Talk:Great power/Archive 6

message: I'm no expert in China or North Korea, but Bush did state publically that "China doesn't want North Korea to have a nuclear weapon" and that seems true to me, as I have little doubt the Chinese would not be among the first to invade North Korea if its dictator launched a nuke the wrong way. For that matter, I don't think NATO or the UN have verified North Korea's nuclear capabilities yet. I've also heard that the Chinese government only likes/tolerates North Korea because they don't want a flood of unwanted illegal immigrants.
I haven't been keeping up on the North Korea situation lately, so delete this comment if I'm wrong - I just thought I might help a little by flagging this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.200.201 (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  China "diplomatically connected with North Korea,[39] a fellow nuclear communist country"? 

message: Shouldn't the European Union be also considered a Great Power now?
Somethingoranother 02:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I think that it will eventually be a Great power/superpower, at the moment it doesn't have enough cohesion to qualify ad a power at all—the real power is held by its member states. Once they have a common military and surrender autonomous use of their militaries, it will surely qualify as a Great power at least, considering that its economy is roughly the same size as the system's Superpower, the US, and its population is significantly greater. CRGreathouse (t | c) 09:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: European Union

message: I still feel that italy is not truly supported and should be removed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.184.97.24 (talk • contribs).
:Insofar as it was a Great power up to 1943, I think that this is well enough established.  Whether it is regarded as being a Great power today is debatable—I'd certainly be open to considering sources which touch upon the question.
:Xdamrtalk 14:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Italy

message: I wanted to break out this quote from Casey14 into its own section:
:South Korea, Spain, Canada, and Brazil all have larger GDP's than India. Yet somehow India get's in because of it's supposed large economy. 20 countries have larger armies than France, yet they are not all included.
According to the latest CIA World Factbook, all four of the countries you mention have GDPs lower than India, and in fact India's GDP is closer to the sum of the other four than to any of them individually.  I'm not sure of the manpower of the French armed forces, but as I recall they are the number 3 spender in the world on military (after the US and China). [Edit: the numbers back up my memory here, although to be fair I will note that Japan is nearly as large a spender as France.]
Now I'm not claiming that these figures alone prove that India and France are Great powers (though they are significant), but they do support the assertions that these two are Great powers.  Do you actually feel that these two are not Great powers, or are you just acting as a devil's advocate?
CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The CIA factbook only uses GDP PPP and omits nominal GDP. The difference in the case of India is quite large, as with China. According to GDP PPP China has the world's second largest economy. According to nominal GDP it's economy is smaller than that of the UK! Both are equally as esteemed-we need to take both into account. That said, I trust our sources that the world's second largest nation is a great power! Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what I referred to, Nominal GDP.  If you look at List of countries by GDP (nominal), Canada, Spain, and South Korea all have higher nominal GDPs than India. Casey14 23:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you're arguing that having a devalued currency is actually a disadvantage? Interesting. Certainly the US Congress doesn't seem to think the same, given how much they've stumped on that point. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but that's really besides the point here. There is nominal and PPP GDP, each equally acredited, so both need to be considered. This article is not the page for discussing the ramifications of currency devaluation. Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They aren't "equally acredited", that's silly.  Even totally ignoring PPP, though, India makes her strength known in other ways: military, technology, politics (look to recent Chinese concessions), and so on.  CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stating that PPP is better than nominal is like stating that apples are better than Oranges. BTW: I agree that India, the world's second largest nation, is a great power. Regards, Signaturebrendel 00:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Surely, if they're apples and oranges, then saying that they're equal (or 'equally accredited') is similarly wrong.  Actually, I believe that PPP is better for most purposes, but then again I pass judgment on apples vs. oranges as well. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Surely, if they're apples and oranges, then saying that they're equal (or 'equally accredited') is similarly wrong", no because they're both fruit and are deemed equally healthy -I think now you should see my point ;-) Anyways, I'm gald to see that you realize that if you "believe that PPP is better for most purposes... [you're passing] judgment on apples vs. oranges as well" Besdies, we seem to agree on India being a Great Power. Regards, Signaturebrendel 03:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: (realign above discussion left) Who says apples are exactly as healthy as oranges?  But yes, I agree that India is a Great power. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says they arn't? We'll need to agree to disagree on PPP vs. nominal, but at least we can agree on India- which is after all the vocal point of this discussion ;-) (It's fun getting side-tracked, isn't it.) Signaturebrendel 06:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I feel that India is not a great power, but France yes.  I was being a devil's advocate.  However, India will become a great power, and leave it on the list.  I just want justice for some past powers that are overlooked because when they were powers communication systems were not as advanced as they are today.  People didn't write about biggest economies or armed forces in 1850.  And if they did, where can you find that info? Casey14 03:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, they did. Geo-politics is as old as civilization and people in the 19th. century were quite nationalistic and therefore would have jumped at the opportunity to portait their countries as powerful and wealthy. The problem is, as you said, "where can you find that info?" Signaturebrendel 06:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  France 

message: I believe Spain and Portugal should be mentioned as former Great Powers, for obvious reasons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Agimcomas (talk • contribs) 17:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spain and Portugal