Today India successfully tested the Agni V trans-continental nuclear missile, with a range over 5000 km (>3000 miles). How far away do you guys think India is from becoming the next superpower?
India launches Agni V missile
The next superpower? Far from it. Second regional power in Asia after China? Sure. It takes more than ICBMs to be a superpower. Not since the Cold War has ICBM capability been the mark of a superpower.
What makes a military superpower? Probably the ability to project significant, conventional military force around the world. Aircraft carriers are a pretty good shorthand for that ability. The US has 11 in service. India has one. In 2011 India spent just over 6% of what the US spent on defence. India spent about a third of what China spent in 2011, but China's spending is accelerating faster than India's.
What makes a military superpower? Probably the ability to project significant, conventional military force around the world. Aircraft carriers are a pretty good shorthand for that ability. The US has 11 in service. India has one. In 2011 India spent just over 6% of what the US spent on defence. India spent about a third of what China spent in 2011, but China's spending is accelerating faster than India's.
"A flower can not remain in bloom for years, but a garden can be cultivated to bloom throughout seasons and years." - xsplat
Quote: (04-19-2012 01:05 PM)Caligula Wrote:
What makes a military superpower? Probably the ability to project significant, conventional military force around the world. Aircraft carriers are a pretty good shorthand for that ability. The US has 11 in service. India has one. In 2011 India spent just over 6% of what the US spent on defence. India spent about a third of what China spent in 2011, but China's spending is accelerating faster than India's.
No question that the US is a superpower, however what's to say that there can be only one superpower in the world? My personal definition of a superpower is one of the five countries holding permanent seats on UN security council, i.e. China, France, Russia, UK and USA. These countries have the ability to veto security council votes, i.e. they wield a large amount of power.
India does have a large proportion of the world's population, and a highly productive economy. It also holds a lot of weight in the affairs of both its neighbors and countries it trades with. India was also offered a permanent seat on the UNSC, which it declined. Obama has also expressed support for India to be added to this club.
Basically these ICBMs are a dick waving exercise. Naturally, the country with the biggest dick has the most power.
![[Image: slums-1.jpg]](https://knol.google.com/k/-/-/1yxkd27ll3me6/r047cv/slums-1.jpg)
I feel more now monetary means precludes a nations elevated status to 'Superpower'. Look nukes are cute and all but once you get them in your war chest the only thing they offer is security. Nobody will use them because you would get nuked yourself. Geo-political rivals pursue nukes as means to shore up there ass and nothing more. for all of the saber rattling and close calls during the Cold War both the USA and USSR were deathly afraid to make the first move. Nukes have almost become obsolete in my view the only tense area in regards to nukes is the Middle East where pressures from rivals to shore up their ends against Israel.
In modern times money is power. China has ascended to its Global Strategic rank largely by its strategic growth economically, its now Interwovern itself into the American dollar has meant it can continue to grow and expand while still being able to keep its main rival at bay (somewhat).
You see battles going on right now. The EU mess we see now was largely an America creation as America looked to weaken the Euro to maintain its status as the global reserve currency. Prior to the EU mess the trend was shifting towards the Euro as more and more developed and emerging countries we're taking on Euros instead of USDs.
This is important because Americas military might and power depends deeply on its ability to fund its military via its dollar. Stocking up nukes won't have that same effect.
India is in a interesting position it has long sided with America on the majority of issues and was positioned as a 'natural' ally, while classically being an regional and strategic rival to China since there share many strategic resources and trade prospects. You see now that India is bridging more relationships with China and maybe in the future you will see them build more concrete ties (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) membership down the road possibly) which would weaken USA influence.
India has played both sides (as has America in their relationship) and now we see them ponying up more and more to China.
IMO India will never become a dominate superpower because its money issues are still an issue. Its currency has wonky controls placed on it and can't be freely traded like an American USD, Euro, or Chinese Renminbi, plus the Democratic process in India is painfully slow, projects and policy get notoriously bogged down. This differs from other superpowers were large projects are largely shaped by non-democratic means or 'outside' of the legitimate democratic political process by major players (USA defense largely operates in its own bubble, it may get a public purse but its polices are shaped outside of this).
This does not mean India won't be a major player if the UN had any legitimacy India would be a permanent member of the S.C. but India does not need that to be dominant. as time goes on it will continue to grow in scope and influence and its relationships with China will eventually build a 'bloc' in one of the key strategic regions in the globe.
Superpower tho? Nope. I honestly don't even think there will be another Superpower after the USA finishes its run.
In modern times money is power. China has ascended to its Global Strategic rank largely by its strategic growth economically, its now Interwovern itself into the American dollar has meant it can continue to grow and expand while still being able to keep its main rival at bay (somewhat).
You see battles going on right now. The EU mess we see now was largely an America creation as America looked to weaken the Euro to maintain its status as the global reserve currency. Prior to the EU mess the trend was shifting towards the Euro as more and more developed and emerging countries we're taking on Euros instead of USDs.
This is important because Americas military might and power depends deeply on its ability to fund its military via its dollar. Stocking up nukes won't have that same effect.
India is in a interesting position it has long sided with America on the majority of issues and was positioned as a 'natural' ally, while classically being an regional and strategic rival to China since there share many strategic resources and trade prospects. You see now that India is bridging more relationships with China and maybe in the future you will see them build more concrete ties (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) membership down the road possibly) which would weaken USA influence.
India has played both sides (as has America in their relationship) and now we see them ponying up more and more to China.
IMO India will never become a dominate superpower because its money issues are still an issue. Its currency has wonky controls placed on it and can't be freely traded like an American USD, Euro, or Chinese Renminbi, plus the Democratic process in India is painfully slow, projects and policy get notoriously bogged down. This differs from other superpowers were large projects are largely shaped by non-democratic means or 'outside' of the legitimate democratic political process by major players (USA defense largely operates in its own bubble, it may get a public purse but its polices are shaped outside of this).
This does not mean India won't be a major player if the UN had any legitimacy India would be a permanent member of the S.C. but India does not need that to be dominant. as time goes on it will continue to grow in scope and influence and its relationships with China will eventually build a 'bloc' in one of the key strategic regions in the globe.
Superpower tho? Nope. I honestly don't even think there will be another Superpower after the USA finishes its run.
Quote: (04-19-2012 04:56 PM)MrPink Wrote:
No question that the US is a superpower, however what's to say that there can be only one superpower in the world?
There can be more than one. For much of the late 20th century, there indeed were two superpowers on Earth. For most of the early half of the century, there were 3, and one could argue that there may have been 5 for a short while.
Right now, there is unquestionably only one.
Quote:Quote:
My personal definition of a superpower is one of the five countries holding permanent seats on UN security council, i.e. China, France, Russia, UK and USA.
That's cool, but if we're talking objectively then personal definitions are irrelevant. We have to take a look at the cold hard facts.
As of right now, there is only one nation on the planet capable of projecting its power simultaneously across every ocean on Earth. There is only one nation on Earth with enough reach (via intelligence networks, military bases, and diplomatic clout) to touch and influence (directly or indirectly) every single solitary nation on the planet at any given time. There is only one nation on Earth capable of spending an amount in a year on defense equivalent to what the next 20 largest powers on Earth are able to spend combined within that same time period (a number 40% of the global total, btw).
The gap between the United States and the next largest powers economically, diplomatically, technologically and especially militarily is so large as to not even merit a comparative analysis-America is the leader in nearly every meaningful domain of power. Not a single nation today comes close to the United States in these realms-not one. In many cases even other G8 nations (ex: the UK) fall largely under American diplomatic and military leadership.
Many definitions and interpretations of the "superpower" and its characteristics have surfaced over time. For all of their differences, they almost all agree on one thing: the United States is the only one left. The Soviet Union was a worthy rival, as was the British Empire. No equal is left standing today.
Will this change? Possibly. Some would argue that the United States is currently in decline, its golden age having passed nearly half a century ago. They may have a point-one can find quite a few interesting parallels between the modern USA and the late West Roman Empire.
That being said, many cheering for the USA's decline/loss of superpower status do not understand just how far it has to fall and how far other nations will have to climb to change the current status quo. The United States is without a doubt the world's lone super power today, and this will likely remain the case for as long as we're all alive. Their current lead would take many generations to disappear, as it did for Rome. The decline many of us in the manosphere are theorizing about hasn't been ongoing for much more than two generations, if that. This country still has a long way to fall (assuming it continues to fall-that can change too).
The closest to this vision we can hope to see in the foreseeable future? Other nations may rise and come to more closely equal/rival the USA, while failing to quite properly replace it. Even that scenario will require quite a bit to come to fruition.
Quote:Quote:
These countries have the ability to veto security council votes, i.e. they wield a large amount of power.
That does not make a superpower. In fact, we have a different term for the type of nation you are talking about. They are called "Great Powers".
Quote:Quote:
India does have a large proportion of the world's population, and a highly productive economy. It also holds a lot of weight in the affairs of both its neighbors and countries it trades with.
That is why it is a great power.
Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and victory. Know thy enemy but not yourself, wallow in defeat every time.
[quote] (04-19-2012 09:40 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:
[quote='MrPink' pid='198138' dateline='1334872574']
Many definitions and interpretations of the "superpower" and its characteristics have surfaced over time. For all of their differences, they almost all agree on one thing: the United States is the only one left. The Soviet Union was a worthy rival, as was the British Empire. No equal is left standing today.
Will this change? Possibly. Some would argue that the United States is currently in decline, its golden age having passed nearly half a century ago. They may have a point-one can find quite a few interesting parallels between the modern USA and the late West Roman Empire.
That being said, many cheering for the USA's decline/loss of superpower status do not understand just how far it has to fall and how far other nations will have to climb to change the current status quo. The United States is without a doubt the world's lone super power today, and this will likely remain the case for as long as we're all alive. Their current lead would take many generations to disappear, as it did for Rome. The decline many of us in the manosphere are theorizing about hasn't been ongoing for much more than two generations, if that. This country still has a long way to fall (assuming it continues to fall-that can change too).[/quote]
This is very much true. I am in the camp which views America on the decline but I do concede that from the top of its ladder its a long fall to the bottom. The roman analogy is easily the best. Rome fell yes because it over extended itself and ran its money off fighting wars far flung wars. But Rome largely fell from whiten its society deteriorated to the point its means did not make any sense. how can one conquer if its not stable whiten?
In contrast to the UK whom could say strategically shot its self in the foot. It assumed the USA would be weakened after the war, all other points it had anticipated came true. Japan regressed, Germany eventually regressed also but the UK anticipated the USA would get swallowed up in the heat of battle which it did not. UK was left the USA controlling all of its strategic choke-points and basically just turned off the lights on the UK empire. UK Empire largely would of remained sturdy crazy enough if it sided with the other side. It would of swallowed America and the USSR and Nazi Germany would of eventually been destroyed from whiten.
After this the UK just kinda of floundered like a weak old man. Its still around but its relevance is really just a factor of it holding base in outdated American institutions and piggy backing like you said WHITEN general American policy.
IMO the next Superpower would not even be China, Russia, or India. The USA propelled its self up as a wild card. They are many wild cards lurking around that strategically have more advantages to launch up rapidly in any case of American regression. Because in any cause of American regress its automatic first move would be to weaken its rivals. America was not a rival of the UK and surpassed it, more times not your friends will fuck you over more so than your enemies.
[quote='MrPink' pid='198138' dateline='1334872574']
Many definitions and interpretations of the "superpower" and its characteristics have surfaced over time. For all of their differences, they almost all agree on one thing: the United States is the only one left. The Soviet Union was a worthy rival, as was the British Empire. No equal is left standing today.
Will this change? Possibly. Some would argue that the United States is currently in decline, its golden age having passed nearly half a century ago. They may have a point-one can find quite a few interesting parallels between the modern USA and the late West Roman Empire.
That being said, many cheering for the USA's decline/loss of superpower status do not understand just how far it has to fall and how far other nations will have to climb to change the current status quo. The United States is without a doubt the world's lone super power today, and this will likely remain the case for as long as we're all alive. Their current lead would take many generations to disappear, as it did for Rome. The decline many of us in the manosphere are theorizing about hasn't been ongoing for much more than two generations, if that. This country still has a long way to fall (assuming it continues to fall-that can change too).[/quote]
This is very much true. I am in the camp which views America on the decline but I do concede that from the top of its ladder its a long fall to the bottom. The roman analogy is easily the best. Rome fell yes because it over extended itself and ran its money off fighting wars far flung wars. But Rome largely fell from whiten its society deteriorated to the point its means did not make any sense. how can one conquer if its not stable whiten?
In contrast to the UK whom could say strategically shot its self in the foot. It assumed the USA would be weakened after the war, all other points it had anticipated came true. Japan regressed, Germany eventually regressed also but the UK anticipated the USA would get swallowed up in the heat of battle which it did not. UK was left the USA controlling all of its strategic choke-points and basically just turned off the lights on the UK empire. UK Empire largely would of remained sturdy crazy enough if it sided with the other side. It would of swallowed America and the USSR and Nazi Germany would of eventually been destroyed from whiten.
After this the UK just kinda of floundered like a weak old man. Its still around but its relevance is really just a factor of it holding base in outdated American institutions and piggy backing like you said WHITEN general American policy.
IMO the next Superpower would not even be China, Russia, or India. The USA propelled its self up as a wild card. They are many wild cards lurking around that strategically have more advantages to launch up rapidly in any case of American regression. Because in any cause of American regress its automatic first move would be to weaken its rivals. America was not a rival of the UK and surpassed it, more times not your friends will fuck you over more so than your enemies.
Here's a pic of the rocket just before launch:
![[Image: attachment.jpg5886]](https://rooshvforum.network/attachments/attachment.jpg5886)
Quote: (04-19-2012 09:40 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:
Quote:Quote:
My personal definition of a superpower is one of the five countries holding permanent seats on UN security council, i.e. China, France, Russia, UK and USA.
That's cool, but if we're talking objectively then personal definitions are irrelevant. We have to take a look at the cold hard facts.
The definition of a superpower.
Quote:Quote:
As of right now, there is only one nation on the planet capable of projecting its power simultaneously across every ocean on Earth. There is only one nation on Earth with enough reach (via intelligence networks, military bases, and diplomatic clout) to touch and influence (directly or indirectly) every single solitary nation on the planet at any given time. There is only one nation on Earth capable of spending an amount in a year on defense equivalent to what the next 20 largest powers on Earth are able to spend combined within that same time period (a number 40% of the global total, btw).
The original question was: how far away do you think India is from becoming a superpower?
Quote:Quote:
Quote:Quote:
These countries have the ability to veto security council votes, i.e. they wield a large amount of power.
That does not make a superpower. In fact, we have a different term for the type of nation you are talking about. They are called "Great Powers".
Referring to definition above, a superpower is a nation that wields great influence. The ability to veto is a tool of huge influence.
@ Tuthmosis, why is the Troll Stomper race trolling?
I like it that they made such a technological advancement, but it's stupid that all the media were hooting about how it has the capability of reaching Beijing or Shanghai. India and China have never been at war and don't seem particularly antagonistic (or even too related). It's pointless warmongering.
"Imagine" by HCE | Hitler reacts to Battle of Montreal | An alternative use for squid that has never crossed your mind before
Quote: (04-20-2012 03:33 AM)MrPink Wrote:
The definition of a superpower.
The facts go much deeper than this vague, generic definition. Analyses of the term "superpower" by actual scholars of International Politics would tell you much more.
Try this, this, this and this.
Going by the majority of academic definitions of the term "superpower" (all of which are a lot more expansive than the one in that dictionary), there is no other nation aside from the USA that can claim the term.
Quote:Quote:
The original question was: how far away do you think India is from becoming a superpower?
India's youth gives it an advantage.
The west is already aging heavily, and is going to have to rely heavily on immigrants from developing nations to hold itself up in the next few decades. This will present serious demographic and social challenges (ex: "browing" or Europe and America, as some call it-not all are happy about this). It will also slow these nations down economically.
China is going to deal with this as well. Their fertility rate has dropped dramatically due to the one child policy. We have not seen the effects just yet because the drop took place more recently than in the west, and members of the last boom generation are still in their 30's and 40's (read: young enough to continue driving the labor force China depends on). In the next couple of decades, however, China is going to start aging dramatically, getting closer to a more European demographic state. That alone is going to severely threaten and quite probably end its impressive run of economic growth-labor will become scarcer and more expensive, and the manufacturing economy China depends on might become less competitive.
India won't have this problem, because it still has plenty of young people thanks to a relatively high fertility rate. This is something that often irks me when it comes to commentators on India's demographic situation. They often say that India is vastly overpopulated, and that the current high fertility rates are actually holding the nation back.
They put the cart before the horse-that fertility is the nation's greatest asset right now in any competition it may have with China to become a superpower. Wealth proceeds population decline, not the reverse. People see that the west has lower fertility and assume that fewer births = more riches, when in actuality most developed nations with low fertility became wealthy first (most commonly during the middle of the 20th century) and then saw their fertility rates and family structures shift accordingly. It was their massive populations (large labor forces) that allowed them to become wealthy in the first place.
This tells us that a) India's fertility rate won't decline until it becomes very wealthy and b) a decline below replacement level would do more harm than good, as India would just put itself on track to end up like Europe and soon (give it a couple of decades) China-an old, declining power with too small a labor force to remain economically competitive.
Bottomline: India has a decent shot. It has tremendous disadvantages (poverty, corruption, inequality), but invaluable advantages (high fertility, size). Whether or not it becomes a superpower will depend in large part on how the nations plays to these advantages, especially relative to what China will be going through during the next century.
If India follows the Chinese way and ends up with sub-replacement fertility, I would expect it to fall short of the superpower standard the US currently maintains (something China may also be set to do).
If it can balance its advantages with its current disadvantages and against any path china takes in the next few decades, it can do well. There is plenty of potential there, but its realization is far from a given.
Quote:Quote:
Referring to definition above, a superpower is a nation that wields great influence. The ability to veto is a tool of huge influence.
A superpower, on a very basic level, must be able to project its influence across the globe at any given time, simultaneously if need be. A superpower can enforce its will on any state on Earth, and largely have that will respected.
There is only one nation on Earth that can do this. Veto power at the UN is not a sign of a superpower. A great power, sure, but nothing more.
I won't even go into arguments regarding the merits of the United Nations, or lack thereof.
Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and victory. Know thy enemy but not yourself, wallow in defeat every time.
Quote: (04-20-2012 03:44 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:
I like it that they made such a technological advancement, but it's stupid that all the media were hooting about how it has the capability of reaching Beijing or Shanghai. India and China have never been at war and don't seem particularly antagonistic (or even too related). It's pointless warmongering.
Sino-Indian War. They still have significant territorial disputes.
Interesting, had no clue about that. Thanks!
"Imagine" by HCE | Hitler reacts to Battle of Montreal | An alternative use for squid that has never crossed your mind before
Quote: (04-20-2012 03:24 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:
Bottomline: India has a decent shot. It has tremendous disadvantages (poverty, corruption, inequality), but invaluable advantages (high fertility, size). Whether or not it becomes a superpower will depend in large part on how the nations plays to these advantages, especially relative to what China will be going through during the next century.
If India follows the Chinese way and ends up with sub-replacement fertility, I would expect it to fall short of the superpower standard the US currently maintains (something China may also be set to do).
In other words, a possibility exists, depending on how USA and China fare over the next few decades?
Quote:Quote:
Wealth proceeds population decline, not the reverse. People see that the west has lower fertility and assume that fewer births = more riches, when in actuality most developed nations with low fertility became wealthy first (most commonly during the middle of the 20th century) and then saw their fertility rates and family structures shift accordingly. It was their massive populations (large labor forces) that allowed them to become wealthy in the first place.
I think you mean PREcede? Either makes sense in the context of this paragraph but convey slightly different meanings.
To sidetrack a little, population is an interesting thing. As we are taught in school and university, having more children makes you poorer. At a personal level this may be true. More children means parents spending more on healthcare, education, and providing for the needs of children, i.e. less disposable income. This attitude neglects the effect a decreasing population has on the workforce and productivity of a country.
Quote:Quote:
It has tremendous disadvantages (poverty, corruption, inequality)
Regarding India's productivity, I think a key contributor to it is the caste system. Despite the restrictions placed by the caste system being abolished officially, it still pervades Indian culture. For example, a farmer is born into a family of farmers and culture discourages the farmer's child from ever becoming a doctor. It's not a fair system to the people affected, but in the bigger picture, it prevents the country from being too oriented to a certain form of production, such as manufacturing. Therefore it promotes a balanced economy.
Corruption to may have its advantages, especially with regards to productivity. One of the reasons why I love Africa so much is because there are lower limits to my productivity here than there would be in North America or Europe. Cash cuts all red tape, although I'm beginning to feel as though Africa is the World's whore, and the US and China are her pimps.
Quote:Quote:
They often say that India is vastly overpopulated, and that the current high fertility rates are actually holding the nation back.
An issue with population, especially large populations is the strain a larger population places on the natural and man-made environment. Water resources become more scarce with increasing demand, and pollution of water sources also becomes an issue. Greater populations need more land to live on, and reduce the available land for food production (this is only considering the effects of humans on themselves). While increased productivity = increased innovation = more economical use of resources, there IS a limit to the actual quantity of resource (land, water, food).
I do however agree with you that population is an asset rather than a liability, when managed properly.
Quote:Quote:
China is going to start aging dramatically, getting closer to a more European demographic state. That alone is going to severely threaten and quite probably end its impressive run of economic growth-labor will become scarcer and more expensive, and the manufacturing economy China depends on might become less competitive.
China does have a HUGE population. The effect of a decreasing population may only be felt quite far into the future. Also, the one child policy may be revised in 2015. China may start becoming a haven for immigrants if this is the case.
![[Image: China_Pop_Pyramid_Forecast.gif]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/China_Pop_Pyramid_Forecast.gif)
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)