 |
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
yes it is. no need to add anyone.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Provost Harrison
|
 |
The farce is strong with this one.
Feb 2000
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pekka
Budget may be small.. but the quality of men is high. It's all on your mind, we're actually many times more than 5 million, don't buy that cia fact book crap!
Plus, when you take the batteries away from high-tech armies, they're disabled  .
And yes, we're filled with oil. We just hide it well and don't tell about it to the rest of the world, as we're ruling all without you knowing it. |
Well we have oil and coal. Shame we never mine any of the latter. There was a politician who said something like 'How, living in an island built on coal and surrounded by fish, can we have a coal and fishing crisis?' 
Yeah, our military probably packs a lot of punch. Fairly large, yet high tech, with some of the best special units in the world. The Americans use us all the time for these  I believe there is an expression amongst the Russian special services Spetznatz which reads 'We're not the SAS' And the SBS are supposed to be a lot better than the SAS too.
Don't mess 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Vagabond
|
 |
of realpolitik and counterpropaganda
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
(Note: within each group, countries are given in alphabetic order)
Hyperpowers: USA
Superpowers: China, EU, Russia
Great Powers: France, Germany, India, Japan, UK
Other influential contries: Brazil, Canada, Cuba, Irak, Iran, Israel, Italy, N.Korea, S.Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Turkey
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:19
|
|
I think that as a person with a doubtful amount of wisdom you should stop using the image of a wise-by-definition character as an avatar icon.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ecthelion
I think that as a person with a doubtful amount of wisdom you should stop using the image of a wise-by-definition character as an avatar icon. |
Ecthelion, Why don't you have an avatar? Ned
On further thought, try making one from the emperor Hadrian.
Last edited by Ned on 29-04-2002 at 01:46
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mikhail
|
|
flesh.and.binary
Mar 2002
time: 23:19
|
|
Well, strictly economy and military, it would probably be:
1. China (china's economy may be somewhat smaller than the United State's, but it's military is MUCH larger, and that makes the difference)
2. USA
3. Russia
However, in terms of the WILL to be powerful, and the WILL to control the world, it would have to be Russia.
China has shown on numerous occasions that it is content with simply being the major power in Asia. It has no aspirations for having power over the rest of the world.
The United States, for the time being, has the power to be influential, but not the will. The United States once had great leaders, and public servants as gifted and selfless as any other. But America is a nation in decline, and it's people have little will to be well led. America's past and its resources make it a major player for the nonce, but nations of small resources, BUT (quoting Orson Card here) strong will can change the course of history, as the Huns, Mongols, and Arabs have shown, sometimes to devastating effect, and as the people of the Ganges have shown far more pacifically.
Not to offend any of the American's here, but America's time in the spotlight is almost over, most in part due to poor foreign policy by both Clinton and Bush. Not to say George Bush's foreign policy is inept, but even US allies like the Saudis and Egyptians would side with Saddam Hussein instead of the United States. You really have to work hard to produce a result that bad. (again, this is just my opinion, I don't intend to offend anyone)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
1. China (china's economy may be somewhat smaller than the United State's, but it's military is MUCH larger, and that makes the difference) |
China has a larger standing military (army and air force anyway), but they have less military POWER and POWER PROJECTION than Great Britain. All they really have is a 2 million man army and a few thousand obsolete aircraft and tanks, with only a few dozen modern fighter aircraft. Their navy is also nothing more than a brown water frigate navy.
Size, ultimately, means nothing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mikhail
Well, strictly economy and military, it would probably be:
1. China (china's economy may be somewhat smaller than the United State's, but it's military is MUCH larger, and that makes the difference)
2. USA
3. Russia
However, in terms of the WILL to be powerful, and the WILL to control the world, it would have to be Russia.
China has shown on numerous occasions that it is content with simply being the major power in Asia. It has no aspirations for having power over the rest of the world.
The United States, for the time being, has the power to be influential, but not the will. The United States once had great leaders, and public servants as gifted and selfless as any other. But America is a nation in decline, and it's people have little will to be well led. America's past and its resources make it a major player for the nonce, but nations of small resources, BUT (quoting Orson Card here) strong will can change the course of history, as the Huns, Mongols, and Arabs have shown, sometimes to devastating effect, and as the people of the Ganges have shown far more pacifically.
Not to offend any of the American's here, but America's time in the spotlight is almost over, most in part due to poor foreign policy by both Clinton and Bush. Not to say George Bush's foreign policy is inept, but even US allies like the Saudis and Egyptians would side with Saddam Hussein instead of the United States. You really have to work hard to produce a result that bad. (again, this is just my opinion, I don't intend to offend anyone) |
Mihail, I note that you live next door to the Bear. If it gets frisky and wants to again take over your country, who would you ask for help, the U.S. or China?
BTW, I agree with you on Bush. He has been soft, inconsistent, illogical and stupid.
But I dare say, you and I will probably disagree on why.
Ned
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mikhail
|
|
flesh.and.binary
Mar 2002
time: 23:19
|
|
David: True. But Afghanistan also turned back a Soviet Invasion army, and Vietnamese guerrilas defeated the United States.
If China and the US went to war, it's safe to assume that it would be mostly on Chinese soil, since China really can't afford to send them over to the US, and any that they tried could easily be intercepted by Japan, who we all know is in the USA's pocket.
Their technology may be outdated, but there are so many, that if they fortified and defended, using their knowledge of the terrain, they may very well be able to defeat the United States. Or put up a good fight.
They bottom line is, both China and the United States are t
oo big to be swallowed up by the other. Even if the United States took control of China (or vice versa), they wouldn't be able to hold it for long.
Spiffor: Well, as long as Russia and India (and Japan to an extent as well) would both jump at the chance to invade China while their military is focused elsewhere, I don't think we will really have to worry about Chinese agression.
India is probably the biggest threat to the Asian nations. China has the biggest population at the moment, but probably not for long. For one thing, China has all kinds of problems controlling it's population (the reproduction laws that were passed in the 70s, for instance), while India really doesn't.
The only reason India doesn't already control South Asia, is due to Pakistan being hostile. Alternately, the only reason Pakistan doesn't control all the Middle Eastern Muslim states, is because they have to defend from India. It's kind of an endless circle, but it keeps them out of Europe and the America's hair, so there's no complaining here.
The main reason the United States has kept their power (as opposed to losing it like France, Germany, or Russia) is because they don't have any threat to their borders. Canada and Mexico have, what, 220,000 soldiers COMBINDED? Less than a fifth of the United States army, and there are enough gun-owning CIVILIANS in the USA to defend should either of those countries attack.
"Countries that don't have guns, AREN'T AMERICAN!"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Akka
|
 |
In front of my computer.
Nov 2001
time: 06:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mikhail
Well, strictly economy and military, it would probably be:
1. China (china's economy may be somewhat smaller than the United State's, but it's military is MUCH larger, and that makes the difference)
2. USA
3. Russia
|
??
Let's be serious, USA only place is number one, military or economically. It represents alone about one quarter of the wealth produced in the world, and it's the country with the largest military budget and the most advanced weapons.
China has a hell of a potential, but it's for tomorrow, not today. And IMHO, I think that India has an even higher potential.
Russia... Mmh... Russia has a serious world influence because of its recent past, its size and the remnant of its military power, but it's in full decay. It actually has not the means to be a world power, as long as it has not rebuilt its economy, which is for now close to nonexistant. Could make a loud comeback in 10-20 years though.
Europe is the reverse of Russia : it has the means of being a superpower, but not the will. France, Germany and UK, though, has got enough power to be heard and not ignored.
Japan ?
Well, Japan could be a world power too, but I never felt the Japaneses willing to involve themselve in the world political confrontations since the end of the WW2.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mikhail
David: True. But Afghanistan also turned back a Soviet Invasion army, and Vietnamese guerrilas defeated the United States.
If China and the US went to war, it's safe to assume that it would be mostly on Chinese soil, since China really can't afford to send them over to the US, and any that they tried could easily be intercepted by Japan, who we all know is in the USA's pocket.
Their technology may be outdated, but there are so many, that if they fortified and defended, using their knowledge of the terrain, they may very well be able to defeat the United States. Or put up a good fight.
They bottom line is, both China and the United States are t
oo big to be swallowed up by the other. Even if the United States took control of China (or vice versa), they wouldn't be able to hold it for long.
Spiffor: Well, as long as Russia and India (and Japan to an extent as well) would both jump at the chance to invade China while their military is focused elsewhere, I don't think we will really have to worry about Chinese agression.
India is probably the biggest threat to the Asian nations. China has the biggest population at the moment, but probably not for long. For one thing, China has all kinds of problems controlling it's population (the reproduction laws that were passed in the 70s, for instance), while India really doesn't.
The only reason India doesn't already control South Asia, is due to Pakistan being hostile. Alternately, the only reason Pakistan doesn't control all the Middle Eastern Muslim states, is because they have to defend from India. It's kind of an endless circle, but it keeps them out of Europe and the America's hair, so there's no complaining here.
The main reason the United States has kept their power (as opposed to losing it like France, Germany, or Russia) is because they don't have any threat to their borders. Canada and Mexico have, what, 220,000 soldiers COMBINDED? Less than a fifth of the United States army, and there are enough gun-owning CIVILIANS in the USA to defend should either of those countries attack.
"Countries that don't have guns, AREN'T AMERICAN!" |
I think the way we would handle China is simply use airpower and local forces on the ground - similar to Afghanistan. The U.S. would have no long term interest in actually occuppying China.
Ned
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
If China and the US went to war, it's safe to assume that it would be mostly on Chinese soil, |
Wrong. Any US-China war would be either over Taiwan - a naval and air issue which we would dominate - or a war in South Korea, a ground and air war, although the majority of US participation would be in the air, where we would again dominate. South Korea has a massive reserve force to complement their large army, and should be able to successfully defend S. Korea under a US/SK controlled sky.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
India is probably the biggest threat to the Asian nations. |
How? They are at least as militarily incompetent as China is. The only thinh they have going for them is their navy - India is the only nation with aircraft carriers in Asia. Of course, their only active carrier (Viraat) is an old ship, originally British, and the entire Indian Navy is ill-maintained and poorly trained.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mikhail
|
|
flesh.and.binary
Mar 2002
time: 23:19
|
|
Akka: You sound like me. :P Means and will, India having more potential than China. Great minds think alike.
Ned: Well.....3 things really.
1. Ukraine has never been truly independent from Russia. Soviet elite remain entrenched, stalling efforts at economic reform, privatization, and civic liberties. Most Ukrainians consider themselves Russian, and if Russia sought to control the Ukraine again, the resistence would not be much. The adults grew up under Russian control. It's probably more comfortable for them than an independence, where a decade has passed, and we still haven't seen any of the supposed 'benefits' of capitalism. Being able to speak Ukrainian instead of Russian is a plus, but everyone learns Russian anyway, so it's really no different.
2. The Ukraine's military may only be 1/3rd the size of Russia's, but it is not helpless like Afghanistan. We have 10 million people who are fit for military service. While we don't put a lot of money into our military, we're no more outdated than Russia.
3. Who would we ask?
I don't see why the United States would help us. The United States only helps when they have something to gain. To stop the spread of Communism. Lower their oil prices. Punish countries that do something bad to them. The Ukraine isn't even a major trading partner with the Americans. Besides: accepting US help would be more or less ensuring that our country becomes obedient to their government's law and trade demands, along with giving the American's even MORE influence in East Europe.
As for China: Chinese troops are ALREADY massed on the shared Russian border. They like being the power in Asia, and would rather not see another Soviet Union. The Chinese would help us whether we asked them to or not.
Also, ned, I can point out all of Bush's failings to you, if you want.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
Mik,
quote:
As for China: Chinese troops are ALREADY massed on the shared Russian border. They like being the power in Asia, and would rather not see another Soviet Union. The Chinese would help us whether we asked them to or not. |
I think you seriously misjudge Chinese abilities/intentions.
Ned,
quote:
David, India is a natural ally: a Democratic island in a sea of Islamic/Communist dictatorships. Yearly, it grows closer to the U.S. through Indian immigration to the U.S. and economic ties. We have a lot in common.
It is only a matter of time until we formalize our alliance. |
OK, but they're still militarily incompetent.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mikhail
|
|
flesh.and.binary
Mar 2002
time: 23:19
|
|
Also, India's military may be weak by USA standards, but compared to Vietnam, Thailand, Burma, Nepal, and other South Asian countries, it's about like comparing the United States to Cuba.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-04-2002 06:33
|