Who will be the next rising superpower

HackneyedScribe

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
6,493
Now, if the US really wants to support Freedom of Navigation, it should treat all countries fairly by that standard, ally or not. Starting with Japan, who is claiming the red star in the following map:



This is what the island looks like:



The majority of that isn't the island, mind you, but the cute thing inside the white concrete circle:



Where are the complaints when Taiwan fishing boats went into the EEZ of that tiny rock and the consequences resulting from it?: https://japantoday.com/category/national/taiwan-fishermen-protest-seizure-of-boat-by-japan
If you claim yourself as the policemen of the world, then there shouldn't be such a thing as "supporting allies". Police should be neutral. Police that uses their powers to "support allies" are corrupt by definition.

The question is, Vietnam and Philippines have been building bases in the disputed South China Sea well before China did. I have no doubt China would have too if they weren't so poor. Yet the moment China became much richer and starts building their own bases, it's as if China is the only one guilty of 'militarization', as if all the non-Chinese bases which had been there for all that time are somehow invisible. If you expect for China to abide by some double standard, then it has no incentive to follow that standard. No country would unless if it's at the point of a gun.

The 11-dash line from a 1947 Republic of China map:



This was printed one year after Philippine independence, which was precided by the United States so the United States should know full well that Philippine territory at the time, as ingrained in the Philippine constitution, did not include the Spratly Islands:



Philippines laid their first claim to the Spratly Islands in 1956.
 
Last edited:

heylouis

Ad Honorem
Apr 2013
6,501
China
The phrase 'I rest my case' in English does not mean 'I am going to take a rest'. On the contrary, it means, 'I believe that something that has just happened or been said proves that I am right, and therefore I can give my case a break'.
i believe it is obvious that i pointed out the phrasing is nothing more but repeating a single word--"militarization". hence, nothing is properly proved. because of that the poster sir has no proper reason to rest the case.


or you want to answer the questions for him?

1. should chinese unguard hainan island, which is the largest island in south china sea
2. should we consider the intrusion into chinese space and water area (i mean those non-dispute part, for example, hainan island) as militarization? in fact, should we consider those as "invasion"
3. is it possible that one single country withdraw defensive forces, while others not? (and some countries have offensive forces, like missles on the disputed islands[not china], i have pointed out)
4. is sharing resources really a bad thing? i have no fearing to say this, because yes, china has no productive oil mine in disputed islands and waters. (while there are over 100 distinct oil mines, and over 1000 oil wells over there) if you disagree, provide map and mining data, put your fingers on the chinese mines and let us see
5. what is the basement of phillipines claim to the huangyan island/Scarborugh Shoal, the "firstly discovery" or "traditional territory"? an exclusive choice has to be made.
 
Last edited:

YouLoveMeYouKnowIt

Ad Honorem
Oct 2013
4,574
Canada
Back up a bit and discuss the allegation of Tibetan and Uyghur genocide. A genocide is not a joke, it is a horrifying act that warrants the noose. It is rarely seen that someone is so sure there's a genocide going on but treats it so trivially as to refuse discussion or providing evidence.

If someone is aware of an actual genocide going on, why are they keeping quiet? It's like someone seeing a car run over a grandma and just keeps walking home, casually telling the next guy down the street, "yo someone just got hit, I think she's dying. Got a lighter?"

Am baffled. This is even more baffling as to why people chose to ignore facts, such as the pre-Chinese involvement militarization of the South China Sea. The way to peace is through understanding. If people choose to ignore certain countries for the same acts they are condemning China of, how could they understand the reality of the situation? And how could they hope to see a demilitarized South China Sea?
 
Last edited:
Sep 2016
19
EU
Interesting subject
1. China's reason: China wants to secure its maritime borders, and is in their right to do so. If you look at Chinese past wars from First Opium War in 1839 till the WWII all invaders came by sea. Even if in the late XIX century the land army was competitive, they neglected the navy, and they paid harshly for this. They will not make the same mistake again.
Besides, in SCS they also want to secure their main import route. Mainstream media tells you what great amount of traffic pass through there, but they are omiting to say that (estimative) between 66% and nearly 80% of the traffic has China as destination or as sender. It is an existential route for China

2. US maintaining the freedom of navigation?! I'm amused how this sounds. US doesn't care about the freedom of navigation or who's right or who's wrong. They only want China out of SCS because China threaten their hegemony and geo-political influence in the region. What freedom of navigation is US after is that of its own military ships and aircrafts

3. Every surrounding nation own islands there, are conducting land reclamation (making artificial islands) and they are building on the islands that they possess, including military facilities. Out of SCS disputed 88 reefs and islands, Vietnam possess 61, Philippine 12, China with only 8, Malaysia 5, Brunei and Taiwan 2.

4. Vietnam and Malaysia are the most advanced with military facilities and troops there. Not only China.

5. Island building! Land reclamacion were made as following: Vietnam at 11 maritime features, China at 7, Malaysia at 1 and Taiwan at 1
Other source say that there are very small but functionally significant reclamations at 6 Malaysian sites

6. SCS is a DISPUTED territory, China also has claims there, and the situation is so a mess that is nearly impossible to say 100% certainly who is right and who is wrong there. Only a biased person will name that territory ,,international waters". That territory should have been a national territory/territorial waters.

7. Stealing? Why is not stealing if Vietnam is building on a territory claimed by Malaezia, or when the Philippines is building on a territory claimed by Taiwan, or Vietnam. What about the Malaysian military buildings there, is not that like stealing from Vietnam?! Why is everyone is picking only China?!
Taiwan has the same claim as China. Why is that Nine-Dash Line not outrageous? Oh, Taiwan is a US friend. Never mind then.

8. China doesn't look to be interested in anything else than the economic cooperation and development. It isn't interested to dispense justice, to promote ideologies, to have a military or culturaly influence over other states or world domination. It is not even interested in the internal affairs of others, if this is not affecting them. They only care about their country and their people and feeding them.

9. China is never referring to US (or any other country) as enemy. In contrast with other countries. China is not an enemy. China is addressing with ,,friend" towards US. Does US is also doing this?
 
Last edited:

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,631
San Antonio, Tx
I fully understand that but the Americans were doing it 50 years ago before China gotten into it. Do you think the US had stopped doing their research? It was after 20 years for the American government to reveal that there exists SR71. Most recently, they are partnering with UK on building F35 and not with any other nation.
The US was doing it more than 90 years ago.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,631
San Antonio, Tx
https://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2017/01/CTBUH_ResearchReport_2016YearInReview-dezeen-2364-col-1-852x515.gif

There is also a greater need for skyscrapers. There are more people but not more space. That greater need pushes for innovative ways to construct skyscrapers. Mix use energy efficient skyscrapers up to 200m could be built in 19 days. With 90% of the building manufactured in factories and assembled on site, skyscrapers could really go up in weeks instead of years.
This is very misleading. If 90% of the building is manufactured in factories, the actual construction time is the manufacturing time in those factories plus the time to assemble the pre-manufactured pieces on-site. Think months or years instead of "19 days".

Just for your information, concrete foundation piles must "cure" for at least 30 days during which time the concrete used to make them is repeatedly tested for strength. If the superstructure is steel, that's one thing, but if it's concrete, the same rules apply, unless there's no strength testing going on, in which case, Good Luck.

In 1968, the Hilton Paseo Del Rio Hotel was built in three months, using concrete modules where 1 module = 1 room. The true construction time was actually the time needed to pour the concrete modules plus the actual on-site assembly time. It was still a remarkable accomplishment, because the room modules were lifted into place complete with furniture, carpet, electrical hookups, air conditioning and plumbing.

19 days? I don't think so.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,631
San Antonio, Tx
I am not talking about manufacturing stuff, I am talking about actual research outputs. which china is firmly second to US. I am sorry put more air bags is not innovation, Nor is using aluminum to steel. Quality is more tied to safety standard and safety standards are dependent on indirectly how much people are going to pay for the quality. If an Indian company starts making something like Volvo or Mercedes they would be bankrupt in a couple of years, because no one is going to buy their cars and they wouldn't be able to scale their products as no one is going to buy those products. In India and pretty sure every developing country in the world people value bang for buck rather than additional quality, I am pretty sure in India no one drives at 160 km/hr and making a car resistant to such type of crashes will not appeal to any consumer. In India you get Mercedes or Volvo all those quality cars but a general middle class guy would prefer a product which is cheaper, which is able to provide all additional features and will compromise for moderate safety features. They will chose Maruti for Tata indica over Mercedes any day. Everything in this world is dependent on market demands. The most technologically advanced part of a car isn't the safety features, isn't the airbags or the material used. It is the engine. The most recent advance in car engine has come from India.
Indians make hybrid engines? I assume they make electric cars.
 
Jun 2012
1,780
chandigarh
Indians make hybrid engines? I assume they make electric cars.
Actual tata does make hybrid engine. I am not talking about type of engine but about engine design

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-stroke_engine.

Velozeta six-stroke engine[edit]
In a Velozeta engine, fresh air is injected into the cylinder during the exhaust stroke, which expands by heat and therefore forces the piston down for an additional stroke. The valve overlaps have been removed, and the two additional strokes using air injection provide for better gas scavenging. The engine seems to show 40% reduction in fuel consumption and dramatic reduction in air pollution.[7] Its Power-to-weight ratio is slightly less than that of a four-stroke gasoline engine.[7] The engine can run on a variety of fuels, ranging from gasoline and diesel fuel to LPG. An altered engine shows a 65% reduction in carbon monoxide pollution when compared with the four-stroke engine from which it was developed.[7] The engine was developed in 2005 by a team of mechanical engineering students, Mr. U Krishnaraj, Mr. Boby Sebastian, Mr. Arun Nair and Mr. Aaron Joseph of the College of Engineering, Trivandrum.

NIYKADO six-stroke engine[edit]
This engine was designed, developed and patented by Chanayil Cleetus Anil, of Kochi, India, in 2012.[8] He holds Indian patent number IN252642, granted by IPIndia on May 25, 2012. The name of the engine is taken from the name of his company, NIYKADO Motors. The engine underwent a preliminary round of full-throttle tests at the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI), Pune.[8] The inventor claims this engine "is 23 per cent more fuel efficient compared to a standard four-stroke engine"[8] and that it is "very low on pollution".[8]
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,631
San Antonio, Tx
Actual tata does make hybrid engine. I am not talking about type of engine but about engine design

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-stroke_engine.

Velozeta six-stroke engine[edit]
In a Velozeta engine, fresh air is injected into the cylinder during the exhaust stroke, which expands by heat and therefore forces the piston down for an additional stroke. The valve overlaps have been removed, and the two additional strokes using air injection provide for better gas scavenging. The engine seems to show 40% reduction in fuel consumption and dramatic reduction in air pollution.[7] Its Power-to-weight ratio is slightly less than that of a four-stroke gasoline engine.[7] The engine can run on a variety of fuels, ranging from gasoline and diesel fuel to LPG. An altered engine shows a 65% reduction in carbon monoxide pollution when compared with the four-stroke engine from which it was developed.[7] The engine was developed in 2005 by a team of mechanical engineering students, Mr. U Krishnaraj, Mr. Boby Sebastian, Mr. Arun Nair and Mr. Aaron Joseph of the College of Engineering, Trivandrum.

NIYKADO six-stroke engine[edit]
This engine was designed, developed and patented by Chanayil Cleetus Anil, of Kochi, India, in 2012.[8] He holds Indian patent number IN252642, granted by IPIndia on May 25, 2012. The name of the engine is taken from the name of his company, NIYKADO Motors. The engine underwent a preliminary round of full-throttle tests at the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI), Pune.[8] The inventor claims this engine "is 23 per cent more fuel efficient compared to a standard four-stroke engine"[8] and that it is "very low on pollution".[8]
Excellent. Thank you! Are these engines going into production?