US Army: long intersting "Economist" report

[Rick]

Yeah, I guess if they'll still be around when the *%*&^ hits the fan, they'll do the long-term right thing. Only I don't want to put up with W that long.

[Bigduke6]

Preparation for war is not quite the same as preparation for war now.

If I had to name the single biggest advantage the Chinese have over the Americans, it would have to be their ability - both goverment and society - to think long term.

Their overriding strategic goal from what I can make out is pretty much defensive, not offensive. They want economic stability more than anything else.

They could be (this was pointed out in one of those papers I cited) working to make a real international challenge to the U.S.; for instace by creating a blue-water submarine fleet. True they can't build a great submarine these days, but already they can make more or less okay ones, and with practice and effort the capacity is definately there.

But from what I can tell the leadership is avoiding "offensive" weaponry almost like the plague. The top military-industrial research priorities are nuclear, ballistic missiles, and to a lesser extent guided munitions.

If you look at what they're buying abroad it is almost an exact list of what you or I would buy from the rest of the world to deny Chinese air space from the U.S.: capable fighter jets, jet engine technology, decent air-to-air missiles, and the best ADA it can possibly lay its hands on. All that stuff is great in keeping the Americans out of China, but not so hot in messing with the Americans far away from China.

Which reminds me of a story from my from my neck of the woods.

During the lead-up to GWII the U.S. got all over Ukraine's back because, the Bush government alleged, the Ukrainians had sold advanced ADA radars to Saddam. It turns out the Ukrainians make a system called Kolchuga which is four to eight trucks spread over several hundred kilometers. Allegedly the system works by monitoring wierd frequencies and triangulation, and it is good enough to detect Stealth aircraft, at least sometimes. Doesn't emit either, so there is nothing to "light up". Bad for U.S. air supremacy, huh?

Yeah, yeah, that's what all the manufacturers say, but in the lead up to the war it was like the only, and I mean only, thing the U.S. government cared about as far as Ukraine was concerned was had they sold these systems to Iraq. Washington blew off democracy aid programs, economic sanctions, everything; it was as if the only thing the U.S. State Department saw in Ukraine was did Saddam get these systems or not?

The Ukrainians said "no no no no, not Iraq", but wouldn't say whom the systems had gone to, which is fairly standard in the arms sale biz. I believe there were eight or ten systems the Americans were trying to run down, and it got to be like Keystone cops: the State Department would accuse Ukraine of exporting these damn things to Iraq, the Ukrainians would so "No you're on drugs prove it" and the Americans would say "No, you prove it, this is the war on terrorism and if you're not with us, you're against us; and the Ukrainians would say "We hate terrorism and innocent until proven guilty, you prove it." All in all the situation was pretty ludicrous and it went on for months.

Well, eventually the Americans badgered the Ukrainians into allowing an "inspection team" to wander around the plant that makes Kolchugas, in Donetsk if I remember right. Naturally the Ukrainians had buffed things up real nice and hid all the interesting stuff, and even opened their books but, effectively, also torn out the page on "who we sell to". The Ukrainians are Ukrainians, but they're not stupid.

So, the American government "inspectors" (Why do they always wear Dockers khakis and baseball caps?) eventually went home probably with some nice snap shots of the inside of the factory with, my guess, almost zero intelligence value, but no better idea as to where the Kolchugas did and did not go. So back they go to the litany: "The Ukrainians won't say where they sent the Kolchugas, they're supporting terrorism."

This was like two or three months before GWII kicked off.

Well anyway, eventually it comes out that, guess who, the Chinese had bought the systems. If I remember right it was because the Ukrainians got clearance from the Chinese to make that public. Ok, so now Washington starts bugging Beijing: "Did you sell any of these things to Iraq, where are the systems, tell us tell us we're about to bomb Saddam Hussein, prove you don't support terrorism."

It turned out what works on Ukraine is not quite so effective against the Middle Kingdom.

The Chinese come back with a real anal press conference, where some government goon says "Yes we bought them, but we're not telling you what we did with them, we don't have to." Reporters say "Well give a hint then" and the government goon says "No, we don't want to." Then the reporters say "Well doesn't Beijing support the war against terrorism?" and the China government guy says "Of course, what a silly question!" The return is "But the Americans say if you keep the locations of these systems a secret, you're aiding terrorists!" and the winning volley from the yellow team "Terrorism is a blight on humanity and China hates it, just as we love and respect our American friends, are there any other questions?" Game set and match for the guys with the chopsticks.

And the Americans shut up, and shortly after that got busy attacking Iraq, and that was the end of that.

Except, of course, the systems are now in China, no doubt humming right along, and you can bet your bottom hryvna the Chinese have taken at least one of them apart to the very last screw. There would probably be some opportunity cost to deciding to build Kolchugas in China, as their technological base is limited: they can build almost anything they want if they want to badly enough, but not everything. So, my guess, that system is now on the "average developement" track in the Chinese military-industrial complex, where they're thinking about how to incorporate the system, copy it or build something better, and they're in no big hurry.

Oh yes, and whereever the actual systems are operating, that is a place where the U.S. absolutely has no guarantee stealth technology will work. Certainly a distance as long as the Taiwan strait. I am absolutely convinced the Americans were taking the threat of this system seriously.

And that, young grasshoppers, is the story of the Kolchuga radars and China. How many other potential U.S.-beating systems are out there in the world, and how many of those have found their way into grubby Chinese mitts? I have no idea, and I doubt the CIA has a much better one, and that is one of the reasons I don't buy the logic of an automatic U.S. win if the fight is against China on China's terms.

[Peter Cairns]

I doubt the Chinese have anything that can match the US unit for unit or plane for plane, or will have for at least a decade or ever for that matter, but that misses the point. They don't need too.

For me the possible scenario I have painted is based on the Chinese continuing to do what they have been doing for almost two decades now, slowly spreading there economic influence, to bring nations in to there sphere.

Until recently there was a race between Chinese and India oil companies to buy up oil companies and assets to secure long term acccess to oil. This was piushing up the price as they tried to out bid each other.

Last month they agreed a cooperation pact and are now making joint bids, as that way the both get oil and the best price.

If you loook at a list of the top 20 oil producing countries they produce about 950bb a day. Saudi with over 260bb accounts for almost a third. But behind that we have Iraq, Kuwait , so that US allies produce, about half of all the oil.

However these are not Stable and it all comes through the gulf and has to travel a long way.

Then in the next group, are Iran, Russia, Venezuela and China, who among them produce about the same as Saudi.

These countries with the exception of venezula are better placed to supply China, ( especially China).

Current US consumption is (2001 figure) about 20bb a day. Some 5% of the output of Saudi, Iraq, and Kuwait. Chinese consumption is 5bb a day, or 2% of it's suppliers capacity.

So at least in the short term China even as it grows has a more secure source of oil than the US, particularly if any conflict that stopped Iran exporting, would almost certainly effect the rest of the gulf.

Another complicating factor for the US is the list of other main users, which in the top ten include, Japan, Germany. Italy and France ( the EU uses about 75% of the US). The top ten also includes Brazil, Russia and India in the other camp.

All of these countries are effectively competeing with the US their ally for the same oil.

In effect we have a developed Western Group with very high oil consumption overly dependant on on small area for supplies and with limited domestic production, and if not against them then apart from them, a small group of fast expanding countries who have access to a smaller but more secure supply with far larger production capacity.

Put simply time is not on the US's side, while the Chinese can play the long game. The chances of China meeting it's oil demands, (growing as they are) at a price it can afford are better than the US's to be able to meet it's.

Thus as the economic tables turn, increasingly China will as it has already in investment and manufacturing become the politic centre of asia.

My war in Taiwan has the US trying to intervene militarily to reverse the slow decline in it's influence in Asia, and the world.

Taiwan going over to the Chinese is the economic domino that causes the fight. Unlike Steve who takes the quite legitemate view that it will ever be all out or not at all, I think that a Vietnam Korea or Kuwait scenario is quite possible.

Seeing the loss of a Key regional ally to a competeing power the US rightly or wrongly tries to keep the faction that supports it in power. True it could be argued that the US only acted in these cases when there was a direct military threat and where the majority were pro US, but all these are real conflicts that were limited and contained (thank God).

Interestingly in Korea, there was atacit agreement that if the Chinese never attacked US carriers, the US wouldn't attack the Chinese mainland. No deal was ever done but both sides just understood where the next step was on the escalation ladder and decided not to take it.

I could see a situation ( probably unlikely) where the Chinese avoided attacking US carrier groups East of Tawain ( difficult to do anyway) and the US restricted it's airwar to Tawain itself and not the Straits or China.

I also think it's time someone started a CM:FF ( Freedom/Fight, for Formosa) threat so we can work on this scenario as a lot of people seem keen on it as a future module.

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

BigDuke,

If I had to name the single biggest advantage the Chinese have over the Americans, it would have to be their ability - both goverment and society - to think long term.

Exactly my point. I don't see the Chinese being capable of defeating the US right now, or in the very near future. That was the issue that kicked off this particular topic. However, I'd only wager on this bet for the next few years. After that... my bets are likely to go more evenly between the two sides, then after that (baring any dramatic change in events) I'd likely be plunking down all my wagers on the Chinese. The reason why is long term vs. short term thinking. The Chinese have long term thinking in spades, the US thinks long term is about 6 months to a year.

The lack of long term planning has been both good and bad for the US. On the good side the US has demonstrated that it is willing to switch strategies very quickly and adopt new ones to changing events. This has helped it be a great innovator in many ways. But politically, it is nothing but a disaster. Worse, sometimes politicians convince themselves they are thinking long term when they are doing something, when in fact they are acting short term. Take the "War on Terrorism" for example. This is a long term problem that can not be won by massive expendatures of money we don't have and adminstered by incompetent government agencies that were rushed into existance. Where is the long term thinking about what all this spending and war making will get us? Where are all the policies to address why the US is hated in the first place? Where is the accountability for all the massive blunders that have been made in recent years? Nowhere. But the Chinese quietly plug away at their long term strategy to out manuever the US economically, militarily, and even politically.

The one fundamental flaw in the Chinese long term thinking is that the timeframe is too long to matter. The resources are already running out and instability is making things worse (see these articles from today's headlines Crude tops $67 per barrel and Nigeria is a happy place. Going after something that can be quantifiably shown to be less than what is needed seems foolish to me. Meaning, even if they get every last drop of oil (which they won't), how many years will that keep China happy? Not many at the rate they are going. What they should be doing instead, IMHO, is taking many billions of USD every year and investing them in alternative, renewable energy technologies. It might take 10 years and $1 Trillion Dollars, but I bet you that it is more likely this strategy will work than their current strategy of controlling rapidly vanishing resources.

In short... I think the Chinese are far better long term thinkers than the Americans (especially those in power now). However, I think the Chinese have the wrong goal for their long term plan. And that means, IMHO, ultimately they will not get what they are after any more than the US will.

Steve

[ January 20, 2006, 08:06 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

You were saying......

Renewable Energy Investment at Record High - Report

Mail this story to a friend | Printer friendly version

CHINA: November 7, 2005

BEIJING - Global investment in renewable energy hit a record $30 billion last year, accounting for 20-25 percent of all investment in the power industry, and with solar power the fastest-growing energy technology, a Worldwatch Institute report released on Sunday said.

The Worldwatch Institute, a Washington-based organisation working for environmental sustainability, said the renewables sector was growing as a result of government support and increasing private sector investment.

"Policies to promote renewables have mushroomed over the past few years. At least 48 countries worldwide now have some type of renewable energy promotion policy, including 14 developing countries," the report said.

Most countries with renewable energy policies are targetting 5 to 30 percent of their electricity production by 2012, the end of the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol on reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

Kyoto requires developed nations to cut their emissions of heat-trapping gases by 5.2 percent from 1990 levels by 2008-2012, but the United States and Australia did not ratify the pact and developing countries, including China and India, are exempt from the emissions caps.

Nonetheless, China, which has a goal of making renewable energy account for one-tenth of its power grid by 2020, is a world leader in existing renewable electricity capacity, with 37 gigawatts, followed by Germany, the United States, Spain and Japan.

It also plays host on Monday to a two-day international conference on renewable energy.

"The fact the conference is taking place here in Beijing confirms taking up renewable energy is no longer the sole purview of developed countries and the emerging countries also wish to play a leading role in this area," European Commissioner for the Environment Stavros Dimas told a news conference.

He said the conference would discuss how to enhance international frameworks for developing and transferring renewable technologies and developing market-based mechanisms that can provide affordable renewable energy sources.

COMPETITIVE PRICES

Asia is seen as an especially fertile market for renewable energy as it grapples with growing demand for power to feed rapid economic expansion at the same time as global oil prices are rising.

Solar photovoltaic capacity globally grew by 60 percent per year between 2000 and 2004, making it the fastest-growing energy technology in the world, with solar power in about 400,000 homes in leaders Japan, Germany and the US feeding power into the grid.

Photovoltaic cells convert sunlight into electricity through a process known as the photovoltaic effect.

Costs are also declining as technologies improve and the scale of production grows.

"Solar and wind power costs are now half what they were 10-15 years ago. Many renewable technologies can compete with retail and even wholesale prices of conventional technology under good conditions," the Worldwatch report said.

Production of biofuels, which are made from agricultural products ranging from sugarcane and wheat to waste oil from cooking, exceeded 33 billion litres in 2004, or about 3 percent of the gasoline consumed globally.

Story by Lindsay Beck

REUTERS NEWS SERVICE

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

Global investment in renewable energy hit a record $30 billion last year

Sounds large, but compared to the spending on fosil fuels, and what could be spent on renewable research, it isn't very impressive. Some facts I just grabed off the 'net:

"Global investment in clean energy - renewable energy and low-carbon-technology projects - is expected to reach $42 billion in 2005, or roughly 7% of the $630 billion in annual energy".

"Combined, the 243 oil/gas companies surveyed plan worldwide E&P expenditures of $112.6 billion (2002 number)." E&P = Exploration and Production, which therefore does not include sales, marketing, distribution, research, lobbiests , etc. This is also not all the companies in the world, only the ones that responded to a survey.

Kinda puts that $30 billion into perspective quite nicely, or not so nicely.

Nonetheless, China, which has a goal of making renewable energy account for one-tenth of its power grid by 2020, is a world leader in existing renewable electricity capacity, with 37 gigawatts, followed by Germany, the United States, Spain and Japan

I just don't get it. Have any of these numbskulls taken a look at the simple graph that plots consumption rates and available supplies on an anual basis to see when the two hit the cross over point? 1/10th electricity by 2020 just ain't going to cut it. 7% of energy spending on the solution ain't going to cut it.

Oh, and Russia just cut back its exports because it didn't have enough to satistfy the local market. If I were China, I wouldn't be betting the farm, er factory, on Russia meeing my needs when it really counts.

Steve

[Rick]

Exactly Steve. Then in addition to supply/demand issues, there are also climate change issues. The Pentagon has already released reports of how climate change poses a threat to US national security, due to an expected increase of fighting over dwindling water resources, nations trying to deal with some of their land disappearing under the oceans etc. I'm actually not sure how much China stands to lose due to consequences that will probably arise from global warming, but Europe and Southeast Asia have much to worry about; Europe the potential collapse of the North Atlantic Conveyor, and Southeast Asia rising sea levels.

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

But renewables is only part of the picture, sure spending is small compared to global spend on conventional fuels, but that's like saying because Audi spend more making cars than on research they're not interested in Research.

My point was that if we look at renewables there is evidence that the Chinese are taking it at least as seriously as others, and that as with a smaller economy they seem to be spending more than the US ( and you can get more wind turbines for a $1 in China than the US), that they are taking a more serious long term view, exactly what you said they were good at.

Looking at Nuclear the US has civil 103 reactors to Chinas 9, but if you looked at planned new capacity it's 14 US and 19 Chinese, so again a clear sign that the Chinese are taking there need to diversify seriously.

Finally the figure for Coal for electricity generation suggest a huge future expansion of that. It may be dirty and crap for the Climate, but it's a domestic resource.

China will face problems but it does seem to be doing more to diversify and meet it's future needs than the US. Of the too countries the one most dependant on middle east oil seems to be doing the least about it.

Oh and the problems with russian supplies are about capacity constraints rather than reserves, what Russia lacks is expertise and investment, not oil or gas.

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

But renewables is only part of the picture, sure spending is small compared to global spend on conventional fuels, but that's like saying because Audi spend more making cars than on research they're not interested in Research.

Well, if I were in the oil business and I knew that in 20-30 years I'd have no product to sell, I'd be putting a huge chunk of the windfall profits aside for R&D. If I were a goverment spending billions on something that was only getting harder to find and more expensive, I'd make funding alternative R&D my top priority. But neither is happen. Not even close. Instead, the US government has spent more in 2 years on the war in Iraq than has probably been spent in the last 10-15 years on alternative energy R&D for the ENTIRE WORLD. It's totally messed up.

My point was that if we look at renewables there is evidence that the Chinese are taking it at least as seriously as others, and that as with a smaller economy they seem to be spending more than the US ( and you can get more wind turbines for a $1 in China than the US), that they are taking a more serious long term view, exactly what you said they were good at.

Oh, no disagreement there. They certainly appear to be doing far better long range planning than the US. However, what I am saying is it is still a drop in the bucket. It will make them more prepared for the end of oil, but not above the consequences of it. The major point is, however, that the crunch is going to hit long before the supply is used up. Nobody looks like they will be even remotely prepared for that eventuality.

Looking at Nuclear the US has civil 103 reactors to Chinas 9, but if you looked at planned new capacity it's 14 US and 19 Chinese, so again a clear sign that the Chinese are taking there need to diversify seriously.

Finally the figure for Coal for electricity generation suggest a huge future expansion of that. It may be dirty and crap for the Climate, but it's a domestic resource.

This lessens the dependency on oil for only electricity. It does nothing to find alternatives for combustion engine fuels, lubricants, and components. It does nothing to solve the problems of increasing dependence on plastics and petro-chemicals for agriculture. Also does nothing to keep factories stocked with materials needed for consumer products. So it is a part of the equation, not a solution in and of itself.

Oh and the problems with russian supplies are about capacity constraints rather than reserves, what Russia lacks is expertise and investment, not oil or gas.

True, and I am sure they will improve over time. However, my point is that nations should be thinking about how to NOT use products that rely upon other people's expertise, investments, political stability, and political alliances. The US is foolish to think it can keep all its ducks in a row when things get tough, and the same goes for China. If I had a multi trillion Dollar economy with billions of Dollars in surplus I wouldn't be betting that money on everybody else having their act together. I'd be spending it on things that will allow my country to not care if the others have their act together.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

To put it another way...

If I had a few thousand Dollars burning a hole in my pocket I would not be using the money to wine and dine the local oil distribution company owners so when the crunch hits I'll be at the top of their ration list. I'm not going to try bribing the local police to make sure that when the crunch hits I get my ill gotten share of the rations. I'm also not going to bribe the local road contractors to make sure the roads are maintained and some more money to make sure the local garage will priority fix any vehicle needed to ensure I get my oil.

No, instead I'd take those thousands of Dollars and get myself off the grid. I'd buy into whatever was available now in order to not need oil/gas for heat, hot water, transportation, and other esscential services. It might take me years to get off the grid, and perhaps never fully off dependency on fossil fuel products, but with each passing year whatever happens in the greater world around me would affect me less so my concern would be proportionally less. Sure, I might make sure I'm on good terms with all the local powers that be, but I'd not spend too much of my time and resources on making sure I was top concern to them.

Anyway, that is how I think nations should be looking at this issue instead of arming themselves to the teeth and trying to under cut each other's share of the dwindingly supply. Unfortunately, I can't control how nations work. I can, however, control how my household works. Plus, I'm already good friends with all the town's power brokers, so no bribes needed

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

As to combustion engine fuels China with it's 10 million cars for it's 1.3 billion population, ( 1 car to fuel for every 130 Chinese) is in far better shape than the US which with just under 300 million people has over 130 million (thats pretty close to 1 caf for every 2 people, and I bet the average Chinaman drives a nissan that uses a lot less than a SUV).

I don't really disagree that all nations should be doing more to reduce their dependancy on fossil fuels particularly (imported) oil, but with regards to future competition with the US, chian seems to have a far smaller problem than the US when it comes to scares resources.

China needs a far smaller share of what is available than the US, and it's not up to it's neck in debt.

A while back I talked about export volumes rather than price, If a US M-16 costs 4 times what a chinese AK costs then the US can make twice as much by selling half as many. That means that when it comes to industrial muscle, China prpbably is pretty close to matching the US in output already.

Peter.

[Wisbech_lad]

I work for an anglo-chinese company (controlling shareholders are in London & Beijing) A few comments.

The 1979 invasion of Vietnam was a superb bit of politics by Deng Xiao Ping. 1949-1978, the PLA was very much a political army. The 1978 coup was co-ordinated by Beijing Military District.

So Deng lets them attack against the Vietnamese. And they lose, badly. This is then used by the reformists to pursuade the PLA that economic reform is needed, to be able to afford a decent army, rather than conscripts.

It is also no fluke that the thaw post Tiananmen Square came after GW1. The Chinese were shocked by GW1, and again Deng used it to pursuade the conservatives to take the foot off the brake again, and that a professional army is required (so, for example, police & internal security forces are now separate from PLA)

I do believe that the PLA is strategically defensive, as opposed to US strategically offensive stance. (we will fight two expeditionary wars anywhere in the world is not a defensive doctrine!). The problem going forward now is that GW2 has shown that offense > defense. I.e. the PLA cannot sit back, they would have to aggressively attack the C3 of the opfor... On the bright side, this means that it will be some time PLA is confident in their abilities.

The Chinese "geo-political" strategy is fairly clear (IMHO) They believe economics & quality of life are required to afford an effective military threat & to have a legitimate mandate from heaven/ the people, and will go a long way to acheiving goals anyway (e.g. re-unification with Taiwan, the hope is that in time the Taiwanese will welcome being a self-governing part of China, with defence & foreign policy from Beijing - the HK solution) There is considerable debate in China over democratisation, but it does look like the liberals have the upper hand.

On a psychological level, my Chinese colleagues & friends have a subtly different view of wealth to Americans. Yes, conspicuous consumption is a big deal, but wealth also equates to safety, as has been shown time and time again last century, the rich could always get to safety, even at the height of the Cultural Revolution. At a national level, the govt also seems to believe this - that a rich China will be a safe China, both from internal unrest and external aggression.

As for a conflict over resources - I think the Chinese see this as a question of economics, not military, but that a credible military is going to be required to back up free trade. (learning from the Opium Wars!)

So, IMHO, China is going to prioritise economic growth over military for some time to come, mixed in with tentative political liberalisation. The danger may come from the US side - with a Buchanan/ Perot style demagogue coming to power on a "defend US standard of living by forcing others to sell stuff to us at below market price" platform which won't go down well with the Chinese. But that won't go down well with anyone... - the Chinese would be the least of your concerns, don't think the Canucks would be too impressed either at being asked to sell oil at below market value...

[Wisbech_lad]

dbl post~

[Peter Cairns]

Wisbech,

Good post I agree with almost everything you say.

Though I don't quite agree with the "Demagoge" line, as a long time quoter of "you need three things to fight a war, Money, Money and More Money", I think there could be a period of danger when in order to stay ahead of the rest the cost of the US military ( particularly high tech), outstrips the ability of the US economy to support it.

I am not saying it's here now, although the cancellation of the Commanche, to upgrade the existing fleet, might be a sign of it begining, but I think it may well be in the next decade.

Incidently on the BBc news today there was a report warnibg that if things continue as they are, as well as 40% of Americans being obese, up to 30% could well be diabetics by 2020. With Diabeteise being particularly high in African American and Hispanics, who make up a big proportion of the US military, you start to wonder how the US will be able to fill the ranks.

I know the British army has had real problems, and only a couple of years back extended basic training, just to get recruits fitness to the right level.

Peter.

[Wisbech_lad]

Heh, the up and coming generation of "little emperors" - especially the urban ones - aren't exactly skinny either!

That might be a problem in China. We have many ex UK armed forces in the firm, but I can't think of anyone I know who is ex PLA. AFAIK, the PLA is a career alternative for country bumpkins, no urban/ middle class family would ever want their only child to do something so demeaning (in chinese culture, being a soldier ranks very low - no warrior culture like Japan)

Even the old guard (now almost all dead) who came to power via military command in the wars against the Japanese and KMT - their children didn't follow them into the PLA. None of the present crop of leaders has a military CV, but both Deng and Jiang kept their CMC chairmanship even after giving up other posts (Jiang is still CMC chairman, not Wen)

[Peter Cairns]

Wisbech,

Thats true, but as 40% of Chinese still work (damned hard) on the land, even takingout girls and the one child policy in ten years they can draw from a labour pool of over 200 million (15% of population), without even touching the non agricultural population. For many of these people a career in a "professional" Chinese army would be very attractive.

China has about 21% inder 14, but only 7% over 65. Median 31.

In the US I think the figure could be lower as a percentage, because although it is set to reach 300m this year, it has a lot of elderly people. 20% under 14, but 12% over 65, Median 35.

So I suspect the combination of a bigger and generally healthier pool of Labour gives China an edge. Could be why the US is putting so much effort in to unmanned systems.

On another aside I found out when looking at China that the communist party has 65 million members. Thats about 5% ( 1 in 20) of the population.

Does anyone know the combined membership of the Republicans and Democrats as apercentage of the US population?

Peter.

[Moronic Max]

Dear Jesus, this is one depressing thread.

Steve brought the concept of inevitable global resource war to my attention (er, again; I guess I first saw that in Fallout 2), and I shall forever hate him for that.

[Peter Cairns]

I came across a thing today that said by 2090, the earths population will be measured in the millions, all of whom will be living in Antartica, the only place left with a climate where people can survive, now there is a cheery thought.

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

Moronic Max, sorry about that. I constantly question myself about the issues I brought up, but unlike all sorts of Doomsday scenarios cooked up by nutters, on both the left and the right, this one has solid math behind it. As soon as demand oustrips max output of oil (which it is believed happened last year) things will only go downhill. Problem is that math also predicts that it will not be gradual.

One can dismiss the "UN Black Helo" nuts through simple logic, but one can't dismiss the "rantings" of the world's elite (and conservative) economists and industrialists. Those guys don't spook easily, and they are beyond spooked. Too bad the media is so tied up with reporting on Terry Shivo's husband getting remarried, otherwise the general public would be more informed.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

BTW, I don't really blame the media for not doing much with this story. Unfortunately, the best people to talk about the End of the World are those in the math sciences. VERY unfortunately, that is about the only profession I know of that could make End of the World a thoroughly uninteresting thing to read or watch on TV

Steve

P.S. The key phrase is "Peak Oil". Google it at your own risk.

[Peter Cairns]

Look on the bright side Steve, if the oil runs out, the mid west will still provide the US with the food it needs, but the chinese want have the fuel to come and get it.

Having said that I saw a thing a while back about people already working up provisional designs for nuclear container ships, I bet Bin Laden can't wait for those to come on stream.

Peter

[Moronic Max]

One can dismiss the "UN Black Helo" nuts through simple logic, but one can't dismiss the "rantings" of the world's elite (and conservative) economists and industrialists. Those guys don't spook easily, and they are beyond spooked.

Indeed. Hence the depressing nature of the thread.

Oh, yes, and my undying hatred for you. Mustn't forget that, although I suppose CMx2 shall mitigate it somewhat. IF you give the Syrians BMP-3s, that is.

Having said that I saw a thing a while back about people already working up provisional designs for nuclear container ships, I bet Bin Laden can't wait for those to come on stream.

How long would the nuke fuel supply last if we start slapping reactors into all sorts of things in the manner that concept suggests?

[juan_gigante]

Originally posted by Moronic Max:

How long would the nuke fuel supply last if we start slapping reactors into all sorts of things in the manner that concept suggests?

Essentially forever, IIRC. The question is, how long will our supply of places to put extremely dangerous waste last if we start slapping reactors into all sorts of things in the manner that concept suggests?

[Peter Cairns]

For me the question is

If we are stupid enough to destroy the climate by burning all the oil with no thought for the long term consequences, what makes anyone think we will wise up and not build commercial nuclear ships with no thought for the long term waste issues.

I mean the fact that few countries have done a good job with existing nuclear waste hasn't stopped us planning to build more and more civil reactors.

Oh in todays Guardian ( you can get it on like, just search guardianunlimited uk) there is an article that says if China had two cars for every three people like the US it would need 99mB of oil a day..... World output is 84....

Peter.

[Neutrino 123]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Moronic Max:

How long would the nuke fuel supply last if we start slapping reactors into all sorts of things in the manner that concept suggests?

Essentially forever, IIRC. The question is, how long will our supply of places to put extremely dangerous waste last if we start slapping reactors into all sorts of things in the manner that concept suggests? </font>