second most powerful country

[Crabulonia]

You know Iraq was apparently Blair's idea?

Not even "Apparently."
He was talking about it back in 97 before bush even ran in 2000 on the "peacemonger" platform.

Maybe that's how we're in second place, because we tell first place what to do and it does it.

[Tiriodh]

Not even "Apparently."
He was talking about it back in 97 before bush even ran in 2000 on the "peacemonger" platform.

Maybe that's how we're in second place, because we tell first place what to do and it does it.

Like getting your big brother to fight your battles

[Crabulonia]

Maybe that's how we're in second place, because we tell first place what to do and it does it.

Like getting your big brother to fight your battles

Exactly like that.

[Delanshar]

The Chinese are being overly kind to western europe, I think the list would be more like this....

1: USA (obviously)
2: Russia
3: UK
4: China
5: France
6: Japan
7: Germany
8: South Korea
9: India
10: Turkey

[Keronians]

The Chinese are being overly kind to western europe, I think the list would be more like this....

1: USA (obviously)
2: Russia
3: UK
4: China
5: France
6: Japan
7: Germany
8: South Korea
9: India
10: Turkey

What the hell's France doing below China?

[Vingtor]

The Chinese are being overly kind to western europe, I think the list would be more like this....

1: USA (obviously)
2: Russia
3: UK
4: China
5: France
6: Japan
7: Germany
8: South Korea
9: India
10: Turkey

What the hell's France doing below China?

2,285,000 verus 123,100 regulars. That's why.

[Australiah]

What the hell's France doing below China?

2,285,000 verus 123,100 regulars. That's why.

Manpower doesn't mean you're better. Australia in Papua New Guinea were out numbed 10:1, fighting the Japs on Kakoda. It's about training, equipment, the skills and wits of your soldiers. Also you left out the very good and well drilled 15,398 French Foreign Legion soldiers. They are always in war once they finish their induction to the Legion. They don't however go on the French death count though as they are not French Nationals unless..they have served 5 years and gained citizenship.

[Arajaka]

So according to the Chinese government, the United Kingdom is the second most powerful nation on earth behind the United States.


1 United States 90.62
2 United Kingdom 65.04
3 Russia 63.03
4 France 62.00
5 Germany 61.93
6 China 59.10
7 Japan 57.84
8 Canada 57.09
9 South Korea 53.20
10 India 50.43

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehens ... onal_Power

This came as a shock to me as a Brit.
Is their perception justified, or are they overrating British Influence?
If not Britain, then who is the second most powerful nation?
(If you say the USA, please clarify with who you think the most powerful is.)

The UK? No....I think the #2 spot goes to China. Russia is definitely # 3.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

The UK? No....I think the #2 spot goes to China. Russia is definitely # 3.

Chinese analysts clearly disagree.

[Dungeyland]

A lot of people are thinking this is all military. It's not. It's a combination of military, cultural and economic power.

[Crabulonia]

A lot of people are thinking this is all military. It's not. It's a combination of military, cultural and economic power.

The must have made the mistake of many western analysts, that hard power is the main power. The CNP seems a better alternative for policy direction, and according to the wiki article it is just that - a way of China avoiding the fate of the Soviet Union and over-investing in the military to the detriment of 'civilian power'. It might go some way to explain the increase in Chinese influence in Africa, maybe this is a way of working on their influence projection so they can rival established powers and affect the affairs of the world to a greater degree.

[Calenhardon]

I think the entire question should be somewhat more complicated than the Chinese and many posters make it appear. As many have pointed out, military power is composed of much more than just numbers. However, it should also be noted that aside from the United States, very few if any other truly global powers exist. Oh, France and the UK can beat up on small, weak states, but neither of them is going to mess with regional powers. Hence, even if Tony Blair wanted to invade Iraq, he waited till he got the US on board. America's global logistics capacity gives it worldwide reach that no other state can match. France and the UK can send a aircraft carrier and bomb some shit, but as far as invading and conquering distant states goes, they're no more powerful than China is. Note that the UK settled for kicking the Argentines out of the Falklands, and did not attempt anything against the Argentine mainland. I would argue that after the #1 US, there are a whole bunch of states roughly equal around #2-able to project power regionally, but not so much globally.

Then there comes the issue of power and influence. Many states have a great deal of diplomatic and cultural influence, even though they lack military power. Ever notice how lots of UN officials are former Prime Ministers or whatnot of Ireland and New Zealand or something? Exactly. I would also point out that Iran is militarily weak, having mostly aging equipment and no power projection capability to speak of, but due to a concerted effort to make friends in the region it has a great deal of diplomatic influence, and has managed to create a limited capacity for indirect power projection through its ties to terrorist organizations. Intergovernmental organizations, while still rather weak, do give small states a vastly greater influence than they would otherwise. Various political circumstances may also give specific states undue influence. Israeli influence on American politics being a prime example.

Finally, I think it is worth noting that rankings of power are not as important as many make them out to be. Power does not necessarily determine outcomes. Note that Napoleonic France was much stronger than Russia, but due to a combination of Russian strategy and weather, France got its ass kicked. The United States was vastly more powerful than North Vietnam, but again, lost a war due to a number of factors. Hierarchies of power, while helpful, often don't mean shit. Knowing how to use your power is just as important as having it.

[Crabulonia]

The British were fighting a defensive war for the Falklands, there would have been no need to attack Argentina. In fact, this would mean there would be international condemnation of the British assault on a developing nation and might end up breeding resentment in the region to the continued status of the Falklands after Britain was inevitably diplomatically persuaded to remove itself from the South American continent. As you say, knowing how to use your power is key.

[Mesoland]

*deletio*

[Heningrad]

i actually very surprised china didn't put themselves at first. this kind of honesty is extremely rare from dictatorships. i think i'm actually starting to respect the PRC now.

[Lunkin]

Next should be Russia. It has way way more of a regional impact then the UK. Its actions easily affect all of Eastern Europe and much of Asia. It also has a huge army and is not afraid of the US.

[Britcan]

UK at No.2 is fair... but Canada? On that list? I don't think it hardly qualifies for the top 20. But I'm just an American, so, ya know.

Canada has very good relations with both the US and the UK.

[Heningrad]

Next should be Russia. It has way way more of a regional impact then the UK. Its actions easily affect all of Eastern Europe and much of Asia. It also has a huge army and is not afraid of the US.

good point but i think they are basing things off economic power.

[Lunkin]

Next should be Russia. It has way way more of a regional impact then the UK. Its actions easily affect all of Eastern Europe and much of Asia. It also has a huge army and is not afraid of the US.

good point but i think they are basing things off economic power.

If so, then I would have to say the UK would keep its spot and Germany would go up as would China. Canada would be off to me or lower.

[Heningrad]

good point but i think they are basing things off economic power.

If so, then I would have to say the UK would keep its spot and Germany would go up as would China. Canada would be off to me or lower.

actually Germany might replace the UK and china should go up.

[Lunkin]

If so, then I would have to say the UK would keep its spot and Germany would go up as would China. Canada would be off to me or lower.

actually Germany might replace the UK and china should go up.

I agree.

[Crabulonia]

If so, then I would have to say the UK would keep its spot and Germany would go up as would China. Canada would be off to me or lower.

actually Germany might replace the UK and china should go up.

Germany doesn't have n00ks, nor the same projection power of the UK (no powerful navy and no seat on the UNSC).

[Lunkin]

actually Germany might replace the UK and china should go up.

Germany doesn't have n00ks, nor the same projection power of the UK (no powerful navy and no seat on the UNSC).

Economically.

[Bears Armed]

Germany doesn't have n00ks, nor the same projection power of the UK (no powerful navy and no seat on the UNSC).

Economically.

"Butter before guns"?

[Crabulonia]

Germany doesn't have n00ks, nor the same projection power of the UK (no powerful navy and no seat on the UNSC).

Economically.

This list is a mix of military, economy and culture. Then again, economically I could understand why you would put them higher.

Economically.

"Butter before guns"?

How very unGerman of the German government.