Next Superpower ?

[United Republic of Pinewald]

It will be China, period.

I don't think I want to give any attention to anyone stuck believing the otherwise.

[Dain II Ironfoot]

Once again you overestimate the trust they have in their allies. Have you not see the scandals lately? Have you not seen EU nations not buying crap stories coming from the US? Have you not seen the internal struggles within the EU?
No, they don't trust eachother.

Do you actually know what an allie is? Its not a friend if that's what you believe. An allie is a country that shares several interests with your country. There isn't much trust between the two, nor does there have to be. Shared interests is all that matters. Those shared interests are showing cracks already between the EU and US and the same cracks can be found within NATO. Shared interests don't last forever.

Yes, I know what an ally is. No, I am not overestimating my claims. We do not live in a utopia where the United States is a loving big brother for all, but we do live in a world where Japan and the United States trust each other for mutual cooperation should hostile nations like China or Russia gave either the U.S or Japan concern over their ally. I claimed that Canada and the United States have little to no interest in sabotaging the other, nor use one another for show, and, despite your red herrings, the European Union still maintained positive relations with the United States compared to EU-China or EU-Russia relations. The "interests" are what binds countries together, as stated previously. Japan is interested in keeping China away, and the U.S is interested in maintaining Japanese power in the Pacific. Both formed an alliance and trust one another to help each other should there be concerns in regards to Japan or the United States, the same can be said for France and Germany, both have mutual interests, both cooperate, and trust one another to uphold the alliance with minimal or no precautionary measures.

As for cracks within NATO, politics would dictate that the "cracks" are better than having to align oneself with countries more hostile towards the West, an example of France-NATO relations in the 1960's.

Then please, don't talk about allies being friends, they aren't.
Now back to the topic. How are allies a crucial part of a superpowers?

[Maurepas]

I think the term "Superpower" will become obsolete, if it hasn't already. I think the future will be in supranational unions and the like preventing them both from existing in the way the term presents, and from being necessary for maintaining the peace.

[Crimiea]

Yes, I know what an ally is. No, I am not overestimating my claims. We do not live in a utopia where the United States is a loving big brother for all, but we do live in a world where Japan and the United States trust each other for mutual cooperation should hostile nations like China or Russia gave either the U.S or Japan concern over their ally. I claimed that Canada and the United States have little to no interest in sabotaging the other, nor use one another for show, and, despite your red herrings, the European Union still maintained positive relations with the United States compared to EU-China or EU-Russia relations. The "interests" are what binds countries together, as stated previously. Japan is interested in keeping China away, and the U.S is interested in maintaining Japanese power in the Pacific. Both formed an alliance and trust one another to help each other should there be concerns in regards to Japan or the United States, the same can be said for France and Germany, both have mutual interests, both cooperate, and trust one another to uphold the alliance with minimal or no precautionary measures.

As for cracks within NATO, politics would dictate that the "cracks" are better than having to align oneself with countries more hostile towards the West, an example of France-NATO relations in the 1960's.

Then please, don't talk about allies being friends, they aren't.
Now back to the topic. How are allies a crucial part of a superpowers?

In the political sense, "Friends" are allies, I have been stressing this and both words mean the same thing, especially in regards to politics.

I have already explained why having allies are essential to the power and prominence of superpowers, so let me quote myself:

Yes, I know what an ally is. No, I am not overestimating my claims. We do not live in a utopia where the United States is a loving big brother for all, but we do live in a world where Japan and the United States trust each other for mutual cooperation should hostile nations like China or Russia gave either the U.S or Japan concern over their ally. I claimed that Canada and the United States have little to no interest in sabotaging the other, nor use one another for show, and, despite your red herrings, the European Union still maintained positive relations with the United States compared to EU-China or EU-Russia relations. The "interests" are what binds countries together, as stated previously. Japan is interested in keeping China away, and the U.S is interested in maintaining Japanese power in the Pacific. Both formed an alliance and trust one another to help each other should there be concerns in regards to Japan or the United States, the same can be said for France and Germany, both have mutual interests, both cooperate, and trust one another to uphold the alliance with minimal or no precautionary measures.

As for cracks within NATO, politics would dictate that the "cracks" are better than having to align oneself with countries more hostile towards the West, an example of France-NATO relations in the 1960's.

Bolded = Middle Powers, Regional Powers, and Great Powers

U.S allies (NATO and Non-NATO):
[b]Great Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Slovenia, Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, Hungary, Iceland, Denmark (includes Greenland), Luxembourg, Croatia, Canada, Albania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel.

Former Soviet Union and allies (Warsaw Pact and Non-Warsaw Pact)
Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Vietnam, North Korea, Ethiopia, South Yemen, Albania (until the 1960's), Yugoslavia (prior to the Tito-Stalin split), and China (prior to the Sino-Soviet split).[/b]

Trust is a very big word you know, you should not use it that lightly.

To the best of my knowledge, neither Germany or France suspect any ills from their partners nor the United States and Japan. That constitutes as trust, which I do not see in Sino-Russian relations.

Politics is whether a country likes you or not; it is also whether the elites of the country can cripple your reign or not. Yes, not all countries will get along with you (take for example, Prussian-Austrian relations or Japanese-Russian relations), but to have little to no trustworthy allies to depend on, or having little to no major powers favoring you (after all, without the combined might of Western Europe, Japan, Oceania, and South Korea, the United States would have a very difficult time with the Soviet Union) is detrimental to a country's rise to power.

China has failed at making the right calls, as stated when I argued that China created a barrier of hostile nations, and its most powerful ally, Russia, is still not trusted by Beijing whereas Washington D.C and Ottawa or Berlin and Paris trust one another, worked together, and share diplomatic bonds. "China's Machiavelli", Xi Jinping, has ignored the one golden rule of Machiavelli: Avoid Hatred and is punished for it by having a lack of middle powers or great powers as dependable, trustworthy allies but instead more great and middle powers as hostile nations than friendly ones.

China is not feared, but hated. Vietnam and the Philippines stood no chance against China, but given its close relation with the United States, India, and fellow ASEAN countries, they are more concerned about having powerful allies ignore them (like Russia is ignoring Vietnam's plight despite having more faith in Vietnam's relations with Moscow than with China) than being beaten down by China. China is only "loved" by North Korea, China made wrong decisions regarding its neighbors, China made poor choice of allies (The SCO is only for show, it takes an unrealistically talented diplomat to have India* and Pakistan work together in a stable military and political alliance), and China can only hope Russia continues to be with China, albeit grudgingly.

*India is very friendly and favorable towards the United States and the European Union.

China has a giant wall of hostile nations: Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, Taiwan (although not a recognized country, politics would ruin China if they even blink at Taiwan), India, Bhutan, Mongolia, Australia, and New Zealand. Beyond that wall lies Canada and the United States, which are not very friendly towards China.

China's pet, Russia, is hated by the European Union, and across the Bering strait lies the middle power Canada and current superpower USA.

China, if it did start off as a superpower, would have to deal with the negative opinions of other major powers and middle powers with Israel, Jordan, Germany, Czech Republic, United States, Canada, India, and Japan being middle and great powers.

India and Brazil on the other hand hardly have the intense negativity China has. The United States did not start off as a major world power as one of the most disliked countries, nor was the USSR at the time of its rise. The key to obtaining such power requires the most basic teaching of Niccolo Machiavelli: Avoid hatred.

China failed that, and not only did it fail, it failed to gain the support of some of the world's biggest players on the world stage. The Soviet Union and the United States cooperated against Japan and Germany with help from declining superpowers Britain and France. China hardly have any country but North Korea to turn to for trust, and even Russian-Chinese relations aren't as stable and friendly as people want you to think, at least, not at the level Germany-France relations, US-Canada relations, or USSR-Vietnam-Cuba relations. Russia is simply the pet that can not be taught to not urinate on your couch, whereas Britain/Japan does not cause such problems to the United States. A superpower without the support of great powers and middle powers would not last long.

I could go on, especially in regards to China's poor choice of allies (India + Pakistan in the same alliance? China, you cannot into politics).

I hardly see such problems with India and Brazil, who are rising on the world stage. Until China fixes the mess it got itself into, India and Brazil have a shot at replacing the USA in the future. If the EU federalizes, then I'd consider the New Cold War to be a very interesting, frightening one.

[Marcurix]

You can't really make that claim until it happens. After all, the US was very much opposed to having military bases in other nations at one point.

Sometimes the more power you have the less choice you possess.

Its not about "less choices". The more power one has the more powerhungry one gets. The US is a great example of that, so are alot of pervious world powers.

It's not about being power hungry. The bigger the economy, the greater the economic reach. The greater the economic reach, the greater the political interests. The more political interests, the greater chance something happens.

Sometimes you really don't have a choice. China likely won't once that grace period ends, and it will be forced to move to protect it's interests sooner or later.

[Napkiraly]

Its not about "less choices". The more power one has the more powerhungry one gets. The US is a great example of that, so are alot of pervious world powers.

It's not about being power hungry. The bigger the economy, the greater the economic reach. The greater the economic reach, the greater the political interests. The more political interests, the greater chance something happens.

Sometimes you really don't have a choice. China likely won't once that grace period ends, and it will be forced to move to protect it's interests sooner or later.

Generally when one becomes a world power, you tend to take an interest in global affairs. Partially for the reasons you provided. I mean, China's security view is much more global in scope compared to say, I dunno, twenty years ago. Not because it wanted to, but because circumstances pushed it into that. It's a fine line between what is purposely done and what is compelled due to their standing in the international system.

[Dain II Ironfoot]

Then please, don't talk about allies being friends, they aren't.
Now back to the topic. How are allies a crucial part of a superpowers?

In the political sense, "Friends" are allies, I have been stressing this and both words mean the same thing, especially in regards to politics.

I have already explained why having allies are essential to the power and prominence of superpowers, so let me quote myself:

Yes, I know what an ally is. No, I am not overestimating my claims. We do not live in a utopia where the United States is a loving big brother for all, but we do live in a world where Japan and the United States trust each other for mutual cooperation should hostile nations like China or Russia gave either the U.S or Japan concern over their ally. I claimed that Canada and the United States have little to no interest in sabotaging the other, nor use one another for show, and, despite your red herrings, the European Union still maintained positive relations with the United States compared to EU-China or EU-Russia relations. The "interests" are what binds countries together, as stated previously. Japan is interested in keeping China away, and the U.S is interested in maintaining Japanese power in the Pacific. Both formed an alliance and trust one another to help each other should there be concerns in regards to Japan or the United States, the same can be said for France and Germany, both have mutual interests, both cooperate, and trust one another to uphold the alliance with minimal or no precautionary measures.

As for cracks within NATO, politics would dictate that the "cracks" are better than having to align oneself with countries more hostile towards the West, an example of France-NATO relations in the 1960's.

Bolded = Middle Powers, Regional Powers, and Great Powers

U.S allies (NATO and Non-NATO):
[b]Great Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Slovenia, Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, Hungary, Iceland, Denmark (includes Greenland), Luxembourg, Croatia, Canada, Albania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel.

Former Soviet Union and allies (Warsaw Pact and Non-Warsaw Pact)
Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Vietnam, North Korea, Ethiopia, South Yemen, Albania (until the 1960's), Yugoslavia (prior to the Tito-Stalin split), and China (prior to the Sino-Soviet split).[/b]


To the best of my knowledge, neither Germany or France suspect any ills from their partners nor the United States and Japan. That constitutes as trust, which I do not see in Sino-Russian relations.

Politics is whether a country likes you or not; it is also whether the elites of the country can cripple your reign or not. Yes, not all countries will get along with you (take for example, Prussian-Austrian relations or Japanese-Russian relations), but to have little to no trustworthy allies to depend on, or having little to no major powers favoring you (after all, without the combined might of Western Europe, Japan, Oceania, and South Korea, the United States would have a very difficult time with the Soviet Union) is detrimental to a country's rise to power.

China has failed at making the right calls, as stated when I argued that China created a barrier of hostile nations, and its most powerful ally, Russia, is still not trusted by Beijing whereas Washington D.C and Ottawa or Berlin and Paris trust one another, worked together, and share diplomatic bonds. "China's Machiavelli", Xi Jinping, has ignored the one golden rule of Machiavelli: Avoid Hatred and is punished for it by having a lack of middle powers or great powers as dependable, trustworthy allies but instead more great and middle powers as hostile nations than friendly ones.

China is not feared, but hated. Vietnam and the Philippines stood no chance against China, but given its close relation with the United States, India, and fellow ASEAN countries, they are more concerned about having powerful allies ignore them (like Russia is ignoring Vietnam's plight despite having more faith in Vietnam's relations with Moscow than with China) than being beaten down by China. China is only "loved" by North Korea, China made wrong decisions regarding its neighbors, China made poor choice of allies (The SCO is only for show, it takes an unrealistically talented diplomat to have India* and Pakistan work together in a stable military and political alliance), and China can only hope Russia continues to be with China, albeit grudgingly.

*India is very friendly and favorable towards the United States and the European Union.

China has a giant wall of hostile nations: Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, Taiwan (although not a recognized country, politics would ruin China if they even blink at Taiwan), India, Bhutan, Mongolia, Australia, and New Zealand. Beyond that wall lies Canada and the United States, which are not very friendly towards China.

China's pet, Russia, is hated by the European Union, and across the Bering strait lies the middle power Canada and current superpower USA.

China, if it did start off as a superpower, would have to deal with the negative opinions of other major powers and middle powers with Israel, Jordan, Germany, Czech Republic, United States, Canada, India, and Japan being middle and great powers.

India and Brazil on the other hand hardly have the intense negativity China has. The United States did not start off as a major world power as one of the most disliked countries, nor was the USSR at the time of its rise. The key to obtaining such power requires the most basic teaching of Niccolo Machiavelli: Avoid hatred.

China failed that, and not only did it fail, it failed to gain the support of some of the world's biggest players on the world stage. The Soviet Union and the United States cooperated against Japan and Germany with help from declining superpowers Britain and France. China hardly have any country but North Korea to turn to for trust, and even Russian-Chinese relations aren't as stable and friendly as people want you to think, at least, not at the level Germany-France relations, US-Canada relations, or USSR-Vietnam-Cuba relations. Russia is simply the pet that can not be taught to not urinate on your couch, whereas Britain/Japan does not cause such problems to the United States. A superpower without the support of great powers and middle powers would not last long.

I could go on, especially in regards to China's poor choice of allies (India + Pakistan in the same alliance? China, you cannot into politics).

I hardly see such problems with India and Brazil, who are rising on the world stage. Until China fixes the mess it got itself into, India and Brazil have a shot at replacing the USA in the future. If the EU federalizes, then I'd consider the New Cold War to be a very interesting, frightening one.

No, friends =/= allies.

You only state that allies are important, yet you fail to show any reason for it. Many former world powers did fine with little to no allies. Having allies isn't essential for a superpower.

It's not about being power hungry. The bigger the economy, the greater the economic reach. The greater the economic reach, the greater the political interests. The more political interests, the greater chance something happens.

Sometimes you really don't have a choice. China likely won't once that grace period ends, and it will be forced to move to protect it's interests sooner or later.

Generally when one becomes a world power, you tend to take an interest in global affairs. Partially for the reasons you provided. I mean, China's security view is much more global in scope compared to say, I dunno, twenty years ago. Not because it wanted to, but because circumstances pushed it into that. It's a fine line between what is purposely done and what is compelled due to their standing in the international system.

Its not about "less choices". The more power one has the more powerhungry one gets. The US is a great example of that, so are alot of pervious world powers.

It's not about being power hungry. The bigger the economy, the greater the economic reach. The greater the economic reach, the greater the political interests. The more political interests, the greater chance something happens.

Sometimes you really don't have a choice. China likely won't once that grace period ends, and it will be forced to move to protect it's interests sooner or later.

Meh, it depends. The more power the more powerhungry one gets. Now ofcourse there are choices that have to be made, but there are always options which in the end will decide what path you're gonna take on such stages. The US chose the "We scare you with our military" tactic. which in my opinion hasn't worked out and only brought them to the point where they are now.

[Crimiea]

In the political sense, "Friends" are allies, I have been stressing this and both words mean the same thing, especially in regards to politics.

I have already explained why having allies are essential to the power and prominence of superpowers, so let me quote myself:

No, friends =/= allies.

You only state that allies are important, yet you fail to show any reason for it. Many former world powers did fine with little to no allies. Having allies isn't essential for a superpower.

Friends = Allies.

friend
[frend]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
a person attached to another by feelings of affection or personal regard.
2.
a person who gives assistance; patron; supporter:
friends of the Boston Symphony.
3.
a person who is on good terms with another; a person who is not hostile:
Who goes there? Friend or foe?
4.
a member of the same nation, party, etc.
5.
(initial capital letter) a member of the Religious Society of Friends; a Quaker.
6.
a person associated with another as a contact on a social-networking website

ally
[v. uh-lahy; n. al-ahy, uh-lahy]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
verb (used with object), allied, allying.
1.
to unite formally, as by treaty, league, marriage, or the like (usually followed by with or to):
Russia allied itself to France.
2.
to associate or connect by some mutual relationship, as resemblance or friendship.

Not only have I stated as to why allies are important using political and historical examples and used examples to some of the world's famous superpowers and their alliances with other countries, I have explained my position thoroughly and have yet to receive anything but one-line statements and/or red herrings. I have yet to receive any examples from you in regards to your claim, yet you continue to deny my responses without explanations of your own. Instead of forcing me to constantly deal with your red herrings and seeing you ignoring all of my claims and examples, why don't you try giving me an explanation for your stance rather than denying sources, explanations, and examples that has been in front of and has been highlighted in red for you?

[Dain II Ironfoot]

No, friends =/= allies.

You only state that allies are important, yet you fail to show any reason for it. Many former world powers did fine with little to no allies. Having allies isn't essential for a superpower.

Friends = Allies.

friend
[frend]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
a person attached to another by feelings of affection or personal regard.
2.
a person who gives assistance; patron; supporter:
friends of the Boston Symphony.
3.
a person who is on good terms with another; a person who is not hostile:
Who goes there? Friend or foe?
4.
a member of the same nation, party, etc.
5.
(initial capital letter) a member of the Religious Society of Friends; a Quaker.
6.
a person associated with another as a contact on a social-networking website

ally
[v. uh-lahy; n. al-ahy, uh-lahy]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
verb (used with object), allied, allying.
1.
to unite formally, as by treaty, league, marriage, or the like (usually followed by with or to):
Russia allied itself to France.
2.
to associate or connect by some mutual relationship, as resemblance or friendship.

Not only have I stated as to why allies are important using political and historical examples and used examples to some of the world's famous superpowers and their alliances with other countries, I have explained my position thoroughly and have yet to receive anything but one-line statements and/or red herrings. I have yet to receive any examples from you in regards to your claim, yet you continue to deny my responses without explanations of your own. Instead of forcing me to constantly deal with your red herrings and seeing you ignoring all of my claims and examples, why don't you try giving me an explanation for your stance rather than denying sources, explanations, and examples that has been in front of and has been highlighted in red for you?

1) Friens =/= Allies.
2) You haven't explained anything, you only talk about allies being important and naming some allies of some countries. Once again, why would allies be so important? I especially ask this since several former superpowers had little to no friends at all and they managed themselves just fine.

[Crimiea]

Friends = Allies.

friend
[frend]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
a person attached to another by feelings of affection or personal regard.
2.
a person who gives assistance; patron; supporter:
friends of the Boston Symphony.
3.
a person who is on good terms with another; a person who is not hostile:
Who goes there? Friend or foe?
4.
a member of the same nation, party, etc.
5.
(initial capital letter) a member of the Religious Society of Friends; a Quaker.
6.
a person associated with another as a contact on a social-networking website

ally
[v. uh-lahy; n. al-ahy, uh-lahy]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
verb (used with object), allied, allying.
1.
to unite formally, as by treaty, league, marriage, or the like (usually followed by with or to):
Russia allied itself to France.
2.
to associate or connect by some mutual relationship, as resemblance or friendship.

Not only have I stated as to why allies are important using political and historical examples and used examples to some of the world's famous superpowers and their alliances with other countries, I have explained my position thoroughly and have yet to receive anything but one-line statements and/or red herrings. I have yet to receive any examples from you in regards to your claim, yet you continue to deny my responses without explanations of your own. Instead of forcing me to constantly deal with your red herrings and seeing you ignoring all of my claims and examples, why don't you try giving me an explanation for your stance rather than denying sources, explanations, and examples that has been in front of and has been highlighted in red for you?

1) Friens =/= Allies.
2) You haven't explained anything, you only talk about allies being important and naming some allies of some countries. Once again, why would allies be so important? I especially ask this since several former superpowers had little to no friends at all and they managed themselves just fine.

I have explained and used examples of countries being allied with superpowers and the trust/bonds between them with implied benefits.

for example, I mentioned the relations between Japan and the USA and their hostility towards China, or Germany and France's hostility towards Russia. The benefits of alliances, especially if you are a superpower trying to gain the alliances of major players, is that intelligence can be shared (US-UK during the Cold War), military support (NATO and Warsaw Pact), political support during hard times (UK during 9/11), and maintaining the status quo as I have mentioned regarding the interests of Japan and the United States in the pacific. I've mentioned Machiavelli several times and his claim that hatred will lay ruin to leaders as opposed to love and fear and how the hatred of others towards China and Russia (and obviously the USA) will hinder their chances of being a respected state as opposed to Brazil or India which does not have to deal with such a phenomenon and highly sought after by world leaders to be allies. For reference, see the red highlighted texts and the dictionary hyperlinks in my previous post.

You have yet to name me an important superpower that went through the entirety of their reign as superpowers without allies. Spain had the support of the Papal States and a treaty with Portugal, the British Empire maintained close relations with France when its power was threatened, Napoleon was laid to ruins by the combined Prussian, Russian, and British forces, The Nazis and Japanese were defeated by a US-USSR alliance, the USA depends on economic and military stability of Europe and Japan, the USSR depends on the bufferzones of the Warsaw Pact, Rome maintained trade relations with the Aksumites, Chinese, Persian, and Indian traders (with times of conflict here and there), Byzantium in its last days depended on the Venetian fleets, the Ottoman Empire turned to the British and Germans to maintained its sphere in South-eastern Europe, etc.

Also, I asked for you to explain your position that does not involve one-line statements with no arguments.

[Southern Hampshire]

You do realize that worlds strongest superpowers ever had few to no friends right?
Friends are nice and all, but not required for a superpower.

Also, "Washington D.C and Ottawa or Berlin and Paris trust one another"
Trust is a very big word you know, you should not use it that lightly.

Bolded = Middle Powers, Regional Powers, and Great Powers

U.S allies (NATO and Non-NATO):
Great Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Slovenia, Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, Hungary, Iceland, Denmark (includes Greenland), Luxembourg, Croatia, Canada, Albania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel.

Former Soviet Union and allies (Warsaw Pact and Non-Warsaw Pact)
Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Vietnam, North Korea, Ethiopia, South Yemen, Albania (until the 1960's), Yugoslavia (prior to the Tito-Stalin split), and China (prior to the Sino-Soviet split).

Trust is a very big word you know, you should not use it that lightly.

To the best of my knowledge, neither Germany or France suspect any ills from their partners nor the United States and Japan. That constitutes as trust, which I do not see in Sino-Russian relations.

Really? Bolded out Netherlands and Norway but didn't bother to do the same for Poland and Greece? They're clearly regional powers...

hint: poland and greece together make up half of NATO non-US MBTs

[Crimiea]

Bolded = Middle Powers, Regional Powers, and Great Powers

U.S allies (NATO and Non-NATO):
Great Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Slovenia, Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, Hungary, Iceland, Denmark (includes Greenland), Luxembourg, Croatia, Canada, Albania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel.

Former Soviet Union and allies (Warsaw Pact and Non-Warsaw Pact)
Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Vietnam, North Korea, Ethiopia, South Yemen, Albania (until the 1960's), Yugoslavia (prior to the Tito-Stalin split), and China (prior to the Sino-Soviet split).


To the best of my knowledge, neither Germany or France suspect any ills from their partners nor the United States and Japan. That constitutes as trust, which I do not see in Sino-Russian relations.

Really? Bolded out Netherlands and Norway but didn't bother to do the same for Poland and Greece? They're clearly regional powers...

hint: poland and greece together make up half of NATO non-US MBTs

That I should look up to see myself. For the time being, I'd take your word for it. Thanks for correcting me.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

Most of the poll selections are already superpowers.

[Pimps Inc]

BRICs are apparently being replaced by MINTs and the "Next Eleven".

MINTs

Next Eleven
It's either going to be SK,Mexico, Indonesia, and/or Turkey,

[The Nuclear Fist]

Most of the poll selections are already superpowers.

The only surviving superpower on earth at the moment is the United States. All the other contenders are so hilariously dwarfed by America in the political, economic, military, and cultural spheres that they hardly even register. They could perhaps be described as regional powers, but even in their respective regions the US is doing better in most sectors.

[Pimps Inc]

Most of the poll selections are already superpowers.

The only surviving superpower on earth at the moment is the United States. All the other contenders are so hilariously dwarfed by America in the political, economic, military, and cultural spheres that they hardly even register. They could perhaps be described as regional powers, but even in their respective regions the US is doing better in most sectors.

China doesn't agree.

[The Nuclear Fist]

The only surviving superpower on earth at the moment is the United States. All the other contenders are so hilariously dwarfed by America in the political, economic, military, and cultural spheres that they hardly even register. They could perhaps be described as regional powers, but even in their respective regions the US is doing better in most sectors.

China doesn't agree.

China's military equipment is outdated, its expeditionary capabilities are negligible, its cultural output in other nations is tiny, its political clout is negligible, it is surrounded by hostile nations, it has an impending demographic catastrophe, and its economic growth is built on such hilariously unstable grounds that it has to build ghost cities and manipulate currency

Do you know why China can compete with the US in certain economic measures? The US doesn't have a billion people.

[Pimps Inc]

China doesn't agree.

China's military equipment is outdated, its expeditionary capabilities are negligible, its cultural output in other nations is tiny, its political clout is negligible, it is surrounded by hostile nations, it has an impending demographic catastrophe, and its economic growth is built on such hilariously unstable grounds that it has to build ghost cities and manipulate currency

Do you know why China can compete with the US in certain economic measures? The US doesn't have a billion people.

I remember a certain Mao speech in which he stated that China could overthrow the US. He promised that if China was not left alone, he would build a bridge of casualties all the way to mainland US and drown it in blood.

Although mostly figurative, the message is clear: China can bring the US down with it and if you're going to say that the Us is heavily defended and whatnot, it's 350 million vs 1 billion and Russian support. There is a reason every time China involves itself in a world issue, the US would often yield. The. Us has power in the regions where it's allies are, but the rest do not fear the US. They fear China and Russia, because while the US has to keep up a certain reputation about freedom and civil rights and human rights, Russia and China do not. When terrorists threaten a certain nation, the US is scoffed off. China steps in and everyone stands at attention and listens.

Now, as for "expeditionary forces", I'm sure China has enough cargo ships to carry its entire army across the Pacific. They almost drowned the US in cheap products once.

[The Nuclear Fist]

China's military equipment is outdated, its expeditionary capabilities are negligible, its cultural output in other nations is tiny, its political clout is negligible, it is surrounded by hostile nations, it has an impending demographic catastrophe, and its economic growth is built on such hilariously unstable grounds that it has to build ghost cities and manipulate currency

Do you know why China can compete with the US in certain economic measures? The US doesn't have a billion people.

I remember a certain Mao speech in which he stated that China could overthrow the US. He promised that if China was not left alone, he would build a bridge of casualties all the way to mainland US and drown it in blood.

Although mostly figurative, the message is clear: China can bring the US down with it and if you're going to say that the Us is heavily defended and whatnot, it's 350 million vs 1 billion and Russian support. There is a reason every time China involves itself in a world issue, the US would often yield. The. Us has power in the regions where it's allies are, but the rest do not fear the US. They fear China and Russia, because while the US has to keep up a certain reputation about freedom and civil rights and human rights, Russia and China do not. When terrorists threaten a certain nation, the US is scoffed off. China steps in and everyone stands at attention and listens.

Now, as for "expeditionary forces", I'm sure China has enough cargo ships to carry its entire army across the Pacific. They almost drowned the US in cheap products once.

The US military is better trained, better equipped, better supplied, and better organized than the PLA. Anywhere in Asia, save the PRC itself, the US could and would annihilate China.

The Chinese economy isn't capable of destroying the US economy, and even if it was, would not be capable doing so without committing economic suicide.

The Chinese navy is a joke. At best it's a green water force, and in no way could it succeed in besting the US navy. The PLA couldn't successfully reach the shores of Japan in any meaningful capacity, let alone America proper.

The PRC would nevef receive Russian support in such a suicidal endeavor.