Superpower Vs regional power

[imperialman]

Vietnam, Gulf war, the middle eastern conflict Australia has been sending troop helping the us win wars and even start our own independent op's overseas even sometime on the other side of the plant. Does that mean Australia and great Britain has a unlimited reach because we send troop overseas as far as the US ....

1. The help of allied nations, even from my own country Britain, did not "help" the US win. They could have done that with or without us.

2. What independent ops has Australia performed?

3. The British navy is a blue water navy and Britain remains one of a handful of countries with the logistical and technological means to be able to deploy serious military force around the world, I don't really think the comparison with Australia is appropriate.

.......Um ok then what's the People's Liberation Army Navy that has 63 Submarines, 47 Frigates, 25 Destroyers and much more all post 1990 (in term this navy is modern) plus an increase in military spending to focus on build two more Aircraft carrier and something like another 20 Destroyers by 2018. and the People's Liberation Army Air Force which has a 1770 fighters and Attack, 249 Bombers and more.... they are a developing as we know from Vietnam you don't need to match the us and its allys to defect them (in terms of the us mission it was a failed mission).

I see, and how many of those can they support in blue water operations? China lacks any significant oceanic reach. They could have 4000 destroyers but only be able to operate and sustain 3 in theatre.

 

[Cutlass]

.......Um ok then what's the People's Liberation Army Navy that has 63 Submarines, 47 Frigates, 25 Destroyers and much more all post 1990 (in term this navy is modern) plus an increase in military spending to focus on build two more Aircraft carrier and something like another 20 Destroyers by 2018. and the People's Liberation Army Air Force which has a 1770 fighters and Attack, 249 Bombers and more.... they are a developing as we know from Vietnam you don't need to match the us and its allys to defect them (in terms of the us mission it was a failed mission).

Your underestimating china, your seeing china and thinking its the same china in 1970 than the 2010 china which will be your (U.S.A) greatest downfall. china has modernised and it has learnt from its past and it moving ahead very carefully.

oh btw i could say the same with the Us how did that worked out -sigh-

So you're saying they have fewer than 200 naval targets.

You have to look not strictly at numbers, but at capabilities.

 

[Quintillus]

It can be debated whether "superpower" is currently appropriate for the U.S., since the case can be made that China and the E.U. are equal powers, and there really isn't room for three "super"powers. I'd argue that the E.U. is not currently a superpower, and China probably isn't, either. But, even if you argue there is no clear superpower at this time, I don't think there's room to argue that the U.S. isn't a world power.

The quote in the first post seems to be trying to imply that Turkey is a larger power than the U.S., which is obviously false. A case can be made for Turkey being a regional power, but I don't think there's much of a case for it being a world power.

As for China's navy, they recently acquired their first aircraft carrier from Ukraine, a Soviet model which they've been updating. Even if they plan for two more, that totals three in 2018, versus 11 plus two planned for the U.S. navy. That also doesn't count aircraft carriers for U.S. allies such as the Royal Navy's expected two in 2018.

Not to say that China's military strength isn't growing quickly, but they still have a ways to go to equal the U.S. in naval terms, and they'll also still be below the late Soviet navy's number of carriers in 2018.

 

[bombshoo]

Putting things into catagories like this is usually a mistake because there is so much grey.

That said, I'll do it anyways. From a purely military stand point I would say there is really only three broad catagories: global powers, regional powers and everyone else. Oddly enough, the way I see it, a regional power can be more powerful than a global power in the right context.

Global powers can project their power around the globe. In this day, that pretty much means having nukes that can hit targets far from home and a decent sized blue water navy. A large and modern air force is important, but not vital. The USA, UK, France and Russia are probably the only remaining ones, with Russia even being debatable.

Regional powers are powers that can project their power within a certain region. How they do this is not really that relevent. It could be purely the size of their land army, by having a strong green water navy, nukes, or all three. The important part is that they can't really act outside of a given area. Furthermore, it doesn't really matter how much you have of something if you can't use it. North Korea and Burma have enormous militaries but can barely do squat outside their own borders, so aren't regional powers.

Everyone else is just that, everyone else.

Now, as I stated earlier a regional power can be more powerful than a global power. China is clearly more powerful than France and the United Kingdom, but they still don't have the ability to project their power globally, thus at the moment they are still only a regional power. An exceptionally powerful one, but a regional power nonetheless.

From an economic and human development standpoint things get more tricky and there is probably no way to measure it. You could come up with some sort of system, like "in order to be a superpower you must be in the top five in these ten catagories" but it's all a little arbitrary. Some country is going to rank highest in something. Switzerland is a superpower when it comes to banking, Panama and Singapore are superpowers when it comes to shipping, the Vatican is a superpower when it comes to keeping people from using birth control...you get the point.

 

[Patroklos]

sigh.....c'mon that North Korea thing the (at the time a modern) U.s couldn't even defect a newly formed army that came from a nation that was only years old its sad that the U.S could beat an out-dated china.

Couldn't defeat? Is South Korea a part of a united Korea with its capital in Pyongyang?

What you are missing is that that China, using a contigious border and multi millions of soldiers with interior lines of communication could not dislodge the US form an ancillary foriegn effort and barely even mobalized itself to do that. Additionally the US was pursuing myraid intrests worldwide that were barely affected by what took the entire effort of China to barely survive.

To put this in context, the US was still able to effectively counter another super power at the same time the Korean distraction was going on, can China say that?

And remeber, this was involving the type of war they are supposed to be good at. If all of the PLA can't dislodge a couple dozen US divisions from a contigious land mass geographically isolated and a half a world away from their opponent, that doesn't speak to well for them.

Indonesia,The Phillipines, Malaysia and Vietnam and hell even us Australia are hell scared of china they are buying up our ecomancy so much that we become dependent on them, undermining the Us without cause any short term conflict. The only reason why those nation are opining up to the us because of china and its growing power.

So scared they don't think twice about turning to China's primary rival? Well, that sure worked out good for them, all for the prize of the Spratelys, MAYBE.

ANZUS of which in often Australia heads

So, what does that have to do with the relative measure of military power between them?

NATO which is dominated by the EU (mostly by the UK, France)

1.) The EU has little to nothing to do with NATO.
2.) France? Do you have any knowledge of NATO at all? Hint: France is not full integrated into NATO. Its not the big bad DeGallian past but they are still not quite there. Leadership? Absolutely not.

and SEATO Australia had become more than a significant player after the Royal Australian Air Force deployed CAC Sabre's of its No. 79 Squadron to Ubon Royal Thai Air Force Base and more.

Not that I don't appreciate the effort, but you think a dozen plus fighters in an ancillary theatre is somehow impressive when the US was operating upwards of 10,000 aircraft in the same theater during that time?

You might as well claim Luxembourg dominates the EU.

.......Um ok then what's the People's Liberation Army Navy that has 63 Submarines, 47 Frigates, 25 Destroyers and much more all post 1990 (in term this navy is modern)

1.) Quality vs. Quantity. The US still wins in both.
2.) When they are build doesn't matter, you can still build outdated crap from the 1980s today if you want. China certainly does.

Not to say everything they have is crap, but nearly all of it is. Most of those submarines you mention are 1960s technology or earlier. Many of their "modern" vessels like the Xia are actually just non operational technology demonstrators. And most of all nearly all of it is useless outside of the Yellow and South China sea.

plus an increase in military spending to focus on build two more Aircraft carrier and something like another 20 Destroyers by 2018.

When they have an aircraft carrier that works get back to us. Right now that have a 1970s third hand rust bucket without an air wing. They have been talking about a carrier since the early 80s and after two plus decades this is what they produced. Color me unimpressed about insinuations about fleets of carriers that even if they ever do exist are half the size and not even half as powerful as our legacy Nimitz.

and the People's Liberation Army Air Force which has a 1770 fighters and Attack,

Of which over 1000 of those fighters are MIG 21s or worse.

249 Bombers and more....

Same deal as witht he fighters.

they are a developing as we know from Vietnam you don't need to match the us and its allys to defect them (in terms of the us mission it was a failed mission).

If you are talking about conventional warfare to contest the geopolitical balance of power then you most definetly do.

Your underestimating china, your seeing china and thinking its the same china in 1970 than the 2010 china which will be your (U.S.A) greatest downfall. china has modernised and it has learnt from its past and it moving ahead very carefully.

Hardly. If I thought this was the China of the 1970s I would have said they had 1940's military technology. I am most definetly talking about the China of the 2010s, the one with 1960's/1970's technology for the most part.

oh btw i could say the same with the Us how did that worked out -sigh-

You could, but you would be wrong.

 

[imperialman]

As for China's navy, they recently acquired their first aircraft carrier from Ukraine, a Soviet model which they've been updating. Even if they plan for two more, that totals three in 2018, versus 11 plus two planned for the U.S. navy. That also doesn't count aircraft carriers for U.S. allies such as the Royal Navy's expected two in 2018.

Plus, the current Chinese carrier is incapable of operating fixed wing aircraft. It's more of a trial-run type project it seems.

 

[caketastydelish]

It can be debated whether "superpower" is currently appropriate for the U.S., since the case can be made that China and the E.U. are equal powers, and there really isn't room for three "super"powers. I'd argue that the E.U. is not currently a superpower, and China probably isn't, either. But, even if you argue there is no clear superpower at this time, I don't think there's room to argue that the U.S. isn't a world power.

The quote in the first post seems to be trying to imply that Turkey is a larger power than the U.S., which is obviously false. A case can be made for Turkey being a regional power, but I don't think there's much of a case for it being a world power.

As for China's navy, they recently acquired their first aircraft carrier from Ukraine, a Soviet model which they've been updating. Even if they plan for two more, that totals three in 2018, versus 11 plus two planned for the U.S. navy. That also doesn't count aircraft carriers for U.S. allies such as the Royal Navy's expected two in 2018.

Not to say that China's military strength isn't growing quickly, but they still have a ways to go to equal the U.S. in naval terms, and they'll also still be below the late Soviet navy's number of carriers in 2018.

You may have some point with China, but the E.U. is not even a country. On that basis they can't be a superpower. The "E.U" can even go to war with itself. And God knows it has.

 

[Leoreth]

You may have some point with China, but the E.U. is not even a country. On that basis they can't be a superpower. The "E.U" can even go to war with itself. And God knows it has.

God should check his records, then, because no EU country has ever waged war against another.

 

[caketastydelish]

God should check his records, then, because no EU country has ever waged war against another.

Countries that were formerly members of the E.U. has though.

And wars have gone in Europe itself even after the E.U. just look at Bosnia... further more the point is still valid. The E.U. is not a country. It's more like a loose agreement between several different countries.

 

[imperialman]

Countries that were formerly members of the E.U. has though.

And wars have gone in Europe itself even after the E.U. just look at Bosnia... further more the point is still valid. The E.U. is not a country. It's more like a loose agreement between several different countries.

Well, while I'm neutral regarding the EU, it's certainly not "a loose agreement", at all. Also, in many respects, it doesn't have to be a country to lead the field.

I found this large chunk of text, spoiler tagged as it may be tldr...

Spoiler :

The European Union (EU) has been called an emerging superpower by academics.[9][14] Many scholars and academics like T.R. Reid,[15] Andrew Reding,[16] Andrew Moravcsik,[17] Mark Leonard,[18] Jeremy Rifkin,[19] John McCormick,[20] and some politicians like Romano Prodi[21] and Tony Blair[22][23] either believe that the EU is, or will become, a superpower in the 21st century.

Mark Leonard cites several factors: the EU's large population, large economy (the EU has the largest economy in the world; the economy of the EU is slightly larger than that of the U.S. in terms of GDP purchasing (PPP) [24]), low inflation rates, the unpopularity and perceived failure of US foreign policy in recent years, and certain EU members states' high quality of life (when measured in terms such as hours worked per week, health care, social services).[25]

John McCormick believes that the EU has already achieved superpower status, based on the size and global reach of its economy and on its global political influence. He argues that the nature of power has changed since the Cold War-driven definition of superpower was developed, and that military power is no longer essential to great power; he argues that control of the means of production is more important than control of the means of destruction, and contrasts the threatening hard power of the United States with the opportunities offered by the soft power wielded by the European Union.[26]

Parag Khanna believes that the EU, together with China, has already achieved superpower status and rivals the US for influence around the world.[27][28] He also mentions the large economy of the EU, that European technologies more and more set the global standards and that European countries give the most development assistance. He agrees with McCormick that the EU does not need a common army to be a superpower. The EU uses intelligence and the police to apprehend radical Islamists, social policy to try to integrate restive Muslim populations and economic strength to incorporate the former Soviet Union and gradually subdue Russia.[27]

Khanna also writes that South America, East Asia, and other regions prefer to emulate the "European Dream" than the American variant.[29] This could possibly be seen in the South American Union and the African Union. Notably, the EU as a whole is among the most culturally diverse "entities" on the planet,[30] with some of the world's largest and most influential languages being official within its borders.[31]

Andrew Reding also takes the future EU enlargement into account. An eventual future accession of the rest of Europe, the whole of Russia, and Turkey, would not only boost the economy of the EU, but it would also increase the EU's population to about 800 million, which he considers almost equal to that of India or China. The EU is qualitatively different from India and China since it is enormously more prosperous and technologically advanced.[16] Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said in 2005: "In 10 or 15 years, the EU will be a place where civilizations meet. It will be a superpower with the inclusion of Turkey." [32]

Robert J. Guttman wrote in 2001 that the very definition of the term superpower has changed and in the 21st century, it does not only refer to states with military power, but also to groups such as the European Union, with strong market economics, young, highly educated workers savvy in high technology, and a global vision.[33] Friis Arne Petersen, the Danish ambassador to the U.S., has expressed similar views. He conceded that the EU is a “special kind of superpower,” one that has yet to establish a unified military force that exerts itself even close to the same level as many of its individual members.[34]

Additionally, it is argued by commentators that full political integration is not required for the European Union to wield international influence: that its apparent weaknesses constitute its real strengths (as of its low profile diplomacy and the emphasis on the rule of law)[26] and that the EU represents a new and potentially more successful type of international actor than traditional ones;[35] however, it is uncertain if the effectiveness of such an influence would be equal to that of a politically integrated superpower such as the United States.[36]

Also, "loose agreements" tend not to elect parliaments.

 

[caketastydelish]

Well, while I'm neutral regarding the EU, it's certainly not "a loose agreement", at all. Also, in many respects, it doesn't have to be a country to lead the field.

I found this large chunk of text, spoiler tagged as it may be tldr...

Spoiler :

The European Union (EU) has been called an emerging superpower by academics.[9][14] Many scholars and academics like T.R. Reid,[15] Andrew Reding,[16] Andrew Moravcsik,[17] Mark Leonard,[18] Jeremy Rifkin,[19] John McCormick,[20] and some politicians like Romano Prodi[21] and Tony Blair[22][23] either believe that the EU is, or will become, a superpower in the 21st century.

Mark Leonard cites several factors: the EU's large population, large economy (the EU has the largest economy in the world; the economy of the EU is slightly larger than that of the U.S. in terms of GDP purchasing (PPP) [24]), low inflation rates, the unpopularity and perceived failure of US foreign policy in recent years, and certain EU members states' high quality of life (when measured in terms such as hours worked per week, health care, social services).[25]

John McCormick believes that the EU has already achieved superpower status, based on the size and global reach of its economy and on its global political influence. He argues that the nature of power has changed since the Cold War-driven definition of superpower was developed, and that military power is no longer essential to great power; he argues that control of the means of production is more important than control of the means of destruction, and contrasts the threatening hard power of the United States with the opportunities offered by the soft power wielded by the European Union.[26]

Parag Khanna believes that the EU, together with China, has already achieved superpower status and rivals the US for influence around the world.[27][28] He also mentions the large economy of the EU, that European technologies more and more set the global standards and that European countries give the most development assistance. He agrees with McCormick that the EU does not need a common army to be a superpower. The EU uses intelligence and the police to apprehend radical Islamists, social policy to try to integrate restive Muslim populations and economic strength to incorporate the former Soviet Union and gradually subdue Russia.[27]

Khanna also writes that South America, East Asia, and other regions prefer to emulate the "European Dream" than the American variant.[29] This could possibly be seen in the South American Union and the African Union. Notably, the EU as a whole is among the most culturally diverse "entities" on the planet,[30] with some of the world's largest and most influential languages being official within its borders.[31]

Andrew Reding also takes the future EU enlargement into account. An eventual future accession of the rest of Europe, the whole of Russia, and Turkey, would not only boost the economy of the EU, but it would also increase the EU's population to about 800 million, which he considers almost equal to that of India or China. The EU is qualitatively different from India and China since it is enormously more prosperous and technologically advanced.[16] Turkish PM Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said in 2005: "In 10 or 15 years, the EU will be a place where civilizations meet. It will be a superpower with the inclusion of Turkey." [32]

Robert J. Guttman wrote in 2001 that the very definition of the term superpower has changed and in the 21st century, it does not only refer to states with military power, but also to groups such as the European Union, with strong market economics, young, highly educated workers savvy in high technology, and a global vision.[33] Friis Arne Petersen, the Danish ambassador to the U.S., has expressed similar views. He conceded that the EU is a “special kind of superpower,” one that has yet to establish a unified military force that exerts itself even close to the same level as many of its individual members.[34]

Additionally, it is argued by commentators that full political integration is not required for the European Union to wield international influence: that its apparent weaknesses constitute its real strengths (as of its low profile diplomacy and the emphasis on the rule of law)[26] and that the EU represents a new and potentially more successful type of international actor than traditional ones;[35] however, it is uncertain if the effectiveness of such an influence would be equal to that of a politically integrated superpower such as the United States.[36]

Also, "loose agreements" tend not to elect parliaments.

The E.U. has not been around long enough to stand the test of time. I'm 20 years old, and almost confident that at least one E.U. country will be at war with another within my lifetime at some point.

Or at the very least, the "ties" between these countries will weaken.

 

[imperialman]

The E.U. has not been around long enough to stand the test of time. I'm 20 years old, and almost confident that at least one E.U. country will be at war with another within my lifetime at some point.

Or at the very least, the "ties" between these countries will weaken.

What are you basing that on?

 

[caketastydelish]

What are you basing that on?

Off of the fact that Europe has made these kinds of treaties in the past such as the League of nations and things like it, which failed. League of nations is the most famous example, but there are countless others I'm sure. Europe has been at war with each other for the vast majority of it's existence. Why would it all of a sudden stop now?

 

[imperialman]

Off of the fact that Europe has made these kinds of treaties in the past such as the League of nations and things like it, which failed. League of nations is the most famous example, but there are countless others I'm sure. Europe has been at war with each other for the vast majority of it's existence. Why would it all of a sudden stop now?

The LoN was nothing like the EU, they aren't even comparable really. Why wouldn't they? The sheer fact they'd have so much to lose would be a good reason.

 

[caketastydelish]

The LoN was nothing like the EU, they aren't even comparable really. Why wouldn't they? The sheer fact they'd have so much to lose would be a good reason.

Oh yeah, they'd have a lot to lose. Especially Greece.

 

[SG-17]

Plus, the current Chinese carrier is incapable of operating fixed wing aircraft. It's more of a trial-run type project it seems.

I thought that the only other carrier that China had was turned into a hotel?

 

[Leoreth]

The E.U. has not been around long enough to stand the test of time. I'm 20 years old, and almost confident that at least one E.U. country will be at war with another within my lifetime at some point.

Nah, we don't have slavery so I don't see that coming about

On the League of Nations: here we have the guy who came up with it:

Looks familiar? Yeah, that's the president who subsequently failed to get his own country to join an institution he thought up himself, which would then doom it to eventual irrevalence and inability to do anything to prevent WW2. Well done America.

I guess we can return to you proving your superficial knowledge about the European Union now.

 

[caketastydelish]

Nah, we don't have slavery so I don't see that coming about

On the League of Nations: here we have the guy who came up with it:

Looks familiar? Yeah, that's the president who subsequently failed to get his own country to join an institution he thought up himself, which would then doom it to eventual irrevalence and inability to do anything to prevent WW2. Well done America.

I guess we can return to you proving your superficial knowledge about the European Union now.

The slavery thing? Very funny... No you don't have slavery but you did have two family feuds in the 20th century (that I know of) and the axis powers may have quite possibly won them were it not for American intervention.

America has been at war with itself a grand total of one time. With europe, this isn't the case. And to be fair, America is one country and Europe is several different countries. It's not even a fair comparison. But on that basis, stop saying the European Union is just as well-knit as America. A collection of independent countries are not going to be as close as one single country.

But I'm no American fanboy either. China is right up there with us, and if things keep going the way they are they'll pass us.

 

[Leoreth]

The slavery thing? Very funny... No you don't have slavery but you did have two family feuds in the 20th century (that I know of) and the axis powers may have quite possibly won them were it not for American intervention.

Nope, especially not for the second one.

Also, only the first one could really be described a family feud in a very broad fashion (none of the actual reasons for the conflict had anything to do with them, though), and it didn't even have axis powers.

America has been at war with itself a grand total of one time. With europe, this isn't the case. And to be fair, America is one country and Europe is several different countries. It's not even a fair comparison. But on that basis, stop saying the European Union is just as well-knit as America. A collection of independent countries are not going to be as close as one single country.

I don't know. There's the Civil War of course, but there's also the Indian Wars. Then there's the wars between several Native American societies that inhabited the territory of the United States before it was even discovered by Europeans. I guess you could also count the Seven Years War because it was fought between territories that are now part of the United States. I could go on for a long time because apparently you seem to count wars before the institution you're discussing even existed.

Also, if I recall, there was a time when the US itself consituted itself out of independent states, so apparently it is possible to do something like that to be "as close as one single country".

And no one's really arguing that the EU is "as well-knit as America". You're just being called out for your spurious reasoning behind your position.

 

[Cutlass]

I don't think you can credit anything to do with Indians as an internal US conflict....