second most powerful country

[Volmachtia]

I'd have to go with Montenegro.

[Hypparchia]

1.) The combined forces of NATO could certainly conquer Russia. Then again, IDK why they would want to.

2.) Total air and naval superiority? If the US wanted, they could take out almost all of China's industry just by bombing the coast to smithereens.

The combined forces of NATO are a joke. You think Slovakia, Greece or the Netherlands would stand a chance against Russia ? NATO equipment isn't that superiour to that of Russia, not to mention that most NATO members have their militaries organized for territorial defense and have no power projection capabilities.

Surgical strikes with bombers, aerial and naval superiority cannot win a land war against 20,000,000 Chinamen with AKs. Period.

[Krakke]

1.) The combined forces of NATO could certainly conquer Russia. Then again, IDK why they would want to.

2.) Total air and naval superiority? If the US wanted, they could take out almost all of China's industry just by bombing the coast to smithereens.

The combined forces of NATO are a joke. You think Slovakia, Greece or the Netherlands would stand a chance against Russia ? NATO equipment isn't that superiour to that of Russia, not to mention that most NATO members have their militaries organized for territorial defense and have no power projection capabilities.

Surgical strikes with bombers, aerial and naval superiority cannot win a land war against 20,000,000 Chinamen with AKs. Period.

Question: Can you shoot a gun?
As in, have you ever aimed at a target and shot a firearm?
I'm serious, just yes or no.

[Volmachtia]

1.) The combined forces of NATO could certainly conquer Russia. Then again, IDK why they would want to.

2.) Total air and naval superiority? If the US wanted, they could take out almost all of China's industry just by bombing the coast to smithereens.

The combined forces of NATO are a joke. You think Slovakia, Greece or the Netherlands would stand a chance against Russia ? NATO equipment isn't that superiour to that of Russia, not to mention that most NATO members have their militaries organized for territorial defense and have no power projection capabilities.

Surgical strikes with bombers, aerial and naval superiority cannot win a land war against 20,000,000 Chinamen with AKs. Period.

There is still a lovely tactic called carpet bombing available.

[Vingtor]

1.) The combined forces of NATO could certainly conquer Russia. Then again, IDK why they would want to.

2.) Total air and naval superiority? If the US wanted, they could take out almost all of China's industry just by bombing the coast to smithereens.

The combined forces of NATO are a joke. You think Slovakia, Greece or the Netherlands would stand a chance against Russia ? NATO equipment isn't that superiour to that of Russia, not to mention that most NATO members have their militaries organized for territorial defense and have no power projection capabilities.

Surgical strikes with bombers, aerial and naval superiority cannot win a land war against 20,000,000 Chinamen with AKs. Period.

Why? If they can't go anywhere or do anything how will they achive victory? The USN and USAF pen them in and after a period of morale deflating bombing campagins, the Army sweeps into crush what M&I base isn't ruins. This stragey was to win it for the US back in the Cold War. The USSR and the Chinese could/can build stuff but they can't replace it and fight a multi-front war at the same time.

[Hypparchia]

The combined forces of NATO are a joke. You think Slovakia, Greece or the Netherlands would stand a chance against Russia ? NATO equipment isn't that superiour to that of Russia, not to mention that most NATO members have their militaries organized for territorial defense and have no power projection capabilities.

Surgical strikes with bombers, aerial and naval superiority cannot win a land war against 20,000,000 Chinamen with AKs. Period.

Why? If they can't go anywhere or do anything how will they achive victory? The USN and USAF pen them in and after a period of morale deflating bombing campagins, the Army sweeps into crush what M&I base isn't ruins. This stragey was to win it for the US back in the Cold War. The USSR and the Chinese could/can build stuff but they can't replace it and fight a multi-front war at the same time.

Again - how would you handle millions of Chinese troops and militia with AKs ? How are you going to bomb and annihilate them all ? Do you actually realize what is the scale of such a force ? I won't even mention how you light-heartedly suppose that the U.S. would simply sweep through China's air defense and air force...that simply won't happen. War isn't throwing bombs, smashing the enemy infrastructure and rolling in with the tanks. You have to erradicate every single piece of equipment and every enemy soldier if you are to gain control of an area. The U.S. can't do that with China (nor with Russia, as a matter of fact), it simply doesn't have the demographic, technological and economic potential to carry out such a campaign.

[Krakke]

Again - how would you handle millions of Chinese troops and militia with AKs ? How are you going to bomb and annihilate them all ? Do you actually realize what is the scale of such a force ? I won't even mention how you light-heartedly suppose that the U.S. would simply sweep through China's air defense and air force...that simply won't happen. War isn't throwing bombs, smashing the enemy infrastructure and rolling in with the tanks. You have to erradicate every single piece of equipment and every enemy soldier if you are to gain control of an area. The U.S. can't do that with China (nor with Russia, as a matter of fact), it simply doesn't have the demographic, technological and economic potential to carry out such a campaign.

Again, can you shoot a gun?

[Volmachtia]

Why? If they can't go anywhere or do anything how will they achive victory? The USN and USAF pen them in and after a period of morale deflating bombing campagins, the Army sweeps into crush what M&I base isn't ruins. This stragey was to win it for the US back in the Cold War. The USSR and the Chinese could/can build stuff but they can't replace it and fight a multi-front war at the same time.

Again - how would you handle millions of Chinese troops and militia with AKs ? How are you going to bomb and annihilate them all ? Do you actually realize what is the scale of such a force ? I won't even mention how you light-heartedly suppose that the U.S. would simply sweep through China's air defense and air force...that simply won't happen. War isn't throwing bombs, smashing the enemy infrastructure and rolling in with the tanks. You have to erradicate every single piece of equipment and every enemy soldier if you are to gain control of an area. The U.S. can't do that with China (nor with Russia, as a matter of fact), it simply doesn't have the demographic, technological and economic potential to carry out such a campaign.

Do you have any real grasp on military tactics? Numbers mean nothing if you have the upper hand in both technology and overall firepower. 20 million peasants with guns don't do a whole lot when there are hundreds of fighters and bombers raining bloody hell down on their heads, not to mention that they would be exclusively defensive. China doesn't have nearly large enough of a navy to transport those sorts of forces, needless to say would they be able to get them anywhere before the USA's much bigger fleet clusterfucks them back across the Pacific. China is far from being as powerful militarily as America. Besides, we spend 5 times as much money on defense and the military as they do, so no, they really don't have much of a chance to win. Like, ever.

[Vingtor]

Again - how would you handle millions of Chinese troops and militia with AKs ? How are you going to bomb and annihilate them all ? Do you actually realize what is the scale of such a force ? I won't even mention how you light-heartedly suppose that the U.S. would simply sweep through China's air defense and air force...that simply won't happen. War isn't throwing bombs, smashing the enemy infrastructure and rolling in with the tanks. You have to erradicate every single piece of equipment and every enemy soldier if you are to gain control of an area. The U.S. can't do that with China (nor with Russia, as a matter of fact), it simply doesn't have the demographic, technological and economic potential to carry out such a campaign.

Actually the Chinese navy is a joke. Their airforce is a bad joke. Also that is what war is about. If every war were fought to the bitter end, then the Boxer Rebellion would have been the last time anybody heard of China, People's Republic or no. Wars are fought in that manner. The United States has unprecedented deepstrike capabilites. The M&I base would be ruins in two weeks flat and while their less then millions of troops would starve to death and scrape togeher enough ammo to fight elements of the most advanced army on earth.

[Hypparchia]

Do you have any real grasp on military tactics? Numbers mean nothing if you have the upper hand in both technology and overall firepower. 20 million peasants with guns don't do a whole lot when there are hundreds of fighters and bombers raining bloody hell down on their heads, not to mention that they would be exclusively defensive. China doesn't have nearly large enough of a navy to transport those sorts of forces, needless to say would they be able to get them anywhere before the USA's much bigger fleet clusterfucks them back across the Pacific. China is far from being as powerful militarily as America. Besides, we spend 5 times as much money on defense and the military as they do, so no, they really don't have much of a chance to win. Like, ever.

I happen to have, yes. And if China manages to mobilize a force of, say, 35,000,000 soldiers all over the country, you'll have to go down and fight them face to face on the ground, because it will simply be impossible to annihilate them with gunships and cruise missiles only. What you gonna do - fly sorties 24/7 and kill everything that moves, only to have new forces popping out of nowhere while you actually make no progress and advancement on the ground ? I mean, look at Libya - NATO has a massive aerial and naval superiority. That gave some air for the rebels, but it didn't win them the war. Gaddafi's still there, he's still recruiting and dispatching troops. Same thing will happen in China. Fighting an offensive war against China is a suicide and would be impossible to win.

Actually the Chinese navy is a joke. Their airforce is a bad joke. Also that is what war is about. If every war were fought to the bitter end, then the Boxer Rebellion would have been the last time anybody heard of China, People's Republic or no. Wars are fought in that manner. The United States has unprecedented deepstrike capabilites. The M&I base would be ruins in two weeks flat and while their less then millions of troops would starve to death and scrape togeher enough ammo to fight elements of the most advanced army on earth.

Oh ? They can do that with old submarines, I don't wanna imagine what can they do with newer vessels. The U.S. has no chance of winning an aggressive war against China.

[Krakke]

Once a-FREAKING-gain, Hipparchia, Have you Ever shot a firearm?

I swear, I'll keep asking till you answer.

Besides, what I have to say next actually contributes to the argument.

[Hypparchia]

Once a-FREAKING-gain, Hipparchia, Have you Ever shot a firearm?

I swear, I'll keep asking till you answer.

Besides, what I have to say next actually contributes to the argument.

I have, though I don't understand why does it matter?

[Volmachtia]

Do you have any real grasp on military tactics? Numbers mean nothing if you have the upper hand in both technology and overall firepower. 20 million peasants with guns don't do a whole lot when there are hundreds of fighters and bombers raining bloody hell down on their heads, not to mention that they would be exclusively defensive. China doesn't have nearly large enough of a navy to transport those sorts of forces, needless to say would they be able to get them anywhere before the USA's much bigger fleet clusterfucks them back across the Pacific. China is far from being as powerful militarily as America. Besides, we spend 5 times as much money on defense and the military as they do, so no, they really don't have much of a chance to win. Like, ever.

I happen to have, yes. And if China manages to mobilize a force of, say, 35,000,000 soldiers all over the country, you'll have to go down and fight them face to face on the ground, because it will simply be impossible to annihilate them with gunships and cruise missiles only. What you gonna do - fly sorties 24/7 and kill everything that moves, only to have new forces popping out of nowhere while you actually make no progress and advancement on the ground ? I mean, look at Libya - NATO has a massive aerial and naval superiority. That gave some air for the rebels, but it didn't win them the war. Gaddafi's still there, he's still recruiting and dispatching troops. Same thing will happen in China. Fighting an offensive war against China is a suicide and would be impossible to win.

We don't have to annihilate them. Massing those forces would be utterly impossible, to say the least, not to mention supplying them with food, oil for transport vehicles, weapons, and ammunition would be a devil's game. Besides, once we get the tanks and boots on the ground, we'll be whooping ass anyway. In the Gulf War, we lost some 400 men in a handful of battles. The Iraqis lost some 35,000 men in total. We have no need for numerical superiority, our technology is more than enough to win us the war over and over again. And as for Libya, it's more along the lines of dumbass tactics. An invasion of China would be an utter disaster for the PRC, especially in terms of their military, which need I say again, has a fifth of the funding the American army gets. We would steamroll them no matter how many grunts and cannon fodder they roll out, and Beijing would have the Stars and Stripes flying over it in no more than three months. So no, China loses.

[Krakke]

I was actually hoping you would be one of those wimpy historians that was all hot air and didn't know how to shoot a gun, but since you said yes, my argument became invalid. Sorry.

[Hypparchia]

We don't have to annihilate them. Massing those forces would be utterly impossible, to say the least, not to mention supplying them with food, oil for transport vehicles, weapons, and ammunition would be a devil's game.

Wrong. I won't even explain why, it's too simple.

Besides, once we get the tanks and boots on the ground, we'll be whooping ass anyway.

With the square-jawed U.S. trooper firing his M249 with "America, Fuck yeah !" in the background.

In the Gulf War, we lost some 400 men in a handful of battles. The Iraqis lost some 35,000 men in total. We have no need for numerical superiority, our technology is more than enough to win us the war over and over again.

Considering how most of those Iraqis were actually unarmed conscripts with 2 months worth of training and that was a country that just came out of a 8-year war, it wouldn't be hard for even Belgium to do it. I won't even mention that Iraq is as flat as a pan and there are no obstacles for air forces, mechanized troops and the like.

And as for Libya, it's more along the lines of dumbass tactics. An invasion of China would be an utter disaster for the PRC, especially in terms of their military, which need I say again, has a fifth of the funding the American army gets. We would steamroll them no matter how many grunts and cannon fodder they roll out, and Beijing would have the Stars and Stripes flying over it in no more than three months. So no, China loses.

"When the time's right, Corporal. When the time's right".

[Volmachtia]

We don't have to annihilate them. Massing those forces would be utterly impossible, to say the least, not to mention supplying them with food, oil for transport vehicles, weapons, and ammunition would be a devil's game.

1. Wrong. I won't even explain why, it's too simple.

Besides, once we get the tanks and boots on the ground, we'll be whooping ass anyway.

2. With the square-jawed U.S. trooper firing his M249 with "America, Fuck yeah !" in the background.

In the Gulf War, we lost some 400 men in a handful of battles. The Iraqis lost some 35,000 men in total. We have no need for numerical superiority, our technology is more than enough to win us the war over and over again.

3. Considering how most of those Iraqis were actually unarmed conscripts with 2 months worth of training and that was a country that just came out of a 8-year war, it wouldn't be hard for even Belgium to do it. I won't even mention that Iraq is as flat as a pan and there are no obstacles for air forces, mechanized troops and the like.

And as for Libya, it's more along the lines of dumbass tactics. An invasion of China would be an utter disaster for the PRC, especially in terms of their military, which need I say again, has a fifth of the funding the American army gets. We would steamroll them no matter how many grunts and cannon fodder they roll out, and Beijing would have the Stars and Stripes flying over it in no more than three months. So no, China loses.

4. "When the time's right, Corporal. When the time's right".

1. Try me. I'd like to see you attempt logistics for that mess. Disorganized peasantry don't make effective soldiers.

2. Damn straight.

3. And how most of those 35 million Chinese soldiers would also be conscripts with two months of training, and a country with relatively little experience with recent wars.

4. I love the smell of burning Chinese cities in the morning.

[Hypparchia]

1. Try me. I'd like to see you attempt logistics for that mess. Disorganized peasantry don't make effective soldiers.

2. Damn straight.

3. And how most of those 35 million Chinese soldiers would also be conscripts with two months of training, and a country with relatively little experience with recent wars.

4. I love the smell of burning Chinese cities in the morning.

1, well if we exclude the simple fact that China would be fighting on its own soil and has a planned-like economy, it really wouldn't be difficult to set up a decent logistical basis for its military and initiate wartime production of needed utilities. They have proven to excercise quite a potent state control over the entire country, including communications channels. In simple and much needed figures, China has the largest reserves of grain and pork, a great road and railway network, 190 million vehicles on its roads and a large fleet of communications satellites. Now would you please tell me how exactly would that represent poor logistics ? Given their population of 1,3 BILLION people, it's quite enough to call up a mobilization of paramilitary forces, policemen and other services in a handful of communes and they'll quickly gather a force of millions.

2, you miss a point. The Chinese military is not based on conscription - they have very strict criteria for the military, as well as a solid professional military education system.

3, You should reduce the amount of video games.

[Volmachtia]

1. Try me. I'd like to see you attempt logistics for that mess. Disorganized peasantry don't make effective soldiers.

2. Damn straight.

3. And how most of those 35 million Chinese soldiers would also be conscripts with two months of training, and a country with relatively little experience with recent wars.

4. I love the smell of burning Chinese cities in the morning.

1, well if we exclude the simple fact that China would be fighting on its own soil and has a planned-like economy, it really wouldn't be difficult to set up a decent logistical basis for its military and initiate wartime production of needed utilities. They have proven to excercise quite a potent state control over the entire country, including communications channels. In simple and much needed figures, China has the largest reserves of grain and pork, a great road and railway network, 190 million vehicles on its roads and a large fleet of communications satellites. Now would you please tell me how exactly would that represent poor logistics ? Given their population of 1,3 BILLION people, it's quite enough to call up a mobilization of paramilitary forces, policemen and other services in a handful of communes and they'll quickly gather a force of millions.

2, you miss a point. The Chinese military is not based on conscription - they have very strict criteria for the military, as well as a solid professional military education system.

3, You should reduce the amount of video games.

1. And they just suddenly manage to pump out enough stuff for 30 million additions to their military, while we're already on the way, probably seizing several major cities from their regular armed forces before they could even finish basic training. Not to mention that America itself has plenty of able-bodied men and a powerful economy, and once we push it into high gear, we'll smear the Chinese like we did the Japanese- overwhelm them with superior machinery and vast naval might, combined with a strong and dedicated ground force.

We could also simply just knock their sattelites out of the sky, and that itself would muck up most national coordination. Now, assembling common police units and militia would also not be a good idea- in a straight-up textbook military invasion, trained army > militia/policemen in every engagement that has ever pitted the two against each other. Now, while they try desperately to catch up to the United States' advance, we're coming crashing through major population and economic centers before the Chinese are ready to halt us.

2. At the moment, China has only 3 million trained men in its ground force. Now, to raise it up to the 35 million you insist that they could gather, they'd have to skip basic training for most of those men in order to press them out in time to halt the advance of the technologically and generally militarily superior force of the United States. If they wanted to make each soldier, point for point, utterly equal to an American soldier, they'd need one hell of alot more funding than they're getting right now.

3. You should reduce the amount of assumptions and faith in a comparatively militarily weak nation.

[Hypparchia]

1. And they just suddenly manage to pump out enough stuff for 30 million additions to their military, while we're already on the way, probably seizing several major cities from their regular armed forces before they could even finish basic training. Not to mention that America itself has plenty of able-bodied men and a powerful economy, and once we push it into high gear, we'll smear the Chinese like we did the Japanese- overwhelm them with superior machinery and vast naval might, combined with a strong and dedicated ground force.

We could also simply just knock their sattelites out of the sky, and that itself would muck up most national coordination. Now, assembling common police units and militia would also not be a good idea- in a straight-up textbook military invasion, trained army > militia/policemen in every engagement that has ever pitted the two against each other. Now, while they try desperately to catch up to the United States' advance, we're coming crashing through major population and economic centers before the Chinese are ready to halt us.

2. At the moment, China has only 3 million trained men in its ground force. Now, to raise it up to the 35 million you insist that they could gather, they'd have to skip basic training for most of those men in order to press them out in time to halt the advance of the technologically and generally militarily superior force of the United States. If they wanted to make each soldier, point for point, utterly equal to an American soldier, they'd need one hell of alot more funding than they're getting right now.

3. You should reduce the amount of assumptions and faith in a comparatively militarily weak nation.

You forget that a major attack cannot come without preparation. The U.S. cannot launch an invasion of China just like that. It would take months of preparations, and the Chinese won't just sit and watch. It took the U.S. one month to invade Iraq, which barely has 30 million people, no army and is a desert. Do you really believe yourself that the U.S. can invade China that easily ? Because if you do, this argument is pointless. China has 3 million active troops standing and waiting for an attack. That's double the number of active U.S. troops, and probably quadruple the number of troops the U.S. can actually dispatch to China.

And military funding is much more important for the level of technology than the level of preparedness. There could be a perfect individual preparation for each soldier without the need of a massive military budget. I've seen it first hand.

[Airstrip 100]

I was actually hoping you would be one of those wimpy historians that was all hot air and didn't know how to shoot a gun, but since you said yes, my argument became invalid. Sorry.

Ad hominem is not a valid argument.

Why? If they can't go anywhere or do anything how will they achive victory? The USN and USAF pen them in and after a period of morale deflating bombing campagins, the Army sweeps into crush what M&I base isn't ruins. This stragey was to win it for the US back in the Cold War. The USSR and the Chinese could/can build stuff but they can't replace it and fight a multi-front war at the same time.

Won't work. The Chinese don't have to achieve victory, they just need to survive and make the invasion too costly for America.

Also, a 'period of morale deflating bombing campaigns' won't work. The Japanese spent years bombing China from planes, ships, used chemical weapons, biological weapons, and still the Chinese fought on.

We don't have to annihilate them. Massing those forces would be utterly impossible, to say the least, not to mention supplying them with food, oil for transport vehicles, weapons, and ammunition would be a devil's game. Besides, once we get the tanks and boots on the ground, we'll be whooping ass anyway. In the Gulf War, we lost some 400 men in a handful of battles. The Iraqis lost some 35,000 men in total. We have no need for numerical superiority, our technology is more than enough to win us the war over and over again. And as for Libya, it's more along the lines of dumbass tactics. An invasion of China would be an utter disaster for the PRC, especially in terms of their military, which need I say again, has a fifth of the funding the American army gets. We would steamroll them no matter how many grunts and cannon fodder they roll out, and Beijing would have the Stars and Stripes flying over it in no more than three months. So no, China loses.

So much blind arrogance in one post...

And no. You're wrong. It's as simple as that.

The last time American forces came up against Chinese soldiers was in Korea. There, the ratio of casualties was approximately 3 Chinese to every 1 American. On the frontline, the Americans had complete air superiority, and superior technology in every way. Did they 'steamroll' the Chinese? No, you couldn't even get past the 38th parallel. And since then, the gap in training and technology has been closing.

In other words, you won't win. I'm sorry, but the 'American spirit' and blind patriotism and arrogance will only carry you so far.

[Airstrip 100]

We could also simply just knock their sattelites out of the sky, and that itself would muck up most national coordination. Now, assembling common police units and militia would also not be a good idea- in a straight-up textbook military invasion, trained army > militia/policemen in every engagement that has ever pitted the two against each other. Now, while they try desperately to catch up to the United States' advance, we're coming crashing through major population and economic centers before the Chinese are ready to halt us.

Also, no. You won't 'come crashing through major population and economic centres.' Instead, you would be dragged down into bloody urban warfare every time you try to enter a Chinese city. The Germans had armour/air superiority at Stalingrad, yet even they couldn't push the Soviets out of the city.


China can also shoot your satellites out of the sky.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chine ... ssile_test
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People ... 29_Program

As the American military is far more dependent on satellites than China, this would most definitely be to the advantage of the Chinese.

1. And they just suddenly manage to pump out enough stuff for 30 million additions to their military, while we're already on the way, probably seizing several major cities from their regular armed forces before they could even finish basic training. Not to mention that America itself has plenty of able-bodied men and a powerful economy, and once we push it into high gear, we'll smear the Chinese like we did the Japanese- overwhelm them with superior machinery and vast naval might, combined with a strong and dedicated ground force.

Won't happen. Trying to seize a Chinese city would drown the invading force in its own blood. You see, the Chinese aren't weak and disorganised like the Iraqis. They're patriotic, they believe in their country. Their civilians will pick up weapons to defend their cities.

Secondly, America's manufacturing industry is now smaller than that of China's.

Also, you said don't make assumptions, so I would like to see some evidence for your claim of an easy victory.

2. At the moment, China has only 3 million trained men in its ground force. Now, to raise it up to the 35 million you insist that they could gather, they'd have to skip basic training for most of those men in order to press them out in time to halt the advance of the technologically and generally militarily superior force of the United States. If they wanted to make each soldier, point for point, utterly equal to an American soldier, they'd need one hell of alot more funding than they're getting right now.

Evidence. Don't make assumptions.

3. You should reduce the amount of assumptions and faith in a comparatively militarily weak nation.

Oh, the irony.

[Santhene]

The combined forces of NATO are a joke. You think Slovakia, Greece or the Netherlands would stand a chance against Russia ? NATO equipment isn't that superiour to that of Russia, not to mention that most NATO members have their militaries organized for territorial defense and have no power projection capabilities.

Surgical strikes with bombers, aerial and naval superiority cannot win a land war against 20,000,000 Chinamen with AKs. Period.

Why? If they can't go anywhere or do anything how will they achive victory? The USN and USAF pen them in and after a period of morale deflating bombing campagins, the Army sweeps into crush what M&I base isn't ruins. This stragey was to win it for the US back in the Cold War. The USSR and the Chinese could/can build stuff but they can't replace it and fight a multi-front war at the same time.

With Japan and Australia's fleets....

[Lackadaisical2]

Why? If they can't go anywhere or do anything how will they achive victory? The USN and USAF pen them in and after a period of morale deflating bombing campagins, the Army sweeps into crush what M&I base isn't ruins. This stragey was to win it for the US back in the Cold War. The USSR and the Chinese could/can build stuff but they can't replace it and fight a multi-front war at the same time.

With Japan and Australia's fleets....

Fleets???!

[Zanazbar]

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.

This sounds pretty biased to me.

[Lackadaisical2]

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.

This sounds pretty biased to me.

Indeed. I don;t think living standards or poverty have a shit to do with power (in the end).