defeat us.
China is a real threat indeed. But the one reason that always prevent China from ruling the world for the past thousand years is their internal conflict. Jealousy, greed, betrayal plant a deep root in their politic for thousand of year. And it's never changed. Their internal politic is extremely fragile and plagued by corruption. Of course, there are corruption in the US too, but the corruption in China is just way worse. Their military department is the worst when it comes to corruption. We can see the impact of corruption play a role in Russian military. It didn't end well at all. My concern about China is their influence in the middle east and Africa. We are losing grip in the middle east right now. China is happy to fill that void.
It has been recognized for close to 400 years that the ability to sail from point to point safely underpins the global economy. The ability to "beggar thy neighbor" by obstructing free travel on the seas would be an enormous and often-used tactic when nations struggled for dominance. The value of doing so would in most cases vastly outweigh the short-term consequences.
Only a handful of nations now have "blue water" force projection capabilities - the ability to operate far from home waters. The US, the UK, France, Russia, Japan, India and China - and the Asian powers either keep their navy close to home waters (India & Japan) or are just now starting to develop a true blue-water capability (China).
The US Navy became the dominant force in this effort after WWII, following a 50 year transition from the combined forces of the British and the French. A substantial amount of the money the US pours into its military can be attributed to the US Navy being the undisputed guarantor of the freedom of the sea lanes.
During the Cold War the United States maintained a military policy of being able to fight two and half wars. The idea was there would be two major conflicts with the Soviets and a small brush fire conflict. In the post-Cold War era that has basically shrunk down to one. The US's assets are more concentrated now.
There is an ancient Chinese tactic to rope enemies into trade circles and make them partly reliant on goods
A lot of their advanced cities with manufacturing bases are on the coastline making them easier targets.
China cannot feed a billion people and it still does not have a self sustaining economy, they are reliant on exports (people to buy their crap). And in reality they own a fraction of our debt.
Part of why our government sustained these bullshit wars in Afghanistan and Iraq amongst all the other reasons it was a convenient place to test in real life these various weapons systems that they're spending a lot of money on and to have a constant kind of live exercise training situation so that they find themselves in the position with a lot of officers and NCO's and such with some level of combat experience which is useful even if it is in an asymmetric warfare type situation. China's military has not been tested and they have no veterans (serving).
From what I understand, the Chinese qbz series aren't very good. Russian commercial AKs have a good reputation as do the military ones. I would say the American arms are more ergonomic. Also manufacturing them is more automated and likely faster. Actually the ak is pretty fast to make, I take that back.
New AKs are chambered in 5.45, comparable to 5.56. they travel a little slower but shoot flatter and are less reliant on velocity to work effectively. Chinese small arms are pretty much only in 5.8x42, including their drm platforms. It resembles 5.56, with a slight bump in velocity.
Not all Chinese firearms are knockoffs/copies but a lot of things pre 1990s were.
I'm pretty bullish on America given all of the turmoil in Europe and Asia. I think North America is looking pretty attractive for capital investments in the near term. A growing population is kind of necessary for a growing economy. And if people in America don't want to have kids you can always let in immigrants. As long as people want to immigrate to the United States we will always have a growing population. Our current population is about 320 million. We could comfortably and easily double that and there's still plenty of space for everyone so reading these books am I actually bullish on the American economy in the short term.
Basically the US was just blessed with the greatest geography in the world, that explains pretty much why we've been so prosperous basically since the conclusion of the Civil War. Besides the two largest oceans, relative benign friendly neighbors, there is all the natural resources and access to cheap labor markets (Mexico, Latin America).
China has more ships
but not by tonnage. Also look at air craft carriers (which today in some ways are more about power projection). Carriers typically abide by the one-third rule that governs most fleets: At any one given time, one-third of ships are patrol, one third are preparing for or just coming off patrol, and another third are in maintenance at the shipyard.
Right now the US Navy is more powerful than that of all other navies combined by a factor of about seven. And if you consider that the world's second and third most powerful expeditionary navies are the Japanese fleet and the British fleet and they're "American" for force projection factor its in excess of a 12. The US Air Force is the largest in the world for air forces and the US Navy is second and the US Army is fourth and the US Marine Corps is fifth *globally* for largest air forces.
https://youtu.be/0RXHLAS5-r0?si=3gn7SyuAekEIgOHb
https://youtu.be/qs8STd7QAv8?si=4aMQVkEbIHf1UnWo
https://youtu.be/y3wpPOTYc3I?si=kiBHf6uhaEM8tu5x
https://youtu.be/2795bNju200?si=0rhYGFQszSI20cW7
https://youtu.be/5D_bOhsKCKE?si=ButLPpNUUu_ZPFzB
If you look at the United States Army and say you have 10 soldiers, only about 1 or 2 are actually fighters. The vast majority of an army is all kinds of support because you need people to deliver food, work radios, track personnel all sorts of functions.
American troops are all fat and lazy and efeminent, they're shit, they can't shot for shit, can't aim. The very cream of the crop AAA+ special forces (which come from cornfed middle America and believe in the American dream) however is what our intelligence agencies and military rely on for assignations and spearheading operations. They really overly rely on them was my point.
And things like the reserves or weekend warriors or the draft or whatever are things our government uses to pad their numbers to basically make the military look bigger as an illusion. Pad like inflate their numbers on papers.
- I also want to mention the number of Russian army is largely inflated. The generals inflated the number of soldiers in order to benefit from the corruption. Although their military is so screwed up, their nukes still can be used as a deterrent against NATO.
There's a big difference between a full time soldier and somebody that was in the army 10 years ago. Thats not knock the reserves. But there is a big difference between a unit that trains constantly and a unit that shows up once a month or not at all if you're in the IRR
18-25 in phase 1
Well even that is broken into phases
The lottery: A lottery based on birthdays determines the order in which registered men are called up by Selective Service. The first to be called, in a sequence determined by the lottery, will be men whose 20th birthday falls during the calendar year the induction takes place, followed, if needed, by those aged 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 19 and 18 year olds (in that order).
Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, which required all men between the ages of 21 and 45 to register for the draft.
So it depends on the severity. They have a scale
My friend's specific job in the army reserves is mobilization. If there's ever a big war he's called up and sent to a military base and track people getting mobilized from the reserves. Many people that are in the reserves are not combat ready in the slightest. And his job is as people mobilized they have to filter out people that are unable to serve, they have to figure out how much training they need and a lot of reservists and IRR (inactive ready reserve) are not really soldiers, they don't really have many skills. So you have to bring these people on that have had their skills massively decline and put them into the fight.
You're not gonna be mobilizing the United States, thats not happening. We couldn't even get groceries on the shelves. And nothing was happening.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/more-75-americans-aged-17-24-arent-fit-military-service-dod
https://www.theepochtimes.com/milit...erican-propensity-to-serve-fades_5126765.html
https://www.theepochtimes.com/top-m...ssues-hurt-recruitment-retention_5098759.html
https://youtu.be/AMWy_DGYzHM
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/10000-army-soldiers-slipped-obesity-during-pandemic
I suppose one concern I could potentially have is that China could just keep throwing men at a war they could basically just keep throwing soldiers at it but at the same time how many transport ships do they actually have and how capable are they of traversing the seas? How many transport aircraft and how many logistical and support systems and vehicles and personnel do they have to support and sustain that? I also wonder sometimes about their chain of commands how it's not as flexible as the Americans/western is. It's much more rigid.
My thesis around China is unchanged. There's maximum fear and pessimism in China. I think most beliefs are wrong. I think China is going through some troubles. But I don't think the Chinese government is going to intentionally destroy their economy. They cracked down on their tech giants because Jack Ma opened his mouth. Its not America where you can just criticize people. They stay powerful by having a strong economy which results in a strong military and a bunch of other benefits around the globe. They're our geopolitical enemy and you're going to hear a lot of propaganda in the US. During the Great Recession, the US stock market fell +56%. Nobody seems to talk about this anymore. Back then people were saying US stocks are over. The same stuff about China. Maybe the Chinese government will intervene and prop up their property sector. We did the same thing and had a golden age for US stocks. We cut interest rates to zero, cut taxes for corporations in 2017. Its a not so great population pyramid in their demography. They're aging and not having as many kids. The estimated working population right now is almost 3 times the United States. Even by 2050 their working population is gonna be twice the size of the US.
I posted an entire thread of this: the domestic base closures in the US.
Just a musing… A lot of small towns in America used to have the railway station now the railway station doesn't matter as much or in some parts of Northern Ohio they have been important because they were part of the canal system that doesn't get used anymore. There might have been a coal mining...
sanctioned-suicide.net
Read here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_Realignment_and_Closure
War always leads to scientific and technological breakthroughs so it's likely we'll see huge advancements in cryptography both protecting and cracking it, especially with Quantum computing.
Big downside is we will also probably see huge leaps in AI with no thought given to the larger implications of these leaps due to war justifying it.
Race for AI superiority has already begin with the US's Project Maven and rival countries' versions of the same. We just need a hot war to speed it up into overdrive.
Bloomberghttps://www.bloomberg.com › newsInside Project Maven, the US Military's AI Project
I just have so little faith in the government and you're not supposed to say this but I just don't trust that the US military can do all that the shit that it says it can. I recognize they're probably on paper better than anything than anybody else's shit certainly the naval and air assets. But I don't know, I just don't just assume that just because the shit is better that we're gonna win. Because we're being positioned and everything in a way to just think that we can out win a war with China. Like we probably could win a war with China but its gonna be really costly. We could win a conventional war with China if nukes were not allowed like if you changed that setting in the game. So they could kill a lot of people, they've upped their ICBM's, they've done a lot of shit. I do not trust the government when they say that they're able to stop these ballistic missiles or enough of them. Maybe they'll stop 80% of them and 20% of a couple hundred thermonuclear weapons is a lot.
https://youtu.be/oXrVUYG-NLA?si=LwWP_WSrgqXXokO9
https://youtu.be/ydw-P7U9KtA?si=8ixiBo3a9OU6vvDz
https://youtu.be/LIj5orZFJhg?si=QIcIjdIYqpCz9axo
https://youtu.be/4pR_DPFSfFc?si=dfOZjv_IO6jIh5AE
https://youtu.be/xBY5veWGBd8?si=bFQvLjyP0pGC8n6j
https://youtu.be/FxYwD_n21wI?si=vC-21RqT0vjXdZYb
• The United States spends approximately $200,000 to $250,000 per soldier annually.
• China spends significantly less, with estimates ranging from $10,000 to $15,000 per soldier annually.
This means the US spends roughly 15 to 25 times more per soldier than China. The substantial difference in spending can be attributed to several factors, including higher salaries, more advanced equipment, extensive training, and better overall living conditions for US soldiers.
https://youtu.be/8CtGGTu3kqo?si=0qyPkQfv9XNuw6u2
https://youtu.be/WEoV37HowqQ?si=QkwQ4-pCdOJyYBI2
https://youtu.be/EvXROXiIpvQ?si=p6LDFzmQER9M5PLH
https://youtu.be/ExYyDMZ9owQ?si=WhsguKAFjBX_Vk_8
Just an idea, not a prediction: By 2050 (not an unreasonable timeline for prediction), China could have otherwise total dominance over the region, with the US focusing more on other areas, like Africa or South America. A pivot to South America would not be unlikely for the US, as its demographics are growing more and more Latinx every year.
I do not know if the US will retain its sole superpower status or whether we will have to share that with China, but under Biden I have my doubts.
While you can make an argument that the US is losing influence in certain regions of the world and that they might not win a major conflict centered around Southeast Asia or Eastern Europe, a successful invasion of the continental United States remains incredibly unrealistic.
Many people are concerned about a potential war of the NATO against Russia though I think many military experts in the US would like to focus on China instead. Russia can compete in Nuclear strikes but in all other fields the US is superior.
I am very conflicted on US foreign policy. (I am German lol.) I can fully understand why the American people are tired of war. So many lives and resources were wasted. The military budget is absolutely insane and still many officals demand to raise it substantially. I would be pretty mad as an American. However the US can profit from many alliances, strategical points of intersection etc. So I think it would cause many problems if America just retreated from all their operations and military bases. And China or Russia is ready to fill the gap.
It could be China has a different notion of being a global superpower or hegemony. More an economical approach with the Belt and Road inititative. There are probablby pro and contra arguments. Seemingly China wants to attack and integrate Taiwan till 2027. All I know is the German economy will be fucked as hell.
I would be scared if did not have way bigger personal problems. As flawed as the US hegemony is (or was) there were a lot of benefits. I could imagine human rights will be worth even less. more international tensions and wars, protectionism and trade wars, potential nuclear escalation, the world should be united in order to fight climate change and instead we kill each other. Humankind is fucked.
My prediction is it will take 15-20 years till China surpasses the US. Though the US has the opportunity to build strong alliances. However we are far far away of the end of history and quite the opposite is happening. Democracy is in danger.
When will US no longer be superpower, if ever? I know that as long as the United States maintain its vast nuclear stockpile it will forever remain a superpower. Even if it fell out economically, no country that has the capability of ending life on the planet will be easily ignored. But the United States will continue to be a superpower as long as we maintain our nuclear weapons.
(If having a large stockpile of nuclear weapons makes one a superpower, then one must still consider Russia a superpower. By that standard the US will be a superpower until we have space colonies with hundreds of millions of people).
One thing that would definitely make us less powerful is if the dollar was no longer used as the basis of trade which is something that's moving toward being possible. Will that happen? Who knows.
$ or Fx values reflect the longer term performance and relative position of country. Will the dollar retain its strong international purchasing power? Depends on economic performance. Depends on underlying strength of economy and growth... short term, yes, and then? Who will win over longer term: US, China, not Russia... and UK pound had its run and Euro has all the countries trying to manage their politics and economy... England's empire and decline started before WWI... a long unwinding process.
England has all that banking vestige. Its a former power with a tiny population. The US has a big population and we can still build things, we still grow a lot of stuff a lot of agriculture, we still have a lot of timber, we still have a big finance industry… I think it's going to continue to be comfortable living in the US on an international scale. I think the dollar and US passport will still be strong for the foreseeable future at least, probably 100 years. But I think money is going to become harder to get.
Financially the US will be much, much better off than France, Britain, Europe, Russia, China these people are fleeing these currencies and going to the dollar. Economically the US is in a pretty good spot for the future but there's other things that are getting worse here.
Debt/GDP ratio is what matters and ability to pay. Not the nominal amount of debt or deficit.
The Dollar might become like the Pound and London soon. Very valuable but you can't buy anything here. And most people in England don't make much.
The US has all the ingredients to remain the dominant superpower for centuries to come (at least 100 years), but they also have all the ingredients for civil war.
PS I'm very drowsy
sorry I probably missed a lot of stuff but its a start
https://youtu.be/luTPMHC7zHY?si=Hz5yohC_QjHVt68P
https://youtu.be/QXhsJLWob10?si=RyGGwMyPKLWImGyF
https://youtu.be/i8ljZYzn0Uc?si=pWKjNEQuA4gkqBjA
https://youtu.be/Le122vas9aM?si=PDmC_4VO08Z1SxAq
Hypersonic missile arms race is part of the new cold war. My friend's dad works on designing the shielding.
Hypersonic missiles face challenges with guidance due to the intense heat generated, which can lead to plasma formation around the missile. This plasma can interfere with communication and guidance systems. However, researchers are working on advanced guidance technologies to overcome these obstacles, such as using predictive algorithms and improved communication techniques to maintain control and accuracy during flight.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/us...ght-test-in-bid-to-keep-up-with-china-5678089
https://youtu.be/Aqbc_YfCMEc?si=dmQF0-86vE3vwVkv
https://youtu.be/9TPSJ2yB1mM?si=yWs8brvupsyERjuC
https://www.zerohedge.com/military/...royer-prepares-hypersonic-weapon-installation
The US does not wanna fight China directly in conflict. And the Chinese do not wanna fight directly in conflict either. China also maintains a growing nuclear stockpile. China is growing its ballistic missile base.
Who has the most nuclear weapons worlwide 2024 | Statista
China Expanding New Outpost In Antigua & Barbuda, Alarming The Pentagon | ZeroHedge
Report Alleges China's 'Mass Surveillance' Of Americans Using Caribbean Cell Networks | ZeroHedge
TikTok is also Chinese military malware as far as I'm concerned (I don't have ANY social media)
In Latin America, China Gets Down To Business As U.S. Dithers | ZeroHedge
China has been buying up farmland and some near military installations which is now being challenged. It's been banned in I think Finland or Sweden.
China Ditches US Farmers For Brazilian Ones In Protest Of Land Ownership Rules | ZeroHedge
China Is Challenging but (Still) Not Displacing Europe in Latin America
Meet China's "Secret" Space Control Listening Base In Argentina Now Alarming US Officials | ZeroHedge
(Not listening to the state-run Global Times)
Reuterswww.reuters.comChina's military-run space station in Argentina is a 'black box'
https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/26/chin...development-belt-and-road-intl-hnk/index.html
China's Africa Belt and Road investment drops as West spends more - Nikkei Asia
Australia, at least geopolitically, is just an extension of the US. Australia simply doesn't have the population to defend its massive size and vulnerable sea routes, so they will always exist under the wing of a superpower who can protect them in exchange for following the super powers agenda. AU will always exist as a client state of someone, Britain in the past, now US, possibly China in the future. Economic hub for the Southeast Asia and the South Pacific, anglophone, advanced economy, massive immigrant attractor.
The US did sign an intelligence sharing agreement with India but they've been buying Russian oil. But they've had a history of border skirmishes with China (i.e., Kashmir). So India
may be like China was in the Cold War after the Sino-Soviet split.
India in particular is interesting. It could either become another China or another Brazil. China has more international influence, I am not saying India is not an economic power, with great regional influence but people in south america and west Africa probably don't put much consideration into what India is doing. However they may consider what China is doing. China is in early talks of building a competitor to the panama canal through Nicaragua for example. Why is India above Japan? India GDP for 2015 was 2073B, while Japan was 4123B. Military wise, both countries do not project much influences to the globe. Neither country could invade the other. Soft power wise, Japan is leading more than India is leading, in terms of business models, company structures etc. Sure, no one is going to change their mind on major stuff because of Pokemons, but it is nevertheless an advantage over India. India has more nations supporting it's ascension as permanent member in UN security council than Japan, even with Japan's generousity. Apparently having 1/5 of the world's population and one of the oldest civilizations and top 10 economy is sufficient to override Japan's deep money bags. Oh, also India is dominant in a significant chunk of Asia, whereas Japan needs foreign protection to remain safe. Soft power wise, Japan is more modern and ahead of India in terms of living standards. Too many domestic issues, but huge potential. It's near major chokepoints for maritime trade, it has around five times the population, and it has the second largest body of English speakers in the world. I'd say that India has a lot of internal issues and is too multi-ethnic (even though most western perspectives see Indians as a homogeneous bloc) and the legacy of the caste system still pervades everything. Regional and domestic issues will rock india long before they are able to become a superpower, too many different people all with different goals. Neither Nigeria nor India have really been able to capitalise on their large populations. Other countries with much smaller populations have much greater global relevance. Booming economy and population, nuclear weapons state, prime location in the Indian Ocean. India's cultural impact on the globe is growing as well.
