Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Why should we care if china become a world power?

  1. Feb 10, 2008 #1
    Who cares if china a super power? If t the united states focuses more on defending it national borders instead placing its armed forces in other countries, then we should not worry about another nation invading and taken over our country. Whats wrong with just being a 2nd rate world power? Canada is not a superpower and no other country has tried to invade it; in addition , I believe their education system for math and science is rated in the top ten among nations in the world along with Japan. I would like to hear your thoughts.
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 10, 2008 #2


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Canada is a member of NATO and they know if anyone messes with them, we'll jump to their aid. No western country is worried about being invaded and taken over. That just isn't the way the world works anymore.

    The poblem with China being a superpower is similar to the problem with North Korea, for example, being a superpower (a more extreme example). If their social/political development does not advance far enough for them to be responsible with their power, they become a threat. And I don't just mean a military one. And I don't just mean an external threat. While their development is helping their people somewhat, their development is also taking place at the expense of their people and their environment.
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2008
  4. Feb 10, 2008 #3
    There I think lies the problem. I don't think its a good idea for other countries to rely on one country to defend them if another country decides to take over. They should be developing there own defenses . What if we stop being friends with Canada? Then they would not be able to defend themselves if china decided they wanted to conquer Canada? I think the reasons why the united states may have potential enemies is because of our foreign policy. Our only purpose should be when communicating with other nations would be to trade with other nations, Not fight diseases plagueing nations or establishing democracies in other nations.
  5. Feb 10, 2008 #4
    What do you mean here? I think to state that their development is "helping their people somewhat" is a gross underestimate. Also, what do you mean "at the expense of their people?" I have heard that China's development has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, which to be sure is no small feat. How has hundreds of millions of people raising out of poverty hurt the others? I'm pretty sure that the others have not gotten poorer because some of their neighbors have become richer. Now, with the environmental issue I think you have a point, because their development has had some negative effects on the environment. However, there is definitely a trade-off to be made because it is unlikely that they would have economic growth anywhere near what they have under much stricter environmental regulation. So in some sense we're forced to ask, is their negative effect on the environment "worth" it considering that so many human beings have been lifted out of grinding poverty? Now, this is a value judgement so you could go either way. I tend to believe that it is/was definitely worth it, because many people have been helped. Furthermore, as nations develop and escape poverty, they are in a much better position to innovate and develop the technologies and equipment which will reduce pollution. I really can't blame impoverished nations when their people want to raise out of poverty, even if it means that they will be increasing their "carbon footprint." Sometimes I think it's hypocritical when people from industrialized nations criticize development on environmental grounds.

    In regards to the OP, I've noticed that sometimes people tend to worry about China becoming an Economic Superpower. I know this is not exactly what you were talking about, but I would like to discuss it briefly. Often times people tend to worry about China's economic progress because they think it will decrease our standard of living. This idea stems from a common economic fallacy that there is a "fixed-pie" to be divided up among all people. This fallacy implies that the world is a zero-sum game, and that one person's gain comes at another person's expense. In reality nothing could be further from the truth, as people prosper by creating wealth.

    As P.J. O'Rourke states when summarizing Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations."
    My point is that China's economic progress is great for the people of China, and it does not harm those of us who do not live in China (in fact, China's economic progress is probably good for most of us).
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 10, 2008
  6. Feb 10, 2008 #5
    Canada is a member of the British Empire and is bordered by the US and there have been at least a few occassions within 100 years when someone has tried to invade Canada. But I understand your argument.

    Protecting the border is very a broad scoped definition of national defense because the border is a separation between neighboring states not an end to national interests. If a country has business interests across an ocean the country has the right to defend its interests there. The days of empires waging war against nations to collect tribute are long gone, today's economic powers wage war as a last resort to protect economic activity.
  7. Feb 10, 2008 #6
    Are you going to say protecting our economic interests means waging war against another country ang killing hundreds of people simply to gain control of certain capital , then thats not in line with our basic fundamental civil liberties that every person is born with. There are more countries to trade who are willing to share there resources with us.
  8. Feb 10, 2008 #7
    Here in the US when a law is broken a criminal is caught he is placed on trial convicted and then given punishment. This applies equally to international theory. The case for NATO has been made.
  9. Feb 10, 2008 #8
    Unless you're an Iraqi. :wink: Though I do agree that NATO is responsible for some of the safety of Canada, as would be things like the British Commonwealth. Remember, Canadians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812" [Broken] at one point and burned Washington to the ground.

    I have to agree with Economist that any downsides to economic development in China are insignificant next to the benefits, considering how many tens or hundreds of millions of people there died from poverty, famine, and wars that were to some degree a consequence of economic instability during the last century.

    The way I think China will be a ‘threat’ is economically and culturally rather than militarily, as the economic mass and inertia of China make it more and more dominant in the world (due to its per capita GDP catching up with the first world) and the U.S. continues to wane in power and importance, thank you Mr. Bush for pushing us off the cliff - sort of the way that the Japanese own much of Hawaii and many street signs there are now in Japanese. The same thing will probably happen with India and Brazil. But it's only a ‘threat’ in that Americans will have to experience international relations the same way everyone else does.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  10. Feb 10, 2008 #9
    A good friendship with Canada or not, would the US sit back and watch China take over our northern border, I think not and Canada knows it .
    But maybe the US should allow it, just think of all the cheap labor and new language the US could bring in from it’s north to make it an even greater country .
  11. Feb 10, 2008 #10
    Uh, anyone been to the Vancouver area lately? It's just a liiiitlebit Chinese. Maybe we'll have to send the http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Militi_71/4563_71.htm" [Broken] up there to deal with things.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  12. Feb 10, 2008 #11
    Greed for power never ceased in any century, nor it will ever in the future.
  13. Feb 10, 2008 #12
    China would never want to conquer Canada...=.=.There's something called international relationship and I beleive we are not that bad regarding political and business affair with China. ;)
  14. Feb 10, 2008 #13
    If China invaded Canada (militarily, immigration is a diff story), the US would see that as a strategic threat to the US. It would threaten our pipeline from Alaska and transit to and from Alaska. We have an immense military presence in Alaska (I grew up next to several bases up there). It's not going to happen. I think it's kind of silly to even consider it.
  15. Feb 10, 2008 #14
    Good point...
  16. Feb 10, 2008 #15
    One possible problem is the change to the standard of living. China's standard of living for its citizens will go way up. Chances are that will probably mean ours will go down, not really sure by how much though. But the thing is, disregarding China, we are shooting ourselves in the foot economically speaking anyway.
  17. Feb 10, 2008 #16
    Yes, we would respond the way Iran would have responded to an invasion of Iraq, if it had possessed nuclear weapons. Which is why we don't want Iran to gain that deterrent - we want other countries tiptoeing around us, not the other way around.

    China will probably avoid direct military confrontation with any state that possesses nuclear weapons.
  18. Feb 10, 2008 #17


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    China does not have the checks and balances other nations have. There is no media to mock the leader. There are no people to protest. There isn't even political opposition because they only have 1 party. With a political system that doesn't allow disagreement, having some military and money to backup stupid ideas is very dangerous.
  19. Feb 10, 2008 #18


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  20. Feb 10, 2008 #19


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    People who don't understand economics think money is zero sum.
  21. Feb 10, 2008 #20
    God bless the USA, where military-and-money-backed stupid ideas can at least be disagreed with at least once every four years! :redface:
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook