"I'm still waiting for your source which says China is a military superpower and in the same league as America."

We're still waiting for your definition/source that says that China is not a "military superpower" .

All I've seen is a BBC table quoting military spends.

100 is closer to 700 than it is to 63? Really?

If you can't understand a very simple table, how can you understand anything else? Stick to football

Going back to a previous point...hasn't it occurred to you that the US and UK spends are so high due to our peacekeeping efforts? China may be just more prudent, spend where it matters instead of peeing it up a wall...or as was said earlier, they don't reveal their true spend.

Do the BBC have a direct line to the PRC who are glad to give them all the details to put on their website?

"throw him a bone"

I have. Umpteen times. And they've landed on his head.
Utterly clueless.

All he has to do is to give a definition of "military superpower" that is defined entirely on minimum +/- relative spend on military activity, and he's done (on paper) .

At the moment all we have is :

If the USA spends 700x on equipping its troops with garden rakes, and China 100x on WMD, then the USA is a "military superpower" and China is not.

So now you're rubbishing the BBC stats? Keep digging, folks!
I would still like to know your reasoning behind 100 being closer to 700 than 63. Do I now need to give a lesson in basic maths?

!100 is closer to 700 than it is to 63? Really?"

<quote>
According to the latest United Nations Statistics data (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/dnllist.asp) the United States is the largest manufacturing nation, with an output of approximately $1.83 Trillion. This is followed by China at $1.79T, with these two nations far outstripping any other nations (Japan $1.05T, Germany $767B and Italy $381B). The rate of growth in manufacturing in China far outstrips that of the US, with its manufacturing industry growing more than an order of magnitude in the last two decades, during which the US has not even doubled its output.
</quote>

Bit closer is it not.

Or are we not allowed to cite other "tables" .

In which case, that would require a ... DEFINITION of WHICH tables may be used to rank a nation as a "superpower" .

I'm asking what was the source of their stats...and the degree of confidence that they are 100% accurate.

Didn't the same BBC carry the story that Carroll was signing for you?

*100 is closer to 700 than 63.

*China is as much a military superpower as America.

Unlike you both, I don't indulge in over-use of smileys, but...

"So now you're rubbishing the BBC stats? Keep digging, folks!"

Another fallacious delusion of your own making ??

Apart from the fact that the USA spends 7 times more than China on military activity, please feel free to tell what else can be deduced ??

So myhammers...how much does a nation have to spend on arms before it becomes a military superpower?

"how much does a nation have to spend on arms before it becomes a military superpower?"



I reckon mys must be an MP.
So much prevarication to avoid giving a simple definition that he can be held to.

Gotta be the MP for Newham - it figures.

At the moment all we have is :

If the USA spends 700x on equipping its troops with garden rakes, and China 100x on WMD, then the USA is a "military superpower" and China is not.

So now you're giving figures on MANUFACTURING to disprove credible ones on MILITARY spending?

OK, if the BBCs figures are so watertight they must have been given a fully itemised breakdown, after all they wouldn't just print something 'a source' had given them....can you share that with us?

Anyway, folks, it's been interesting. I honestly thought we were in for an intelligent discussion. Never mind.

100 is closer to 700 than 63; and China is as strong militarily as America.

Stick to the non-taxing subject of football. And I look forward to Tottenham suddenly finding £450m to build that new stadium of yours.

mys :

Why won't you answer such simple questions ??

Which "tables" can validly be used to rate a nation as a superpower ??

And then what is the criteria within those tables (ie a DEFINITION) that performs the rating ??

To date, all we have from you is :

1. Tables = military spending ONLY, nothing else counts
2. USA spending = 7 x China
3. USA = superpower, China is not.

Please feel free to add anything I have missed.

Please feel free to add anything I have missed.
...
A basic education

"and China is as strong militarily as America"

And now we have "strong militarily" as a new term.

And pray tell, how is "strong militarily" DEFINED ??
Do the BBC have a "table" for that too.

<you numpty>

He won't because he can't.

Simply the type of person who will find one point, argue it to death even when he knows he's wrong...and ignore any difficult questions which might give the game away.

Clueless...totally clueless....

Still waiting for your answer on how much a nation has to spend before it becomes a superpower myhammers...with BBC evidence to support please

Poor old USA.
When they go to war with China to avoid paying their debts, and get wiped out too, all because mys assured them they were the only military superpower.

<tables are the new Tarot>

They'll be screwed enough if Ireland call in their debts

Seeing as you're so obsessed with simple dictionary definitions...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/militarily

Want a new shovel?

"with BBC evidence to support please"

Don't need even that.
If he says the minimum figure is M, and the 'distance' factor to other nations is F, then to be a superpower your spending must be M x F.

Any advances on M = 1000m, F = 7 ??