Post: Rising powers in the east
04-09-2012, 09:05 PM #1
USSR
Great Communist Nation
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); China, India, South Africa and various other eastern nations/south american are projected to have a massive growth over the next few years. China is estimated to overtake the US economy in 2020, with India following by 2040. Countries like UK, France and Germany are expected to fall from the Top 10 in the next 50 years.

Now, onto the question/discussion. How do you think this will change the world? How will the USA react to being overtaken by its competitors (Russia is also emerging as a world power once again along with China, India, Brazil etc..)?

I think this could be the provocation for war, probably within the next 50 years. I think we all new America wasn't going to last forever (no country/empire ever has) due to its debt and the fact Eastern countries seem to have much better control over their economy. America has been acting much differently to what it was 10-20 years ago. It is acting like it was during the Cold war with Russia (aggressive/trying to increase it's sphere of influence). A few examples of this off the top of my head are:

1) Deploying of troops in Japan and Australia, both with are close to China.
2) Stopping food aid being sent to North Korea, and condemning its satellite launch (perhaps a justification for war?).
3) Increased pressure on many Middle east and African countries such as Iran, Syria, Libya and Egypt, all of the revolutions have been funded by the US, and where they have succeeded, pro US governments have been put in place.
4) Anti Missile array being set up next to Russia's borders (no reason for this to be set up, unless the USA think Russia is still an enemy, which is most likely the case).
5) Increased political pressure being put on Russia and China.
6) Military spending sky rocketing.
7) Involvement in foreign wars increasing (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya).

Anyway that's just my opinion. What do you guys think of this? Is power rising in the east a good power balancer? Will the USA take extreme measures to prevent being overtaken? How will the world change when Eastern countries come into power?

Sorry if I mixed anything up, its late where I am Smile
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The following 2 users say thank you to USSR for this useful post:

ghostbear, Storm
04-09-2012, 11:38 PM #2
Very well written post. Number 1 on your list got me thinking. The US Marines are being sent to Darwin; the capital city furthest to the North. As you said Australia and Japan are very close to China, but the placement of the troops in Australia makes it seem obvious that the Marines are not there for a threat from the pacific, but rather Asia and the Middle East. Here is a few tiny snippets from a news article:

Originally posted by another user
The number of US troops rotating through Darwin during the dry season will increase in coming years, to reach 2500 by 2017.



Originally posted by another user
"For us it is a fantastic opportunity to do the kind of training that marines and soldiers do everywhere," General Thiessen told reporters.


I think it's a bit more then for training, but that's just me.

By the way, this posts probably makes me come across as hating on the Marines and the United States of America. That is not the case, I support them being here to be honest.

The following user thanked Storm for this useful post:

USSR
04-09-2012, 11:49 PM #3
USSR
Great Communist Nation
Originally posted by storm View Post
Very well written post. Number 1 on your list got me thinking. The US Marines are being sent to Darwin; the capital city furthest to the North. As you said Australia and Japan are very close to China, but the placement of the troops in Australia makes it seem obvious that the Marines are not there for a threat from the pacific, but rather Asia and the Middle East. Here is a few tiny snippets from a news article:

The number of US troops rotating through Darwin during the dry season will increase in coming years, to reach 2500 by 2017.

"For us it is a fantastic opportunity to do the kind of training that marines and soldiers do everywhere," General Thiessen told reporters.
I think it's a bit more then for training, but that's just me.

By the way, this posts probably makes me come across as hating on the Marines and the United States of America. That is not the case, I support them being here to be honest.


Yeah the first quote is suspicious really, "training that marines and soldiers do". The USA is 3x the size of Australia with plenty of areas similar in climate to Australia and 100% suitable for training, so them going to Australia to "train" seems like an excuse for something else in my opinion.

I think the troops are being deployed there as a threat toward China, showing them that the US still has control of the pacific and territories/oceans around Asia. This is just my opinion, but it looks awfully like what the Roman Empire did in its decline (not saying the US is an empire but still). If you don't know, the Roman empire toward its ends years deployed its troops thinly across its borders (it didn't have enough to defend them properly) and desperately tried to prevent rival nations and tribes (gauls and germans) from rising in power, through threat and brute force. It's leaders were ignorant of the fact it needed to develop relations with other tribes rather than try and oppress them.

Anyway good post, and sorry if I sound a little crazy heh.
04-10-2012, 12:10 AM #4
ghostbear
Vaulted cur
The US is an empire, regardless of what many may think. The parallels to ancient Rome is just far to close to be mere coincidence.
The US cannot keep attacking every nation that wants to move forward, trying to keep all the resources for itself. Eventually the old men in Washinton will have to decide what is best for the country as a whole. Of course that also depends on them having a few wits.
04-10-2012, 11:40 AM #5
xinfectedsoulx
Daddy's home.
Originally posted by ghostbear View Post
The US is an empire, regardless of what many may think.


No they're not. An empire means they control countries outside of America, not have influence. Britain had an empire. It controlled India, Hong Kong and other places. Rome was an Empire, it controlled most of Europe. America is not an Empire. Influence and Control are different things.

The only way to stop the East from Rising it to stop outsourcing everything to the East. Manufacturing in China is rising constantly. Companies constantly moving to China for the cheaper production costs. This gives the government money to do things that the West don't like.

Companies outsourcing call centres to India, doing the same reason as China.

Things like this give money and power to those countries. If the West want to be in control they have to stop companies from doing this and build up their own countries. Britain uses Call centres in India a lot. Majority of the calls you make to companies go to India. Majority of the "British" items you buy are made in China. This is why our economy is crumbling and why theirs is rising. Stop outsourcing, stop them from rising. Simple as that.
04-10-2012, 12:04 PM #6
USSR
Great Communist Nation
Originally posted by xinfectedsoulx View Post
An empire means they control countries outside of America


They essentially control most of the west. Also, the definition of things can change over time. It's just like war, nowadays its fought through politics and high tech weaponry, would you say the same 100 years ago?

America is developing the new, modern definition of empire.

The following user thanked USSR for this useful post:

ghostbear
04-10-2012, 12:09 PM #7
Originally posted by USSR View Post
Yeah the first quote is suspicious really, "training that marines and soldiers do". The USA is 3x the size of Australia with plenty of areas similar in climate to Australia and 100% suitable for training, so them going to Australia to "train" seems like an excuse for something else in my opinion.


Your probably right. Apart from creating strong international ties, why Australia? Time will tell but they plan to be here for a long while yet.
04-10-2012, 01:05 PM #8
NeedaLifeSoon
Retired Life
The world is a very different place than even 20 yrs ago.
There is still the fight for resources, that has always been there even since Rome, but now the world economy is so interwoven, that it is very unlikely there will ever be another world war.
There will be regional conflicts and a lot of muscle flexing, but little chance of major war between the current and emerging powers.
Each of their economies are too interdependent.

There will be struggles to maintain or gain spheres of influence and control of natural resources especially for china and India with their growing populations.

But both if them are as concerned with controlling their own populations as trying to control others.
Between the 2 of them they have nearly 3 billion people who are just getting a taste of life different than the medieval period.

70% of their people still have no running water, a toilet, a light bulb, or eat meat.
When people start to get those things and become aware that the rest of the world does, they become much more difficult to control.

The real danger to the west is a terrorist nuclear attack on one or more major cities and the resulting consequences.
04-10-2012, 06:41 PM #9
ghostbear
Vaulted cur
Originally posted by xinfectedsoulx View Post
No they're not. An empire means they control countries outside of America, not have influence. Britain had an empire. It controlled India, Hong Kong and other places. Rome was an Empire, it controlled most of Europe. America is not an Empire. Influence and Control are different things.

The only way to stop the East from Rising it to stop outsourcing everything to the East. Manufacturing in China is rising constantly. Companies constantly moving to China for the cheaper production costs. This gives the government money to do things that the West don't like.

Companies outsourcing call centres to India, doing the same reason as China.

Things like this give money and power to those countries. If the West want to be in control they have to stop companies from doing this and build up their own countries. Britain uses Call centres in India a lot. Majority of the calls you make to companies go to India. Majority of the "British" items you buy are made in China. This is why our economy is crumbling and why theirs is rising. Stop outsourcing, stop them from rising. Simple as that.


As USSR said times have changed, so does how an empire is created.
04-10-2012, 07:04 PM #10
xinfectedsoulx
Daddy's home.
Originally posted by USSR View Post
They essentially control most of the west. Also, the definition of things can change over time. It's just like war, nowadays its fought through politics and high tech weaponry, would you say the same 100 years ago?

America is developing the new, modern definition of empire.


No, they don't and no it hasn't.

Originally posted by The
empire [ˈɛmpaɪə]
n
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) an aggregate of peoples and territories, often of great extent, under the rule of a single person, oligarchy, or sovereign state
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) any monarchy that for reasons of history, prestige, etc., has an emperor rather than a king as head of state
3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the period during which a particular empire exists
4. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) supreme power; sovereignty Related adj imperial
5. (Business / Commerce) a large industrial organization with many ramifications, esp a multinational corporation



em·pire (mpr)
n.
1.
a. A political unit having an extensive territory or comprising a number of territories or nations and ruled by a single supreme authority.
b. The territory included in such a unit.
2. An extensive enterprise under a unified authority: a publishing empire.
3. Imperial or imperialistic sovereignty, domination, or control: "There is a growing sense that the course of empire is shifting toward the . . . Asians" (James Traub).


Having power and having influence is different. America don't control most of the west, that would imply that the other countries had no leader and it was the President that controlled the countries. USA only controls the USA, and no more. They have a lot of influence, but not full control, like an empire would. The definition doesn't change for it to mean something else. War is still war, no matter how it's fought. The definitions don't change, Britain had control of it's Empire until the handed Hong Kong back over in 1997. That was the last thing to do with it's Empire. The meaning hasn't changed. The Queen still hold Australia, Canada and many more, all the ones in the commonwealth, which is something like 14/16 countries all under rule by the Queen of England. So if anything, Britain has more of an Empire than America does, because if Britain goes to war, so do the countries in the commonwealth, if any still have an army. Below, the countries under rule by the Queen.

You must login or register to view this content.

America can't say to someone in the West "You have to go to war", anyone can decline and say no, but if it was an empire, they'd have to say yes.

Empire means Empire, War means War, nothing has changed.

Copyright © 2026, NextGenUpdate.
All Rights Reserved.

Gray NextGenUpdate Logo