[Politricks]

(Original post by Aj12)
The Indian army is a state right now and would likely fall apart if it went to war.

Can you link me to an article or a report which talks about that please?

[Elwyn]

(Original post by noisy06)
Well, good to know you can access wiki. Just so you know, no nation is going to reach the US for at least 2 decades, even then China might only dominate the Far East, maybe as far down Australia. But the US is likely to stay the single global superpower, they will never be caught by India. In fact it's more likely that India's influence might decrease if China and Pakistan pair up to contain India's sphere of influence. How in the world can India do anything when it has a nuclear armed Pakistan on one side, an China on the other? Don't be ridiculous. India is not going anywhere any time soon.

If you look at my original post I said they would gain superpower status in the next few decades, not that they are now. The east is going to become more powerful than the US, it's just a matter of when.

I'll just leave it there, I can tell from your rep this discussion isn't worth my time.

[noisy06]

(Original post by Elwyn)
If you look at my original post I said they would gain superpower status in the next few decades, not that they are now. The east is going to become more powerful than the US, it's just a matter of when.

I'll just leave it there, I can tell from your rep this discussion isn't worth my time.

I know exactly what you said, but India will not be a "superpower", China is the regional power and will probably remain that way in the East.

Actually, I could probably tell from your learning institution that this discussion is not worth my time. I'd rather have a crappy TSR rep but a better uni. See, I can be elitist as well.

[Stalin]

(Original post by Herr)
Germany has a technologically advanced military. It is also a NATO member so it essentially can draw upon very good allies. I'm pretty sure if tomorrow Germany decided they wanted to ignore any legacies from WW2 (in reality there isn't anything stopping them from doing so) and start building up a military it won't be long before they can have one that is every bit as good as the world's best.

India has the advantage of numbers, but it doesn't have the ability to do anything more than perhaps go into an armed conflict with it's neighbours, even then it would probably be a border region only conflict.

Germany has no way of projecting its power to the Indian Ocean.

[math1234]

(Original post by noisy06)
The are never ever going to be a superpower. They won't even be a regional power. Do you have any idea what a superpower is?

Indian economy depends on outsourcing due to which they are devaluing their currency against US dollar from past 8 months.
Plus, India is too much occupied by its own internal revolutions for independence such as in Asam, Kashmir etc someone above said that $3=90 rupees per week is sufficient for an indian farmer if it is true then why in Andhra Pradesh every year thousands of farmers commit suicide?
Also, someone said that India helped in catching bin laden then I don't understand that for whom the Pakistani army is fighting for & why the heck US acknowledged and appreciated the sacrifices & struggle in kerry lugar bill & on several other occasions as well Why US needed to take indian help in catching bin laden whereas US has its own base in Pakistan where they have all modern weapons and radar jamming equipments etc, so logically it doesn't make any sense for taking help from India who still imports military logistics.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Prepare-Yourself]

Germany have Metsesacker, end of.

[SnoochToTheBooch]

(Original post by TheHansa)
India has nukes so I'm going with them

wow, I just googled it and it seems hardly any countries have nukes. I just assumed most of the developed nations had them. It never crossed my mind that Germany didn't.

[Stalin]

(Original post by noisy06)
I know exactly what you said, but India will not be a "superpower", China is the regional power and will probably remain that way in the East.

Actually, I could probably tell from your learning institution that this discussion is not worth my time. I'd rather have a crappy TSR rep but a better uni. See, I can be elitist as well.

That depends on how you define the term 'superpower'. In comparison, how 'super' is the U.S., its gargantuan defence budget, its 700 odd military basis around the world, its 10 supercarriers, its stealth aircraft, et cetera if a country - India - which you claim will never be a superpower has the capability of defeating it by ending the world?

[Stalin]

(Original post by Elwyn)
India is one of the most powerful nations in the world, far more so than us. They'll gain superpower status along with China and Russia at some point in the next few decades.

Global Firepower is a good website for this sort of thing.... http://www.globalfirepower.com/

I wouldn't pay much, if any, attention to a website claiming that Iran is the world's 12th power, whilst Saudi Arabia is 26th.

[Politricks]

(Original post by umarrehman187)
well everything american do, india is like the backside of them from hollywood to bollywood they copy everything even speak english loooool so i guess they would go running to america just like they did when pakistani nearly beat thier ass in kargil or summit (but obv they made a film to show indian people won, when actually thier prime misnister at that time told america to help)

but if america has indias back, then I guess india wins

Well, in 1971, America was supportive of Pakistan during the Bangladesh liberation war, yet somehow 90,000 Pakistani troops surrendered to India?

Edit: By the way, Pakistani troops retreated in Kargil, and India regained control of the territory, I think mummy and daddy have fed you a sugar-coated version of history.

[Stalin]

(Original post by perfectsymbology)
The only way to truly find out is to start a war and put it to the test. The American military got severely found out in Iraq despite their all their massive massive military spending and training.

The U.S. military defeated the Iraqi military in less than 14 days; warfare and nation-building are two completely different things.

[noisy06]

(Original post by Stalin)
That depends on how you define the term 'superpower'. In comparison, how 'super' is the U.S., its gargantuan defence budget, its 700 odd military basis around the world, its 10 supercarriers, its stealth aircraft, et cetera if a country - India - which you claim will never be a superpower has the capability of defeating it by ending the world?

Well, a superpower projects global influence, and has the ability to influence and shape foreign affairs around the world. That's why the US is the sole superpower of the world at the moment and in the foreseeable future. If the US wants to do something, there;s no country at the moment that can stand in its way. Back in the cold war, the Soviet Union kept the US in check and prevented the US from having direct influence on world affairs (many examples I can give here). But right now, there is no country that can rein in US unilateral action, no nation. The US runs the world at the moment unchecked, it can literally do as it pleases with little repercussions short of trying to invade nuclear armed states. Even when Russia invaded Georgia, the US told the Russians to stop its tanks from advancing any further into Georgia and immediately the tanks turned around. The mere threat of US intervention leaves anyone quaking in their boots.

[TRS-T]

Would an Asian army would have a physical disadvantage going up against a European army?

[DynamicSyngery]

(Original post by Stalin)
That depends on how you define the term 'superpower'. In comparison, how 'super' is the U.S., its gargantuan defence budget, its 700 odd military basis around the world, its 10 supercarriers, its stealth aircraft, et cetera if a country - India - which you claim will never be a superpower has the capability of defeating it by ending the world?

I don't think India can do that. It doesn't have enough bombs or good enough delivery systems. The same was also true of China until very recently (and may still be). PRC, India and Pakistan have been very much third rate nuclear powers historically. The 'medium powers that can end the world' category is strictly limited to Britain and France, I think.

---

Though, I would still say India is more powerful than Germany. Perhaps not in a short land war across a shared border, but since that is out, India has the strategic advantage with a more powerful navy and a nuclear capability that is still much better than none at all.

[Stalin]

(Original post by noisy06)
Well, a superpower projects global influence, and has the ability to influence and shape foreign affairs around the world. That's why the US is the sole superpower of the world at the moment and in the foreseeable future. If the US wants to do something, there;s no country at the moment that can stand in its way. Back in the cold war, the Soviet Union kept the US in check and prevented the US from having direct influence on world affairs (many examples I can give here). But right now, there is no country that can rein in US unilateral action, no nation. The US runs the world at the moment unchecked, it can literally do as it pleases with little repercussions short of trying to invade nuclear armed states. Even when Russia invaded Georgia, the US told the Russians to stop its tanks from advancing any further into Georgia and immediately the tanks turned around. The mere threat of US intervention leaves anyone quaking in their boots.

How stunningly superficial.

Where is Washington's unilateral action in Syria? If it is the world's sole superpower, why does it take Moscow's bark into account?

And as far as the Russo-Georgian war is concerned, Russia achieved its objectives: removing the Georgian military from Abkhazia and South Ossetia (both territories are no longer ruled from Tblisi). Are we to believe that the U.S. let Russia have them?

[noisy06]

(Original post by Stalin)
How stunningly superficial.

Where is Washington's unilateral action in Syria? If it is the world's sole superpower, why does it take Moscow's bark into account?

And as far as the Russo-Georgian war is concerned, Russia achieved its objectives: removing the Georgian military from Abkhazia and South Ossetia (both territories are no longer ruled from Tblisi). Are we to believe that the U.S. let Russia have them?

You must be out of your mind if you think the US can't take unilateral action on Syria. You are somehow getting a picture that the US wants to but somehow cannot because of the Russian barking. That is completely and utterly incorrect. If the US really wanted they could start action on Syria tomorrow without caring much about the Russians, but they don't see what's in it for them. In fact, Obama has an election coming up, I can guarantee you that the last thing he wants to do is start a conflict with the Syrian govt, remove Assad from office and let in Sunni militants. They're just playing games with the media and people like yourself. The US is capable of doing as it pleases, it's very important to recognize that, as does the US congress. The republicans certainly know this very well. That's why there is a lot of chest beating by people like John Mccain and the Republican establishment. No-one can stop them if they really wanted.

The US drove Russia out of Georgia after the Russians told Condoleeza Rice that they wanted a to change Georgia's regime and take over the capital. George Bush literally turned the tanks around himself when he came out and stated that the US is bringing "humanitarian supplies" to Georgia, which basically meant special forces. The Russians had to dance to America's tune. If you don't believe me there's a documentary about this incident on the BBC with interviews from Russia's foreign minister Lavrov and Condoleeza Rice.

[Stalin]

(Original post by DynamicSyngery)
I don't think India can do that. It doesn't have enough bombs or good enough delivery systems. The same was also true of China until very recently (and may still be). PRC, India and Pakistan have been very much third rate nuclear powers historically. The 'medium powers that can end the world' category is strictly limited to Britain and France, I think.

---

Though, I would still say India is more powerful than Germany. Perhaps not in a short land war across a shared border, but since that is out, India has the strategic advantage with a more powerful navy and a nuclear capability that is still much better than none at all.

The Indian Navy's cruise missiles have a range of 1500km and can be equipped with 200kg nuclear warheads. Send a few America's way, a few China's way, a few Europe's way, a few the Persian Gulf's way and before ending the world, you'll have by far the world's greatest economic disaster, but quite possibly the rest of the nuclear powers using their nukes, which could easily result in a nuclear winter.

[Stalin]

(Original post by noisy06)
You must be out of your mind if you think the US can't take unilateral action on Syria. You are somehow getting a picture that the US wants to but somehow cannot because of the Russian barking. That is completely and utterly incorrect. If the US really wanted they could start action on Syria tomorrow without caring much about the Russians, but they don't see what's in it for them. In fact, Obama has an election coming up, I can guarantee you that the last thing he wants to do is start a conflict with the Syrian govt, remove Assad from office and let in Sunni militants. They're just playing games with the media and people like yourself. The US is capable of doing as it pleases, it's very important to recognize that, as does the US congress. The republicans certainly know this very well. That's why there is a lot of chest beating by people like John Mccain and the Republican establishment. No-one can stop them if they really wanted

It could, theoretically, take unilateral action, just as Turkey, Britain, Iraq or Cyprus could. But by unilateral action I would have assumed that you seriously believed that the U.S., with its debt at 103% of its GDP and extremely fragile economy, could invade Syria, do whatever it pleased and leave practically unscathed. Perhaps you haven't noticed but wounds are yet to have been healed when the U.S. left Iraq, and haven't yet been examined on the U.S. anatomy when it leaves Afghanistan. The fact that is that it will have to downsize its military drastically - the first sign of a superpower going down the pan. I think it will remain a superpower throughout the 21st century, but it won't be the only one and thus won't be able to take unilateral action wherever it pleases without huge repercussions.

The Republicans beat the drums of war not because they know that the U.S. is able to take unilateral action, but because their donors favor war. Ask the military-industrial complex if it would like a war in Syria, or any war for that matter. Jets, tanks, ships, guns etc needing to be replaced or repaired = $$$.

The US drove Russia out of Georgia after the Russians told Condoleeza Rice that they wanted a to change Georgia's regime and take over the capital. George Bush literally turned the tanks around himself when he came out and stated that the US is bringing "humanitarian supplies" to Georgia, which basically meant special forces. The Russians had to dance to America's tune. If you don't believe me there's a documentary about this incident on the BBC with interviews from Russia's foreign minister Lavrov and Condoleeza Rice.

Let me ask you again, did the Bush allow Putin to more or less annex Abkhazia and South Ossetia under its sphere of influence then? Georgia's sovereignty has been undermined - surely the U.S. would have said something along the lines of get out or we'll force you out, being the 'sole superpower' and all that, no?

[rcummins1]

The Germans would **** all over India.

[noisy06]

(Original post by Stalin)
It could, theoretically, take unilateral action, just as Turkey, Britain, Iraq or Cyprus could. But by unilateral action I would have assumed that you seriously believed that the U.S., with its debt at 103% of its GDP and extremely fragile economy, could invade Syria, do whatever it pleased and leave practically unscathed. Perhaps you haven't but wounds are yet to have been healed when the U.S. left Iraq, and haven't yet been examined on the U.S. anatomy when it leaves Afghanistan. The fact that is that it will have to downsize its military drastically - the first sign of a superpower going down the pan. I think it will remain a superpower throughout the 21st century, but it won't be the only one and thus won't be able to take unilateral action wherever it pleases without huge repercussions.

The Republicans beat the drums of war not because they know that the U.S. is able to take unilateral action, but because their donors favor war. Ask the military-industrial complex if it would like a war in Syria, or any war for that matter. Jets, tanks, ships, guns etc needing to be replaced or repaired = $$$.



Let me ask you again, did the Bush allow Putin to more or less annex Abkhazia and South Ossetia under its sphere of influence then? Georgia's sovereignty has been undermined - surely the U.S. would have said something along the lines of get out or we'll force you out, being the 'sole superpower' and all that, no?

Well, of course nation building took a lot out of them. I'm not disagreeing about the economics of nation building, but the fact of the matter is that currently the US can take unilateral action without too much repercussions as long as they do it right. They'll probably be able to do this for the next 50 years. Their military has been stretched but this has nothing to do with unilateral action on Syria, something that you have explicitly mentioned. It would be a relatively quick destruction of Assad's regime. They can turn Damascus into a rubble and neither the Chinese nor the Russians can lift a finger. Everyone in congress knows the US can take action if it wants. The question is not, can the US do it? The question is, what does the US gain from doing it? That's the only difference of opinion in America.

Yes, Bush allowed that. The US effectively allowed Russia to annex parts of Georgia (in fact, Russia had effectively already annexed it from Georgia long before the war, the Georgians did not have much authority in Abkhazia or South Ossettia, and the Russians gave everyone in these places free Russian citizenship in anticipation of their formal takeover) . But what the US could not tolerate was Russia overthrowing a democratically elected government in Tblisi, that's why the war ended when it did.