India vs. China

[LesCanadiens]

Originally posted by Revolutionary
@LesCanadiens

sorry but your are wrong that is NOT what makes a superpower, and how in the world do you possible know that India will never have many allies or will surpass the America

superpower means you are far more powerful then all other powers except maybe 1 or 2, it has NOTHING to do with allies or bases

tell me what use are foreign bases if you develop the technology to easily project your power to any place in the world from your homeland

your logic is wrong and you cannot possibly predict the future so STOP saying NEVER

Yea I mean I see your point. Having a million troops is great, but if you can't send them anywhere beyond your own borders, who's going to listen to you?

A superpower isn't about military strength. It's about diplomatic leverage that comes with having a massive amounts of allies.

America can project power because they have an incredible number of allies around the globe. If they had no foreign bases, they would not be a superpower, plain and simple.

Why is Russia not a superpower anymore? Because beyond the CIS, they have no military bases.

You are wrong. You lose, sit down.

 

[Revolutionary]

1. I never said being a super power is ALL about power

2. the lack of allies and bases is NOT what caused USSR to fall

3.what use are bases when you have aircraft carriers and the power to destroy the world for your homeland.

4. America can project its power with or without allies, it only uses its allies so the rest of the world doesn't see it as an imperialistic power like the old European powers, to think a nation needs foreign bases to project power in this day and age is flaw logic.

5. I am NOT wrong and I do NOT lose, I have prove you wrong and you can NOT predict the future

 

[LesCanadiens]

Uh, your lack of reading comprehension is scaring me. I never said lack of allies is what caused the USSR to fall, I said that the lack of allies is why Russia today is no longer a superpower. Militarily, they are an extremely powerful nation in all aspects of the term, but they have no bases outside of the CIS, and thus cannot project power, and thus are not a superpower.

Nuclear weapons do not make you a superpower, because nations lack the political will to actually threaten a nation with nuclear strike if they don't do as they say.

OK, if you think that an invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan would be possible without allies such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, then you sir, are a moron. Please, turn off your computer, file your will, and go play in traffic.

I'm done arguing with a ten year old.

 

[Revolutionary]

oh yes when you know you're wrong instead of being a man and accepting that you were wrong , you go insulting the other person

I wonder who is really acting like a ten year old

 

[Sarevok]

Originally posted by GrandMasta Nick
Population does not equal strength.

indeed. although they won, look at the casualty ratios on the Ostfront of WW2. Its around 11:1

 

[Dann]

India vs. China?
Hell no! Why should we fight? So that the resulting bloodbath will allow our neighbors to rise and occupy us? No. I believe China and India should actually ally. We could divide Southeast Asia between us. What say you, silver 2039, allhailindia and civilleader? Do we have a deal?

 

[allhailIndia]

Originally posted by LesCanadiens
Yea I mean I see your point. Having a million troops is great, but if you can't send them anywhere beyond your own borders, who's going to listen to you?

A superpower isn't about military strength. It's about diplomatic leverage that comes with having a massive amounts of allies.

America can project power because they have an incredible number of allies around the globe. If they had no foreign bases, they would not be a superpower, plain and simple.

Why is Russia not a superpower anymore? Because beyond the CIS, they have no military bases.

You are wrong. You lose, sit down.

I'm sorry, but you show a staggering ignorance of history AND current affairs through your posts

For one, India doesn't project power, because we don't have interests abroad that we need to protect unlike, say the US.

Secondly, the ability to become a superpower is not built in to anyone's genes or culture, but rather is something which is borne out of a necessity. If India feels, that it is necessary, in her own best interests to project military power across the world, then she will, whether or not Mr. Les Canadiens would like her to or believes she can.

Thirdly, America, as of now, does not have an 'incredible' no. of allies. It only has a large no. of govts. which are too scared to oppose it, supporting it. Do you think, given half a chance, Musharraf would WANT an American base in his territory or the Cubans, Guantanamo Bay?
This is of course a manifestation of the brute power the US possesses and its willingness to use. Suppose, another country, were also ready to use the brute power it has on other countries, it will also inspire fear and gain 'allies'.

Russia is not a superpower anymore, because her economy fell into a heap of **** and is slowly managing to recover in the last few years.

You are mistaking the symptom for disease in believing that a superpower's defining characteristic is its ability to project power, but the truth is that ability to project power is only one aspect of a superpower.

The US establishes a base BECAUSE it is a superpower and does not become a superpower by establishing bases around the world.

More realisitically, the US's power lies in the dollar and not the Abrams or the F-22 or any weapon of destruction.

The reason why the Bush government has lost the goodwill the US enjoyed to an extent in the Clinton era was mistaking the fact that the best weapon in the US arsenal was something churned out in its ammo factories and hence it could use this to solve all problems, including terrorism.

Don't you get it yet. People gladly open their arms to American cos. and their money and appreciate the US a lot more when it sees its military in a movie, than in real life.

This is why the US is a superpower and continues to stay so. The day the dollar loses its power or is matched by another equally potent 'weapon', that'll be the day the US is seriously challenged.

 

[Revolutionary]

Originally posted by Dann
India vs. China?
Hell no! Why should we fight? So that the resulting bloodbath will allow our neighbors to rise and occupy us? No. I believe China and India should actually ally. We could divide Southeast Asia between us. What say you, silver 2039, allhailindia and civilleader? Do we have a deal?

see! now this makes more sense

China and India will more likely be "friendly" towards each other and engulf the rest of asia, except Russia of course, into there sphere of influence

 

[silver 2039]

Originally posted by Dann
India vs. China?
Hell no! Why should we fight? So that the resulting bloodbath will allow our neighbors to rise and occupy us? No. I believe China and India should actually ally. We could divide Southeast Asia between us. What say you, silver 2039, allhailindia and civilleader? Do we have a deal?

If you give us Aski Chin back. Also we want Burma.

 

[stratego]

Secondly, the ability to become a superpower is not built in to anyone's genes or culture, but rather is something which is borne out of a necessity. If India feels, that it is necessary, in her own best interests to project military power across the world, then she will, whether or not Mr. Les Canadiens would like her to or believes she can.

Are you saying that the only reason countries other than the US and USSR didn't become a superpower is because they didn't want to? So any country that feels it's necessary to become a world power will become one?

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator
However, it will be ages before either India or China develops the kind of projection ability the US or even Great Britain or France have right now.

Sweet Lucifer, finally someone to help me dispell the beliefs about India and China having more projection power than France and Great Britain.

 

[Dann]

Originally posted by silver 2039
If you give us Aski Chin back. Also we want Burma.

Deal! We get Vietnam and Laos. What next?

Man I've been playing Civ too much.

 

[silver 2039]

Originally posted by Dann
Deal! We get Vietnam and Laos. What next?

Man I've been playing Civ too much.

we'll take Cambodia, Malaysia and Singapore you can take NK and SK. We'll take Afghnastan and Iran. You can take Khazkastan.
I'll get a map and we'll divide it.

 

[silver 2039]

Well what do you think? The territory is pretty much equal. China owns more developed countries but India owns countries with more natural resourses so it balances out. Next we'll haved to divide up space.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Originally posted by LesCanadiens
Uh, your lack of reading comprehension is scaring me. I never said lack of allies is what caused the USSR to fall, I said that the lack of allies is why Russia today is no longer a superpower. Militarily, they are an extremely powerful nation in all aspects of the term, but they have no bases outside of the CIS, and thus cannot project power, and thus are not a superpower.

OK, if you think that an invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan would be possible without allies such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, then you sir, are a moron. Please, turn off your computer, file your will, and go play in traffic.

I'm done arguing with a ten year old.

No the idea that the US could invade Afghanistan or Iraq without allies is not moronic. I would be harder sure because they have forces deployed elswhere too. But they coud do it. Without allies they would have a lot more forces to work with and you have to consider the US hasn't even initiated a draft and they are invading multiple nations with substaintial forces still deploy for nation defense, defense of South Korea, Japan and in Europe. Without allies there would be some logistical issues to deal with but establishing a beach head and taking ports in Iraq in Afghanistan was probably the least challenging aspect for US forces.

 

[Free Enterprise]

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator
China would wipe the floor with India. More nukes and far better numbers in virtually every single indicator.

This scenario is very probably what would happen (though it would be very dangerous for the world if it did happen). China is considerably more powerful in terms of military capabilities than India. The gap probably will grow somewhat by 2020.


Btw, population does help because it is the factor that makes other sources of power useful (economic and land resources). However population must be effective employed or else it becomes much less important. That is why India despite its population is not a superpower. The very high population of India does increase its power somwhat though (compared to if it had about 50 million or so population).

 

[Kshatriya]

And no, India will never challenge the American economy. They are not even on the G8 yet. Hell they'll never even challenge Canada.

India World’s 4th Largest Economy: World Bank

India has consolidated its position as the World's Fourth Largest Economy in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) at $2,778 billion behind US, China and Japan. Germany is placed fifth at $2,226 billion dollars, according to the report.

The Purchasing Power Parity is arrived at by pricing all goods and services at US prices and treating America as standard, instead of converting Rupees into dollars at foreign exchange rates.

According to the World Bank's World Development Indicators 2004, released and based on 2002 figures, the PPP of United States is put at $10,414 billion, followed by China at $5,792 billion and Japan at $3,481 billion.

In the G-7, only two -- US and Japan -- are ahead of India.

The PPP figures for the other five members of the G-7 are: Germany $2226 billion; France $1,609 billion; the United Kingdom $1,574 billion; Italy $1,510 billion and $Canada 907 billion.

The PPP of Russia (which makes it G-8) has improved to $1,165 billion, reflecting the Rapid Improvement in the Russian Economy.

Further, India is also ahead of six of the G-8 countries - Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Canada and Russia. India moves up from fifth to fourth place, behind the US, China and Japan.

http://www.rss.org/New_RSS/News/NewsDetail.jsp

GDP rank

1. United States
2. China
3. Japan
4. India
5. Germany
6. France
7. United Kingdom
8. Italy
9. Russia
10. Brazil
11. Korea, South
12. Canada

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

 

[addiv]

Hehe, the GDP/capita of Russia seems to be finally back on the 1990 Soviet Union level.

 

[silver 2039]

Originally posted by Free Enterprise
This scenario is very probably what would happen (though it would be very dangerous for the world if it did happen). China is considerably more powerful in terms of military capabilities than India. The gap probably will grow somewhat by 2020.


Btw, population does help because it is the factor that makes other sources of power useful (economic and land resources). However population must be effective employed or else it becomes much less important. That is why India despite its population is not a superpower. The very high population of India does increase its power somwhat though (compared to if it had about 50 million or so population).

Actually by 2020 the gap willl close as India cacth's up. Even now a war between India and China would end up nowhere. First the Chineses would have to cross the Himilayas . The border is rugged and militrazied. Also the army is larg 1million. Plus if worst came to worst we sure as hell can hit Bejjing.

 

[Free Enterprise]

Originally posted by silver 2039
Actually by 2020 the gap willl close as India cacth's up. Even now a war between India and China would end up nowhere. First the Chineses would have to cross the Himilayas . The border is rugged and militrazied. Also the army is larg 1million. Plus if worst came to worst we sure as hell can hit Bejjing.

Yes, it seems to be true that the Chinese definitely would have serious problems occuping India (which is a good thing) which would seem to rule out much territorial annexation (and the ability to disband Indian military bases/ports/airports).