What are the most powerful and influential countries?

[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)

[Heresson]

I think Turkey may be one of the more important countries, or surely will be. They are big, will get rich when enter EU, have big population, good location, and possibly good relationship with Turkish post-Soviet Asian republics

[David Floyd]

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.

[Spiffor]

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

I love how you say it. So true, so precise, so well said.

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.

For now, but in the future ?

[Ned]

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

[Akka]

Originally posted by Ned
Those of you from the EU, do you think the EU should have its own armed forces and ban and independent command structure?

Ned

Of course.
But we'd have to get some kind of unity before.
Europe contains several second-rank world powers, it just needs to break its millenium-habit of being divided, and it could perfectly take care of itself alone.

[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!"

[Akka]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Ned]

Originally posted by David Floyd


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.

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.

Ned

[David Floyd]

Mik,

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,

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]

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.