International Power Ranking
- Thread starter zraver
- Start date
- Status
Japan:
The best hope for Japan would be to create a special relationship with China akin to the US-UK relationship, because the relative decline of the US and the rise of China creates an opportunity for Japan to regain the trust of her fraternal neighbor and break the shackles of American protectorate status which has hindered her independent military development (crucial obvious for great power status)...
Otherwise, Japan will never gain P5 membership status, will always provoke a tit-for-tat military arms race response from China/Korea in which she will never win, and will be heavily isolated in East Asia.
The best Japan can hope for is to be pro-China enough that China would allow Japan a privileged sphere of influence in Africa or Latin America or something. No way in hell do I see Japan challenging China for leadership in East Asia, Central Asia, South East Asia, etc... pfffttt...China would squish Japan like a bug.
The best hope for Japan would be to create a special relationship with China akin to the US-UK relationship, because the relative decline of the US and the rise of China creates an opportunity for Japan to regain the trust of her fraternal neighbor and break the shackles of American protectorate status which has hindered her independent military development (crucial obvious for great power status)...
Otherwise, Japan will never gain P5 membership status, will always provoke a tit-for-tat military arms race response from China/Korea in which she will never win, and will be heavily isolated in East Asia.
The best Japan can hope for is to be pro-China enough that China would allow Japan a privileged sphere of influence in Africa or Latin America or something. No way in hell do I see Japan challenging China for leadership in East Asia, Central Asia, South East Asia, etc... pfffttt...China would squish Japan like a bug.
Kurt
Junior Member
Germany is a middle power and UK and France are great powers? Look at the economic leverage, plus Germany decided not to spend as much on their military and go on expensive foreign campaigns with aircraft carriers. You can disagree on that choice, but the money they save gives them a different lever that both France or the UK lack. So UK, France and Germany are the big 3 in Europe and Italy, Spain, Poland and Turkey are close or closing the gap with the Netherlands also counting as a middle power because of economic and intervention capability.
Population criteria are of little value in my opinion, except if the population is or gets educated, otherwise Nigeria would be a great power. So you have to calculate an education based productive population value for comparison.
Nuclear weapons capability is the term used for many countries like Germany, Japan, Brazil, South Africa and so on. According to the non-proliferation treaty they are entitled to conduct second strikes if under nuclear attack. I don't see much difference to nuclear powers with a second strike doctrine, except for the timespan and means needed for enacting their right.
European energy dependence on Russia gets overstated. Russia is the largest exporter to Central Europe, but the Russians urgently need that money to buy their great power military. There were a number of incidents inhibiting their capability to continue export without severe consequences for Central Europe. These exports date back to the time of the Soviet Union during the ups and downs of the Cold War. Never did the exporter try to use these exports as a political tool because the adverse effect would be reduced European reliance. Would you count China dependent on the goodwill of Iran because of the oil imports from this country? So Russia would rather qualify as a great power like France and UK. The current re-arrangement of UN seats takes care of these shifts with Japan, Brazil, India and Germany intent on pressing together their mutually recognized great power status.
The difference between US and China is perhaps not expressed in categories, but in a diagram of compareable influence. Influence is what today defines great powers by regional powers being consulted for regional matters and great powers for global matters and superpowers even more often for global matters. A hyperpower would be asked about his opinion on anything. I don't think that's the case with the USA whose military expenditure and capability gets overstated because of non-PPP comparison of investments, exclusively military research expenditures and subsidies that other countries slot through different channels. The superpower USA needs to consult the great powers for important matters, not invasions of Iraq, a hyperpower USA could handle anything like the invasion of Iraq.
Population criteria are of little value in my opinion, except if the population is or gets educated, otherwise Nigeria would be a great power. So you have to calculate an education based productive population value for comparison.
Nuclear weapons capability is the term used for many countries like Germany, Japan, Brazil, South Africa and so on. According to the non-proliferation treaty they are entitled to conduct second strikes if under nuclear attack. I don't see much difference to nuclear powers with a second strike doctrine, except for the timespan and means needed for enacting their right.
European energy dependence on Russia gets overstated. Russia is the largest exporter to Central Europe, but the Russians urgently need that money to buy their great power military. There were a number of incidents inhibiting their capability to continue export without severe consequences for Central Europe. These exports date back to the time of the Soviet Union during the ups and downs of the Cold War. Never did the exporter try to use these exports as a political tool because the adverse effect would be reduced European reliance. Would you count China dependent on the goodwill of Iran because of the oil imports from this country? So Russia would rather qualify as a great power like France and UK. The current re-arrangement of UN seats takes care of these shifts with Japan, Brazil, India and Germany intent on pressing together their mutually recognized great power status.
The difference between US and China is perhaps not expressed in categories, but in a diagram of compareable influence. Influence is what today defines great powers by regional powers being consulted for regional matters and great powers for global matters and superpowers even more often for global matters. A hyperpower would be asked about his opinion on anything. I don't think that's the case with the USA whose military expenditure and capability gets overstated because of non-PPP comparison of investments, exclusively military research expenditures and subsidies that other countries slot through different channels. The superpower USA needs to consult the great powers for important matters, not invasions of Iraq, a hyperpower USA could handle anything like the invasion of Iraq.
I just read through the whole of this thread and in this case the prohibition on threads sleeping for more than six months is manifestly appropriate. A lot has changed in the last five years.
Btw there is a lot in what Phread128 and Kurt say except that the status of The Netherlands, Spain and Italy are likely to be diminished in the next few years.
Btw there is a lot in what Phread128 and Kurt say except that the status of The Netherlands, Spain and Italy are likely to be diminished in the next few years.
- Status