World’s fifteen most powerful countries in 2012
Published on by James Rogers and Luis Simón
In recent years, particularly since the 2007-2009 financial crisis in North America and Western Europe, there has been much speculation over the changing balance of power in the world. China’s rapid ascent during the 2000s as a potential superpower is well-known, as to some extent is Russia’s resurgence as a regional power and India’s emergence economically, politically and militarily. Less well known are the rise of Germany to economic dominance on the European mainland; the expansion of South Korea and Brazil in East Asia and South America, respectively; and the ongoing ‘normalisation’ of Japan, as it weaves itself into a web of alliances and partnerships across the Asian rimland.
We also think it is important not to underestimate the established powers’ positions: the United States, the United Kingdom and France still pack a formidable punch, and will probably continue to do so for many decades to come. They still hold many critical cards, from their global military reach and their scientific capacity to their educational resources and cultural attraction.
We have therefore sought to produce a table ranking the world’s fifteen most powerful countries for 2012 (see below). We know alternative rankings exist, such as the Correlates of War project, the index of Comprehensive National Power and the International Futures programme. Nonetheless, we have tried to produce our own, in an attempt to signify more subjective attributions like countries’ historical reputation and geographic position, amongst others – and for which we offer no apologies (we simply think some attributes of national power cannot be objectively verified using quantitative methods).
To offer a note of explanation, this table is based on two dimensions: aggregated national power and planetary reach. Aggregated national power takes into consideration geographic position; financial power; industrial output; military might (i.e. ‘power projection’ and/or ability of defence); alliance membership; educational attainment; cultural attraction; population size; historical reputation, militarily, politically and economically; government capacity and efficiency; national cohesion; and potential over the next ten years. Meanwhile, planetary reach is based on five categories:
- Superpower – a country with systemic power, in almost every continent, including a top-tier industrial economy, a comprehensive global military footprint (or ability to defend itself against any other power) and enormous cultural attraction;
- Potential superpower – a country (or union) with the potential to reach the status of a superpower within the next decade, conditional on various political and economic reforms;
- Great power (global) – a country lacking the heft or comprehensive attributes of a superpower, but still with a wide footprint in all or most geographic regions, including: Africa, North America, Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, South Asia, East Asia and Australasia;
- Great power (regional) – a country lacking the comprehensive attributes of a superpower, or even the reach of a global power, but with a strong and highly concentrated regional footprint, perhaps extending to the nearest zones of adjacent continents;
- Middle power – a country with significant influence in its local vicinage, perhaps courted by superior powers due to its regional importance or reputation.
Interesting stuff, is there an algorithm behind this or is it just a loose number assignment?
@Vince Garton: It’s based on a loose number assignment. We hope to develop the concept in the future. Some of the things we’re trying to include are notoriously difficult to measure quantitatively, because they can change dependent on context. For example, a country like the United Kingdom, with a maritime disposition, is in an advantageous situation in any conventional war, but add nuclear weapons and it becomes extremely vulnerable, with its small size and dense population. Likewise, measuring attributes like cultural attraction is very hard, as even is military power. Military spending is sometimes used as a rough approximation of overall armed clout, but this clout depends more on the offence-defence dynamic, which is very hard to measure. For example, Britain could send a large naval expeditionary force to China, but China could not do the same in response to Britain, for it lacks the means and infrastructure to do so. Which country’s military is strongest? In terms of reach, the answer would rest with Britain. The only trouble is that on arriving near China, Britain’s naval forces would get sunk very quickly by China’s ‘counter-intervention’ forces, comprised of various anti-ship missiles and submarines. As such, it’s very difficult to make a clean judgment.
James and Luis – you have done a great job here. I would really appreciate a map with the color codes that you use.
Happy New Year!
Hi James and Luis,
Interesting result, I’d like to see more on the metrics used in future updates.
I had a crack at this myself some time back; maybe one or two of the metrics might prove of use for you too? See here.
And also a trio of long-range economic growth forecasts that might underpin future projections can be found here.
Please click here for International Futures Power for Select Countries.
Pingback: Why Is Germany a Superpower 70 Years After It Was Dust?
The British authors of those ranking are always overestimating their own (Britains) status. That has to be calculated.
But in total, seen from a central European point of view, the list is somewhat reasonable. I’d give Russia five points more and South Korea five points less.
@Vihar Georgiev: Thanks for the kind words. We’ll see what we can come up with vis-à-vis the map!
@jedibeeftrix: Thanks for the links. They are very interesting. The key thing is finding ways of using aggregated military capabilities to measure fighting power. We intend to develop the concept in the future. Stand by!
@Jonathan: Thanks for pointing out International Futures. We’ve already linked to the project in the main text, a project we appreciate.
@Lear: The fact that one of the authors – myself – is British has absolutely no bearing on our scores. Incidentally, my colleague, Luis Simón, is Spanish, but that did not mean we put Spain alongside Britain in third position. Britain remains a formidably powerful country (the only power within the European Union other than Germany with the means to enforce its will unilaterally), with enormous historical/structural resonance (Britain pioneered the Industrial Revolution and modernity), as well as greater global military reach, cultural pull and political presence than any other country other than the United States (China scoops second place only due to its industrial might and sheer potential). South Korea is also a country to watch: it is one of the world’s leading industrial powers; exerts a strong cultural pull in East Asia; and has emerged as the world’s leading shipbuilder.
I wonder why India is good enough to be placed in the fifteenth most powerful countries in the world? I mean, its currency is laughable and seventy percent of its population is indulged in poverty
@Zimmy: Because it controls twenty percent of the world’s population; has growing military (particularly maritime) power; is an emerging economic power; and has enormous potential…
For the purpose of the exercise, identifying Great Power reach, metrics that focus on (or enable) power-projection are critical.
I would also argue that budget/manpower is an essential modifier in determining the effectiveness of that capability to project power.
I look forward to it.
@jedibeeftrix: Yes, I agree on military spending, though not so much on manpower (well, it depends on what you mean with this term – if you mean simple available soldiers, I don’t think it’s very helpful; but if you mean the combined combat power of an army [very difficult to measure though], then we might be getting somewhere).
Personally, though, I think the greatest modifier is ‘structural power’, which, unfortunately, is very difficult to measure. What I mean by ‘structural power’ is the ability of victorious Great Powers after major wars to shape the international system through institutions that turn their brute force into legitimate authority, making it easier for them to shape and mould the preferences of others (normally, until the next major war). The other great modifier, I think, is national cohesion and/or ideological fervour. The best military in the world is useless unless a government or leadership can motivate the soldiers/sailors and aviators to fight. Technological prowess is obviously very important too, as is relative geographic advantage. The fact that Britain, for example, is an island, has allowed the country to put almost all its resources into offensive war-fighting, whereas landlocked countries or hybrid powers have more often than not had to divide their forces, with the majority undertaking static defensive roles.
Ah no, I mean budget divided by manpower, to achieve a per-capita budget allocation. This should have a very close correlation with the professional competency and equipment superiority of an Armed Forces vis-a-vis its peers.
Very much agreed. The significance of being an island nation is that we do not have to overly concern ourselves with the possibility of a neighbour rolling tanks across the border on a Friday afternoon, as our continental neighbours do.
We are therefore less constrained by the need to position fixed heavy-formations to deter against the potential for immediate and catastrophic failure in the event of general warfare.
The probability may be low, but the impact is high, therefore resources deployed in response to the severity of the threat. We made the same calculation here.
We are an island you know!
@jedibeeftrix:
Ah, right, I understand now what you meant. I agree.
Yes, we’re an island (thankfully), but we do have a wider security perimeter that extends deep into the European mainland, as far as the Baltic and the Rhine. And then down into the Mediterranean, from Gibraltar to Cyprus. Maintaining that security perimeter means we prevent conflict or our opponents’ encroachment on European soil, or from disrupting the status quo and reaching the Low Countries (and thus being within easy range of our shores).
You say: ‘“We” made the the same calculation here.’ Do you work for the Cabinet Office, or some other part of the government?
Japan doesn’t have any nuclear weapons. Although it has made some steps toward technological issues and in robotics, it is still a very small island on the northwestern edge of the Pacific Ocean, with a trivial population. How come is it more powerful than Russia, India, and even France?!
Very much a Royal ‘we’ I’m afraid!
@Zimmy: Japan could manufacture nuclear weapons very quickly if it wanted to; it has nuclear power plants, which could be used to manufacture the necessary materials. Japan is a small island, but hardly has a ‘trivial’ population. It has one of the largest populations in the world. It also has the world’s third largest economy…and a very powerful navy…
I am confused as to the Britain – France – Germany power calculation. Britain and France have virtually identical economy size, population, and military might. Germany has a bigger populaiton (but not for long), bigger economy, and weaker military. I can see an argument for giving all of these 3 countries the same number OR for putting Germany above both Britain anf France, but I don’t see how France is in a different leauge than Britain.
@Zack Fisher: Good questions! This ranking is based on far more than aggregates of population, economic output and military might. It’s also based on historical reputation, ‘structural power’, cultural pull, geographic position, scientific capacity and future potential. In all those areas, Britain is stronger than either Germany or France: Britain’s historical reputation is considerable, having been a global empire only a handful of decades ago. Its structural power – by which we mean its input into international institutions and alliances (London was key in founding the United Nations, the Atlantic Alliance and the Commonwealth [among many others], as well as supporting European integration) – is also highly significant. Britain’s cultural pull is also vast: it receives huge numbers of visitors each year, many immigrants, and has a great sway over global popular culture, and has spread its ideas over large areas of the world (i.e. constitutional government, industrialised society and the English language). Britain’s geography – as a large island – also makes it unique and gives it a natural advantage during wartime because it does not need to field large defence forces to protect itself from enemy attack, and can instead pour its money into offensive combat power to take the war to the enemy. Scientifically, Britain has several of the world’s leading universities (Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial, London) and has more in the top one hundred internationally than any other country bar the United States. And, as you’ve pointed out yourself, Britain’s future potential puts it in a different league to Germany, and to some extent, France. All that being said, we do not want to give the impression that France languishes behind Britain: France is a very powerful country and will stay so for many years to come!
James: Just some thoughts. I am actually an Anglophile to a certain extent and you definitely make good points, but there are certain things I disagree with. I agree with Britain’s cultural pull but I don’t think it should figure that strongly into analysis of actual power. Greece had a huge cultural pull during the days of the Roman empire, Italy had huge cultural pull from 1300 to 1600 and France had a huge cultural pull in the 1920s and 1930s yet this did not translate into actual power. Also, while it is probably not as strong as the British, France does have a cultural pull of its own. For example, it shares credit with Britain for inventing democracy; and doesn’t it get more visitors a year than Britain? I agree with you about Britain’s top tier universities but lower level education is actually better in Germany and France so it roughly balances out. I am not sure the Commonwealth helps Britain’s power, as Britain has no influence over its most important countries (Pakistan, India, or even Canada or Australia). To the extent Britain does still have influence in some of its smaller former Caribbean and African colonies, France’s influence in its own former colonies is comparable. Britain’s demographic future is pretty comparable to France – both have relatively high birthrates by European standards, with France’s being slightly higher. Britain being an island was definetely a great advantage in the past, but is it still that much of an asset in this day and age? The British economy ostensibly appears healthier than France’s but it is too de-industrialised for my liking. I believe that good old fashioned manufacturing is essential for future survival of the western standards of living and Britain simply lacks it nowadays as compared to Germany or (to a much lesser degree) France. Finally, Britain does not exercise the same amount of influence in the European Union as France or Germany, even though that is only because of history and the policy of the British government. As such, France or Germany have a greater influence over smaller European Union countries than Britain.
The bottom line is that I don’t even necessarily disagree with putting Britain above Germany or even France but I do disagree with putting it into a different ‘tier’. As someone who lives in the United States, I can tell you that the American medial typically lumps them together, except during the Iraq war.
@Zack Fisher: You raise many important points! As I said above, Britain’s advantages are not that great; which is why we’ve placed it alongside Germany and only a few points above France. In many ways – culturally, and particularly, militarily – France is ahead of Germany by quite a degree. It probably also sits alongside Britain more as a global than a regional power: after all, France is a trans-continental nation-state, with territories located in South America and the Indo-Pacific. Yet the British military is considerably more powerful than either France’s or Germany’s: for example, based on gross tonnage, the British Naval Service is larger than both put together. I must also point out that the American media does not necessarily constitute a good source for information!
Completely agree with you on American media! I also agree that British military is more powerful than the French, although I think the difference is moderate-to-slight. I was not aware that British tonnage exceeds France’s and Germany’s combined – my impression was that the British navy is larger than the French by about twenty-five percent. France does have more nuclear weapons and some conventional weapons but I agree that the British army overall is better – I just wouldn’t put it in a different tier (it might be in a different tier than Germany’s though). I guess my biggest disagreements with the rankings was not the numbers but classifying Britain as a global power and France and Germany as regional powers. In my opinion, either all three are regional powers, all three are global powers, or Britain and France are both global powers and Germany is a regional one. Its your world here though and I am very glad I’ve discovered this site as it gives some good information on Europe that’s hard to get in the United States so don’t interpret my comments as anything more than just my thoughts.
@Zack Fisher: No problem. Please leave whatever thoughts you feel necessary! The combined displacement of the British Naval Service is approximately 780,000 tonnes; France’s is approximately 405,000 tonnes; Germany’s is just under 200,000 tonnes (and, for further comparison: Italy’s is approximately 280,000 tonnes, Spain’s stands at around 200,000 tonnes, and the Netherlands at around 140,000 tonnes). The British fleet therefore has a similar displacement to the next three European navies combined. I think this alone warrants placing the British in a different league; no European country other than the United Kingdom has proven its ability to project military force around the world over the past few decades, particularly at distances exceeding 10,000 kilometres (i.e. the Falklands Conflict).
Perhaps some decent metrics for ‘cultural pull’ would be the economic size of a country’s creative industry, and its percentage share in academic citations.
Pingback: Global Geostrategy: 15 most powerfull countries | EuA Team Blog
Is Brazil a powerful country?
Excellent list, one of the best comparisons I’ve seen so far. Personally I would have added Pakistan and Israel in replacement of Spain and Italy, especially considering of the deep depressions these countries are falling into. My only other qualm is that you stated something like the British Navy can project its naval power better than any other nation, The U.S. has 11 super carriers with 2 under construction and 11 support carriers. The U.K. has 4 economoy class carriers, cruisers and submaries are in similar standings. Also the United Kingdom was a declining global empire for 90 years and ended 70 years ago(more than a handful of decades). I don’t believe that a countries historical past can have too much of an impact, even considering the United States has defeated almost every European nation. All said the UK deserves its spot as #3 over France and Germany on Combat experience alone(Iraq, Afganistan, Falkan campaign) and due to its close American-British relations which will ensure these two remain on the top for centuries to come. China is a nation that is running out of fresh water and needs to import food without a real blue water navy, high dependacy ratio and high supression of its own populace(it’s #1 military expenditure is on domestic defence against its own citizens). Its high population and dependance on United States corporations only go so far to make it a superpower but It shall remain as second due to its theoretical power.
@James Rogers and Luis Simon: Your data is not correct about India. You’re still thinking of the 1980s or 1990s. It’s 2012. If you are from a developed country then there is little difference between you and your parents. But here, in India, there is a great difference between parents and children in education, which is leading to development. This development might not appear few a few more years but over the next five to ten years, it’s going to make a big difference. See the real India other than the developed countries’ media!
@Ank: I’ve been to India and I’ve seen it for myself. But I’m not sure what you’re complaining about: India is quite high on this list. We agree that it has great potential.
What and odd list??? Where is Pakistan? Which is a batter power than South korea, Australia, Turkey, Spain, Brazil and Canada…
Interesting blog and I agree with most of the findings. My own top 12 goes like this – USA, China, Russia, UK, France, Germany, India, Brasil, Italy, Canada,Turkey, Spain. Don’t write off the UK as a spent power – remember the langauge we all use is theirs! The UK still the 4th highest military budget in the world – far more than most others beneath it. Also another aspect often ignored by armschair generals – nearly ALL the world base their own armed forces on the UK model. The UK rank structure is copied by almost everybody. I think that the USA/European’s are far ahead of potential enemies in terms of technology and logistics. In the years to come I think we will see Russia coming closer to NATO and the Western allies. NATO with Russia will be able to take on all newcomers.
@Sharouz Tufaikl: Pakistan more powerful than Canada? That’s a joke buddy! I suppose thats why our population is flooded with immigrants of Pakistan because you live in a more powerful country right? Makes sense.
@James Rogers: That’s a nice post. I agree with it completely. My last comment was for ‘Zimmy’ who said earlier that India has seventy-percent of its people in poverty.
@James Rogers: Your first list is good but I disagree on your thoughts about India. India ranks much higher than the United Kingdom, France or Germany.
1. India’s GDP(PPP) is more than US$4 trillion, which makes it the fourth largest economy in the world, far above France and the United Kingdom;
2. India’s population is 1.2 billion, where almost seventy percent of the population is between the age of twenty and thirty-five, definitely a huge asset;
3. India has the third largest pool of doctors and engineers, next only to United States and China. And our engineering and management institutions are equal to any other institutions in the world, if not better;
4. We have our multi-national companies, which are in a rush to purchase great companies around the world – from Europe to Africa, Australia to Latin America. Britain’s richest person is Mr. Lakshmi Mittal, head of Arcelor Mittal steel company;
5. In Cricket India is the superpower, which accounts for more than seventy percent of the Cricket Governing Body’s Income. Our IPL – T-20 league dolls out income for cricketers around the world, income in excess of US$2-3 million per season, which even British or Australian cricketers take ten years to earn in their own countries!!
I have only given some facts and India definitely ranks as the fourth most powerful country next only to the United States, China and Russia!
I think this list is about as accurate as you can get, people don’t realise how much power Britain still has, partly because you automatically compare it with the empire. There are many factors that make Britain a mighty nation, the English language, founder of many political and legal systems in use around the world, very close cultural, political and military ties to the only superpower at the moment (USA), The first truly global power and economy, contributed the most to human advancement in all history (my opinion), first industrialised nation, created many sports etc the list goes on. The modern world we live in now was founded by Britain who’s legacy has been continued by the United States, a child of Britain.
No offense, but it isn’t accurate. Russia is second, China is third. And you missed Iran and Israel! They are really strong countries and I’m sure they would qualify as in the top fifteen.
Yes, I am sure you all know much more than the people who are actually experts on this!
@Ganesh: India is certainly not the world’s fourth most powerful country, although – so long as it can maintain economic growth – it will almost certainly shoot up the scale over the next few years.
@Alex: No, Russia certainly is not second. Russia is a relatively poor, technologically undeveloped country, which relies on the export of raw materials and energy to sustain itself. It has no cultural power whatsoever, and still empowers itself from the residue from its Soviet past. Iran is no great power; not even close. Israel is a very powerful country within the Middle East, but it only has a population of seven million, and a small – if technologically advanced – economy. It certainly doesn’t rank higher than the countries on our list. It may make the top twenty though.
@Vincent Garton: Thanks for the support!
Great article (and great website in general, only just discovered it). I find all of your points completely valid.
The only worry I would have is the lack of aircraft carriers in the British navy now and the rather large gap before the super carriers are built and kitted out with suitable fighter jets. The lack of having an aircraft carrier surely weakens the British position on power projection (both militarily and therefore to some degree globally in terms of politics) and the possible need to defend overseas territories such as Argentina. The BBC (hardly military experts but generally one of the most reliable media outlets around) did an interesting article on the Falklands and the problems the lack of an aircraft carrier would cause.
However, I had no idea about the tonnage ratio, that has impressed me. When others have been comparing the United Kingdom, France and German militaries I would add that the British have much more of a stomach for military response than certainly Germany does and, to a lesser degree, France. I would say this was apparent from the stance on the Falklands, Libya and Iran (embassy closure).
Overall though I cant find a flaw in your logic and agree with you completely whereas before reading this I would have chosen differently. Great article!
Italy is better than Spain and South Korea.
Pingback: Europe's Money Worries - So Detached From Real Life | Living History
I can see that the British continue their propaganda! It’s just ridiculous to see the United Kingdom in a different category to France. I found it funny.
The French economy is bigger, and based on real industrial production of goods. In Paris there are the most Fortune 500 companies (biggest in the world), and France has large companies, leaders in their fields (Areva, Axa, Vinci…).
About the military budget: it is exactly the same for France or the United Kingdom. I agree about the Royal Navy, although the French Navy in the war in Libya played a greater role (i.e., the aircraft carrier). And the French Air Force is as powerful as the British. Don’t forget the French have the Rafale.
I can easily assume to say that the French are the leader in Europe regarding new technology (TGV or nuclear companies). France, has after the United States, the largest maritime area, through its territories worldwide.
France is the most visited country in the world. And Nicholas Sarkozy is far more influential than David Cameron in Europe.
The British will never accept that their country is no longer the most powerful in Europe, especially against France. That’s why we have this sort of propaganda.
India definitely ranks third or fourth with the combination of a huge economy and being a powerful nuclear state.
@James Rogers: I would like to ask what rank the Philippines is? Thanks.
@Matt: No, Italy is not. Italy is the ‘great power’ that wasn’t. It punches way below its weight, a consequence of a structurally weak central government, and is currently mired in an economic downturn. Over the Libya crisis last year, it was simply swept aside by the British and French, even though Libya is in Italy’s immediate proximity.
@Dylan: Yes, France has many excellent attributes, but it is not as powerful as the United Kingdom. See above for our comments on those.
@Frank: Yes, India will shoot up the rankings if it can continue to grow. But it’s not there yet!
@Robert: Um…I’m afraid I’m not sure. The Philippines has a large population, but is still quite poor. It has no military or navy to speak of, other than a few small ships and former cutters from the United States Coast Guard. But it does have a security treaty with Washington, so it will remain quite safe!
An interesting read!
Im gonna forward your list to some students of mine for a comparison with the results of other metrics on power status.
I noticed that you stated in a reply somewhere that your final power score for each nation isnt a raw addition on the individual descriptors (geographic position; financial power; industrial output; etc).
Even so, would you mind disclosing a bit more detail about your scoring for the individual countries? I imagine you must have a table covering all your power descriptors for each individual country.
In ten years India will become a superpower.
This info must be either fake or too old. A recent report issued jointly by the United States National Intelligence Council and the European Union’s Institute for Security Studies says:
Current global power holders:
Top Global Power: 1. United States 22%, 2. China 12%, 3. India 8%,
and countries like Russia, Japan, Brazil with less than 5% each.
Top Real GDP (economy): 1. United States, 2. China, 3. India, 4. Japan.
Top Military: 1. United States, 2. Russia, 3. China, 4. India.
Top Space Race: 1. United States, China, Russia, India, Japan.
These are our global powers in which three of these nations are in everywhere on top list: the United States, China and India could be considered as superpowers!!
India’s military is large and as advanced ore more advanced as the British. We have one of the world’s top navies, air forces and armies. India beats the United Kingdom in nearly all aspects and thrashes Germany and Japan. We have nuclear weapons and are currently spending the largest amount of money in the global military market. We are replacing our older weapons with modern replacements from countries such as Israel. India has over 1,100 more aircraft than the United Kingdom and 2,000 more than Germany. India has over 55,000 more logistical vehicles, 64,000 more land weapons, 15,000 anti-aircraft weapons, 47,000 more anti-tank weapons and ten more amphibious assault vessels than the United Kingdom. We clearly beat Britain in military power and economy. India also ranks higher than the United Kingdom in space programmes.
YOUR LIST IS CLEARLY FLAWED. India also has a much larger population and rapidly developing infrastructure. India is spending over US$1 trillion on infrastructure development. Within ten to fifteen years India’s infrastructure will be as good as many developed countries. We also have the second largest output of doctors, scientists, mathematicians, engineers and other skilled fields, just behind the United States.
India Clearly beats in the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan in nearly all aspects. Apart from living standards, income etc. India’s economy is more than twice Britain’s size. Our military ranks higher than all three countries in overall strength. Our space programs rank higher than all three countries. The top superpowers should be changed to:
1. United States
2. China
3. India
4. Japan
5. United Kingdom
6. France
…and so on.
Oh look, a site ending in ‘.eu’ that doesn’t rank the European Union at all – puts a dash in place of a ranking… implying they may be on the same level as the United States.
If you honestly think that the European Union has more power than China, you are delusional. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if China is now more powerful than the United States itself, even though I’m an American.
You Europeans really do think too highly of yourselves. Your sovereignty over the world was dead long ago.
There might be 22% poverty , but illiteracy is very high, due to not being educated. People do work just to sustain themselves thus not contributing towards the economy (like a washer or a house maid). Most of the population is like that because a huge part of India is still rural. Considering the manpower that India has, it could be better than at least all of the European nations, and perhaps more if only the government could give more weight to education.
@Karen: You’re greatly overinflating India’s power in the world today. The number of fighters, warships and other weaponry is not necessarily that important: what is important is a country’s willingness to use them and its ability to sustain them on expeditionary operations. In that sense, India still has a long way to go. Besides, the number of weapons and space programmes are not the only manifestations of national power: the very fact that you’re on a British-European blog discussing these matters in English says much about the power of the countries you seem so keen to dismiss.
@Joe: We’ve done nothing of the sort. We have not placed the European Union alongside the United States. It’s considerably lower; it’s not ranked because it’s not a nation-state.
@Indian guy: Yes, with substantial growth, India may do well in the years ahead.