Most powerful superpower in history?

[Jaketh]

China owns a rediculous amount of the precious metals that all modern weaponry uses. Pretty soon China could hold the USA hostage by not selling them any.

even if that was true and they tried that, in 4 months the USA would have destroyed thier entire military and force them to trade

[.Mitch.]

even if that was true and they tried that, in 4 months the USA would have destroyed thier entire military and force them to trade

... Opinions of 12 year old American fan boys matter little to me if I'm honest.

You think America would invade China for refusing to trade regardless of the consequences.. I laugh at you prefusely.

[Wolfcp11]

... Opinions of 12 year old American fan boys matter little to me if I'm honest.

You think America would invade China for refusing to trade regardless of the consequences.. I laugh at you prefusely.

You think China would stop trade with America regardless of the economic and political consequences? "I laugh at you profusely"

[.Mitch.]

You think China would stop trade with America regardless of the economic and political consequences? "I laugh at you profusely"

But no seriously the matter of the Chinese monopoly on the precious metals was featured widely on the BBC news. And in the near future will become an even greater problem for Americans, I hope you are American so when this time comes, I can laugh at you and your government profusely.

[HannibalB]

Britain's got to be a strong contender - when it was a superpower it introduced the world to steam power and the Industrial Revolution, which had a huge impact on socioeconomic and cultural conditions throughout the world. Obviously Empire's impacted things greatly in their time too, but in regards to social effeects and innovations, i.e, urbanisation, transport, etc... this Industrial Revolution had a strong influence on today's world.

[Jaketh]

... Opinions of 12 year old American fan boys matter little to me if I'm honest.

You think America would invade China for refusing to trade regardless of the consequences.. I laugh at you prefusely.

we wouldn't invade them, we would sink their navy and blockade their country until they resume normal trade relations, the thought of China doing anything to damage our relations is idiotic anyway

[Farnan]

If China refused trade with the US it would collapse. And so would the world economy.

[.Mitch.]

we wouldn't invade them, we would sink their navy and blockade their country until they resume normal trade relations, the thought of China doing anything to damage our relations is idiotic anyway

Cool story bro.. I'm gona go ahead on a wild one here and guess you think that the MW2 storyline is based on past events?

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Why? I would say that the Byzantine Empire was no more than a regional power, at any stage.

There were times in which the Byzantine Empire controlled the fates of tis neighboring nations or barbarian tribes (Huns, Sassanids, Bulgarians, Ostrogoths, Vandals etc), the Papal Seat (early Byzantine Empire) and had made vassals many Crusader States.. The Byzantines also controlled trade in the Eastern Mediterranean until the end of the Komnenian dynasty.. The fact that the Byzantine Empire was the strongest nation of Europe and Western Asia until at least 1071 and managed to keep at bay all those barbarians who destroyed the Western Roman Empire successfully preserving civilization makes them the strongest power in Europe during at least the Early Medieval Age..

[Farnan]

China needs the US more than the US needs China. China knows that which is why its been careful to keep good relations with the US.

[RVFVS]

If we scale down to the land they controlled easily the Roman Empire. They utterly controlled all the land they took. If we go by the world I would say it would be a tie between the U.S right after the cold war and the British Empire at its peak.

[Farnan]

If we scale down to the land they controlled easily the Roman Empire. They utterly controlled all the land they took. If we go by the world I would say it would be a tie between the U.S right after the cold war and the British Empire at its peak.

No they didn't.

They lost land in Germany at times, and only controlled some land for a short time. And they had constant rivals with near equal power.

[Captain Jin]

I really ing hate when people try to retroactively apply modern terms to older times. Guess who you have to choose from in the competition of most powerful super powers? Soviet Union, United States of America, and the British Empire. Those were the entities the phrase was coined for-- not the Romans, not Alexander, not the ancient Chinese, not the ing Pope, not damn Aztec Empire or the freakin' Mongols. Damn.

[.Mitch.]

China needs the US more than the US needs China. China knows that which is why its been careful to keep good relations with the US.

Your right China does need the US, the US is the reason the Chinese econonmy is one of the most sound in the world.

So much so China is the greatest foreign investor into US debt, simply to stay on good terms.

But to say "China needs the US more than the US needs China" is just... wrong.

China trades to the US, and the US buys of China, so like you said they need each other.

But should these two entities stop trading, China would suffer a massive hit to its economy. The US however would not have an economy, lets see what happens when Chinese goods don't go to the US, and China stops paying the US for friendship.

The US would crumble and China would suffer a great deal, but the US needs China farrr more.

This coming from a British man, I obviously prefer the Americans to the Chinese, we're allies. But what your saying is just pure nonsense.

[Herakleios]

No they didn't.

They lost land in Germany at times, and only controlled some land for a short time. And they had constant rivals with near equal power.

Like who? The Sassanids only came after around 200 years after the establishment of the principate, and the Parthians were hardly Rome's equal, let alone the tribes that roamed the fringes of the empire in Africa, Germany, the Danube and Arabia. There was Dacia, sure, but it was small and we all know what happened to it, anyway. Rome did not absorb Germany or Parthia because it simply was logistically overstretched as it was. They could have easily taken Germany after the Varus fiasco, as Germanicus' punitive campaigns amply prove, they just did not deem it worth it to squander so many resources in taking and holding a land as poor as ancient Germania, especially since the latter may have required an expansion of the army. As far as Persia goes, it simply would have taken too large a mobilization of resources to effectively pacify, even Trajan's epic campaign only managed to hold Mesopotamia, and not for long, even though it was militarily successful. Just look how hard it was to hold the relatively tiny Dacia, and it becomes obvious that Rome was simply overstretched. This doesn't mean they were unable to exert 'soft power' such as setting client kings in Germania or Armenia, however.

[Farnan]

Your right China does need the US, the US is the reason the Chinese econonmy is one of the most sound in the world.

So much so China is the greatest foreign investor into US debt, simply to stay on good terms.

But to say "China needs the US more than the US needs China" is just... wrong.

China trades to the US, and the US buys of China, so like you said they need each other.

But should these two entities stop trading, China would suffer a massive hit to its economy. The US however would not have an economy, lets see what happens when Chinese goods don't go to the US, and China stops paying the US for friendship.

The US would crumble and China would suffer a great deal, but the US needs China farrr more.

This coming from a British man, I obviously prefer the Americans to the Chinese, we're allies. But what your saying is just pure nonsense.

No it wouldn't collapse as much as China's...

US-China trade accounts for about 7.5% of China's GDP, but only about 1.5% of the US GDP. Further, China's stability is wholey dependent on its economic growth.

China's main advantage to the US is its cheap labor. Vietnam and India could take that role, though it would cost the US a big temporary hit.

[.Mitch.]

No it wouldn't collapse as much as China's...

US-China trade accounts for about 7.5% of China's GDP, but only about 1.5% of the US GDP.

And do you know how much of what the US imports (in other words needs to function) comes from China?

Do you how much China imports from the US? Oh wait nothing.

[Farnan]

And do you know how much of what the US imports (in other words needs to function) comes from China?

Do you how much China imports from the US? Oh wait nothing.

I do know how much the US imports from China, but none of it is needed to function. Its mostly consumer goods. Oh and China imports 64 Billion dollars of goods from the US.

The Chinese exports to the US keep its economy running. To look simply at imports reveals an extreme ignorance of economics.

[.Mitch.]

I do know how much the US imports from China, but none of it is needed to function. Its mostly consumer goods. Oh and China imports 64 Billion dollars of goods from the US.

The Chinese exports to the US keep its economy running. To look simply at imports reveals an extreme ignorance of economics.

But when you look at the imports of both corisponding countries your looking at the exports too...

And yes I know China does import some stuff but nothing on the scale of what the US imports.

My point is that China is a less dependant country on US than the US is on China, China is one of the most self sufficient countires on earth...

And the fact that you think what the US imports is just "consumer goods" actualy made me laugh...

Where you not here when we were discussing the precious metal problem that the US is going to have with China in the near future... let alone all of the other things that are not "consumer goods" that the US actualy needs to make things like weapons, vehicles and pretty much all electronic goods..

[Dr. Croccer]

I think that one can make a good case that Britain was the strongest power in the World at its height. But I wouldn't call it a superpower. After all, on the European continent they could not hope to project their power significantly.

Nor can the US across most of the globe now or in 1950. The point was that by 1914 Britain effectively dominated nearly everything outside of Europe. It's power on an international scale was immense and pretty unrivalled throughout history.