Talk:Great power

Britain

Latest report on Britain being a great power.
Cameron insists Britain still great power
Cameron to defend 'great power' Britain .Bcs09 (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

While that is reassuring, I must point out that what a politician does or does not say is of little consequence here. It is the academic consensus that is of importance. -- Phoenix (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The academics are saying this Britain in decline? Divided we fall Joseph Nye on global power shiftsBcs09 (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think what's more notable is the fact that the term "great power" is still being used, as some regard that term outdated. But it does live on! David (talk) 11:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

India

The first set of articles, describing India as a great power has started to emerge.

• Emerged India: enter a great power
• India is not simply emerging; India has already emerged

Bcs09 (talk) 02:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that India is becoming a great power, it would not be acceptable to add it to the c. 2000 part of the table as in c. 2000 it was not a great power - in 10 years perhaps, when a c. 2020 is added to the table, India can be added. For now it is in transition... for now, at most possibly a single sentence in the article noting India starting to being mentioned as a great power would be acceptable to me. David (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read the articles, It states emerged and not emerging. These are the first articles that talk about emerged. So India has emerged in 2010 and no more is emerging. Let's check some more articles.Bcs09 (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it hasn't necessarilly emerged. It just means that India is at such a point in it's development that now we're just waiting for India to be accepted as a Great Power. Now, I'm not sure of the credibility behind this statement, but I found this with a quick google search: 'India sees itself as an emerging great power in a multi-power world, which will maintain a strategy of poly-alignment.'. That to me reads as if India still doesn't believe it's a great power and believes it's still in the process of becoming one. Comics (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a very recent trend, only after december 2010. No google search prior to this date may give anything more than emerging. So it's better to keep a watch.Bcs09 (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with David and would back a sentence on the subject. Also, David, your input is needed over at BW navy. Thanks, G.R. Allison (talk) 11:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No personnel opinions, please.Bcs09 (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

India is not yet a great power, although it is likely to become one over the next few decades. The primary halmark of a great power in international diplomacy is permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council. India will be internationally recognised as a great power when it attains such membership. There are a very many academic sources which support my claim that permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council is the primary halmark of a great power, just as this article itself states. This is without even mentioning how can India be considered a great power when its nominal GDP and/or military budget are less than that of other non-great powers such as Canada, Spain, Italy, Brazil and Saudi Arabia? Bcs09, I've been watching you discussions on many articles and you must learn the difference between reliable academic sources and cherry picked websites. For example, an article from Harvard University would be considered a reliable academic source while an article from some unheard of website called opendemocracy.net would be considered a cherry picked website. The problem is almost anyone can find some website supporting their claims if they search hard and long enough. People do this when they won't accept the word of the most reliable academic sources. Note that cherry picked websites carry no weight on Wikipedia, only reliable academic sources. Quite vivid blur (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No personnel opinions, please.Bcs09 (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Now if I had to respond to your comments, Permenant membership for India is an agreed one by the other Great powers except Communist China which turned nuetral recently.(Which is in conflict with India, hence there stance is not a surprise), hence don't have a belief that India is not a great power. Where do you get statistics of Spain from? Nominal GDP, you can see India is similar to that of Russia which is a great power. India maintains the largest military in the world, next to the United states and China. So only the stamp of Hardvard is reliable? How stupid. Cherry picked website? Just look at the author. [1]. Bcs09 (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Bcs09, please keep comments in a linear order without splitting them up, it makes the discussion flow hard to keep up with. Speaking of India though, I don't think we can just make a clear cut distinction between 'emerged' and 'emerging' at this stage of development. It's my opinion that only when it becomes hard to doubt India as being a great power it will truly have that status, India has a lot of problems just now and seems to be still emerging given all the recent articles and reports on its development. G.R. Allison (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No India does not have permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council. Permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council for India is far from agreed. For years and decades the notion of including more permanent members to the United Nations Security Council has amounted to nothing. Hence, as of 2011, India does not have permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council, and with many countries such as the Uniting for Consensus group opposing the bids of India and others it is likely to remain that way for at least some time yet. Inability to attain permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council is clear indication of a given country's inability to project great power influence over the United Nations General Assembly. My earlier comparision of India's nominal GDP and military budget to those of Canada, Spain, Italy, Brazil and Saudi Arabia is quite correct. India's nominal GDP and military budget are less than or similar to those of the middle powers I mentioned. India does not have a nominal GDP or military budget equivalent to those of great powers such as the United Kingdom, France, China, Japan or Germany. India's nominal GDP and military budget is approximately only half that of the said great powers. India may very well have a nominal GDP similar to that of Russia but India does not have the military budget, permanent United Nations Security Council seat or remnants of a superpower military and nuclear forces like Russia does. Despite your nationalist sentiment for India, Bcs09, India remains a middle power. India possesses the traits of a middle power, namely no permanent United Nations Security Council seat, and a nominal GDP and military budget similar to those of other middle powers and significantly less than those of great powers. As for military man power, in an era of technology focused militaries it has accounted for little in quite a while now. In the 21st century 1,000,000 conscript illiterate peasant farmers can be easily beaten by 100,000 professional well trained and well equipped troops. Countries such as North Korea, Iran, Vietnam and Pakistan possess some of the world's largest militaries in terms of man power but they are far from being great powers. Quite vivid blur (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Mr, The above comments by you are totally absurd and illogical beliefs of yours leading to POV pushing in Wikipedia. That's the only way to describe the above description provided by you. But since it's necessary to debunk those myths and put the right stuff in the right manner for better understanding, I will try my level best to educate you. First in your own personnel opinon, you said the permanent membership for India is far from agreed. The permanent seat for India at the security council has been agreed upon and supported by the permenant member of the security council like France, Russia, U.K and the U.S. China has a nuetral view of the same. And even the cofee club don't oppose India per say and the members in it is supportive of India[2]. And in the recent election for the non-permanent seat at the U.N security council, India won 187/192 votes.[3]. This emphasizes the political power of India. Regarding economy, India's economy is the second fastest growing major economy in the world after China. It's nearly equivalent to Russia in terms of GDP nominal and the fourth in terms of GDP PPP. India's economic power can be judged by the fact that during the recent visit to India, President Obama went home with deals that created a lot of jobs in the U.S and India has become the net job creator in the U.S[4]. Not just the U.S, but in many parts of the world as well. From Afghanistan to Germany[5], India's economy is creating infrastructure to jobs. This shows it's wide reach and power. Thirdly the military aspect cannot be judged by mere dollar spend. India's military is not only numerically superior but also technologically advanced military in the world. Having all the capabilties including political, economical, military and soft power[6][7], India is a great power. Let me tell you, that your views are pathetic. Regarding peasants, fact is that the peasants were able to beat a technologically superior military in Vietnam.Bcs09 (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The point remains that India does not have a permanent seat on the security council. India is also the second largest country by population in the world. As such, it can afford to have the same GDP as Russia, but the people can still be poorer and they are. Therefore, despite India having a similar GDP to Russia, it has not reached the same level of advancement. A better country to compare it to might be China, which similarly has a billion strong population but also has an economy about what, 3 or 4 times the size of India's. I think it's also interesting to note that in Vietnam they had help from the technologically advanced Soviet Union, which supplied much of the military hardware of the North Vietnamese forces. Also, those peasant farmers were exactly that because they were fighting a war to unify a country of peasants. It was in their best interests to create empathy between themselves and the South Vietnamese. To speak in the terms of ye olde Great Powers, I think what we have is the established powers of the G7 (not all of them, but they're also not moving forward that well) and the emergent/re-emergent powers of the BRIC/BASIC liason. India is still trying to gain influence in the world, and perhaps the greatest two examples of that to date have been it's nuclear treaty with America and it's efforts at Copenhagen; however at Copenhagen it also had the support of China, Brazil and South Africa. To be honest, I don't know if we'll have the academics to support any particular view until we start to look back on events/have a war that really shakes up the balance of things/reform the Security Council. Also, no labelling other people's views as pathetic. We're here to constructively debate for the betterment of this article, not lash out at people who have qualms with your suggestions. Comics (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

First and foremost "1,000,000 conscript illiterate peasant farmers killed" is in poor taste. A farmer knows better than anyone here in terms of his knowledge about farming. Never ever try to look down on people because of the work they do. Learn to respect and then gain respect. If those who don't have it and the ones who support such pathetic outright stupidity dont deserve respect either. Try to be constructive. Now the points you raised. A country will not gain permenant membership in today's world just by being a bully or a winner in a coalition like in the 1945's. A country will not become a great power after gaining the seat, but be a great power and then gain the seat. So if India is being supported for permenant membership in the security council, it shows that India is a great power. Poverty is a point that has been heard a long time. How long you people will be able to hold on to this stupid view of India that India is poor etc. India is not poor in any areas except for economic reasons it was when the British left India. From that day of 100 percent poverty to reducing it to the level of 20 percent through democratic process is no mere acheivement. It's India's strength and India's economic progress will see that India will keep reducing it's poverty and ultimately eliminate it. Indeed India can only compared to it's true equivalent China and may be to a certain extent the United States of America in the coming years. In what area you say advancement has not been made? I do see India making advancement in all areas from food production to Space exploration. Indeed China is ahead. They started early and hence obviously they are ahead in terms of statistics, and India has to do the catching up with respect to the China and the U.S over a longer period of time. The defeat of the super power by the farmers (obviously the military gear was supplied by SU) is a fact. No country in the world can stand alone and dictate terms today. Those days of cold war when U.S and SU called the shots are over. Today it's all about cooperation, including for the sole superpower (then think of what great power can do, surely will have to cooperate between themselves). Anyone can agree/disagree with a point but constructively (not just in words but action as well) as you said, but not by unruly/uncivilized methods and views.Bcs09 (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Bcs09, the issue of including India in the article has been raised times before and rejected each time. Once again you are the only one who supports your proposed changes whilst everyone else opposes them. Perhaps it has something to do with that fact your proposed changes are blatantly biased? The fact is the economic, military and diplomatic power India possesses as of 2011 is no more than that of most other middle powers, hence it remains a middle power. You should read the Middle power article. As for India's "agreed" permanent Security Council seat where is it exactly? I don't see India with a permanent seat on the Security Council in 2011 so when will we see it? 2020? 2030? When exactly? India having a permanent Security Council seat is far from "agreed". You could be argued with until the cows come home as it is like trying to argue with a stuck record of Indian nationalism. I would also like to add that it is hard to understand your broken and sometimes rambling English and that you appear threatening to other users and it is unlikely to be tolerated for long. Quite vivid blur (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You better keep your personal views for yourself. And you can agree on your personal views which are not needed here. Let me remind you that this is not a forum to express personal opinions. I had replied to your views by picking and busting each of that myths. I have nothing more to say for your personal belives and views that that run contrary to stark reality.Bcs09 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh jeez. So. Judging from most of Bcs09's views, we should add Brazil in here too. India is definately a very influential country in the world. Then again, so are such countries as Italy (mostly through the G8 forum). India's highest level of recognition globally is in the G8+5, and even then the '+5' suggests India is outside the bubble as opposed to fully integrated into it. The other two big +5 countries (Brazil and China) are also emerging, but China is accepted because of it's inclusion in the P5 for the past forty years and influence throughout the world through alliances like the SCO. Yes, there are sources that suggest India is a great power. There are also sources that suggest that suggest Iran is a closeted superpower, but you do not see Iran listed on the superpower page. The point is, most sources suggest India is still in a state of ascendence and has still not reached the comparable level of advancement that the other Great Powers have reached. Comics (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Bcs09 Personally I was really offended by your statement "India is not poor in any areas except for economic reasons it was when the British left India. From that day of 100 percent poverty to reducing it to the level of 20 percent" especially after you scolded Comics for his/her "poor taste". even going on to say "Learn to respect and then gain respect. If those who don't have it and the ones who support such pathetic outright stupidity dont deserve respect either. Try to be constructive." I found your comments to be insulting, hypocritical and it shows that you have a limited view of world history or of the social/economical situation of India before the 1800's. Don't forget that India has lost over $462 Billion due to corruption alone from 1948 to 2008, and 68% of that loss was after 1991[8][9]!

But my main point. This article is quite simple in its Goal, it is about Great Powers. It is not about Superpowers, not about Middle Powers and it is not about potential Great Powers. We are not here to Create our own opinions and post it on Wikipedia, it is actually officially banned:

Wikipedia:No original research : Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position

we must also avoid creating our own conclusions by doing research here and drawing our own conclusions from them:

Synthesis of published material which advances a position : Material published by reliable sources can inadvertently be put together in a way that constitutes original research. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.

There is no academic source out there that says that India is a Great power but there are many speculating about it being a future Superpower. This is not the Superpower article nor the Potential Superpower article. We should also not post opinions about what may happen in the future, because one can never know what tomorrow brings:

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball : Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. [..] "Future history" is welcome at Future Wikia, where original research is allowed to some extent and fact-based speculations are welcome.

As you see official policies are in agreement. We should only use Academic accredited sources that we can cite via Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability and please know that this article is not a forum. -- Phoenix (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix is right. Corruption and mismanagement in India are primary reasons why India trails far behind China in development. This was demonstrated by the enormous disparity between the 2008 Beijing Olympics and 2010 Commonwealth Games in Dehli. Many, including the media, have mistaken what has occured in China since 1978 as seemingly being synonymous with what is occuring in other developing countries. China is governed very differently to other countries and this is why the enormous development seen in China since 1978 has been for the most part limited to China. This is why in 2011 China's GDP is the second largest in the world while India's GDP is only 11th, not in the top 10 and even behind such middle powers as Brazil and Canada. India's military budget is the 10th largest in the world, behind Saudi Arabia and Italy, while China's is the second largest. Is having the 11th largest GDP and 10th largest military budget, ranking behind such countries as Canada, Brazil and Saudi Arabia, the kind of economic and military clout of that of a great power? India's GDP rank isn't going anywhere fast either, having only moved up one place from 12th to 11th in the past decade, while China's moved up 5 places from 7th to 2nd in the same space of time, confirming what I stated at the start of this comment. In addition, Comics is right that this article is not a list of future great powers and as soon as one middle power is included on this article as a great power then others like Brazil, Mexico, Italy, South Korea, Spain, Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia and so on would be included too, which would make the article erroneous. Quite vivid blur (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

True, but I think that you missed the main point of my post. We need to use this talk page to help build this encyclopaedia and improve this article. Lets try to go back to that agenda and allow the original user bring accredited academic sources about India as a Great Power, and if none exist this conversation should not continue because it can only get father off track. -- Phoenix (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

@ Quite vidid blur: India is not run by communist government and Indian economy is not based on communism nor based on dictatorship. It's a democratic nation and it's economy is a free economy. The corruption exists in the government and the government is not the one that is taking India's economy forward, it's the private companies that thrive in India. So don't compare the Chinese model of caged labour with Indian version of progress based on entrepreneurial skills. The Chinese olympics and the Indian commonwealth games went with full satisfaction of the athletes. The problem with Commonwealth games was indeed corruption, but in India to counter these corruption we do have something called a free media, which is non existent in China. And the credit for exposing the lacunae and the deficiencies can be given to the Indian media. They borke the story for the countries leadership to take stock of the situation and work in such a manner os that during the time of commonwealth things were put in place and the commoncealth games became a success. India and China can only be compared in terms of statistics. Now take the statistics, the nation that is in competition to the U.S is not a simple competitor for India. China is a great competitor. Now for economic statistics you just take the imf data and see for youself.[10]. It has been told that you can stop posting your belives here. No need for that.Bcs09 (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Big Three

I find it odd from a historical perspective that there isn't a specific article in WP about the "Big Three" - such an influential series of conferences and the FDR/WSC/Stalin, followed by Truman/Atlee/Stalin meetings were decisive for the following 40 years. Does anyone know if this has been considered before? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)