The stinging cuts of sequestration will have a tremendous impact on America's capacity to protect the world's maritime commons -- with devastating consequences.
The upcoming budget sequester—slated to begin on March 1st—and the recent Defense Department decision to in effect cancel the deployment of the aircraft carrier USS Harry Truman to the Persian Gulf, are disturbing signals that without a significant change, the United States may be increasingly hard pressed to serve as the primary security guarantor for the world’s key sea lanes.The regions of highest concern for negative security impacts from U.S. defense budget paralysis are East and Southeast Asia, the Persian Gulf, and the Indian Ocean.
A less formidable U.S. naval presence in the Persian Gulf—and the message it sends regarding the limits of American naval and military power more broadly—reverberate loud and clear in both friendly and hostile capitals around the globe. Perhaps even worse, the signals are particularly frightening in countries like Vietnam, the Philippines, and Singapore, who see a strong U.S. forward military presence as a guarantee that helps protect them from falling victim to the depredations of powerful neighbors like China.
If more powerful maritime countries like Japan and South Korea lose confidencein the U.S. ability to serve as an offshore balancer and peacekeeper, they will upgrade their militaries more rapidly, fueling regional naval competition. Meanwhile smaller powers like Singapore will be forced to hedge their diplomatic and security bets in ways that make them less reliable partners for the U.S, with ominous medium and long-term national security implications.
In conjunction with budget pressures, U.S. domestic oil production is rising and reducing U.S. reliance on oil imports. Indeed, Valero, the world’s largest independent oil refiner and product retailer, expects that by the end of 2013, refineries in the PADD III region (primarily the U.S. Gulf Coast), which account for half of the country’s total refining capacity, will no longer need to import light or medium crude oil because domestic production has risen so quickly. Budget pressures and reduced demand on imported oil in turn further increase the political temptation to treat U.S. forward deployed naval forces as an area ripe for budget cutting.
Doing so would have serious strategic consequences for the U.S. and many other countries with global trade interests. The U.S. has for the past 60 years been a peacemaking force in the global maritime commons because its unquestioned naval power, strong commitment visible to friend and foe alike, and relative diplomatic even-handedness in ensuring the safe passage of global trade–including oil, raw materials, and finished goods–across key maritime corridors regardless of their destination.
Fulfilling this critical role undeniably requires substantial military spending—but the strategic dividends of keeping global sea lanes open and wielding commensurate influence and power to proactively shape events far outweigh the dollar costs of keeping a critical mass of ships forward deployed. However, politicians on both sides of the aisle have so far failed to seriously consider that Washington’s budget stasis signals to other maritime stakeholders that the U.S. guarantee of free maritime passage and management of regional conflicts is less reliable than they thought. In turn, these countries—namely China (which already distrusts the U.S. guarantee), Japan, India, and South Korea—now have much greater incentives to build and operate naval forces capable of securing maritime national interests without Washington’s help.
Photo Credit: U.S. Navy (Flickr)
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Observer
LOL @ all the big empty talk from chinese posters.
Latest news - About 13 percent of China's population still live on less than $1.25 per day, the United Nations Development Programme says. That means over 160 million chinese still live in extreme poverty, more than the total population of most, if not all of its smaller neighbors.
Before you brag, take a look at yourself in the mirror first.
Ritesh Garg
Sir, you are only looking at a single prospective of these budget cuts and subsiquent events. I appoligise for my frankness but you have failed to see the indirect impact of rising fiscal deficit spending of US. Its impact is growing more than just on its domestic equation. America in the recent times has become highly dependent on the foreign governments to by its soveirgn debt, China being the most influencial of them. The degree of this impact and influence is quite visible in US's failure to openly protest China's recent agressive moves towards its china sea neibhours including Japan and also its failure to take concrete actions against N. Korea for its provocative actions (including WMD developement). Even on economic front US is consistently loosing ground to China.
That was about east asia, now lets talk about Gulf. As of today there is no greater force in gulf other than the combined presence of US and Nato troops. Iraq is cripled, Iran is surrounded Syria and Egypt are barely on their feets and Saudi is filled with US troops. Even today if you see the power of combined US armed forces in Iraq Kuwait and Saudi is the most powerful force in Gulf, a region with no other foreign or domestic competition (considerable).
Coming back to Geopolitical scenario, it is a narrow minded thingking that in today's interlinked world only stockpiling of weapons can provide you with required level of influence essential for impacting global events. Infact failure of soveit union and degraded Russian influence is a living proof that huge pile of weapons cant gaurantee global influence. A week economy supported by a powerful army can do little justice and is bound to be crippled.
To end I would just like to say that a smaller US is much better than a weaker one.
Dan
@Ritesh Garg,
"…..America in the recent times has become highly dependent on the foreign governments to by its soveirgn debt, China being the most influencial of them!!' It's just a myth, the very cheap propaganda!
There's no need for China to 'loan or fund' the US any more( Buying US-Tbonds). The American institutions, individuals, the Fed & other countries such as Japan, Saudi Arabia, Britain, Brazil, Canada etc. will take up the slack. China better take care of itself. Its own debt time bomb is ticking!
Kim’s Uncle
The PRC is the most corrupt state in the history of the world so all this talk about china as being a superpower is a tad premature! A crude dictatorship that does take into account the will of its own people will not last. The complexity of a modern capitalist system as china continue to industrialize will only make it harder for the Communists to rule over their serfs.
The gulf between the corrupt ruling class and the peasants will be china’s undoing. Just wait for a financial crisis, environmental crisis, etnic crisis etc. and the edifice will fall crumbling to ashes!
Peace of MInd
Remember, the last time this happened was with Clinton '95'. However, when Clinton left office, the U.S. deficit was gone and the U.S. had a surplus. Everything will be fine. don't let Aljazeera, or the Huffington post scare you. the U.S. knows exactly what it's doing. the U.S. is using this drama to drum up support for both parties. as anyone would, it's a good a chance as any. if you want to play along though that's cool too. But I love my nation, so i will study the past , learn, and forcast ahead, and keep on movin. Everyone just keep calm.Peace on the seven seas!
nonDescript
This entire article seems hypothetical at best. It has already been announced over and over again that defense cuts will not be at the expense of US' pivot to the Asia-Pacific. And many military analysts have already repeated time and time again that defense cuts will not hamper effective and strategic US operations in these seas, given that their presence is mostly symbollic anyway.
Kim’s Uncle
I think the US is in a good position since we alliances all over the globe while China has toilet bowl DPRK. Our political system is stable and so our allies while china’s system can implode at anytime soon. PRC can only exist as a state entity by funding a police state by spending for internal defense larger than for defense budget for external enemies! It’s a very laughable state of affair that the PRC has to exist as. It only shows the state of dysfunction that the PRC has.
The greatest one party empire was the USSR! Yet such a military power armed with intercontinental missiles n nukes could not even prevent the USSR from disintegration?
Sequestration or no sequestration, the US is still in better shape than china pathetic copycat empire of the USSR!
John Chan
@Kim,
USA only has alliances with a small group of thugs, like the unapologetic war criminal Japan, mentally colonized Philippines and some undesirable ex-colonial imperialists. Most nations in the world see the USA as over grown teen angst adolescence who will wreak havoc whenever its hormone gets unbalanced.
angelus512
But America is evil. Its a hegemon. Its a (insert some AEO, ADP buzz work in here), zionist power. Blah blah,
-Signed John Chan
Oro Invictus
I personally don't think that, overall, sequestration will alter the overall strategic calculus very much. This is not to say it will have no effect, but the various trends in place today will not be greatly affected by this matter. Indeed, even without sequestration, the US military power is going to experience a decrease in the level of superiority over others as global forces become more equalized. This does not, however, technically mean that the US military cannot retain its efficacy if utilized properly. Indeed, practically speaking, the US is in no risk of losing its military primacy anywhere in the near future; it's closest competitor, the PRC, simply lacks the (relative) efficient productivity of the US MIC. Even by the most flowery forecasts (the OECD analysis), the PRC will top out at about 60% of the current per capita GDP of the US, meaning its economy will at best (assuming US growth stays at 1-2%, which is somewhat unlikely) plateau around 1.5-1.8x that of the US. This is significant as, even if the PRC were to invest the same percent of resources into its military as the US (e.g. the same proportion of GDP), the actual productivity of their MIC would still remain significantly below that of the US (particularly in terms of R&D) due to decreased MIC efficiency.
The reason I bring this up is, between the Schadenfreudian delusions of some in the PRC and the alarmists elsewhere, I worry that (enough) policymakers may become so disquieted by this cacophony and that they begin funneling even more money into the American military out of baseless worry. I, and the rest of the world I’m sure, would rather appreciate the US not launch into a self-indulgent arms race or military expedition all for the sake of some irrational politicians’ egos.
Kanes
Soviet Union!
This is exactly the same mistake they did. They wanted to rule the world, spent too much on defence, got indebted and collapsed. Defence cuts can fuel the economy. Once the economy grows, it creates money to invest in defence. And don't think defence expense commitment on Afghanistan will reduce after 2014. It will actually increase. Otherwise the terrorists will do it again knowing very well they can beat them ultimately as in 2001 to 2014. Pushing their enemy to economic apocalypse is one of their strategies.
Liang1a
America must spend a lot of money on its military to maintain the military industries. Otherwise, its corporations that make weapons will not be funded and will go bankrupt. And then America will need to import its weapons from countrie such as Russia and China. But to maintain a large military industry is a very expensive thing. To justify it it must constantly remind the Americans that they live in a dangerous world and need the protection of the best weapons in the world. But the truth is that now American economy can no longer sustain such heavy spending. And American weapon development has also become second rate for some unknown reasons. F-35 for example is riddled with problems and might ultimately prove unfit to fly. Even F-22 is having some problems. Going into the future, America is faced with a dilemma. On the one hand it could no longer be the dominant military power as it can see clearly that China has already enough power to deny it access to within 1,500 to 2,000 km of China's shores. And within 10 years China will be able to challenge America in the Western Pacific west of Hawaii as well as in the Indian Ocean east of Cape of Good Hope. Within 20 years, China will be able to challenge America anywhere in the world. Within 30 years, China can bottle up American ships in their ports. And as the example of F-35 shows, American technologies are also slipping. Some 25% or more of America's best scientists and engineers are ethnic Chinese. Without the ethnic Chinese, American technologies will be much less advanced. So as Chinese scientists and engineers stop coming to America in the years ahead as Chinese economy forge ahead of American economy and can pay Chinese scientists and engineers with higher wages than American corporation such as Lockheed-Martine can, American technologies will fall even further behind. Therefore, without money, without scientists and engineers, America simply cannot play the role of dominant thugs on the world's oceans.
BB
@ Vic, Chan & Lang1a,
FYI.
China loves the US dollar again as America roars back
China’s central bank has radically revised its view of US economic and strategic power, predicting that the dollar will remain the world’s paramount reserve currency for decades to come.
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
7:11PM GMT 19 Feb 2013
Jin Zhongxia, head of the central bank’s research institute, said America’s energy revolution and export revival had shaken up the global landscape and would lead to a stronger dollar over time. “The dollar’s global dominance will continue,” he said.
Dr Jin said the world was moving to a “1+4” system, with the greenback serving as the anchor of global payments, supplemented by “four smaller reserve currencies” – the euro, sterling, yen and yuan.
“Compared with the euro area, the dollar zone has much greater resilience to shocks. The debt crisis in the euro area has demonstrated the structural weakness of this currency,” he wrote in a paper for the February bulletin of the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum.
The comments suggest a profound shift in thinking about the US since the financial crisis five years ago, when premier Wen Jiabao questioned if Chinese holdings of US Treasuries were “safe”, and the central bank issued a paper calling for a “global currency” run by the International Monetary Fund.
The prevailing view in Beijing was that America had been toppled as a great power and was crippled by debt.
China has since begun to face its own problems as it grapples with the hangover of $14 trillion (£9 trillion) of credit growth since 2009 and surging wage costs.
The advantage is shifting back to the US. A so-called “manufacturing renaissance” is under way as US companies bring home plants to exploit cheap shale gas and lower transport costs.
A report by Citigroup said the explosive growth of US oil and gas output over the past year had exceeded the “wildest dreams of energy analysts”. The US has halved its oil imports since 2005 and is moving “rapidly towards self-sufficiency”, turning global geo-politics on its head.
Citigroup said lower energy imports and the revival of chemical industries would cut the US current account deficit by three quarters, eliminating a key cause of dollar weakness.
China’s central bank has clearly lost its earlier enthusiasm for the euro project, chastened by the debt crisis of the past three years. Dr Jin said EMU lacked the flexibility and fiscal unity needed to cope with crises, while the rigid fixed-exchange system was ill-adapted to shocks.
The informal dollar zone – a worldwide nexus – was more supple. Weaker states were forced to put their house in order before they reached acute crisis, or to devalue. “The dollar zone looks more loosely connected, but in reality it is more coherent than the euro area,” he said. ( The Telegraph)
What do you folks think?
John Chan
@BB,
USA’s determination to remain a global hegemon based on its own merits is its right, but its effort to undermine other nations by continuing its Cold War as a mean to remain a global hegemon is wrong and harmful to the peace and prosperity of humanity, such destructive behavior must be exposed and denounced.
Dan
Hey vic,
Maybe, it's time for China to start buying Greece's, Egypt's, Zimbabwe's, Mozambique's & other nations' government bonds instead of buying the US-Tbonds. There's no need for China to 'loan or fund' the US any more. The American institutions, individuals, the Fed & other countries such as Japan, Arab Saudia, Canada etc. will take up the slack. So, please don't worry about the collapse of the US' economy any longer! Better watch your own back, China!
Liang1a
BB wrote:
March 1, 2013 at 5:44 pm
@ Vic, Chan & Lang1a,
FYI.
China loves the US dollar again as America roars back
China’s central bank has radically revised its view of US economic and strategic power, predicting that the dollar will remain the world’s paramount reserve currency for decades to come.
—————————-
Frankly, I have nothing but contempt for the Chinese economists. These idiots have screwed up Chinese economy for the last 30 years and have now turned China into a semi-economic colony with foreigners dominating 80% of China's car industry. China does not even need dollars. Why would China need dollars when its own RMB will be the world's most valued reserve currency?
Vic
China, as America's creditor, does not want America to collapse. Everyone wants a stable productive world. Nobody really wants America to be perennially fighting wars. All want the US military-industrial complex to be toned down and controlled. Sensible Americans would want Pentagon spending to be cut, if necessary through sequestration.
Dan
The US will never collapse & all the T-bonds China's 'begged or insisted' to buy from the US are just for buying down its RMB (currency manipulation) for its own export advantages & for its safest investment (default-free). Just a keystroke, all your Tbonds when mature will be paid in full immediately. Watch out your back. The collapse of Commmie China is imminent & unavoidable like the Soviet Union before!
Liang1a
Quote from the article:
The stinging cuts of sequestration will have a tremendous impact on America's capacity to protect the world's maritime commons — with devastating consequences.
——————————–
It is characteristic of America to always present iself as the "protector" of the world. The truth is America protects nobody except itself. America has victimized China for over 150 years. It had excluded Chinese from going to America with laws. It had joined other invasive countries to force unequal treaties on China. Now it has for the last 70 years tried, increasingly unsuccessfully, to "contain" China. It is obviously a very good thing for China that America is now unable to wall China into a corner. In many ways America is the problem of the world. And the world now increasingly looks to China for protection. It is only by the rise of the Chinese navy that the world will finally be safe from the American thugs.
It is obvious that as China shifts its economic development mode from relying on exports to domestic advancement based on indigenous technologies, the urbanization of the farmers and energy self-sufficiency, it will continue to grow rapidly and sustainably, ultimately to reach 300 trillion yuan and $100 trillion based on 3 yuan per dollar by 2040. At which time China's GDP will be some 7 times or more bigger than American GDP. Therefore, if China allocates 2% of its GDP for military spending then it can spend $2 trillion equivalent for its military. American economy will remain stagnant at $15 trillion (2011 PP) and cannot afford more than $600 billion or 4% of its GDP. Therefore, China can spend more than 3 times of American military spending and can deploy more than 3 times of America's ships and planes while spending a comfortable half of America's GDP percentage. For each 10 aircraft carriers America can deploy, China can deploy 35. For each 100 nuclear powered attack submarines America can deploy China can deploy 350. There is simply no way that America can challenge China on the oceans anywhere in the world. And the world shipping will finally be safe from the predation of the American navy.
angelus512
America has victimized China for over 150 years.
I had to laugh when I read that. You've clearly got no idea what you're talking about. China is "rising" because America let you into the international system benevolently when Nixon went over there you unintelligent tool.
John Chan
@angelus512,
USA made a decision to take the best advantages for itself by leveraging on China; USA did reap the benefit on its decision by defeating the USSR.
It was the overseas Chinese kicked started the Chinese economy reform and rise; USA and Japan not only did not help China’s economic rejuvenation, they actually tried to sabotage China’s road to peaceful rise by cancelling projects, contracts and agreements unilaterally, imposing trade embargo, coercing EU to impose trade embargo, as well as disrupting free market economy by forbidding China investing in the USA freely. USA and Japan only started to invest in China after they had saw China was going to take off without them.
USA and Japan are in the business of imperialism and exploitation, they are not the business of charity, and they have been sucking Chinese blood and sweat to support the life style they cannot afford themselves.
If you think USA has made a bad decision, then you have to suck it up for the consequence it brought upon itself and move on. Claiming credit where credit is not due only can soothe your inferior complex but cannot help USA remain competitive which is the cause of its decline.
angelus512
@JC "It was the overseas Chinese kicked started the Chinese economy reform and rise"
No it wasnt
John Chan
@angelus512,
Indeed, to the American, they believe only the Americans have brain, all other people only can steal and copy from them, it includes their biggest invention the round corners on the cell phone.
John Chan
@angelus512,
China introduced "Open Door Policy" in 1978.
The vanguard of western nations’ FDI in China were the automobile makers, they entered China as following:
Volkswagern in 1985
GM in 1998
Hyundai in 2003
Honda in 2003
Toyota in 2004
Between 1978-1987 the major FDI was from HK, Taiwan went into China from 1987. From 1978 to 1998, nearly 20 years no meaningful western nations or Japanese FDI went into China.
Western and Japanese FDI went into China only after overseas Chinese did the hard work and established comfortable investment environment for them. The Western nations (except Germany) and Japanese are in the business of imperialism and exploitation, they are not in the business to help China. You need to remember that the USA Congress is a house of liars; they are just using China as scapegoat to cover up their incompetence.
Jean-Paul
Let me just quote one piece of nonsense you just spewed out there: "coercing EU to impose trade embargo"
The great EU nations (France, UK and Germany) were not coerced into any trade embargo, do you seriously think we want to have anything to do with China? China's morality and decency has sunk so low that they are even bullying one of the most peaceful nations on earth, Norway, just because they awarded someone the bully chinese didn't like.
This despicable, hostile, and immature attitude is not helpful in moving humanity forward. France, UK and Germany, the protectors of freedom and democracy, are responsible for the development for humanity, along with the USA and Japan. Thats why we spent billions of dollars building humanity's most advanced scientific project, the CERN. We are interested in spending money on developing scientific knowledge while China is only interested in manufacturing polluted junk that destroys our planets environment.
Liang1a
@Angelus
A donkey braying is meaningless. China has indeed exported trillions of dollars of products over the years. But China's infrastructures, universities, hospitals, military, etc. are all built by the Chinese people. Exports is not something that China can rely on for permanent adancement. Already China's economic growth has dropped sharply from 12% to less than 8% and the 8% is mostly due to domestic growth. It is obvious that Chna's future growth must depend on internal growth. Deng had made a very bad decision to rely on FDI. It has only allowed foreigners to exploit Chinese cheap labor. Exports will only keep China poor forever. This is why China must get rid of the FDI and reduce exports while shifting from manufacturing to services industries to raise the standard of living o the Chinese people.
Obviously, Chinese exporters must depend on exports to make money. But the vast majority of the Chinese people will be better off if the energy and resources are shifted from exports to domestic services. Therefore, exports and FDI will keep China poor while domestic development will make the richest in the world. China can only rely on growth based on indigenous technologies, the urbanization of the farmers and the energy self-sufficiency.
Leonard R.
Angelus, I suggest we follow Liang1a's logic here and see where it leads. If I assume everything Liang1a says is true, it becomes clear that peace between China and the US is utterly impossible. China is harboring such a vicious and long-term grudge against America for unspecified crimes, that the only sane course is for the US is to consider China a hostile foreign power and take immediate steps to protect itself.
The US will need allies in this struggle against China, and there are plenty volunteering these days. I enjoy Liang1a's posts because he consistently proves my point. China is a military problem for the US – not a diplomatic problem. And any hope that the US and China can get along over the long term, is a naive misconception. In that respect, Chinese like Liang1a are making it easy for the hawks of America. And they're doing it all for free. What a bargain!
Ole Billy Joe
My, my ever so sensitive leoturd .. as if only your logic and reasoning is acceptable?!! You're a CIA 5-cent troll. Your credibility couldn't be lower than a snake's belly.
Free Thinker
"China's GDP will be some 7 times or more bigger than American GDP"
Only in the propaganda you poor, deluded peasants are forced to swallow at gunpoint :(
Free Thinker
China's current GDP is less then half America's GDP. (~$7 trillion vs ~ $15 trillion)
So even assuming America's GDP stays flat for 27 years (which it won't), 7 times $15 trillion is $105 trillion… so China's current GDP would have to increase 1500% in 27 years, while America just stands there and does nothing…
I'd be laughing at you but I'm more sad that you swallow such obvious propaganda.
Liang1a
Constipated Thinker wrote:
March 1, 2013 at 10:46 pm
China's current GDP is less then half America's GDP. (~$7 trillion vs ~ $15 trillion)
So even assuming America's GDP stays flat for 27 years (which it won't), 7 times $15 trillion is $105 trillion… so China's current GDP would have to increase 1500% in 27 years, while America just stands there and does nothing…
I'd be laughing at you but I'm more sad that you swallow such obvious propaganda.
————————————-
First, nobody fed this "propaganda" to me. This is my own calculations that I have been trying to explain to the Chinese people to make them more confident in themselves. Obviously, many people have been convinced by my calculation since many international organizations have re-calculated their projection of when China will catch up with America. At least one internationally known organization, OECD, has projected that China's GDP will surpass America by 2016. To understand the relative amount of GDP, you need to know the difference between the nominal value and the purchasing power parity (PPP) value of GDP. Obviously you don't know what they mean or you would not be so cocky. Currently, China's 2012 yuan GDP is more than 50 trillion yuan. At the official exchange rate today of 6.23 yuan per dollar this is $8 trillion. But the official exchange rate can be changed instantly while the actual output of goods and services cannot be changed so fast. Therefore, the only way to calculate the value of the total output of goods and services is by using yuan and based on the PPP value. The PPP value of dollar is 3 yuan per dollar. This means China's 50 trillion yuan can buy in China the same kind and amount of goods and services that would cost some $17 trillion in the US. Therefore, China's GDP has already overtaken the US. OECD obviously uses a different value for the PPP value. I think it uses 4 yuan per dollar so that China's 2012 GDP of 50 trillion yuan is equivalent to $12.5 trillion. But by 2016 and growing at 8% a year, China's yuan GDP will reach some 68 trillion yuan and at 4 yuan per dollar is equal to $17 trillion. Meanwhile, even presuming America can grow at 2% per year it would not be able to grow more than 10% over 2012. Therefore, given 10% growth by 2016, America's GDP will only be some $16.5 trillion at the very best. So Chna's GDP will exceed that of the US by 2016 according to the OECD. But as I pointed out, the most likely PPP value is 3 yuan per dollar. So China's GDP has already overtaken America in 2012 and will be some $23 trillion and 150% of America's GDP by 2016.
It is easy for Chinese people to be as productive as American people by using the same kinds of tools and machines. For example, a Chinese truck driver driving the same kind of truck can haul as much cargo as an American driver. Therefore, given the same kind of tools and machines Chinese workers will be just as productive as American workers. This means that Chinese workers can produce $50,000 of per capita GDP and a total GDP of $75 trillioin based on a population of 1.5 billion by 2040. But American workers are not all equally productive. Particularly, the minorities are only 2/3 as productive as the whites while Chinese-Americans are 1/3 more productive than the whites. This means Chinese workers in China can be 1/3 more productive than America on a per capita basis or $66,000 and a total GDP of $100 trillion. And if the proportion of the minorities in America increases over the whites in America, then the per capita GDP of America will shrink even more leading to a much slower growth or even negative growth for the total American GDP. And all these growth projections are based on the constant dollar of 2012. That is, adjusted for inflation. So America might not have real growth at all but only increases its nominal GDP due to inflation. Therefore, given all these factors, China's total PPP GDP by 2040 will be $100 trillion while America's GDP will be only $15 trillion; and China will be some 7 times as big as America.