Talk:Great power/Archive 9

Edit warring
Following a suggestion by east718, I'll be opting to stop edit warring via blocking individual users from editing, rather than by protecting the page. I may be applying something akin to WP:1RR in this regard, for editors who revert day after day. Please be careful and make good use of the dispute resolution process, instead of trying to force through changes against consensus. – Luna Santin  (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Britain no longer a great power
Britain: CrisisChanakyathegreat (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No offense Chankya, and I know you've been pushing this very hard, but Great Britain is still a great power. A Time article from 47 years ago does not count as a worthy sources. I know somebody will post "but Time is a reliable source". It is, but not it's articles from half a century ago. Hobie (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If it was disputed ny Time magazine that Britain was a great power 47 years ago, when Britain still ruled much of the world, then it should surely be disputed today. Viewfinder (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The decline must have started 47 years before. Today it is complete "The UK and France have declined from their former great power status". The state of the Navy. "The report concludes that with an “under-resourced” fleet comprised of “operationally defective ships”, “the Royal Navy would be challenged to mount a medium-scale operation in accordance with current policy against a technologically capable adversary.” The report’s findings echo comments made last year by Admiral Sir Alan West, the recently-retired First Sea Lord, who accused the government of turning the Armed Forces into “a tin pot gendarmerie”."Chanakyathegreat (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Your just making a fool of yourself. Idiot. Colliver55 (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Above comment is contrary to WP:CIV. Viewfinder (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * please read 3 comments below dated 13:47, 20 July 2008 that statement has already been recanted and an apology already given. -- Phoenix (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You obviously have too much free time on your hands. Colliver55 (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Another breach of WP:CIV that has not been recanted. Viewfinder (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should rejoin the conversation when you have rejoined the real world. Colliver55 (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Make no mistake about it France or the UK could defeat India pretty easily. The last time India tried to face a Great Power it took on China, and lost miserably. Colliver55 (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, no personal attacks! Colliver, just calm down he's looking for a fight. He's simply mad that we haven't listed India, so he's lashing out at who I am assume to be UKPhoneix, because he's from Britain (duh); along with the entire community here. I'm tired of whose country is better. --Hobie (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeh your right. I apologise for my outburst! Colliver55 (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This idiot knows some things that are realistic and is against the perception of some people. Again I did not write those articles. The rise of India and China is inevitable so is the decline of Britain. Regarding France and Russia, I really don't know. I have not read much more about their capabilities, so it will be unwise on my part to write about France and Russia. Words did not make someone win or lose. And I don't think that India is going to war with France or Britain. This section is to discuss about the capabilities of nations based on realism and decide on which is a great power and not. If you have any objections to what has been reported in those article you can express it here.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr.Hobie Hunter, this is a weird way to look at things. I don't have anything to do with UKPhoneix. I want reality to be presented. My opinion is that The U.S is the sole superpower in the world. There has been a decline of U.S power but has not affected the Superpower status of U.S. The reason for the U.S to be the Superpower is because, there is no power that can challenge U.S single handedly. Their political power is slowly declining, but still wield great influence. Regarding the other nations, the other P5 has very limited power at present. After the cold war the capability of the P5 has declined. Just after the cold war Russia went Kaput. It's better to say the P5 went Kaput. The main reason can be attributed to the rise of other powers. The specification for P5 power was measured using nuclear weapons. Everyone used to say, hey they had nuclear weapons and hence is a great power. This has changed since India blasted nuclear weapons in Pokhran and became a nuclear weapon state. Now when we look at overall capabilities sidelining nuclear weapons we see a large number of nations that are on better/par with the earlier P5 in capabilities. Russia has reemerged from the economic crisis. India which was considered an outsider of P5 for many many years has become a nuclear weapons state and an economic power. The economic liberalization and military capabilities have given India great political clout in the developed world as well. We are also seeing the emergence of new economic powers like Brazil. There are other strong economies like Italy, Mexico, Spain etc.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's all take a deep breath. We're having a civilized discussion here and there's no need for name-calling. Chanakya, you state that, "It's better to say the P5 went Kaput". Just before, you admitted that your still believe that the U.S. is the sole superpower. Therefore, how does the P5 have "very limited power at present" if it includes the U.S. The UNSC still represents the most powerful institutional organ of peace and security and therefore each member of the P5 yields enormous political influence. No one is arguing that India is growing in power and will likely continue to. Like you said we're seeing an emergence of possible great powers such as India and Brazil. However, I fail to see how India has more influence than the U.K under the factors that you have specified (militarily and economically). GDP (nominal) in millions of U.K. is 2,772,570 compared to India at 1,098,945. For 2008-09, the U.K. will spend $68,911,000,000 and India's will spend $26,500,000,000 on military expenditures. Those are a pretty large gaps there. I want to hear your thoughts on this. Nirvana888 (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you consider GDP (PPP) - (thought you might counter with this): India is at 2,818,867 and the U.K. is at 2,137,421. Even so, it is not nearly as great at the difference in nominal values between the U.K and India. Nirvana888 (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I said the P5 went Kaput and not U.S went Kaput. The U.S is still the Super power in the world. Why do you think the discussion on expanding the U.N security council is taking place. It's because the P5 grouping has went Kaput and did not represent the present world. So it becomes necessary for the P5 members themselves to include the new powers into the block. That's why we hear the P5 leaders talk in favour of welcoming India into the Permanent member block. Regarding the comparison you make, on military spending. How much of this money is utilized in modernization of the forces, for paying pension, for other utilities and what capabilities are being added with that money. All these counts rather than just comparing in dollar terms.Army, Navy and RAF say their lives are at risk from poor equipmentNearly half of British soldiers consider quitting: survey. Now regarding GDP (PPP) do you see the difference closing or widening with each passing day and what you make out of that?Chanakyathegreat (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Look I have no problems with listing India and Brazil as emerging or future great powers, but there has to be some grip on reality. The fact that the UK, France, Russia, China and the US are great powers is known fact. Colliver55 (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Chanakya, I hope I'm not offending you but I get the sense you are cherry-picking statistics and recent news that point to the declining trend in some of the current great powers and the rise of India. It is pretty clear though, currently the overwhelming majority of factors concerning influence favour members of the P5 over India. I know you are very patriotic about India but for the article we are trying to be as neutral as possible - not playing up India or understate India. I hope you realize that. Nirvana888 (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Your viewpoint on me is totally wrong. I am a patriotic person, that's true and I whole heartedly support the great ethos and values of Indian tradition. I want truth to be told and upheld be it in Wikipedia or anywhere else. Your view that people other than westerners view point is based on patriotism (i.e patriotism imposes some kind of restrictions on them to project their nations as like..) is a wrong one. In reality it is the reverse. People like you tend to stick to a belief system that make you to disbelieve others just because they are the others. As I had explained in detail that considering a nation as great power since it is a P5 member is not valid and is not reality. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong this time. I am not judging anyone. Despite your patriotism/nationalism, I still consider all your arguments with an open mind. I never said that being in the P5 guarantees that a nation is a great power although it definitely provides it with more influence. India, by and large, is a regional power at this point given a plethora of reason some of which I've noted above. If you read some scholarly work on political science, international relations and the global order, not shoddy or nationalistic press, perhaps you will see where all of us are coming from when we consider India from an impartial perspective. Nirvana888 (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding my Patriotism/So called Nationalism I can tell you that it has not effected my edits in Wikipedia. It's solely based on Truth. The membership in P5 cannot prevent things done by other great powers. Like Russia cannot prevent U.S from setting up ABM in Europe. Similarly U.S cannot prevent Russia from resuming Air patrol from Cuba. The U.N is ineffective against another great power. Also there is difference of opinion within the P5 itself. The scholarly work is all true before Pokhran. After Pokhran it's all changed. You can read about it. Britain has lost the Great power status. It has become more of a regional power in Europe that ventures out with U.S whenever U.S requires it.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana I think you may as well leave Chanakya to his own single-minded judgements. He is not going to compromise so I think we may as well ignore him. Colliver55 (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Chanakya I don't know what ridiculous nationalist newspaper you read but I am afraid the UK has infinitely more influence in the world than India. Fact. Colliver55 (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect. What ever has been put in this section is provided with sources, that also from British news sources. Seems nationalism is making you to say things beyond any dignity. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Britain's great power status 2.0

 * The UK ceased to be a superpower after World War II but it's obviously ridiculous to pretend it isn't a great power. It's a financial powerhouse with a leading service economy and a surface fleet whose power projection capabilities are really only surpassed by the United States. To take another crude mesasure, its strategic nuclear forces have sufficient range and yield to repel any potential attacking force, and could obviously devastate India, which is after all still only a relatively poor developing nation. 78.146.61.64 (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't resurrect this ridiculous argument, The last comment is over a month old. Nobody's disputing that Britain is a great power. --Hobie (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh really. See the Canadian encyclopedia. There is one superpower and several middle powers. If India is not a great power, then the case for Britain, with 5% of India's population and territory, looks pretty tenuous. Viewfinder (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We have had this discussion long ago. Boring 90.212.93.52 (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read the article it is specific about what happened directly after WWII not the current state of nations. It has been discussed before Talk:Middle power. the Canadian Encyclopedia is used for France and the United Kingdom being "Current Middle powers", while the article itself clearly states it is about the early postwar years after WWII -- Phoenix (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Be sure that I read the article carefully, although I concede that I missed the above thread, thank you for drawing it to my attention. Yes, the article is about what happened after WWII but it ends "there is a tendency now to refer to Britain, France, Germany and Japan as middle powers" which I take to imply that they were no longer great powers. And if they were no longer great powers "as the two superpowers emerged", surely there is an implication that they are not great powers today. Therefore I stand by the article as a valid source. Viewfinder (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, both Chanaky and I am entitled to revive a discussion that has been dormant for a month. Sorry, I do not have the time to watch every discussion page every day. Viewfinder (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Power projection, comparable to the U.S... Read this 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel. Poor Indians.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Non sequitur. If you want to propagandise with selective evidence start a blog. An encyclopedia isn't your personal soapbox. 78.146.67.181 (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Couldn't agree more. Colliver55 (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Lol. I think we need to archive these old discussions before some passing editor resurrects another stale discussion. Nirvana888 (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For some reason I don't think it will work. We'd have to wait until the convo died down before that. -- Phoenix (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here, all around Europe, we know very well that Britain is no longer a global power, perhaps since the independence of India (1947) or the Suez Crisis (1956), events that signed the start of the end of the British Empire. If you read the articles about great powers in the other European languages you can see it very well… But too many Britons don’t want to accept this fact, that their country is not longer comparable to giant continental countries like USA, China or Russia. Unfortunately are the Britons who write the articles in the Wikipedia in English, are Britons that don’t accept their new status the scholars sources used in the articles; others sources are ignored, for example some months ago I posted a source about a Canadian encyclopedia that confirmed the middle power status of Great Britain, but it was removed and ignored… so, for now, we have only to wait that some more time can bring to our British friends the capacity to accept reality… --79.10.117.7 (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. Colliver55 (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your reasoning fails because it fallaciously assumes such "European" claims are more objective, whereas other data can be regularly cited from other reputable sources as evidence to the contrary. 129.67.174.46 (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere. Britain's great power staus is sourced. Editors are constantly trying to push there own POV, sometimes with sources from half a century ago. Enough! --Hobie (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating Convo on Viewfinder's talk page

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion found on two talk pages. For reference only. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

You support this with citations, but please could you provide transcriptions of the relevant passages. Thanks. Viewfinder 05:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that: Barry Buzan, one of the foremost scholars in the field of International Relations theory, says that:

"Achieving great powers status is less demanding in terms of both capabilities and behaviour [e.g. than a superpower]. Great powers need not necessarily have big capabilities in all sectors...Great power status rests mainly on a single key: what distinguishes great powers from merely regional ones is that they are responded to by others on the basis of system-level calculations, as well as regional ones, about the present and near future distribution of power...After the cold war it [e.g. great power status] was held by Britain/France/Germany..., Japan, China and Russia. India was banging hard on the door, but had neither the capability, the formal recognition, nor the place in the calculations of others to qualify. (pp. 69-70)"


 * Is Buzan not referring to Britain/France/Germany collectively, rather than any one of these countries in its own right? I am not convinced that this is a legitimate citation.

The other source, by a group of young academics at the University of Cambridge, says:

"...Britain's revived global standing in recent years has seen it emerge as the world's second most influential nation...We must, therefore, maintain, reinforce a more proactive and assertive foreign and security policy, which takes advantage of the areas where Britain already has leverage. (p. 30)"


 * Imo this is POV with a touch of jingoism. There is only one great power today - the USA. When it comes to clout in the world, Britain is in effect little more than state #51; recall that without covert US backing we could not have re-taken the Falkland islands. Also, I assume that you are part of this Cambridge young academic commentary, in which case there may be a WP:OR and/or WP:COI issue here.

Finally, there are two other sources, which can be located here:

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imperium Europeum (talk • contribs) 20:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * These sources push the defence expenditure argument. But remember that the UK has no conscript military. Many countries with lower defence expenditure measured in pounds or dollars have considerably more manpower


 * Thank you for your response. I am not, at present, minded to contest the great power claim, provided that it remains presented as a point of view rather than hard fact, although I may oppose the inclusion of the Buzan citation. Also, please sign your posts using four tildes. Viewfinder 21:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your replies. In academic literature in the field of International Relations (of which I am involved), there is much discussion on what constitutes a 'great power'. It cannot really be measured objectively (although the Correlates of War project at the University of Michigan has certainly tried. Equally, one of China's leading government think tanks also conducts an annual survey of the world's top ten powers, in which they normally put the US first, then Britain, then Russia, then France, and so on, normally ending with Canada. Both these surveys use economic might, military power, population size and political cohesion as measures. However, other academics in the field contest these seemingly scientific approaches, and suggest that defining and categorising a 'great power' also includes subjective things like historical legacy, cultural attraction, popularity and democratic procedures, and these are harder to measure.


 * But in any case, what is clear is that the United Kingdom does rank exceptionally high in almost every key area, which gives it the weight and reach of a global power or great power (the two are effectively coterminous). To take a few off the top of my head:


 * (1) Britain has the world's fifth biggest nominal GDP/GNP/GNI (fourth if we exclude China, which is still a developing country), and sixth if measured by PPP (or fourth, again if we exclude China and India (developing economies)).
 * (1a) Britain has more Fortune 500 multinational companies than any other country other than Japan, Germany and America.
 * (2) Britain has the world's second biggest defence budget.
 * (2a) Britain has the world's second largest navy, with the second strongest fleet of aircraft carriers and nuclear attack submarines (these two types of vessel are considered paramount for any country claiming 'great power' status today. Other than the USA, only France has a comparable amount of firepower to Britain.)
 * (2b) Britain's military operates in 88 countries and territories around the world, more than any other country bar the USA.
 * (3) London is the world's premier financial centre, and continues to gain ground on Tokyo and New York every year.


 * Premier? London is not above New York, surely. The FTSE indices respond to the DJ closely and predictably. When America sneezes the world catches cold, but if Britain sneezed it would be business as usual elsewhere.


 * (4) British culture is magnetic and far reaching (e.g. the spread of English, the BBC, British music, British product brands).
 * (5) Britain's historical legacy is unrivalled. Much of the world has been in contact with British power over the past 500 years.
 * (6) British technology and scientific accomplishments are rivalled only by the USA. We have more Nobel Prize winners than any other country other than America, and more universities in the world's top 100 rankings than any other country other than the USA.
 * (7) Britain is a member of more international organisations than any other country bar France, has a permanent seat on the UNSC, and is a member of the G8 (considered as the two ultimate institutions for great powers).
 * (8) Britain is a major Member State of the European Union, with the bloc's second strongest economy, and third biggest population.


 * I can provide references for all of these statistics, although they are also provided on most of the relevant Wikipedia pages.


 * I see you mention the importance of the USA in two instances. First, the USA is universally recognised as a 'great power', but it is also understood to be an exceptional 'great power'—either a superpower or a hyperpower. The means needed for 'great power' status are quite diverse. In the nineteenth century, when the term was first used, 'great power' was deployed to label anything from the British Empire (even stronger than the USA today, relatively), to Austria-Hungary (which is like comparing America with Canada today). But both were considered to be more than just regional or 'middle powers', so there was quite a lot of variation accepted for 'great power' status. Second, I think you overstate Britain's reliance on the USA. Your example of the Falklands War is insufficient: you might remember that Britain's fleet arrived in the South Atlantic before the United States gave the operation its 'blessing'. That war was going to take place with or without American approval—indeed, the fact that Washington eventually sided with Britain shows that Washington was compelled to side with its most important ally.


 * In the 19th century there were several great powers competing for global hegemony; the term Great Power was coined at that time. I agree that the UK was #1, particularly on the high seas, but the UK surely did not possess the global domination that the US has today. Several other countries at the time (most notably Germany) had military budgets rivalling the UK, but no country competes with the US today, see List of countries and federations by military expenditures. Could the UK prevent the trench carnage of WW1? No, and only US intervention succeeded in stopping it. Ditto WW2. During the Cold War there were two superpowers (possibly three including China). Now there is one. The term "great power" is no longer applicable to any other country, although it may become applicable to the EU, China, India and possibly (on account of its vast territory) Russia. British forces suffered heavy losses in the South Atlantic and would probably have lost the Hermes - and hence the war - without material covertly supplied by the US (for which Cap the Knife got a knighthood). It was shown that the UK was dependent on the US for its ability to defeat Argentina; that's not a Great Power in my book.


 * Washington was not compelled to side with the UK, but had the UK lost the war the Thatcher government would probably have fallen and Michael Foot would have taken over; that would not have served US interests. In practice the pro-US Thatcher emerged strongly, primarily on back of the non-UK owned Sun. Aside: could the entire Falklands episode have been stage managed by the Reagan administration, with remarkable success? Right-wing French elements (who have cooperated consistently with the UK since the aftermath of Waterloo) and Pinochet were also involved, although the French also wanted the world to see demonstrations of their Exocets.


 * I've only listed a small section of the Buzan source. I simply do not have the time to copy down any more. Rest assured that the book is a 200+ page survey of the world's great powers past, now, and potentially future, and very much recognises the UK as a great power, although points to the ongoing integration of the EU, in which the UK will perhaps merge, to form a new superpower (e.g. part of a larger and another exceptional 'great power'). Imperium Europeum 00:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you find a Buzan sentence that makes the claim, unambiguously, that the UK is still a great power in its own right? Otherwise, I don't think this should be cited as a verifiable source.


 * Thank you for your further comments. I agree with many of them, but we are also agreed that the term "great power" is subjective. That is why these sort of terms are discouraged by WP:AWW and WP:PEACOCK. Many of your above claims are already in the main article, where they are not disputed. I have removed much of the puffery that accompanied them. Although this is an interesting discussion, it is Wikipedia policy to let the verifiable facts speak for themselves. Viewfinder 06:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a debate on two talk pages. For reference only. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

UK as a great power
What's this I see about the UK no longer being a great power? In what ways is the UK no longer a great power? If the UK is not a great power anymore then how can France, Germany, Japan, China or Russia be great powers either? If the UK is not a great power then no one is. I see the whole debate was started by an Indian editor who has pushed long and hard for India to be included in this article as a great power. I see also that it was a UK editor who prevented this so is this Indian editor just trying to get back at this UK editor??? Personally I find it absolutely ridiculous to consider the UK as no longer a great power. Whether India is yet a great power is disputed. It will become a great power and eventually a superpower should things continue that way. The UK however will remain a great power for time to come, the British government will make sure of that, just as they always have.

So India is a great power and the UK isn't?
 * Nominal GDP (The only real GDP anyone takes notice of e.g. the media)
 * UK = $2,772,570 (5th place)
 * India = $1,098,945 (12th place)


 * Defence budget
 * UK = $68,911,000,000 (2nd or 3rd place)
 * India = $26,500,000,000 (11th place)

UK has a permanent UN Security Council seat, India doesn't. UK is leading nation of Commonwealth, India is a UK former colony. UK is a member of the G8, India isn't. UK is a developed nation with high living standards (9th highest GDP per capita), India poor and developing and reliant on aid (165th highest GDP per capita). UK has second largest fleet of aircraft carriers, India has an ex-UK carrier. London world's biggest financial centre with $9.14 trillion stock exchange (3rd biggest), India's stock exchange $0.263 trillion (20th biggest). UK's military equiped with hi-tech equipment such as expensive $122 million Eurofighters (2nd most expensive fighter) and its own equipment made for itself by BAE Systems (3rd biggest defence contractor), India uses other countries equipment sold to it such as cheap $14 million F-16s and second hand equipment retired from other countries such as UK. UK has navy and air force bases on islands in most oceans and seas with global projection, India's navy/airforce confind to Indian ocean. UK nuclear deterrent globally capable, Indian nuclear deterent regional only. UK troops best trained in the world such as Royal Marines and SAS, India's military made from peasent farm workers. UK secret services such as MI6 and MI5 world known and highly successful, Indian ones I don't even know what they're called. UK culture such as English language used around the world and promoted by such services as the BBC (world's biggest broadcaster), Indian languages confind to India. UK liturature and media known around the world from Shakespeare to Dickens to James Bond to Harry Potter, Bollywood confind to India. UK companies such as HSBC (world's biggest) and BP and Shell and GlaxoSmithKline present around the world, Few Indian companies are global. UK sports such as football not only world dominant but UK clubs such as Manchester United and Chelsea known around the world and ability to host Olympics and world's most exspensive stadium (Wembley), No Indian sports or clubs known of outside of India and not able to host Olympics and no super exspensive stadia. UK education world famous and high quality with institutions such as Cambridge and Oxford and Eton are world known, Few Indians receive education to Western standards. UK enjoys universal free health care through NHS (world's 3rd biggest employer), Many Indians go without access to health care. UK transport well developed with the world's busiest airport (Heathrow) and largest subway network (London underground), Most Indians without access to cars or other forms of transport. UK head of state Elizabeth II head of state of 16 countries and world wide Anglican Communion (3rd biggest church group after Catholics and Orthodox), Indian head of state head of state of just India. UK mostly energy independent due to North Sea oil and gas and nuclear power, India heavily dependent on Middle East oil and gas with underdeveloped nuclear power.

So India is a great power and the UK isn't? Will the next thing be that the US isn't a superpower anymore and India is? Just like how certain Russian editors tried to state the US isn't a superpower anymore but Russia is.

Don't take my comments as anti-India though as I would welcome debate on whether it's time to add India as a great power now, but what was ridiculous was the notion of the UK no longer being a great power. Usergreatpower (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You may mean well, but please don't bring up old/dead conversations. I personally believe that this type of conversation and the previous ones violate WP:NOTFORUM. Should we delete this message or just archive it with the previous conversation? -- Phoenix (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think either would be adequate. I just don't want this resurrected discussion serving as a magnet for trolls. --Hobie (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done -- Phoenix (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Usergreatpower, you can have your perceptions. Regarding one thing I really appreciate you. "India's military made from peasent farm workers." This is very true and makes an Indian proud. Jai Jawan, Jai kisan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanakyathegreat (talk • contribs) 13:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Quiet Please! Thank You. :-)
Chanakya, your rantings are not doing any one any favour. Accept the reality that, as of today India is not a Great Power.

Others, instead of throwing stones at each other, let all of us try and improve the article. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Amen to that, Shovon. --Hobie (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Any suggestions on how to improve the article? -- Phoenix (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Make sure all references are properly referenced and get it relisted as a Good Article. Nirvana888 (talk) 07:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed reference 16, it had nothing to do with the preceding sentence. We only have to format 29. I nominated the article for GA status on the 27th. There's a backlog so it may be a while until its evaluated. --Hobie (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hobie. Nirvana888 (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. --Hobie (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

India revisited
India is certainly militarily a strong nation and India has the capability to become militarily one of world's strongest nation, but this will never happen until the present military budget, i.e. only 0.5% is increased. Comparing India with other regional powers like South Africa or Australia is inappropriate, because Indian military is far more powerful than of those nations. Regarding India's nuclear capability, I am not questioning the fact that India has the resources to be a nuclear nightmare, but still India has not been able to produce hydrogen bomb and Intercontinental ballistic missile. Unless India can produce ICBM, hydrogen bomb, SLBM and nuclear powered submarine, India will not be able to become a global power. I have no idea why India spends so little for its military, i.e. only 0.5% of GDP while the People's Republic of China spends 1.7% of GDP and and Pakistan spends 4.5% of GDP.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 07:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think during Pokhran II, in 1998, India did test a Thermo nuclear device, not entirely sure though. I agree, India lacks the delivery mechanism in terms of missiles. Off and on, we keep getting the news that India is producing ICBM as well as nuclear subs, but again, these may be mere rhetoric. On another front, I think spending 0.5% of GDP on army would not have been that bad, only if the money meant for development purposes were to reach the intended recipients. Shovon (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Aha, at last some good discussion going on. India did explode a Hydrogen bomb during the Pokhran-II test. Regarding the Intercontinental ballistic missiles officially India don't have one. At present India is only capable of launching a ballistic missile (Agni-III) to a range of 3500 km (Unofficially this is said to be 5000 km). The Agni-III plus (Agni-IV) is capable of reaching a distance of 5000 km. This missile is said to be under development and will be tested in early 2009. Another missile known as the Agni-V is also under development and according to official estimates will have a range of 6000 km.

SLBM was tested recently. This will go in arming the ATV underdevelopment. The ATV is supposed to be launched this year or next year and commissioned into the navy by 2010. Also it is reported that an Akula class nuclear sub is under lease from Russia which is supposed to join the Indian Navy shortly.

Regarding the spending there is one aspect that a nation that is economically strong will require only a small part of their GDP for defense spending since the amount will be huge. I think the Indian (2% of GDP on defense) way is similar to that of Japan (1% of GDP on defense) in terms of percentage of GDP on defense. Economically smaller countries even though they spend a small amount on defense the percentage will be huge like 20% of GDP on defense etc. This only differs with China (around 4% of GDP on defense) and U.S.A (may be similar to China) which is spending hugely on defense. Regarding capability addition it is again a different calculation.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My Views
As all must have noticed I supported the bid for India to be a grt power but after reading much in the news I have realised India has a long way to go. though many facts go in its way like an extremely strong and well equipped military. the second largest military, 6th largest nuclear arsenal, great market for economic and financial growth and one of the biggest consumers make it strategically strong it is still weak in influence. I as before if anybody read said that India gave billions of dollars of aid, military training and assistance its liberal actions make it weaker than even countries in crisis like Zimbabwe. The biggest failure its in computability to crack down on terorism, though it has suffered the most from it, all that due to its bad democracy. Many reports by CIA, Mossad etc. say that the government in India doesn't want to crack down as it will loose its popularity with its muslims this makes it weaker than many other countries that suffer with terrorism. Its army is politically weak compared to other powers and its bureaucrats are corrupt. Though somehow it has economically and military has improved but as a BBC report says  the amt. it spends on its government employs its government is one of the least efficient in the world. And last but not least its weak foreign policy that is not firm and sided and somehow even after billions of dollars of aid and assistance to many in Central Asia, Central and south America, Africa and Middle East it has not managed to fully influence their actions, if India is included in this list it would easily be the weakest great power politically and in influence though having one of the strongest armies in the world. Enthusiast10 (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)