second most powerful country

[Kazomal]

Who actually uses navies nowadays anyway?

Fucking everyone, especially the US, they're kinda necessary for power projection and especially fast response when you may not have a base nearby. Seriously they're very useful.

When was the last time the America navy had a real engagement with any force that could be described within even a rate of it?

WW2, because that was the last time there was a navy that existed on our level, I'd like to keep it that way.

Exactly, the fact that we keep a monopoly on sea power shows just how important a navy is.

[Greto]

As I see nation's with no significant naval capabilities have generally had very low influence, though China may be that one exception.

[Kazomal]

As I see nation's with no significant naval capabilities have generally had very low influence, though China may be that one exception.

For a while, they had little influence outside of their little corner of the earth, which is generally the fate of nations with weak navies. However, they have spent the last 50 years concentrating on their ability to defend their own little corner, and expanding that corner, while at the same time, joining the international community, and spreading their soft power across the globe, mainly through business connections, and have built up their influence in up-and-coming semi-periphery nations like Brazil, as well as in the third world. Hide and bide worked out well for them, now let's see how they play the full version (so far, they're doing pretty well).

[President Mathias]

As I see nation's with no significant naval capabilities have generally had very low influence, though China may be that one exception.

For a while, they had little influence outside of their little corner of the earth, which is generally the fate of nations with weak navies. However, they have spent the last 50 years concentrating on their ability to defend their own little corner, and expanding that corner, while at the same time, joining the international community, and spreading their soft power across the globe, mainly through business connections, and have built up their influence in up-and-coming semi-periphery nations like Brazil, as well as in the third world. Hide and bide worked out well for them, now let's see how they play the full version (so far, they're doing pretty well).

If the U.S. doesn't get its shit together, the political bickering between Republicans and Democrats must be resolved(We're in a non-violent civil war damnit!), then China will take the lead. Right now, America depends so heavily on imports from China that if we ever go to war our economy will collapse. With such an economic collapse I can easily see another WW2 U.S. government, a somewhat authoritarian(police rarely needed a warrant back then) and completely powerful government, arising. While this may or may not be bad, it could lead to the destruction of the U.S..

In short, we've fucked ourselves by being so reliant on China.

[Parhe]

I would either pick China or possibly the UK(maybe Germany or France too). One of the reasons I'm not entirely sure about China is because most of its neighbors do not like the country, and I believe having ''friends'' on the international stage is important, especially one close by. India is powerful, but for some reason I can't say it is the world's second most powerful. I wouldn't pick Japan mostly for demographic reasons and economic reasons, the first also being why I wouldn't pick Russia.

[Minnysota]

Right, but their defense strategy takes this into account, and China does not need a navy that can beat the US in order to defend it's interests. They have focused on frustrating US naval power in much more cost-effective ways, such as the Dong carrier-killer missile. Fear China's mighty Dongs!

I hope this is a joke, because ballistic missiles for anti-carrier duties aren't going to be efficient. US carriers could probably get out of the way, and new and improved anti-ballistic missile systems and defenses puts the US in a safer position. I should not have to mention that the US has the bases to launch aircraft to take out said silo sites anyway.

The USN will, unless a nuclear attack on the USN occurs, have total naval superiority over the PLAN, giving the US the ability to just bomb the Chinese coastal cities to bits. Air superiority is also basically granted.

[Minnysota]

If the U.S. doesn't get its shit together, the political bickering between Republicans and Democrats must be resolved(We're in a non-violent civil war damnit!), then China will take the lead. Right now, America depends so heavily on imports from China that if we ever go to war our economy will collapse. With such an economic collapse I can easily see another WW2 U.S. government, a somewhat authoritarian(police rarely needed a warrant back then) and completely powerful government, arising. While this may or may not be bad, it could lead to the destruction of the U.S..

In short, we've fucked ourselves by being so reliant on China.

They've fucked themselves by being so reliant on us. Any war with us would be more devastating to them than it would to us, because they wouldn't just lose us, they'd lose all of our European allies that they sell to.

I should also point out that in a state of total war, it isn't uncommon for civil rights to be restricted. It might not be pleasant, but look how badly the Vietnam War ended because of the homefront.

[Vingtor]

A war between China and the United States would be the most economically devastating war in human history. It would take centuries for the world economy to recover if at all.

[Crabulonia]

A war between China and the United States would be the most economically devastating war in human history. It would take centuries for the world economy to recover if at all.

I figure it would be very limited. The cost of fighting such a large scale war would be unfathomable and I don't see how such large armies could actually run without effectively ruining both countries for longer than a few months. Add to this the diplomatic side of the war, due to a lack of allies China would be forced to try and start negotiations for a ceasefire immediately.

Still, for all my talk of limitations, people said the Great War would need to be limited and look how that turned out.

[Vingtor]

A war between China and the United States would be the most economically devastating war in human history. It would take centuries for the world economy to recover if at all.

I figure it would be very limited. The cost of fighting such a large scale war would be unfathomable and I don't see how such large armies could actually run without effectively ruining both countries for longer than a few months. Add to this the diplomatic side of the war, due to a lack of allies China would be forced to try and start negotiations for a ceasefire immediately.

Still, for all my talk of limitations, people said the Great War would need to be limited and look how that turned out.

One side never knows when to throw in the towel.

[The Grand World Order]

I pretty much agree with that ranking.

I don't. I know it measures power projection, but it's bullshit to me. A powerful country should have the power to ensure a high standard of living and various freedoms to it's population. So Russia, China and India have no business being on that list.

Vatican City: NUMBER ONE

[Lazssia]

AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!
( But seriously, you Brits are awesome.)

[Crabulonia]

I figure it would be very limited. The cost of fighting such a large scale war would be unfathomable and I don't see how such large armies could actually run without effectively ruining both countries for longer than a few months. Add to this the diplomatic side of the war, due to a lack of allies China would be forced to try and start negotiations for a ceasefire immediately.

Still, for all my talk of limitations, people said the Great War would need to be limited and look how that turned out.

One side never knows when to throw in the towel.

Both sides would need to lack that knowledge for it to be really devestating. Lets take in this situation nation A and nation B, B with greater numbers but A with better quality and projection.

B invades nation C, a nation which A is allied with.
A mobilises and prepares to defend C from B.
B knows it couldn't possibly win but continues anyway to save face for a few months, before asking for negotiations.

It would take nation A to refuse to come to the negotiation table for the stupidity to continue . There would be no reason for either nation to refuse the others request for negotiations.

[Vingtor]

One side never knows when to throw in the towel.

Both sides would need to lack that knowledge for it to be really devestating. Lets take in this situation nation A and nation B, B with greater numbers but A with better quality and projection.

B invades nation C, a nation which A is allied with.
A mobilises and prepares to defend C from B.
B knows it couldn't possibly win but continues anyway to save face for a few months, before asking for negotiations.

It would take nation A to refuse to come to the negotiation table for the stupidity to continue . There would be no reason for either nation to refuse the others request for negotiations.

Not true, nation B could be run by idots or nationalists. Numerous recent conflicts such as both World Wars The American Civil War, the Irish Civil war, The Spanish Civil War, The Sino-Japanese war, and others were fought long after it made any sense to continue. The losing side fought on, beliving that some miracle would turn things around for them. Hitler planned parades in Red Square and Downing Street, while the Japanese stockpiled hundreds of suicide planes and equiped their citizens with spears made from lead piping. The Republican faction fought on after losing Madrid to the Nationalists. And so on.

[Crabulonia]

Both sides would need to lack that knowledge for it to be really devestating. Lets take in this situation nation A and nation B, B with greater numbers but A with better quality and projection.

B invades nation C, a nation which A is allied with.
A mobilises and prepares to defend C from B.
B knows it couldn't possibly win but continues anyway to save face for a few months, before asking for negotiations.

It would take nation A to refuse to come to the negotiation table for the stupidity to continue . There would be no reason for either nation to refuse the others request for negotiations.

Not true, nation B could be run by idots or nationalists. Numerous recent conflicts such as both World Wars The American Civil War, the Irish Civil war, The Spanish Civil War, The Sino-Japanese war, and others were fought long after it made any sense to continue. The losing side fought on, beliving that some miracle would turn things around for them. Hitler planned parades in Red Square and Downing Street, while the Japanese stockpiled hundreds of suicide planes and equiped their citizens with spears made from lead piping. The Republican faction fought on after losing Madrid to the Nationalists. And so on.

It takes two to tango. I don't think either side asked for negotiations during the Spanish Civil War, and the Republicans didn't attack a nation first. I don't think civil wars should really be counted on your list actually, those are more wars within nations than wars between nations. I'm not sure what the Sino-Japanese War turned out like, I know it was Japan against China but I wouldn't know about negotiations being started by either side.

The most important thing I wrote though was that B would ask for negotiations and the only way the war could continue would be for A to refuse the others request for them.

[Airstrip 100]

A war between China and the United States would be the most economically devastating war in human history. It would take centuries for the world economy to recover if at all.

I figure it would be very limited. The cost of fighting such a large scale war would be unfathomable and I don't see how such large armies could actually run without effectively ruining both countries for longer than a few months. Add to this the diplomatic side of the war, due to a lack of allies China would be forced to try and start negotiations for a ceasefire immediately.

Still, for all my talk of limitations, people said the Great War would need to be limited and look how that turned out.

They have Russia. And Pakistan, Iran, and the majority of other members of the SCO.

[Crabulonia]

I figure it would be very limited. The cost of fighting such a large scale war would be unfathomable and I don't see how such large armies could actually run without effectively ruining both countries for longer than a few months. Add to this the diplomatic side of the war, due to a lack of allies China would be forced to try and start negotiations for a ceasefire immediately.

Still, for all my talk of limitations, people said the Great War would need to be limited and look how that turned out.

They have Russia. And Pakistan, Iran, and the majority of other members of the SCO.

I don't think Russia, Pakistan and Iran would risk angering the most powerful nation on earth. Combined they may be able to threaten American hegemony but I don't know it would make political and economic sense for them to help China.

I didn't say that China had no allies, just that it lacks many that I think would be willing to help them in such a costly war.

[Airstrip 100]

They have Russia. And Pakistan, Iran, and the majority of other members of the SCO.

I don't think Russia, Pakistan and Iran would risk angering the most powerful nation on earth. Combined they may be able to threaten American hegemony but I don't know it would make political and economic sense for them to help China.

I didn't say that China had no allies, just that it lacks many that I think would be willing to help them in such a costly war.

If the SCO is unwilling to help China, than I seriously doubt that Europe or any of America's major allies would be willing to offer the US more than token support.

[Kazomal]

For a while, they had little influence outside of their little corner of the earth, which is generally the fate of nations with weak navies. However, they have spent the last 50 years concentrating on their ability to defend their own little corner, and expanding that corner, while at the same time, joining the international community, and spreading their soft power across the globe, mainly through business connections, and have built up their influence in up-and-coming semi-periphery nations like Brazil, as well as in the third world. Hide and bide worked out well for them, now let's see how they play the full version (so far, they're doing pretty well).

If the U.S. doesn't get its shit together, the political bickering between Republicans and Democrats must be resolved(We're in a non-violent civil war damnit!), then China will take the lead. Right now, America depends so heavily on imports from China that if we ever go to war our economy will collapse. With such an economic collapse I can easily see another WW2 U.S. government, a somewhat authoritarian(police rarely needed a warrant back then) and completely powerful government, arising. While this may or may not be bad, it could lead to the destruction of the U.S..

In short, we've fucked ourselves by being so reliant on China.

That dependence goes both ways. America and China will not go to total war, except in the most extreme of circumstances. The most likely military engagement, as I see it, is some sort of limited dust-up over Taiwan, if China tries to re-absorb them via force.

Right, but their defense strategy takes this into account, and China does not need a navy that can beat the US in order to defend it's interests. They have focused on frustrating US naval power in much more cost-effective ways, such as the Dong carrier-killer missile. Fear China's mighty Dongs!

I hope this is a joke, because ballistic missiles for anti-carrier duties aren't going to be efficient. US carriers could probably get out of the way, and new and improved anti-ballistic missile systems and defenses puts the US in a safer position. I should not have to mention that the US has the bases to launch aircraft to take out said silo sites anyway.

The USN will, unless a nuclear attack on the USN occurs, have total naval superiority over the PLAN, giving the US the ability to just bomb the Chinese coastal cities to bits. Air superiority is also basically granted.

Then why is the USN legitimately concerned about China's anti-carrier missile program? The "fear the mighty Dongs!" part was of course a joke, but China's anti-ship missile program is a legitimate threat to any US force who would engage in the seas surrounding China.

Of course the USN is superior to China's navy, but China still has ways of defending it's own back yard. It's not like we'd be invading Iraq or something.

In DOD war game a few years back, a tactician was able to hobble an American naval invasion force using the capabilities Iran has right now, mostly via missiles. So they're not useless

[Crabulonia]

I don't think Russia, Pakistan and Iran would risk angering the most powerful nation on earth. Combined they may be able to threaten American hegemony but I don't know it would make political and economic sense for them to help China.

I didn't say that China had no allies, just that it lacks many that I think would be willing to help them in such a costly war.

If the SCO is unwilling to help China, than I seriously doubt that Europe or any of America's major allies would be willing to offer the US more than token support.

Right. Just America against China. It would still be a horribly destructive war, ultimately bad for society, the economy, and general progress. I think because it would be so destructive against only the two powers then it would end very quickly.

[Airstrip 100]

Right, but their defense strategy takes this into account, and China does not need a navy that can beat the US in order to defend it's interests. They have focused on frustrating US naval power in much more cost-effective ways, such as the Dong carrier-killer missile. Fear China's mighty Dongs!

I hope this is a joke, because ballistic missiles for anti-carrier duties aren't going to be efficient. US carriers could probably get out of the way, and new and improved anti-ballistic missile systems and defenses puts the US in a safer position. I should not have to mention that the US has the bases to launch aircraft to take out said silo sites anyway.

The USN will, unless a nuclear attack on the USN occurs, have total naval superiority over the PLAN, giving the US the ability to just bomb the Chinese coastal cities to bits. Air superiority is also basically granted.

Even if you completely obliterate every city with 100km of the coast, you still won't win the war against China. Others have tried.

[Meusia]

is it just me or are all countries on this list under some sort of american influence to certain degrees?

[Airstrip 100]

If the SCO is unwilling to help China, than I seriously doubt that Europe or any of America's major allies would be willing to offer the US more than token support.

Right. Just America against China. It would still be a horribly destructive war, ultimately bad for society, the economy, and general progress. I think because it would be so destructive against only the two powers then it would end very quickly.

It wouldn't be that horribly destructive, due to the fact that it is simply not practical. China doesn't have the capacity to reach America, and an attempt by America to invade China would be disastrous. What you would probably see is rising tensions similar to the cold war, and proxy wars across Central Asia, South America and Africa. It wouldn't end quickly due to the fact that there won't be any decisive battles.

[Crabulonia]

is it just me or are all countries on this list under some sort of american influence to certain degrees?

Hence the difference in the numbers on the list.

America is about 30 points above everyone else. It then goes in a sort of pecking order between mostly equals - everyone is around the 60 - 65 range.

[Lackadaisical2]

I hope this is a joke, because ballistic missiles for anti-carrier duties aren't going to be efficient. US carriers could probably get out of the way, and new and improved anti-ballistic missile systems and defenses puts the US in a safer position. I should not have to mention that the US has the bases to launch aircraft to take out said silo sites anyway.

The USN will, unless a nuclear attack on the USN occurs, have total naval superiority over the PLAN, giving the US the ability to just bomb the Chinese coastal cities to bits. Air superiority is also basically granted.

Even if you completely obliterate every city with 100km of the coast, you still won't win the war against China. Others have tried.

Come now, no one has ever obliterated the vast majority of a country's population and lost before. They'd be insane not to surrender.