Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by r32)
    I don't disagree with you entirely (see my post from before on this topic) - but you're assuming India's economy will continue to grow at a rapid rate, continuously, unabated.

    That's what people thought about our economy not so long ago (and they turned out to be completely wrong).
    Our economy is growing continuously, at least on a 10 year timescale, and will continue to do so. The difference is Britain is already an advanced country; growth can only really come from improved technology and processes, and that is difficult and slow, so Britain won't grow faster than the world average. India has a GDP per capita of $3-4k. It only needs to reform its institutions to be more like the West and it will get a 10x increase more or less for free. They've already been doing this for some time.

    I already mentioned about how India has very recently climbed the "top 10" ranking rapidly, due mostly to its massive military spending in the last few years.
    You should bear in mind that these "rankings" are mostly bull****. You can't really calculate how powerful a country is by some neat mathematical formula and then rank them in order. The lists are compiled by journalists who don't really know anything at all. Nonetheless India has an independent nuclear deterrent, aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines. That puts it in a very exclusive club.

    Not only that, I am firmly of the view that India can't and won't continue to grow at such a rate. Its importance, power and influence is hugely overrated at the moment for a number of reasons. That said - people laugh at me because I doubt China's economic power and position too, although not to the same extent as India's.
    I'm not sure what you think those reasons are; China is almost as rich as the US today and is bound to overtake it shortly, so perhaps you should have learnt from the last time? The reality is it's the impoverishment of these countries that is an historical oddity, not their strength. In the 19th and 18th centuries one could plausibly argue it was because they didn't know what to do or because the Western powers exerted influence to keep them weak. More recently, it has been due to the immense popularity of Marxism persuading them to shoot themselves in the foot. But almost no one takes Marx's nonsense seriously anymore.

    In comparison, although Pakistan is in a battered state - it really can't get much worse for them. If the conflict in and around it comes to an end, they have every chance of growing their economy at a rapid rate.
    That conflict hasn't ended for centuries and seems to be intensifying. Pakistan is politically unstable and has no credible reform movement. It may not get much worse, but where is it now? It was beaten and broken in two in a war with India and only survives by playing brinkmanship with a shoestring nuclear weapons program that is probably about as likely to be used by one part of the country against another as against a foreign threat at this point. Pakistan has a huge inferiority to India both in institutions and in demographic fundamentals.

    As I said above and in my previous post, the numbers on paper don't mean much. India would not last long if it attacked Russia.
    It would last at least as long as the Himalayas, which is in fact quite long. India attacking Russia just doesn't make any sense; they are both effectively regional powers and neither are really in the other's region.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    Don't have time to debate in detail but this is an excellent post. In my personal opinion due to the various problems you mention and many others India will never be a superpower. That rank will be conferable upon only the United States and China in the 21st century.
    you seem to really be against India's success haha!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dr00n)
    you seem to really be against India's success haha!
    My opinion about them never reaching superpower level is commonly held. I'll link you when I find the articles.
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sugar-n-spice)
    >Leader of the free world
    do you seriously still believe that?
    can you legally unlock your phone? can you go to the tube without getting your bags checked (warrantlessly of course)?

    (Original post by sugar-n-spice)
    Don't like us? No problem.
    At the end of the day, you are all American people. You follow our elections. You eat our food. You watch our movies and television shows. You wear our clothes. You copy our vernacular. You access American websites. You copy our Constitution and our laws. You read our books, ponder our art, use our weapons, drive our cars. The global economy is based on the US Dollar. Our military maintains bases on your soil. When our President speaks, you listen.

    You are ALL American people.
    jeez, what a bull****.

    but ad rem: with nuclear weapon, USA would won.
    In conventional war on the USA territory, usa would won
    In the same war on russian territory.... it would be a draw.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Russians could launch 1000 missles or nukes and non would land, the U.S. Missle Protection Program is the best in the world. U.S. would dominate Russia and the war after 2 months tops will leave Russia running with their tails between there legs. They would not have any superior allies and the U.S. would not need a allie, but would have plenty offering assistance. Russia is a country that tries to flex there muscles a lot, but they know the cold hard truth and the U.S. would have a great interest in taking the Current dictator president out of russian control.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Russia's war doctrine as passed by law. States Russia will respond to any military aggression using her full nuclear might. Seeing as the Germans have spent the last ten years bless them modernising Russia's military we in Europe are pretty much ****ed and will become the ass licking states of Russia
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sugar-n-spice)
    >United States
    >Strongest nation on Earth for 67 years and counting
    >Highest GDP on Earth
    >Worth 51% of the global economy
    >Largest navy in the world
    >Has military bases on 1/3rd of the Earth
    >Only country with a functioning railgun
    >30 years technologically superior to any other opposing nation's military on Earth
    >Only military that has the industrial and technological capacity to mass produce unmanned drones
    >Developing a new generation of spaceships
    >Only country to have been to the Moon
    >Only country with a private sector actively working in space
    >Global center of the arts, humanities, education, finance, commerce, business, warfare, technology, industry, culture, politics and communication
    >Owns the most cities on the World Cities ranking chart
    >Won WWII singlehandedly
    >Never lost a war in its 237 year history
    >Leader of the free world

    Don't like us? No problem.
    At the end of the day, you are all American people. You follow our elections. You eat our food. You watch our movies and television shows. You wear our clothes. You copy our vernacular. You access American websites. You copy our Constitution and our laws. You read our books, ponder our art, use our weapons, drive our cars. The global economy is based on the US Dollar. Our military maintains bases on your soil. When our President speaks, you listen.

    You are ALL American people.
    that didnt happen.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    I don't think Russia would have a chance in a conventional war the united states.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    One thing I can't understand: WHY are USA and Russia opponents? Why they could not work together for making world better? Americans and Russians are mostly Christians, they mostly are white, they was allies in WWI and WWII.
    Imagine that those two county united instead they fighting all the time! Whole north hemisphere, with Europe in the middle and correct China bellow - that would be one territory. And Americans and Russians talking about peace in the world, why that don't act like that? America was in almost every war after WWII. Russia was in Afghanistan, Georgia now in Ukraine.... PLEASE THINK!!! Don't let world became another slaughterhouse because of greed and stupidity! Just stop and talk, try to understand each others. But before all that and Americans and Russians must look at the mirror and admit to themselves that they were wrong - then they will be ready for changing the world into a better place. Please, think about this...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    USA without the doubt , with the leadership that Russia has it is surprising it hasn't happened already.
    Russia's economy is collapsing due to sanctions.

    #RIPRussia
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    In the modern world quantity does not have the same impact that it once did versus quality due to the much more rapid rate of technological development. Therefore it's not much of a contest, the Russian air force and navy barely has enough modern ships, drones and strikecraft to defeat a UK-France alliance, let alone take on the world class navy and air force of the US, i'd wager that within 3 months US troops would be on Russian soil having dominated the air and naval engagements. On land things are a bit more even but even here the US has the technological advantage.

    One has to remember that Russia today has tax revenues of around $400bn, that's less than the UK. Obviously Russia is choosing to spend a higher proportion on defense (so should we actually) but it shows you just how constrained Russia is when the US spends more on defense alone than Russia's entire annual tax take.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Of course it would be the USA. European nations are too weak to provide tough leadership against Russia, and the USA provides it. The USA is the glue that holds the world together and prevents it from resulting into chaos. It's no surprise that nations like the UK are America's sidekick; they want to ride on our coattails.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drcharisma)
    Of course it would be the USA. European nations are too weak to provide tough leadership against Russia, and the USA provides it. The USA is the glue that holds the world together and prevents it from resulting into chaos. It's no surprise that nations like the UK are America's sidekick; they want to ride on our coattails.
    So many wars have been started by people who think it will be a walk over because they are militarily superior. They read the experts, read the history of previous wars even and still believe they are going to be victorious.

    History is littered with examples of 'superior' invading powers who have lost.

    The US has the disadvantage of any power that is convinced of its own overwhelming superiority politically and militarily - it believes its own propaganda, fails to take into account the views of any one else, fails to assess the motivations of others, underestimates what motivates people in a long fight.

    Any country has to maintain the morale of its troops and, more importantly, its population. No amount of hardware will compensate for lack of morale. The US failed in Vietnam precisely because of this. It couldn't match the Vietnamese on their own soil because the US troops were not convinced enough of their purpose thousands of miles away from home. The US population at home were not convinced enough either. The Vietnamese, on the other hand, were convinced about why they were fighting despite or maybe because of, horrendous bombing, chemical warfare etc.

    The German attacks on Russia fall into the same category. The Germans were convinced of their military superiority. A foreign country invading is immediately at a disadvantage in the long haul unless they can eventually neutralise opposition by blending in with the locals and offering them a better life. Inevitably belief in one's superiority often prevents this .

    Think Napoleon trying to export French views to Spain, the British in India & Ireland, the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe etc. Military power failed in all cases faced with local political opposition.

    Even if we acknowledge that Napoleon's ideas were better that the absolutist Spanish, that the British had technology etc, to offer the Indians, the local population, ungrateful people, surprise surprise were coming at it from a different perspective.

    Political ideas of independence, self determination will be difficult to beat in the long term. It may take a thousand years of war ( Ireland) but they will still be there unless there is a political solution.

    If the US invade Russia they will not win. They may win battles, they may bomb all the cities, they may kill millions of civilians. The Russians will fight and fight on through disaster and disaster, grinding down the invading forces with their burnt villages strategy as they have done over centuries. Generals January and February are still on their side. If the US couldn't manage to supply enough troops and hardware to garrison and beat the relatively compact, desperately poor Vietnam, how on earth are they going to cope with the vast expanses of Russia? And, it will bring them to the brink of bankrupcy and a political crisis at home. A lose lose situation.

    The mirror image is a Russian invasion of the US. Any invasion of the US would unite the population. (Though I doubt the Russians have the disadvantage of believing in their mission to convert and save the world. )
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sir Fox)
    Without a doubt Russia is not one of the two most powerful countries in the world. China is the second most powerful nation on the planet.

    And currently the US would still beat anyone in a conventional war.
    Do you mean in nuclear forces? I'm no expert, but I thought Russia's known nuclear arsenal is generally said to still be significantly bigger than China's? Perhaps I'm behind the curve.

    I would think it pretty likely Russia also has a much more capable navy and air force than China.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    In the modern world quantity does not have the same impact that it once did versus quality due to the much more rapid rate of technological development. Therefore it's not much of a contest, the Russian air force and navy barely has enough modern ships, drones and strikecraft to defeat a UK-France alliance, let alone take on the world class navy and air force of the US, i'd wager that within 3 months US troops would be on Russian soil having dominated the air and naval engagements. On land things are a bit more even but even here the US has the technological advantage.

    One has to remember that Russia today has tax revenues of around $400bn, that's less than the UK. Obviously Russia is choosing to spend a higher proportion on defense (so should we actually) but it shows you just how constrained Russia is when the US spends more on defense alone than Russia's entire annual tax take.
    All true, although the US has many more demands on their military. Do the Pentagon planners still plan for two major conflicts at the same time? Or has that gone on the back burner?

    I presume Putin will have difficulty maintaining his somewhat deranged massive modernisation of Russia's forces given that state revenues from oil will inevitably plunge, assuming the current slump in oil prices is maintained, which is a bit questionable.

    One thing is clear - the world as a whole spends wildly too much on weapons systems.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Do you mean in nuclear forces? I'm no expert, but I thought Russia's known nuclear arsenal is generally said to still be significantly bigger than China's?
    No, I said 'conventional war'. Nuclear weapons are a poor indicator of power because no one would dare to use them anyway. Think of Pakistan - would you consider them to be a particularly powerful country? Russia could only use nukes to take itself down (mutually assured destruction), it would be suicide. Besides, due to the poor state of the Russian military they could probably hardly use the majority of their nukes.

    I would think it pretty likely Russia also has a much more capable navy and air force than China.
    Russia's armed forces are a shadow of what they once were - a couple of years ago there were reports that the majority of their interceptors had to remain grounded to due bad maintenance. While there is significant reinvestment happening right now, China's armed forces have probably already overtaken Russia's. Russia doesn't even have any aircraft carriers.

    And that's just the military aspect. “Endless money forms the sinews of war.” (Marcus Tullius Cicero). China's GDP is almost five times that of Russia's, and the Russian economy is in a deep crisis right now. The sanctions of the West and the low oil price are just contributing factors, the underlying reason are corruption, mismanagement and political neglect.

    Do the Pentagon planners still plan for two major conflicts at the same time? Or has that gone on the back burner?
    They abandoned that doctrine in 2010, although I assume they could still do it, depending on what kind of conflict we're talking about. The US could probably fight and defeat ten African countries at the same time, but I doubt they could take on China and Russia simultaneously.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I've heard Russian media saying the government is all set to increase it's military spending by 30% which will be about USD60 billion in 2015/16

    This 60bn$ will literally give their military a range of state of the art fire power
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ShotsFired-9941)
    I've heard Russian media saying the government is all set to increase it's military spending by 30% which will be about USD60 billion in 2015/16. This 60bn$ will literally give their military a range of state of the art fire power.
    What you have to look at is the spending in relation to personell. The Russian Armed Forces have a manpower of 845,000 men and intend to spend around $97 bn. p.a. by 2016. Apart from that being pretty unsustainable and the question of how they want to do that in the wake of the current Russian economic crisis, the British Armed Forces have a manpower of around 190,000 and currently spend around $ 62 bn. p.a.

    So I doubt that they will be able to field the very top-of-the-line weaponry in large numbers any time soon.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Do you mean in nuclear forces? I'm no expert, but I thought Russia's known nuclear arsenal is generally said to still be significantly bigger than China's? Perhaps I'm behind the curve.

    I would think it pretty likely Russia also has a much more capable navy and air force than China.
    Russian navy? Please, don't make me laugh out loud. What was that ship or boat, called "Moscow", their best boat, who couldn't get out of Sevastopol harbour four times because they couldn't start the engine? Russian navy is a bunch of floating tubs, filled with drunken and badly trained men. Russian navy, indeed.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pickup)
    So many wars have been started by people who think it will be a walk over because they are militarily superior. They read the experts, read the history of previous wars even and still believe they are going to be victorious.

    History is littered with examples of 'superior' invading powers who have lost.

    The US has the disadvantage of any power that is convinced of its own overwhelming superiority politically and militarily - it believes its own propaganda, fails to take into account the views of any one else, fails to assess the motivations of others, underestimates what motivates people in a long fight.

    Any country has to maintain the morale of its troops and, more importantly, its population. No amount of hardware will compensate for lack of morale. The US failed in Vietnam precisely because of this. It couldn't match the Vietnamese on their own soil because the US troops were not convinced enough of their purpose thousands of miles away from home. The US population at home were not convinced enough either. The Vietnamese, on the other hand, were convinced about why they were fighting despite or maybe because of, horrendous bombing, chemical warfare etc.

    The German attacks on Russia fall into the same category. The Germans were convinced of their military superiority. A foreign country invading is immediately at a disadvantage in the long haul unless they can eventually neutralise opposition by blending in with the locals and offering them a better life. Inevitably belief in one's superiority often prevents this .

    Think Napoleon trying to export French views to Spain, the British in India & Ireland, the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe etc. Military power failed in all cases faced with local political opposition.

    Even if we acknowledge that Napoleon's ideas were better that the absolutist Spanish, that the British had technology etc, to offer the Indians, the local population, ungrateful people, surprise surprise were coming at it from a different perspective.

    Political ideas of independence, self determination will be difficult to beat in the long term. It may take a thousand years of war ( Ireland) but they will still be there unless there is a political solution.

    If the US invade Russia they will not win. They may win battles, they may bomb all the cities, they may kill millions of civilians. The Russians will fight and fight on through disaster and disaster, grinding down the invading forces with their burnt villages strategy as they have done over centuries. Generals January and February are still on their side. If the US couldn't manage to supply enough troops and hardware to garrison and beat the relatively compact, desperately poor Vietnam, how on earth are they going to cope with the vast expanses of Russia? And, it will bring them to the brink of bankrupcy and a political crisis at home. A lose lose situation.

    The mirror image is a Russian invasion of the US. Any invasion of the US would unite the population. (Though I doubt the Russians have the disadvantage of believing in their mission to convert and save the world. )
    We talk about Russia invading other countries, in this instance, hypothetically invading the US. But, if, in your text, we substitute US for Russia, and Russia for Ukraine, it would describe the situation pretty clearly.
    And, if were Russians who started the war with Germany, not the other way round.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.