Re: Nations and their size. Long.

Ok, well, I decided that going by memory isn't going to cut it here and
I
am afraid of being called an NSM or something so I decided to visit the
CIA
and get me some facts so that we can figure this thing out.

>    China has 4 and a half times the population of the US but not 4
times
the
>area. Twice maybe and then only just IIRC. I don't remember the
population
>of Japan but I have a feeling it's at least half that of the US.

OK the most exciting news I have here is that yes China has 4 times the
population as the United States but that China has slightly LESS land
mass!
9.60M sq.Km. vs 9.59M sq.Km. That shocked me. China must be very
crowded.
Here in Massachusetts I have picked a plot of land for my home that is
far
enough from my neighbors that I can't see them. I imagine I would not
have
this choice in a more crowded country.

>    Forgive me but I think you'll find that China is the worlds largest
>national economy (and now with Hong Kong it should be by a clear
margin).
>Splitting GDP per capita brings it back serverely but for overall size
I
>believe you'll find China is number 1.

Forgive me, but the facts speak for themselves. Let's compare China,
Japan,
Germany, and the U.S.
(all money converted into US Dollars for comparison purposes, all values
as
of 1997)
China
     GDP: $3.39T
	  Real GDP Growth: 9.7% (exceptional from what I can determine)
	  Per Capita:$2,800
     Inflation: 10%
     Unemployment: 8-10% (estimated)
Japan
     GDP: $2.8T
	  Real GDP Growth: 3.6%
	  Per Capita:$22,700
     Inflation: 0.3% (very exceptional from what I can determine)
     Unemployment: 3.4% (but rising)

Germany
     GDP: $1.7T (composite of East and West)
	  Real GDP Growth: 1.4%
	  Per Capita:$20,000
     Inflation: 1.5%
     Unemployment: 10.8% (unforgivable)

United States
     GDP: $7.6T
	  Real GDP Growth: 3.6%
	  Per Capita:$28,600
     Inflation: 3%
     Unemployment: 5.4% (and falling)

So, per capita the U.S. Economy is 10 time bigger than the Chinese
economy.
The Chinese GDP is significant, but once the E.U. finalizes the Monetary
Union in January of 1999 just the top 4 countries will be contributing
over
$5T. I didn't bother to look up the other countries but even Spain will
contribute $0.6T alone. I imagine Europe will be bigger than the U.S.
Comming back to my point, the Chinese have a problem in that they have a
fairly mighty economy, nationaly, their people are very poor.

>    Yes and there are large tracts of land in China, Australia, United
States
>and many nations of Africa and the Middle East that are "underutilised"
and
>all for the same reason, they are deserts.

Here is a comparison of the U.S. and China:

China Land Use
arable land: 10%
permanent crops: 0%
permanent pastures: 43%
forests and woodland: 14%
other : 33% (1993 est.)
Irrigated land: 498,720 sq km (1993 est.)

United States Land Use
arable land: 19%
permanent crops : 0%
permanent pastures: 25%
forests and woodland: 30%
other: 26% (1993 est.)
Irrigated land: 207,000 sq km (1993 est.)

I don't know if this supports either of our claims, but the 'Other'
category leaves me wondering what that is, exactly. I imagine it is
Urban/Desert/Mountain and others lumped together.

>    Need we mention "Challenger"? What was that Mars probe that NASA
lost
>again? How many Titan II rockets have had to be destroyed in flight in
the
> <<snipped>>

Most contries fire rockets over ocean or uninhabited terrain. China is a
little more loose on the concept of uninhabited. It is a fact that they
have had massive loss of civilian life because of accidents. The
Astronauts
and Cosmonauts who gave their lives for the advancement of both the
American and Chinese programs are heros. The Chinese villagers who died
due
to accidents were victims. And inspite of our problems with STS 26
(Challenger) as well as various satalites and probes, the U.S. has a
much
stronger record for getting bigger projects done than the Chinese.
Anyone
who thinks the Chinese space program even rates is dreaming. The U.S. is
rapidly becoming second in Commercial Space use to Europe actually.
China,
however, is not in the running.

>>Imagine what China would be like if they had Japanese Technology,
>>US Industrial know-how and all of that land and all of those people
>>properly utilized? But they don't and as far as I can tell they aren't
>>moving quickly in that direction.

>    Given the rate of economic growth and industrial modernisation
going
on
>(Western companies often doing the work) it won't be that long at all.
>Don't forget many economist think that continued population growth
(lots
>more new citizens) benefits and stimulates economic growth which they
at
>least believe is the best thing since sliced bread. Lots of citizens
work
>and create goods (including military hardware). To a large extent, the
more
>citizens you have the more you produce.

I don't think the economic numbers above support that theory.

>[The] ESU ... will have huge numbers of people willing to emigrate
> (lets face it the ESU in the background has nations 1, 2 and 4 [in
terms]
>of population size in it, also a peasant farmer from the back blocks of
>China will be more will to swap his mud hut and 1/4 acre of back
breaking
>farming for life on a new colony world than a New Yorker)

I don't want to put down the Chinese peasant farmer, but since you took
an
unjustified swipe at the citizens of New York let me just say that your
typical New York resident has more to gain by going into space. They
have
demonstratably more education and economic resources as well as better
skills (on average mind you). If I was looking for someone who had the
guts
AND the knowhow to manage a colony I'd pick someone from New York or
London
or Paris or New Delhi long before I picked someone from the East Lanzhou
Peoples collective.

This is an interesting topic. If anyone wants to check my numbers just
look
at:

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/country-frame.html

If you want to check their numbers you are on your own!

--Pete