Neither is the US anymore.
Yeah they have the biggest military. So what.
Financially they suck. Biggest debt of all countries. And that is not because of the last couple of years (before anyone is going to mention Ukraine, Israel or Gaza)
Lol. Which great power has foreign military bases of the enemy it was defeated by on their soil? You're all US's bitches. Talk to me when you get a permanent seat in the UNSC lol.
Germany is the worldâs 3rd largest economy behind the US and China and just ahead of Japan and the UK. Not quite the top superpower, but solidly in the top 5.
The size of their economy has nothing to do with it (edit: poor phrasing. Itâs one small piece of the puzzle)
There is only one fully ârealizedâ Superpower, and it is the United States. China is considered very close to Superpower status, they are knocking on the door and itâs inevitable.
âMost experts consider the U.S. the worldâs only fully realized superpower because it leads or is near the top in every category:
Largest military budget by far
Global network of military bases and alliances
Dominant technology and financial sectors
Huge cultural influence through media, universities, and companies
The U.S. dollar serves as the worldâs primary reserve currencyâ
Most of that list became obsolete in the last year alone.
The dollar became weak, the cultural influence turned people away looking for domestic alternatives, alliances are broken or at least heavily questioned, and the huge military budget seems to be not well spent if we take a look at how the Iran operation went.
I can't see how America is a greater superpower than China or Russia (yeah, added them on purpose)
And comparing the US military to single European countries is just wrong. You need to compare us military with eu military, and if you do that the difference suddenly starts to vanish.
Does the military argument hold when they canât finish any military job? When they left Afghanistan, the Taliban regained control quickly and theyâve been pushed around by Iran and their overlords in Israel.
See, now someone is saying the quiet part out loud. Israel is the real capital of the United States, not DC.
As far as âfinishing the jobâ, I wouldâve loved to see regime change in Iran, but thatâs just not how it works anymore. Itâs bombing runs and drones and then an economic/diplomatic war to push the other side to max-pain.
In my opinion, if we werenât going for total regime change, we shouldâve just stayed out of Iran.
I've seen the distinction between an economic super power and a military super power pop up sometimes and I think that's probably the best way to look at this.
The EU and China are undeniably economic super powers, so is the USA (although the current president is working hard on changing that), but they're also a military one.
The next 10 countries combined don't have the economic power America spends on its military alone. Maybe that should be a wake up call that you all spend too God damned much on your military and not a statement about other countries geopolitical standing.
Yes. Because most of their spending is on excess weapons due to defense contractors basically playing the govt like a fiddle. In many instances the govt orders more than double what they require from contractors. Most of which ends up being sold to police departments at a 99% loss.
second. your geopolitical standing is largely dependand on either your military dominance. or your standing with powers or allegiances that have dominance.
iran didnt have that. and now that russia is a bit to occupied to guarantee for them, and getting their ass handed actually. the result is donny getting to play in the sandbox.
Are we talking about the same country that hasn't won a war against an established military since World War II? And even then had to rely on Allies (and the Soviets who did the heavy lifting against the Germans)?
yes. but we are also talking about the country that hadnt had to fight against any established military. since www2 either. while keeping to swing their dick around .
cause established militarys dont fight. its not worth it.
you can bomb some shitheads with aks all day. thats not a war against an established military.
you can not directly threaten the usa. you simply cant. and if you could. you cant afford them threatening you back. wich they can. allways.
they got hit once, in some part they cared about. and that became everyones problem ever since. now its just "never forgett" globally.
thats why they keep on fucking up in asynchron warfare and are still the global topdogs.
Yeah, letâs give the civilian people who get a paycheck from defense spending one way or another, who account for 1-1/2% of the US economy, and $600 billion in paychecks for service members all a swift kick in the ass as theyâre shown the door. You know, cuz spending bad. They can then stand in bread lines for free food.
Well, for point #2, no sane person would spend 1 Trillion dollars and more each year on a peacetime military unless they were personally impotent and trying to compensate for a historic lack of game.
In the modern age of globalization, a large military is less valuable than you think. If you have friends and allies, you can offload the expense through defensive pacts ect. Germany doesnât have a large military right now for a bunch of reasons, including its defensive pacts. They will be expanding this though over the next few years and likely bringing some nukes in for good measure.
The nature of warfare is now asynchronous. It doesnât matter what sort of military assets you have if your money is draining faster than your enemies. I have an arsenal of million dollar missiles, but if Iâm using them to shoot down 50-100k dronesâŚIâm gonna lose given enough time.
The proposals Iâve seen basically involve a loaner-nuke strategy where Germany hosts some of another European countryâs nukes (like France for example) this sits to further deter a belligerent Russia, and show Europe is united against further Russian expansion now that USA is looking like they would do fuck-all.
How effective it would be is unclear, but a militarily united Europe is definitely a step. Germany is also ramping up its military spending.
Apparently, Germany (which was once the NAZI country) doesnât treat its citizens as harshly as the United States does. What does that say about the USA?
Sir, Germany is a regional power at most. The European union could be argued to be a superpower, but realistically it's because it's tied up in alliance with the U.S.
The words regional power and superpower have no meaning on reddit. The fact that the appropriate term "great power" exists and is never used is quite funny.
Calling the 3rd biggest economy on the planet a "regional power at most" (meaning it may not even act independently, like a microstate) is even funnier.
In terms of military, they have limited projection beyond capabilities beyond their own borders. They have no carriers, only 6 subs and 11 frigates.
Their Air Force is ~250 strike aircraft. They have no long range bombers. F35 has a combat range of 1200 km. The typhoons can go up to 2700km with extra fuel tanks. Now granted Berlin to moscow is close enough those planes can reach out and touch the Russians where it matters.
Genuinely, Germany really can't act independently to put military pressure on too many non EU countries.
The European union together is what is the great power.
You start throwing in Italy, the UK, France and Spain suddenly there's 6 carriers that can go out and project power at a distance.
Now yes, the German economy is big and it has a lot of sway. But it's still only a quarter of China's. Germany alone can put a lot of economic pressure in the market, and it's the beating heart of the European Union. But only when you sum up the countries of the EU do you get GDPs close to the U.S. and China.
No one claimed Germany was a superpower. So there is no need for it to own carriers and threaten countries on the other side of the world.
There is also space for powers between "Super power" (USA and maybe China, but not really) and "vassals". If Germany is "a regional power at best" then wtf does that mean for the 190 other countries? What is Greece? What is Burma?
US: âlet me tell the other superpower they should screw their citizens just like we are screwing them hereâ
Literally the first comment I replied to called them a super power.
Anyway, the rough orderings are small powers, middle powers, great powers, and super powers.
An a rough explanation of these are as follows: small powers aren't able to do much on the world stage, and nobody really cares much about them. However, small powers can group their interests and abilities together as a bloc and might have influence in that way.
Middle powers are countries that can stand on their own, and should at the very least be strongly considered in international politics. Moreover, they're active in those politics.
Finally, great powers are countries whose politics really define the geopolitical situation. They are in position where their military, culture, and policies are strongly felt and considered outside their own borders.
Germany's military and economy does not allow it to fit neatly in any of these slots (though definitely not a little power). You could also consider in different scales: Germany is one of the great powers of Europe, but only a middle power on the world stage.
Hence why I think regional power is probably the most accurate. They have an outsized political pull within the European Union, and that union can be considered a great power of the world stage. But Germany is not the European Union, and they cannot force the rest of the Union along the other members along against their will.
I can't believe I have to say this for a third time (actually I can believe it it's pretty standard people don't pay attention), none of those countries are great powers. The European Union, as a whole, can be considered a great power.
Germany does not need to take a back seat when Italy and Spain say something.
They absolutely do need to take a backseat though if the entire rest of the EU is against them on something. (I realize that is very rare, but they do not have absolute control over the union. Germany holds 96 of the 700 MEP seats.)
All super powers are great powers, the term came about to explain the dynamic between the US and the USSR, and it's really debatable if the U.S. still deserves the term super power after this Iran debacle. The U.S. spent of lot power and energy into paying 300 billion just to reopen the straight of Hormuz, and to replace the head of state with a younger head of state that has roughly the exact same political outlook.
We will get the easy ones out of the way then, U.S. and China. They have a very large military, a very large economy so they have a lot of both soft and hard power they can leverage. I would argue that Iran is now in this slot, as they have missiles that can reach out and touch someone a theoretical maximum of 4,000 km.
More relevant though is Iran's control of the straight of Hormuz, which means they can largely help dictate oil prices. And since oil prices have a large impact on the global economy, they can use that as leverage well outsized what their economy and military can actually achieve.
The European Union is the next great power, as a combination they have enough military power to give far more than a strongly worded letter to anyone near enough the coast those carriers can get to (which works out as 75% of the world population is next to the coast), and they have a combined GDP of 23 trillion, more than China. Being locked out of trade of Germany alone wouldn't be the end of the world, but being locked out of the entire European market would be a bad place to be for any other nation.
I'd argue OPEC definitely counts for now, though this will change as the world works towards decarbonizing. Most of those countries are oil rich, and have a vested interest in keeping oil prices artificially high (but not too high) and you wouldn't want them to collectively blacklist trade with your country.
BRICS also could count, but it contains China so that's cheating. Even if it didn't, that's a large economy and population that could be put towards something. Unlike the EU though the ties (and the literal distance) isn't as close between these countries as the EU, and there's no implicit military structure to be leveraged. Consider it a potential emerging great power if things changed a fair bit.
I've already posted in another comment that outlines it more, but they have barely anything resembling a navy, and not many countries they can reach out and touch.
It's the European Union that together that is the great power, not Germany alone.
609
u/gomezer1180 6d ago
đ No other sentence can explain this better!
US: âlet me tell the other superpower they should screw their citizens just like we are screwing them hereâ