second most powerful country

[Keronians]

What about Russia? IIRC, Russia already has supercarriers, right?

Russia's navy is not something to be desired, however. From what I can tell, their modernization programs won't be enough to put them in the arena with France, the UK, or the US navies.

But it's still currently the second best in the World. Whether it will remain or not (probably not) doesn't affect its position today. And they too have a permanent seat on the UNSC, and are in the BRICS.

[Tiami]

I'll agree with the rankings. Britian has finally entered the race to build supercarriers as the U.S had so many years ago, so that gives quite a bit of power projection.

What about Russia? IIRC, Russia already has supercarriers, right?

No, their carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, is not considered a Supercarrier. AK is considered an Aircraft Cruiser or a heavy aircraft carrying missile cruiser.

[Minnysota]

Russia's navy is not something to be desired, however. From what I can tell, their modernization programs won't be enough to put them in the arena with France, the UK, or the US navies.

But it's still currently the second best in the World. Whether it will remain or not (probably not) doesn't affect its position today. And they too have a permanent seat on the UNSC, and are in the BRICS.

Russia's navy is far from the second best, imo.

[Tiami]

Russia's navy is not something to be desired, however. From what I can tell, their modernization programs won't be enough to put them in the arena with France, the UK, or the US navies.

But it's still currently the second best in the World. Whether it will remain or not (probably not) doesn't affect its position today. And they too have a permanent seat on the UNSC, and are in the BRICS.

The Russian navy is no where near as modernized as the British and French Navy.
I would place the British navy in second and the French Navy in third.

[Keronians]

What about Russia? IIRC, Russia already has supercarriers, right?

No, their carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, is not considered a Supercarrier. AK is considered an Aircraft Cruiser or a heavy aircraft carrying missile cruiser.

IIRC, they were constructing one in the '80s. Did they not finish it?

[Keronians]

But it's still currently the second best in the World. Whether it will remain or not (probably not) doesn't affect its position today. And they too have a permanent seat on the UNSC, and are in the BRICS.

The Russian navy is no where near as modernized as the British and French Navy.
I would place the British navy in second and the French Navy in third.

The British have 1 aircraft carrier currently, right? And are constructing a supercarrier, while France is considering constructing one.

On a related note, while googling, I learnt that the Italian navy has 2 aircraft carriers.

[Belmotin]

The Russian navy is no where near as modernized as the British and French Navy.
I would place the British navy in second and the French Navy in third.

The British have 1 aircraft carrier currently, right? And are constructing a supercarrier, while France is considering constructing one.

On a related note, while googling, I learnt that the Italian navy has 2 aircraft carriers.

No one cares about Italy.

[Tiami]

No, their carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, is not considered a Supercarrier. AK is considered an Aircraft Cruiser or a heavy aircraft carrying missile cruiser.

IIRC, they were constructing one in the '80s. Did they not finish it?

Got scrapped, bro.

[Tiami]

The Russian navy is no where near as modernized as the British and French Navy.
I would place the British navy in second and the French Navy in third.

The British have 1 aircraft carrier currently, right? And are constructing a supercarrier, while France is considering constructing one.

On a related note, while googling, I learnt that the Italian navy has 2 aircraft carriers.

They're two small sized Aircraft Carriers.

[Minnysota]

The Russian navy is no where near as modernized as the British and French Navy.
I would place the British navy in second and the French Navy in third.

The British have 1 aircraft carrier currently, right? And are constructing a supercarrier, while France is considering constructing one.

Russia currently only has one as well, iirc. I believe they might be constructing some new ones, but IDK about that. The French will still have the Rafale, and the Brits will still have the JSF.

[Augarundus]

I would have thought US, China, Russia, India, Brazil, THEN a tie between UK, Germany and France. Germany and France are certainly more economically powerful/developed than the UK, but the UK (if you include its commonwealth / Canada+Australia+other places that don't matter) has more soft power and hard power (debatable).

[Minnysota]

I would have thought US, China, Russia, India, Brazil, THEN a tie between UK, Germany and France. Germany and France are certainly more economically powerful/developed than the UK, but the UK (if you include its commonwealth / Canada+Australia+other places that don't matter) has more soft power and hard power (debatable).

China? No. Russia? No. India? No. Brazil? No.

Germany, France, and Britain are all have more powerful armed forces than the listed above.

[Augarundus]

I would have thought US, China, Russia, India, Brazil, THEN a tie between UK, Germany and France. Germany and France are certainly more economically powerful/developed than the UK, but the UK (if you include its commonwealth / Canada+Australia+other places that don't matter) has more soft power and hard power (debatable).

China? No. Russia? No. India? No. Brazil? No.

Germany, France, and Britain are all have more powerful armed forces than the listed above.

1) China beats Britain and France based on productive ability and the capacity to field a much larger military force (it has significantly more soft and hard power, based on its dominance of East Asian politics... okay, okay, Japan, w/e). Oh, and Germany doesn't have nukes.

2) Russia has more nukes than God. It's also a fairly developed economy and technologically advanced military.

3) India = nukes, huge population, huge economic productivity, etc.

4) Brazil = fairly developed state monopoly capitalist economy, oil, soft power, etc.


Germany is only powerful b/c soft power/econ (it lacks a substantial military).
France is basically Germany + some hard power.
UK is economically less productive than either nation (and, while individually has a higher GDPPC than any nation I listed, has a lower GDP on the whole), has a smaller population/military capacity than France, etc. etc. It would only get on the list higher than Spain or Italy because of soft power (that is, influence on Canada and Australia).

[Minnysota]

1.) China is economically dependent on the US and has a less-advanced and not-as-well trained army as France/Britain.

2.) Russia's troop morale isn't much to brag about, and keep in mind that France and Britain have enough nukes to take out Russia. France and Britain also have superior aircraft and tanks, with the Su-35BM and the Su-30MKI being the only fighters than can compete with the Rafale/Eurofighter.

3.) India is not very developed, but they do have a decent military. They still aren't as powerful as France or Britain.

4.) Don't even try to compare Brazil's military to France or Britain's.

[Tiami]

1.) China is economically dependent on the US and has a less-advanced and not-as-well trained army as France/Britain.

2.) Russia's troop morale isn't much to brag about, and keep in mind that France and Britain have enough nukes to take out Russia. France and Britain also have superior aircraft and tanks, with the Su-35BM and the Su-30MKI being the only fighters than can compete with the Rafale/Eurofighter.

3.) India is not very developed, but they do have a decent military. They still aren't as powerful as France or Britain.

4.) Don't even try to compare Brazil's military to France or Britain's.

I'm not even sure Brazil has a military.

[Belmotin]

1) China beats Britain and France based on productive ability and the capacity to field a much larger military force (it has significantly more soft and hard power, based on its dominance of East Asian politics... okay, okay, Japan, w/e). Oh, and Germany doesn't have nukes.

2) Russia has more nukes than God. It's also a fairly developed economy and technologically advanced military.

3) India = nukes, huge population, huge economic productivity, etc.

4) Brazil = fairly developed state monopoly capitalist economy, oil, soft power, etc.

1: China's Navy is in very poor condition relative to other global navies, if the British, French or Germans were able to Destroy it and essentially blockade China from the US, then China would definitely be keen to go to the negotiation table.

2: While Russia has more nukes than god, its military being advanced? Rofl. Get real, if I remember correctly Iraq, Afghanistan, and every other military the US has smeared across the globe since the 1945 has all used Russian equipment. It has consistently been proved to be pretty poor quality stuff. Some of it is sturdy and reliable, but on the whole, definitely not advanced.

3: India has the potential. Certainly its army is large, and decently equipped. I could even see it taking on China, but its navy is also like Chinas, in a pretty poor state.

4: Brazil? No. Brazil is a regional power in South America. It has like no influence around the world. When has there ever been a story that said, "Fighting stopped when Brazil intervened."?

[SD_Film Artists]

1) China beats Britain and France based on productive ability and the capacity to field a much larger military force (it has significantly more soft and hard power, based on its dominance of East Asian politics... okay, okay, Japan, w/e). Oh, and Germany doesn't have nukes.

2) Russia has more nukes than God. It's also a fairly developed economy and technologically advanced military.

3) India = nukes, huge population, huge economic productivity, etc.

4) Brazil = fairly developed state monopoly capitalist economy, oil, soft power, etc.

1: China's Navy is in very poor condition relative to other global navies, if the British, French or Germans were able to Destroy it and essentially blockade China from the US, then China would definitely be keen to go to the negotiation table.

2: While Russia has more nukes than god, its military being advanced? Rofl. Get real, if I remember correctly Iraq, Afghanistan, and every other military the US has smeared across the globe since the 1945 has all used Russian equipment. It has consistently been proved to be pretty poor quality stuff. Some of it is sturdy and reliable, but on the whole, definitely not advanced.

3: India has the potential. Certainly its army is large, and decently equipped. I could even see it taking on China, but its navy is also like Chinas, in a pretty poor state.

4: Brazil? No. Brazil is a regional power in South America. It has like no influence around the world. When has there ever been a story that said, "Fighting stopped when Brazil intervened."?

1/3: I agree, though they do have better power projection than Britain. But then again, most countries have better power projection than Britain until about 2017.

2: They were cheap export versions of what Russia has, and they didn't have half the numbers.

4: Indeed, they should sort out their drug problems for a start.

[Airstrip 100]

1) China beats Britain and France based on productive ability and the capacity to field a much larger military force (it has significantly more soft and hard power, based on its dominance of East Asian politics... okay, okay, Japan, w/e). Oh, and Germany doesn't have nukes.

2) Russia has more nukes than God. It's also a fairly developed economy and technologically advanced military.

3) India = nukes, huge population, huge economic productivity, etc.

4) Brazil = fairly developed state monopoly capitalist economy, oil, soft power, etc.

1: China's Navy is in very poor condition relative to other global navies, if the British, French or Germans were able to Destroy it and essentially blockade China from the US, then China would definitely be keen to go to the negotiation table.

2: While Russia has more nukes than god, its military being advanced? Rofl. Get real, if I remember correctly Iraq, Afghanistan, and every other military the US has smeared across the globe since the 1945 has all used Russian equipment. It has consistently been proved to be pretty poor quality stuff. Some of it is sturdy and reliable, but on the whole, definitely not advanced.

3: India has the potential. Certainly its army is large, and decently equipped. I could even see it taking on China, but its navy is also like Chinas, in a pretty poor state.

4: Brazil? No. Brazil is a regional power in South America. It has like no influence around the world. When has there ever been a story that said, "Fighting stopped when Brazil intervened."?

Many people say that, but the fact is that India simply can not compare to China. They have enough trouble with Pakistan as it is.

[Bears Armed]

Doesn't India have several Carriers?

[Risottia]

I'll agree with the rankings. Britian has finally entered the race to build supercarriers as the U.S had so many years ago, so that gives quite a bit of power projection.

What about Russia? IIRC, Russia already has supercarriers, right?

Nothing near the size (and flight compartment) of the US supercarriers. That's because their surface naval doctrine focuses more on defence of their shores - rather than on power projection.

[Airstrip 100]

Doesn't India have several Carriers?

How would that be any use? China and India share a common land border.

[Bears Armed]

Doesn't India have several Carriers?

How would that be any use? China and India share a common land border.

I was just comparing power-projection capabilities in general, not addressing the question of who'd win if those two nations went to war with each other.

[Airstrip 100]

How would that be any use? China and India share a common land border.

I was just comparing power-projection capabilities in general, not addressing the question of who'd win if those two nations went to war with each other.

The fact that the PLAN has four times as many personnel as the Indian Navy should give a hint of their comparative strengths.

The Indian Navy currently has one aircraft carrier, of a type designed at the end of the second world war, in service.

[Trippoli]

proof?
I know people who live in my city, have 4 or five families living in one house. And I live in a very middle-class area of the US.

Poverty in America

Which obviously does not include transfer payments. Include that, and the transfer payments alone provide a higher standard of living than the Russian middle class.

There are some places in the United States that still contains actual poverty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on7QLPEq0uI

[Risottia]

On a related note, while googling, I learnt that the Italian navy has 2 aircraft carriers.

They're two small sized Aircraft Carriers.[/quote]
Giuseppe Garibaldi (551) is about the same size of old HMS Invincible - and was built mostly for ASW role in the Mediterranean. Carries max 18 Harriers, plus some helicopters.
Cavour (550) is a multirole carrier/assault ship, about the size of the French Clémenceau. Carries max 30 Harriers, or up to 24 MBTs.