4 ms·

I don't think we really have a good definition of a superpower that fits the modern world. But I think it's a fair claim that China currently lacks (or appears

by soneil 5y ago

I don't think we really have a good definition of a superpower that fits the modern world. But I think it's a fair claim that China currently lacks (or appears to lack) the force projection required to fit the traditional description.

munk-a 5y ago
I think it's unreasonable to argue that China isn't a regional power since it's bullying its way through the South China Sea without any local resistance - I think the fact that the US isn't opposing China in this in any sort of meaningful way sort of reinforces the argument that they may be a super power. However, I find the strongest argument as to their super-power-ness to be their extreme infrastructure investments in south asia (Gwadar Port in particular but also their various investments in Ceylon and the Red Sea) and Africa. China is working hard to establish a monopoly on rare earth mineral extraction. However, due to the astronomical amount of military spending the US continues to commit to I think it's fair to argue the point. China might have been a super power in the 80 with this level of global investment - but the US is just going into orbit.
- edgyquant 5y ago
  Nobody is arguing China isn’t a regional power though? It being a regional power is irrelevant and a bit of a strawman argument. Superpowers, by definition, are global powers a level above great power.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    It isn't a strawman argument - I was building evidence to support the position that China can probably be considered a superpower.
    - edgyquant 5y ago
      It is a strawman. No one mentioned them not being a regional power yet you argued against that anyway.
      - munk-a 5y ago
        Just to clarify - I used the argument that they're a regional power as an establishing fact for my further statements. This is HN and most arguments are made in good faith, you don't need to be so suspicious of the fallacies here - sometimes your sensors will go off incorrectly, as is the case here.
ncmncm 5y ago
China has nuclear weapons, rockets big enough to carry them anywhere, and they work reliably. And, they have trillions of US dollars' worth of treasury bonds. That last does not make them a threat to the US, but it does to anybody else. For the US, they can threaten not to buy more treasury bonds. Who else can?
edgyquant 5y ago
Exactly. Force projection is one of the main qualifiers for what makes a superpower. China is a great power, for sure, but it isn’t a superpower.
- sangnoir 5y ago
  > Force projection is one of the main qualifiers for what makes a superpower This sounds like a retcon to me: the USSR was unquestionably a superpower, but had limited force projection (euphemism for carrier groups).
  - edgyquant 5y ago
    The USSR had global force projection, or close to it, just due to its geography.
  - soneil 5y ago
    This is more what I was going for - not retcon exactly, but that our definition of what a superpower is, changes more often than our list of who the members are. I'd always heard it described as essentially force projection - the ability to fight a war on the other side of the planet - but this is probably just a snapshot in time too. Does Russia fit that bill? did it ever? I think that's where we get caught up in trying to nail down a definition while it keeps changing around us. The Cold War certainly reached the other side of the planet. They certainly had a sphere of influence. But I think it seems very obvious that between England and France earning the title, America and Russia earning the title, and now China - the definition has changed each time. So we're trying to argue semantics with a definition we're not clear on - no wonder we get fuzzy results.

by soneil 5y ago

munk-a 5y ago

I think it's unreasonable to argue that China isn't a regional power since it's bullying its way through the South China Sea without any local resistance - I think the fact that the US isn't opposing China in this in any sort of meaningful way sort of reinforces the argument that they may be a super power. However, I find the strongest argument as to their super-power-ness to be their extreme infrastructure investments in south asia (Gwadar Port in particular but also their various investments in Ceylon and the Red Sea) and Africa. China is working hard to establish a monopoly on rare earth mineral extraction. However, due to the astronomical amount of military spending the US continues to commit to I think it's fair to argue the point. China might have been a super power in the 80 with this level of global investment - but the US is just going into orbit.

edgyquant 5y ago
Nobody is arguing China isn’t a regional power though? It being a regional power is irrelevant and a bit of a strawman argument. Superpowers, by definition, are global powers a level above great power.
- munk-a 5y ago
  It isn't a strawman argument - I was building evidence to support the position that China can probably be considered a superpower.
  - edgyquant 5y ago
    It is a strawman. No one mentioned them not being a regional power yet you argued against that anyway.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      Just to clarify - I used the argument that they're a regional power as an establishing fact for my further statements. This is HN and most arguments are made in good faith, you don't need to be so suspicious of the fallacies here - sometimes your sensors will go off incorrectly, as is the case here.

ncmncm 5y ago

China has nuclear weapons, rockets big enough to carry them anywhere, and they work reliably. And, they have trillions of US dollars' worth of treasury bonds. That last does not make them a threat to the US, but it does to anybody else. For the US, they can threaten not to buy more treasury bonds. Who else can?

edgyquant 5y ago

Exactly. Force projection is one of the main qualifiers for what makes a superpower. China is a great power, for sure, but it isn’t a superpower.

sangnoir 5y ago
> Force projection is one of the main qualifiers for what makes a superpower This sounds like a retcon to me: the USSR was unquestionably a superpower, but had limited force projection (euphemism for carrier groups).
- edgyquant 5y ago
  The USSR had global force projection, or close to it, just due to its geography.
- soneil 5y ago
  This is more what I was going for - not retcon exactly, but that our definition of what a superpower is, changes more often than our list of who the members are. I'd always heard it described as essentially force projection - the ability to fight a war on the other side of the planet - but this is probably just a snapshot in time too. Does Russia fit that bill? did it ever? I think that's where we get caught up in trying to nail down a definition while it keeps changing around us. The Cold War certainly reached the other side of the planet. They certainly had a sphere of influence. But I think it seems very obvious that between England and France earning the title, America and Russia earning the title, and now China - the definition has changed each time. So we're trying to argue semantics with a definition we're not clear on - no wonder we get fuzzy results.