Top Ten World Powers

[Ecthy]

he must be mixing that one up with Atapers.

[Impaler[WrG]]

Opps I must have left out the "and Turkey" part their (must not posts when half asleep), I know Ataturk was turkish, most of what I said about Iran aplies to Turkey as well. Iran will move to a position much like Turkey is now (pro-western, socialy liberal). Most people would realy be suprised at the disparity betweens Irans current goverment and the opinions of a good 3/4 of its population.

[Ecthy]

What does Atafrench say about all this?

[BeBro]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


outside support didnt matter in terms of resupply. It presumably did impact the level of armament, state of preparedness of the NVA. And does incompetent performace by the PLA in 1979 necessarily indicate similar performance today? US armed forces had some real problems in 1979-1980, ISTR

I don´t question the potential of China, and of course they made impressive progress in various fields during the last years/decades.

The thing about the bad performance of the Chinese in 79 and their handling of SARS is that - despite all the progress - they still have lots of internal problems too. The good old bureaucratic system from coldwar times seems to have still some impact when it comes to a situation where quick decisions are needed.

It indicates not lesser power per se, but I think such problems can really have an impact when the (esp. military) power actually needs to be used. I mean big numbers and lots of new weapons are nice - but without effective command, control and communication, logistics etc. etc. it is useless. Think gulf war one - many feared Saddam´s big army, but in the end it was no problem for the coalition.

Of course it would be foolish to compare China and Iraq, but overall the Chinese conventional military isn´t that impressive so far - mostly Russian-built weapons. The latest own designs, like those J10 or 12 fighters face(d) heavy problems during the development, and will probably be outdated compared to western models when they enter service (which isn´t that sure at all).

Most of Europe is dead- I did not only mean UK, but France too. Their relative power can only decline. When Asia truly rises, in 50-100 years, most countries in Europe will be insignificant, minor powers.

They predict the fall of the occident since the Arabs ruled Spain and we are still waiting.... You seem to think politics is a static business, where developments can´t be influenced or changed. Thats a bit simplistic. Europe has quite good chances, esp. in economic aspects, but also in political aspects, if the nations get something done together. You may argue that this is exactly the problem, but OTOH despite all the problems (which aren´t too surprising given the fact that a lot of different states do hardly agree on everything) there is progress in the Eu enough. If Europe is dead then tell me why those East European nations still like to join the Eu (or already joined), or why Turkey wants to be in. Also, outside threats (if China ever becomes one - who knows if they really want to play a more agressive role?) have the nice side-effect that states often put their differences aside....

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


The UK's ability to discuss with Germany or Russia, for now at least, is limited, because of their 'duty' towards America.
Say what you wish, but I don't believe my reasoning to be idiotic.

Not only is the UK quite able to negotiate with Russia and Germany, but the US is quite capable of negotiating with Russia and Germany directly.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BeBro

They predict the fall of the occident since the Arabs ruled Spain and we are still waiting.... You seem to think politics is a static business, where developments can´t be influenced or changed. Thats a bit simplistic. Europe has quite good chances, esp. in economic aspects, but also in political aspects, if the nations get something done together. You may argue that this is exactly the problem, but OTOH despite all the problems (which aren´t too surprising given the fact that a lot of different states do hardly agree on everything) there is progress in the Eu enough. If Europe is dead then tell me why those East European nations still like to join the Eu (or already joined), or why Turkey wants to be in. Also, outside threats (if China ever becomes one - who knows if they really want to play a more agressive role?) have the nice side-effect that states often put their differences aside....

If i was PM of say, Lithuania, of course id want to joing the EU - it has the highest wage levels outside of North America, and so is the most lucractive and most complementary market for my nations goods and services - and unlike North America, its nearby, so Im not competing directly with say, Mexico. But the same high wages that make the EU appealing limit the growth of the core powers - can Germany ever have double the GDP per capita of the US? The Ricardian dynamic of world trade tends to equalize wage levels, except where new technologies break the equilibrium, and hards to see France or Germany taking advantage of such breakthroughs vis a vis the US, or even Japan. Europe wont be dead - it may be one of the best places to LIVE as far as into the future as anyone can see - but even the most powerful individual states are likely to continue their relative declines, as fast as the US or even faster (due to better demographics in the US) The best hope for european power lies in 1. Unification into a single power 2. Succesful incorporation of the new members 3. Economic revival in the core countries 4. dealing with the demographic issues, the aging of the population and the need to integrate immigrants.
These are all problematic, and some conflict with each other (for example further integrations versus expansion) Even if all are achieved succesfully, that may at best move the EU ahead of the US, at a time when both enter long term declines relative to China and India.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by monkspider
Based on economic strength, military strength, international influence, etc etc.

In order:

1. United States
2. China
3. Japan
4. Germany
5. United Kingdom
6. India
7. Russia
8. France
9. Korea
10. Israel

Any objections?

Without getting too detailed, I this this is way too simple. Much better to list for each catergory - and have a seperate one for mineral resources. So, military power we get something very simple... it's a listing of "who owns the most nukes", and some countries are about even...

1. US.
1. Russia.
3. China.
4. UK
4. France.
6. Israel
7 Pakistan
7 India
9 N Korea
10 South Africa (did they disarm? I can't remember".

Reason for listing them like this? Because if a country has got nukes, there's no future in attacking it if you haven't got nukes... so only equal or better than powers can afford to fight a conventional war.

Economics pretty simple, because it really isn't my subject, so go and check out the top 10s rated by bean counters.

International Influence is a tricky one. You see, it's a bit like the Reputation rating in Civ - some countries detest one another, others are widely unpopular with many neighbours.

So I'd say...

1. UK (advantage of having Commonwealth as unofficial world forum).
2. US (2nd because some countries just won't deal with the No.1)
3... (waits for screams of outrage)

[lord of the mark]

2100 top powers
1. North America (a bilingual Spanish-English power, extending from the north pole to the Panama Canal - Feliz Ano Nuevo, everyone)
2. China (finally capitalist, finally including Taiwan)
3. The EU
4. India
5. Japan (finally over the recession)
6. Russia (finally recovered from the fall of FSU)
7. Indonesia (having avoided incorpation into any caliphate)
8. Brazil - (still the country of future)

[MrBaggins]

In terms of nuclear first strike capability (I.E. ballistic/tube launched cruise missile sub quality)

1. US
2. Russia (although their quality and especially quantity is deteriorating)
3. UK
5. France
4. China

[Cruddy]

Sorry to rain on your parade Mr Baggins, but at most 2 and usually only 1 Brit boomer is on station at any one time. I have no idea how often the French rotate their ballistic subs but I doubt the UK should be so high on your list.

The reason I put China higher than either is because Chinese ballistic sub data is rare as rocking horse droppings. They've been one or 2 possible sightings and that is it...

Not a good idea just to count warheads (which does put the UK ahead, but most warheads are not deployed - costs a bomb )

[MrBaggins]

China only has one (half decent) SSBN... the Xia. They are developing a new class... but thats not scheduled for a while.

As for the rankings... they are potential rankings... not current operational. If the UK (or any nation) wanted to deploy all of its boomers, then there isn't any reason why it couldn't... abeit cost.

[lord of the mark]

Ok lets review

China suffers from corruption - but no surprise, with so many cities, and such large ones. They need to go to a more advanced govt form, probably demo - but first they need to get industry and luxuries up.

UK, Germany and France - nice small, perfectionists civs - but need bigger pops. Why cant they run "Ilovethepremierdays"?

US - great tech, big military, shows how to play a strong late game demo. But watch the reputation guys

Russia - rushed that transition to demo, no? Military units disappearing, anarchy - looks like switch to despotism to get out of anarchy - maybe build some improvements, why dont you guys?

Japan - lots of industry,traditionally builty lots of caravans - but not the latest finance improvements - when you get to this stage guys, youve got to have the latest financial improvements to completly leverage the caravans, or you'll be left behind. Cant follow your low military, perfectionist high trad strat without that.

[Ecthy]

lotm, we've had WLTXDs before, but we have no food surplus

[muxec]

1. Population of Japan is almost equal to population of Russia and official GNP is about five times of Russian. But wealth of Japanese people is 30 times of Russian. Conclusion: The Russian figures are fake.

Japan has nor nukes nor army. So it has no expenses on it. Nobody will attack Japan just because attacking Japan is equal to attacking USA.

Japan's serious weakness is language. Number of non-Japanese people who know Japanese language is low. Also a lot of citizen of Japan do not know any language except Japanese.

2. Yes, Israel consumes American economy. But Israeli military helps USA a lot. Israel destroyed Iraqi nuke at 1980 saving billions to America. Also Israel helps USA with espionage. And with science. And with fight against terrorism.

3. Muslims only look disunited. Note: Turkey is not really muslim country.

[Ned]

How can anyone call China a world power when it could not even take Taiwan?

A world power must be able to project it, to conduct a foreign war against a major power and win.

The USA, UK, France, and Israel are perhaps the only world powers using this definition. Germany is close.

Of course, give time and a lot of money, countries like China and Japan could become world powers. But they are not there now.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
How can anyone call China a world power when it could not even take Taiwan?

absent US intervention China could easily take Taiwan - not through an amphib invasion (see "million man swim") but through an air, naval and missile campaign against Taiwans commerce, that would destroy the islands economy. China doesnt pursue such a course because were they to do it without provocation (like an independence referendum), the US is likely to intervene in the air/naval/missile war and China is virtually certain to lose. Not being willing to risk a war against the number 1 power on the planet doesnt make China weak, just prudent.

Besides, do you think UK, France, or Israel has the ability (particularly the amphib assets) to take Taiwan? By your definition the US is the ONLY world power.

[GePap]

The US, France and the UK are alone in the ability to send significant military forces overseas by themselves- by this definiton only they are world powers- with the uS way ahead. If the ability that counts it o vaporize any spot on earth with only a half hour notice, only the US and Russia count.

The fact is that military definitons for a great power are not that good- after all, in 1941 the US was , besides the navy, a military second rate power. China's eocnomy is the rising star, and all of east asia is slowly gravitating towards it.

[GePap]

Interestingly, the Chinese can not take taiwan- but they can wipe it out. Which one counts more in the great power game?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
The US, France and the UK are alone in the ability to send significant military forces overseas by themselves- by this definiton only they are world powers- with the uS way ahead. If the ability that counts it o vaporize any spot on earth with only a half hour notice, only the US and Russia count.

The fact is that military definitons for a great power are not that good- after all, in 1941 the US was , besides the navy, a military second rate power. China's eocnomy is the rising star, and all of east asia is slowly gravitating towards it.

Not only east asia, but China is a more important player than UK, France or Germany in south asia and central asia as well. They are less important in Africa then they were 25 years ago, but that is more a matter of choice in how to use resources than a lack of resources. They could easily be influential in Africa and at least parts of the Middle East where they to choose to do so.

[Oncle Boris]

To Bebro and those who disagree on my position about Europe and China.

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Europe wont be dead - it may be one of the best places to LIVE as far as into the future as anyone can see - but even the most powerful individual states are likely to continue their relative declines, as fast as the US or even faster (due to better demographics in the US)

True. No one will ever be dead for a long time. I did not say 'dead' as in they'll be like Mozambique in 50 years. But certainly as in 'look what they were in 1900'.

The best hope for european power lies in 1. Unification into a single power 2. Succesful incorporation of the new members 3. Economic revival in the core countries 4. dealing with the demographic issues, the aging of the population and the need to integrate immigrants.

Absolutely. And what does China have to deal with? Corruption, military efficiency, and economic growth. That is relatively easier to do. And no one can ever win the demographic race against India or China.

These are all problematic, and some conflict with each other (for example further integrations versus expansion) Even if all are achieved succesfully, that may at best move the EU ahead of the US, at a time when both enter long term declines relative to China and India.

Precisely.

About UK: well, I'd also add that France is the world's third exporter of weapons, and that they have an independant nuclear technology they can share (unlike UK who has more ties with the US)(the non-proliferation treaty is dubious). They also have the second-best jet fighter in the world, and they are the only country apart from the US that has nuclear aircraft carriers.
Can UK talk with Russia and Germany or Russia? F'course. But I'd guess France's better results in doing so must be, in some sort, a good measure of their influence.

About China: they don't need power projection anyway. As LOTM said, the Asian sphere of influence is sufficient. The day they'll get power projection, will be the day they surpass the US. I think their rise to power is close enough that most won't annoy them now, under the fear of soon to come reprisals. And the reason they can't take Taiwan is that it's defended by the US. Nothing else.

Japan: way understimated. America badly needs them. And their military spendings place them in 4th rank, just below Russia but above UK and France.

[GePap]

Well, soon enough they will be a big player in the world oil msrket as a major consumer, and in 50 years probalby consumer #1.

[muxec]

Power is not in war, but in peace

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I think their rise to power is close enough that most won't annoy them now, under the fear of soon to come reprisals. .

As long as their behavior is prudent, who has reason to annoy them? For the most part their behavior in recent years has been responsible(despite occasional sabre rattling on Taiwan) and in Korea the US is counting on China to act the responsible regional regional power.

Powers like France, UK, and Germany have neither the ability nor the need to annoy China. Russia has at least until recently attempted to keep open the China relationship to avoid being force into strategic dependence on the US. The global power with the ability to slow the growth of Chinese power is the US - which faces the classic dilemma of a status quo power facing a rising power - is conflict inevitable, in which case its best to nip the rising power in the bud early, when youre still dominant, or is the rising power likely to be satisfied with a place in the international system you can accommodate, and so its best to appease them? Remember, appeasement isnt a dirty word if the folk youre dealing with are reasonable. And if you guess wrong, can you assemble a balancing coalition later when you need to, when youre not strong enough to win on your own?

[lord of the mark]

my position re China, etc is largely based on a very simple view of history, gleaned from Paul Kennedy. The secret to world power since about 1600 has been the application of a particular set of legal and financial institutions to larger and larger population/resource bases. The institutions (property rights, banking and central banking, stock and commodity exchanges, insurance, etc) were brought to fruition in Holland (though some were invented in Ren Italy or elsewhere). When UK adopted them, with a superior demographic and resource base and better strategic geography than Holland, UK rose to number 1. When the US developed with those institutions, with a demographic and resource base and strategic geography superior to Britain, US rose to number 1. China has a demography greater than the US, and is developing industry and is well on the road to adopting the winning institutions. Ergo the Rise of China is inevitable.

Chinas real challenges long term are it weak natural resource base relative to its population (that hasnt mattered much since the global fall in commodity prices 20 years ago, but could that change?) and its less than ideal strategic position (its much more vulnerable to on its frontiers than the US or UK were - how much will that matter in a heavily nuclear world?)

[Oncle Boris]

LOTM- your point is accurate and well defended.

I think it is in America's best interests to stop China now. The question is: how?

It seems to me that Americans tend to believe democracy and freedom is a done deal. However, history has always been cyclic. It is highly probable that we have reached a top and that we're near the falling edge of the curve.
The fall of America might spread a totally new era. Once then, Westerners will realize what it is to have other countries dictate what is good for them.

Not that I like America much, but I fear China might be even worse.

[DanS]

I think it is in America's best interests to stop China now.

It's in our best interests, and all of humanity's interest, to let them work themselves out of their grinding poverty and general backwardness.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by muxec
Power is not in war, but in peace

hippie alert!!!!!!!!!!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
LOTM- your point is accurate and well defended.

I think it is in America's best interests to stop China now. The question is: how?

It seems to me that Americans tend to believe democracy and freedom is a done deal. However, history has always been cyclic. It is highly probable that we have reached a top and that we're near the falling edge of the curve.
The fall of America might spread a totally new era. Once then, Westerners will realize what it is to have other countries dictate what is good for them.

Not that I like America much, but I fear China might be even worse.

First i think democracy and freedom largely are a done deal. As China approaches the per cap GDP figures necessary to challenge the US for #1, a combination of the legal framework required for growth (private property, contract rights, etc) and the social consequences of rising GDP per cap (universal literacy, a large middle class, etc) will undermine the authoritarian system. There are already hints of that, and that process will only accelerate as China develops.

Second - I think that China, should it attempt to become hegemoniacal, will easily be balanced by a coaliton of the US, Russia, Japan and India (it would be nice to have the EU on board, but not essential) If anyone asks why the US is not now being balanced by such a coalition, my answer is that despite all the rhetoric surround Iraq, Bush, neocons, etc the US is NOT in fact hegemoniacal now (one legally disputed 3rd world intervention doth not a hegemon make)

Third - if youre implying that "now we'll get a taste of waht the south experienced in the age of imperialism" i think youre quite wrong - the age of imperialism was driven not by this kind of power imbalance, but by the failure of southern societies to come close to adopting northern institutional ways - i cant see the US or the EU in the next hundred years becoming as rigid as 19th cent China or Turkey - indeed the US resurgence in the 1990's was driven to some extent by the wholesale adoption of Japanese manufacturing and business techniques - we continue to be able to learn from others. OTOH if youre saying the US may someday face the same kinds of frustrations France now faces, i think you may be right.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
It seems to me that Americans tend to believe democracy and freedom is a done deal. However, history has always been cyclic.

As far as states are concerned its cyclic. As far as IDEAS are concerned its linear. Where is Hollands hegemony now? Dead and gone. Where are the ideas that gave Holland power? Whereever US dominance runs, and beyond, and if replaced, only with new ideas that grew organically out of Hollands, NOT by reversion to the ancien regime.

[Oncle Boris]

The US not hegemonical?

Seriously, I think it is, if we look at the success they have in lifting trade barriers. I don't want to debate AGAIN if this is good or bad to the rest of the world, but using force and diplomacy to impose your agenda is being hegemonical- whatever the consequences.

Say the USSR had not fallen, and that in most countries the communist guerillas had won (which is not the case). Of course, the Soviets would say "communism is a done deal, it is the winner system, and we are not being hegemonical because what we're doing is good anyway".

BZZZZT wrong.

If you claim that democracy is a done deal, then you are postulating the END of history and the beginning of 'post-history'. So far, there are no strong arguments to demonstrate that 'democracy/capitalism' is the ultimate system by which humans have found common ground for truth and efficiency. It is highly probable that within a two centuries or longer timeframe, a new system will rise and supplant the last one, just as things have been since 3000 BC. My question now: is China the last great empire of the democratic/capitalist tradition, or the first empire of the [insert semantico-sociological theory here].

My intuition on this (it is embryonic) is that possibly the end of history as we know it, or at least the coming of a new age, will come with an unified Earth government that undergoes serious space colonization. China might or not be the unifying power behind this- as 'power consolidation' is about a stronger force reuniting weaker ones long enough for the members to melt in a new nation (the birth of European identities followed this pattern during the Middle Ages up to the creation of a national identity).

I think post-modernism is about the spleen in the face of absurdity; i.e. capitalism's driving force is profit, which is quantitative in its nature, and thus necessarily unsatisfying. Nationalism-imperialism and evangelization (both children of cultural relativism) are probably over. What will be humanity's next qualitative goal? (this is where space colonization might come in)...