Most Powerful Country.

[-:Undertaker:-]

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).

I've replied above.

Again though - it's very hard not to 'advance' over time just as i'm sure that in the Dark Ages people lived for longer and probably had more things/medical treatments than they did at the beginning of the Roman Empire - yet if you take into account the time period, the Dark Ages were a step backward just as if you look at the history and advances of Africa today compared with the Imperial Era you'll see that the Imperial Era was, to quote historian Niall Ferguson on this, 'the Golden Age of Africa'.

Again, look at Rhodesia to Zimbabwe. Or South Africa pre-Mandela to South Africa today.

The graph for the United Kingdom for example appears to claim that the 1970s were a more or less time of improvement and good for the United Kingdom - yet if you compare the UK to other European nations at the time, you'll realise the 1970s for Great Britain were a complete disaster economically... and this doesn't even take into account socially.

[karter]

I personally feel USA has much more influence on the world than any other countries, so much that China and others almost seem insignificant

I mean just look

It is the permanent member of the UN Security Council
President of the World Bank has always been an American
World's largest economy with global military power
Majority of scientists, Nobel Laureates have been American

The list goes on, I am not a fan of The USA but we know who the clear winner is.

[Ardemax]

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.

Well if a country's life expectancy and wealth declined then surely it's not a good thing? Forgive me if I'm being stupid, but I fail to see how a reduction in infant mortality doesn't show anything other than an advancement.

Again though - it's very hard not to 'advance' over time just as i'm sure that in the Dark Ages people lived for longer and probably had more things/medical treatments than they did at the beginning of the Roman Empire - yet if you take into account the time period, the Dark Ages were a step backward just as if you look at the history and advances of Africa today compared with the Imperial Era you'll see that the Imperial Era was, to quote historian Niall Ferguson on this, 'the Golden Age of Africa'.

Again, look at Rhodesia to Zimbabwe. Or South Africa pre-Mandela to South Africa today.

The graph for the United Kingdom for example appears to claim that the 1970s were a more or less time of improvement and good for the United Kingdom - yet if you compare the UK to other European nations at the time, you'll realise the 1970s for Great Britain were a complete disaster economically... and this doesn't even take into account socially.

I was of the belief that the UK had advanced more rapidly through the 70s?

[Eoin247]

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



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?

China at 7? Their military strength is only outdone by America so they are certainly number 2 in that sense. (India's military would also be ahead of any European nation) .

As for non military power . Think about the vast natural resources China controls both in the country and around the world (notably Africa). With so many foreign companies dependent on China for resources and production, they have a huge influence on the biggest companies in the western world!

[-:Undertaker:-]

China at 7? Their military strength is only outdone by America so they are certainly number 2 in that sense. (India's military would also be ahead of any European nation).

If you had read what I said then you wouldn't be saying that - again just take naval power as one example, the only three nations in the world which can project naval power on a global scale are the Royal Navy, the French Navy and the US Navy. China has only just become capable of reaching Taiwan (which is a small, very close neighbour) in terms of missile range - it's still thought that it lacks anywhere near the capabilities of launching a successful invasion of the small island neighbour and that if it did, it would be immensely costly in terms of casualties due to the lack of good military hardware.

India's military is also a laughing stock - you are confusing numbers with strength. Neither China nor India have anywhere near the technological advancements that European powers such as Britain, France and the Netherlands do. Again, you like many others confuse numerical strength with an army being strong - if that were true then North Korea would be probably the number one military power yet they are not because they have no technological advantage.... the same is equally true of Israel and it's neighbours - Israel is probably still capable (because it's done it before) of taking on 6+ numerically stronger Arab nations and winning with it's hand behind it's back. Why? because it has a massive technological advantage just as Britain, France and the US have a massive technological advantage over China, Russia and India.

Other historical examples include the triumph of the Empire of Japan over the Russian Empire in the Russo-Japanese War which was one of the reasons why the Tsarist Government fell because it came as such a shock that a traditionally Asian power had beaten a European power in combat. The reason? Russia was seriously behind in terms of technology and Imperial Japan was a embarked on a process of rapid technological and industrial advancement, thus Japan won that war. Essentially, if Country A has 10 frigates that can fire over a range of only a mile, and Country B has a frigate that can fire over a range of 20 miles - then whom is going to win? no question it will be Country B.

Look at where the brains all come from - they're still coming from the west.

As for non military power . Think about the vast natural resources China controls both in the country and around the world (notably Africa). With so many foreign companies dependent on China for resources and production, they have a huge influence on the biggest companies in the western world!

The control over vast resources does not make a country powerful. The nations and Empires of the Indian subcontinent that now make present day India presided over immense minerals, gold and wealth - yet the Indian subcontinent was taken over relatively easily over a hundred or so years by the British, French and the Portugese.

As for production, wrong again. The buyer has the ultimate power, not the seller. Compare with a historical example again - China back under the imperial Qing Dynasty. China was always a huge producer and had many resources that the western powers wanted - that still didn't stop Qing China being colonised by Britain, France, Germany, Russia and America in all but name. The same applies to the South American nations at the turn of the century who produced goods for the British Empire yet held no sway over British business or foreign policy.

Well if a country's life expectancy and wealth declined then surely it's not a good thing? Forgive me if I'm being stupid, but I fail to see how a reduction in infant mortality doesn't show anything other than an advancement.

Well it's an 'advancement' but not an advancement that can really be attributed to African nations - seeing as none of the medical, financial or scientific advancements that have helped bring infant morality down have come from African countries, rather they have been imported from the west.

It's like the Soviet Union - no doubt people had more on their plates in the final days of the USSR in the 1980s than they did in say 1910s Tsarist Russia ... but nobody would claim that the USSR was a success when in comparison with it's rivals.

Again - look at Rhodesia to Zimbabwe or present-day Afghanistan to Afghanistan in the 1950s to 1970s.

[Ardemax]

Well it's an 'advancement' but not an advancement that can really be attributed to African nations - seeing as none of the medical, financial or scientific advancements that have helped bring infant morality down have come from African countries, rather they have been imported from the west.

It's like the Soviet Union - no doubt people had more on their plates in the final days of the USSR in the 1980s than they did in say 1910s Tsarist Russia ... but nobody would claim that the USSR was a success when in comparison with it's rivals.

Again - look at Rhodesia to Zimbabwe or present-day Afghanistan to Afghanistan in the 1950s to 1970s.

Whilst I agree many of the things have been imported, were you really expecting hundreds of years of research and tireless training that was done in other, wealthier, countries to just pop out of Africa in half a century? No, of course not.

African nations have been hammered and, quite frankly abused (check out Nestle preventing mothers from breastfeeding just so they have to buy their supplements), so they need assistance. If the UK was just a slave depot with other people from wealthier nations telling us what we can and can't do then it would almost seem impossible to get out of it without leaving any scars behind.

Africa is rebuilding at a faster rate than when Europe was in its position, you cannot deny that. If stability is ever brought in places like Egypt and democracy becomes widespread (Congo, you're not fooling anyone at the moment) and the economy expands at a greater rate than currently it would be a very good (and impressive) thing indeed.

[oli]

Man power is a thing of the past, it's all about technology. A mere neautron bomb could obliterate millions of human beings. The UK has the best special forces units in the world by far, and I believe a smaller squad of extremely specialised troops is more powerful than a million conscripted men considering they can do the damage where it hurts. However, the UK doesn't have a very large arsenal of dangerous weapons, of course we're a nuclear power and have a global range but compared to that of the US, we don't have anything. So I think simply because of the fact that the US has the most amount of toys, they win.

[AgnesIO]

China at 7? Their military strength is only outdone by America so they are certainly number 2 in that sense. (India's military would also be ahead of any European nation) .

As for non military power . Think about the vast natural resources China controls both in the country and around the world (notably Africa). With so many foreign companies dependent on China for resources and production, they have a huge influence on the biggest companies in the western world!

China has a gigantic, but technically-poor military.

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.

Their influence seems huge to us because we are in the "Western-sphere". Remember many countries have been hugely influenced by other countries - such as China and Russia.

---

This is a fantastic question, and one I spent many hours debating in Politics. I have always disagreed entirely with anyone who argues China is the most powerful nation in the world. The argument regarding their monopoly in cheap labour (and therefore production) is really flawed. The issue is, China quite simply cannot use their monopoly in production as a threat, meaning they lack power in this regard. What happens if China simply say "right, we are not selling any of our goods to you"? That's right, they damage themselves MORE than they damage anyone else. On the other hand, the state they refuse to sell to can simply go elsewhere. Furthermore, this would give another state a prime opportunity to compete with China. On this basis, China really do have very little power.

Let's move on to India. A huge population, a huge army and also expertise in the IT industry. But at the same time, they are suffering from huge poverty in many parts, and don't really have their own sphere of influence.

Britain undoubtedly still has a lot of power, although it is certainly soft. Realistically, we do not hold the power that the USA has.

Now, up until this point I have agreed entirely with Dan, who has made many excellent points (+Rep if I can). HOWEVER, I would argue (and I doubt Dan would) that there are more important people to consider now, and they are not states. International organisations have a huge influence now, and I think without a doubt the European Union has made its own place on the international stage. Having said this, I think it is more the states inside it that have done this - for example the French and British and their comments on Mali - but this still came collectively as the EU. Anyway, I'll finish on the international organisations argument now, as the thread isn't actually about them :L

TLDR; USA.

[Ardemax]

Man power is a thing of the past, it's all about technology. A mere neautron bomb could obliterate millions of human beings. The UK has the best special forces units in the world by far, and I believe a smaller squad of extremely specialised troops is more powerful than a million conscripted men considering they can do the damage where it hurts. However, the UK doesn't have a very large arsenal of dangerous weapons, of course we're a nuclear power and have a global range but compared to that of the US, we don't have anything. So I think simply because of the fact that the US has the most amount of toys, they win.

I believe Russia has more nukes than the US.

[dbgtz]

I personally feel USA has much more influence on the world than any other countries, so much that China and others almost seem insignificant

I mean just look

It is the permanent member of the UN Security Council
President of the World Bank has always been an American
World's largest economy with global military power
Majority of scientists, Nobel Laureates have been American

The list goes on, I am not a fan of The USA but we know who the clear winner is.

I will point out a lot of those people tend to have dual nationality. Also the Nobel prize is a bit of a joke nowadays see Nobel peace prize of 2009 and 2012.

China at 7? Their military strength is only outdone by America so they are certainly number 2 in that sense. (India's military would also be ahead of any European nation) .

As for non military power . Think about the vast natural resources China controls both in the country and around the world (notably Africa). With so many foreign companies dependent on China for resources and production, they have a huge influence on the biggest companies in the western world!

Think about how much China relies on other countries to have products manufactured there.

I believe Russia has more nukes than the US.

More but worse iirc.