China has 700,000 fewer males reach military age each year than India does, the border terrain vastly favors defense, and India's military equipment is as latest-Russian as China's.
But China is much stronger overall. Sure there might be less young adults but who cares? Chinese soldiers are better trained and more motivated too.
Invading Taiwan requires the ability to invade an island. China can't get its troops across the Straits; its amphibious lift capability is so meager it couldn't land a force 10% the size of the active-duty Taiwanese army. You can't fight a war of attrition that way, no matter how hard you try.
I'm not a military expert but I would think you would first bomb the defenses and weaken the enemy. You don't need to carry out a land assault until necessary.
Neither China nor Japan posess any aircraft carriers;
I didn't know that! I thought China had carriers but I guess I was wrong. I'll look it up if I can (can you double-check too?)
Additionally, the Chinese lack of amphibious lift capability makes an invasion of Japan impossible.
I think you are overvaluing the amphibious assaults. This isn't WWII. I think the main thing will be air assaults. Look how USA does it. USA bombs first and then when there is no resistance, they land their troops. Granted, USA has been fighting 3rd world countries so it's hard to say if this will work here. But my opinion is that if you win in the air, you can land regardless of whether your capability is weak or not.
Yeah.. the whole Russian thing is overrated. The Russian govt is still brutal and could care less about their citizens. The recent crackdown on independent media is an example of it. Sure, the KGB might not exist anymore; but now you have the FSB...
The govt has been replaced with the mafia now. I'm not sure which one is worse but neither of them are any good...
When are you people going to ever realize it? Greater unstability in the Middle East will actually hurt USA more than anything else. This is what has been happening for years. If Isreal nukes other countries, it will create MORE terrorists. Sure you might get rid of a few thousand in the process, but it will create far more...
Interestingly, a large number (it might even be the majority) of the supercomputers are used for non-military applications, like scientific research, weather, geology, etc.
I like the idea of donating these to SETI@home...
:)
KoalaBear33, waiting patiently for First Contact:)
The colonial era was governed by monarchs, not totalitarian despots.
I'm not so sure that you can exclude the totalitarianism label for monarchs. The local population may not consider the monarch to be totalitarian, but from a world viewpoint and from that of the oppressed, it WOULD be totalitarian. For instance, would you not consider slavery to be characteristic of totalitarianism? One would be hardpressed to tell the difference between a totalitarian and a monarch running the colonies (especially in Africa and South America).
The Soviet Union was in a horrible economic state which is why Gorby was progressive... he saw that reforms needed to be made.
True.. but my point was that it didn't have to collapse. If they wanted to, they could have kept going. All it would need is another "Tianamen-Square"-like episode:( The original poster's opinion was that governments such as Soviet Union would collapse easily; my view is that they won't and USSR could have kept going for another 50 years if the authoratrians wanted...
China has a problem feeding its people. What would happen if the US decided to cut food exports? You would probably see China collapse too
I don't think China relies on USA for much of its agricultural imports. In any case, I don't see your point. What are you saying? Everything you say is true but what's your point?
It won't be a joke when we send our military over there... Taiwan is an ally.
I was referring to the case where Taiwan had to fight by itself (same thing with the other countries I cited like Japan). I think that's what the original poster meant... If USA helps those countries, it will be a draw (due to WMD) but if you ignore WMD, USA will win IMO...
The ideal that maybe it wouldn't be so bad if someone else were #1 or 'can't we all just get along' is nice. But because of human nature, someone will decide they need to be at the top, and force their way to the top. That's the way it's been and always will be.
You are either a Machievallian (sp?) or a social/political Darwinist... in either case, I hate you people... In any case, can you prove that? Why must that be always the case? Basically, you are arguing against theories of peace, which often postulate that once you eliminate all the despots/superpowers/authoratarians, world will be at peace. You clearly believe the opposite--that you cannot eliminate these people and entities...
Yeah who had to come bail out europe from germany.
The impact of the US in Europe during WWII is overrated. USA entered the war late and by that time, Germany was on its way to losing (it lost the Eastern front and lost Battle of Britain). Even if USA did not enter WWII, Germany would have lost (probably 2 years later). Having said this, USA DID provide weapons and resources to the Allies even before it entered the war... and of course, the Pacific is another story (full credit to USA there).
Kosovo was a NATO mission but I guess I wouldn't be too surprised if you consider NATO to be made up of USA only.
...i wish the US would say SCREW YOU and let europe and the rest of the world disintegrate into the mess it would be if the US weren't influencing it.
Actually you are already doing it... whether you realize it or not... the neo-cons in power basically share the same ideals as you...
...why isn't it doing anything to stop the madness!??!
If USA did NOT intervene, the world would be much better off! The vast majority of US military interventions are for selfish, imperialistic reasons. Consider the last 30 or 40 years: Iran, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, Nicaragua...all resulted in thousands of deaths. The only ones where USA did anything for others would be Kosovo/Balkans, and Somalia.
So I don't think the world's population will really miss your "help":(
Whether you like him or not, Charles de Gaulle said it best: "Nations have no friends; only interests"... you should think about it before death takes you away...
In China the people don't have the opportunity to oppose the use of nuclear weapons if they wish to. A select few *unelected* men could pull the trigger if they get in a bad mood...
Since when did the population come into the decision making? Are you telling me that USA consulted their population before deploying the atomic weapons in Japan?
Unelected may pull the trigger; but so do the elected...
I'll bet USA is more concerned about Isreal's nukes than China's. There have been a few concerns from US administration officials over the last few decades over Isreal. A religious fundamentalist in Isreal is more likely to cause a nuclear war than some Communist. Have you forgotten the lessons of the Cold War?
Of course, none of this matters to you... since you have already made up your "mind":(
The Chinese would be MORE likely to release code than capitalist countries. Free or low-cost software benefits the masses, and this should be consistent with their system... Only exception would be if it were some top-secret military thingie... in that case it would be Linus Torvalds+FSF vs Chinese Military+SCO;)
I don't follow this matter... but perhaps language may be an issue. The vast majority of Asians don't speak English and their languages are not related to English either (unlike German, etc).
Another possibility might be government influence. Governments have immense power in Asian countries. India might be called the world's largest democracy but it is an insult all democrats everywhere. China, for instance, might be controlling its software development and placing restrictions on it. If you think RIAA is bad, wait until you figure out what these governments will let you do. Along with RIAA, they are probably official members of the dominate-the-world club;)
I agree that China will take over the #1 spot in the future (but not in 20 years--more like 50 years). However, the advantage is not as big as you think. Consider the points you mentioned:
Population:
A lot of people seem to forget the downside of large populations. Large populations have increased social problems (my theory is that population ahd social issues are correlated in a non-linear manner). Things like crime, unemployment, famine, disease, etc are much more problematic with a large population. For instance, the biggest challenge facing China over the next 20 years will be figuring out what to do with the massive number of layed off workers due to elimination of government companies. There are millions of Chinese that are unemployed and flocking to the cities. These people's lives need to be considered. Possible side-effects of this problem include high crime, loss/decrease of worker rights, horrible sanitary conditions in cities... all the way to potential collapse of Communism itself. If Communism collapses, all these predictions will be moot...
Education system:
China actually has very good educational system--all so-called Communist countries do. Don't forget that USA isn't that much better. There are large numbers of Americans who cannot write properly (bad grammer, spelling, etc). There are many Americans who can't even do high-school math. At the rate that USA is going, these things will just get worse. I claim that social problems are non-linear and what this means here is that people who fell through the educational system will likely not emphasize school to their kids, and so on.
Traditions:
I don't think tradition really plays a role. I mean just look at Japan, which is very tradionalist--not that liberal at all. Yet it did well for the last few decades. Besides, what you are saying is contradictory. Capitalism rewards and requires greed, violence (to enforce authority or steal resources from other countries), ignorance of family values, etc. If anything, China will be worse off due to its traditions...
Resources:
Resources are meaningless under capitalism. All that matters is money--wealth! You can buy whatever you don't have, and if that doesn't work out invade countries and steal their resources. This is how USA has been going on for the last 50 years. USA consumes more than they can. Believe it or not, USA imports more than it exports with practically every country. Resources haven't played a role for USA, and it won't for China either. Remember: you can buy anything! Including human labour...
Legal bonds:
Not sure what to say here... I don't know how much this matters. From a socialist point of view, being open shifts the benefit to the population as a whole; capitalists, of course, argue that this is detrimental to innovation (eg. a capitalist would say that you can't have software development businesses in China because piracy is rampant). I guess it boils down to which side of the spectrum you are on.
Less restricted goverment:
If the govt has to spend less on social issues and in upholding human rights, it is actually a very negative thing. There have been more revolutions, overthrow of govt, etc due to social issues and human rights issues than anything else. People don't overthrow governments to gain freedom; they overthrow governments because they are discriminated against or are starving. If China skimps on social infrastructure/etc it won't last very long IMO.
Instead of concentration on their nationalist isolational politics, the US should come back to their very own sources.
USA has NOT been practicing isolationalism since WWII. They are not called an imperial power for nothing...
...the US should join the EU as an equal partner...
A superpower EQUAL to others? lol When have superpowers ever been concerned with others? If anything, USA wi
China is actually surrounded by smaller, yet militarily stronger countries. India is weaker than China in terms of pure military power, but they do have nuclear weapons and would probably react to any incursion with them. Japan has a smaller military, but far more advanced, and would probably beat China even without US help. Taiwan also has a very small, but very high-tech military, and China's obsolete transports and air force would be cut down pretty quickly if they tried anything. Russia, even now, is no pushover, and has a stronger military and a larger nuclear arsenal if it came to that. The southeast side of the country is slightly less intimidating, but I don't even think the Chinese government will go near the psychopaths who run North Korea.
You are wrong on the military front. China is stronger than any other country in Asia. China could easily beat India (the presence of WMD simply means that there won't be any "real" war). Taiwan is a joke, compared to China. Military people don't like to admit this but don't forget that there is something called "war of attrition". Basically you just keep sending your soldiers until they win by sheer numbers. China can easily do this. China can also defeat Japan IMO. China may not be as advanced as USA, UK, Russia, etc. But they are up there. They have all the latest Russian stuff (may not be as good as US but still not bad). Even though they may have weaker tech, they can still win by numbers and strategy. For isntance, China has far greater number of submarines and aircraft carriers than Japan.
But a tyrannical government has no stability, as history has shown again and again.
Not really true if you are practicising totalitarianism. The tyrannical governments that fail are non-totalitarian systems like dictatorships (one evil dude), monarchy, etc. But systems like Communism and fascism can survive for a long time. Soviet Union survived for quite a while and could have survived even longer if Gorbachev et al wanted to. Instead, they lost interest and that's why it collapsed. Soviet Union did NOT collapse due to a popular uprising (totalitarian regimes can crush these easily). Similarly, Nazi Germany could have survived for 50+ years if it won the war. It had massive support of its local population, and had managed to brainwash (or kill) any of its opponents. Perhaps the best example is colonialism. Colonial governments like Britain, Spain, etc managed to keep going for hundreads of years.
* Chance of physically intercepting the signal is next to nothing. They don't get much radio time, and they can't cover much of the sky.
Agreed... but it doesn't hurt to try. Also, don't forget that to develop advanced techniques or better alternatives, one needs to start with the basics. You don't start riding a bicycle without learning how to balance or how to walk. Same thing here. What they are doing may be "primitive" and next to useless but I'm sure some good will come out of it--if not now, in 50 or 100 years ago.
* Now chances of actually recognizing the signal as intelligent life are unknown. They've got some great theories. Who knows if they're right?
Intelligence is an overrated word that is used to oppress lower classes. There is no such thing as intelligene--at least when you look at things from a macroscopic scale. The point wouldn't be to find intelligent lifeform--rather it is to find ANY lifeform. Whatever you find may or may not be "intelligent" (for example, if you find aliens that have mastered electromagnetic waves but haven't even figured out how to build a 10 story building, are they "intelligent"?).
* Ok, maybe you see it and you recognize it. Can you decode it?
This will be the tough part IMO. Even if you find something, it could take hundreads of years to decode the message. Stanislaw Lem, a Polish sci-fi author who has written many sci-fi novesl (including Solaris), postulates that it will take 100+ years to communicate with an alien (even if the alien made physical contact). Humans can understand each other's language because we made it all up; and we can understand animals because we are animals. The same cannot be said of foreign aliens.
* Alright, so who cares if you decode it, you FOUND INTELLIGENT LIFE that existed at least several hundred of years ago
I can't believe you are dismissing this. If contact is made (or evidence is found), it will be the MOST IMPORTANT human event in the last 500 years. It will be bigger than theory of gravity, theory of relativity, development of transistors,computers,electricity, World War II, rise of Communism, Nazism, etc. Discovery of aliens will likely result in elimination of religions (or religious wars), massive scientific "push", etc. It will alter our understanding of the universe. We will know that we are not "alone". In addition, this can provide more answers to the meaning to life and further philosophy...
* Ok, so you send a reply. You figure out where that source planet will be when the signal finally reaches it.
* "The aliens get it" requires the same hurdles. Mainly, they have a SETI program, they've got their ears pointed in the right direction, they identify the reply as intelligent life, etc. Hell, it assumes they haven't nuked themselves into extinction like we're on the steady path towards.
They may or may not have technology dealing with electromagnetic/radio waves. But the hope is that they will. For all we know, they may be far more advanced in that area... As far as aliens nuking themselves, it is a possibility. However, I don't think it will be the case. Humans are very violent (we kill each other, destroy nature, etc). I think the probability of finding more peaceful beings are higher than finding ones that are more violent than us.
* Now, lets say they decide to reply(ie, they're not xenophobic, they don't think it's pointless, etc). It takes another couple hundred years to get back to earth, assuming they aim right etc.
This argument is moot. There will be a massive lag so people can't communicate. However, we (and them) can sort of figure out that something is out there. Also one should keep in mind that this will be a long term action, done to benefit humanity as opposed to the individual. For instance, if you send a signal now, someone 200 years from now may get back the response from the alien. It does not benefit you
It depends who is in power. Religious people will NEVER disclose first contact. Since nearly every country on the planet is run by a theist, I don't think governments will disclose anything.
KoalaBear33
The beginning of the end of NASA... and USA
on
Clock Ticking for Hubble
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Is this the beginning of the end of NASA, and US space research in general? I think so! Folks, the show is over. Regardless of how you look at it, space exploration is too expensive. Even for the imperialist superpower, it is too costly. The only reason there was anything done 30 or 40 years ago was to battle the Communists--it had nothing to do with science. There is little interest and the neo-cons running USA can't possibly garner enough support. So instead of spending on space, they will be spending it all on the missile shield.
Once USA cuts back their space program (circa 2010, with the downing of the Hubble), I think space exploration will decrease. Russia is practically out of the space equation. India and China are simply in it for political reasons (not scientific). I don't see too much activity happening beyond 2010. Sure, there will be more commercial activity. But they will all be money-making schemes to send people into orbits, put up advertising in space, and such things.
I guess one country or a small number of countries simply can't carry on space programs anymore. The ISS alone is too expensive. Note how the member countries don't want to spend much money on the ISS. As I--as well as many others--have been predicting for a long time, humans need to unite or else kiss goodbye to space...
NOTE: I do not count militarization of space (which USA will attempt in 10-15 years) as space exploration
...knowing how to spell doesn't help you much if you don't know how to think. Hint, think about pyramid schemes and why they always fail, and then think a little about SSI. Think about accountability and efficiency, and then think a little about medicare.
I'm not an American so I don't know that much about SSI but I can't help lauging at you... SSI is a pyramid scheme? Nice thinking there indeed... I glad that people can spell better than you while "thinking" worse than you.
Private sector: More productivity with less money input over time (higher efficiency, higher ROI), government sector: less productivity with more money input over time.
ROI? That is the most idiotic way of comparing governments to corporations. Governments are NOT profit-maximizing institutions, you know that right? Then why the hell are you even mentioning ROI? ROI for any govt project is always infinity (because retuns are close to zero eg. what's the return of providing welfare to people? zero)
How do you think colleges and universities work? Can you imagine if all public colleges had to accept everyone in a specific geographic region like a high school?
Universities are elitist institutions. That's why they accept only a small number of people and attempt to pass only a select few (ever hear of bell-curving?). High schools, middle schools, and kintergarden are egalitarian. That's why they attempt to graduate everyone.
One day, universities will graduate everyone. Not because people are smarter or anything (since smartness is never a consideration for the university) but because they have become more egalitarian...
Also the OSS == good logic doesn't fly with me. Most OSS projects are horrible and should have died long ago. For any good product [say XMMS] there are a half dozen related products that suck [those GTK+ media players], etc...
I'm not saying one side is right or wrong but your justification doesn't support your view. Yes, MOST open-source projects are complete failures (they don't even make verion 1.0). However, the main reason IMO is because OSS doesn't have the same resources. A large number of OSS projects involve less than 5 developers (with at least 2 or 3 not committing much time to it). In fact, a lot of them (check sourceforge.net) are simply one-person projects with very little comittment by anyone. Clearly this does not prove anything (since alternative software development methods involve larger resources)...
You may or may not be able to prove that OSS development does not work... but you aren't doing it here...
Slashdot Mirror
China has 700,000 fewer males reach military age each year than India does, the border terrain vastly favors defense, and India's military equipment is as latest-Russian as China's.
But China is much stronger overall. Sure there might be less young adults but who cares? Chinese soldiers are better trained and more motivated too.
Invading Taiwan requires the ability to invade an island. China can't get its troops across the Straits; its amphibious lift capability is so meager it couldn't land a force 10% the size of the active-duty Taiwanese army. You can't fight a war of attrition that way, no matter how hard you try.
I'm not a military expert but I would think you would first bomb the defenses and weaken the enemy. You don't need to carry out a land assault until necessary.
Neither China nor Japan posess any aircraft carriers;
I didn't know that! I thought China had carriers but I guess I was wrong. I'll look it up if I can (can you double-check too?)
Additionally, the Chinese lack of amphibious lift capability makes an invasion of Japan impossible.
I think you are overvaluing the amphibious assaults. This isn't WWII. I think the main thing will be air assaults. Look how USA does it. USA bombs first and then when there is no resistance, they land their troops. Granted, USA has been fighting 3rd world countries so it's hard to say if this will work here. But my opinion is that if you win in the air, you can land regardless of whether your capability is weak or not.
KoalaBear33
Yeah.. the whole Russian thing is overrated. The Russian govt is still brutal and could care less about their citizens. The recent crackdown on independent media is an example of it. Sure, the KGB might not exist anymore; but now you have the FSB...
The govt has been replaced with the mafia now. I'm not sure which one is worse but neither of them are any good...
KoalaBear33
When are you people going to ever realize it? Greater unstability in the Middle East will actually hurt USA more than anything else. This is what has been happening for years. If Isreal nukes other countries, it will create MORE terrorists. Sure you might get rid of a few thousand in the process, but it will create far more...
KoalaBear33
You missed the sarcasm tags.. some people might not get it ;)
KoalaBear33
Didn't Apple sue Microsoft (over a decade ago) for copying UI elements and lose? I don't think you can patent "looks"...
KoalaBear33
Interestingly, a large number (it might even be the majority) of the supercomputers are used for non-military applications, like scientific research, weather, geology, etc.
:)
I like the idea of donating these to SETI@home...
:) KoalaBear33, waiting patiently for First Contact
The colonial era was governed by monarchs, not totalitarian despots.
:( The original poster's opinion was that governments such as Soviet Union would collapse easily; my view is that they won't and USSR could have kept going for another 50 years if the authoratrians wanted...
I'm not so sure that you can exclude the totalitarianism label for monarchs. The local population may not consider the monarch to be totalitarian, but from a world viewpoint and from that of the oppressed, it WOULD be totalitarian. For instance, would you not consider slavery to be characteristic of totalitarianism? One would be hardpressed to tell the difference between a totalitarian and a monarch running the colonies (especially in Africa and South America).
The Soviet Union was in a horrible economic state which is why Gorby was progressive... he saw that reforms needed to be made.
True.. but my point was that it didn't have to collapse. If they wanted to, they could have kept going. All it would need is another "Tianamen-Square"-like episode
China has a problem feeding its people. What would happen if the US decided to cut food exports? You would probably see China collapse too
I don't think China relies on USA for much of its agricultural imports. In any case, I don't see your point. What are you saying? Everything you say is true but what's your point?
It won't be a joke when we send our military over there... Taiwan is an ally.
I was referring to the case where Taiwan had to fight by itself (same thing with the other countries I cited like Japan). I think that's what the original poster meant... If USA helps those countries, it will be a draw (due to WMD) but if you ignore WMD, USA will win IMO...
The ideal that maybe it wouldn't be so bad if someone else were #1 or 'can't we all just get along' is nice. But because of human nature, someone will decide they need to be at the top, and force their way to the top. That's the way it's been and always will be.
You are either a Machievallian (sp?) or a social/political Darwinist... in either case, I hate you people... In any case, can you prove that? Why must that be always the case? Basically, you are arguing against theories of peace, which often postulate that once you eliminate all the despots/superpowers/authoratarians, world will be at peace. You clearly believe the opposite--that you cannot eliminate these people and entities...
KoalaBear33
Yeah who had to come bail out europe from germany.
...i wish the US would say SCREW YOU and let europe and the rest of the world disintegrate into the mess it would be if the US weren't influencing it.
...why isn't it doing anything to stop the madness!??!
:(
The impact of the US in Europe during WWII is overrated. USA entered the war late and by that time, Germany was on its way to losing (it lost the Eastern front and lost Battle of Britain). Even if USA did not enter WWII, Germany would have lost (probably 2 years later). Having said this, USA DID provide weapons and resources to the Allies even before it entered the war... and of course, the Pacific is another story (full credit to USA there).
Kosovo was a NATO mission but I guess I wouldn't be too surprised if you consider NATO to be made up of USA only.
Actually you are already doing it... whether you realize it or not... the neo-cons in power basically share the same ideals as you...
If USA did NOT intervene, the world would be much better off! The vast majority of US military interventions are for selfish, imperialistic reasons. Consider the last 30 or 40 years: Iran, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, Nicaragua...all resulted in thousands of deaths. The only ones where USA did anything for others would be Kosovo/Balkans, and Somalia.
So I don't think the world's population will really miss your "help"
Whether you like him or not, Charles de Gaulle said it best: "Nations have no friends; only interests"... you should think about it before death takes you away...
KoalaBear33
Are there any membership fees? Do I get a discount for being a socialist?
KoalaBear33
In China the people don't have the opportunity to oppose the use of nuclear weapons if they wish to. A select few *unelected* men could pull the trigger if they get in a bad mood...
:(
Since when did the population come into the decision making? Are you telling me that USA consulted their population before deploying the atomic weapons in Japan?
Unelected may pull the trigger; but so do the elected...
I'll bet USA is more concerned about Isreal's nukes than China's. There have been a few concerns from US administration officials over the last few decades over Isreal. A religious fundamentalist in Isreal is more likely to cause a nuclear war than some Communist. Have you forgotten the lessons of the Cold War?
Of course, none of this matters to you... since you have already made up your "mind"
KoalaBear33
The Chinese would be MORE likely to release code than capitalist countries. Free or low-cost software benefits the masses, and this should be consistent with their system... Only exception would be if it were some top-secret military thingie... in that case it would be Linus Torvalds+FSF vs Chinese Military+SCO ;)
KoalaBear33
Finally a SCO poster ;) I thought you guys had strict orders not to wander near slashdot.org ;)
KoalaBear33
I don't follow this matter... but perhaps language may be an issue. The vast majority of Asians don't speak English and their languages are not related to English either (unlike German, etc).
;)
Another possibility might be government influence. Governments have immense power in Asian countries. India might be called the world's largest democracy but it is an insult all democrats everywhere. China, for instance, might be controlling its software development and placing restrictions on it. If you think RIAA is bad, wait until you figure out what these governments will let you do. Along with RIAA, they are probably official members of the dominate-the-world club
KoalaBear33
I agree that China will take over the #1 spot in the future (but not in 20 years--more like 50 years). However, the advantage is not as big as you think. Consider the points you mentioned:
...the US should join the EU as an equal partner...
Population:
A lot of people seem to forget the downside of large populations. Large populations have increased social problems (my theory is that population ahd social issues are correlated in a non-linear manner). Things like crime, unemployment, famine, disease, etc are much more problematic with a large population. For instance, the biggest challenge facing China over the next 20 years will be figuring out what to do with the massive number of layed off workers due to elimination of government companies. There are millions of Chinese that are unemployed and flocking to the cities. These people's lives need to be considered. Possible side-effects of this problem include high crime, loss/decrease of worker rights, horrible sanitary conditions in cities... all the way to potential collapse of Communism itself. If Communism collapses, all these predictions will be moot...
Education system:
China actually has very good educational system--all so-called Communist countries do. Don't forget that USA isn't that much better. There are large numbers of Americans who cannot write properly (bad grammer, spelling, etc). There are many Americans who can't even do high-school math. At the rate that USA is going, these things will just get worse. I claim that social problems are non-linear and what this means here is that people who fell through the educational system will likely not emphasize school to their kids, and so on.
Traditions:
I don't think tradition really plays a role. I mean just look at Japan, which is very tradionalist--not that liberal at all. Yet it did well for the last few decades. Besides, what you are saying is contradictory. Capitalism rewards and requires greed, violence (to enforce authority or steal resources from other countries), ignorance of family values, etc. If anything, China will be worse off due to its traditions...
Resources:
Resources are meaningless under capitalism. All that matters is money--wealth! You can buy whatever you don't have, and if that doesn't work out invade countries and steal their resources. This is how USA has been going on for the last 50 years. USA consumes more than they can. Believe it or not, USA imports more than it exports with practically every country. Resources haven't played a role for USA, and it won't for China either. Remember: you can buy anything! Including human labour...
Legal bonds:
Not sure what to say here... I don't know how much this matters. From a socialist point of view, being open shifts the benefit to the population as a whole; capitalists, of course, argue that this is detrimental to innovation (eg. a capitalist would say that you can't have software development businesses in China because piracy is rampant). I guess it boils down to which side of the spectrum you are on.
Less restricted goverment:
If the govt has to spend less on social issues and in upholding human rights, it is actually a very negative thing. There have been more revolutions, overthrow of govt, etc due to social issues and human rights issues than anything else. People don't overthrow governments to gain freedom; they overthrow governments because they are discriminated against or are starving. If China skimps on social infrastructure/etc it won't last very long IMO.
Instead of concentration on their nationalist isolational politics, the US should come back to their very own sources.
USA has NOT been practicing isolationalism since WWII. They are not called an imperial power for nothing...
A superpower EQUAL to others? lol When have superpowers ever been concerned with others? If anything, USA wi
China is actually surrounded by smaller, yet militarily stronger countries. India is weaker than China in terms of pure military power, but they do have nuclear weapons and would probably react to any incursion with them. Japan has a smaller military, but far more advanced, and would probably beat China even without US help. Taiwan also has a very small, but very high-tech military, and China's obsolete transports and air force would be cut down pretty quickly if they tried anything. Russia, even now, is no pushover, and has a stronger military and a larger nuclear arsenal if it came to that. The southeast side of the country is slightly less intimidating, but I don't even think the Chinese government will go near the psychopaths who run North Korea.
You are wrong on the military front. China is stronger than any other country in Asia. China could easily beat India (the presence of WMD simply means that there won't be any "real" war). Taiwan is a joke, compared to China. Military people don't like to admit this but don't forget that there is something called "war of attrition". Basically you just keep sending your soldiers until they win by sheer numbers. China can easily do this. China can also defeat Japan IMO. China may not be as advanced as USA, UK, Russia, etc. But they are up there. They have all the latest Russian stuff (may not be as good as US but still not bad). Even though they may have weaker tech, they can still win by numbers and strategy. For isntance, China has far greater number of submarines and aircraft carriers than Japan.
But a tyrannical government has no stability, as history has shown again and again.
Not really true if you are practicising totalitarianism. The tyrannical governments that fail are non-totalitarian systems like dictatorships (one evil dude), monarchy, etc. But systems like Communism and fascism can survive for a long time. Soviet Union survived for quite a while and could have survived even longer if Gorbachev et al wanted to. Instead, they lost interest and that's why it collapsed. Soviet Union did NOT collapse due to a popular uprising (totalitarian regimes can crush these easily). Similarly, Nazi Germany could have survived for 50+ years if it won the war. It had massive support of its local population, and had managed to brainwash (or kill) any of its opponents. Perhaps the best example is colonialism. Colonial governments like Britain, Spain, etc managed to keep going for hundreads of years.
KoalaBear33
Well, do you want a bunch of loonies that hate you having the power to come over and kill you when they are in a bad mood?
One would say... 'If you have the "right" to do that, they should have the same "right"'...
KoalaBear33
Has the worldcom stuff been settled? I don't know what is happening with that case...
KOalaBear33
* Chance of physically intercepting the signal is next to nothing. They don't get much radio time, and they can't cover much of the sky.
Agreed... but it doesn't hurt to try. Also, don't forget that to develop advanced techniques or better alternatives, one needs to start with the basics. You don't start riding a bicycle without learning how to balance or how to walk. Same thing here. What they are doing may be "primitive" and next to useless but I'm sure some good will come out of it--if not now, in 50 or 100 years ago.
* Now chances of actually recognizing the signal as intelligent life are unknown. They've got some great theories. Who knows if they're right?
Intelligence is an overrated word that is used to oppress lower classes. There is no such thing as intelligene--at least when you look at things from a macroscopic scale. The point wouldn't be to find intelligent lifeform--rather it is to find ANY lifeform. Whatever you find may or may not be "intelligent" (for example, if you find aliens that have mastered electromagnetic waves but haven't even figured out how to build a 10 story building, are they "intelligent"?).
* Ok, maybe you see it and you recognize it. Can you decode it?
This will be the tough part IMO. Even if you find something, it could take hundreads of years to decode the message. Stanislaw Lem, a Polish sci-fi author who has written many sci-fi novesl (including Solaris), postulates that it will take 100+ years to communicate with an alien (even if the alien made physical contact). Humans can understand each other's language because we made it all up; and we can understand animals because we are animals. The same cannot be said of foreign aliens.
* Alright, so who cares if you decode it, you FOUND INTELLIGENT LIFE that existed at least several hundred of years ago
I can't believe you are dismissing this. If contact is made (or evidence is found), it will be the MOST IMPORTANT human event in the last 500 years. It will be bigger than theory of gravity, theory of relativity, development of transistors,computers,electricity, World War II, rise of Communism, Nazism, etc. Discovery of aliens will likely result in elimination of religions (or religious wars), massive scientific "push", etc. It will alter our understanding of the universe. We will know that we are not "alone". In addition, this can provide more answers to the meaning to life and further philosophy...
* Ok, so you send a reply. You figure out where that source planet will be when the signal finally reaches it. * "The aliens get it" requires the same hurdles. Mainly, they have a SETI program, they've got their ears pointed in the right direction, they identify the reply as intelligent life, etc. Hell, it assumes they haven't nuked themselves into extinction like we're on the steady path towards.
They may or may not have technology dealing with electromagnetic/radio waves. But the hope is that they will. For all we know, they may be far more advanced in that area... As far as aliens nuking themselves, it is a possibility. However, I don't think it will be the case. Humans are very violent (we kill each other, destroy nature, etc). I think the probability of finding more peaceful beings are higher than finding ones that are more violent than us.
* Now, lets say they decide to reply(ie, they're not xenophobic, they don't think it's pointless, etc). It takes another couple hundred years to get back to earth, assuming they aim right etc.
This argument is moot. There will be a massive lag so people can't communicate. However, we (and them) can sort of figure out that something is out there. Also one should keep in mind that this will be a long term action, done to benefit humanity as opposed to the individual. For instance, if you send a signal now, someone 200 years from now may get back the response from the alien. It does not benefit you
It depends who is in power. Religious people will NEVER disclose first contact. Since nearly every country on the planet is run by a theist, I don't think governments will disclose anything.
KoalaBear33
Is this the beginning of the end of NASA, and US space research in general? I think so! Folks, the show is over. Regardless of how you look at it, space exploration is too expensive. Even for the imperialist superpower, it is too costly. The only reason there was anything done 30 or 40 years ago was to battle the Communists--it had nothing to do with science. There is little interest and the neo-cons running USA can't possibly garner enough support. So instead of spending on space, they will be spending it all on the missile shield.
Once USA cuts back their space program (circa 2010, with the downing of the Hubble), I think space exploration will decrease. Russia is practically out of the space equation. India and China are simply in it for political reasons (not scientific). I don't see too much activity happening beyond 2010. Sure, there will be more commercial activity. But they will all be money-making schemes to send people into orbits, put up advertising in space, and such things.
I guess one country or a small number of countries simply can't carry on space programs anymore. The ISS alone is too expensive. Note how the member countries don't want to spend much money on the ISS. As I--as well as many others--have been predicting for a long time, humans need to unite or else kiss goodbye to space...
NOTE: I do not count militarization of space (which USA will attempt in 10-15 years) as space exploration
KoalaBear33
...knowing how to spell doesn't help you much if you don't know how to think. Hint, think about pyramid schemes and why they always fail, and then think a little about SSI. Think about accountability and efficiency, and then think a little about medicare.
I'm not an American so I don't know that much about SSI but I can't help lauging at you... SSI is a pyramid scheme? Nice thinking there indeed... I glad that people can spell better than you while "thinking" worse than you.
KoalaBear33
Private sector: More productivity with less money input over time (higher efficiency, higher ROI), government sector: less productivity with more money input over time.
ROI? That is the most idiotic way of comparing governments to corporations. Governments are NOT profit-maximizing institutions, you know that right? Then why the hell are you even mentioning ROI? ROI for any govt project is always infinity (because retuns are close to zero eg. what's the return of providing welfare to people? zero)
KoalaBear33
How do you think colleges and universities work? Can you imagine if all public colleges had to accept everyone in a specific geographic region like a high school?
Universities are elitist institutions. That's why they accept only a small number of people and attempt to pass only a select few (ever hear of bell-curving?). High schools, middle schools, and kintergarden are egalitarian. That's why they attempt to graduate everyone.
One day, universities will graduate everyone. Not because people are smarter or anything (since smartness is never a consideration for the university) but because they have become more egalitarian...
KoalaBear33
Nothing like a capitalist who loves to privatize everything :) I'm just wondering when they are going to privatize the police and the military...
KoalaBear33
Also the OSS == good logic doesn't fly with me. Most OSS projects are horrible and should have died long ago. For any good product [say XMMS] there are a half dozen related products that suck [those GTK+ media players], etc...
I'm not saying one side is right or wrong but your justification doesn't support your view. Yes, MOST open-source projects are complete failures (they don't even make verion 1.0). However, the main reason IMO is because OSS doesn't have the same resources. A large number of OSS projects involve less than 5 developers (with at least 2 or 3 not committing much time to it). In fact, a lot of them (check sourceforge.net) are simply one-person projects with very little comittment by anyone. Clearly this does not prove anything (since alternative software development methods involve larger resources)...
You may or may not be able to prove that OSS development does not work... but you aren't doing it here...
KoalaBear33