Top 10 Richest Countries in 2050 according to Citibank

[timetravel]

Start reasoning than thinking logically. Even China had enough firepower to grab India's major part during 1962 and even after that but they acted smart.

please don't praise China with closed eyes .. 62 China left AP before Chinese got decimated by Indian reinforcements and Chinese had no supply chain to support their troops... it was impossible for them to hold on to even AP then, so there is no question of grabbing any major part.

Chinese would never let go any land if they could hold on to it. (case in point Tibet)

 

[Icewolf]

Ooh and by the way. Those nukes you keep bragging about, they'll affect Pakistan as much as India. Check the weather patterns, and see how the radioactive clouds go. India and Pakistan are too close for a nuclear war.

Yeah I know, thats why they are last resort, Sherlock

 

[EzioAltaïr]

I never said that. I said people in Pakistan generally live better than normal Indians

Yup, sure whatever you say. You're always correct Maharaja.

 

[KRAIT]

I also believe there are many steps to be taken to reach the goal.. but I trust that India will be there...analysts world over also know the problems and issues being faced but only if they believe they would be overcome or can be overcome will they make their predictions.... so as of now India is going in right direction and I believe necessary steps should and will be taken along the way....

anyhow this is current prediction for India to be top economy by 2050....so if today someone asks which country has the best chance or will be biggest economy by 2050? (a fair question) then TODAY the answer is India.

and if it given goose bumps to chinese here that's also fair!!

Let me give you an example of Sudden Impulsive Event. 9/11- WTC Attack.

Now go through all the events related to War on Terror, in Middle East and South East Asia. In 1 decade, new nations have formed, India is in Afghanistan buying Mines (which you can never ever imagine when Taliban was in power), insurgency in Kashmir are relatively low (our defense preparedness also plays a role in it).

Can any genius analyst from India has thought of Islamic terrorists fighting against Pakistan, suicide attacks, Pakistan acting more on western than eastern front.

I agree if you want to fill the blank is India, but Brazil is also a strong candidate. Even Russia can come to its past glory in 4 decades. Its hard to pick in TODAY as world is more unstable than ever after cold-war.

See buddy, there is dynamics of a region which has stable and unstable points, these sudden events and the actions that follows with it creates an entirely different picture.

 

[chauism]

This century being Asian century and BRICS nations are more believable and realistic vision.

There may be sudden IMPULSIVE action which can change the trajectories which I think US is capable of doing. What we need especially India is disputes between Inda and China left untouched or low profile for at least 2 decades, Pakistan-India increasing more Economic Interdependency.

This whole region of Iran-Pakistan and Afghanistan is a play ground for giants like Russia, China and India. If we agree not to play Zero-Sum game, we can become more important in world front which I think China has reached while Russia(economically more than defense) and India(both economically and in defense) are trying to catch up.

Another aspect is India and China's influence in Africa. We should have detailed discussion or thread on this aspect as it is not discussed that much.

If we want this century to belong to Asia, peaceful environment, unity and corporation is more needed than ever now. That includes the animosity between Pakistan and India, Japan and China. The only reason the west is able to poke their nose and meddling in Asian countries affair for their own interests is because the hostilities that exists between those countries, and not surprisingly most of those hostilities originated from their actions in the past. However no disputes cannot be solved when cooler heads preveil. My questions for you my friend is how can we master our own destiny if we constantly need to seek advices and supports from someone else that is far away?

 

[EzioAltaïr]

Yes, basically i do deny that fact. If push comes to shove i have no doubt who would be the winner. So much defense budget money buys plenty. And it's plenty of the good stuff.

But that wasn't the point, a better question would be why would US go to war with China? Surely not WW3 because of some rocks?

Winner? In a "I nuke you, you nuke me scenario", who the bloody hell is gonna win? There's no winner here. Just two losers, one who has lost more than the other. I know USA may do crazy stuff, but attacking a nuclear-armed country (which possesses long range delivery systems) is downright suicidal. I have no doubt that China will be the bigger loser in the end, but USA won't risk the destruction of it's land and economy for that.

As for the second point about USA not wanting to fight over a few rocks, that's my point exactly. If the country we were talking about was someone weak, like Iraq, I'm sure USA would decimate the country. But now we're talking about China, and in comparison to the damage it can do to the US, the tactical gains are useless. So technically it is China's nuclear deterrent that is doing the work.

 

[timetravel]

If we want this century to belong to Asia, peaceful environment, unity and corporation is more needed than ever now. That includes the animosity between Pakistan and India, Japan and China. The only reason the west is able to poke their nose and meddling in Asian countries affair for their own interests is because the hostilities that exists between those countries, and not surprisingly most of those hostilities originated from their actions in the past. However no disputes cannot be solved when cooler heads preveil. My questions for you my friend is how can we master our own destiny if we constantly need to seek advices and supports from someone else that is far away?

are you for real. Tell me how many countries have claims on lands OCCUPIED and CONTROLLELD by China? In all cases it is China having desire to occupy other countries lands. There would be no conflict if China was to give up its greed for Indian lands. So Indo-China conflict is purely chinese greed to the fore. (similarly the case with SCS and Japanese disputes)

Borders should be defined where you have control as of today. If you try to change borders there is only one possible way: war and there goes your desire for Asian peace. So it is upto China to accept LOC as border and leave its greed of AP if it wants peace with India. (which i dont think ccp wants)

(now dont give me crap of 50000 year history. India can claim whole Tibet and other parts of China with that line)

and if your version of Asian century starts with India giving away all its lands to China to promote peace with China to bring in your desired Asian century, then there wont be any Asian century. One's greed cannot be reason for India to give away parts of its motherland. India want no peace if China thinks there cannot be peace without taking over AP. we are ready for the war whenever you want. Only way for Asian century (at least Indo China peace) is China giving up claims on AP. It is for Chinese to decide if they want Asian century or not as so far from their actions it seems, ccp is more interested in somehow pulling off Chinese century then Asian century by defeating other asian nations in wars or capturing their lands. But ccp wont ever succeed in this.

depending upon Chiense actions:
it will either be Asian century, or Asian destruction or Asian century with Chinese demise.

 

[chauism]

India gonna be the biggest economy in world in 2050 whether ccp likes it or not and your post shows that you have no idea of context of your own replies, and you just ramble to any point from post to post.

You have already proven your ability for reasoning and logic in many threads including this one, you want to go for the bonus points now? If you want to know what kind of poster I am here, just ask around from other Indian members.

 

[KRAIT]

please don't praise China with closed eyes .. 62 China left AP before Chinese got decimated by Indian reinforcements and Chinese had no supply chain to support their troops... it was impossible for them to hold on to even AP then, so there is no question of grabbing any major part.

Chinese would never let go any land if they could hold on to it. (case in point Tibet)

That's what I essentially said. They had chance even after 1962. Leave 1962 if you want to.

I am not praising China with blind eye. Do I know what is wrong in China, yes, many things. But failure to learn from enemy and taking it as ego/pride matter is idiotic. Look at any country which became super power. I want our system with specific qualities of China, US, France, Germany and Israel.

Their great characteristics which if included in Indian educational, industrial and social system, can give you this 2050 vision.

You don't agree with me, listen to what Narendra Modi says about vision, innovation and many things about China, Japan etc.

 

[Icewolf]

Yup, sure whatever you say. You're always correct Maharaja.

Go fetch me water, servant

 

[Audio]

Winner? In a "I nuke you, you nuke me scenario", who the bloody hell is gonna win? There's no winner here. Just two losers, one who has lost more than the other. I know USA may do crazy stuff, but attacking a nuclear-armed country (which possesses long range delivery systems) is downright suicidal. I have no doubt that China will be the bigger loser in the end, but USA won't risk the destruction of it's land and economy for that.

I didn't say US would start nuking, but in both scenarios, conventional and nuclear it would win. 30 years of ABM research coupled with the fact China is inhabited in a narrow band by the coast doesn't sound good to me.
Just theorycrafting, not warmongering with nukes..

As for the second point about USA not wanting to fight over a few rocks, that's my point exactly. If the country we were talking about was someone weak, like Iraq, I'm sure USA would decimate the country. But now we're talking about China, and in comparison to the damage it can do to the US, the tactical gains are useless. So technically it is China's nuclear deterrent that is doing the work.

Like i said, will be interesting if this theory of yours holds true in the case with the Japanese and their island dispute. I say it won't. And you are absolutely sure US would invade some weak country over some rocks for the sake of another weak country?

 

[chauism]

are you for real. Tell me how many countries have claims on lands OCCUPIED and CONTROLLELD by China? In all cases it is China having desire to occupy other countries lands. There would be no conflict if China was to give up its greed for Indian lands. So Indo-China conflict is purely chinese greed to the fore. (similarly the case with SCS and Japanese disputes)

Borders should be defined where you have control as of today. If you try to change borders there is only one possible way: war and there goes your desire for Asian peace. So it is upto China to accept LOC as border and leave its greed of AP if it wants peace with India. (which i dont think ccp wants)

(now dont give me crap of 50000 year history. India can claim whole Tibet and other parts of China with that line)

Go find any of my posts that says I disagree with setting the border with LoAC. Maybe Joe Shear could finally teach something into your thick skull.

 

[KRAIT]

I didn't say US would start nuking, but in both scenarios, conventional and nuclear it would win. 30 years of ABM research coupled with the fact China is inhabited in a narrow band by the coast doesn't sound good to me.
Just theorycrafting, not warmongering with nukes..

Like i said, will be interesting if this theory of yours holds true in the case with the Japanese and their island dispute. I say it won't. And you are absolutely sure US would invade some weak country over some rocks for the sake of another weak country?

Tell me if I am wrong, you are one of Obama and Bush supporter than Ron Paul, aren't you. If you feel offended, sorry in advance.

Its an interesting scenario being discussed and if you may, start a thread on it.

 

[EzioAltaïr]

I didn't say US would start nuking, but in both scenarios, conventional and nuclear it would win. 30 years of ABM research coupled with the fact China is inhabited in a narrow band by the coast doesn't sound good.

Sure, USA possesses many advantages over China in the unconventional field. USA would ultimately be the winner (or rather, the lesser loser), but the cost would be so great, that I'm sure no US politician wants such a war.

But in the conventional field, USA only has a 50:50 chance of a victory. If US is on the defensive, I'm sure USA will win. China does not have the capability to deploy a huge amount of troops to an overseas destination, and their numerical advantage would be completely negated.

If US is on the offensive, I'm sure China will win. USA is the only country which can deploy a huge number of troops overseas, but their deployment is not nearly large enough to negate the Chinese numerical advantage. Look at the 2003 invasion of Iraq. They had support from UK (they gave their island in Indian Ocean to USA), Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the majority of the Arab World, and faced such a huge list of deployment issues, that I can take hours to type it out. Against China, this will be worse, because no one would offer support (afraid of retaliation from China).

Like i said, will be interesting if this theory of yours holds true in the case with the Japanese and their island dispute. I say it won't. And you are absolutely sure US would invade some weak country over some rocks for the sake of another weak country?

They destroyed Iraq for the sake of Kuwait (or rather, for the sake of oil).

 

[Audio]

Tell me if I am wrong, you are one of Obama and Bush supporter than Ron Paul, aren't you. If you feel offended, sorry in advance.

Im not American, i can only discuss from an abstract point of view of a westerner. Ron Paul had some good ideas, yes, some were just wacko. Not offended

Its an interesting scenario being discussed and if you may, start a thread on it.

Dont really feel like starting a doomsday thread. Im more of a "latest scientific breakthrough" thread starter type.