Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Mefustae on November 26, 2007, 05:34:38 am
-
Once again, the US seems to be content in starting another ****ing arms race. Space-based weapons systems (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=M2KS5ORRVRVARQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/11/14/weapon114.xml) are on the up-and-up in Washington, allowing force-projection anywhere in the world without the messy political implications of missiles or the dangers of a normal fixed-wing airstrike.
While the technological aspect is quite cool, it's still ****ing pitiful that these people would openly develop something like this when any moron could tell you it would prove disastrous to international relations. Do they think China or Russia (or even Europe, potentially) are just going to just sit back and do nothing after the US develops the ability to strike targets practically anywhere in the world with impunity?
-
There really is no stopping the arms race, since China and Russia won't stand still and not develop weapons if the USA did nothing.
-
There really is no stopping the arms race, since China and Russia won't stand still and not develop weapons if the USA did nothing.
There's no stopping it, but there's also no need to accelerate it by being the first to develop the technology to spark an arms race. It wouldn't be so bad if this were China, or even Russia, but the fact that it's the US - the nation that so often takes it upon itself to trumpet the virtues of global stability - that the hypocrisy becomes over-bloody-whelming.
-
I think it would be bad if just one of those countries had space supremecy and not the rest. It's called balance of power.
EDIT: And you know, when the foreigners stop lending us so much money (which is already starting to happen, hence the slide of the dollar) programs like this will have the legs cut out from under them. The US military is built on the dollar, which right now is on pretty shaky ground as is.
-
To be honest I think the US is playing right into China's plan to bankrupt it. What makes it really ****ing funny is that China stole the plan from the US after seeing them use it on the USSR. :lol:
-
Poetic justice?
-
To be honest I think the US is playing right into China's plan to bankrupt it. What makes it really ****ing funny is that China stole the plan from the US after seeing them use it on the USSR. :lol:
All of this has happened before, and it will happen again.
-
the usa abuses its credit. therefore we should make weapons to shoot down foreign bill collectors before they can steal our stolen money :D
-
Money? What money? We don't have your money. We never had your money. It is a lie!
Try to take it from us and we will pull all of our products from you countries.
Think about it - no crapy TV shows, no Pepsi/coca-cola, no McDonalds, no big Brother, no crappy rap/gangsta music!
erm...
On second thought, if you try to take out money we will MASS import this stuff even more!
-
We've been helping your dollar with all the over-the-border shopping that Canadians have been doing. :D
I agree with Mefustae. The US is only accelerating the problem by openly developing space weapons. Or maybe this is a cover up for the space weapons that they already have. ;7
-
Yeah but if they do try to start an arms race China will stop bankrolling them. I mean why on Earth would China give America the money to develop weapons to be used against China. :D
-
Yeah but if they do try to start an arms race China will stop bankrolling them. I mean why on Earth would China give America the money to develop weapons to be used against China. :D
That would, of course, bankrupt China too. :p
-
YAY! Mass bankrupcy for the masses! YAY!
-
or we can just blow it all up
-
Did the U.S. Government suddenly forget about MAD tactics!?
Lets see what the great clock says....
Five minutes to midnight. (http://www.thebulletin.org/minutes-to-midnight/)
Time to start looting. :nervous:
-
Yeah but if they do try to start an arms race China will stop bankrolling them. I mean why on Earth would China give America the money to develop weapons to be used against China. :D
Because China is quite possibly the most astute capitalist nation on Earth.
China can bury the US economically without a single shot fired, and they're going to do it as they proceed to democracy over the next 50 or so years. The only real opposition the Chinese face for global economic supremacy are the European Union, which is the only political body with the financial clout to do a little fiddling of their own.
The Chinese measure time in centuries; the United States measures time by the date of the next election. Who do you really think is going to come out on top?
-
Yeah but if they do try to start an arms race China will stop bankrolling them. I mean why on Earth would China give America the money to develop weapons to be used against China. :D
It's already starting to happen, but for different reasons, and it isn't just them. With the mess in the US credit markets, a lot of central bankers are concerned about it and are slowly stopping investing in the US, hence the large drop i nthe dollar against many currency's. This was inevitable, though I'm glad I don't hold any dollars.
The other reason for doing it is the inflation that's been happening over the last few months, mostly with food.
Because China is quite possibly the most astute capitalist nation on Earth.
Ironic considering that its run by a bunch of communists.
China can bury the US economically without a single shot fired,
I think the US is digging its own grave, but China and the other foreign lenders are just providing the shovel.
-
Ironic considering that its run by a bunch of communists.
I know, the irony is beautiful - the self-professed capitalist utopia buried economically by the self-professed Communist utopia. China is Communist in name only; today, it is a nation of capitalists as cut-throat as any Wall Street trader.
I think the US is digging its own grave, but China and the other foreign lenders are just providing the shovel.
Even were the US actually acting in its own economic self-interest, China has far greater natural and population resources. When you consider that China was essentially a backward, agrarian nation with virtually no industry at the outset of the Second World War, the speed and efficiency of their economic development has eclipsed every Western nation on the planet. It took them basically 50 years to do what took Britain, France, and the USA nearly 150.
Part of the reason the USA rose to economic dominance over Europe was courtesy of its position with natural resources (that's also what allowed the the US to mobilize and make a significant contribution to the Second World War in less than 5 years). The only two countries that eclipse Chinese natural resources are Russia (in Siberia) and Canada.
-
Am I the only one that sees how diabolically sweet this would be. All you would have to do is load it with rocks strong enough to survive re-entry, and toss them. Would likely have the force on impact to flatten just about anything. Of course if you didn't aim right it could overshoot a few hundred miles and hit your ally. Then thats when you just blame it on an asteroid. :p
-
Am I the only one that sees how diabolically sweet this would be. All you would have to do is load it with rocks strong enough to survive re-entry, and toss them. Would likely have the force on impact to flatten just about anything. Of course if you didn't aim right it could overshoot a few hundred miles and hit your ally. Then thats when you just blame it on an asteroid. :p
Umm... no. That's why we're all discussing the implications. If everyone thought it was a sissy weapon, why would they be concerned?
-
Part of the reason the USA rose to economic dominance over Europe was courtesy of its position with natural resources (that's also what allowed the the US to mobilize and make a significant contribution to the Second World War in less than 5 years). The only two countries that eclipse Chinese natural resources are Russia (in Siberia) and Canada.
Ahem.
Apart from oil, we're as good or better in almost all hard-rock extractable minerals, plus we've got masses still to explore. Being essentially built of greenstone belts helps with that.
-
When you consider that China was essentially a backward, agrarian nation with virtually no industry at the outset of the Second World War, the speed and efficiency of their economic development has eclipsed every Western nation on the planet. It took them basically 50 years to do what took Britain, France, and the USA nearly 150.
Methinks you're putting China down here. IMHO, I don't think it was that backward or undeveloped back then. Give it some credit :P
Also, while it does have a lot of resources, it also has a lot of mouths to feed.
-
Methinks you're putting China down here. IMHO, I don't think it was that backward or undeveloped back then. Give it some credit
Not really, it's a historical fact that it was horribly backwards. You're talking about a place where, until around the 1970's and 80's most places didn't even have electricity.
-
A lot of mouths to feed?
Well, no county is complaining with it's food policys, even when thei're not really fair, you can see that the county is running and birth rate exceeds death rate.
Besides, no other county should mess with it's 2,25 million army and the old russian buddies. They can easily 'convince' someone to give them food.
/EDIT: AND they have at least 550 million persons fit for military service, which they probably wouldn't hesitate to use in emergency. PLUS another 660 millions NOT fit for service.
-
Am I the only one that sees how diabolically sweet this would be. All you would have to do is load it with rocks strong enough to survive re-entry, and toss them. Would likely have the force on impact to flatten just about anything. Of course if you didn't aim right it could overshoot a few hundred miles and hit your ally. Then thats when you just blame it on an asteroid. :p
Umm... no. That's why we're all discussing the implications. If everyone thought it was a sissy weapon, why would they be concerned?
Actually nearly all of this thread is discussing the economics of China and the US. But, I see no posts of how cool this weapon is.
-
A lot of mouths to feed?
Well, no county is complaining with it's food policys, even when thei're not really fair, you can see that the county is running and birth rate exceeds death rate.
Besides, no other county should mess with it's 2,25 million army and the old russian buddies. They can easily 'convince' someone to give them food.
/EDIT: AND they have at least 550 million persons fit for military service, which they probably wouldn't hesitate to use in emergency. PLUS another 660 millions NOT fit for service.
Remember that, despite the pitiful size of our own army, we have a magnificent Navy. Also, remember that human beings don't stand a chance against a major strike. I believe that a war of USA v. China would result in a lot of nuclear fallout--more-so then a war of USA v. Fmr. USSR.
-
What's the point of having 500 million soldiers if you can't get them to the enemy positions (talk about a logistical nightmare :eek:)
That said, methinks space-based weapons are cool. I'd like them to push the research into that avenue. Space cruisers anyone? :P
-
What's the point of having 500 million soldiers if you can't get them to the enemy positions (talk about a logistical nightmare :eek:)
Getting them there? Think about keeping them supplied, now that's a real nightmare.
-
Well, I think DEFCON 1 is reached if China directly declares the U.S.A. war directly. I guess...
BTW, arent there UN regulations about using Nukes or so? By the time U.S.A. gets the right to use them, China already blowed the **** outta that soil.
-
The only two countries that eclipse Chinese natural resources are Russia (in Siberia) and Canada.
Yeah but 80% of the Alberta Tar Sands, one of the largest oil deposits outside of the Middle East, are owned by South Korea.
-
MP-Ryan, based on your writings I think you have been in China yourself, would this be true?
But yes, I see this time it was the Chinese who started the space arms race with their satellite destroyer. Which is pretty much the logical answer to US JDAM munitions. And wasn't it just recently when the Chinese submarine surfaced in the middle of US carrier group just to say hello? The problem was that nobody noticed it before - or then another possibility (unlikely) is that the Navy damn well knew it was there, but they say this to get more funds.
Speaking of the financial stuff, the thing is that if the Chinese crash the US, to whom are they gonna sell their goods then? Even though EU is separated from US, it is not that separated. They would also be digging their own grave.
Somebody said that
When you consider that China was essentially a backward, agrarian nation with virtually no industry at the outset of the Second World War, the speed and efficiency of their economic development has eclipsed every Western nation on the planet. It took them basically 50 years to do what took Britain, France, and the USA nearly 150.
The fact is, China was and still is a developing nation! The cost of the development and economical growth has been terrible and will remain so, which is pretty much obvious for anyone visiting there. Chinese themselves tend to think it is only temporary situation, while I find it rather hard to believe.
In my opinion, China probably could not compete against Developed Countries if it faced the same legislation regarding pollution, environmental conditions and work. With the current conditions however, it is the developed nations that cannot compete against China, since it is indeed as someone put it, the most capitalistic nation on Earth. Sucks to be you if you happened to live from the nearby pond which contains Mercury and water both in noticeable quantities. On the other hand, no situation is really static and nations just have to adapt and react to the changes.
Besides, even in Europe there is at least a single nation that pushed itself from the agrarian status to developed country in less than 40 years while managing to do some other amazing things at the same time, and by this time I mean the time after WWII officially ended. All without environmental damage. And this comes from a nation without 4000 years of history of glorious civilized nation.
Ach, enough of opinions for today
Mika
-
since it is indeed as someone put it, the most capitalistic nation on Earth. Sucks to be you if you happened to live from the nearby pond which contains Mercury and water both in noticeable quantities.
Yes, because capitalism means poisoning people with mercury and not caring.
*sniff* *sniff* I smell a capitalism hater. :P
-
Yes, because capitalism means poisoning people with mercury and not caring.
*sniff* *sniff* I smell a capitalism hater. :P
Well actually, yes. It does mean just that.
-
Money? What money? We don't have your money. We never had your money. It is a lie!
Try to take it from us and we will pull all of our products from you countries.
Think about it - no crapy TV shows, no Pepsi/coca-cola, no McDonalds, no big Brother, no crappy rap/gangsta music!
erm...
On second thought, if you try to take out money we will MASS import this stuff even more!
Good call, thats the worst weapon of all. Our cola will rot their teeth so you can't chew that ****ty McDonald's food and they will choke and die. The US in invincible for that reason. And we're immune because we're all so fat over here that we can just swallow a Big Mac whole.
But seriously, no good can come of this.
-
The only real opposition the Chinese face for global economic supremacy are the European Union, which is the only political body with the financial clout to do a little fiddling of their own.
Dude, whatever U're smokin- GIMME SOME!!! :pimp:
The EU does NOT have economic supremacy over the Chinese or US, and it will fall behind being more and more a nanny state.
Europe will also be a retarded Muslim state in 20 years (look at France today- riots after each criminal killed while running from the cops), excluding countries like Poland, the Czech Republic etc, where there aren't many immigrants from the Middle East.
Another thing is that Europe (maybe except the UK and Poland) tends to be as pacifistic as possible, so don't count on military opposition either.
Besides, no other county should mess with it's 2,25 million army and the old russian buddies. They can easily 'convince' someone to give them food.
I'd like to see them 'convince' India.
BTW- I think it's the 'old russian buddies' that fear China most today- they have future Chinese resources, and if they didn't have nukes, Siberia would probably be a current Chinese resource dump.
/EDIT: AND they have at least 550 million persons fit for military service, which they probably wouldn't hesitate to use in emergency. PLUS another 660 millions NOT fit for service.
So they have manpower. They also have some modern production tech, thanks to the West.
What they don't have is:
-way advanced weapons (such as a fleet of stealth military planes or tanks with depleted uranium embedded in their armor)
-enough oil (China and India are one of the main reasons of the hellish price of petroleum)
-a way to get more oil other than buying or beginning WW III.
-a growing neighbor-superpower: India, which is a friend of the US.
One more thing- someone wrote that the US is digging their own grave with a shovel made in China by spending so much that the dollar is going down, and US public debt is going up. I think the grave is for China:
A cheaper dollar is good for the US to export stuff (ie. crappy TV shows, Pepsi/coca-cola, McDonalds etc :p). It's also bad for China because the $5 they earn today is worth less than the $5 a few years ago for the same 'Made in China' product. Oil prices are growing, forcing China to spend more cash on it since they need to import a lot and their demand is growing fast.
The US are friends with India, providing alternative cheap labor and huge amounts of manpower, which means that China will be slowed down on their way to becoming a superpower.
The Persian Gulf belongs to the USA, so China can't take the oil for themselves without WW III. In the near future, when Iraq will grow up to stop terrorism on it's own and Iran will be occupied by the US (thanks to their crazy president who won't stop developing his A-Bomb untill it can be used against Israel)- China will be paying US companies for crude. Since Big Oil = Big Tax Money, I doubt the US budget will fail anytime soon.
Summing up- China will need to rely on oil owned by America in the next few years, so they lost before the games even began, and they can't do anything about it.
-
MP-Ryan, based on your writings I think you have been in China yourself, would this be true?
But yes, I see this time it was the Chinese who started the space arms race with their satellite destroyer. Which is pretty much the logical answer to US JDAM munitions. And wasn't it just recently when the Chinese submarine surfaced in the middle of US carrier group just to say hello? The problem was that nobody noticed it before - or then another possibility (unlikely) is that the Navy damn well knew it was there, but they say this to get more funds.
Speaking of the financial stuff, the thing is that if the Chinese crash the US, to whom are they gonna sell their goods then? Even though EU is separated from US, it is not that separated. They would also be digging their own grave.
Problems.
The GPS satellites were and remain out of range of any current ASAT technology fielded by anyone, possibly excepting the Russians who had a kamikaze satellite version that they tested once or twice before the ASAT treaty. They are in high geosynch orbit and mainly unreachable. They were put there for precisely that reason; the same goes for military communications satellites. China's ASAT program doesn't even have anything that will kill a satellite yet, though they do have ground-based lasers they can use to try and disable thermal imaging satellites. So far they haven't been successful.
As for the submarine...I'm going to have call BS on this unless it was within this month; otherwise it's very unlikely I wouldn't have seen something in Proceedings. More to the point, it's very unlikely period. China's rather short on capable submarines; perhaps a Kilo could do it, but they don't have many of those, and the crews aren't very good. The PLAN is a massive joke compared to the Russians or the Brits, never mind the USN. Also recall that the USN, like all NATO navies, has spent several generations practicing against the day when they might have to hold the door open in the North Atlantic against a surge of vastly more capable, considerably more numerous, and much better crewed Red Banner Northern Fleet submarines.
Sad truth: defense against current PLAN submarine force is basically zigzagging at 30 knots. Most of them wouldn't be able to achieve firing posistion. Those that could would have to move fast enough they'll make enough noise the ASW aircraft will nab them.
-
Apart from oil, we're as good or better in almost all hard-rock extractable minerals, plus we've got masses still to explore. Being essentially built of greenstone belts helps with that.
In terms of sheer potential, Russia, Canada, and China (in that order) all have natural resource capacities which well exceed the United States. Western states *presently* have the edge in exploration and extraction, but I don't see that lasting given the rapid industrial development of Russia and China.
Remember that, despite the pitiful size of our own army, we have a magnificent Navy. Also, remember that human beings don't stand a chance against a major strike. I believe that a war of USA v. China would result in a lot of nuclear fallout--more-so then a war of USA v. Fmr. USSR.
As this tangent was kind of saying, a hotwar between the USA and China is quite improbable, given that military defeats in the field are no longer a prerequisite for strategic defeat.
Yeah but 80% of the Alberta Tar Sands, one of the largest oil deposits outside of the Middle East, are owned by South Korea.
That was kinda my point. Western countries are quite happily selling out their natural resources to the highest bidder. By the way, I'm from Edmonton, AB, so I'm quite well aware of the current oil sands issues =)
MP-Ryan, based on your writings I think you have been in China yourself, would this be true?
Nope, but international history is a little pet interest of mine.
In my opinion, China probably could not compete against Developed Countries if it faced the same legislation regarding pollution, environmental conditions and work.
Absolutely! That's why the Chinese would never agree to something along the likes of Kyoto.
Besides, even in Europe there is at least a single nation that pushed itself from the agrarian status to developed country in less than 40 years while managing to do some other amazing things at the same time, and by this time I mean the time after WWII officially ended. All without environmental damage. And this comes from a nation without 4000 years of history of glorious civilized nation.
*coughtalkingaboutRussiaarewe?cough* =) 'Tis true.
The EU does NOT have economic supremacy over the Chinese or US, and it will fall behind being more and more a nanny state.
Europe will also be a retarded Muslim state in 20 years (look at France today- riots after each criminal killed while running from the cops), excluding countries like Poland, the Czech Republic etc, where there aren't many immigrants from the Middle East.
Another thing is that Europe (maybe except the UK and Poland) tends to be as pacifistic as possible, so don't count on military opposition either.
You've got to be an American college student, right? =)
The EU has far more in terms of investment opportunity and credibility of reach in global markets in the present day than does the USA. This trend will only increase. Your statement about France just tells me you don't really know what you're talking about - Europe is transitioning from a relatively closed rigid society to one which is gradually being forced to accept high rates of immigration and new cultures. Much of the religious extremism in Europe today stems directly from old racial classes spilling over from the imperial era. Europe needs immigrants (most European nations are well become replacement rate in terms of fertility) and will gradually liberalize their integration system to accept them. The period today is transitional in nature, but all signs point to eventual stabilization as the last of the old order of Europe disappears with the increasing powers of the EU. France is largely the main obstacle to this process.
As for military opposition, military solutions are terribly one dimensional, particularly in popular American culture today. Military solutions solve few things, if any (since apprximately 1972, anyway), and as I already pointed out, strategic defeat no longer correlates to tactical defeat.
In short, the lines you just wrote are nothing more than typical conservative one-dimensional thinking regarding the state of the world, and countries thinking that way throughout the next century are going to get a real economic kick in the ass.
IMHO, the dominance of military superpowers in the global community ended in 1979. Economics now paves the way to success or decline in the modern world, a fact that Bush is now learning much too late.
-
MP-Ryan, based on your writings I think you have been in China yourself, would this be true?
But yes, I see this time it was the Chinese who started the space arms race with their satellite destroyer. Which is pretty much the logical answer to US JDAM munitions. And wasn't it just recently when the Chinese submarine surfaced in the middle of US carrier group just to say hello? The problem was that nobody noticed it before - or then another possibility (unlikely) is that the Navy damn well knew it was there, but they say this to get more funds.
Speaking of the financial stuff, the thing is that if the Chinese crash the US, to whom are they gonna sell their goods then? Even though EU is separated from US, it is not that separated. They would also be digging their own grave.
Somebody said that
When you consider that China was essentially a backward, agrarian nation with virtually no industry at the outset of the Second World War, the speed and efficiency of their economic development has eclipsed every Western nation on the planet. It took them basically 50 years to do what took Britain, France, and the USA nearly 150.
The fact is, China was and still is a developing nation! The cost of the development and economical growth has been terrible and will remain so, which is pretty much obvious for anyone visiting there. Chinese themselves tend to think it is only temporary situation, while I find it rather hard to believe.
In my opinion, China probably could not compete against Developed Countries if it faced the same legislation regarding pollution, environmental conditions and work. With the current conditions however, it is the developed nations that cannot compete against China, since it is indeed as someone put it, the most capitalistic nation on Earth. Sucks to be you if you happened to live from the nearby pond which contains Mercury and water both in noticeable quantities. On the other hand, no situation is really static and nations just have to adapt and react to the changes.
Besides, even in Europe there is at least a single nation that pushed itself from the agrarian status to developed country in less than 40 years while managing to do some other amazing things at the same time, and by this time I mean the time after WWII officially ended. All without environmental damage. And this comes from a nation without 4000 years of history of glorious civilized nation.
Ach, enough of opinions for today
Mika
You actually mean Switzerland, right?
-
Ah, and today I find myself again able to discuss some politiks. Time zones are fun.
This is new, no-one has said to me before that I would hate capitalism. Things like dumping your exhaust liquids (whatever they contained) in to a local pond or a lake is simply a fact of what is happening there and happened 150-200 years ago in Europe and USA. It is simply an example of maximizing your profit, and I would be interested to see what you would do if you could make that decision in reality (but I guess this I can't). Oh, and as probably everyone knows, this happened also in former Soviet Union, and is still happening in Russia. "Waste" being the nuclear submarines and stuff like that.
Oh, and BengalTiger, that is quite a spot on analysis on EU. The only thing to comment is that EU has a larger population than US and by current estimates it seems to have a larger GDP. This is not surprising, EU is economically strong area, but I'm not sure about the actual manufacturing. If manufacturing is outsourced, the economy tends to go down afterwards.
I'm not really a racist, and have met some nice Muslims around, but it is true that the Muslims have a large minority in France and Germany, enough to cause large scale problems. Even here they would prefer to have the Sharia law, instead of the law instituted by this country. My solution would be to kick those people out. No need to enjoy the asylum, freedom of speech, free schooling, financial support or medicine, etc. etc. all provided by that unpreferred law. For me it is either accept and obey or don't come.
Besides, even I can't speak much good about EU, what I know about it is that the system is far too byrocratized, too far away from common people to ever function properly. It will never have a quick response time, nor will there ever be a common consensus of anything. I see it mostly as a huge resource hog, that will take more than it can give. The only positive effects that I can see have been the common currency that is accepted around almost everywhere and the (almost) free mobility around. Which is actually not much different from the time before EU, if you don't count the money thing.
Oh, and not all European countries are as pacifistic as mentioned, nor are the people in them. According to my understanding, the inactivity is caused by the vested financial interests. On the other hand, come to think of a campaign planned by French, executed by Italy and Spain... come to think of it, you might see why the EU doesn't do too much militarily...
-
In my opinion, China probably could not compete against Developed Countries if it faced the same legislation regarding pollution, environmental conditions and work.
Absolutely! That's why the Chinese would never agree to something along the likes of Kyoto.
And that's why we must nuke China! They will doom us all! :drevil:
-
And that's why we must nuke China! They will doom us all! :drevil:
An excellent and adroit solution with only two flaws.
1. Croatia doesn't have any nukes
2. Croatia doesn't have any nukes
Now I know that technically that's only one flaw but I thought it was such a big one that it was worth mentioning twice.
-
And that's why we must nuke China! They will doom us all! :drevil:
An excellent and adroit solution with only two flaws.
1. Croatia doesn't have any nukes
2. Croatia doesn't have any nukes
Now I know that technically that's only one flaw but I thought it was such a big one that it was worth mentioning twice.
TrashMan could easily model one, and if he left it untextured it would be invisible. ;7
-
There is something strange in the comment regarding the GPS satellites. The requirement of the geostationary orbit requires that the satellites stay above one spot on Earth, and Physics dictates that this can only happen at a given distance, which happens to be approximately 36 000 km. And it must be exactly above the equator of the Earth.
Checked it, oh, it was geosynchrous orbit, so the altitude is relaxed, but I still think the requirement is more related to the actual orbital Physics and remaining time above the target than to get the satellites as far as possible.
I don't know the capabilites of the China's anti-satellite missiles, but given that it was a surprise for the world that they could do it, are we sure we know all about the capabilities of that system? So that there won't be extra surprises? But what you say is probably true, it is hard to reach the satellite at that altitude.
The news about the Chinese submarine can be found here, not sure if it is BS. British people can probably say something about the magazine itself.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=492804&in_page_id=1811
Oh and about guesses of my whereabouts, it is not either Russia (they caused horrific environmental damage) or Switzerland, and lastly it doesn't really matter. It was a simple note that the industrialization can be done quickly, cleanly and efficiently if there is a will and that there are better examples of industrialization times even inside EU.
Lastly I don't know what to think when I hear that the times of wars is over and it will be more like economical competition. Last time such comments were made and believed and due to these reasons it almost ended badly. Be polite but always carry a big stick.
Mika
-
Oh and about guesses of my whereabouts
You substituted a "k" for a "C" earlier so I'm going to guess Poland or The Czech Republic.
-
And that's why we must nuke China! They will doom us all! :drevil:
An excellent and adroit solution with only two flaws.
1. Croatia doesn't have any nukes
2. Croatia doesn't have any nukes
Now I know that technically that's only one flaw but I thought it was such a big one that it was worth mentioning twice.
TrashMan could easily model one, and if he left it untextured it would be invisible. ;7
Yes. Not only that, I'll model a MESON warhead! Who will be a superpower then, eh? :p
Besides, who said Croatia needs nukes. Did I say that my country specificly needs to do the nuking?
All we need is a mad scientist who's willing to sell us a mind-controling device and we're ready to go! :drevil:
-
And that's why we must nuke China! They will doom us all! :drevil:
An excellent and adroit solution with only two flaws.
1. Croatia doesn't have any nukes
2. Croatia doesn't have any nukes
Now I know that technically that's only one flaw but I thought it was such a big one that it was worth mentioning twice.
Last time I checked Britain didn't either. :p
EDIT: Never mind, I checked again.
-
And that's why we must nuke China! They will doom us all! :drevil:
An excellent and adroit solution with only two flaws.
1. Croatia doesn't have any nukes
2. Croatia doesn't have any nukes
Now I know that technically that's only one flaw but I thought it was such a big one that it was worth mentioning twice.
Last time I checked Britain didn't either. :p
EDIT: Never mind, I checked again.
:wtf:
-
Besides, no other county should mess with it's 2,25 million army and the old russian buddies.
Chinese army is about half that size, plus most of its equipment is 1960's-1970's era copies of soviet stuff.
A cheaper dollar is good for the US to export stuff (ie. crappy TV shows, Pepsi/coca-cola, McDonalds etc ). It's also bad for China because the $5 they earn today is worth less than the $5 a few years ago for the same 'Made in China' product. Oil prices are growing, forcing China to spend more cash on it since they need to import a lot and their demand is growing fast.
Then again all the oil companies are SOE's, plus they have a pretty sizable reserve of dollars to spend. The US doesn't make cheap **** anymore, the living standards in the US are just too high to allow for that.
Absolutely! That's why the Chinese would never agree to something along the likes of Kyoto.
Neither would India, Vietnam or some of our other new "friends" in the devloping world. As Mika said, China is a developing country, and so is India.
But to be fair, there have been real attempts to solve the issues of the environment and labor practice. Recently there was a major labor law passed (which the multi-nationals fought tooth and nail to stop), more information about that here (http://www.chinalawblog.com/2007/11/chinas_new_labor_law_its_a_hug.html)
As for the environmental problems, there are actually plenty of rules against dumping and that sort of thing, the problem is that they often are not enforced at the local level. The capital's hold on the country is quite a bit more tenuous than you might believe.
Besides, even in Europe there is at least a single nation that pushed itself from the agrarian status to developed country in less than 40 years while managing to do some other amazing things at the same time, and by this time I mean the time after WWII officially ended. All without environmental damage.
On the other hand it wasn't nearly on such a massive scale.
-
Neither would India, Vietnam or some of our other new "friends" in the devloping world. As Mika said, China is a developing country, and so is India.
But to be fair, there have been real attempts to solve the issues of the environment and labor practice. Recently there was a major labor law passed (which the multi-nationals fought tooth and nail to stop), more information about that here (http://www.chinalawblog.com/2007/11/chinas_new_labor_law_its_a_hug.html)
As for the environmental problems, there are actually plenty of rules against dumping and that sort of thing, the problem is that they often are not enforced at the local level. The capital's hold on the country is quite a bit more tenuous than you might believe.
I was avoiding the whole developed/undeveloped nations mess because the discussion had so far stuck to China, but you're right - the developing world (for the most part) is not prepared to make sacrifices in industrial progress which have put major advances in quality of life within sight.
Ultimately, I'm on board with my PM on the environment issue - environmental agreements have to be binding, and binding for all members, or they don't matter a damn.
-
And that's why we must nuke China! They will doom us all! :drevil:
An excellent and adroit solution with only two flaws.
1. Croatia doesn't have any nukes
2. Croatia doesn't have any nukes
Now I know that technically that's only one flaw but I thought it was such a big one that it was worth mentioning twice.
Last time I checked Britain didn't either. :p
EDIT: Never mind, I checked again.
:wtf:
Five are considered to be "nuclear weapons states", an internationally recognized status conferred by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In order of acquisition of nuclear weapons these are: the United States, Russia (successor state to the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, France and China.
-
Last time I checked Britain didn't either.
EDIT: Never mind, I checked again.
This has to be funniest thing I saw here for a while! I'm considering making it my new signature. But on the other hand, the old one is more generally applicable.
Here's something about China's current situation regarding fuel:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22832180-25837,00.html
Ah, poor profit-maximizing outsourcing companies just found out their manufacturing costs skyrocketed! While this really was not unexpected, it did happen faster than I thought, and possibly for a different reason than I thought.
There is a difference between "enforced" and what actually happened. Local authorities can also be bribed. Also, what do you think, has this been intentional?
http://www.manufacturing.net/Dow-Contamination-Site-Could-Be-Worst-Ever.aspx?menuid=36
But back to the topic about the hybrid space system that could reach any target on Earth in a matter of minutes, how are they gonna deliver the weapons precisely enough? Dropping something from the height of 120000 ft is quite different from dropping munitions from 15000 ft. Could the current guided munitions be used, if they are launched from a hypersonic vehicle?
Besides, can the current targeting systems even calculate accurate trajectories for dumb iron munitions above Mach 1? Trans-sonic region is probably out of question, I suppose, but is the airflow "constant" enough at higher speeds to make a good prediction? Ah, I just realised that to answer these questions one should probably have a military level security classification, and quite high that kind. So please don't actually bother.
And yes (Kosh is probably on the right track), the industrialization was not of the same scale here, it brought wealth for everyone. In China, the wealth is split to much smaller amount of people, so the beneficial industrialization effects are limited only to a really small fraction of the population. Which is not necessarily a good thing, if you think things like stability. On the other hand, they have a civilized and glorious history of ruling class surviving in conditions like that for hundreds of years. Which is indeed an achievement of itself, if you ask me.
Oh, and it is not Poland or Czech either - both have longer history of being civilized nations.
Sidenote: at this point most of you probably realize that the "civilized" means something else for me than for the rest of you. But nevermind my opinions, I'm just an ogre, a remnanment of the past, who was born in the middle of swamp lands and raised in there, and just recently arrived in the wide new world. Comparing the swamp school definition of "civilized" to the observations, I had to draw conclusions that the way I understood "civilized" was wrong. So don't take my texts too seriously, even though they are fact based. It takes a good reader to notice all the nuances.
Mika
-
And that's why we must nuke China! They will doom us all! :drevil:
An excellent and adroit solution with only two flaws.
1. Croatia doesn't have any nukes
2. Croatia doesn't have any nukes
Now I know that technically that's only one flaw but I thought it was such a big one that it was worth mentioning twice.
Last time I checked Britain didn't either. :p
EDIT: Never mind, I checked again.
:wtf:
Five are considered to be "nuclear weapons states", an internationally recognized status conferred by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In order of acquisition of nuclear weapons these are: the United States, Russia (successor state to the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, France and China.
I know Britain has nukes.
I'm just :wtf: ing at you not knowing. I mean, how do you miss a fact like that?
-
There is something strange in the comment regarding the GPS satellites. The requirement of the geostationary orbit requires that the satellites stay above one spot on Earth, and Physics dictates that this can only happen at a given distance, which happens to be approximately 36 000 km. And it must be exactly above the equator of the Earth.
Checked it, oh, it was geosynchrous orbit, so the altitude is relaxed, but I still think the requirement is more related to the actual orbital Physics and remaining time above the target than to get the satellites as far as possible.
I don't know the capabilites of the China's anti-satellite missiles, but given that it was a surprise for the world that they could do it, are we sure we know all about the capabilities of that system? So that there won't be extra surprises? But what you say is probably true, it is hard to reach the satellite at that altitude.
The news about the Chinese submarine can be found here, not sure if it is BS. British people can probably say something about the magazine itself.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=492804&in_page_id=1811
Oh and about guesses of my whereabouts, it is not either Russia (they caused horrific environmental damage) or Switzerland, and lastly it doesn't really matter. It was a simple note that the industrialization can be done quickly, cleanly and efficiently if there is a will and that there are better examples of industrialization times even inside EU.
Lastly I don't know what to think when I hear that the times of wars is over and it will be more like economical competition. Last time such comments were made and believed and due to these reasons it almost ended badly. Be polite but always carry a big stick.
Mika
GPS satelites aren't on GEO orbits, they're in MEO orbits - so no, they're not "fixed" in the sky.
-
You've got to be an American college student, right? =)
Naaah, but I do spend a few months there per year.
The EU has far more in terms of investment opportunity and credibility of reach in global markets in the present day than does the USA. This trend will only increase. Your statement about France just tells me you don't really know what you're talking about - Europe is transitioning from a relatively closed rigid society to one which is gradually being forced to accept high rates of immigration and new cultures. Much of the religious extremism in Europe today stems directly from old racial classes spilling over from the imperial era. Europe needs immigrants (most European nations are well become replacement rate in terms of fertility) and will gradually liberalize their integration system to accept them. The period today is transitional in nature, but all signs point to eventual stabilization as the last of the old order of Europe disappears with the increasing powers of the EU. France is largely the main obstacle to this process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil_unrest_in_France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_civil_unrest_in_France
2 great riots. Both caused by the police doing their job which is not something spilling from the imperial era. It comes from the fact that immigrants feel they own France, not the French. And when there is civil unrest (caused by a minority) because of police doing their job, it is not a good sign for the future, because the minority is growing and so is the problem.
As for military opposition, military solutions are terribly one dimensional, particularly in popular American culture today. Military solutions solve few things, if any (since apprximately 1972, anyway), and as I already pointed out, strategic defeat no longer correlates to tactical defeat.
But it was the Barbarians that conquered the far more civilized and advanced Roman Empire once Rome stopped fighting.
Who cares it was one dimmensional? The Barbarians that became the owners of Europe, or the former Romans that lost everything?
In short, the lines you just wrote are nothing more than typical conservative one-dimensional thinking regarding the state of the world, and countries thinking that way throughout the next century are going to get a real economic kick in the ass.
The ones that are going to get a kick in the @$$ are those that spend more and more cash on the unemployed instead of giving them the impulse to find a job. War doesn't have much to do about it.
IMHO, the dominance of military superpowers in the global community ended in 1979. Economics now paves the way to success or decline in the modern world, a fact that Bush is now learning much too late.
Judging by the fact he's using (actually- overusing) bin Ladens mistake of 9/11 to get the resource needed most for economical growth today, I hate to say that he's learned enough about economics.
And there is no dominance in military without a stronger economy, as proven by the failure of the USSR where tanks were cheap and cars were rare.
Oh, and BengalTiger, that is quite a spot on analysis on EU. The only thing to comment is that EU has a larger population than US and by current estimates it seems to have a larger GDP. This is not surprising, EU is economically strong area, but I'm not sure about the actual manufacturing. If manufacturing is outsourced, the economy tends to go down afterwards.
The US has a smaller unemployment rate (4,4% US vs 7% EU in 2006), smaller % of people working in agriculture (0.9% vs 2.1%), and a larger GDP per capita ($44 000 US vs $29 900 EU), and that's what I based my claim about US > EU on.
I'm not really a racist, and have met some nice Muslims around, but it is true that the Muslims have a large minority in France and Germany, enough to cause large scale problems. Even here they would prefer to have the Sharia law, instead of the law instituted by this country. My solution would be to kick those people out. No need to enjoy the asylum, freedom of speech, free schooling, financial support or medicine, etc. etc. all provided by that unpreferred law. For me it is either accept and obey or don't come.
Run for president, wherever you live. I fully support the idea of kicking out those guests that feel like they own the place.
I also fully support those who migrate and know how to adapt to wherever they move in.
Besides, even I can't speak much good about EU, what I know about it is that the system is far too byrocratized, too far away from common people to ever function properly. It will never have a quick response time, nor will there ever be a common consensus of anything. I see it mostly as a huge resource hog, that will take more than it can give. The only positive effects that I can see have been the common currency that is accepted around almost everywhere and the (almost) free mobility around. Which is actually not much different from the time before EU, if you don't count the money thing.
Well the big change in creating the EU is that people and goods can travel freely throughout the Union, and that is a big factor in speeding up the economy. Another thing is that the poorer countries get financial aid which also is a boost, even in terms of the whole EU.
You're also right about the problems.
Oh, and not all European countries are as pacifistic as mentioned, nor are the people in them. According to my understanding, the inactivity is caused by the vested financial interests. On the other hand, come to think of a campaign planned by French, executed by Italy and Spain... come to think of it, you might see why the EU doesn't do too much militarily...
Well the way I see it, the reason that the EU doesn't go to war that much is the fact that any war they'd fight would be an attack on some minority living in France, Germany or wherever, making a much better reason for riots than criminals dying while running from the cops.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil_unrest_in_France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_civil_unrest_in_France
2 great riots. Both caused by the police doing their job which is not something spilling from the imperial era. It comes from the fact that immigrants feel they own France, not the French. And when there is civil unrest (caused by a minority) because of police doing their job, it is not a good sign for the future, because the minority is growing and so is the problem.
Which is a very American point of view on immigration. A little relativism would do you good. Unrest during a process of civil change is normal, not a sign of the demise of the nation, as you chould know given your own country's historical (*cough1963-1975cough*).
But it was the Barbarians that conquered the far more civilized and advanced Roman Empire once Rome stopped fighting.
Who cares it was one dimmensional? The Barbarians that became the owners of Europe, or the former Romans that lost everything?
Fallacious argument. The politics of 4th century Europe are entirely different from the political, technological, and military environment today. Sorry, you don't get to use the "history will repeat itself" argument with me in a situation where the history has no comparable basis.
The ones that are going to get a kick in the @$$ are those that spend more and more cash on the unemployed instead of giving them the impulse to find a job. War doesn't have much to do about it.
Now I KNOW you're a right-wing American.
Judging by the fact he's using (actually- overusing) bin Ladens mistake of 9/11 to get the resource needed most for economical growth today, I hate to say that he's learned enough about economics.
And there is no dominance in military without a stronger economy, as proven by the failure of the USSR where tanks were cheap and cars were rare.
Dude, if you think the Iraq war is about oil, we're done talking. Oil is nothing more than a convenient by-product. The Iraq war was an ill-conceived attempt to bring stability and democracy to the Middle East and simultaneously get rid of an irritating dictator. It failed brilliantly. Ultimately, the Iraq war has hurt the US economically, and Iraq really isn't all that oil rich - most US oil comes from Latin America and Canada anyway.
Fallacious argument, again. You're being very Americentric. Try a little international perspective.
At any rate, you haven't shown at all why you seem to think that military strength means that other powers won't be able to rise to economic dominance. Since the 1970s, millitary dominance has not resulted in decisive strategic victory anywhere (including the Gulf War, which was a tactical but not strategic victory).
Well the way I see it, the reason that the EU doesn't go to war that much is the fact that any war they'd fight would be an attack on some minority living in France, Germany or wherever, making a much better reason for riots than criminals dying while running from the cops.
Wow. Just ***ing wow.
Ok, I'm done, there's not point arguing with you, it's just going to make me get nasty.
-
Considering there was once 2 superpowers, and one collapsed under the weight of it's own economic demand, I find the conversation intriuging.
The phrase 'Barbarian' is taken too literally these days, by the way, after all, Carthage was full of 'Barbarians' from the Roman point of view, and they had a more advanced Maths, Astronomy and Physics knowledge that the Romans did.
-
The US has a smaller unemployment rate (4,4% US vs 7% EU in 2006), smaller % of people working in agriculture (0.9% vs 2.1%), and a larger GDP per capita ($44 000 US vs $29 900 EU), and that's what I based my claim about US > EU on.
On the other hand the American economy is horribly over-inflated by massive debt spending.
knew that he was not asking me, as I am really clueless about most things, and thus have no freaking idea at all. But he hints at it when he says that "subprime mortgages are changing hands at 25 cents on the dollar", and this means that the subprime loss alone "is not $150 billion, but more like $1.6 trillion", and "if all AAA and Alt-A mortgage portfolios were to be marked to market, the loss would amount to another $2 trillion." Yikes!
That's one quarter of the entire GDP.
Read all about it
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/IK30Dj03.html
Dude, if you think the Iraq war is about oil, we're done talking. Oil is nothing more than a convenient by-product. The Iraq war was an ill-conceived attempt to bring stability and democracy to the Middle East and simultaneously get rid of an irritating dictator.
The entire point of democratizing Iraq was to get rid of an anti-american dictator and replace it with a pro-american democratic government, this way the oil sanctions can be lifted and production could increase and we all would be happy. But it backfired hugely.
But it was the Barbarians that conquered the far more civilized and advanced Roman Empire once Rome stopped fighting.
Wrong. There were many reasons why Rome collapsed, but actually fighting too much was certainly one of them. A massive economic collapse the century before that also weakened it pretty significantly.
Considering that Europe is still 90+% ethnic european, some unrest can be expected during times of change.
-
But it was the Barbarians that conquered the far more civilized and advanced Roman Empire once Rome stopped fighting.
Wrong. There were many reasons why Rome collapsed, but actually fighting too much was certainly one of them. A massive economic collapse the century before that also weakened it pretty significantly.
I thought Rome fell because it was ruled by psychopaths that had ridiculous eating disorders.
-
But it was the Barbarians that conquered the far more civilized and advanced Roman Empire once Rome stopped fighting.
Wrong. There were many reasons why Rome collapsed, but actually fighting too much was certainly one of them. A massive economic collapse the century before that also weakened it pretty significantly.
I thought Rome fell because it was ruled by psychopaths that had ridiculous eating disorders.
And drank from lead cups.
-
1.
Dude, if you think the Iraq war is about oil, we're done talking. Oil is nothing more than a convenient by-product.
Look 30 years from now- oil will be for the price of gold by then, and China will probably not be developed enough to exist without it. Without US influence in the Middle East, Iraq and Iran would be sitting there, waiting for the Chinese to come and conquer the oil supplies. And since there are Americans in Iraq, and probably will be in Iran, China suffered a big blow in terms of energy supplies, decades before anyone could feel it.
2. I'm not only a citizen of the US. And I don't study there, I'm there only for my summer vacation.
3.At any rate, you haven't shown at all why you seem to think that military strength means that other powers won't be able to rise to economic dominance. Since the 1970s, millitary dominance has not resulted in decisive strategic victory anywhere (including the Gulf War, which was a tactical but not strategic victory).
You're right here, but that's mostly because there was no great war since then (less the Cold one, which was in fact fought only economically).
4. As for Rome...
The military historian Vegetius theorized, and has recently been supported by the historian Arthur Ferrill, that the Roman Empire – particularly the military – declined partially as a result of an influx of Germanic mercenaries into the ranks of the legions. This "Germanization" and the resultant cultural dilution or "barbarization", led to lethargy, complacency and loyalty to the Roman commanders among the legions and a surge in decadence amongst Roman citizenry.
...
Edward Gibbon famously placed the blame on a loss of civic virtue among the Roman citizens. They gradually entrusted the role of defending the Empire to barbarian mercenaries who eventually turned on them.
Which means that fighting was so unpopular that the Romans had mercenaries do it for them, which proves that pacifism, rather than too much warfare was one of the reasons Rome got defeated.
The cultural 'barbarisation' was a direct effect of what we today call 'multiculturism' (inviting a whole bunch of immigrants without having them adapt to their new home), and it was another reason why Rome fell apart.
History doesn't repeat itself because of technology or weapons. It's mentality of the involved people that matters.
5. The phrase 'Barbarian' is taken too literally these days, by the way, after all, Carthage was full of 'Barbarians' from the Roman point of view, and they had a more advanced Maths, Astronomy and Physics knowledge that the Romans did.
I was thinking of the Goths and Vandals.
6.Considering that Europe is still 90+% ethnic european, some unrest can be expected during times of change.
In 2005 the EU had an overall net gain from immigration of 1.8 million people, despite having one of the highest population densities in the world. This accounted for almost 85% of Europe's total population growth. Sounds alarming, doesn't it?
-
*eyeroll* As I already said, in the interests of cvilility, I'm not continuing. Someone else can correct the loon.
-
The visigoths were advanced architects with large volumes of law and culture.
The vandals were extremely efficient warriors with a high degree of culture who are regarded as no more destructive than any other race out there at the time, once again, like Barbarian, Vandalism was only considered destruction in a post Roman Europe, because despite the fact they lost in the end, most of Europes' outlook was Rome-centric at the time.
I'm sure a lot of people view barbarians as countless Arnold Schwarzenegger look-alikes waving broadswords and speaking in mono-syllables, the truth could not be further from that image. It takes great organisation and an advanced culture to defeat even a corrupt superpower such as Rome was by that time.
It should also be noted that the exodus to the US happened several hundred years AFTER the sack of Rome, so white Americans are descended from that same 'Barbarian' stock as Europeans.
-
Actually, I have also been seeing parallels between the current situation and the destruction of the old large kingdoms. I might also want remind that the US has also a similar problem with Mexicans.
It is the same old story, the successful generation wants that their kids can avoid the ****ty stuff they had to do in order get successful. While the kids that will get succesful, again think that their kids don't need to do the nasty stuff and teach them accordingly. This will result in a cycle, which leads to a downfall of civilization as no-one wants and is willing to do the stuff that needs to be done. But don't worry, this problem is as old as the mankind and is just as universal. The only thing that can break the cycle is competition or natural change so that it will not remain too easy for too long periods. On the other hand, smart people will always remain at the favorable places in the chain of command, especially during the hard times.
So I see there is some grain of truth in the analysis of the flux of refugees to Europe and in their effects. I don't know what are the grounds for accepting so many refugees in France, could it be the old colonial rule? On the other hand I suspect it has more to do with having cheap and easily abused labour around that have no understanding of their legal status.
Unfortunately ministers didn't think about how well the refugees will obey the laws. Oh and this trend is unfortunately starting to be visible here, especially around the capital region. Elsewhere in the country it is not so. It is sad to see all that what was once considered important is broken and torn down (and in this case most of those things were actually quite smart and logical). The counter reaction will be that more fierce.
This is already so far off the original topic so I'll stop here.
Mika
-
@Mika,
I understand the comparisons, however, the big difference in this day and age is that we are aware of migration to a much larger degree. There was always a constant influx of new blood to the Roman Empires, and yes, that carried problems with it, some countries heaved with rebellion, Gaul, Britain etc, but regardless of that fact, for hundreds of years the Empire flourished until it collapsed from internal corruption more than anything else.
Now, the UN or the EU are hardly the squeaky-clean organisations they could be, but it is a lot harder for corruption to take place these days, and even in the case of food for oil scandal etc, now that the 'trick' has been identified, it will be dealt with, it's like building a dam in a way, sometimes you don't know where the holes are until you fill the reservoir. Governments evolve to respond to outside pressures in a very Darwinian manner, they will exploit niches until they are forced to find their requirements elsewhere.
As for public counter-reaction, I'll agree that there is a growing unrest in a lot of European countries regarding, not so much the influx of immigrants, but the fact that many nationals are feeling ignored by their government in favour of the immigrants. Is there truth to that claim? I have no idea to be honest, I have so many sources of information that contradict each other that I'm completely at a loss to describe my own feelings on the matter, and that worries me more than simply being 'narrow minded' sometimes. In some ways, it's that very indecisiveness that has led to the paranoia that seems to inhabit every facet of UK life these days.
-
Look 30 years from now- oil will be for the price of gold by then, and China will probably not be developed enough to exist without it. Without US influence in the Middle East, Iraq and Iran would be sitting there, waiting for the Chinese to come and conquer the oil supplies. And since there are Americans in Iraq, and probably will be in Iran, China suffered a big blow in terms of energy supplies, decades before anyone could feel it.
Given the increased instability in the area (and if the US tries to go into Iran the greatly increased instability), I would say its more like the whole world "suffered a blow" to its oil supplies.
But I think it's unwise to make a prediction like "it won't be developed enough to not need oil in 30 years". 30 years ago no one could have predicted that things would be the way they are now.
-
IMHO; people should try and stay in their own countries.
Immigration should always be on the minimum.
-
IMHO; people should try and stay in their own countries.
...
-
:wtf:
-
If the smart and willing leave the country at masses for a "better life" then who with brains is left in the country to make it a better place?
There's the old "the grass is always greener on the other side". It's sometimes true. But instead of hopping to your neighbors yard, how about trying to make your own a nice place?
Mark my words, in 50 years spanish/mexican/whatever will be the main language in the USA.
-
Isn't it already? ;7
-
Aren't we off-topic BTW.
I frankly don't care if the USA, China and Russia start a war over this. They can nuke eachother for all I care - all I want to hear is "Ion Cannon online!"
-
To be honest I think the US is playing right into China's plan to bankrupt it. What makes it really ****ing funny is that China stole the plan from the US after seeing them use it on the USSR. :lol:
All of this has happened before, and it will happen again.
We've always been at war with Eastasia.
-
Aren't we off-topic BTW.
No, no, no. I for one would like to hear how you can justify being anti-immigration in general, other than the unbelievably arrogant "if your country is so bad, why don't you make it better" train of thought.
-
I'm for limited, strict immigration in general. Nuff said.
-
immigration allows for ideas to flow and societies to change, neither of which are bad things.
-
Not to mention that it's amazingly arrogant to believe people shouldn't need to move beyond their borders when you seem to have a rather good standard of living, Trashman.
-
IMHO; people should try and stay in their own countries.
Immigration should always be on the minimum.
Yeah! You're right!
Immigration has always been a PROBLEM in the US!
Ask any Indian!
-
Not to mention that it's amazingly arrogant to believe people shouldn't need to move beyond their borders when you seem to have a rather good standard of living, Trashman.
I'm not again all immigration - just more limited one.
On another note, the standard of living isn't really that good, but I'm not complaining. I like it here.