On 12 Oct 2003 11:41:59 -0700, (Spehro Pefhany) wrote:
Current projections for 2040 are that China will have the world's largest
economy (it's only recently surpassed that of Canada, one of the smallest
G7 members, but still the US largest trading partner). Followed by the
US economy and (closely) by India. Of course projecting that far out in
advance is sure to be way off, but it indicates the trends.

Economic prosperity is based on 3 legs, labor, capital, and raw materials.
China and India have a large advantage in terms of labor. They're the
two most populous nations on Earth. Up until recently, they haven't had
access to large amounts of capital. But that's changing as the multi-
nationals (companies and banks) compete to invest in those countries.
Raw materials have become a global commodity, so having abundant
local supplies (which was a huge advantage of the US in an earlier era)
is no longer a critical factor.

Americans will still be richer than Chinese, but by maybe 2:1 rather
than 30:1 or more. Obviously, if that more economically egalitarian
world, if it comes to pass, will be quite different from today's. The same
projections showed Russia to be relatively insignificant economically.

Russia is a paradox. They have vast natural resources. They have a
well educated work force. But they lack capital, and the work ethic
to utilize it efficiently. Their government still wants to obstruct rather
than promote investment. That could change, but until it does,
Russia won't be a major world player.

And, for the paranoid, militarily, an ascendant China will not acquiesce
to having another nation able to rain death down upon them from space
without possibility of retribution. They are definitely looking 50 years+
into the future. As the march towards a US missile shield and the
militarization of space seem inevitable, we can expect that they will
do at least the minimum required to maintain a credible deterrent.
For the moment, not much is required of them, some modifications to
the reentry vehicles of ICBMs, but longer term, denial of the use of
space for potential foes, and space-based weapons are probably a
necessary security issue for them. Of course the current lurch
towards unilateralism, PNAC and the rest serves to crystalize
the matter.

Absolutely.

They have announced plans to send a man to the moon, and eventually to
Mars. Although the technology they are using now is old-ish (Apollo era/
Soyuz for the spacecraft), this is non-trivial.

Note that the US is also contemplating returning to a capsule type design.
Wings on spaceships never made a lot of sense.

I wonder what the effect would be on the West of seeing a Chinese
astronaut plant that red flag with yellow stars on the surface of our
one moon, let alone Mars.

Probably most of the world will yawn. Support for space exploration has
declined sharply since the Apollo Moon landings. Most people don't see
the benefits of space exploration and exploitation. If the Chinese start
turning a *profit* on it, though, people will begin to sit up and take
notice.

If the initial flight is successful I do plan to toast their accomplishment,
but we have to think about this tit-for-tat stuff in the military area.
Eventually it will all come home to roost, and announcing plans for
absolute military dominance over a potential foe as a long-term
objective shows some real lack of understanding of human nature.

The military advantages of being able to operate from the top of the
gravity well are enormous. It is an old military maxim that one should
take and hold the high ground. But that's thinking in terms of conventional
warfare. In the 21st century, I suspect that most warfare will be carried
out by unconventional means (guerilla war, economic war, information
war, etc). So conventional military thinking is of less value than in the
past.

Gary