Poll of the Day > Which is the most powerful country in the world?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Which is the most powerful country in the world?

---

Of those, China.

---

depends what you mean by power

In terms of all out war many nations are pretty equal in the sense that the entire planet gets nuked... ... which in a weird way might make Canada and Russia the better survivors since we have large landmasses with no people in them that might not get nuked...

...Unless there's a Pity Nuke Contingency or something.... are nations really that petty?

...

In terms of conventional warfare the United States is the strongest by a long shot, with 2nd place weirdly being a tie between Italy and China.

I have no idea why Italy has such a strong conventional military tho.... :V That's really weird.

---

Wakanda

---

that one place on mars i forgot the name ( you never said this world)

---

Probably China.

---

Troll topic, given that the US was left off. However, after the US, it's probably either China or Russia. After that, maybe Germany or France?

The US leads the world in military strength, being several levels above its nearest competitors. I know China and Russia are #2 and #3, but I can't remember which of them has the more relevant military. In terms of geopolitical influence, China probably tops Russia but China's economy is a house of cards and there are so many fucking bubbles there that could collapse at any minute (it makes most Western nations look stable by comparison). And China's expansionist ambitions have largely gone unchecked by the gutless Western powers. Trump has come to the closest to actually doing something about China, but even he hasn't adequately taken them to task and now that Beijing Biden is in office, you can't expect anything.

Lokarin posted...

In terms of conventional warfare the United States is the strongest by a long shot, with 2nd place weirdly being a tie between Italy and China.

Offhand, I can't recall anything putting Italy close to the lead. And just trying to google it right now, I can't seem to find a single list that puts Italy in the top 10, let alone top 3. And this includes less authoritative lists.

https://www.businessinsider.com/most-powerful-militaries-in-the-world-ranked-2019-9#11-italy-15

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/02/24/5-most-powerful-armies-world.html

https://www.army-technology.com/features/strongest-militaries-in-2019/


---

Zeus posted...

And China's expansionist ambitions have largely gone unchecked by the gutless Western powers.

Yeah, aside from the ideas of "free Tibet" and "free Nepal", there seems to be very little attention on China trying to acquire land from other neighbouring countries.

---

It's clearly the US whether you mean by military strength or cultural influence

---

Zeus posted...

Offhand, I can't recall anything putting Italy close to the lead. And just trying to google it right now, I can't seem to find a single list that puts Italy in the top 10, let alone top 3. And this includes less authoritative lists.

I based it solely on operational Aircraft Carriers, of which they have 2.

---

Lokarin posted...

I based it solely on operational Aircraft Carriers, of which they have 2.

lolwut? Given that the UK also has 2, why would you put Italy over the UK which ranks higher in other metrics? And iirc Japan has 2 now as well.

---

On the list it's China and it's not even close. China is literally setting its self up to be the next super power and people are still going "lol China's not a threat"

---

I answered Israel, because it's funded by and gets its way with the USA.

Slaya4 posted...

On the list it's China and it's not even close. China is literally setting its self up to be the next super power and people are still going "lol China's not a threat"

Well, don't blame General MacArthur. If Truman hadn't wussed out we wouldn't be in this mess. Blame the latter and Jimmy Carter for this pickle. The Simpsons didn't know it, but referring to Carter as "history's greatest monster" may prove accurate when we're fighting WWIII against a monster he allowed to rise.

Raddest_Chad posted...

Well, don't blame General MacArthur. If Truman hadn't wussed out we wouldn't be in this mess. Blame the latter and Jimmy Carter for this pickle. The Simpsons didn't know it, but referring to Carter as "history's greatest monster" may prove accurate when we're fighting WWIII against a monster he allowed to rise.

No. It would likely be Obama and possibly Bush Jr. who would be to blame. Until recently China, despite being large, was relatively undeveloped. It may have had a lot of people but it simply didn't have the infrastructure to be able to function as a world power. However due to multiple great trade deals and a lack of checks on their power they've been allowed to effectively explode military-wise. Now not only are their cities developed but their military is modernized and arguably beats the U.S. in certain areas while having a larger population pool to draw from. Removing nukes from the equation if the U.S. and China went at it now while the former might win the cost would be heaaaavy. Compared to a similar bout in 2000 or 2010 in which the U.S. would likely see a situation similar to the Iraq war in terms of how the war would play out (in that the standing armies would be quickly overwhelmed leading to the capture of almost all key points and leaving the remaining forces stuck in gruella warfare to cling on).

---

Unbridled9 posted...

No. It would likely be Obama and possibly Bush Jr. who would be to blame. Until recently China, despite being large, was relatively undeveloped. It may have had a lot of people but it simply didn't have the infrastructure to be able to function as a world power. However due to multiple great trade deals and a lack of checks on their power they've been allowed to effectively explode military-wise. Now not only are their cities developed but their military is modernized and arguably beats the U.S. in certain areas while having a larger population pool to draw from. Removing nukes from the equation if the U.S. and China went at it now while the former might win the cost would be heaaaavy. Compared to a similar bout in 2000 or 2010 in which the U.S. would likely see a situation similar to the Iraq war in terms of how the war would play out (in that the standing armies would be quickly overwhelmed leading to the capture of almost all key points and leaving the remaining forces stuck in gruella warfare to cling on).

Uhh you realize America spends way more on the military than anyone else, right? China might have a bigger population but America would wipe the floor with them if a war broke out. Why do you think WWIII hasn't happened yet? Because America would win and no one wants to start a war they know they can't win, that's why they stick to proxy wars

---

Muscles posted...

Uhh you realize America spends way more on the military than anyone else, right? China might have a bigger population but America would wipe the floor with them if a war broke out. Why do you think WWIII hasn't happened yet? Because America would win and no one wants to start a war they know they can't win, that's why they stick to proxy wars

I hate to say it but this isn't true.

Or rather it IS but not to the degree you're thinking. First off, a war between China would heavily involve naval might and transport. Even if the U.S. successfully cleared and claimed the seas it could only bring over troops in set, relatively small, amounts at a time while China would be capable of leveraging its fully military for defense. The only way this would get migitated would be if the U.S. built up its invasion force in Japan/SK/Philippeans beforehand and China didn't do anything in response. While the U.S. is a massive naval power and easily the most powerful in the world, it's might is based around air-craft carriers which China has specifically been developing anti-carrier missiles and systems for. Additionally the islands its building in the SCS function effectively as stationary, unsinkable, carriers. While they aren't much use for offense unless China plans on invading its southern island neighbors for defense they're amazing since they make it so that their aircraft can function from multiple points without fear of them being sunk in return. While the Navy might win it would NOT be the curbstomping you're thinking of.

Even if the Navy wins and the airforce wins its fights the army is bottlenecked due to transport and would either need to go through North Korea, Vietnam, or establish a beachhead elsewhere to fight inwards against the full might of the chinese army. Even if they win it won't be the 'wipe the floor' you're thinking of. Especially if China's allies get involved. North Korea alone would make a land invasion vastly more difficult and China has Russia and multiple asian allies as well. Of course America has allies too and India, Japan, and South Korea alone would be a massive boon to say nothing of nations like the Phillipeans, Australia, and possibly even Vietnam as well as the EU (which would hamper Russia's desire to join).

The real 'killer' for China wouldn't be technology though but, rather, corruption and political infighting. The fact is that China's military is hampered by an over-focus on ideology and its leadership is rife with corruption. When the war happens the single greatest asset the U.S. will have against China is the fact that Chinese leadership will likely end up rendered reduced in effectiveness due to those things.

I'm discounting nukes here since they're such a wild card and we have not seen a nuclear war yet making predicting the outcome difficult.

---

Uhh if China thought they had a chance to win a war they would have started it already, they absolutely despise us, and the western world as a whole. They're pretty much a real world Mordor

---

USA: Goes without saying. Biggest economy, biggest military, massive tech sector and major cultural contributor. Pretty much checks all the superpower boxes.

China: World industrial base, pretty much everything is made here. Politics frequently influences US corporations like the NBA & Hollywood studios. Growing military and world influence, especially in developing countries.

Japan: 3rd largest economy (although, incredibly inefficient). Massive cultural contributor with video games, anime & other associated media.

Germany: Richest EU country. Along with France, Germany pretty much dictates EU policy.

Russia: A bit overated as a power, since the country is pretty much ice & oil with a pretty weak economy (it is even weaker than Italy). But the country has excellent psyops, so seems more powerful than it really is. Does have global ambitions however.


---

Powerful? Any country with nukes. Powerful? The country with a high or the highest GDP. Powerful? The country with the most people willing to fight for it.

---

The US

---

Isn't air supremacy the leading measure for a country's power? That's why US is still still at the top of the list?

---

DragonClaw01 posted...

USA: Goes without saying. Biggest economy, biggest military, massive tech sector and major cultural contributor. Pretty much checks all the superpower boxes.

China: World industrial base, pretty much everything is made here. Politics frequently influences US corporations like the NBA & Hollywood studios. Growing military and world influence, especially in developing countries.

Japan: 3rd largest economy (although, incredibly inefficient). Massive cultural contributor with video games, anime & other associated media.

Germany: Richest EU country. Along with France, Germany pretty much dictates EU policy.

Russia: A bit overated as a power, since the country is pretty much ice & oil with a pretty weak economy (it is even weaker than Italy). But the country has excellent psyops, so seems more powerful than it really is. Does have global ambitions however.

Seems weird to not see the UK on that list, they have pretty much been the world's greatest empire until WWII and even then it seemed like they dropped down to America's sidekick. Obviously they got passed up by Russia and China in military strength but they still seem to have a huge influence on the world, more than anyone (besides America) culturally

---

Muscles posted...

Uhh if China thought they had a chance to win a war they would have started it already, they absolutely despise us, and the western world as a whole. They're pretty much a real world Mordor

That's... really stupid. If America thought they had a chance to win a war they would have started it already. They absolutely despite China and Communism as a whole. They're pretty much a real world Gondor.

See how that doesn't really make sense?

The fact is that a war between America and China would be destructive on both ends regardless of who wins. Nukes aside (and that's a MASSIVE aside), regardless of who wins there would be a massive destruction of infrastructure and loss of life on both sides. That's not to mention that it would, effectively, be WWIII. Neither side is eager to kick off WWIII.

---

Muscles posted...

Seems weird to not see the UK on that list, they have pretty much been the world's greatest empire until WWII and even then it seemed like they dropped down to America's sidekick. Obviously they got passed up by Russia and China in military strength but they still seem to have a huge influence on the world, more than anyone (besides America) culturally

Yeah, culturally UK is definitely a strong 3rd in my book (maybe even second depending how you weight certain things), but they just don't have the global influence they used to, so they feel pretty weak compared to the other powers listed. They really do feel mostly on their own now. Germany is much more influential to me because they have a strong hand in shaping how a lot of the EU operates, so they feel more of player.

---

America would definitely be hurt by a war, which is why they wouldn't do it, China has no problem torturing their own citizens for calling their dark lord Winnie the pooh so they most certainly wouldn't give a shit about how many lives they lost in a war, the only thing holding them back is they know it would end in defeat, America is held back because they don't want a senseless war that would cost them a lot lives (and money) just to prove they're still top dog

America has nothing to gain from war with china, China does

---

Unbridled9 posted...

However due to multiple great trade deals and a lack of checks on their power they've been allowed to effectively explode military-wise. Now not only are their cities developed but their military is modernized and arguably beats the U.S. in certain areas while having a larger population pool to draw from.

China's military doesn't beat the US in the areas that matter. Even when you add China and Russia's aircraft count together, it's still roughly half that of the US (or equal to it, in the case of fighters). China and Russia are both focused on ground forces, which haven't been a deciding factor in warfare in ages. And in many cases the reason why the US has fewer of a certain type than China today is because those things are outmoded.

And China and Russia's focus on ground forces (as well as India's) is mostly relevant because they're neighbors and they're all basically playing the same game. It's like a group of people with swords who choose to battle with them. It works great against other swords, but what happens when people bring guns?

Unbridled9 posted...

Or rather it IS but not to the degree you're thinking. First off, a war between China would heavily involve naval might and transport.

That's 1950s thinking, although even back then conventional naval warfare was being replaced by aerial warfare. China is out there building warships when it should be doing air carriers.

Unbridled9 posted...

That's... really stupid. If America thought they had a chance to win a war they would have started it already. They absolutely despite China and Communism as a whole. They're pretty much a real world Gondor.

Modern China is expansionist, modern America really isn't. It's pretty evident through their series of technical border violations and illegal seizures. While trade is often more profitable than war, I honestly wouldn't put it past Chairman Xi to try to conquer as much land as he could if he could do so easily. You don't really have that same sentiment in American politics; in fact, the opposite is true.

That said, given the costs and unpopularity of war, even if a full measure of China's atrocities became known, it's unlikely that you'd see military intervention since we don't even see that in NK.

---

Zeus posted...

lolwut? Given that the UK also has 2, why would you put Italy over the UK which ranks higher in other metrics? And iirc Japan has 2 now as well.

You could be right, my "intel" (google) claims the UK and Japanese carriers are in reserve right now, only Italty and China are operational

America has 9 Operational and 1 in reserve IIRC

---

Muscles posted...

Uhh if China thought they had a chance to win a war they would have started it already, they absolutely despise us, and the western world as a whole. They're pretty much a real world Mordor

The US is significantly more valuable as a trade partner for China than whatever was left after a war would be, especially considering what such a war would do to their ability to trade with the rest of the world. China's economy is now largely self-sufficient, should the need for them to exist without trading with other countries ever arise, but that doesn't mean they want to create such a situation (particularly considering how costly such a war would be for all involved parties).

---

Mostly referring to military...

1. US
2. China
3. Russia
4. India (not as advanced, but it still has size and nukes)
5. UK
6. France
7. Pakistan
8. Israel
9. North Korea
10. South Korea
11. Turkey
12. Vietnam/Egypt/Iran

---

adjl posted...

China's economy is now largely self-sufficient,

It's really not. Self-reliance and self-sufficiency might be their end goal, but the country nowhere close to it and currently has a massive number of economic bubbles.

---

adjl posted...

The US is significantly more valuable as a trade partner for China than whatever was left after a war would be, especially considering what such a war would do to their ability to trade with the rest of the world. China's economy is now largely self-sufficient, should the need for them to exist without trading with other countries ever arise, but that doesn't mean they want to create such a situation (particularly considering how costly such a war would be for all involved parties).

China probably has plans to conquer the whole world, you know they really like taking land that isn't theirs and imposing their rule on anyone they can. If they had it their way everyone in the world would be under the thumb of the ccp, what's it with authoritarians and wanting to screw over as many people as possible?

---

Even if the US was on that list, I'd still vote China.

---

ENGLAAAAAAND (the rest doesn't matter)
---

China's military doesn't beat the US in the areas that matter. Even when you add China and Russia's aircraft count together, it's still roughly half that of the US (or equal to it, in the case of fighters). China and Russia are both focused on ground forces, which haven't been a deciding factor in warfare in ages. And in many cases the reason why the US has fewer of a certain type than China today is because those things are outmoded.

And China and Russia's focus on ground forces (as well as India's) is mostly relevant because they're neighbors and they're all basically playing the same game. It's like a group of people with swords who choose to battle with them. It works great against other swords, but what happens when people bring guns?

Here's the thing. America may have more aircraft and arguably better aircraft (I'm not going to get into trying to figure out how truthful Chinese propoganda is about their newest craft) but it has one key disadvantage. In order to attack China with those aircraft it has to first get the aircraft THERE. Now, TBF, America has the largest carrier fleet in the world by miles and its navy is trained and experienced in offering proper support for said carriers; but that still means they can only field as many aircraft as their carriers can carry. Meanwhile China will not only be able to deploy all its aircraft; but it doesn't need aircraft designed for carrier take-offs and landings because it can utilize land-based ones. Additionally the artificial islands its been making in the SCS function effectively as unsinkable, immobile, carriers. That's why their presence is such a huge issue. Because with them China gains a ton of defensive power due to these landing strips.

And ground forces are EXTREMELY important. We'd like to think we can win a war without deploying ground troops or only as a clean-up option; but that's simply not the case. You can't occupy a street corner with an aircraft and all you need to get a 'soldier' is a rifle and a willing body. Aircraft cost millions of dollars and have multiple key vulnerabilities. They're valuable and powerful but also limited.

That's 1950s thinking, although even back then conventional naval warfare was being replaced by aerial warfare. China is out there building warships when it should be doing air carriers.

I'm actually not so sure. Notice that we've been taking constantly about how the battle field is, effectively, America on the offensive with China on the defensive. There's a good reason for that. Because China doesn't have the transport capacity to consider launching an offensive action against America and, even if it did, it would be stuck in a massive uphill battle with the worlds strongest navy only to land in a nation where even the civilians have a decent chance of owning at least a handgun only to engage in a massive slog across both the Rockies, the desert, and the like to reach the capitol. Worse, even if they were successful initially and captured the west coast most of the infrastructure is on the EAST coast so their blow would be drastically weakened. Meanwhile the same isn't true in reverse as most of China's major cities lie on rivers and coastal water areas on it's eastern seaboard.

Basically, China isn't going on the offensive and both America and China know that. At most it might invade Japan, Hawaii, and Alaska but it would be far better served just bombing and running than trying to occupy. As a result it's a matter of defensive actions here on China's behalf. With the island runways and mainland airstrips it simply doesn't NEED that many carriers to mount a defense. It's naval production is better served with warships since its air base needs are met by land-based strips.

That said, given the costs and unpopularity of war, even if a full measure of China's atrocities became known, it's unlikely that you'd see military intervention since we don't even see that in NK.

Agreed. All those people who say they'd oppose the nazi's come hell or high water but then turn a blind eye to what China's doing and even come to it's defense when people criticize the CCP's treatment of its various groups are bloody hypocrites. Heck, it's not even HIDDEN at this point. The fact is people won't acknowledge something is an issue until they see it directly then pretend like they would have done everything possible to help after the fact.

It's really not. Self-reliance and self-sufficiency might be their end goal, but the country nowhere close to it and currently has a massive number of economic bubbles.

I'm not so convinced. I mean, I WOULD say you're right if we were dealing with a civil, modern, nation; but we're dealing with one that has no problem forcing it's groups into slave labor, harvesting dissenters for organs, engaging in brutal military lockdowns, and everything else. I suspect we'd likely see the CCP simply force all its citizens to either work in effective slave labor or fight.

For the record here's what I think a war between them would look like; discounting nukes and assuming full support from the citizenry and no allies on either side. We'd see a massive amount of naval skirmishes with the U.S. beating back Chinese ships when caught without aircraft and engaging in costly, but victorious, air battles as they engage in a slow push through the SCS and it's associated islands. Once the oceans are caught we'd likely see heavy bombardment of the mainland focusing on airstrips, missile sites, and infrastructure. This will likely extend to civilian buildings though they won't be the primary target. At this point either a peace deal will be reached, a land invasion will happen, or the U.S. will be unable to keep the pressure up and be forced back. In the first we can expect a white peace with many a few concessions by China. I'd expect the loss of the SCS and some trade concessions they won't likely honor with MAYBE recognition of Taiwan's independence if things work out in America's favor. If the land invasion happens we'd see a build-up of troops for shipping on America's side and heavy beach fortification on China's side. At that point it's a matter of if China guesses the right beach or not as to if the invasion succeeds or fails. If America succeeds we'll see a costly ground campaign pushing towards Bejing before potentially an unconditional surrender. If we're lucky that will be the end of it but much more likely we'll see CCP holdouts that will continue to fight for years, if not decades, after the fact. If the U.S. is unable to maintain pressure we'll likely see a rising toll on ships as they slowly get whittled down by missiles and, eventually, America needing to back off due to an inability to provide full logicistical support resulting in a peace almost certainly favorable to China.

---

I should throw in that, as technology progresses, we move towards a situation in which there simply will be a whole new style of war that neither side can predict the outcome of. Drones are already changing the face of warfare and it won't be long before it simply won't resemble anything like what we've seen before. At that point it's anybody's guess.

---

Israel since they control the US.

You make some good points Unbridled but I'd like to point out that the US has fully operational bases in southeast Asia. They already have a sizeable force at-the-ready in Japan and Korea, as well as other areas in the region

They wouldn't have to mount their entire Air Force from the States in order to meet Chinese forces. The US is already at their doorstep. They'd maneuver in reinforcements/support, which could take a month or so but there is already a significant military presence in the region, and with reconnaissance being what it is, the US would likely have things positioned far in advance of a war kicking off (monitoring troop movement/activity, espionage, etc). If China activated a large force and sent them to the coast/air bases, the world would know something was up and start strategizing and positioning a response force even as diplomatic undertakings begin.

And while the US alone is capable of carrying their weight in conflict, one would be remiss to discount the impact of allied forces, of which the US has many and could expect their support especially in a situation where China was the aggressor. China would be hard-pressed to even attempt an invasion of Japan, let alone Alaska or Hawaii.

---

Ch-Ch-China

---

Left off the #1. But of those China.

---

The undiscovered country, from whose bourn no traveler returns.
---