N. Korea will be threat to US in 5 years

Quote:

---

BEIJING — North Korea will pose a direct threat to the United States within five years if the communist dictatorship isn't reined in, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday.

Gates cited the North's development of intercontinental ballistic missiles and its efforts to expand its nuclear weapons capability during a press conference in Beijing with Chinese President Hu Jintao.

Gates told reporters that he did not believe North Korea would amass large numbers of the missiles, saying it would be a limited capability.

"I think that North Korea will have developed an intercontinental ballistic missile within that time — not that they will have huge numbers or anything like that," Gates told reporters.

North Korea has more than 800 ballistic missiles and more than 1,000 missiles of various ranges. It has sold missiles and technology overseas, with Iran a top buyer.

Pyongyang's arsenal includes intermediate-range missiles that can hit targets at up to 1,860 miles away, the Yonhap news agency quoted a South Korean official as saying last year. Those missiles could hit all of Japan and put U.S. military bases in Guam at risk.
The Pentagon chief also noted that South Korea's tolerance for the North's behavior has "worn thin."

He said it's time for Pyongyang to demonstrate specific ways it is ready to re-engage with its neighbors, such as moratoriums on missile testing and nuclear testing.

Gates said China has played a helpful role in lessening tensions, and said North Korea will be a significant topic when President Barack Obama meets with Hu in Washington next week.

Obama is expected to press Hu to exert more pressure on North Korea, which has alarmed the region by shelling a South Korean island and revealing advances in its nuclear program.
China is North Korea's only major diplomatic and economic backer.

Gates travels to South Korea and Japan after China, two other countries which are involved in stalled talks aimed at getting Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions.

---

Source

Nuclear talks going nowhere, periodic displays of brinkmanship, ICBMs in development, and little else that anyone can do about it. I think Obama's administration has been handling this just as well as they could, and can't think of anything else they could do. I'm curious if others feel the same way, or have any ideas I hadn't thought of about dealing with this.

I think this is one of Obama's strong points. He hasn't given in to North Korea's blackmail. He hasn't escalated the crisis, and he showed South Korea that we're a reliable ally. Not much else we can do given the circumstances.

The level of threat has a significant correlation with how much of an appetite China has to stand by its erstwhile ally should any crisis escalate.

Would China ever supply arms? Give access to military technologies?

Just today there are reports out about China's new stealth fighter ...

Quote:

---

China has conducted the first test-flight of its J-20 stealth fighter, Chinese President Hu Jintao has confirmed to US Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The confirmation came after images of the 15-minute flight in Chengdu appeared on several Chinese websites.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...3401_j20_1.jpg

---

5 years?

But Homefront is advertising 15 years. :(

I've never been particularly worried about Iran's nuclear program, but N. Korea has demonstrated erratic aggressive behavior. Nobody seems to know for sure what goes on inside that country that results in sinking S. Korean ships and artillery barages but its not implausible that the same sort of thing might lead to a fizzle nuke armed missle launch, something like the story in Dr. Strangelove. You want your nuclear armed opponents to be rational, stable, and predictable. Its unnacceptably unsafe having those guys with nukes and a global-range missle.

I normally don't disagree with Gates, but I'm skeptical of his time frame and alarm here. NK still has a long ways to go before they're even a marginal threat to the US. For one, their missile technology is still very primitive - liquid fueled rockets that aren't particularly successful (a number of their recent tests have ended in embarrassing failures). Until they can switch to a solid propellant, we'll have plenty of warning before a launch. Secondly, their warhead design is awful and all evidence indicates they haven't miniaturized their warheads (or tested them) in order to fit onto their current crop of ICBMs.

This isn't to say NK isn't a regional threat to US allies, notably Japan and SK, but it's not a strategic threat to the US and probably won't be for some time. Apparently a report in 1998 also gave a 5-year window before NK would have ICBM nuke capability. Then again, even a handful of nuke-equipped first generation ICBMs might not be the worst thing. The US has at least one decent interception system in place for the handful of missiles NK might be able to lob at us, and plenty of opportunities in which to try to take it down.

China, on the other hand, is a much larger strategic threat (although some of the worry over the latest J-20 revelations are a bit overdone). Chinese GDP is probably going to match US GDP somewhere in the next two decades (I think the earliest is late in this decade, but more likely is somewhere in early-to-mid 2020s). That means that even though per capita they'll be about 3/4 poorer than the US, they'll still have a sufficiently large industrial base to come close to matching US defense spending, without having to support a worldwide logistics infrastructure or our rather high personnel costs. Given that their political and economic power will be rising at the same time due to their increasing importance on the world stage, it is likely that they'll at least want some reasonable claim at regional hegemony.

This hegemony is more easily maintained not by directly fighting the US toe-to-toe - we have a huge advantage in the sophistication of our weaponry, and our joint warfare tactics - but by area denial weaponry. China's two biggest threats to US control of the Western Pacific and S. China Sea are so-called carrier killers (nearly operational anti-carrier ballistic missiles that have a range up to 2000 km IIRC) and their antisatellite assets. If they can blind us by taking out our satellites, and keep our carrier strike groups from getting too close to China, then China effectively has free reign over exerting military pressure on their neighbors without US interference. In the 90s during a Taiwan strait crisis, Clinton sent a carrier group through the Taiwan Strait. No way in hell we'd do that even today, let alone in another decade.

On the other hand, the J-20 is still a decade or so away from operational capability in large numbers, and no one is quite sure what it is designed for - air superiority? long range bombing? There's a lot of speculation whether it would be better or worse than the F-22 in a fight (or, for that matter, an F-18 E/F or F-35 A/C) and what kind of range it has (most seem to feel the canard design means that supercruise is probably inferior or out of the question, meaning that long-range strike would be seriously hampered). Either way, an earlier quote is right: the US is going to have, conservatively, hundreds of fifth generation fighters before the first one rolls off an assembly line in China. Ditto for Russia's T-50. The US still have a huge edge in avionics and training.

A similar argument could be made about China's probable plans for carrier-building. Even if they manage to get one produced in the next decade or so, there's still a big gap in terms of their ability to use it. The US has 11 aircraft carriers, about 5 of which are available at any given time for deployment. China might have one in a decade, and they'll still be incredibly unused to carrier operations (which requires a significant amount of training to do it well). Even if they eventually have enough carriers and trained crews to have 2 out on patrol at any given time, they still aren't trained in joint warfare the way the US has been, combining a variety of systems and technologies to maximum strategic effect.

The point is that China is a long ways from being a 'OMG' kind of threat, though they'll probably get there eventually (I've actually been meaning to write an article about this sometime soon). NK isn't even in the same league.

edit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

I've never been particularly worried about Iran's nuclear program, but N. Korea has demonstrated erratic aggressive behavior. Nobody seems to know for sure what goes on inside that country that results in sinking S. Korean ships and artillery barages but its not implausible that the same sort of thing might lead to a fizzle nuke armed missle launch, something like the story in Dr. Strangelove. You want your nuclear armed opponents to be rational, stable, and predictable. Its unnacceptably unsafe having those guys with nukes and a global-range missle.

---

You think Iran is rational, stable, and predictable? NK is primarily a worry because they export missile and nuclear technology (e.g. to Syria and other fun countries). In a real fight, NK wouldn't have a chance, and their regime is so isolated that it's tough to imagine them actually trying to start a fight with SK, rather than the occasional skirmish to satisfy some internal political goal. Iran, on the other hand, is actively involved in a number of military conflicts, has been in a war where chemical weapons were liberally used in recent times (it's disputed how much Iran used CW agents, though), and has multiple ties with non government entities that would gladly deliver the weapons for them. *shrugs* I think they're both pretty scary, myself.

You have to keep in mind that we don't want to offend Chinese sensibilities at this time by suggesting they're the main threat. Any time we as much as hint at it, Chinese leaders feign outrage. There's also very little we can do about a rising China for the foreseeable future, so it's pointless antagonizing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

edit:

You think Iran is rational, stable, and predictable? NK is primarily a worry because they export missile and nuclear technology (e.g. to Syria and other fun countries). In a real fight, NK wouldn't have a chance, and their regime is so isolated that it's tough to imagine them actually trying to start a fight with SK, rather than the occasional skirmish to satisfy some internal political goal. Iran, on the other hand, is actively involved in a number of military conflicts, has been in a war where chemical weapons were liberally used in recent times (it's disputed how much Iran used CW agents, though), and has multiple ties with non government entities that would gladly deliver the weapons for them. *shrugs* I think they're both pretty scary, myself.

---

I thought so before this last election. They certainly appear less stable now. Rational? I don't have a real reason to believe they arn't rational. The recent NK attacks on SK are very much a loose cannon thing that might not even be sanctioned by the regime's central authority. Nobody even knows. That's scary. Its a place where something like a nuke could conceivably be used. I don't have that same sense with Iran. Its not as opaque and the people not as iron-fist controled as NK.

Loki: Yes, I've heard speculation that the reason they're bringing up NK is to put some subtle pressure on China to reign in their recalcitrant cousin while at the same time stroking their egos with a little song and dance about US-China military cooperation and communication.

EK: We'll have to agree to disagree. I think both are unique threats, but Iran's is more likely to be a global rather than regional threat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

Source

Nuclear talks going nowhere, periodic displays of brinkmanship, ICBMs in development, and little else that anyone can do about it. I think Obama's administration has been handling this just as well as they could, and can't think of anything else they could do. I'm curious if others feel the same way, or have any ideas I hadn't thought of about dealing with this.

---

Well, from what I recall from all the ranting during Jr's. presidency, if Obama hasn't initiated bilateral negotiations with North Korea then he's deliberately trying to sabotage the peace process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Iran's is more likely to be a global rather than regional threat.

---

What do you mean by global threat? Are we strictly talking about the desire to have a nuke to use to threaten any other nation in the world? You think Iran is after a ICBM + warhead combo? It appears NK is after just that, but I haven't seen anything that indicates Iran is even after a bomb. Everyone assumes they are, but they haven't, to my knowledge, violated the non-proliferation treaty. Have they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

China, on the other hand, is a much larger strategic threat (although some of the worry over the latest J-20 revelations are a bit overdone). Chinese GDP is probably going to match US GDP somewhere in the next two decades (I think the earliest is late in this decade, but more likely is somewhere in early-to-mid 2020s). That means that even though per capita they'll be about 3/4 poorer than the US, they'll still have a sufficiently large industrial base to come close to matching US defense spending, without having to support a worldwide logistics infrastructure or our rather high personnel costs. Given that their political and economic power will be rising at the same time due to their increasing importance on the world stage, it is likely that they'll at least want some reasonable claim at regional hegemony.

---

It is interesting to note that in 1850, China's had an estimated 450 million people (according to an unattributed Wikipedia source..), while the US had 23 million! Things change in a relative blink of an eye.

Quote:

---

I think they're (Iran/NK) both pretty scary, myself.

---

Yeah, NK's threat is that it is an unstable one-man dictatorship. China is a much more stable bureaucratic-consenus dictatorship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

What do you mean by global threat? Are we strictly talking about the desire to have a nuke to use to threaten any other nation in the world? You think Iran is after a ICBM + warhead combo? It appears NK is after just that, but I haven't seen anything that indicates Iran is even after a bomb. Everyone assumes they are, but they haven't, to my knowledge, violated the non-proliferation treaty. Have they?

---

Iran has a mid-range ballistic missile and has clearly been working on compact warhead designs (the IAEA has noted this repeatedly, though research into weaponization is not in itself a legal problem until actual weaponization takes place). They currently have missiles with about 2000-3000 km range that are pretty decent, and probably have development programs for longer range missiles (though, as usual, they are billed as 'satellite launchers' or somesuch) that would give them near-ICBM capability. Furthermore, that's not what really worries me so much; Iran supports a number of global terrorist groups with significant funding and weapons (something NK doesn't do), and it's not inconceivable for them to supply one with some form of a nuclear weapon (whether a small warhead or a 'dirty bomb') given that they generally focus on supplying them with asymmetric strategic weapons. NK simply doesn't have a global agenda - they have their own weird internal power thing going on, and the obvious regional tensions (and the lip service paid to an eventual integration with SK), but don't have the same rhetoric on global issues.

As for NPT violations, it's a bit of a tough point to prove a negative (that they haven't) given the secrecy surrounding their program. But while I agree there are proliferation concerns with NK (though, oddly, not violations of the NPT since they pulled out years ago), Iran has been found to be non-compliant with portions of the NPT, notably dealing with safeguards and notification. They have repeatedly lied about their uranium enrichment program and various facilities, which is in direct contravention of the NPT Safeguards Agreement (subsequently they are also in violation of UNSCRs on their non-compliance).

While the enriched uranium that the IAEA monitors (off and on, when Iran is feeling like it) has probably not been diverted to a weapons program yet, there continue to be more and more secret enrichment facilities (e.g. the newly revealed Qom facility) that have not been under IAEA supervision, again in contravention of the NPT and associated agreements. Given Iran's penchant for concealing aspects of their program, it is not unreasonable to assume they have other clandestine enrichment facilities that have not been declared or monitored.

The bigger concern is that they have been enriching to 20%, which is technically usable for a nuclear weapon (though 85%+ is much better), and has little civilian application. It's also much easier and faster to convert 20% HEU into weapons grade uranium then from the LEU they've been producing in the past. I think it's fair to say that Iran is either trying to be 'nuclear capable' though not nuclear armed, or is actively pursuing a weapons program. In either case they have circumvented the global non-proliferation regime and have generally ignored the rules surrounding even a civilian nuclear program.

I think we can both agree NK is a problem, but I feel containment may be a reasonable approach to the NK situation, while I find it unlikely to work in Iran. I am uncomfortable with the idea of attacking Iran's nuclear program, given its protection, dispersion, secrecy, and the political implications of such an attack. But from a global threat perspective, Iran is definitely higher on my list than NK. Hell, I think Pakistan is a bigger risk than NK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

It is interesting to note that in 1850, China's had an estimated 450 million people (according to an unattributed Wikipedia source..), while the US had 23 million! Things change in a relative blink of an eye.

---

Those numbers for China are a bit iffy, but not unreasonable. Then again, China accounted for the largest share of global GDP for a very long time that has only been briefly interrupted by the industrial revolution and (brief) rise of hyper-wealth and productivity in the Western world. The world is slowly reverting to a more even distribution of per-capita production, meaning that population tends to matter more and more.

I think that China is facing some serious demographic headwinds, given the legacy of the one child policy and their aging population. The aging phenomenon that is affecting rich Western nations seems to be accelerated in major developing countries, especially China (and Japan earlier in the century), which is exacerbated by tight population controls. This likely means that the slowdown in population growth will hit some developing economies faster than the US and other nations, and will hinder them from fully catching up on a per capita basis. Certainly, it looks like global population is going to peak somewhere in the middle of this century and start declining, though obviously some countries will continue to grow while others will shrink. I also would hesitate to discount the effects of immigration on global population balances - if the US continues to be a magnet for high immigration this century, that might be a major balancing factor in overall population (one estimate I saw said US population might hit 1 billion by 2100) - as it is, US population is currently about 23% of China's but will likely rise to ~28% by 2050.

I saw an interesting discussion about this recently. For China's GDP to be about double the US', they would have to have a GDP per capita roughly similar to Portugal or Saudi Arabia. This seems readily doable in a fairly short amount of time, even with some minor changes in population growth, a strengthening yuan (mostly due to higher inflation rather than changing exchange rates), etc. This reality would completely change the way the world works - the US would only have half the production of China! Yet for China to move from a Portugal to a US level of per capita prosperity would take a lot more time and effort, and might not even be possible in a state managed economy. Getting to the advancing front of technology and innovation takes a lot more work than just taking existing ideas and applying them to your economy. I think this means that even though China (and eventually India) is going to be a major economic power in the coming decades, rich Western economies will still continue to attract most of the skilled immigrants, which will continue to be a major factor driving innovation and growth (and will help to stave off demographic concerns).

There's no question that China is here to stay - they're not some Japanese giant that will fade into relative obscurity (apparently in the 80s people were predicting the Japanese economy would surpass the US economy in short order). Simple population and rapid industrialization is going to make them a player whether or not they reach the lofty heights of wealth found in the US or Norway or Switzerland.

Quote:

---

Yeah, NK's threat is that it is an unstable one-man dictatorship. China is a much more stable bureaucratic-consenus dictatorship.

---

I wasn't referring to the chances of NK entering a military confrontation with the US (far higher than with China), but the potential strategic damage they could inflict on the US (far lower than China). From a perspective of planning our future geopolitical moves an military posture, China is far more important than NK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

I saw an interesting discussion about this recently. For China's GDP to be about double the US', they would have to have a GDP per capita roughly similar to Portugal or Saudi Arabia. This seems readily doable in a fairly short amount of time, even with some minor changes in population growth, a strengthening yuan (mostly due to higher inflation rather than changing exchange rates), etc. This reality would completely change the way the world works - the US would only have half the production of China! Yet for China to move from a Portugal to a US level of per capita prosperity would take a lot more time and effort, and might not even be possible in a state managed economy. Getting to the advancing front of technology and innovation takes a lot more work than just taking existing ideas and applying them to your economy. I think this means that even though China (and eventually India) is going to be a major economic power in the coming decades, rich Western economies will still continue to attract most of the skilled immigrants, which will continue to be a major factor driving innovation and growth (and will help to stave off demographic concerns).

---

I don't buy that. Look up the GDP per capita (nominal) for South Korea and Taiwan (both are about $16-17k). They both have a far more transparent financial sector and a more market-oriented economy than does China. Without massive political and economic reform, I find it very difficult to believe that China will surpass a GDP per capita of $15k. And as it approaches that number, it will face increasing domestic pressures to change, and likely a rise in Han and non-Han nationalism. I'd put higher odds on China descending into a civil war than it hitting a GDP per capita of $20k in the next half century (unless there's some massive economic advancement in the world that increases everyone's GDP).

Loki, look at the PPP GDP per capita rather than the nominal amount; given the monkeying with currencies, PPP is what matters. Taiwan is $34,700 (higher than France), SK is $29,800 (higher than Spain and Italy), and Portugal is just over $23,000 (about half of the US' $47,000). China's PPP GDP per capita is about $7500, far higher than the nominal exchange rate of $4300; that means they'd need to roughly triple production to be in line with Portugal and its ilk. With a current per capita growth rate of ~8% (which has been in the ballpark of 8% for quite some time), it would take ~20 years to reach half of the US' GDP per capita (assuming 2% per capita growth in the US, which is somewhat generous). Now, I'm the first to admit that growth will probably start to slow in the coming years as various problems start to take hold, but I wouldn't be surprised if they got there within 30 years. Even if there are issues, there will also be opportunities - in general, China's story has been one of slowly opening up to the markets and a rapidly industrializing peasant class. There's still a huge reservoir of people living away from the coastal regions who are dirt poor - lift a few hundred million out of abject poverty, and you're a big chunk of the way there already. Combine it with market reforms and foreign investment, and I would not be surprised at all to see a Chinese GDP that's more than double US GDP within 50 years if not sooner.

I can't really quantify the political risks - to be honest, I don't think many people thought China would get even this far without significant internal dissent. Anything's possible, but I think trying to speculate on the stability of the Chinese government is complete guessing; AFAIK their situation is fairly unprecedented. Absent major political upheaval, though, I can't see anything that would do more than delay this point by a few years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Loki, look at the PPP GDP per capita rather than the nominal amount; given the monkeying with currencies, PPP is what matters.

---

I beg to differ. Purchasing power is a subjective measure that relies on someone's ability to purchase a specific basket of goods. Nominal GDP is what you get when trying to exchange currency. If China wants to give foreign aid to someone or purchase resources, no one's going to care what China's PPP is.

Other than tiny Singapore and some oil-producing states, no dictatorship has managed a GDP per capita of anywhere near $23k (that would make China's GDP double that of America's). And I doubt any country with per capita income of that level has anywhere near as much government interference in the economy as we see in China. China can still grow a lot without major problems (due to factors you mentioned), but its financial, social, economic, and political system will prevent it from coming anywhere near the major Western states. Japan has hit a plateau despite not facing nearly the same amount of issues as China.

You know, Loki, I remember having this same argument with you before. Except you were arguing Wiggin's current side, and I was arguing your current side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I beg to differ. Purchasing power is a subjective measure that relies on someone's ability to purchase a specific basket of goods. Nominal GDP is what you get when trying to exchange currency. If China wants to give foreign aid to someone or purchase resources, no one's going to care what China's PPP is.

---

Bullshit, PPP matters for a lot. Look at the yuan exchange rate - it's a managed exchange rate, so the nominal rate is meaningless for determining the real value of the yuan. The effective exchange rate, though, has been changing quite quickly due to inflation in China and near-deflation in the US. Ditto for many developing (or not-so-developing) countries that finesse their exchange rates during crises to protect exporting industries, but they're stuck between exchange rates and inflation. Case in point: Stanley Fischer has bought a ridiculous number of dollars to keep the NIS down in the face of higher growth and interest rates. Unfortunately, since the underlying economics don't lie, he's stuck with higher than planned inflation because he won't raise interest rates any further (which would put more pressure on his dollar-buying strategy). PPP matters, especially in the case of surplus countries right now (which most definitely include PRC, Taiwan, and SK).

Quote:

---

Other than tiny Singapore and some oil-producing states, no dictatorship has managed a GDP per capita of anywhere near $23k (that would make China's GDP double that of America's).

---

Please, you can't honestly expect me to accept a comparison between China and most of the tiny POS dictatorships out there. Most of those have nothing like the growth or growth prospects of China we've already seen; I can't imagine why we should draw a comparison.

Quote:

---

And I doubt any country with per capita income of that level has anywhere near as much government interference in the economy as we see in China. China can still grow a lot without major problems (due to factors you mentioned), but its financial, social, economic, and political system will prevent it from coming anywhere near the major Western states. Japan has hit a plateau despite not facing nearly the same amount of issues as China.

---

It won't come near any major Western states - just half as wealthy per capita as the Western 'standard' (maybe 2/3 as wealthy as some other major Western economies out there) - and while they certainly have a lot of government interference, the 'state capitalism' model they've adopted seems to foster reasonable investment and growth despite the political risks (I doubt it's good enough to go from the Portugal level to the US level, though).

Japan is an utterly ridiculous comparison; their population is 127 million, about 40% of the US population. To even reach parity with the US economy, they'd have to be more than twice as productive, which is absurdly difficult for any large nation. They did manage to reach a GDP per capita in spitting distance of the US (briefly higher, actually), though the PPP values have dropped dramatically in the last two decades of deflation. While there are some superficial similarities in the difficulties facing each economy (particularly demographic), the driving force behind China's remarkable growth is that it's really easy to gain ground when you're taking hundreds of millions of unskilled workers and giving them proven technology to produce stuff. Closing the first 1/3 to 1/2 of the productivity gap between the poor world and the leading edge of technological innovation is easy; Japan had passed that a long time beforehand, and the fundamentals that were driving their growth were different and unsustainable. In China's it's nearly an inevitability that the economy will have a lot of room for playing catch-up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

You know, Loki, I remember having this same argument with you before. Except you were arguing Wiggin's current side, and I was arguing your current side.

---

The GDP debate or China debate? I'm pretty sure I've always been a supporter of the nominal measure because that's what foreign aid and weapon imports/exports are measured in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Bullshit, PPP matters for a lot. Look at the yuan exchange rate - it's a managed exchange rate, so the nominal rate is meaningless for determining the real value of the yuan. The effective exchange rate, though, has been changing quite quickly due to inflation in China and near-deflation in the US. Ditto for many developing (or not-so-developing) countries that finesse their exchange rates during crises to protect exporting industries, but they're stuck between exchange rates and inflation. Case in point: Stanley Fischer has bought a ridiculous number of dollars to keep the NIS down in the face of higher growth and interest rates. Unfortunately, since the underlying economics don't lie, he's stuck with higher than planned inflation because he won't raise interest rates any further (which would put more pressure on his dollar-buying strategy). PPP matters, especially in the case of surplus countries right now (which most definitely include PRC, Taiwan, and SK).

---

When it comes to foreign policy, a low cost of living within a country is irrelevant. Sure, China devalues its currency, which means that its real GDP might be 10-20% higher than is implied by the nominal figure. But if it stopped the devaluing, its exports would fall and imports would go up, which would eventually wipe out most of that difference. Meanwhile, the PPP measure is meaningless. Does the fact that food and consumer goods in China are cheap somehow make it easier for China to give foreign aid, buy arms, import natural resources, pay foreign advisers, etc.? If the price of food in China goes down by 10% tomorrow, does that mean that China is 5% more powerful (assuming food makes up half of the basket of goods on which PPP is calculated)?

Quote:

---

Please, you can't honestly expect me to accept a comparison between China and most of the tiny POS dictatorships out there. Most of those have nothing like the growth or growth prospects of China we've already seen; I can't imagine why we should draw a comparison.

---

I would argue the opposite. Small countries can grow easier than larger ones. All they have to do is find a niche. China needs across the board growth in order to significantly expand its economy. It also can't rely on exports once its economy growth more, unlike a Singapore or South Korea.

Quote:

---

It won't come near any major Western states - just half as wealthy per capita as the Western 'standard' (maybe 2/3 as wealthy as some other major Western economies out there) - and while they certainly have a lot of government interference, the 'state capitalism' model they've adopted seems to foster reasonable investment and growth despite the political risks (I doubt it's good enough to go from the Portugal level to the US level, though).

---

I could say the same about communism in the USSR and even North Korea. An economic model that creates exponential growth when a country is poor isn't going to play the same role once it's somewhat developed. It's no secret that a totalitarian state is good at industrialization; it's also no secret that such a system has never produced growth based on information technology and services.

Quote:

---

Japan is an utterly ridiculous comparison; their population is 127 million, about 40% of the US population. To even reach parity with the US economy, they'd have to be more than twice as productive, which is absurdly difficult for any large nation. They did manage to reach a GDP per capita in spitting distance of the US (briefly higher, actually), though the PPP values have dropped dramatically in the last two decades of deflation. While there are some superficial similarities in the difficulties facing each economy (particularly demographic), the driving force behind China's remarkable growth is that it's really easy to gain ground when you're taking hundreds of millions of unskilled workers and giving them proven technology to produce stuff. Closing the first 1/3 to 1/2 of the productivity gap between the poor world and the leading edge of technological innovation is easy; Japan had passed that a long time beforehand, and the fundamentals that were driving their growth were different and unsustainable. In China's it's nearly an inevitability that the economy will have a lot of room for playing catch-up.

---

How's that relevant to Japan not being able to maintain its economic progress due to a fatally flawed banking and corporate systems? Japan had roughly the same growth China is enjoying it now. But even despite liberalizing far more than we see from China now, Japan was simply not equipped for the modern global economy. China is far less able to survive as a middle income country than a Japan. A huge portion of Chinese growth is based on government-owned, controlled, or closely-monitored corporations. They do not act to maximize profit, and have been unable to innovate. Furthermore, the marginal return on investing a dollar in China has been decreasing and is at ridiculously low levels now. Once the remaining 200-300 million Chinese rural workers enter the industrial work force, which will boost the Chinese GDP by no more than a quarter, there will be no more basis for rapid growth. China is becoming less and less attractive as a source of cheap labor (because the price of labor is increasing), yet it lacks the economic or political infrastructure to maintain its growth rate as a post-industrial economy. Past performance is no guarantee of future performance, especially when the latter depends on a plethora of different factors from the former.

Quote:

---

North Korea has more than 800 ballistic missiles and more than 1,000 missiles of various ranges. It has sold missiles and technology overseas, with Iran a top buyer.

---

Doesn't America have close to 2k of those? And aren't ours nuclear? The whole world would immediately suppress their insurgent behavior if they did attack anyone. Only way i could see them gain enough momentum to harm any superpower would be with if China blessed Korea with its army/nukes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omega

Doesn't America have close to 2k of those? And aren't ours nuclear? The whole world would immediately suppress their insurgent behavior if they did attack anyone. Only way i could see them gain enough momentum to harm any superpower would be with if China blessed Korea with its army/nukes.

---

So as long as they aren't nuking superpowers you're okay with them nuking , oh, I don't know, South Korea?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlelolligagged

So as long as they aren't nuking superpowers you're okay with them nuking , oh, I don't know, South Korea?

---

no, not at all, don't misconstrue what i said. the balance of power and current alliances make it impossible for north korea to touch a country without fear of provoking a super power. even most African countries are aligned with leading nations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

When it comes to foreign policy, a low cost of living within a country is irrelevant. Sure, China devalues its currency, which means that its real GDP might be 10-20% higher than is implied by the nominal figure. But if it stopped the devaluing, its exports would fall and imports would go up, which would eventually wipe out most of that difference. Meanwhile, the PPP measure is meaningless. Does the fact that food and consumer goods in China are cheap somehow make it easier for China to give foreign aid, buy arms, import natural resources, pay foreign advisers, etc.? If the price of food in China goes down by 10% tomorrow, does that mean that China is 5% more powerful (assuming food makes up half of the basket of goods on which PPP is calculated)?

---

You're assuming per capita GDP is only used for foreign purchases? Also, just because the yuan-dollar exchange rate is messed up doesn't mean it doesn't have a more normal exchange rate with other countries (notably trade surplus countries who form major trade partners with China). You'd have to normalize the yuan-denominated GDP growth to its trade-weighted exchange rate for a reasonable measure of how much it can buy or do in the foreign market. You're also ignoring the domestic market, which is pretty damn big and growing. That questions your assumption that an appreciating yuan will hurt growth - sure, export-driven growth will suffer, but domestic demand will increase.

Quote:

---

I would argue the opposite. Small countries can grow easier than larger ones. All they have to do is find a niche. China needs across the board growth in order to significantly expand its economy. It also can't rely on exports once its economy growth more, unlike a Singapore or South Korea.

---

It might need across the board growth, but it has a larger pool of low-producing workers to improve. I'm not sure how this would affect per capita growth. The point isn't just an economic one - China's size lends it some stability and resistance to outside influences, in a way that a small dictatorship doesn't.

Quote:

---

I could say the same about communism in the USSR and even North Korea. An economic model that creates exponential growth when a country is poor isn't going to play the same role once it's somewhat developed. It's no secret that a totalitarian state is good at industrialization; it's also no secret that such a system has never produced growth based on information technology and services.

---

Please, don't try bringing NK into this - the economic model isn't even close to the same. I'd say the USSR's model was marginally closer, but not much (though in the early 70s, USSR per capita GDP was over 40% of US per capita GDP, on a PPP basis). AFAIK there have been no large scale experiments with this weird fusion of relatively open markets and heavy state control. China is fundamentally open to FDI and has open trade relations with much of the world; something neither NK or the USSR had. Yes, there are restrictions, currency manipulation, corruption, protectionism, etc. - and I think this does hurt their long term growth prospects. But I'm betting they can go pretty far before the slowdown hits. (Also, you think you need significant IT innovation and services to get an economy to 23k per capita GDP?!)

Quote:

---

How's that relevant to Japan not being able to maintain its economic progress due to a fatally flawed banking and corporate systems? Japan had roughly the same growth China is enjoying it now. But even despite liberalizing far more than we see from China now, Japan was simply not equipped for the modern global economy.

---

The point is that Japan and China are different. Japan's assets and problems were very different than China's are today, and there wasn't a chance Japan would ever surpass the US economy in terms of size (when it's pretty much a foregone conclusion the Chinese economy will be bigger than the US economy - the question is only how much bigger).

I'm not expecting China to reach Japanese levels of prosperity, even after their two lost decades. I'm expecting them to be able to match half of US per capita GDP, which Japan did in about 1960 (in nominal terms) and 1969 (in PPP terms). Japan's problems and slowing growth happened 2-3 decades later.

Quote:

---

China is far less able to survive as a middle income country than a Japan. A huge portion of Chinese growth is based on government-owned, controlled, or closely-monitored corporations. They do not act to maximize profit, and have been unable to innovate. Furthermore, the marginal return on investing a dollar in China has been decreasing and is at ridiculously low levels now. Once the remaining 200-300 million Chinese rural workers enter the industrial work force, which will boost the Chinese GDP by no more than a quarter, there will be no more basis for rapid growth. China is becoming less and less attractive as a source of cheap labor (because the price of labor is increasing), yet it lacks the economic or political infrastructure to maintain its growth rate as a post-industrial economy. Past performance is no guarantee of future performance, especially when the latter depends on a plethora of different factors from the former.

---

I'm skeptical that adding 300 million productive workers would only add ~$1.25 trillion to Chinese GDP, and you're also assuming that you can't squeeze any more efficiencies out of their current non-peasant workforce, which is absurd given the huge productivity gaps. I've said it before, but I'll emphasize it here: you don't need a post-industrial economy to reach $23k per capita GDP. (Also, I think your numbers are low - the rural workforce is about 500 million, I believe.)

That being said, I agree that Chinese labor is going to get more expensive, mostly from upward pressure on the yuan (there are already Chinese firms outsourcing to other Asian countries), but that hardly means the economy will become stagnant or that they're out of growth from their extremely large labor pool. I also agree that the share of government firms in their economy is too high, but I don't see that as a major impediment to near term growth, and as FDI increases, the share of government-owned firms will decrease.

Don't get me wrong: the Chinese economy has a lot of things wrong with it, and I seriously doubt their economic model is likely to compete successfully with capitalism on the long term. But I definitely think they have lots of easy catch up to do before the flaws in their economic model start to become apparent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omega

Doesn't America have close to 2k of those? And aren't ours nuclear? The whole world would immediately suppress their insurgent behavior if they did attack anyone. Only way i could see them gain enough momentum to harm any superpower would be with if China blessed Korea with its army/nukes.

---

Last I knew, the US had about 800 ICBMs deployed, at maybe a 4:3 ratio of land-based and sea-based assets. I think the current disarmament goal is to get down to 450 missiles. I do not recall how many MIRV warheads we have stockpiled right now, but I believe all deployed missiles currently carry single-warhead payloads.

We do have conventional ballistic missiles as well, though not of the intercontinental variety. There was some brief interest in a conventional ICBM called 'Prompt Global Strike', but the program was canceled for obvious reasons. Most conventional ballistic missiles in the US inventory are tactical systems; serious use of ballistic missiles for conventional use is generally limited to technology of Russian origin.

As for MIRVed warheads, I believe all of our SLBMs are still MIRVs. Also, it's a bit meaningless to say we have X number of deployed delivery systems, since we have several times that number of warheads in reserve. Nevertheless, this is a meaningless number - it's more than enough to destroy anything we'd want to, and even one nuke in an enemy, unstable regime is a big concern.

North Korea doesn't want a war. All this latest nonsense from them is posturing to usher in the new Dear Leader. They can now turn to their population and talk about how he stopped an invasion from the South and US through his brilliant strategic leadership! North Korea knows that the US can kick their butts in a conventional war, provided the US doesn't get bogged down in a land war...and they know there wont be a land invasion anyway as China would not tolerate US forces near their land border on the peninsula.

A few small points here about China's GDP growth. In my opinion, it is in no way assured that China will continue to amass GDP-per-capita growth.

Per-capita GDP does not really even out in the real world, unlike the economic theory taught in macro-economics courses. There's a real question of natural resource usage and human health to consider:
* low health (as in bad air quality) kills GDP, naturally.
* poor harvests means bad produce and poor health -- most crops cannot be economically transported long distances, because of spoilage costs and transport (high oil!) costs. It does not help that world commodity prices (which affects all local fresh produce, not just corn syrup) is high.

To both these ends:
* Remember, much of China is desert and/or very mountainous, and the desert is getting bigger daily due to poor farmers over-farming.
* Also remember how China being the manufacturing center of the world killed its water and soil quality. According to a news report (on CNN, I think, or MSNBC) the Beijing government can't handle half of the trash output, and so it ends up in illegal landfills and in the rivers and oceans...

Both these things are going to really hurt China's GDP growth.

Two wild-card factors are the global demand for high-tech sector employees and health-consciousness.

+: On the one hand, the Chinese are much more health-conscious (atm) than Americans, and that counts in their GDP-favor.

-: On the other hand, the various high-tech sectors, which currently earn the US a large part of its GDP, have stagnated in terms of salary growth, even in China, in my opinion (and based on random articles).

So, where do people get jobs? There will be no more manufacturing jobs beyond a certain point, because manufacturing jobs pollute and hurt country-wide health. (global-wide -- global warming) There are no farming jobs beyond a certain point -- because of desertification and mechanization. It constrains people leaving the countryside towards low-paid service jobs -- which add very little wealth to the economy as a whole (and pay little, naturally).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

* low health (as in bad air quality) kills GDP, naturally.
* poor harvests means bad produce and poor health -- most crops cannot be economically transported long distances, because of spoilage costs and transport (high oil!) costs. It does not help that world commodity prices (which affects all local fresh produce, not just corn syrup) is high.

---

China is addressing both. Unlike western nations who are still arguing over the merits of global warming and what not, China is investing big in renewable energy (this is bad news for my country, Australia, as coal export to China is pretty much our biggest industry). Furthermore China is investing in RAIL, yes TRAINS at a frantic rate. They, again, unlike most nations outside Europe have recognized the efficiency that rail gives when hauling large quantities of goods and masses of people over long distances.

My dumbarse backwards nation on the other hand still builds roads (and subsidizes them) even for interstate freight haulage and lets the rail network stagnate and deteriorate claiming that rail has to pay its own way or shut...

Also, I see no reason why internal demand cannot increase in China. Their service economy is growing just like has happened in the West, drawing more people out of the countryside.

China has its problems, including the issues of its ethnic minorities that we occasionally hear about, and the imbalance of males vs females due to the One Child Policy, but the truth is they have one major advantage over other economically powerful nations: they don't get bogged down in pointless idealogical debates like other nations that are based on emotional and uninformed responses to issues rather than taking logical courses of action.

I once heard someone say that "China does capitalism better than the US, because they understand that sometimes the government needs to invest where the private sector wont (i.e. renewable energy and rail networks), providing the foundations and infrastructure that better allow the private sector to thrive later on." (or to that effect).

I would tend to agree, and believe that they pretty must right now are doing better than anyone. But I fear most will call me a socialist!

(We currently have the same debate going on down here, National Broadband Network and Metro Rail networks in the state capitals which governments HATE investing in despite more and more people are using them, for example).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

We do have conventional ballistic missiles as well, though not of the intercontinental variety. There was some brief interest in a conventional ICBM called 'Prompt Global Strike', but the program was canceled for obvious reasons. Most conventional ballistic missiles in the US inventory are tactical systems; serious use of ballistic missiles for conventional use is generally limited to technology of Russian origin.

As for MIRVed warheads, I believe all of our SLBMs are still MIRVs. Also, it's a bit meaningless to say we have X number of deployed delivery systems, since we have several times that number of warheads in reserve. Nevertheless, this is a meaningless number - it's more than enough to destroy anything we'd want to, and even one nuke in an enemy, unstable regime is a big concern.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Last I knew, the US had about 800 ICBMs deployed, at maybe a 4:3 ratio of land-based and sea-based assets. I think the current disarmament goal is to get down to 450 missiles. I do not recall how many MIRV warheads we have stockpiled right now, but I believe all deployed missiles currently carry single-warhead payloads.

---

Ah, i read somewhere online, might have been an article, might not have been. I should have double-checked in order to check the validity of the numbers I provided. However, as Lane mentioned, we have more than anyone in the world. We're also an interventionist nation by nature, there is no way we'd let up a chance to flaunt our giant dong in the world's face.

Those in Korea would be better off dead, Kim will not enter a war for fear of actually having his approval rating increase...

There will remain a stalemate on the Korean Peninsula just as long as none of the involved nations has any interests in going to war. Logically I can't see anyone benefiting from it. North Korea knows this, which is why they are able to get away with occasional acts of aggression towards the South. They don't actually fear major reprisals from the South or the US for their small actions because they know they wont come.

North Korea's greatest threat is if its brainwash hold on its people cracks and they begin to learn more of the outside world and how much they as a people are being screwed over by their illusions of the greatness of the Dear Leader. Most dictatorships/monarchies in modern history have been destroyed not by outside powers, but from within (sometimes peacefully, sometimes not). They know this.

Don't worry too much about ICBM ratios or MIRV capability, thats silly talk. Any nuke attack on the US and North Korea would basically be exterminating themselves (so people of America, chill out for once and throw a party). I wonder how China would respond to such close US nuclear action though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Lane

There will remain a stalemate on the Korean Peninsula just as long as none of the involved nations has any interests in going to war. Logically I can't see anyone benefiting from it. North Korea knows this, which is why they are able to get away with occasional acts of aggression towards the South. They don't actually fear major reprisals from the South or the US for their small actions because they know they wont come.

---

Pre-WWII Germany? We might be sailing down a, once calm now, tumultuous river riddled with jagged protruding rocks if we do not penalize their belligerent behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omega

Pre-WWII Germany? We might be sailing down a, once calm now, tumultuous river riddled with jagged protruding rocks if we do not penalize their belligerent behavior.

---

The situation is different. Hitler honestly believed in the aryan race and was so full of bitter hatred that he wanted the world to be in his vision. Also, he built up the Nazi forces quickly and with purpose. The likes of Churchill knew it was happening even if the cabinet at Westminster ignored him.

The North Koreans have been sitting around not doing much for decades, and the Dear Leader is an old man. If he has aspirations of even provincial domination he would have done it long ago.

No, their deal is preservation of the dynasty and keeping the powerful rulers at the top powerful (though they have to watch their backs...I believe the Dear Leader can basically bump off anyone he chooses!).

Having said all of this, whilst I commend and understand their restraint, I do believe that the South was too timid in its response. Citizens and military personal died in the recent attacks and the South should let North Korea know that they cannot go around using their neighbors as pawns in their pathetic internal political games.

The threat of attack from N. Korea is minimal compared to the threat of them selling nuclear tech/material to extremist groups. If they become a supplier of 'dirty-bombs' to terrorists and other rogue nations it would be a far worse scenario than a limited nuclear exchange on the peninsula. Even if they only supply delivery systems, which they seem to enjoy demonstrating openly from time to time, the results could be devastating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rumrunner

The threat of attack from N. Korea is minimal compared to the threat of them selling nuclear tech/material to extremist groups. If they become a supplier of 'dirty-bombs' to terrorists and other rogue nations it would be a far worse scenario than a limited nuclear exchange on the peninsula. Even if they only supply delivery systems, which they seem to enjoy demonstrating openly from time to time, the results could be devastating.

---

Dirty bombs are weapons of fear that do almost no damage other than from the initial conventional explosion. There is very little radiological threat from them unless they are packaged with unrealistic amounts of radioactive material. From Wiki:

"Since a dirty bomb is unlikely to cause many deaths, many do not consider this to be a weapon of mass destruction.[3] Its purpose would presumably be to create psychological, not physical, harm through ignorance, mass panic, and terror. For this reason dirty bombs are sometimes called "weapons of mass disruption". Additionally, containment and decontamination of thousands of victims, as well as decontamination of the affected area might require considerable time and expense, rendering areas partly unusable and causing economic damage."

A "limited nuclear exchange" would be infinitely worse.

As for delivery systems, Russia still goes around "assisting" other nations with their Scud-derived missiles for cash.


There is rumor and what not that North Korea has sold weapons technology or "assisted" other nations with their weapons programs, but very little has been substantiated. None of the technologies that have actually crossed borders have been nuclear related. Most of the weapons trade has been either small arms and missiles or long range tactical missiles like Scud derivatives. Usually these have gone to, or rumored to have gone to African nations in small numbers. Its not like Russia doesn't already do the same...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Lane

or long range tactical missiles like Scud derivatives.

---

What makes you think smaller missiles can't hold nukes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

What makes you think smaller missiles can't hold nukes?

---

I thought he implied their devastating effects were simply not as calamitous as the jumbo tactical nuke's ramifications, or am I being stupid? either way, he seems to know what he's talking about; i'd cut him some slack, maybe he mistyped or didn't elaborate enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

What makes you think smaller missiles can't hold nukes?

---

Indeed they can. But long range missiles aren't going to be used by terrorists to attack US soil: They don't have intercontinental range and are too complex to operate and maintain anyway. Terrorists are more likely to smuggle in a bomb in a cargo hold of a ship for example.

As for selling such technology to other nations: assuming other nations work out how to build a bomb and fit the warhead to the missiles they still can't attack the US due to the range. Missiles like the Scud are perfect for attacking Israel from Iran, however...

I really don't believe any states would be stupid enough to go down the nuclear path against the US and no small power like North Korea would do it against any of the US's friends either. In fact as a believer in the MAD doctrine I doubt two nuclear armed states would ever go to nuclear war with one another: any dispute would probably be resolved conventionally. Terrorists are another issue though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Lane

As for selling such technology to other nations: assuming other nations work out how to build a bomb and fit the warhead to the missiles they still can't attack the US due to the range. Missiles like the Scud are perfect for attacking Israel from Iran, however...

---

Not really, Scud designs are pretty short range and wouldn't allow Iran to reach Israel with most of the variants. They'd need medium-range ballistic missiles to do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr. Lane

Dirty bombs are weapons of fear that do almost no damage other than from the initial conventional explosion. There is very little radiological threat from them unless they are packaged with unrealistic amounts of radioactive material. From Wiki:

"Since a dirty bomb is unlikely to cause many deaths, many do not consider this to be a weapon of mass destruction.[3] Its purpose would presumably be to create psychological, not physical, harm through ignorance, mass panic, and terror. For this reason dirty bombs are sometimes called "weapons of mass disruption". Additionally, containment and decontamination of thousands of victims, as well as decontamination of the affected area might require considerable time and expense, rendering areas partly unusable and causing economic damage."

A "limited nuclear exchange" would be infinitely worse.

As for delivery systems, Russia still goes around "assisting" other nations with their Scud-derived missiles for cash.


There is rumor and what not that North Korea has sold weapons technology or "assisted" other nations with their weapons programs, but very little has been substantiated. None of the technologies that have actually crossed borders have been nuclear related. Most of the weapons trade has been either small arms and missiles or long range tactical missiles like Scud derivatives. Usually these have gone to, or rumored to have gone to African nations in small numbers. Its not like Russia doesn't already do the same...

---

I know what a dirty bomb is, and your right on the point that they don't do much damage one won't anyway. But fear on the other hand, is a very powerful weapon. Uncertainty,as to how many of these devices there are, causes a lot of fear. Just look at all the crap that has come pass due to the events of 9/11, and imagine what would happen if the public learned that an extremist group had just detonated a dirty bomb.
The Russians are not hiding anything, N. Korea might be, and definitely would hide any deals with terrorists. Legitimate but unfriendly (towards the west)governments won't care what we or anybody else thinks.
The current tech level of the NK regime was not fully known until recently. Inspectors were shocked and terrified at what they learned when seeing the new reactor and refining abilities they have. With Kim Jung Il soon to be out (he can't live forever) and his heir a complete unknown as to what he'll do and how he'll react to any given situation. Who knows, he might open up and be completely amicable to peace with the world. He might, however, be as mad as his father, or worse. More than likely, not much will change with the Korean situation. The real damage they do is in destabilizing the region and the way the world must deal with them, a situation the Chinese seem to be losing control of IMO.