NationStates Jolt Archive

Since everyone agrees America is teh l33t, who comes in second?

Ireland comes first....

I vote the People's Republic of China.

UK is #2... UK and US both own :)

I'd say China and Russia both place joint second. Then there's a huge gap, then the UK. But then, I've not looked into this.

The UK. China is powerful but their technology is still outdated.

I wish Italy had more power in the world. It's such a nice place.

Well, bring me an army of T-90's, a bottle of wodka and a ushank... Then we shall discuss who's the strongest of them all!

RULE BRITANNIA! BRITANNIA RULES THE WAVES!
We have a LOT of influence in foreign countries.

Luxembourg. They're army recently underwent a massive expansion, bolstering their army to 125% of its former size. Both new recruits will be trained in the use of the very latest cookware, and it is estimated that they will be trained as a fast attack force, as soon as they finish filling out the paper work for the rental cars.

UK,

-large armed forces
-6th largest economy
-most influence over US.

RULE BRITANNIA! BRITANNIA RULES THE WAVES!
We have a LOT of influence in foreign countries.

Thanks to your colony policies...

I wish Italy had more power in the world. It's such a nice place.

Ave! Hail Caesar! Crucifictions and decimation for all! :p
Those Italians. Give them an inch and they'll take an empire.

Thanks to your colony policies...

Yes? So? We brought civilisation to the corners of the world and sped them up.
Goddammit if your ungrateful we'll have our damned cities back! BRick by BRICK!

Yes? So? We brought civilisation to the corners of the world and sped them up.
Goddammit if your ungrateful we'll have our damned cities back! BRick by BRICK!

WE HAULED YOUR ASSES TO HELL AND BACK IN 1066! Don't come talking to me about civilisationizing!

WE HAULED YOUR ASSES TO HELL AND BACK IN 1066! Don't come talking to me about civilisationizing!

Chill out man, have a toastie! Ham and cheese? Cheesey ham?

Thank you, Bill Bailey

WE HAULED YOUR ASSES TO HELL AND BACK IN 1066! Don't come talking to me about civilisationizing!

(Pokes)
We werent British then WERE WE... we were the Anglican-Celts

Chill out man, have a toastie! Ham and cheese? Cheesey ham?

Thank you, Bill Bailey

Are you trying to pull a pig joke, or something else...? :rolleyes:

Chill out man, have a toastie! Ham and cheese? Cheesey ham?

Thank you, Bill Bailey

croque monsieur, surely?

Are you trying to pull a pig joke, or something else...? :rolleyes:

it's a joke from a stand up comic. How danish people tend to eat a lot of toasties. I thought it was funny. It was funnier when it got to the police siren bit, mind.

Ave! Hail Caesar! Crucifictions and decimation for all! :p
Those Italians. Give them an inch and they'll take an empire.

Ah yes, well there is that. But I am pretty sure they've turned over a new leaf.

(Pokes)
We werent British then WERE WE... we were the Anglican-Celts

Brits, Angli-whatever... You were all chopped up, that's the point.

Brits, Angli-whatever... You were all chopped up, that's the point.

...Dude.

We OWNED the world practically 3/4 was ours.
And yet your saying because we lost that war, we're still crap?
Nice.
Your speaking our language, show our influence no?

...Dude.

We OWNED the world practically 3/4 was ours.
And yet your saying because we lost that war, we're still crap?
Nice.
Your speaking our language, show our influence no?

Jeg kan da godt tale dansk, tvivler bare på at din uudviklede hjerne kan følge med i hvad jeg siger...

Jeg kan da godt tale dansk, tvivler bare på at din uudviklede hjerne kan følge med i hvad jeg siger...

Yes but you still kNOW out language.
Quite frankly i dont think many would know... is that Deutch? I dunno.
We are teh UBER influencial.
If the Brits pulled out investment in american stock-market, they would have the UBER depression and the market would crash.

Since everyone agrees America is teh l33t, who comes in second?
Define "most powerful."

Economically, Japan seems to be the second most powerful. Militarilly, I would have to say Israel takes the prize. It depends upon how you define power.

Yes but you still kNOW out language.
Quite frankly i dont think many would know... is that Deutch? I dunno.
We are teh UBER influencial.
If the Brits pulled out investment in american stock-market, they would have the UBER depression and the market would crash.

I happen to like English... It's one of those few smooth languages... But Danish is the most neutral language ever... There's no hard words or weird sentences... But let's talk about all the bad ones...

GERMAN! Ach! It's horrible!

GREEK! Language of the mumblers...

LOTS OF OTHERS! So many bad words and... And all of that...

Dutch?? You don't even know who invaded you in 1066? Who blackmailed your king and raped your women? Netherland... HA!

California. :D

Third largest economy in the world if you were to seperate it from the rest os the US. Most energy resources left of any state in the US. Second biggest agricultural state in the US. Largest defense industry in the US icluding Boeing, Hughes Missile Systems Group, Rocketdyne, Teledyne, Silicone valley is here and our National Guard is larger than most armies.

GREEK! Language of the mumblers...

Psst, your mothertongue is the most famous mumblelanguage. You know, the hot-potato-language... ;)



anyway, my vote goes for China. I think it's pretty obvious.

Define "most powerful."

Economically, Japan seems to be the second most powerful. Militarilly, I would have to say Israel takes the prize. It depends upon how you define power.

Isreal is only 4.5 million people or so. The IDF is excellent at protecting isreal, no doubt, but compared to one of the EU big three, it's still fairly weak. And puny compared to Russia.

California. :D

Third largest economy in the world if you were to seperate it from the rest os the US. Most energy resources left of any state in the US. Second biggest agricultural state in the US. Largest defense industry in the US icluding Boeing, Hughes Missile Systems Group, Rocketdyne, Teledyne, Silicone valley is here and our National Guard is larger than most armies.
I forgot to mention we got Hollywood so we got teh spin machine and can seriously CRANK the propoganda. :D

California. :D

Third largest economy in the world if you were to seperate it from the rest os the US. Most energy resources left of any state in the US. Second biggest agricultural state in the US. Largest defense industry in the US icluding Boeing, Hughes Missile Systems Group, Rocketdyne, Teledyne, Silicone valley is here and our National Guard is larger than most armies.

Don't forget Blizzard Entertainment... They practically OWN the place!

What's wrong with you people? Hello? Russia? Ground forces galore? Nukes? One of the best intelligence services on the world? Wodka? Hellooo??

Don't forget Blizzard Entertainment... They practically OWN the place!
And Rockstar games. :p Grand Theft Auto rules!

Russia or China. I went Russia though.

What's wrong with you people? Hello? Russia? Ground forces galore? Nukes? One of the best intelligence services on the world? Wodka? Hellooo??
Russia is in very sad state. It's military is more of a joke nowadays.

Russia or China. I went Russia though.

China's WEAK! Noone likes them, atleast Russia has... Well... They don't need any allies anyway!

Switzerland
-> It is estimated that 25% of the world's wealth is deposited in Swiss banks. If they freeze the acounts, and seize the money, they can control the world.

Russia is in very sad state. It's military is more of a joke nowadays.

There's more than the eye can tell...

Switzerland
-> It is estimated that 25% of the world's wealth is deposited in Swiss banks. If they freeze the acounts, and seize the money, they can control the world.
If they tried to do something like that they would be pummeled into the stone age before the ink was dry on the paper the government order was written on. Afterwards they would never have any confidence from teh rest of the world, thus destroying their number one industry.

Russia is in very sad state. It's military is more of a joke nowadays.
so it dosent matter if some of their nukes are leaking, they still got enough to turn the earth into a fireball a couple times

and whats all this about the UK being the second most powerful? Sure, its good, and a major power, but its not that goood

If they tried to do something like that they would be pummeled into the stone age before the ink was dry on the paper the government order was written on.

Not really, the Switzerland is a fortress country, to invade it would be very hard, seeing as how everybody has their own tank (ok, firearm, but still, thats a lot). And they got bunkers everywhere, and all males are part of the militia

Whoever said China is living about 20 years in the future.

Whoever said Russia is living about 20 years in the past.

The answer is the UK, well behind the US. It has a strong economy, a respectable military, and significant international influence. It may sound kind of humdrum, but really, the US doesn't have any serious competition in second place right now.

so it dosent matter if some of their nukes are leaking, they still got enough to turn the earth into a fireball a couple times

and whats all this about the UK being the second most powerful? Sure, its good, and a major power, but its not that goood
I bet they (the desperate workers who don't get their wages) have already sold all the nuclear material to some nice bearded men from the mountains. (not being serious)

You're all missing the true superpower in this world.......

California. :D

Third largest economy in the world if you were to seperate it from the rest os the US. Most energy resources left of any state in the US. Second biggest agricultural state in the US. Largest defense industry in the US icluding Boeing, Hughes Missile Systems Group, Rocketdyne, Teledyne, Silicone valley is here and our National Guard is larger than most armies.
I think you should scede. :D

Not really, the Switzerland is a fortress country, to invade it would be very hard, seeing as how everybody has their own tank (ok, firearm, but still, thats a lot). And they got bunkers everywhere, and all males are part of the militia
Dude, the rest of Europe would march in their with more troops than there are Swiss citizens. The economic blockade that would immediately start as soon as Switzerland told Germany, France and the UK that you're keeping their money would have the Swiss people straving by breakfast the next day. The value of the Swiss Mark (it is a Mark, no?) would be worth less than a Mexican Peso by the end of the first trading day. While this would not be a problem at all for the rest of the world, most of the large world banks would gladly extend credit to anyone whoes money was held up knowing it would be returned double quick, this would mean that the Swiss economy was in its death throes.

I think you should scede. :D
I agree. I think this may actually be an inevitable result of Peak Oil, actually. California is already getting tired of being a doner state.

USA is the 2nd most powerful. They have the fire/economical power to make other nations to do what they are told (to some degree).

#1 is obviously the Vatican. Even the USA doesn't have much power to tell people what to/not to do in their bedroom...

USA is the 2nd most powerful. They have the fire/economical power to make other nations to do what they are told (to some degree).

#1 is obviously the Vatican. Even the USA doesn't have much power to tell people what to/not to do in their bedroom...

Then it's good we have a army of atheists...

Dude, the rest of Europe would march in their with more troops than there are Swiss citizens. The economic blockade that would immediately start as soon as Switzerland told Germany, France and the UK that you're keeping their money would have the Swiss people straving by breakfast the next day. The value of the Swiss Mark (it is a Mark, no?) would be worth less than a Mexican Peso by the end of the first trading day. While this would not be a problem at all for the rest of the world, most of the large world banks would gladly extend credit to anyone whoes money was held up knowing it would be returned double quick, this would mean that the Swiss economy was in its death throes.
I din't say that they would hold out, it just said thait it would take longer than letting the ink to dry

Then it's good we have a army of atheists...
You do!?! The things you learn about Denmark these days..!

China, through sheer strength of numbers.

China, through sheer strength of numbers.
Not really. Ever hear of "too much of a good thing?" :p

You do!?! The things you learn about Denmark these days..!

Hahaha! Didn't see that! ...Seriously, since the cartoon incident, Denmark has been on everyones lips... I kinda like that, perhaps we should screw around with the muslims some more...! :D

Hahaha! Didn't see that! ...Seriously, since the cartoon incident, Denmark has been on everyones lips... I kinda like that, perhaps we should screw around with the muslims some more...! :D
Oh, hush, now! You weren't trying to screw around with them the first time, remember..? I suppose any publicity is good publicity...

California. :D

Third largest economy in the world if you were to seperate it from the rest os the US. Most energy resources left of any state in the US. Second biggest agricultural state in the US. Largest defense industry in the US icluding Boeing, Hughes Missile Systems Group, Rocketdyne, Teledyne, Silicone valley is here and our National Guard is larger than most armies.

Well, seeing at 90% of the "American" culture that is exported around the world is actually Californian, a case could be made here.....

You're all missing the true superpower in this world.......

Clearly you're talking about the Federated States of Micronesia. You may laugh, but before you know it you'll be working in the salt mines for your brutal Micronesian overseers.

Clearly you're talking about the Federated States of Micronesia. You may laugh, but before you know it you'll be working in the salt mines for your brutal Micronesian overseers.

What were they thinking with that name anyway?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cataduanes
China, through sheer strength of numbers.


Not really. Ever hear of "too much of a good thing?" :p

Eutrusca's right, yes China has 200+million troops but they dont have the infrastructure to command such a huge force.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cataduanes
China, through sheer strength of numbers.




Eutrusca's right, yes China has 200+million troops but they dont have the infrastructure to command such a huge force.
No shit. Simple math. 600,000,000 meals a day.

yes China has 200+million troops but they dont have the infrastructure to command such a huge force.

Are you including every military age man of China in that number?

Their army size is around 1.2 million or something. Their navy is mostly junk...they don't even have an aircraft carrier. Their airforce is nothing to boast of. China has a lot of catching up to do with modernising its forces. They eventually will, but they don't have enough to be the second poweful nation.

I put Russia as 2nd. The UK does have formidable specialised fighting forces, but they cannot field the numbers when it push comes to shove. They cannot fight in more than two theatres as they did in WWII. In WWII their numbers came from colonial armies.

A little know fact - The British Indian army was the largest all volunteer force in WWII.

Are you including every military age man of China in that number?

Their army size is around 1.2 million or something. Their navy is mostly junk...they don't even have an aircraft carrier. Their airforce is nothing to boast of. China has a lot of catching up to do with modernising its forces. They eventually will, but they don't have enough to be the second poweful nation.

I put Russia as 2nd. The UK does have formidable specialised fighting forces, but they cannot field the numbers when it push comes to shove. They cannot fight in more than two theatres as they did in WWII. In WWII their numbers came from colonial armies.

A little know fact - The British Indian army was the largest all volunteer force in WWII.
Well, it just goes to show you that if you repeat something often enough it becomes the truth. I had heard so many times that they had an army of 100,000,000 men that I just accepted it. Looks like you're right, though.

http://english.people.com.cn/200412/27/eng20041227_168799.html

Reducing the troops by 200,000: Since the mid-1980s, China has twice downsized its military by a total of 1.5 million. In September 2003, the Chinese government decided to further reduce 200,000 troops by the end of 2005 to maintain the size of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) at 2.3 million. The current restructuring, while cutting down the numbers, aims at optimal force structures, smoother internal relations and better quality.

The PRC. Give 'em a Navy that's worthy of the name and they'll be able to exert more power over South Korea and Japan than the US can.

As for the British: The only reason everyone speaks English is because of us Yanks. Hell, if we spoke Thai, here, you can bet that everyone else would know, it, too!

Since everyone agrees America is teh l33t, who comes in second?

Canada, the only nation to successfully invade the United States and leave the President homeless.

India. They've got the strongest, most stable economy in the "developing" (they're a little more than developing but not developed) world and outstrip China in almost all aspects, especially in terms of their economic growth and income equality.

Canada, the only nation to successfully invade the United States and leave the President homeless.

I hate to break your tea tray, but that would be the British, deary.

India. They've got the strongest, most stable economy in the "developing" (they're a little more than developing but not developed) world and outstrip China in almost all aspects, especially in terms of their economic growth and income equality.

And yet Britain would still anhillate them, and frankly, most of uor businesses fund, and profit inordinately from, their economic progression.

The UK, I believe, with France biting at their heels. Russia might come and take it off them if they can ever get their economy in order but, at the moment anyway, they're a shadow of their former selves. China? Pfft. They have an army several orders of magnitude larger than the UK for sure, but their budget is only $55 billion, compared to the UK's $35 billion. They would certainly win almost any conventional defensive war, but, they simply can't move many of their troops for an offensive -- and without the numbers on its side, China's armed forces is worthless. The UK armed forces might not be the largest in the world, but it is amongst the most versatile, flexible, highly-trained and technologically sophisticated. And then, of course, there is the fact that they wield political power which is extremely disproportionate to their actual power.

They could use some decent assault rifles though.

And yet Britain would still anhillate them, and frankly, most of uor businesses fund, and profit inordinately from, their economic progression.

I'd love to see them try: their military is stretched just trying to occupy Basra!

And yet Britain would still anhillate them, and frankly, most of uor businesses fund, and profit inordinately from, their economic progression.

They've got the brainpower and the domestically created talent to sustain their economic growth, and that growth is far more evenly distributed than it is in China; there is a growing Indian middle class that will eventually be of huge benefit to the developed nations. They inherited many of the things that are making them great from Britain, so it's eventually going to benefit both nations.

Compare that to China, where the only people benefitting from the economic boom are the ones who already have the money. Britain has a lot more to gain from India than it ever will from China.

I'd love to see them try: their military is stretched just trying to occupy Basra!

Quite, however, occupying and suppressing an insurrectionist, hostile urban area is somewhat different to unleasing the greatest navy in the world, and a myriad of nucleur warheads, followed by the most versatile force on the planet, to subjugate and overwhelm some old colonial subjects.

They've got the brainpower and the domestically created talent to sustain their economic growth, and that growth is far more evenly distributed than it is in China; there is a growing Indian middle class that will eventually be of huge benefit to the developed nations. They inherited many of the things that are making them great from Britain, so it's eventually going to benefit both nations.

Compare that to China, where the only people benefitting from the economic boom are the ones who already have the money. Britain has a lot more to gain from India than it ever will from China.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if Indai ultimately became the extranational home of the British proletariat, with the middle classes within the UK.

Incidentally, who roundly abuses every Indian cold caller, or operastor, who they encounter? I certainly do

Quite, however, occupying and suppressing an insurrectionist, hostile urban area is somewhat different to unleasing the greatest navy in the world, and a myriad of nucleur warheads, followed by the most versatile force on the planet, to subjugate and overwhelm some old colonial subjects.

Second Greatest Navy. Don't forget that the Chinese have nukes, too. So does India. You may start landing on their shores, only to have 'civilian' kamikaze aircraft loaded with nuclear warheads homing in on your fleets and landing forces.

Second Greatest Navy. Don't forget that the Chinese have nukes, too. So does India. You may start landing on their shores, only to have 'civilian' kamikaze aircraft loaded with nuclear warheads homing in on your fleets and landing forces.

Greatest navy to my mind, whilst the US navy may be larger, the professioanlism, tradition and class of the Royal Navy would, to my mind surpass that.

I would still back the UK to be victorious over India ultimately, we have a remarkaly modern and effective armed forces.

The PRC. Give 'em a Navy that's worthy of the name and they'll be able to exert more power over South Korea and Japan than the US can.
Yeah, but you have to actually GET a navy. That's no small task. Especially if you mean one like the US has. Might as well say, "India. They have the most troops and if you give them a Death Star they can take over the moon of Endore."

Second Greatest Navy. Don't forget that the Chinese have nukes, too. So does India. You may start landing on their shores, only to have 'civilian' kamikaze aircraft loaded with nuclear warheads homing in on your fleets and landing forces.

If you're going to bring nuclear weapons into this, then the discussion is over. If any nukes are launched, game over for everybody. And Russia has more than anybody besides the US, so, they win this discussion by default.

If you're going to bring nuclear weapons into this, then the discussion is over. If any nukes are launched, game over for everybody. And Russia has more than anybody besides the US, so, they win this discussion by default.

I didn't bring nukes into it, the other guy did.

Greatest navy to my mind, whilst the US navy may be larger, the professioanlism, tradition and class of the Royal Navy would, to my mind surpass that.

I would still back the UK to be victorious over India ultimately, we have a remarkaly modern and effective armed forces.

The US Navy is larger, more capable, and better armed. Hell, moving a US carrier group into a region is akin to smiling at your opponent and saying, "Check and mate!" The Royal Navy? Most Americans aren't even aware that the UK still has a navy.

Oh, and tradition and class count for nothing, unless you like going out with style. :p

Thanks to your colony policies...
Their practice of colonization brought half the world into modern Civilization.

It's tough really. Japan has second largest economy. China has the largest military, but with outdated technology and damaging pseudo-communist government. Russia's never been back on its feet since 1989. The UK is solid all around, but lags behind the other nations in what generally determines power: economy and military might.

And, sorry to bear bad news, but but even with nukes and a seat on the UN Security Council, France has not been a true world power since WWI. Nor has Germany been since WWII.

Israel has far too many problems dealing with keeping peace in their own borders. And India is one of the poorest countries per capita.

The US Navy is larger, more capable, and better armed. Hell, moving a US carrier group into a region is akin to smiling at your opponent and saying, "Check and mate!" The Royal Navy? Most Americans aren't even aware that the UK still has a navy.

Oh, and tradition and class count for nothing, unless you like going out with style. :p

Good sir, the class, calibre and tradition of Britain is one of its greatest and most eminent commendable facets.:p Whilst we may be outnumbered, I daresay we are a little more capable than the average US fleet, only less numerous.

Their practice of colonization brought half the world into modern Civilization.

Nevermind their racist views concerning those who owned the land before they came.

armed forces can be used in different ways. there are several armies which are quite formidable.

for posed question, though, one can only consider global projection. in that area the united states is first. second is the UK. russia and france could probably make an attempt. russia's ability is rotting and france's capability is marginal.

back about 25 years ago, second would have been the USSR.

Nevermind their racist views concerning those who owned the land before they came.

Oh do shut up, we civilized the poor fellows, and enriched the rest in the process.

Good sir, the class, calibre and tradition of Britain is one of its greatest and most eminent commendable facets.:p Whilst we may be outnumbered, I daresay we are a little more capable than the average US fleet, only less numerous.

Of course, were we to engage you in honorable fleet-to-fleet combat, I can assure you, sir, that we would be bringing more than one carrier group to the table! :p

"Nothing can match the firepower of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier of the United States Navy."
-some British professor (I dunnae remember his name :eek: )

India. They've got the strongest, most stable economy in the "developing" (they're a little more than developing but not developed) world and outstrip China in almost all aspects, especially in terms of their economic growth and income equality.

Chinese economic growth is more than India's (even factoring doctoring of numbers from Chi-coms). They did beat us in the sprint while the marathon is still open.

Bottoms-up demand driven growth Vs Top down central planned growth. Time will tell who will outstrip whom.

Blessed Chris,

UK will soon be a has been nation and be called the museum of the world :p . Move over Europe, behold the century of Asia. :D

Brits, Angli-whatever... You were all chopped up, that's the point.

'We' weren't 'we' back then. Brits now are the descendants of the winners :)

China

A little word on colonization:

What the Americans did to the Indians (or if you need to be a PC berk about it, Native Americans) was tragic, yes. What the Europeans did to Africa, Asia and Southern and Central America was also far from commendable.

Yet...

It is a FAR shot away from what the conqueres of old did to the natives of their conquests. Ask the Phonecians or the Etruscans how they felt when the Romans overthrew them...Oh, wait. You can't find them, they don't exist anymore.

No civilization persist uninhibited without foreign intervention or conquest. If you move every single person in Europe back to their ethnic origin, half would be in Denmark. Move everyone in the world back to their origin, and we are all Africans. (Or if you beleive in Creationism, we're all Iraqis).

Oh do shut up, we civilized the poor fellows, and enriched the rest in the process.

Of course, but you forgot to ask their permission, first! Now if you had been really smart, you would have practiced outright ethnic cleansing and put them on small parcels of useless land, like we did!

(I made a joke about genocide... I'm going to hell. I know.)

A little word on colonization:

What the Americans did to the Indians (or if you need to be a PC berk about it, Amerinidians) was tragic, yes. What the Europeans did to Africa, Asia and Southern and Central America was also far from commendable.

Yet...

It is a FAR shot away from what the conqueres of old did to the natives of their conquests. Ask the Phonecians or the Etruscans how they felt when the Romans overthrew them...Oh, wait. You can't find them, they don't exist anymore.

No civilization persist uninhibited without foreign intervention or conquest. If you move every single person in Europe back to their ethnic origin, half would be in Denmark. Move everyone in the world back to their origin, and we are all Africans. (Or if you beleive in Creationism, we're all Iraqis).

Corrected it for ya. :p

You may start landing on their shores, only to have 'civilian' kamikaze aircraft loaded with nuclear warheads homing in on your fleets and landing forces.

No need for Kamikaze. BrahMos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrahMos) will take care of any hostile ships.

I happen to like English... It's one of those few smooth languages... But Danish is the most neutral language ever... There's no hard words or weird sentences... But let's talk about all the bad ones...

GERMAN! Ach! It's horrible!

GREEK! Language of the mumblers...

LOTS OF OTHERS! So many bad words and... And all of that...

Dutch?? You don't even know who invaded you in 1066? Who blackmailed your king and raped your women? Netherland... HA!


What??? 1066? We were invaded by the Normans - a weird mixture of Viking French. The battles (note the plural) of 1066 are probably best thought of as a series of scraps between Vikings. Our king, Harold (or as I suspect his name was really spelt - Harald), marched north and fought off a huge army of Vikings. After that, he turned round and, feeling a bit cocky, marched south to England to fight off the Normans. The word 'Norman' is a anglicised corruption of the word Norseman or Northman. See this excerpt from Wiki ...

The Normans (adapted from the name "Northmen" or "Norsemen") were a mixture of the indigenous people of France and the Viking invaders under the leadership of Hrolf Ganger, who adopted the French name Rollo and swore allegiance to the king of France (Charles the Simple). Danish or Norwegian Vikings began to occupy the northern area of France now known as Normandy in the latter half of the 9th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normans

Of course, but you forgot to ask their permission, first! Now if you had been really smart, you would have practiced outright ethnic cleansing and put them on small parcels of useless land, like we did!

(I made a joke about genocide... I'm going to hell. I know.)

Oh come on, one ickle joke wont hurt:)

will it, will it? if so I'm fucked:p

Touche, Jerusalas. :)

What??? 1066? We were invaded by the Normans - a weird mixture of Viking French. The battles (note the plural) of 1066 are probably best thought of as a series of scraps between Vikings. Our king, Harold (or as I suspect his name was really spelt - Harald), marched north and fought off a huge army of Vikings. After that, he turned round and, feeling a bit cocky, marched south to England to fight off the Normans. The word 'Norman' is a anglicised corruption of the word Norseman or Northman. See this excerpt from Wiki ...

The Normans (adapted from the name "Northmen" or "Norsemen") were a mixture of the indigenous people of France and the Viking invaders under the leadership of Hrolf Ganger, who adopted the French name Rollo and swore allegiance to the king of France (Charles the Simple). Danish or Norwegian Vikings began to occupy the northern area of France now known as Normandy in the latter half of the 9th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normans

Proof that Ninja Vikings are responsible for all the better aspects of civilized life. The bad parts? That them pesky locals trying to exert their individuality. ;)

What's wrong with you people? Hello? Russia? Ground forces galore? Nukes? One of the best intelligence services on the world? Wodka? Hellooo??

Ground forces galore don't mean bollocks. When the UK invaded the Falkland Islands after it had been invaded by the Argentinians, the UK forces were outnumbered by three to one. Normally, attackers should outnumber the defenders three or four to one.

Most of the Argentinian soldiers, poor bastards who'd been conscripted and just didn't want to be there, didn't put up much of a fight, or fled, or surrendered.


Russia's army doesn't have a good track record of late. Look at their 'success' rate in places like Checnya. Most of the poor bastards in the Russian army are conscripted and just don't want to be there.

Whoever said China is living about 20 years in the future.

Whoever said Russia is living about 20 years in the past.

The answer is the UK, well behind the US. It has a strong economy, a respectable military, and significant international influence. It may sound kind of humdrum, but really, the US doesn't have any serious competition in second place right now.


This is spot on.

If we, in the UK, want to be more powerful, we need to get more free market. And we need more inhabitants. So get shagging people! We need those babies/future drones/future soldiers!

Chinese economic growth is more than India's (even factoring doctoring of numbers from Chi-coms). They did beat us in the sprint while the marathon is still open.

Faster, but totally unsustainable. India will win in the long run, because strong economic growth is meaningless if it's both unsustainable and incradibly uneven. India has real growth, and that growth is translating in to real benefits. The main problem India faces is probably its infrastructure; they need a lot more investment to keep up their growth rate. However, on the innovation, entrepreneurial, and social side India is increasingly primed for growth.

It's very possible that China will collapse, given the gigantic income inequality, crippling unemployment, repressive government and total dependence on foreign investment. China's economic "miracle" is a hollow fantasy outside of the coastal cities, and even they are limited in their benefits.

Russia's army doesn't have a good track record of late. Look at their 'success' rate in places like Checnya. Most of the poor bastards in the Russian army are conscripted and just don't want to be there.

Russian conscription is a one year long deal, too. There's barely enough time to train them well, let alone getting them enough time on excercises together with their fellow soldiers before they're sent into combat.

Same thing happened with Japan in the 1980's. Everyone thought they would overtake the US. When in reality their economy was about 1/10th of the US. They suffered a recession that they're still not out of yet.

China's undergoing the same thing. Its overrated.

India. They've got the strongest, most stable economy in the "developing" (they're a little more than developing but not developed) world and outstrip China in almost all aspects, especially in terms of their economic growth and income equality.


India has huge potential, probably more potential than the Chinese owing to greater population projections and they speak English (a biiiiig advantage). But at the moment, they are way, way behind the Chinese. Yet, if they get their act together they could easily over-take. And, as another poster wrote, we would benefit hugely from their economic development.

UK! Have you SEEN the Type 45 destroyer? ONE of them has the same firepower as the Royal Navy's ENTIRE FLEET of Type 42s!

I'd love to see them try: their military is stretched just trying to occupy Basra!


Occupying is very different, and much harder, than mere destroying.

That said, the UK should probably increase the size of its armies for the purposes of peace-keeping and nation-building. I rather suspect there's going to be a large demand in the future for forces that can do that.

India has huge potential, probably more potential than the Chinese owing to greater population projections and they speak English (a biiiiig advantage). But at the moment, they are way, way behind the Chinese. Yet, if they get their act together they could easily over-take. And, as another poster wrote, we would benefit hugely from their economic development.

As for their speaking English, I would contend otherwise. Or, at least not the English practiced by true Englishmen.

Yeah, but you have to actually GET a navy. That's no small task. Especially if you mean one like the US has. Might as well say, "India. They have the most troops and if you give them a Death Star they can take over the moon of Endore."


Accurate. And funny :D

I hate those damn furry Ewoks

India has huge potential, probably more potential than the Chinese owing to greater population projections and they speak English (a biiiiig advantage). But at the moment, they are way, way behind the Chinese. Yet, if they get their act together they could easily over-take. And, as another poster wrote, we would benefit hugely from their economic development.

China's got the "hard" assets (the infrastructure, existing facilities, etc.) but India far outpaces them in the soft assets like civil/political rights, an established legal system freedom of information, and educational opportunities. Ultimately, it's the soft assets that win or lose the economic battle.

Next year Russia is moving to a professional (voulenteer army) Just food for though


hey have the Nuclear assets and air assets to engage with ease any one but the united the states (between the numbers of the air craft, and their class, they really do out do any other place. save the US.) 4gen fights (miG 29 and Su-27) which are comperable to the F-15 and F-16, but in much larger numbers then anyone on earth has (save china, but they are flying mig-21's and other such very dated machines, and the US, but this is for number 2, not number 1)

A crippling nuclear strike, followed by heavy airiel bombardment then artillery, I dont believe anyone really stands a chance save the US and China (but china only in a defensive form, I.e. Russia would have a hard time to invade China, but China would be raped invading russia)

Looking at the list of choices, there almost might as well not be a second place. The US owns so much it needs the first couple of spots, at least. If you took the entire European Union as a whole, it would probably be second, but a very distant one at that. My advice to all the nations on the list would be to get their acts together, but with the US as No. 1, no one else really needs to get better. We've got you covered.:D

As a side note, it's too bad Spain went from awesome to crap. They pretty much rocked from 15th to 18th centuries, but no more.

I voted Russia because they are the closest (yet still quite distatn) second to the US to choose from.

It's tough really. Japan has second largest economy ....

True ... ish.

(1) Top three by nominal GDP (counting up the value of all goods and services in the country) United States $12452.4 Billion, Japan $4672Billion
Germany $2800Billion, with the UK behind at United Kingdom US$2197Billion.
But that doesn't take into account that it is much cheaper to live in the US than say, the UK.

(2) Top three taking into account differences in cost & value of money (Gross domestic product based on purchasing-power-parity (PPP) valuation of country GDP) US $12,332Billion, China US$8,092, Japan US$4,009. So, in fairly basic terms, the US pwns everybody. China is way behind, and Japan way behind them.


And India is one of the poorest countries per capita.

India, with $3,315 per head (on an internationally comparable basis) is about 120th out of 180 or so nations.

And the top three wealthiest nations on an internationally comparable per head (ppp GDP per capita) basis?

Get ready ...

You'll be surprised ...

Luxembourg $66,820 (money launderers!)
Equatorial Guinea $50473.51(WTF??)
Norway $41,940.51 (oiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil!)

SOURCE: IMF

Next year Russia is moving to a professional (voulenteer army) Just food for though


hey have the Nuclear assets and air assets to engage with ease any one but the united the states (between the numbers of the air craft, and their class, they really do out do any other place. save the US.) 4gen fights (miG 29 and Su-27) which are comperable to the F-15 and F-16, but in much larger numbers then anyone on earth has (save china, but they are flying mig-21's and other such very dated machines, and the US, but this is for number 2, not number 1)

A crippling nuclear strike, followed by heavy airiel bombardment then artillery, I dont believe anyone really stands a chance save the US and China (but china only in a defensive form, I.e. Russia would have a hard time to invade China, but China would be raped invading russia)

A crippling nuclear strike? If by "crippling" you mean "end of life as we know it" (by which I mean "bye-bye complex, multicellular organisms"), then yes!

Proof that Ninja Vikings are responsible for all the better aspects of civilized life. The bad parts? That them pesky locals trying to exert their individuality. ;)

Yay for ninja Vikings! :D

As for their speaking English, I would contend otherwise. Or, at least not the English practiced by true Englishmen.


Same could be said of our Yankee brethren:D

China, through sheer strength of numbers.

I think an Air Force pilot would describe China as a "target rich environment".

Looking at the list of choices, there almost might as well not be a second place. The US owns so much it needs the first couple of spots, at least.

After looking at the IMF numbers, I'd say the US should probably take the top five all on its own! :D

Looking at the list of choices, there almost might as well not be a second place. The US owns so much it needs the first couple of spots, at least. If you took the entire European Union as a whole, it would probably be second, but a very distant one at that. My advice to all the nations on the list would be to get their acts together, but with the US as No. 1, no one else really needs to get better. We've got you covered.:D

As a side note, it's too bad Spain went from awesome to crap. They pretty much rocked from 15th to 18th centuries, but no more.

I voted Russia because they are the closest (yet still quite distatn) second to the US to choose from.

Nah, see, in a war scenario, a REAL war scenario, we know the USA leaves a lot to be desired. For example, Iraq and Vietnam to name the most prominent two. Fair enough, militarily, their attrition rate is far superior. But the simple point of the matter is the majority of the populace seems to become drastically less happy as the wars drag on. Not only that, but the countries the USA occupies are far, far smaller than the USA itself. Let me ask you a question. Assuming that nuclear weapons (they end the world, after all) are not in play, could the USA defeat and occupy China, which, I'll remind you, has a population of 1.3 *very roughly* billion? Bearing in mind its current trouble with iraq, a country of *again very roughly* I believe 30 million.

Same could be said of our Yankee brethren:D

Not to quite the same extent though...

if you think all of american influence is british you very wrong.
BTW england does not have a supperior fire power over the us. One us aircraft carrier = all of englands.

Switzerland Own All!!! Once we get an army and a leader who likes a good war, we shall rule!

only joking, I shall say China because they have the population and military strength to do the worst possible. If it was a straight fight, i think China would win.

:gundge: :mp5:

Nah, see, in a war scenario, a REAL war scenario, we know the USA leaves a lot to be desired. For example, Iraq and Vietnam to name the most prominent two. Fair enough, militarily, their attrition rate is far superior. But the simple point of the matter is the majority of the populace seems to become drastically less happy as the wars drag on. Not only that, but the countries the USA occupies are far, far smaller than the USA itself. Let me ask you a question. Assuming that nuclear weapons (they end the world, after all) are not in play, could the USA defeat and occupy China, which, I'll remind you, has a population of 1.3 *very roughly* billion? Bearing in mind its current trouble with iraq, a country of *again very roughly* I believe 30 million.

Iraq is not as bad as everyone says, but that's another story. There is no substitute for superior technology. Assuming we had to kill every single male of soldiering age, it would be tough, I will give you that. Do we have to occupy China to beat it? I don't think so, though occupation of China would be nearly impossible. We have so much ordinance and airpower, we would be just killing more people with each bomb. Without nukes, China can't even get anything to the Americans. We can just bombard their coastal installations with naval and air power, taking out what few military assets they have other than people. If nobody had to minimize civillian casualties or try to keep everything peaceful, the US is unbeatable.

yaddy yaddy yaddy

Here's where you stats can be misleading.

In India the cost of living is very low, it is a largely rural society where the farmers grow enough food for their families and some extra that they sell, it's not a society based on money like the west, it is based on being able to eat. Many countries are similar to them, Vietnam is another example (and the Vietnamese kicked China in the balls a time or two) where money is just not existant at many levels and they live a "primitive" lifestyle.

In the US something like 25% of the nation lives in poverty, supposedly I am one of them, when I look at my surroundings all I can think is "damn, this aint so bad." The "poverty line" in the US is at a level that in many countries a person of equal income would be rather wealthy.

I voted for Russia.

China might have the numbers to look like a tough nut to crack, but that is mostly in the Army. Their Navy is a brown water navy and their Air Force is at this point still a joke.

The UK has some things they need to fix with their carrier's before I will bump them to number two, ST/VOL planes like the Harrier Mk.1 and Mk.2 are at this point obsolete and would not stand up against modern aircraft.

Russia however still has most of their Navy and with a little elbow grease could get them running again, the Mig-29 is an outstanding aircraft, it lacks the ability of US aircraft to attack aircraft from over the horizon but in dogfights it is an outstanding aircraft.

Oh yeah, 45,000 tanks. They have more tanks than many nations have men in their military!

Iraq is not as bad as everyone says, but that's another story. There is no substitute for superior technology. Assuming we had to kill every single male of soldiering age, it would be tough, I will give you that. Do we have to occupy China to beat it? I don't think so, though occupation of China would be nearly impossible. We have so much ordinance and airpower, we would be just killing more people with each bomb. Without nukes, China can't even get anything to the Americans. We can just bombard their coastal installations with naval and air power, taking out what few military assets they have other than people. If nobody had to minimize civillian casualties or try to keep everything peaceful, the US is unbeatable.

Regardless of iraq not being as bad as whatever, the fact remains that a lot of americans are wanting US soldiers out. and in the end, that's all that counts.

Also, there are plenty of substitutes for superior technology. Superior numbers for one thing will work given time. Superior technology is very expensive. 2 examples from the same war spring to mind. The Sherman against the Panzer, and the Red army against the Wermacht. In a different war, the victory of the Zulus at the battle of Isandlwana. Sure, one for one, they are mismatched, but that's an inaccurate comparison. Not to mention that superior tactics can minimise the effects of superior technology. Its been proven repeatedly that the USAs technology is not perfect, and if it's not perfect, it can be exploited by a clever foe.

As far as US naval dominance goes, it's a powerful asset, to be sure, but not beyond neutralisation. If I recall, the Chinese are working on some new anti-shipping missile? Or gained the plans for them from the Russians? to be honest, I can't remember. The airforce aspect I don't believe swings things as you would suspect. I've never seen an airforce win a war, and I can think of at least one example (Monte Casino) where the airforce has made things more difficult for the men on the ground.

Regardless of iraq not being as bad as whatever, the fact remains that a lot of americans are wanting US soldiers out. and in the end, that's all that counts.

Also, there are plenty of substitutes for superior technology. Superior numbers for one thing will work given time. Superior technology is very expensive. 2 examples from the same war spring to mind. The Sherman against the Panzer, and the Red army against the Wermacht. In a different war, the victory of the Zulus at the battle of Isandlwana. Sure, one for one, they are mismatched, but that's an inaccurate comparison. Not to mention that superior tactics can minimise the effects of superior technology. Its been proven repeatedly that the USAs technology is not perfect, and if it's not perfect, it can be exploited by a clever foe.

As far as US naval dominance goes, it's a powerful asset, to be sure, but not beyond neutralisation. If I recall, the Chinese are working on some new anti-shipping missile? Or gained the plans for them from the Russians? to be honest, I can't remember. The airforce aspect I don't believe swings things as you would suspect. I've never seen an airforce win a war, and I can think of at least one example (Monte Casino) where the airforce has made things more difficult for the men on the ground.

We would not be able to occupy China at all. I agree with you there. But in a war with them, the probable goal would be neutralization anyway. We would have no reason to invade them for territorial expansion. If we ever fight them, it will be to repulse them from some other country or to prevent them from doing something the US considers bad (I can't think of a scenario, but there surely is one). The airforce and navy destroys all their military equipment from a safe distance, small teams could take care of other things as the situation required it. If we were just trying to invade them for the heck it, we would surely want to destroy many people, simply because over 50 years of anti-US indoctrination just makes it harder for us to calm them down once we got in there.

Just as a side note, the USMC is the finest fighting force on the planet. A big ol' group of conscripted Chinese soldeirs cannot do too much to the marines.

-snipped-
Just as a side note, the USMC is the finest fighting force on the planet. A big ol' group of conscripted Chinese soldeirs cannot do too much to the marines.


You might be thinking of Thermopylae, the ultimate show of skill over numbers... right - wrong. The spartans lost, numbers triumphed, the same as in most conflicts.

A bullet kills a chinese conscript as fast as a marine, and an ak-47 can spew them quickly. We've already seen in numerous conflicts that despite the high training of a US marine, they're not immortal.

on a more biased and jingoistic note, but you're still wrong. The Royal Marines are way better :p

China has conscription in theory, but right now, its almost all voulenteers@ person above me.

The USMC are far over rated. The US Army is a much more balanced, long term war machine then USMC, as are most Land combat units in the world that are dedicated to land combat and not amphibious combat.

on a more biased and jingoistic note, but you're still wrong. The Royal Marines are way better :p

Yes, we certainly here of the heroic exploits and derring-do of the Royal Marines frequently.:p (just kidding, the Royal Marines are very admirable, and much of the US Marine tradition can be traced to British origins. Whether or not Britain is officially No. 2 on the "Most Powerful" list, they are certainly No. 2 on the "Cool List" (again, right behind the US).

This is unrelated, but everyone should read this entertaining little poem thing.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=bomb_iran

When Russia runs out of it's natural resources...well, it will be the end of Russia. What power do you see there? Old T-80's , SU-32's unqualified pilots, who crash in the foreign countries or nuclear missiles, which are unable to control? I can't see any economical or intellectual potential there...

By the way, the country, which has strained relationships with almost all of it's neighbours, can't be a superpower.

I would say the UK, although China is becoming massively powerful. The USSR, Germany and Japan are all powerful as well.

China has conscription in theory, but right now, its almost all voulenteers@ person above me.

The USMC are far over rated. The US Army is a much more balanced, long term war machine then USMC, as are most Land combat units in the world that are dedicated to land combat and not amphibious combat.
They're not overrated. They're for different purposes. The USMC are an attack force and the army is a holding/defence force. This of course overlaps, but that's the jist of it.

They're not overrated. They're for different purposes. The USMC are an attack force and the army is a holding/defence force. This of course overlaps, but that's the jist of it.DEVIL DOGS RULE!

They're not overrated. They're for different purposes. The USMC are an attack force and the army is a holding/defence force. This of course overlaps, but that's the jist of it.

I know this, but it seems everyone on the internet says "OMFG USMC roxors teh big one !!!1111!!oneone!!eleven. lets s3nd t3h marinezoz to kick teh ass of "iran/china/korea/bukakkistan, and noone else! cause teh navy iz ghey air force are pussies and army is teh lamezors!"

They are an attack force, a very good one, but they are not the end all of warfare, or even of ground warfare. I just get sick of hearing about the USMC with out anyone thinking about how a war is really fought.

As for their speaking English, I would contend otherwise. Or, at least not the English practiced by true Englishmen.

Were you Bangalored?

That would explain your spite.

I would say the UK, although China is becoming massively powerful. The USSR, Germany and Japan are all powerful as well.

LOL..there is no USSR any more....Jeez, someones a bit old. :p

LOL..there is no USSR any more....Jeez, someones a bit old. :p
Arghh :p I keep on forgetting. Well, with Putin at the helm, it might as well be the USSR. Or USSR II anyway.

Arghh :p I keep on forgetting. Well, with Putin at the helm, it might as well be the USSR. Or USSR II anyway.

:p Point taken, buddy. Point taken.

the Mig-29 is an outstanding aircraft, it lacks the ability of US aircraft to attack aircraft from over the horizon but in dogfights it is an outstanding aircraft.

Mig-29 is BVR capable.

I say India.

The UK doesn't have the ground forces (although their navy is very, very good), Israel doesn't have the numbers, and China is still very much in the early stages of modernising its military.

India is too, but they've gotten themselves some very useful partnerships for military equipment. And I really do like the Su-30 MKI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30MKI). Pwns most.

to the person saying China is a "target rich environment", I would like to point out that no enemy bomber will enter Chinese airspace and expect to survive. The multitudes of highly advanced SAMs on the Chinese coast makes air assaults on Chinese territory nigh impossible. When the US tried to spy on China using Unmanned Arial Vehicles, the Chinese simply shot them down and reverse-enginnered them.

Despite me being Chinese, I actually voted for China for a good reason.

1: I like the food.

That's it.

Despite me being Chinese, I actually voted for China for a good reason.

1: I like the food.

That's it.
Agreed. :p Chinese people and its cultural heritage are cool too. Modern China though is not.

When the US tried to spy on China using Unmanned Arial Vehicles, the Chinese simply shot them down and reverse-enginnered them.
And there I was, thinking they accidently crashed into it...:p

to the person saying China is a "target rich environment", I would like to point out that no enemy bomber will enter Chinese airspace and expect to survive. The multitudes of highly advanced SAMs on the Chinese coast makes air assaults on Chinese territory nigh impossible. When the US tried to spy on China using Unmanned Arial Vehicles, the Chinese simply shot them down and reverse-enginnered them.

Damn bastard number crunchers....:p

Eh, were still more anatomically gifted than you guys, so as long as that matters in the world, I guess we win. :p

Damn bastard number crunchers....:p

Eh, were still more anatomically gifted than you guys, so as long as that matters in the world, I guess we win. :p
Aren't Far Eastern women considered extremely attractive though? :p Maybe its a plot of theirs to conquer the West. :eek:

Aren't Far Eastern women considered extremely attractive though? :p Maybe its a plot of theirs to conquer the West. :eek:

Haha, well then I guess they already got California.

Oh well, atleast I'm saved...I like blonde women ;)

Japan!! Japan was totally wiped and proved that a culture can turn around from a bleak future of destruction to a truly sparkling one, the other nations on this planet that survived WW2 should be ashamed of themselves.


Rich

Haha, well then I guess they already got California.

Oh well, atleast I'm saved...I like blonde women ;)
And if I were, straight, so would I :p

Japan!! Japan was totally wiped and proved that a culture can turn around from a bleak future of destruction to a truly sparkling one, the other nations on this planet that survived WW2 should be ashamed of themselves.


Rich
Didn't Germany also reverse its fate?

Japan!! Japan was totally wiped and proved that a culture can turn around from a bleak future of destruction to a truly sparkling one, the other nations on this planet that survived WW2 should be ashamed of themselves.


Rich

Well from what I noticed America survived WWII and we arnt doing too bad...:rolleyes:

In all seriousness though, I truley beleive Germany and Austria have tried so hard to come from their WWII selves to a modern self....and I think they have come along way. Its bastards like those arabs in the muslim world that post nazi propaganda that limit Germany and Austria from truley spreading their old image.

Nah, see, in a war scenario, a REAL war scenario, we know the USA leaves a lot to be desired. For example, Iraq and Vietnam to name the most prominent two. Fair enough, militarily, their attrition rate is far superior. But the simple point of the matter is the majority of the populace seems to become drastically less happy as the wars drag on. Not only that, but the countries the USA occupies are far, far smaller than the USA itself. Let me ask you a question. Assuming that nuclear weapons (they end the world, after all) are not in play, could the USA defeat and occupy China, which, I'll remind you, has a population of 1.3 *very roughly* billion? Bearing in mind its current trouble with iraq, a country of *again very roughly* I believe 30 million.
the problem with Iraq and Vietnam is that the government never made a good enough case for the wars. I don't think there's an American I know that didn't want to see the heads of the Taliban on spears on the White House lawn, but then again they were hiding Bin Laden and everyone understood that. If we were at war with China and they actually hurt us I think you'd find a bigger stomach for war here. With Iraq and Vietnam everyone's asking, okay, why are we there?

to the person saying China is a "target rich environment", I would like to point out that no enemy bomber will enter Chinese airspace and expect to survive. The multitudes of highly advanced SAMs on the Chinese coast makes air assaults on Chinese territory nigh impossible. When the US tried to spy on China using Unmanned Arial Vehicles, the Chinese simply shot them down and reverse-enginnered them.
Yeah but we tend to take those kinds of things out from 200 miles off shore before our planes get there. That's what cruise missiles are for. We can, after all, send one through a bedroom window.

US is #2
China is #1

Sorry. Thems the cards.

the problem with Iraq and Vietnam is that the government never made a good enough case for the wars. I don't think there's an American I know that didn't want to see the heads of the Taliban on spears on the White House lawn, but then again they were hiding Bin Laden and everyone understood that. If we were at war with China and they actually hurt us I think you'd find a bigger stomach for war here. With Iraq and Vietnam everyone's asking, okay, why are we there?

Depends on who fires the first trigger.

USA, Israel. They kind of go together, ye know?

Yeah but we tend to take those kinds of things out from 200 miles off shore before our planes get there. That's what cruise missiles are for. We can, after all, send one through a bedroom window.
Now, I'm not too clear on what type of AA Defences China has in detail, but you're aware that if they're any good, they can shoot down cruise missiles as well, right?

And besides, the Tomahawk is getting on in years. Shadow Storm and Taurus is where it's at.

small teams could take care of other things as the situation required it.
What are these "small teams" that you speak of?

we were just trying to invade them for the heck it, we would surely want to destroy many people, simply because over 50 years of anti-US indoctrination just makes it harder for us to calm them down once we got in there.
So in other words, the massacre of a few tens of million of Soviet citizens under the rule of Stalin (if it had happened) during WWII can be justified?

A big ol' group of conscripted Chinese soldeirs cannot do too much to the marines.
That's a very strange assumption, considering that there are more volunteers willing to get into the PLA than those who are actually accepted...

Now, I'm not too clear on what type of AA Defences China has in detail, but you're aware that if they're any good, they can shoot down cruise missiles as well, right?

And besides, the Tomahawk is getting on in years. Shadow Storm and Taurus is where it's at.
They better have some mighty good satalites 'cause you kinda need to see them coming and you can't with radar. They also better be able to deal with the size of the sorties. It's not like we'll try to take out a SAM site with one missile. I haven't mentioned the stealth aircraft yet, either. They can hit from many, many miles away as well...

like it matters when the nukes start flying.

Depends on who fires the first trigger.
Well, of course. That's the point. Barring nukes, as is supposed to be th rule in this thread, if China attacked us I think you wouldn't see the kind of division you see with Iraq. If we're talking nukes it doesn't matter. We're all eating cockroaches.

I say china, because it probably has the most potential to wage war in the long run. I think China could most easily bring its economy into a war state(well, easily + strongest). With all its people, I think it could end out any other nation in the long run, though for china to do it, it would severly screw it over.

After china its a competition between France and Britain. I call it tied, because I think its just too close to give a decisive edge to either.

like it matters when the nukes start flying.
The rule in the thread is ignore nukes.

What are these "small teams" that you speak of?


So in other words, the massacre of a few tens of million of Soviet citizens under the rule of Stalin (if it had happened) during WWII can be justified?


That's a very strange assumption, considering that there are more volunteers willing to get into the PLA than those who are actually accepted...


Sorry if I was unclear. I meant special forces of some type, though I don't pretend to be an expert on how those operate.

I don't really know how the Soviet thing goes with what I said. Are we talking about Stalin massacring his own people or Hitler doing it? What I meant was that if we wanted to invade mainland China, we would probably only be able to do it by taking out lots of civilians. I do not advocate that, but that is probably how it would have to go to be successful.

I'm sure China has many capable volunteers that love their country. Even so, they would probably not be able to beat American soldiers because frankly, ours are the best.

I say china, because it probably has the most potential to wage war in the long run. I think China could most easily bring its economy into a war state(well, easily + strongest). With all its people, I think it could end out any other nation in the long run, though for china to do it, it would severly screw it over.

After china its a competition between France and Britain. I call it tied, because I think its just too close to give a decisive edge to either.
China would likely disintegrate from within. People are awakening to what's out there in the world, and if the nation's leaders decide to go into war, that may just spark a revolt, and perhaps fragment the nation.

I say India.

The UK doesn't have the ground forces (although their navy is very, very good), Israel doesn't have the numbers, and China is still very much in the early stages of modernising its military.

India is too, but they've gotten themselves some very useful partnerships for military equipment. And I really do like the Su-30 MKI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30MKI). Pwns most.

Bah. I won't put up with no Indian Air Force, lest they be funding the Berkut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-47). Pwns all. ;)

The other thing people are ignoring is allies. the fact is you cannot ignore the fact that if the UK were attacked there'd be hundreds of thousands of American soldiers in their lines. There'd be English planes taking off from American carriers. Who's gonna help resupply India, for example? Whoes weapons tech can India count on in a pinch?

I don't really know how the Soviet thing goes with what I said. Are we talking about Stalin massacring his own people or Hitler doing it? What I meant was that if we wanted to invade mainland China, we would probably only be able to do it by taking out lots of civilians. I do not advocate that, but that is probably how it would have to go to be successful.

Firing upon civilians? That would only hurt America's chances. Fighting unarmed foes - the Chinese government would certainly twist it against you, and brilliantly.

China would likely disintegrate from within. People are awakening to what's out there in the world, and if the nation's leaders decide to go into war, that may just spark a revolt, and perhaps fragment the nation.
That's true. For all the government rhetoric the people love the west. There was just a story today about how the government banned an American movie and all that meant was the bootleggers made a fortune.

US is #2
China is #1

Sorry. Thems the cards.
In a stacked deck, perhaps...

Here's where you stats can be misleading.

Firstly, not my stats. IMF stats.



In India the cost of living is very low

Yes, I know. That's why I quoted the purchasing-power parity stats on a per capita basis. That's how you (or I) can compare an Indian family to a family living in Malta or in Wisconsin.

, it is a largely rural society where the farmers grow enough food for their families and some extra that they sell, it's not a society based on money like the west, it is based on being able to eat.

Yes, that's why the Indians record about $3,300 per head and the Luxembourgers record about $67,000 per head

Many countries are similar to them

True indeed. Many countries live in extreme poverty - not this relative bollocks we blather about in the west (OMG, i haven't got six TVs, and my child wasn't able to simultaneously watch 6 hours of Barbie on TV unlike her friends - we're so unkewl).

In many parts of the word people live in mortifying cold, hunger and fear.


In the US something like 25% of the nation lives in poverty, supposedly I am one of them, when I look at my surroundings all I can think is "damn, this aint so bad." The "poverty line" in the US is at a level that in many countries a person of equal income would be rather wealthy.

You're totally right. You are far better off being a 'poor' person in the US (OK, you only have one TV, one car and you live in a trailer park) than a rich person in Somalia (precarious food supply, no personal safety for you or your family, constant threat of kidnap and murder).

The IMF statistics don't show everything, that's true. But they do give some indication. All the 'nice' places to live tend to be at the top of the tables and the 'bad' places at the bottom.

That said, for everything their is a measure. The Gini Co-efficient looks at quality of life. It's quite illuminating.

CDA

Firing upon civilians? That would only hurt America's chances. Fighting unarmed foes - the Chinese government would certainly twist it against you, and brilliantly.

If the US were in a war with them, don't you think they would be twisting everything against the US? No country ever talks about the virtues of its enemies during war except for some foolish Americans (who are in the minority with their beliefs). I believe I said I was against killing civilians. The original reason I said it is because someone else was talking about invading the mainland. That is just not feasible, so I theorized that if we had to, that would be the only way to do it successfully.

Any war between the US and China would probably not involve invasions at all. The US would bombard from the air and sea while China defended itself.

In a different war, the victory of the Zulus at the battle of Isandlwana.

Rourke's drift?

I think there is also something to consider in teh India China debate. India may not be exploding at the rate China is, but India ois building a true middle class. This tends to have a very stabalizing effect on a country. China is building a very privilaged class. This tends to lead to civil strife.

lets s3nd t3h marinezoz to kick teh ass of "iran/china/korea/bukakkistan, and noone else! cause teh navy iz ghey air force are pussies and army is teh lamezors!"



Bukkakistan??? As a guy, that's one country I'd like to visit :D

RULE BRITANNIA! BRITANNIA RULES THE WAVES! BRITAIN NEVER, NEVER, NEVER WILL BE SLAVES!

Has most influence over the worlds only super power and has good relations with those who it once controlled.

RULE BRITANNIA! BRITANNIA RULES THE WAVES! BRITAIN NEVER, NEVER, NEVER WILL BE SLAVES!

Has most influence over the worlds only super power and has good relations with those who it once controlled.
Yes, this being the 19th century of course :p

Yes, this being the 19th century of course :p
well i'd settle for most of the middle east!

USA, Israel. They kind of go together, ye know?


yeah, maybe they do, maybe they don't. But no way on the face of this, or any other earth, is Israel the no2 most powerful nation by any measure you care to think of

RULE BRITANNIA! BRITANNIA RULES THE WAVES! BRITAIN NEVER, NEVER, NEVER WILL BE SLAVES!

Has most influence over the worlds only super power and has good relations with those who it once controlled.
Yeah, that's why I said this:

The other thing people are ignoring is allies. the fact is you cannot ignore the fact that if the UK were attacked there'd be hundreds of thousands of American soldiers in their lines. There'd be English planes taking off from American carriers. Who's gonna help resupply India, for example? Who's weapons tech can India count on in a pinch?

After china its a competition between France and Britain. I call it tied, because I think its just too close to give a decisive edge to either.


What??? Apart from the coastal cities, most of China is dirt-poor.

What (2)??? HAVE YOU NEVER TYPED THE WORDS "FRENCH MILITARY VICTORIES" INTO GOOGLE, CLICKED 'I FEEL LUCKY' THEN FOLLOWED THE LINK?

If not, you should do :D

The other thing people are ignoring is allies. the fact is you cannot ignore the fact that if the UK were attacked there'd be hundreds of thousands of American soldiers in their lines. There'd be English planes taking off from American carriers. Who's gonna help resupply India, for example? Whoes weapons tech can India count on in a pinch?

Nope. The planes would all be American. The helos might (on an odd chance) have maybe one British helo. Now, there might also be 'guest' pilots from the UK flying some American aircraft, but again, they'd be flying American aircraft, not British aircraft.

If the US were in a war with them, don't you think they would be twisting everything against the US? No country ever talks about the virtues of its enemies during war except for some foolish Americans (who are in the minority with their beliefs). I believe I said I was against killing civilians. The original reason I said it is because someone else was talking about invading the mainland. That is just not feasible, so I theorized that if we had to, that would be the only way to do it successfully.

Any war between the US and China would probably not involve invasions at all. The US would bombard from the air and sea while China defended itself.

Not neccessarily. Assume that you've twisted everything against them, then it only causes one mistake to break it all.

The other thing people are ignoring is allies. the fact is you cannot ignore the fact that if the UK were attacked there'd be hundreds of thousands of American soldiers in their lines. There'd be English planes taking off from American carriers. Who's gonna help resupply India, for example? Whoes weapons tech can India count on in a pinch?


Damn good point

Nope. The planes would all be American. The helos might (on an odd chance) have maybe one British helo. Now, there might also be 'guest' pilots from the UK flying some American aircraft, but again, they'd be flying American aircraft, not British aircraft.
Whatever. You get the point. Most European countries can at least rely on American help if not outright intervention. You know that whole thing about NATO and the fact we kinda all agree on a bunch of basic principles and such...

The other thing people are ignoring is allies. the fact is you cannot ignore the fact that if the UK were attacked there'd be hundreds of thousands of American soldiers in their lines. There'd be English planes taking off from American carriers. Who's gonna help resupply India, for example? Who's weapons tech can India count on in a pinch?

Britain would support India because they supported us during WWII (Except those in the Japanese INA) but that will proberly turn nuclear because it would be against Pakistan.

Britain would support India because they supported us during WWII (Except those in the Japanese INA) but that will proberly turn nuclear because it would be against Pakistan.
If Britain was attacked by India, it would support India? :rolleyes:

If Britain was attacked by India, it would support India? :rolleyes:
The Brittish ARE VERY polite.

Thread is about most powerful nation.


There is more to power than biggest military.

There is - as has been pointed out - military, economic, political power too.

Here's another. Oil Power. Saudi Arabia is the world's swing oil producer by a long, long way. What if they turned off the taps tomorrow? Ok, price of oil up, up, up and away :eek: but various nations would turn on the oil reservoir taps. But what would happen some months after when they run dry too?

The Brittish ARE VERY polite.
Yes, they will burn down a city, and then say "You're welcome. :)"

How very polite indeed :p

Whatever. You get the point. Most European countries can at least rely on American help if not outright intervention. You know that whole thing about NATO and the fact we kinda all agree on a bunch of basic principles and such...

Yeah. The devil's in the detail, though.

What you meant to say, was that if the shit does fly, an American carrier group will provide the European nation in question with a very large club with which to bash its foolish folliful foes.

Since WWII America and Britain have been close allies;
We supported American ground troops during Korea,
When America was Fighting Communists in South-East Asia so were we in Borneo,
During the Falklands war President Ronald Reagan offered an American Carrier to assist us but Thatcher turned it down,

Yeah. The devil's in the detail, though.

What you meant to say, was that if the shit does fly, an American carrier group will provide the European nation in question with a very large club with which to bash its foolish folliful foes.
Big bugs need big clubs to be squashed...whatever gets the job done :)

Yeah. The devil's in the detail, though.

What you meant to say, was that if the shit does fly, an American carrier group will provide the European nation in question with a very large club with which to bash its foolish folliful foes.
Yeah, that.:rolleyes:

Yeah, that.:rolleyes:

It's a helluva lot more accurate than what you said.

Okay, India has a close commercial defence partnership with the Russians, and I believe there have been talks with the Chinese as well. And the Chinese and the Russians are best friends anyways these days.

But if you want to get into Alliances, then the whole thread is moot. Any NATO Nation will be first, followed by the rest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organization).

Of course, but you forgot to ask their permission, first! Now if you had been really smart, you would have practiced outright ethnic cleansing and put them on small parcels of useless land, like we did!

(I made a joke about genocide... I'm going to hell. I know.)

Im sorry but before you go on with insulting the british colonization look at U.S. history aw well. Manifest Destiny ring a bell?

Any invasion of China will be devestating to the invader. Look at Japan's invasion in 1937 (I consider 1931 the beginning of the Japanese invasion though).

Civil war in China had been going on for around a decade. Japan had attacked in 1931 and a large northern region of China was under Japanese rule. Both the communist forces and nationalist forces were weak. The Imperial Japanese Army was expected to wipe the floor with the remaining Chinese forces. And it mostly did. The Republic of China Army, although putting up a valiant defense of Shanghai, were outclassed, outgunned, and outnumbered by the IJA. Most of coastal China, where the majority of the people and wealth were located, fell to Japan. The Japanese government expected to completely conquer the rest of China within a year.

But that did not happen. Both the nationalists and the communists agreed to a ceasefire with one another and attacked the Japanese invaders. The communists formed countless guerilla units and attacked Japanese supply lines. Coordinated efforts by the Chinese inflicted heavy casualties.

The IJA were shocked. The war was supposed to be over in 1931, but in 1940 Japanese soldiers were still fighting and dying. The whole point of the war was to secure resources to feed the Japanese war machine, but continued Chinese resistance made it impossible for Japan to harvest the resources. The war was sucking up Japanese oil, and the oil supply was dwindling. This is one of the reasons attacked America when she stopped selling oil to Japan.

More importantly, the entire IJA was tied up in China. They were forced to remain there to keep the portions of China they had occupied. Although able to take almost half of China, they were unable to pacify the country.

No invasion of modern China will be successful. In 1931 there was civil war in China, and the nation as a whole had been humiliated for the last hundred years. The government had been in existance for only twenty years, and already it was under attack by rebel forces. Nevertheless, it was able to draw out Japan's fighting in China for over ten years (America did not significantly attack Japan until 1942). Now, China is united (except for the issue of Taiwan). Its military has been modernizing and fields an all-voluntary force. It has acquired many weapons and technologies from Russia, Israel, and, yes, America.

What??? Apart from the coastal cities, most of China is dirt-poor.

What (2)??? HAVE YOU NEVER TYPED THE WORDS "FRENCH MILITARY VICTORIES" INTO GOOGLE, CLICKED 'I FEEL LUCKY' THEN FOLLOWED THE LINK?

If not, you should do :D


that reminds me of a joke... How many frenchmen does it take to defend paris?

Manifest destiny is one of the most propogandized incidents that are taught in the American school system. When I was in elementary school, when the concept was first taught to me, I remember feeling that it was okay. It was presented as "the natural way things should have been" and "hey, it was our DESTINY..."

Now, ten years later, I can't believe what American general education taught us. I wish I could go back and chew the teacher out for brainwashing our class.

Manifest destiny is one of the most propogandized incidents that are taught in the American school system. When I was in elementary school, when the concept was first taught to me, I remember feeling that it was okay. It was presented as "the natural way things should have been" and "hey, it was our DESTINY..."

Now, ten years later, I can't believe what American general education taught us. I wish I could go back and chew the teacher out for brainwashing our class.


yes, I reffering to it as such and a bad thing

How many frenchmen does it take to defend paris?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Paris
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_the_Marne

You want any more? :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Paris
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_the_Marne

You want any more? :rolleyes:

no its alright, it doesnt matter. Its never been done before

that reminds me of a joke... How many frenchmen does it take to defend paris?


No one knows, it's never been attempted :p

no its alright, it doesnt matter. Its never been done before
It's not exactly a new one, and it is just simply false. You're doing a disservice to the millions of French who died in various wars, often alongside countries like Britain and the US.

And the worst thing is that people hear these jokes and then actually believe them. So just don't.

It's not exactly a new one, and it is just simply false. You're doing a disservice to the millions of French who died in various wars, often alongside countries like Britain and the US.

And the worst thing is that people hear these jokes and then actually believe them. So just don't.
Agreed.

It's not exactly a new one, and it is just simply false. You're doing a disservice to the millions of French who died in various wars, often alongside countries like Britain and the US.

And the worst thing is that people hear these jokes and then actually believe them. So just don't.


... your right, I apologize

to the person saying China is a "target rich environment", I would like to point out that no enemy bomber will enter Chinese airspace and expect to survive. The multitudes of highly advanced SAMs on the Chinese coast makes air assaults on Chinese territory nigh impossible. When the US tried to spy on China using Unmanned Arial Vehicles, the Chinese simply shot them down and reverse-enginnered them.


Yes, it is a land based surface-to-air-missiles system which the US has become rather good at chewing and spitting out as raw nuts and bolts, or just splinters of metal.

yaddy yaddy yaddy

Just keep in mind that the US Army is far more capable than the Imperial Japanese Army was in 1931/7. The Japanese in 1937 were little more than an all infantry army with a few "tanks" that hardly deserved the name (They make the Sherman look like hell on wheels).

And umm, this might, ah hell, it will sound heartless, but you don't "conquer" a nation the size of China by defeating it militarily, you simply kill everyone because 1 billion people armed with sticks can do a hell of a lot of damage to even the world's most advanced armies. That's the strategy that would work best in Iraq but is not one that is availabe to us.

Just because I say this will work doesn't mean I think we should do that if we do ever become involved in a war with China and we sure as hell shouldn't do that in Iraq. Just want to put that little genocide baby to rest right now.

Whoever said China is living about 20 years in the future.

Whoever said Russia is living about 20 years in the past.

The answer is the UK, well behind the US. It has a strong economy, a respectable military, and significant international influence. It may sound kind of humdrum, but really, the US doesn't have any serious competition in second place right now.

By your logic, it's actually closer to Germany. Stronger economy, better military...

By your logic, it's actually closer to Germany. Stronger economy, better military...

... no Navy. It really is a necessity to be consiered on here is the ability to strike beyond your own borders, the German Navy is.... off the pace of others. As much as I hate to admit it, the reason the US is so far ahead of the other nations is not because of our Army or the Air Force, it is the Navy with its 14 CVN's, 13 more than any other nation has. There are..... three nations I can name off the top of my head with a CVN, France, Russia and India, all of which are far behind what the US has. France and the UK are working on a joint CVN project and two ships will be built for each nation. India is working on building their first home built CVN (the one they have was bought from I believe Britain.) and Russia's only carrier.... I don't know its where abouts or its status, but carriers have always been third in line for priority, right being attack subs and boomers, the carriers might even be forth behind Russia's ice breakers.

How come Jamacia wasnt up there on the poll:gundge:

... no Navy. It really is a necessity to be consiered on here is the ability to strike beyond your own borders, the German Navy is.... off the pace of others. As much as I hate to admit it, the reason the US is so far ahead of the other nations is not because of our Army or the Air Force, it is the Navy with its 14 CVN's, 13 more than any other nation has. There are..... three nations I can name off the top of my head with a CVN, France, Russia and India, all of which are far behind what the US has. France and the UK are working on a joint CVN project and two ships will be built for each nation. India is working on building their first home built CVN (the one they have was bought from I believe Britain.) and Russia's only carrier.... I don't know its where abouts or its status, but carriers have always been third in line for priority, right being attack subs and boomers, the carriers might even be forth behind Russia's ice breakers.

Defensive capability is all that matters to me. Besides, Germany hasn't been in any position to attack anyone since 1871.

Defensive capability is all that matters to me. Besides, Germany hasn't been in any position to attack anyone since 1871.

Um..I don't know how long youv lived under your rock. But we did have two World Wars...

Ringing any bells?

Germany was very involved in WWI

Not yet?

Germany spearheaded WWII

Any bells yet?

Um..I don't know how long youv lived under your rock. But we did have two World Wars...

Ringing any bells?

Germany was very involved in WWI

Not yet?

Germany spearheaded WWII

Any bells yet?

I said they weren't in any position to attack. I never said that they weren't stupid enough to try.

I said they weren't in any position to attack. I never said that they weren't stupid enough to try.

They were in perfect positions to attack!

They would have won if it wasnt for the Americans and the Russians...both not part of continental Europe.

I said they weren't in any position to attack. I never said that they weren't stupid enough to try.

They were in a position to attack and to win. The problem was that everyone on the other side thought as you did: And that's why the Germans came so close to winning both times.

They were in perfect positions to attack!

They would have won if it wasnt for the Americans and the Russians...both not part of continental Europe.

But it WAS for the Americans and Russians, and they failed to take that into account. War is reality, you can't pretend that some threats don't exist.

They were in a position to attack and to win. The problem was that everyone on the other side thought as you did: And that's why the Germans came so close to winning both times.

In WWI, they were never in a position to win. Not against France and Britain, anyway. They should have worked something out after knocking out Russia.

In WWII, they would have won if they didn't invade the Soviet Union. Although America would have given them a hard time, I think the result would have been favourable.

But it WAS for the Americans and Russians, and they failed to take that into account. War is reality, you can't pretend that some threats don't exist.

Well...they were orginally in an alliance with Russia...so that eliminates that.

And America, well, I dunno, who knows if we would have even gotten into the war if Japan hadnt bombed us.

In WWII, they would have won if they didn't invade the Soviet Union. Although America would have given them a hard time, I think the result would have been
favourable.

The results of the Manhattan project indicate otherwise.

In WWI, they were never in a position to win. Not against France and Britain, anyway. They should have worked something out after knocking out Russia.

Had the year 1917 concluded, without America joining the British and the French, the Germans would have won. Even the British and the French admitted as much after the war.

China comes in 2nd place against America by FAR.
I do not know why anyone would say the UK?
Its no where near what it used to be.
After China I would say India,
It is a country which although poor, is growing fast, just like China.

Had the year 1917 concluded, without America joining the British and the French, the Germans would have won. Even the British and the French admitted as much after the war.

That I am not sure of.

What I am sure of is that France got what was coming to them in 1940, by first forcing Germany to sign the Treaty of Versailles and then not enforning it when Hitler took power.

That I am not sure of.

What I am sure of is that France got what was coming to them in 1940, by first forcing Germany to sign the Treaty of Versailles and then not enforning it when Hitler took power.

The whole world (practically) forced that on Germany.

China comes in 2nd place against America by FAR.
I do not know why anyone would say the UK?
Its no where near what it used to be.
After China I would say India,
It is a country which although poor, is growing fast, just like China.

And what is China's Navy up to now? Four Destroyers and a couple hundred PT boats? Oh yeah, some old Russian diesels too.

The whole world (practically) forced that on Germany.

Except the US. We wanted a treaty that focused more on rebuilding than punishment. Much like the Post WWII agreements and the Marshall Plan. BUT it is important to note that the US could afford to be so lenient because we had suffered little during the war where as eastern France a battlefield from 1914-1918 and only Germany suffered more casualties than France. (I think. If I am wrong don't blame me, did I ever tell you the story of how American schools suck when it comes to history?)

Australia!

Yeah, we'll set the koalas on you!

On the subject of Australia I think we think we're bigger than we actually are... Our army, navy and air force suck, and we think we're doing something by joining the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, but all we're really doing is sending over another 100 SAS every few years.

Unless we can get the population up a lot, we'll never be any sort of power let alone in the top 10.

Anyway, I say China. They're really unified (have been for a few millenia), have a booming economy and have the chance to engage in trade with many of the other developing nations around them (and Japan).

I reckon that the US will pretty much collapse in the next century or so if the oil runs out. But then that's a different debate...

It's a bit of a toss-up between the United Kingdom and China, at least for me.

BUT it is important to note that the US could afford to be so lenient because we had suffered little during the war where as eastern France a battlefield from 1914-1918 and only Germany suffered more casualties than France.

I apologise for the double post. Russia also lost more men.

I reckon that the US will pretty much collapse in the next century or so if the oil runs out. But then that's a different debate...

Of course, Europe, "advanced" Asia, and Oceana will be completely unaffected by oil shortages. :rolleyes:

Jeez... You people are really, really uninformed.

It goes like this. Let's assume second is based on who would have the best chance at defeating the US. It's really quite simple. We're also assuming that no nukes will be used.

Antartica.

Day 1 - US invades, yells at penguins, shoots penguins for fun, get drunk.
Day 2 - Drunken soldiers forget to put on their clothes, freeze to death in amusing positions. Said frozen sculptures are then sold to New Zealand, for use in the next movie over there.
Day 3 - Penguin militia is organised, secret penguin ninja clans organise into highly-trained, deadly units.
Day 4 - A tide of endless penguins, millions upon millions, all carrying assault rifles, attack the US army. The US army fights back, but their initial landing is destroyed by Tactical Inflated Penguins, which explode and destroy ships upon hitting said ships.
Day 5 - The entire US army, along with the Australian, UK, and any other nations with governments who are stupid enough to invade terrorist Antartica armies arrive, pushing the initial penguin armies back.
Day 6 - The war begins anew, over fifty million pengiuns are shot dead, however, the US can't use any tanks or vehicles, so the war is pretty even. However, the better-trained penguin militia takes its toll on the Allied Armies.
Day 7 - Tactical cruise missiles are used, blowing up a major part of the penguin armies. The penguins are forced to retreat further inland, and, not even their marshalling of the polar bears, seals, and crab people can save them.
Day 8 - All seems lost for the penguins, who were pushed back during the night, however, the PNC (Penguin Ninja Clans), attack, and steal all the underclothes of the soldiers of the US.
Day 9 - The soldiers' various appendages begin to drop off. They start crying, get on their boats, and go home.

Hopefully this has enlightened you to the true world power, the one that could destroy us all without trying... Antartica..

Except the US. We wanted a treaty that focused more on rebuilding than punishment. Much like the Post WWII agreements and the Marshall Plan. BUT it is important to note that the US could afford to be so lenient because we had suffered little during the war where as eastern France a battlefield from 1914-1918 and only Germany suffered more casualties than France. (I think. If I am wrong don't blame me, did I ever tell you the story of how American schools suck when it comes to history?)

Lenient? Lenient? No nation can afford not to be lenient. Hell, the aftermath threw out the door nearly a hundred years of established European policy of being lenient on the defeated. And for a hundred years, it worked.

Until Europe and specifically, in a cruel twist of fate, France, the nation for whom the policy had been devised so that the French wouldn't feel too bad after Napoleon ravaged Europe, was one of the loudest voices for it!

Leniency had nothing to do with it. It was about revenge. Vindication. French and British nationalism ebbed to an all time low and someone had to be responsible for it. They chose the Germans. They broke up Austria-Hungary and the Ottomon-Turkish Empire.

Most of the problems that plague us to this day can be blamed on Versailles. WWII, Vietnam, Osama, &c.

Germany. Merkel's a pimp.

The results of the Manhattan project indicate otherwise.

If Germany hasn't attacked the Soviets, it would have been able to secure Western Europe. D-Day would probably have failed, even if the landing succeeded. After a failed Op Overlord, d'you really think America would try so hard to fight Germany? Or maybe they'd focus on Japan...

If Germany hasn't attacked the Soviets, it would have been able to secure Western Europe. D-Day would probably have failed, even if the landing succeeded. After a failed Op Overlord, d'you really think America would try so hard to fight Germany? Or maybe they'd focus on Japan...

Or they'd cross the Alps from Italy into Germany.

Or they'd cross the Alps from Italy into Germany.

And Germany couldn't defend Italy? They'd just use it as an excuse to occupy Italy.

And Germany couldn't defend Italy? They'd just use it as an excuse to occupy Italy.

They did use it as an excuse to occupy Italy. It's just that der Fuehrer didn't view the fighting in Italy as being very important and, consequently, didn't spend much time thinking about it.

They did use it as an excuse to occupy Italy. It's just that der Fuehrer didn't view the fighting in Italy as being very important and, consequently, didn't spend much time thinking about it.

It's cause he thought the Eastern Front was more important. And it was. But with no Eastern Front, Italy would have been more important and Hitler would have probably spend alot more time on it.

Don't forget that Italian support for Mussolini was beginning to waver, especially in light of their defeats in North Africa.

It's cause he thought the Eastern Front was more important. And it was. But with no Eastern Front, Italy would have been more important and Hitler would have probably spend alot more time on it.

You forget that Hitler was not exactly a military genius. He probably would have feared an invasion of France more. An illusion that could be kept up by the Allies until the 8th Army was over the Alps and rolling down on Munich.

Don't forget that Italian support for Mussolini was beginning to waver, especially in light of their defeats in North Africa.

By the time the Allies took Rome, it was gone. Hitler had to have commandoes go in and save Mussolini from getting lynched by angry Italians.

By the time the Allies took Rome, it was gone. Hitler had to have commandoes go in and save Mussolini from getting lynched by angry Italians.
Well, not exactly lynched. It was simply that parliament (yep, Mussolini had that) voted him out, and the king (yep, they had that too) made it official.

But as far as the Italian Front was concerned, with or without Eastern Front, that was probably the most successful effort the Germans got together in defence. If Germany hadn't collapsed, they could've held the Allies back for ages longer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Campaign_%28World_War_II%29

You forget that Hitler was not exactly a military genius. He probably would have feared an invasion of France more. An illusion that could be kept up by the Allies until the 8th Army was over the Alps and rolling down on Munich.

It still don't think that the Allies would have done very well. Plus, I personally think that:

1) Germany would have pulled out of Africa. This gives them Rommel for the European Theatre.

2) The Soviets may even have aided Germany. It's a long shot, but assuming that Germany didn't attack the Soviets, I think the Union would have preferred Germany over the United States.

Back on topic...

UK? Quite possibly, for all stated reasons. Navy especially.
France? Nope. Their economy isn't exactly superb, and the French are unlikely to ever use force, partly because they don't really need to.
Germany? No, I don't think so either. Similarly to France, except they might have a higher chance of using force.
Russia? The military is not exactly what the Soviet Army was. They'll need to really rebuild, especially in terms of moral(e).
China? Possibly, but the military's only extremely powerful for land-based warfare. It doesn't have much of a reach.
India? No, I think India is just too preoccupied with Pakistan. Nice, big military, yes, and economically powerful, but it's not huge compared to China.
Israel? It's quite powerful, all right, but only regionally.
Japan? Hell no. It hasn't harnessed its possible manpower yet, and it probably never will.

I hereby cast my vote to the British, grudgingly. Part of my rationale is that much of the EU is too pussy to do anything.

It still don't think that the Allies would have done very well. Plus, I personally think that:

1) Germany would have pulled out of Africa. This gives them Rommel for the European Theatre.

They had Rommel in the ETO. Don't forget, though, that Hitler wouldn't be able to discount the Soviets as a threat and thus would have to keep a good deal of his soldiers on that border.

2) The Soviets may even have aided Germany. It's a long shot, but assuming that Germany didn't attack the Soviets, I think the Union would have preferred Germany over the United States.

The Soviets would have prefered a world power far away to one at their doorstep. Hell, the Soviets probably would have invaded Germany sooner or later all on their own. Not quite as successfully as they did when the Germans invaded them first, but you get the idea.

Back on topic...

UK? Quite possibly, for all stated reasons. Navy especially.
France? Nope. Their economy isn't exactly superb, and the French are unlikely to ever use force, partly because they don't really need to.
Germany? No, I don't think so either. Similarly to France, except they might have a higher chance of using force.
Russia? The military is not exactly what the Soviet Army was. They'll need to really rebuild, especially in terms of moral(e).
China? Possibly, but the military's only extremely powerful for land-based warfare. It doesn't have much of a reach.
India? No, I think India is just too preoccupied with Pakistan.
Israel? It's quite powerful, all right, but only regionally.
Japan? Hell no. It hasn't harnessed its possible manpower yet, and it probably never will.

I hereby cast my vote to the British, grudgingly. Part of my rationale is that much of the EU is too pussy to do anything.

Hate to seem hostile, but Germany has the 3rd best economy, and France is 5th or 6th.

maybe Saudi Arabia, they could bring almost any economy crashing down and majority of the middle east would help defend them

The Soviets would have prefered a world power far away to one at their doorstep. Hell, the Soviets probably would have invaded Germany sooner or later all on their own. Not quite as successfully as they did when the Germans invaded them first, but you get the idea.

Mmm, well, Stalin was pretty stupid too, IMO. I can imagine the Soviets getting worked up into an anti-capitalist fervour, the same way communist nationalism got them into purging the ranks.

I see. However, part of my rationale for not choosing France or Germany is that they're seemingly isolated in comparison. They also do not have the militaries that we see in very powerful countries.

Could you be kind enough to show me what the first and second best economies are? It's a bit of a puzzle for me, since there's no real solid criteria for this.

Mmm, well, Stalin was pretty stupid too, IMO. I can imagine the Soviets getting worked up into an anti-capitalist fervour, the same way communist nationalism got them into purging the ranks.

Stalin was actually quite astute. He was just extremely paranoid. Oh, and he hated flying.

Stalin was a shrewd guy, right?

I doubt he was really that committed to destroying capitalism; otherwise he would have followed some Trotsky-ist path.