Which countries have the best land/positioning?

Fortesque said:

I'll attempt to get this back on topic and say Australia would have to be a contender, along with Canada (And not just because I am an Aussie. )

Australia is one of a few countries that does not share a common boarder with another nation. Which is fortunate given our small but effective military which punches above it's weight/size/budget.
The Australian $ has parity with the US $ and China is our biggest trading partner. The country is rich with minerals and is positioned at the door step to Asia with access to approx 50% of the worlds population.
The land mass populated is approx 1% and is high in usefulness with the diversity of climate, terrain, soil types etc. In the past we have fed not only ourselves but exported to other nations as well. The country has over 25,000kms of pristine coast line and the land mass is approx 7.5 million sq kms which sit between 3 oceans and 4 seas with an ocean territory of approx 12 million sq kms.

The down side we do suffer from natural disasters especially bushfires, cyclones and floods. Also wherever you go in the bush there is usually something that can kill you. But earthquakes are rare.

And we make good beer!

Click to expand...

i agree, Australia is a lucky country

I think geography is the main reason of why nations rise and fall

historically, In general , continental nations have been always worse off than island nations (north america is an exception, because the entire continent was colonized by an island nation, britain.)

Continental nations had to endure invasions from their neighbours. That created political and economic instability, dictatorship, etc that set them back.

Island nations didnt had to worry about it, and developed political and social stability that translated into commercial prosperity, colonial expansion and technological advancement. Their large naval industry spurned technological innovation, something large continental nations like russia werent able to.

there is a reason why britain dominated the seas for centuries. It didnt had to fear invasions from french/spanish, who were defeated by its navy. From the beginning the british navy was powerful because britain didnt need a large army to defend itself, something that nations like france and spain couldnt afford.

Japan was the most sucessfull asian nation, because it was isolated from chinese/mongol invasions. By 1600(by hand of the tokugawa clan) it had a political social and cultural unity that china never reached. int the XIX century, when forced by the american fleet to open its ports, thanks to that unity, it was able to make the transition from the tokugawa era to the meiji era smothly. Japan and china started their industrialization at the same time. But japan had unity while china was a very large, bloated and underdeveloped continental empire, who was prey to the opium wars, something that could had never happened to japan.

The USA has the best position of the world, because in adittion of isolation, it has a large and fertile territory, acess to 2 continents, political social and cultural stability. A large part of all these atributtes is geography

kroko said:

I think geography is the main reason of why nations rise and fall

historically, In general , continental nations have been always worse off than island nations (north america is an exception, because the entire continent was colonized by an island nation, britain.)

Continental nations had to endure invasions from their neighbours. That created political and economic instability, dictatorship, etc that set them back.

Island nations didnt had to worry about it, and developed political and social stability that translated into commercial prosperity, colonial expansion and technological advancement. Their large naval industry spurned technological innovation, something large continental nations like russia werent able to.

there is a reason why britain dominated the seas for centuries. It didnt had to fear invasions from french/spanish, who were defeated by its navy. From the beginning the british navy was powerful because britain didnt need a large army to defend itself, something that nations like france and spain couldnt afford.

Japan was the most sucessfull asian nation, because it was isolated from chinese/mongol invasions. By 1600(by hand of the tokugawa clan) it had a political social and cultural unity that china never reached. int the XIX century, when forced by the american fleet to open its ports, thanks to that unity, it was able to make the transition from the tokugawa era to the meiji era smothly. Japan and china started their industrialization at the same time. But japan had unity while china was a very large, bloated and underdeveloped continental empire, who was prey to the opium wars, something that could had never happened to japan.

The USA has the best position of the world, because in adittion of isolation, it has a large and fertile territory, acess to 2 continents, political social and cultural stability. A large part of all these atributtes is geography

Click to expand...

Sorry, but your thesis is contradicted by history.

1- The North American continent was mainly colonized by UK, France, and Spain. There have been plenty of wars in its post-European history.

2- The UK has been invaded countless times: Romans, Saxons, Normans. It was constantly engaged in wars with France. In its 1500 years of post-Roman history, it rose to prominence for only 100 years or so.

3- I find it extremely strange that you think the Opium War couldn't happen to Japan. The Opium War happened because the Brits were running a trade deficit with China and decided to re-balance that deficit by peddling opium, and later using force to protect that trade. In other words, the Brits were plundering Chinese resources. Had Japan had riches that the European powers coveted, it wouldn't have escaped either.

solarz said:

Sorry, but your thesis is contradicted by history.

1- The North American continent was mainly colonized by UK, France, and Spain. There have been plenty of wars in its post-European history.

2- The UK has been invaded countless times: Romans, Saxons, Normans. It was constantly engaged in wars with France. In its 1500 years of post-Roman history, it rose to prominence for only 100 years or so.

3- I find it extremely strange that you think the Opium War couldn't happen to Japan. The Opium War happened because the Brits were running a trade deficit with China and decided to re-balance that deficit by peddling opium, and later using force to protect that trade. In other words, the Brits were plundering Chinese resources. Had Japan had riches that the European powers coveted, it wouldn't have escaped either.

Click to expand...

1 - north america was mainly colonized by britain. France and spain, being continental powers, declined and their american colonies were absorbed by the british during the seven year war and by the US during the napoleonic wars.

2- since 1066 how many times has england been invaded? what about the defeat of the spanish invincible armada which heralded the decline of spain and the ascent of england in 1585 ?

3 - china was plundered because it was a weak nation, incapable of defending itself.

kroko said:

1 - north america was mainly colonized by britain. France and spain, being continental powers, declined and their american colonies were absorbed by the british during the seven year war and by the US during the napoleonic wars.

2- since 1066 how many times has england been invaded? what about the defeat of the spanish invincible armada which heralded the decline of spain and the ascent of england in 1585 ?

3 - china was plundered because it was a weak nation, incapable of defending itself.

Click to expand...

1- North America =\= United States. Furthermore, the US itself did not achieve stability until only 100 or so years ago.

2- How many years since 1066 (or even earlier) has England been in a prominent position? I'm not disputing the fact that island nations get invaded less (obviously!), but I am disputing the fact that island nations have an advantage in gaining regional or global dominance.

3- Japan was just as incapable of defending itself against European powers when they first began their reforms. They were left alone because there was nothing worthwhile to plunder.

kroko said:

I think geography is the main reason of why nations rise and fall

historically, In general , continental nations have been always worse off than island nations (north america is an exception, because the entire continent was colonized by an island nation, britain.)

Continental nations had to endure invasions from their neighbours. That created political and economic instability, dictatorship, etc that set them back.

Island nations didnt had to worry about it, and developed political and social stability that translated into commercial prosperity, colonial expansion and technological advancement. Their large naval industry spurned technological innovation, something large continental nations like russia werent able to.

there is a reason why britain dominated the seas for centuries. It didnt had to fear invasions from french/spanish, who were defeated by its navy. From the beginning the british navy was powerful because britain didnt need a large army to defend itself, something that nations like france and spain couldnt afford.

Japan was the most sucessfull asian nation, because it was isolated from chinese/mongol invasions. By 1600(by hand of the tokugawa clan) it had a political social and cultural unity that china never reached. int the XIX century, when forced by the american fleet to open its ports, thanks to that unity, it was able to make the transition from the tokugawa era to the meiji era smothly. Japan and china started their industrialization at the same time. But japan had unity while china was a very large, bloated and underdeveloped continental empire, who was prey to the opium wars, something that could had never happened to japan.

The USA has the best position of the world, because in adittion of isolation, it has a large and fertile territory, acess to 2 continents, political social and cultural stability. A large part of all these atributtes is geography

Click to expand...

Geography plays a role but not as you are saying, technology is the basic element that influences the fall or rise of a power.

Why? do you think England developed ship building by it self?

No they did not

previous to 1600s the Spanish and Portuguese had the advantage.
In fact the world was explored by Spain and Portugal, two continental powers travelled the world before England.

What made Spain and Portugal powers was technology, naval technology that allowed them to travel to Asia and America.

What made Russia and the US powers was the development of science.

Geography only plays a role as long as technology can not overcome the enviroment.

If England was not invaded by Spain was that the Spanish were not superior in naval Technology.

By the USA a continental power over ran Japan simply due to superior technology.

In fact Japan shows all the weakneses of Islands, having inferior technology and lack of resources their manufacturing power was inferior and the Result was the US beat it.

Today is the same, for the USA in order to remain in power needs to be the center of innovation, but they know they can not do it, so what have they done?

Simply US firms are building research and development centers around the world, Mexico is a good example, today computers and jet engines are develop by Intel and GE in Mexico by Mexican Engineers.
Intel will build low-cost computers in Mexico

26/05/2011 14:45



The general manager of Intel Corportation, Paul Otellini introduced the first prototype of the first low-cost computer that will go into production in Mexico to promote the use of information technology and communication before 2012.


These computers were designed entirely by Mexican engineers in Intel's Design Center in Guadalajara and will bear the stamp of Created in Mexico


Still, some aerospace companies are using Mexico as a base for research and design. GE, the No. 1 producer of jet engines, now has its largest research and design center outside of the U.S. and Canada in Querétaro, where some 1,300 engineers work on projects like the GEnx turbine used on Boeing's 787 Dreamliner and the Airbus A380


The US is limited by its technological prowess, not by geography.

Why China is now a rising power?
the answer is science and technology it is not geography.

why we have BRICs, answer now technology is available any where in the world regardless of geography.

Japan or England are powers thanks to science.

England has more nobel prices than many other nations, the US is the leader in technology and sciencie.

England surpassed Spain thanks to technology.


But because of science and communications, the bipolar power fell, and so trhe unipolar world lead by the US, a multipolar power will be a reality thanks to science and technology.

MiG-29 said:

Geography plays a role but not as you are saying, technology is the basic element that influences the fall or rise of a power.
Why? do you think England developed ship building by it self?
No they did not
previous to 1600s the Spanish and Portuguese had the advantage.
In fact the world was explored by Spain and Portugal, two continental powers travelled the world before England.
What made Spain and Portugal powers was technology, naval technology that allowed them to travel to Asia and America.

Click to expand...

Sure. And then portugal was conquered by spain in 1580, and in 1585 spain got defeated by england. Spain´s army couldnt invade england because england was an island. America´s colonization by england started a few years later (early 1600´s). England focused on its navy, unlike spain which had to develop a large army to fight in europe. Thats why England´s navy was technologically superior to spain despite numbers. Superior tech isnt born out of thin air. There is a reason for it.

MiG-29 said:

What made Russia and the US powers was the development of science.

Click to expand...

Since when was Russia a scientifical power? USSR was always about developing a large heavy low tech industry. Much of its civilian tech was stolen from the west, or even didnt exist. Only in military they were advanced, and thats because ¾ of their scientists worked on that field, and soviet scientists couldnt leave the country.

MiG-29 said:

Geography only plays a role as long as technology can not overcome the enviroment.
If England was not invaded by Spain was that the Spanish were not superior in naval Technology.
By the USA a continental power over ran Japan simply due to superior technology.
In fact Japan shows all the weakneses of Islands, having inferior technology and lack of resources their manufacturing power was inferior and the Result was the US beat it.

Click to expand...

The USA is the major exception to this rule, because it was founded by an island nation (england). The US inherited from england its economical and technological aspects, and to a certain extent its political and cultural aspects. The US was always a democracy. If it had been colonized by germany or russia, do you think that the result would had been the same?
The USA could be considered an “island” nation from the early XX century. It just didnt had/have continental threats anymore. The USA beated japan because they had superior tech (due in large part to the fact that it had industrialized much sooner. Heck, it was the US who forced japan to open up in 1859) they had much superior industry and resources, both mineral and human.
But earlier, japan beated china, imperial Rússia and korea, the first two much larger than japan in size.

kroko said:

Sure. And then portugal was conquered by spain in 1580, and in 1585 spain got defeated by england. Spain´s army couldnt invade england because england was an island. America´s colonization by england started a few years later (early 1600´s). England focused on its navy, unlike spain which had to develop a large army to fight in europe. Thats why England´s navy was technologically superior to spain despite numbers. Superior tech isnt born out of thin air. There is a reason for it.

Since when was Russia a scientifical power? USSR was always about developing a large heavy low tech industry. Much of its civilian tech was stolen from the west, or even didnt exist. Only in military they were advanced, and thats because ¾ of their scientists worked on that field, and soviet scientists couldnt leave the country.

The USA is the major exception to this rule, because it was founded by an island nation (england). The US inherited from england its economical and technological aspects, and to a certain extent its political and cultural aspects. The US was always a democracy. If it had been colonized by germany or russia, do you think that the result would had been the same?
The USA could be considered an “island” nation from the early XX century. It just didnt had/have continental threats anymore. The USA beated japan because they had superior tech (due in large part to the fact that it had industrialized much sooner. Heck, it was the US who forced japan to open up in 1859) they had much superior industry and resources, both mineral and human.
But earlier, japan beated china, imperial Rússia and korea, the first two much larger than japan in size.

Its not. When china runs out of cheap labour and other nations force it to abandon its mercantilist policies, the comunist regime will sucumb due to its ineficiency, corruption and lack of democratic legitimacy (born out of the excessive interference of the state in the economy. China´s capitalism is a form of state capitalism). What will china be post-comunism? No one knows.

No, it wont, the US will continue to dominate.

Click to expand...

Spain was defeated because they lacked strategy and will, but most important Spain never accepted the renasaince and scientific revolution like England.

However Spain discovered America and discovered the way to go via America to Asia.
The portuguese the way to Asia via Africa where was England there?

in 1066, the Vikings discovered America and defeated England.

Where was England when Da vinci made its paintings or discoveries?
In fact Spain did all what it did because the Arab, Indian and greek science was rediscovered in al Andalus.

However England took that science and developed further.

However by 1941, England was at the Mercy of Germany, if Germany would had not attacked the Soviet Union and declared war to the US, by a combine effort of Submarines and air force Germany would had conquered England.

Germany was defeated by Russia, and lesser extend the US, while Japan was defeated by a continental power.

Both island nations lost their empires to Continental power, the USSR had all the technologies the US had, in fact the USSR had computers, aircraft, cars however the Soviet Union broke up, with this got bankrupt so most of its technologies were to the drain, and today western propaganda claims the Soviet Union was technologically backward, the Soviet Union had the technology, but they were not exploiting it properly.

Today England is no more a manufacturing power, Germany is the real ruler of Europe, in that geography has nothing to do, its commerce and science.

Today commerce is lead by China (continental power) Germany (continental power) and USA another continental power.

In weapons is the same, largest nuclear forces belong to Russia and USA both continental powers.
Same largest economies.
But the reason is technology, science, and communications.


Geography played a very important role in the beginings of civilization, but now not anymore, in our days you have technology that is the product of many nations.

To put you an example, B787 has pieces from many countries, it is not anymore an american product, it has engines developed by US, mexicans and who knows who else, parts made in China and Japan and others from Europe.


Technology is globalazing it self and with this a multipolar world is emerging.

kroko said:

Its not. When china runs out of cheap labour and other nations force it to abandon its mercantilist policies, the comunist regime will sucumb due to its ineficiency, corruption and lack of democratic legitimacy (born out of the excessive interference of the state in the economy. China´s capitalism is a form of state capitalism). What will china be post-comunism? No one knows.

Click to expand...

Okay, now I understand why you think island nations are so uber. It's pretty clear from this statement that your arguments are based on pure fantasy.

kroko said:

Sure. And then portugal was conquered by spain in 1580, and in 1585 spain got defeated by england. Spain´s army couldnt invade england because england was an island. America´s colonization by england started a few years later (early 1600´s). England focused on its navy, unlike spain which had to develop a large army to fight in europe. Thats why England´s navy was technologically superior to spain despite numbers. Superior tech isnt born out of thin air. There is a reason for it.

Click to expand...

England and Spain was a case of evolving naval doctrine, which is mirrored by what happened with Carriers and Battleships. Ironically England's new naval doctrine has been used by the Chinese for centuries.

kroko said:

The USA is the major exception to this rule, because it was founded by an island nation (england). The US inherited from england its economical and technological aspects, and to a certain extent its political and cultural aspects. The US was always a democracy. If it had been colonized by germany or russia, do you think that the result would had been the same?
The USA could be considered an “island” nation from the early XX century. It just didnt had/have continental threats anymore. The USA beated japan because they had superior tech (due in large part to the fact that it had industrialized much sooner. Heck, it was the US who forced japan to open up in 1859) they had much superior industry and resources, both mineral and human.
But earlier, japan beated china, imperial Rússia and korea, the first two much larger than japan in size.

Click to expand...

USA beating Japan was simply a matter of size and resources. Japan only decisively beat China after the Opium Wars AND when much of the Chinese forces were tied down by the French. Imperial Russia has not been successful on its east coast campaigns, they even lost and ceded land to China.

What I's trying to say is that being islands doesn't mean anything, Japan and England are like apples and oranges, the reason Japan scored victories was because they spent all their money on military and had several good opportunities, whereas England focused on commerce and military prowess was the natural result.

kroko said:

Its not. When china runs out of cheap labour and other nations force it to abandon its mercantilist policies, the comunist regime will sucumb due to its ineficiency, corruption and lack of democratic legitimacy (born out of the excessive interference of the state in the economy. China´s capitalism is a form of state capitalism). What will china be post-comunism? No one knows.

Click to expand...

China's capitalism has flaws, as do every other forms of capitalism, but it will take an essay to explain which I don't feel like writing.