2030 - Top Countries

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Exponential population growth cannot continue indefinitely. If the current growth remains unchanged, the world population would grow from its current 6.3 billion to 43 billion over the next 147 years (2150).

That poses another problem. The current population of 6 billion already exeeds Earth's carrying capacity. If populations begin to grow, we cannot provide enough for everyone. Thus, we either have another world war to "level the population" so to speak or we can all die out due to famine or other shortages.

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by The Crow
The Chinese look at these chunks of land hungrily, they consider it land stolen from them. Mother Russia knows this, and they are in a state of paranoia about it; 70% of Russians believe China will annex Siberia in the long run. I'm one of them.

Siberia is littered with the corpses of countries that underestimated the Russians defence of the Rodina (motherland) no doubt the US would come to the aid of China in the event of ChiCom agression.

Its high time the Middle Kingdom got a spanking

I think US would maintain neutrality. Both countries are enemies to the US albeit Russia is a greater enemy to the US.

Originally posted by Blackout

Originally posted by FredT
I think US would maintain neutrality. Both countries are enemies to the US albeit Russia is a greater enemy to the US.

Sorry, I made a typo. I ment to say that the US would most liekly aid Russia if China made a move on SIberia, as China with the mineral and oil wealth of Siberia would be harbringer of doom
\

I'll just stick to my opinion of the US maintaining neutrality as both countries are potential enemies of the US.

The chinese is not a warlike people
I wonder why some of u always associate it with invasion.

I take it you've not heard of Imperial China? How do you think they have so much territory presently?

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
India certainly has the potential. Infact India has alredy set a deadline of 2020 to be a fully developed nation.

But to me, that remains an illusion. Be it 2020 , 2050, or 200050 India will continue to struggle.Indians lack the confidence and the bullish approach.
Inidans are too mellowed down and will succum to everything and anything with more impetius to emotion than functionality.

There also talk of declaring India a "Hindu nation" on the lines of Israel.

India is plagued by terrorism sponsered by Pakistan, communal violence, poverty, illitracy and uneployment and will continue to do so...

It brigns tears to my eyes but India is the Laughing Stock of the world.

Their only hope is to remove the caste system. This will provide a larger population of useful people. As of now, the untouchables are the majority of India's population and they can't even serve in the military. However, to recover from the caste system and to re-educate/educate all those untouchables and even the poor (the class right above the untouchables, forgot what they're called) would take a considerable amount of time and would probably lag India behind from achieving superpower status by up to 100 years even (considering the people/generations of people that need to be educated, the technological catch-up, and so forth).

I take it you've not heard of Imperial China? How do you think they have so much territory presently?

the chinese gained the territory mainly by assimilate the minorities(they have now became part of chinese) which lives around china.unlike some western countries,China has never been expansionary even when it was extremly powerful.

[edit on 27-8-2004 by suihx]

Originally posted by suihx

I take it you've not heard of Imperial China? How do you think they have so much territory presently?

the chinese gained the territory mainly by assimilate the minorities(they have now became part of chinese) which lives around china.unlike some western countries,China has never been expansionary even when it was extremly powerful.

[edit on 27-8-2004 by suihx]

Erm...brush up on your history. Korea ring a bell? Or even better...how about Sun Tzu's Art of War, the most respectable book on military strategy? Sun Tzu was a warmonger. There was a novel I think named "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" or something to that extent which explained Sun Tzu's nature.

[edit on 27-8-2004 by Blackout]

Erm...brush up on your history. Korea ring a bell? Or even better...how about Sun Tzu's Art of War, the most respectable book on military strategy? Sun Tzu was a warmonger. There was a novel I think named "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" or something to that extent which explained Sun Tzu's nature.

[edit on 27-8-2004 by Blackout]

Sun Tzu's lived in the spring&autumn period(confucius lived at the end of that period).a time when China was made up of hundreds of kingdoms,there were continuous wars for hundreds of years before china was unified by the Qin Empire.no wonder in that time "art of war" came into being.
But compared with china,the western cultures have produced much more books on military,and are much more expasionary.
I don't think Sun Tzu's is a warmonger,in his book,he first stressed that war will caz great losses to a kingdom,so a king should never start a war out of anger or sth like this,and the best way to win is through strategy or diplomacy.He help the king of "Yue" defeated its enemy "Wu".
after that,he left the king and people don't know where he lived afterwards. you shouldn't judge a person by a novel.after all,more than 2500 years has passed,evem the history is no longer precise.


[edit on 27-8-2004 by suihx]

look i havent read the last 2 pages, im jus posting my idea, in 2030 or so you got it all wrong: the EU for one, is NOT one nation, therefore you cant count it like so. i believe the USA will stay the top, becuase of our present technology and military strength, China, however has a large army and good ecmonomy, has potential, but not the capablitly to spread their army globally like the usa, so i believe that when (if) the usa strengthens its active army to 2 million or more, which it already has spread globally, it will be unmatched.. once we are able to handle simultaneous wars at once, we will be fine- now isreal is a joke, right? and so is iran i hope. and Russias army is dwindling, i predict it to be aformidable force in east europe, but not in the world, and India will never be a superpower in comparision to the usa, so really, china has the only bet, but they have to have the ability to move their army globally, and now they have no reason or for seeable reason to do so, the usa does, and has. thats why its the strongest....

Originally posted by Blackout

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Exponential population growth cannot continue indefinitely. If the current growth remains unchanged, the world population would grow from its current 6.3 billion to 43 billion over the next 147 years (2150).

That poses another problem. The current population of 6 billion already exeeds Earth's carrying capacity. If populations begin to grow, we cannot provide enough for everyone. Thus, we either have another world war to "level the population" so to speak or we can all die out due to famine or other shortages.

Yeah its a pretty scary future when you think about population. 147 years is not really that far off in the scope of human history its really just the blink of a eye. In that time scale we will have no teraformed Mars since most plans would require thousands of years to work if not hundreds of thousands of years to work. most likely no Faster then light travel the Human Population will lead to deaths the likes of which this world has never seen.

I think this is the reason alot of modern countries are seeing a decline in population growth. People can't keep breeding like carzy.

since our government is not manipulated by big enterprises,there is also no need for china to send our boys globally to fight for the profite of our compaines.

Originally posted by suihx

Erm...brush up on your history. Korea ring a bell? Or even better...how about Sun Tzu's Art of War, the most respectable book on military strategy? Sun Tzu was a warmonger. There was a novel I think named "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" or something to that extent which explained Sun Tzu's nature.

[edit on 27-8-2004 by Blackout]

Sun Tzu's lived in the spring&autumn period(confucius lived at the end of that period).a time when China was made up of hundreds of kingdoms,there were continuous wars for hundreds of years before china was unified by the Qin Empire.no wonder in that time "art of war" came into being.
But compared with china,the western cultures have produced much more books on military,and are much more expasionary.
I don't think Sun Tzu's is a warmonger,in his book,he first stressed that war will caz great losses to a kingdom,so a king should never start a war out of anger or sth like this,and the best way to win is through strategy or diplomacy.He help the king of "Yue" defeated its enemy "Wu".
after that,he left the king and people don't know where he lived afterwards. you shouldn't judge a person by a novel.after all,more than 2500 years has passed,evem the history is no longer precise.[edit on 27-8-2004 by suihx]

1) Saying the Chinese are non-aggressive by default is prejudice or the act of prejudging.
2) You're thinking about the West. If we counted individual countries, China has just as many strategists publishing strategy books as well as retired WW2 war heroes from Germany to Britain. Go look through at amazon.com if you don't believe me. Furthermore, many Western strategies have been based off Sun Tzu's principles. Blitzkrieg was developed by Guderian who worked from Liddel Hart's work which was further derived from Sun Tzu's thoughts.
3) I'm pretty sure the novel was based on whatever history they could get their hands on at the time.
4) China does not fight as many wars as Europe for a reaosn: there's less of a power struggle over there. China's been king of the east for thousands of years. China's surrounded by small underdeveloped nations. Europe has been surrounded by superpowers left and right. If one guy builds arms in Europe, the next guy does and so does the other guy next door. Then war comes.

Reading not just this topic but most US V CHINA, RUSSIA V US or CHINA, etc etc etc. I am beginning to think we wont be here the true superpower will be cockroachs as they will be the only ones left.

Insanity breeds insanity we need to be invaded by ET's mates as that is the only scenario that will unite the world. good old Ronald Reagan I think he mentioned something about this in a speech.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

far off in the scope of human history its really just the blink of a eye. In that time scale we will have no teraformed Mars since most plans would require thousands of years to work if not hundreds of thousands of years to work. most likely no Faster then light travel the Human Population will lead to deaths the likes of which this world has never seen.

Nature will eventualy move to restore balance. AIDS may have been an initial attempt to autoregulate population. Who kows what worse nightmare lurks out there.

1) Saying the Chinese are non-aggressive by default is prejudice or the act of prejudging.
2) You're thinking about the West. If we counted individual countries, China has just as many strategists publishing strategy books as well as retired WW2 war heroes from Germany to Britain. Go look through at amazon.com if you don't believe me. Furthermore, many Western strategies have been based off Sun Tzu's principles. Blitzkrieg was developed by Guderian who worked from Liddel Hart's work which was further derived from Sun Tzu's thoughts.
3) I'm pretty sure the novel was based on whatever history they could get their hands on at the time.
4) China does not fight as many wars as Europe for a reaosn: there's less of a power struggle over there. China's been king of the east for thousands of years. China's surrounded by small underdeveloped nations. Europe has been surrounded by superpowers left and right. If one guy builds arms in Europe, the next guy does and so does the other guy next door. Then war comes.

people from different backgrouds often have different ideas of the history.often too different to reach a agreement.
but I'm here not to talk about the history.All I want to say is that the development of China won't necessarily constitute a threaten to other countries.seemingly some people is a bit oversensitive with the develop of china.

people from different backgrouds often have different ideas of the history.often too different to reach a agreement.
but I'm here not to talk about the history.All I want to say is that the development of China won't necessarily constitute a threaten to other countries.seemingly some people is a bit oversensitive with the develop of china.

"Deny Ignorance." When Bob is buying a gun, you might as well buy a gun to protect yourself. Same rule applies on the international level. Now when we all have guns it only takes one pulling of the trigger to initiate a huge fight. China's bound to clash with another superpower nation once it's done with its arms build-up.

"Deny Ignorance." When Bob is buying a gun, you might as well buy a gun to protect yourself. Same rule applies on the international level. Now when we all have guns it only takes one pulling of the trigger to initiate a huge fight. China's bound to clash with another superpower nation once it's done with its arms build-up.

I don't think so,when everyone has a gun,it is unlikely that anyone will pull the trigger first,caz no one dare to risk his(her) life.yet if there is only one in a town(with no police) who has a gun,it is likely that he may shoot anyone he dislike,caz he know he can get away with it.
u have the rights to protect yourself,so do other people.it is oversensitive that u believe your neighbor wants to kill u when he buys a gun,especially when u've already has a gun for years.Same rule applies to the international affairs.

I like the bit about everyone having a gun and no one using it lol

If you build a gun you will use your gun or your gun is use less.

I dont think Iran and other countries are building nukes to NOT use them and the country that has used them has nearly used them again on several occassions. The cuba crisis and the little known attack on a US boat by israel that nearly destroyed cairo.

I know this isn't the place for predictions but


Nuclear war in the middle east - sooner rather than later.

US into Iran - well it isn't looking good.

North K - well there on the list.

India V Pakistan - another close call on the GUN scenario.

And good old bob bin Laden is desperate for a gun.

Bob is a bad dude.

Originally posted by Blackout

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Exponential population growth cannot continue indefinitely. If the current growth remains unchanged, the world population would grow from its current 6.3 billion to 43 billion over the next 147 years (2150).

That poses another problem. The current population of 6 billion already exeeds Earth's carrying capacity. If populations begin to grow, we cannot provide enough for everyone. Thus, we either have another world war to "level the population" so to speak or we can all die out due to famine or other shortages.

Not so. You can fit the entire world's population in the size of Texas and live reasonably better than some crowded cities in Asia.

And the rest of the world can be used to grow food, and water, etc.


Texas has 266,807 square miles. Divide 6 BILLION into that to get 22,488 per square mile. That is better than many crowded cities in Asia which has 50,000+ per square mile.






[edit on 29-8-2004 by goldenboy]

Originally posted by suihx

"Deny Ignorance." When Bob is buying a gun, you might as well buy a gun to protect yourself. Same rule applies on the international level. Now when we all have guns it only takes one pulling of the trigger to initiate a huge fight. China's bound to clash with another superpower nation once it's done with its arms build-up.

I don't think so,when everyone has a gun,it is unlikely that anyone will pull the trigger first,caz no one dare to risk his(her) life.yet if there is only one in a town(with no police) who has a gun,it is likely that he may shoot anyone he dislike,caz he know he can get away with it.
u have the rights to protect yourself,so do other people.it is oversensitive that u believe your neighbor wants to kill u when he buys a gun,especially when u've already has a gun for years.Same rule applies to the international affairs.

The guns were only an example. In terms of international affairs, you don't think about the individual. You can send 1,000 infantry into a machine gun and it doesn't mean death to you. What I'm trying to get across is that the World Wars have proved that huge wars begin with arms build-ups.

As ridiculous as it sounds, there are people out there that want to "conquer the world." When a power hungry leader obtains power in a nation with a ready military, you know war is soon to come. Bush is a good example of that.

Oh and one more thing (although it's a bit off topic), I don't know where you live but here in the US people do use their guns and they don't care if they get in trouble. I guess the US corruption level is just a tad bit higher than other nations and many foreigners find it hard to believe.

[edit on 29-8-2004 by Blackout]