How close is China really to becoming a superpower?

[BeBro]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
as for 'the future', in 100yrs everything will most likley be domnated by China and India, (...)

Why?

[The Andy-Man]

largley because of population, they wouldn't need as much GPD per capita worth the far surpass the USA, as well as the fact that they will have massive amounts of manpower in event of a major war.

the US can feild at most 30million troops i beleive, china - 300million, or, 1 troop for every US civilian.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Sandman


I disagree. Where's the military in genetic engineering, maglevs, the automobile, the television, silicon chips and fusion research?

The fact is, if you follow the genesis of an technology, you may well find a period where it was pioneered by the military, but there is no reason to stop there and proclaim the military to be the source of technology.

Genetic Engineering will be greatly accelerated by bio-terrorism and bio-defense demands.

MAGLEV is still an experimental technology that has been ditched by every country except China.

Speaking of automobile, the military is actively implementating hybrid fuel technology to reduce fuel consumption and the strains on logistical support.

Silicon chips had its origin in bipolar junction transistors. Why was transistor invented in the first place? It was because of the need for reliable small signal amplifiers. It was the military need to look for something more reliable and power for their communication systems than the then existing vacuum tubes.

As for the first electronic computers, do you know what they were used for? Calculating ballistic trajectories of artillery shells. The ENIAC itself was used in simulating nuclear explosions. Computers, until the PC revolution, remained in the hands of military, big corporations, and big research institutions. But it's safe to say that the military were the pioneers of modern computer technology. Even today, the military remained the biggest customer of supercomputers and other ultra-high performance computing devices.

Finally, the fusion power. Do you think people would ever have come up with the idea of fusion power, had the hydrogen bomb not been realized in the first place?

Admit, most of our modern inventions/applications originated or are accelerated by military demands. The one country leading in military technology also leads in the overall technology level.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless


Admit, most of our modern inventions/applications originated or are accelerated by military demands. The one country leading in military technology also leads in the overall technology level.

While I agree with your first statement I see no reason why research should be less successful when concentrating more on civilian needs.

[The Andy-Man]

Admit, most of our modern inventions/applications originated or are accelerated by military demands. The one country leading in military technology also leads in the overall technology level.

admit, also, that the west who has had the money to invest has always been more interested in the military the civilian. Look at boeing, the make a frigging fortune on military R&D.

[Kontiki]

I can give you a huge reason why research is more successful when done by the military: cost. If you are solely based on military applications, you needn't worry so much about R&D costs because you are either being heavily subsidized or fully funded by the government. If you remove that, you need to worry about recouping costs, so you are forced to work with products/ideas that are more immediately commercially viable.

Even the decline in some government subsidies have had an impact on what could otherwise be good R&D. As an example, GE recently developed a fantastic next-generation turbo-prop engine. However, unlike much of their previous engine technology, the US government wasn't going to help fund its full testing and implementation for military use. The project is kind of in limbo now, because GE found that there was a safer commercial return on upgrading its existing engine fleet.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by BeBro

While I agree with your first statement I see no reason why research should be less successful when concentrating more on civilian needs.

The point is that we need both. It's usually the military who came up with some ideas before the civilian sector tries to modify/improve it for general use.

And I disagree with notions of some saying that preoccupation with military technology will harm America's leadership in the world. I want to show that investments in military technologies have tremendous ROI.

[Sandman]

Genetic Engineering will be greatly accelerated by bio-terrorism and bio-defense demands.

Bio-terrorism is more myth than reality, and can be stopped in the exact same way as normal diseases are stopped, with hospitals, hygiene and medicine. They're the frontline for 'bio-defense', and they have nothing to do with the military.

MAGLEV is still an experimental technology that has been ditched by every country except China.

Doesn't mean it doesn't have potential.

Speaking of automobile, the military is actively implementating hybrid fuel technology to reduce fuel consumption and the strains on logistical support.

So are car companies.

Silicon chips had its origin in bipolar junction transistors. Why was transistor invented in the first place? It was because of the need for reliable small signal amplifiers. It was the military need to look for something more reliable and power for their communication systems than the then existing vacuum tubes.

The silicon chip was a product of civilian, not military engenuity. It's specious to try and claim it because it replaced a military-developed technology.

Finally, the fusion power. Do you think people would ever have come up with the idea of fusion power, had the hydrogen bomb not been realized in the first place?

Do you think that the hydrogen bomb would have ever been realised had civilian physicists not laid the down the mathematical groundwork?

Admit, most of our modern inventions/applications originated or are accelerated by military demands. The one country leading in military technology also leads in the overall technology level.

You're simply reaching back into the history of various inventions, finding a military connection, and then claiming that this shows a military origin, ignoring any civilian development prior to the military involvement. The military spends as much time adapting civilian technology as it does creating genuine innovations.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
maybe you should all stop thinking that a US Style economy is needed to be a world power. China has done many capitalist-style reforms etc, but I am personaly very skeptical about how far this will go before there is some sort of left-wing backlash.

A left-wing backlash?

The only reason why China and India are even improving is because they've abandoned socialism. Sure a backlash is possible - but that would utterly kill off China's and India's chances.

There are probably better systems out there. But traditional socialism is not it.

[Odd]

Technology is made by pouring money into research, plus a genius-luck factor. If the military pour money in research, like in the USA or URSS, you´ll see lots of military technology. If a space program pours money on research, you'll see lots of technology related to the space program. If capitalists, like in Japan or XIX Europe, invest in technology, there will be breakthroughs in civilian technology. Those technologies will be then adapted into several areas. Dynamite was adapted into the military, nuclear power was translated towards a civilian use, and a countless number of stuff researched by the space program was adapted for both.

I would even go further and say that, if in an aburd hypothesis, the US government decides to level the surface of the moon into a perfect sphere and invests huge ammounts of money into it you´ll see lots of technological breakthroughs in many areas.

[DanS]

FYI: Military R&D only makes up a small portion of the total R&D pie. For instance, in Japan and Scandinavia/Finland, the areas with the highest ratio of R&D expenditures to their economies, almost none is spent on the military. Even in the US, only about 20% of R&D is military R&D.

So if R&D is what makes the modern military go, then it seems likely that a strong economy could result in a modern military (not necessarily superpower strength) in pretty short order.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Sandman

You're simply reaching back into the history of various inventions, finding a military connection, and then claiming that this shows a military origin, ignoring any civilian development prior to the military involvement. The military spends as much time adapting civilian technology as it does creating genuine innovations.

The facts remain that military research or demands are the fundamental factors for many vital technologies today. The return on investment is huge, as shown in the examples of computer and internet technologies.

I'm going to argue with you about whether one particular technology was inspired by the military or not. We could go over each one of them for the next decade, which is totally pointless. I have made my point and other readers (including you) can make their own conclusions.

And BTW, vacuum tubes had nothing to do with the military. You probably know little about semiconductor and microelectronic industry in general. But that's off-topic.

[DanS]

The return on investment is huge, as shown in the examples of computer and internet technologies.

The return on investment sucks. We spend $60 billion per annum on military R&D. It would take a number of internet-magnitude successes to make it a going concern.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by DanS
So if R&D is what makes the modern military go, then it seems likely that a strong economy could result in a modern military (not necessarily superpower strength) in pretty short order.

R&D is the investment into the future. But investing in R&D looks bad on short-term corporate balance sheet. It's especially interesting to note that majority of ground-breaking new technologies today do come from government sponsored research, and not from the corporate world.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by DanS
The return on investment sucks. We spend $60 billion per annum on military R&D. It would take a number of internet-magnitude successes to make it a going concern.

Yeah, but you also get an invincible military as the result. That's part of the return.

[DanS]

That's the whole return. You may get lucky now and then, true.

But investing in R&D looks bad on short-term corporate balance sheet.

Not really true. As said above, private R&D comprises most of R&D in the US.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by DanS
But investing in R&D looks bad on short-term corporate balance sheet.

Not really true. As said above, private R&D comprises most of R&D in the US.

Do you mean "private" vs government or "private" vs public? Corporations are public companies.

I read in the US economic sensus that even though small (private) companies employ 55% of the total work force, the corporate world generates 2/3 of the revenues and profits. Thus I find it hard to believe that private R&D comprises most of R&D in the US.

[DanS]

Corporations are public companies.

No they aren't. The overwhelming vast majority of corporations are private companies.

I'm talking private as in corporations and corporate/university hybrids versus government funded and government/university hybrids.

Thus I find it hard to believe that private R&D comprises most of R&D in the US.

Well, it's true. Go do your homework.

It's not the things that we don't know that hurt us. It's the things we know, that just aren't so...

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by DanS
Corporations are public companies.

No they aren't. The overwhelming vast majority of corporations are private companies.

I'm talking private as in corporations and corporate/university hybrids versus government funded and government/university hybrids.

Thus I find it hard to believe that private R&D comprises most of R&D in the US.

Well, it's true. Go do your homework.

It's not the things that we don't know that hurt us. It's the things we know, that just aren't so...

Ok, your include all corporations as private companies, then I agree you here.

However, you won't get ground-breaking new technologies by being too focused on immediate commercial needs.

[DanS]

However, you won't get ground-breaking new technologies by being too focused on immediate commercial needs.

What makes you think that very many companies are too focused on immediate commercial needs when they do R&D?

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by DanS
However, you won't get ground-breaking new technologies by being too focused on immediate commercial needs.

What makes you think that very many companies are too focused on immediate commercial needs when they do R&D?

I would like to know some companies who are engaged in long-term R&D projects. I also would like to know some of the projects.

And please don't bring up drug development, because I know they take long time to develop and only 1 in 10 drugs that enter clinical trials will eventually be commercialized.

[DanS]

OK, green and blue laser development is a longer-term endeavor that has been funded by American companies, then Japanese companies, and now American companies again in a private/university hybrid.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by DanS
OK, green and blue laser development is a longer-term endeavor that has been funded by American companies, then Japanese companies, and now American companies again in a private/university hybrid.

Where can I find such information?

[DanS]

Google Nakamura + blue + laser.

[Lord Merciless]

I can't predict the future, but the experience of past few decades indicates that more breakthrough technologies resulted from government-sponsored research. Few examples of initiatives by private industry still doesn't change the fact that the great majority of private R&D is focused on commercial products.

[DanS]

You've just restated your position. Haven't backed it up with anything.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by DanS
You've just restated your position. Haven't backed it up with anything.

You backed up your position with 1 example, hardly better.

[DanS]

I could go on. In an industry that I know well, agrochemicals, the R&D is planned on a long-term horizon. From candidate compound to product takes at least 5 years and often a decade or more. These companies include Syngenta, BASF, Monsanto, Aventis, and Dow.

No government funding.

[Alinestra Covelia]

I think in many ways China will be a conventional superpower within the next few decades. It doesn't really need military might to project very far in order to count - merely enough to convincingly defend its own borders. It also needs to be well-integrated in the international stage, which it is clearly working hard at becoming. Economy is very important, as this pays large dividends in domestic stability and overseas influence.

However, don't forget that we're just talking superpower here. I'd argue that Russia and the EU have the potential to be superpowers too.

But there's only one hyperpower, and that's the USA. For China to overtake the USA anytime within the next century would require a series of very shrewd moves on its part and a series of unmitigated disasters for America.

And I'm not sure even the Chinese want that to happen. A strong, stable America, just like a strong, stable China, is important to global stability in many ways.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DanS
You've just restated your position. Haven't backed it up with anything.

I think LM's point is about basic vs application research.

Application research: okay, now we have these red laser LED's. How do we make them into blue laser LED's?

Basic research: what's the stuff in cone snail venom?