I don’t have the skills to really go too deeply into demographic problems but they fascinate me. What do others think of this? Especially since many here take it as gospel that the world is overpopulated and that depopulation essentially is a good thing.
The least densely populated part of Russia is Siberia. This part is also the area with the greatest concentration of resources, and it is next to a country that has ample population, a thirst for resources, and no great love for Russia or its people.
The implications here are pretty obvious - they have been explored in popular fiction. And while one shouldn’t make too much of Tom Clancy novels, one should be concerned about this situation and it’s implications for possible war or annexation without war.
So you think that Russia and China might go to war for Siberia?
I think nuclear weapons, which Russia still has plenty of, have made that kind of war obsolete among major nuclear powers. Both sides know that, when one side gets truly desperate, they have plenty of nuclear warheads at their ready disposal. Plus, China’s one-child policy seems pretty effective in curbing their population growth.
This is a perfect example of why I don’t see overpopulation as a problem, that it’s systemic. Siberia has all that land for the Chinese to move into, but they won’t because of ethnic nationalism.
I’m no international relations expert, but I don’t think so, for the reasons Altair mentioned. However it would be interesting (in the worst sense of the word) to see two nuclear powers go at it.
If ground troops are engaged in Siberia you can’t nuke them - you’ll take your own army out as well, and China has plenty of reserves. You can’t nuke Beijing either because you really don’t want to see Moscow and St. Petersburg vanish as well as Siberia.
Nuclear weapons are just about useless in deterring this sort of attack.
If war occurs I would hope we have the good sense to stay out of it or side with China.
Why side with China? If they won, it would only make them that much more of a threat.
Not really. A state is more of a threat if it cannot meet its existential obligations to its population. If we resist their ability to aquire the resources they need they are far greater a threat. Nations are not threats because they are powerful, they are threats because they need something and are willing to use violence to get it.
Ahem. It’s been way too effective in curbing their female population growth.
Right, China has its own population bomb. People really underestimate how significant these population bombs are going to be at stagnating population growth and contributing to future economic inequality.
I’m not sure I subscribe to that philosophy. The other way of looking at it would be that it would embolden China to look west and it would further destabilize Russia. A Russia who would now be wounded and much more likely to lash out.
Russia is going to be destabilized anyway. It’s going through a demographic collapse and will have a top heavy population.
So we exacerbate that? Doesn’t seem like sound policy to me at all.
What does ‘we’ have to do with it? I said if China goes for it I hope we side with China, IE the side that will most certainly win.
And I think that may not be the best policy. Supporting Russia to contain China may make more sense. Indeed, supporting Russia now may well curb China’s more expanisionist element rather than letting Russia get weaker and weaker.
Heck, I’d be rooting for India to take advantage of China’s attack on Russia. Meanwhile Pakistan sees an opportunity to attack India, bolstered by Iran, who’s then attacked by Sunni elements from Iraq.
Winner: Israel.
Siberia became Russian because no one wanted it. They still don’t. Japan didn’t invade in WWII because what’s the point. Sure it has resources but they are hard to get it. That is why they exist today, because it’s too cold and swampy and full of nothing to be worth it. There is virtually no transportation in Siberia outside of the main cities and the trans-Siberian railway.
China’s population is crowded in the eastern third of the nation. China has 2/3 of it’s own nation underpopulated right now. They aren’t going to declare war on Russia to get land that people can’t live on anyway.
Look at America, Alaska is full or resources and it is growing VERY, VERY slowly. Why don’t you move to Alaska now? Why indeed. It’s expensive, it’s too far and the higher wage doesn’t justify the inconvenience.
There’s a difference between putting in a small population that can exploit a resource then leave and mass immigration to an inhospitable area. Espeically when more viable areas are easier to get to
Except China needs those resources and Russia can’t be bothered to fuck to save their own people.