3 ms·

> Is China not a super power? No. They are a regional power at best. > Europe? Given the number of US bases in Europe, I'd says no. A superpower by definitio

> Is China not a super power? No. They are a regional power at best. > Europe? Given the number of US bases in Europe, I'd says no. A superpower by definition wouldn't need other countries defending it.

lm28469 7y ago
If China isn't a superpower I don't know who is. Either 2nd or 3rd by gdp [0], literally building the vast majority of the world tech, leading in renewable energy [1], largest army in the world, in the top 3 of military strength ranking [2]. Economically invading Europe [3]. Playing the smart game in Africa [4], and the list goes on and on. If anything the US is on the way down while china is on their way up, seeing it from the outside it looks like the US is slowly rotting away and getting soft while china is aggressively expanding and starting to set their own conditions. The thing is that China hasn't peaked yet while the US arguably peaked in the 90s. Don't get me wrong, China is very far from being a nice place, but they know what they're doing. > Given the number of US bases in Europe, I'd says no. A superpower by definition wouldn't need other countries defending it. It's more like the US are happy to have a presence in Europe than the other way around. These are leftovers of ww2 and aren't for defense anymore, as it turns out it's very convenient to have presence in europe when you want to go lose a war or two in the middle east. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China [2] https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp [3] https://www.npr.org/2018/10/09/642587456/chinese-firms-now-hold-stakes-in-over-a-dozen-european-ports https://www.npr.org/2018/10/09/642587456/chinese-firms-now-h... [4] https://qz.com/1550626/chinas-investment-will-allow-africa-to-lead-the-22nd-century/ https://qz.com/1550626/chinas-investment-will-allow-africa-t...
- chiph 7y ago
  China is almost a superpower. They have the beginnings of a blue-water navy, which a primary requirement for projecting force beyond your borders. So far as economics, they are indeed very powerful because they became the low-cost manufacturing center of the world. As seen in the past, those jobs can easily leave a nation for another country/region when it becomes cheaper. As their standard of living increases, this is more and more likely to happen. > These are leftovers of ww2 and aren't for defense anymore Ask the residents of Estonia (a NATO member) if they'd like to return to living under the Soviets.
- dntbnmpls 7y ago
  > Either 2nd or 3rd by gdp [0] Japan was 2nd or 3rd by GDP for longer than china, they were never a superpower. > literally building the vast majority of the world tech, leading in renewable energy [1] And? > largest army in the world And the 2nd largest army is the indian army. Are they are superpower? > in the top 3 of military strength ranking Wasn't iraq in the top 5? There is quite a drop from #1 and the rest. > Economically invading Europe [3]. Invading a much wealthier region? Using your logic, europe has invaded china even more considering how much investment europe has in china. > Playing the smart game in Africa [4] "Smart game"? You mean trading? This is the problem with reading so much news/propaganda. You start parroting them without bothering to think. > and the list goes on and on. I bet it does, but nothing on the list will show china to be a superpower. > If anything the US is on the way down while china is on their way up Definitely china is on the way up relative to the US. But that doesn't make them a superpower. >It's more like the US are happy to have a presence in Europe than the other way around. Whatever the reason, the point is Europe can't be a superpower when it has foreign military/occupation presence. It's conceivable that china or europe may one day be a superpower, but neither are at the moment.
  - lm28469 7y ago
    You're refuting all the points by saying "X country also as Y attribute" but what you fail to grasp is that China is one of the only country that combines all at the same time. Japan might have a good gdp but you can nuke then out of existence with a few bombs. Iraq might have a good army but they're not anywhere close to an economical power. > There is quite a drop from #1 and the rest. Not really https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp > the point is Europe can't be a superpower when it has foreign military/occupation presence Maybe, maybe not, if we start making up our own definitions of a superpower it's going to be a long discussion.
    - dntbnmpls 7y ago
      > You're refuting all the points by saying "X country also as Y attribute" but what you fail to grasp is that China is one of the only country that combines all at the same time. The point was that all those non-superpower level attributes don't collectively amount to superpower status. China would have to rise a notch or two on every metric in order to even be considered a superpower. Even then they'd have a lot more work building the global infrastructure that the US built over many decades. > Not really https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp Yes really. The fact that your list puts russia anywhere close to the US in anything should make you question the list. I'd love to see how the justification for how russia compares to US in "military might and financials to logistical capability and geography.". Russia is a joke militarily to the US. What do they have? 1 small carrier? Financials? Is that supposed to be funny. Logistics? Only the US has worldwide logistics capability. Geography? Russia is pretty much tied to northern eurasia and their geography is mostly a liability than an asset. We have territories stretching from the arctic to the pacific to the carribean with no real competitors in our hemisphere. > Maybe, maybe not, if we start making up our own definitions of a superpower it's going to be a long discussion. I don't think it is controversial to say that you can't rely on another nation to provide your defense and claim to be a superpower. But then again you think russia is a near equal to the US in power based on a website, so what's the point continuing the discussion. Just another case of agreeing to disagree I'm afraid.

lm28469 7y ago

If China isn't a superpower I don't know who is. Either 2nd or 3rd by gdp [0], literally building the vast majority of the world tech, leading in renewable energy [1], largest army in the world, in the top 3 of military strength ranking [2]. Economically invading Europe [3]. Playing the smart game in Africa [4], and the list goes on and on. If anything the US is on the way down while china is on their way up, seeing it from the outside it looks like the US is slowly rotting away and getting soft while china is aggressively expanding and starting to set their own conditions. The thing is that China hasn't peaked yet while the US arguably peaked in the 90s. Don't get me wrong, China is very far from being a nice place, but they know what they're doing. > Given the number of US bases in Europe, I'd says no. A superpower by definition wouldn't need other countries defending it. It's more like the US are happy to have a presence in Europe than the other way around. These are leftovers of ww2 and aren't for defense anymore, as it turns out it's very convenient to have presence in europe when you want to go lose a war or two in the middle east. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China [2] https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp [3] https://www.npr.org/2018/10/09/642587456/chinese-firms-now-hold-stakes-in-over-a-dozen-european-ports https://www.npr.org/2018/10/09/642587456/chinese-firms-now-h... [4] https://qz.com/1550626/chinas-investment-will-allow-africa-to-lead-the-22nd-century/ https://qz.com/1550626/chinas-investment-will-allow-africa-t...

chiph 7y ago
China is almost a superpower. They have the beginnings of a blue-water navy, which a primary requirement for projecting force beyond your borders. So far as economics, they are indeed very powerful because they became the low-cost manufacturing center of the world. As seen in the past, those jobs can easily leave a nation for another country/region when it becomes cheaper. As their standard of living increases, this is more and more likely to happen. > These are leftovers of ww2 and aren't for defense anymore Ask the residents of Estonia (a NATO member) if they'd like to return to living under the Soviets.
dntbnmpls 7y ago
> Either 2nd or 3rd by gdp [0] Japan was 2nd or 3rd by GDP for longer than china, they were never a superpower. > literally building the vast majority of the world tech, leading in renewable energy [1] And? > largest army in the world And the 2nd largest army is the indian army. Are they are superpower? > in the top 3 of military strength ranking Wasn't iraq in the top 5? There is quite a drop from #1 and the rest. > Economically invading Europe [3]. Invading a much wealthier region? Using your logic, europe has invaded china even more considering how much investment europe has in china. > Playing the smart game in Africa [4] "Smart game"? You mean trading? This is the problem with reading so much news/propaganda. You start parroting them without bothering to think. > and the list goes on and on. I bet it does, but nothing on the list will show china to be a superpower. > If anything the US is on the way down while china is on their way up Definitely china is on the way up relative to the US. But that doesn't make them a superpower. >It's more like the US are happy to have a presence in Europe than the other way around. Whatever the reason, the point is Europe can't be a superpower when it has foreign military/occupation presence. It's conceivable that china or europe may one day be a superpower, but neither are at the moment.
- lm28469 7y ago
  You're refuting all the points by saying "X country also as Y attribute" but what you fail to grasp is that China is one of the only country that combines all at the same time. Japan might have a good gdp but you can nuke then out of existence with a few bombs. Iraq might have a good army but they're not anywhere close to an economical power. > There is quite a drop from #1 and the rest. Not really https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp > the point is Europe can't be a superpower when it has foreign military/occupation presence Maybe, maybe not, if we start making up our own definitions of a superpower it's going to be a long discussion.
  - dntbnmpls 7y ago
    > You're refuting all the points by saying "X country also as Y attribute" but what you fail to grasp is that China is one of the only country that combines all at the same time. The point was that all those non-superpower level attributes don't collectively amount to superpower status. China would have to rise a notch or two on every metric in order to even be considered a superpower. Even then they'd have a lot more work building the global infrastructure that the US built over many decades. > Not really https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp Yes really. The fact that your list puts russia anywhere close to the US in anything should make you question the list. I'd love to see how the justification for how russia compares to US in "military might and financials to logistical capability and geography.". Russia is a joke militarily to the US. What do they have? 1 small carrier? Financials? Is that supposed to be funny. Logistics? Only the US has worldwide logistics capability. Geography? Russia is pretty much tied to northern eurasia and their geography is mostly a liability than an asset. We have territories stretching from the arctic to the pacific to the carribean with no real competitors in our hemisphere. > Maybe, maybe not, if we start making up our own definitions of a superpower it's going to be a long discussion. I don't think it is controversial to say that you can't rely on another nation to provide your defense and claim to be a superpower. But then again you think russia is a near equal to the US in power based on a website, so what's the point continuing the discussion. Just another case of agreeing to disagree I'm afraid.