Talk:Global power
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is related to the WikiProject Power in international relations, an effort to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of Power in international relations and Geopolitics. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. You can discuss the project at its talk page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Six powers
"The six greatest powers are the United States, PRC, Russia, India, Germany and the United Kingdom" On what exactly is this based on - military, economy, influence, etc.?
Are Italy, India and Brazil really global powers? They don't really have that much inlfuence in the international community, and their economies arent the strongest.]
"The six greatest powers are the United States, PRC, Russia, India, Germany and the United Kingdom" First shouldn't it be the five greates powers and also India isnt even a power it is a 3rd world country no third world country can even be a power no matter how many people it has or nuclear weapons or soldiers.
"This is a very flawed article. First of all the only state that seems to fit the criteria given for a global power in this article (that it has overwhelming power over all other nations in the world) is the United States. Perhaps it should be changed to "a state that can exert its power globally"? Secondly, why are he United States, Germany, PRC, France, and the United Kingdom counted as the "Big Five"? Why Germany, what about Japan that has the second largest economy on earth or Russia that does possess nuclear weapons and has a permanent seat on the Security Council. Germany is certainly an economic power but what justifies leaving Japan out of the count and if military strength is the issue than Germany should be left out and Russia included instead. Then there is only written text about four of those supposedly five big powers. I can't see any reason, except perhaps the numbers of the permanent seats on the Security Council, which justifies the number of powers specified and today that is hardly the best way to identify the greatest powers.”Ormur
This article is very interesting to me seeing how constantly people just love to change it. I no becuase i wrote this article a really long time ago and it is completely different than what it used to be. The only few points that didnt change were germany PRC and the U.S. some people took off the U.K. and others took off Russia THOSE COUNTRIES ARE THERE FOR A REASON!!! the top five are (in order) The U.S., the PRC, Germany, Russia, and the U.K. now for the article above me that questions why Germany is up there and Russia isn't one Russia should be up there two Germany has the worlds (i no this sounds wierd but i read this in news weekly) Largest industry, (above Chinas) that may be because of its huge boating industry and car industry and that it has a high unemployment so that company owners use people for cheap labour but, Germany also is in there because of its advanced military systems and navy (It has nuclear subs yea so whoever put "the do not have nuclear weapons" do some reasearch. They have 4 wolfpacks of nuclear subs and in each wolf pack there is 2 boomer subs(for idiots that meens they contain nuclear weapons) any more questions comment me!
Please do not change this article any more it is how it is for a reason.
- For Omur; as for India and Brazil you might be right, their economies aren't strong. It's true India is growing fast but it has more than 1 billion people, for that size is a very weak and small economy. As for Italy you are totally wrong. Haven't herad of G-8, Italy is one of it's founder, when it was founded in 1975 as the G-6 Italy was founding it with another 5 Powerfull countries. So in 1975 Italy was already a Great Power with a big economy, it was the 6th in the industrialized world and the 7th in the world,(in 1975 USSR still had the 2th biggest GDP on earth). After 30 years Italy has a much greater and respected economy. It's true that in the last 5 years it's growth was small, but so was the growth of Germany and France. Italy, France and UK were probably surpassed by China in GDP (if chinese stats are true, thing I really doubt-they manage numbers like USSR used to do and even the ocidental countries accept it well to make the China Threat more real and plausible). In real GDP (taking into account shadow economy) Italy has a biggest GDP than France and UK and probably China (altough China will really surpass all these countries at least for a wild, but then who knows what will happen, see USSR again...). But now Italy has with the most real probabilities the 4th biggest economy on earth. And about strenght of economy, if Italy is with small grow and a public deficit a little big so are France and Germany. And the public deficit of other countries (not on the Euro area) are lots bigger.The difference is that Italy has to acomplish the Euro standards.
And for influence, Brazil isn't really very influent besides Latin America, India is more influent because is in a more powerfull region/Continet and has more qulities of a Great Power, but Italy uninfluent? Italy is one of the four Great Powers of EU(that has 25 countries), is one of the major donners of cash, aid and troops to UN missions. It's involved in almost every major conflict of the world, directly or through the UN and has a military strenght that people don't really know because close-minded press tend to overlook it.
ACamposPinho 17:45, 23 July 2006
[edit] Contradiction Over Size of Economies
The United Kingdom is stated as having the world's fourth largest economy, as is China. Obviously one of these statements needs to be changed. Which measure is being used to judge the size of economies? scotsboyuk
[edit] Article needs work
As mentioned above only the U.S. has the overwhelming influence on all countries in the world. Second the article contradicts itself, when it says that Germany is the only exception to the rule when the article also mentions Italy, Japan and India. Perhaps this article for now should just be redirected to Great Power. A good article could be written but the article misdefines world power. From my understanding its just a nation that projects itself globally. The list would probably be signficantly different. For example I would likely exclude Italy, and India but add Saudi Arabia. The budjet image is also confusing.74.137.230.39 15:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Italy and Global Power
There is an edit war around this topic linked to Talk:Great_power#Italy_is_a_great_power--194.183.86.147 16:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
Global Power → Global power – For clarity's sake, there is no need for the "P" in "Power" to be capitalized clearthought 17:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Survey
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
- Support —Mets501 (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support; I see no reason why some admin does not just move the page already. The only reason I couldn't is because there is a redirect page in the name of "Global power". ~ clearthought 01:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
- Add any additional comments. ~ clearthought 17:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I did the move. --Woohookitty(meow) 09:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] India
I dont see how India could be considered a Global power: which influence could have India over South America, or Europe? I have never heard of my government worried about what the Indian goverment does or wants. A global power, by definition, should be capable to influence the entire world. At the moment, I think India is only capable to influence its region and maybe United States, so it is a great power and a regional power, not a global one. I think that maybe also other countries should be eliminated, I have doubts about Russia, Japan, UK and Germany. --It.wiki:Twilight 09:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Iran
Shouldn't Iran be considered a global power, because of its global reach? Or North Korea, because of its missile capabilities?
[edit] Merge with Great power
On Talk:Great power I established that Great power is a synonym of Major power (which already redirects to Great power) and World power (which I consider the same as a Global power). The table on Great power is going to disappear and be replaced with text soon enough, but why write my own text when there is already enough over here. It just needs to be sourced...Does anyone oppose the move. Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- No-one opposing? Nobleeagle (Talk) 09:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
