Most Powerful Country.

[iBlueBox]

What would you say is the most powerful country in the world?

People measure power in different ways from how much moneys a country is worth, to it's military power so explain your reasoning why!

[Empired]

None of them. I have to say, I always imagine the world as like a huge playground and all the countries and just individual kids having ridiculous fights over who has the nicer lunch or better toys. And lots of African countries are the poor kids who get bullied.

edit: ok that sounds a lot weirder now that it's left my head but I think what I'm trying to say is that we're all just arguing over trivial things.

[dbgtz]

I think a lot of people will say the USA or China, but really they're both pretty weak. The west relies on the cheap labour like China a lot and vice versa so how much power the "big" countries really hold is actually quite small. The ones with the power are the smaller, more autonomous and oil rich countries because although they rely on the oil money, we all rely on oil far more. The UK is quite lucky in this regard in that we produce a lot of what we need (1,099,000 barrels produced a day out of 1,608,000 consumed) compared to say France who only produce ~50,000 out of 1,792,000 consumed and germany who produce around 100,000 out of 2,400,000.

If all that is ignored and we look at brute force (i.e. hard power), then the USA clearly takes the lead. I believe the UK topped the soft power list last year because of all the recent events. I also believe the amount of ties the UK has because of the empire and other reasons, we probably have the most disproportionate amount of power.

[Ardemax]

Switzerland.

Those Swiss are up to something, I can feel it...

[-:Undertaker:-]

In terms of hard and soft power, the United States is by FAR the most powerful country in the world. The US military and it's hardware outstrips any rival by a country mile whilst at the same time it has hundreds of military bases and global military operations around the world - again, unlike anything it's nearest rivals have. In terms of soft power, the US is again ahead by a country mile - all of the global brands are predominantly American (McDonalds, Coke, Pepsi etc) and it's reach is global - much like British brands used to rule the waves at the start of the last century.

All of that said, after superpower status you have to look at Great Power status - and out of the Great powers (Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China & Japan) only Britain and France have the military hardware to project power on a global scale. Indeed, the only three 'blue water navies' in the world are America, Britain and France - the rest don't even compare. Additionally only the US/UK/FR/RUS have nuclear weapon systems that are in anyway capable of delievering a weapon outside of their regional neighbourhood - and only these four countries (with China included) have permanent UN Security Council seats.

The strength of Russia and China is far far far outblown constantly if you look at their military for example - Russia's military sustained bad losses in the war against tiny Georgia and it's thought that China would struggle to even invade Taiwan successfully (without US help too).

So if you wanted a list of the global pecking order in general (both hard and soft combined), it'd be more or less this.

Top tier (1-4)

1. America (miles ahead of those below)
2. Britain
3. France
4. Russia

Lower tier (5-7)

5. Japan
6. Germany
7. China

And lots of African countries are the poor kids who get bullied.

Wouldn't the African countries be comparable to the naughty/stupid kids at the back of the class considering how African countries have all been independent for over 60 years now (all while recieving large amounts of western cash at the same time) and have only gone backwards, not forwards?

[Jurv]

america because why not

---------- Post added 26-08-2013 at 04:29 PM ----------

america because why not

[Ardemax]

Wouldn't the African countries be comparable to the naughty/stupid kids at the back of the class considering how African countries have all been independent for over 60 years now (all while recieving large amounts of western cash at the same time) and have only gone backwards, not forwards?

I guess it's hard to go forward when the West is trying to hold you back (implementation of dictators among other things).

EDIT: Found what I was looking for. http://www.gapminder.org/world/#$maj...ds=;example=75

Your last statement is made redundant by this.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I guess it's hard to go forward when the West is trying to hold you back (implementation of dictators among other things).

Only because they've shown they can't run a country thus far, and in the Cold War it meant that many of these tinpot countries would have fallen to communist guerillas who then would have sided with the Soviet Union. If you want an African example with the opposite of what you claim, just look to the mess that is modern day South Africa where they continue to vote the ANC in their millions despite the country going the same route as Zimbabwe - indeed, did President Mugabe not get voted in again the other week? it's astounding. Or look at the neighbouring Kingdom of Swaziland for another western-interference free example of African 'success'.

I'd like them, the Africans, to prove me wrong (and there are encouraging signs in Ghana, Botswana & the Gambia) but sadly out of the 50 or so African states, virtually everything has gone wrong and got much worse since they became independent.

Your last statement is made redundant by this.

Who said that life expectantcy (which has nosedived in Africa anyway) and wealth meant a country was exactly going forward? with international currencies taken off the Gold Standard and a growth in demand for certain minerals and metals, it's very likely that over a long period it looks 'good' for many African countries - but this is relative. It's like with India - the average Indian may be earning more than he did back in 1930, but that doesn't mean he's wealthier as it doesn't take into account the purchasing power or the price of foods.

Would you for example say that Zimbabwe is an improvement on what Rhodesia was? of course you wouldn't.

It's like if I say healthcare in this country was better in 1940 than today. Of course today's healthcare system has better results with advances in science, but the question is - could it be much better today if it was still run like the older system.

[Ardemax]

Only because they've shown they can't run a country thus far, and in the Cold War it meant that many of these tinpot countries would have fallen to communist guerillas who then would have sided with the Soviet Union. If you want an African example with the opposite of what you claim, just look to the mess that is modern day South Africa where they continue to vote the ANC in their millions despite the country going the same route as Zimbabwe - indeed, did President Mugabe not get voted in again the other week? it's astounding. Or look at the neighbouring Kingdom of Swaziland for another western-interference free example of African 'success'.

I'd like them, the Africans, to prove me wrong (and there are encouraging signs in Ghana, Botswana & the Gambia) but sadly out of the 50 or so African states, virtually everything has gone wrong and got much worse since they became independent.

Well "voted in" is a bit far fetched, but I get you. Did you check out my example of how non-backward Africa actually is and how much progress it has shown over the past half century? There was a video made by a scientist (the facts are blurry) and if you look closely regarding medical advancements and the introduction of vaccines it actually shows that many African nations are advancing faster than many western nations (at the time when the West was in the same situation as Africa currently is).

[Hannah]

I'm going to go ahead and say America. They are far more powerful than most with their military, money and not to forget their influence.