RDBD: If you fail to grasp simple standings in military and economic tables, what chance of understanding the many complex issues and factors that contribute to being a military or economic superpower?

One thing's for sure, it's more complex than the simple dictionary definition which you go by.

"One thing's for sure,it's more complex than the simple dictionary definition which you go by."

Try us then. All we have from you at the moment is :

Nation X spends more than Y : X is a superpower.

That definition was courtesy of 'Noddy goes to the UN'

I also love the way that China places 2nd behind the USA in at least 2 of his "tables" , and possibly above them in at least 1-2 others.

If a table is published on the BBC stating that America's military spending is $700bn and China's is $100bn, then I go by that. I don't know how they came to that figure. I don't profess to be an expert in such matters. But I treat it as being reliable and assume that those who complied it know what they're talking about.

Contrast that with looking at a simple dictionary definition.

1. You still HAVE NOT PROVIDED your "definition" .

2. Using your table, please show us how the figures relate to the following :

<quote>
Superpower :

an extremely powerful nation, especially one capable of influencing international events and the acts and policies of less powerful nations
</quote>

This is my source for military spending, which shows China are second. It's from the BBC. They're a pretty reliable and respected organization. You might have heard of them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-17249476

And here is the link for China being second to America in economic terms:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12427321

I look forward to seeing your non-dictionary sources which claim to refute the above.

I get the impression there's more chance of the s filling the OS than receiving a straight response.

You're the one focusing on simple dictionary definitions to prove your point. I'm just providing reliable, respected sources which say otherwise.
If you want to know how those responsible came to these conclusions and what definitions and criteria they used, I suggest you write to the BBC.

OK...so how do those tables show China isn't a superpower?

You have shown that China is NOW a superpower. Thank you.

It only has the USA as a peer/better in that regard.
Other course, other "tables" show this for areas such as manufacturing, balance of payments etc.

The set of world superpowers are thus : the USA, China.

"so how do those tables show China isn't a superpower?"

That requires a DEFINITION of "superpower" .

Again, you're looking at China's place in the table rather than the amounts spent. Yes, China are second.
But America has spent 7 times more than China militarily. Thus, on a closer look, there is no comparison. You don't need a dictionary to see that.

So you're saying they're not a superpower because they only got a silver medal for their economy and military spend.

By your definition that means the only superpower is the US?

Makes you wonder why they owe close to $2.5 trillion to a couple of also rans like China and Japan

If X has £100, Y £20 and Z £10, can you not see that Y is closer to Z than X?

Yes, Y may be 2nd, but that doesn't tell the true picture. Is this so difficult to understand?

"But America has spent 7 times more than China militarily. Thus, on a closer look, there is no comparison. You don't need a dictionary to see that."

Again, does your "definition" of superpower state, in part or whole, that if nation X spends N times more on military activity than nation Y, X is a superpower and Y is not ??

Direct question, yes or no will suffice.
If yes, what is the minimum value of N ??

If no, why are you persisting in arguing about tables showing military spending ??

"So you're saying they're not a superpower because they only got a silver medal for their economy and military spend."

He cannot even bring himself to say that. Utterly clueless individual is he not.

The other point you're missing is that US spend will take into account major spend on Iraq and Afghanistan.

Last time I looked China weren't that big on 'global peacekeeping' as a matter of choice, not because they couldn't afford it.

RDBD...clueless but persistent....like a housefly battering it's head against the window instead of realising it's not really got an understanding of how to get into the real world

"If X has £100, Y £20 and Z £10, can you not see that Y is closer to Z than X?"

And if X has 10000, Y has 7000 and the rest on average have 500, then can you not see that Y is far closer to X than it is the rest.

I'm still waiting for your source which says China is a military superpower and in the same league as America. I've given you facts and figures published on the BBC.
Where's your source? And I don't mean your naive OED definition.

You're assuming he got to the end of the alphabet...you might be better with A,B, Cs

You know, i could live with him saying that he is an utter clueless tool, but on this one "table" could we not concede the point to him. Because I would gladly do so.

But he just keeps digging.

RDBD: According to the BBC table,


US: $739.3bn
China: $106bn
UK: $63.7bn
Russia: $52.7bn
India: $31.9bn

So, according to the above, you think China are closer to US than UK or China? It's simple maths, for goodness sake!

Yeah, go on then...throw him a bone