3 ms·

> 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

> 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

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.