 |
|  |
 |
|
Jaguar
|
 |
Montgomery County, MD
Apr 2000 time: 00:33
|
|
1. USA
2. Germany
3. France
4. UK
5. Japan
6. China
7. Russia
The pickings become pretty slim after this. Yea, India is big, but it hasn't done anything significant in the last century. Italy would have an excellent chance of defeating it in a war.
And I do realize that 2-6 can be in pretty much any order, depending on what you're taking into consideration. USA is a clear 1, and Russia is a clear 7.
[insert obligatory arguments about how China and India have lots of people and kick ass]
Who would you pick to win in a fight: an Abrams, or 50 virtually untrained people, thirty of whom have rifles?
Last edited by Jaguar on 08-01-2004 at 08:00
|
|
|  |
 |
|
mrmitchell
|
|
Two that should be at least in the top 15 are Brazil and Switzerland, but the former is only a "regional power" and the latter is "strong but not at all influential."
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Joseph
|
 |
Ca. USA
Feb 2000 time: 21:33
|
|
quote: 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. | 13th for the records. Yes 12 countrys had a better military than us in Dec. 1939. By Dec 6th 1941 We were still way way behined the other 12. The B-17, 24, 25 were just starting to be built. Our best fighter was just starting, P-38. The P-40 was our main airplane of the day. The Navy had some F4F Wildcats. In 3 years 8 mos later, we were the biggest and best military in the world.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000 time: 00:33
|
|
quote: Originally posted by 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)... |
Its the end of history, as Fukiyama says, in the sense that there is no competitive ideology anymore. I would venture that a slightly more protectionist trading system than advocated by the US, or controls on short term financial flows, as advocated by Malaysia, does NOT constitute an alternative ideology, in the way that Communism and Fascism once did. As FF says, these, like disputes about the extent of the social welfare state, are not world historical issues. Universal suffrage my only be 200 or so years old, but the broader outlines of a tolerant liberal society have been developing for at least 400 years. And there is no prospect of returning to a limited suffrage society - the drive for individual dignity and equality before the law, which are the driving forces of liberalism, not profit, prevent that. Perhaps a new ideology will arise - one could imagine that democratic liberalism will fail to deal with issues relating to sentient machines, for example - but there is no particular sign of that happening in China any time in the near future. China may not be the last dominant power - why should the cycles of national power end? but in all likelihood it, at least, will arise to dominance as a liberal democratic power.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33. Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|