Log in

View Full Version : World superpowers


tovaris
May 12th, 2013, 11:26 AM
Who are the world superpowers today and which countries show to become in a few years?

Stronk Serb
May 12th, 2013, 11:30 AM
China is a superpower.
North Korea is a local power, if they open up, they might become a superpower.
India might become a superpower.
Russia was a superpower as the USSR, it might beome one again.

PinkFloyd
May 12th, 2013, 11:32 AM
I don't know much about this stuff, so bare with me here.

China is a super power today.
the US is a super power today.

Russia could once again become a super power
the UK could become a super power if they aren't already one.

Harry Smith
May 12th, 2013, 11:39 AM
India, Russia, Brazil and China are all growing. Geographically at the moment the US is the only official super power, North Korea have a very long way to go. They still rely on the Primary Industries of Farming and Mining for there wealth

Grand Admiral Thrawn
May 12th, 2013, 12:45 PM
I think the only country that fits the bill right now is the United States. Russia is on the way to becoming a superpower once again, but I think China will beat them to it.

britishboy
May 12th, 2013, 01:47 PM
THE USA IS THE ONLY CURRENT SUPERPOWER YOU CAN CRY ABOUT IT AS MUCH AS YOU LIKE, as for north Korea, they are powerful but no real threat, and China they will soon be a superpower, britian is not a superpower, yes we have the commonwealth but even the commonwealth together I don't believe we would match the USA, Russia is powerful because it's big but it's still not a superpower, NATO if United would be invincible, it has so many members of the g8 the USA, old great britian, France and Germany, as well as loads of other smaller countries

Human
May 12th, 2013, 02:27 PM
Currently, USA and maybe China. In the future, China, India Brazil etc.

britishboy
May 12th, 2013, 02:56 PM
britian still had the SAS don't forget about us:D who dares wins!

Professional Russian
May 12th, 2013, 03:39 PM
China is a superpower.
North Korea is a local power, if they open up, they might become a superpower.
India might become a superpower.
Russia was a superpower as the USSR, it might beome one again.

You forgot the US

Southside
May 12th, 2013, 03:42 PM
US is the only one as of right now, China in the next 10-15 years might be number 2

Stronk Serb
May 12th, 2013, 03:50 PM
You forgot the US


They are a shadow of their former selves. A lots of it's factories have been moved to China and many workers lost their jobs due to that. You are in debts so much that the grandchildren of your grandchildren will work to pay them off.

Professional Russian
May 12th, 2013, 03:54 PM
They are a shadow of their former selves. A lots of it's factories have been moved to China and many workers lost their jobs due to that. You are in debts so much that the grandchildren of your grandchildren will work to pay them off.

This is super powers. Not debt. We are worlds best trained military. Equipped to take out anything that gets in our way. That's what I call a superpower

Harry Smith
May 12th, 2013, 03:55 PM
They are a shadow of their former selves. A lots of it's factories have been moved to China and many workers lost their jobs due to that. You are in debts so much that the grandchildren of your grandchildren will work to pay them off.

But they are still a superpower now.... Once again don't let your anti western views get in the way of Fact

Stronk Serb
May 12th, 2013, 04:03 PM
But they are still a superpower now.... Once again don't let your anti western views get in the way of Fact



Say whatever you like, I do not think a superpower is a country which is employing illegal immigrants to work for 5 dollars a month, be in the biggest debts, and move their industrial production to cheap labour countries like China. In turn dozens of thousands Americans lost their jobs. A superpower does not fabricate falsified intelligence to get Middle Eastern oil.

Atonement
May 12th, 2013, 04:27 PM
Say whatever you like, I do not think a superpower is a country which is employing illegal immigrants to work for 5 dollars a month, be in the biggest debts, and move their industrial production to cheap labour countries like China. In turn dozens of thousands Americans lost their jobs. A superpower does not fabricate falsified intelligence to get Middle Eastern oil.

You seem to be confusing morality and power. Power, in a general way, is getting other to do what you want them to do. There is no other nation that has the influence the United States has. Talk about BRIC all you want but they don't currently wield the geopolitical push to be a superpower. China is a regional power in Eastern Asia. India is a regional power in South Asia. Russia is a power in former Soviet states. Brazil is a regional leader in South America. That's all great, but that's not what a superpower is. The United States majorly influences all corners of the globe.

Clearly, debt, unfair wages and outsourcing haven't yet upset the status quo.

Also: What makes you think a superpower doesn't falsify intelligence to get their way? All governments lie. All governments work in their own interests first.

As for the employment rate, being a superpower doesn't make a state impervious to global economic crisis. If anything, the fact that theyare effected by the crisis shows how connected the USA is.

Cygnus
May 12th, 2013, 09:35 PM
The US is unfortunately a superpower although a rapidly weakening one, along with Germany and China. The countries that have the potential to become superpowers are Russia, Chile, Brasil, Colombia, India, and the UK.

Bethany
May 12th, 2013, 10:06 PM
The US is a superpower, though it's, in my opinion, a declining power. China has the power to become a superpower (it's definitely working towards that status - working on expanded its influence to regions such as Africa) and India, as the world's largest democracy and as a country that's population is set to surpass China's, definitely has the potential to eventually rise to that status.

Taryn98
May 12th, 2013, 10:28 PM
The US is the only true super power. A super power is one that can project military and economic influence on a global scale.

China could be there in 10-20 years but they're military is old and dated and at least a generation behind ours. Their economy is almost as large as ours but they also have 4 times as many people. Almost 75% of their population lives in poverty.

Russia has the military might, but their economy is not very strong right now. They have the potential to get there if they embrace economic changes.

Germany's economy is doing better than almost anyone's and if they were to increase their military strength, they could become much more of a force.

India has potential but they are in the same boat as China, ~25 years behind us.

North Korea?? Is that a serious statement. Their military although large, is basically based on 1960's technology and they have one of the poorest economies in the world. They're not even a local power compared to the economic and military strength of South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, or the Phillipines.

Guillermo
May 12th, 2013, 10:30 PM
The U.S. is the world's only superpower. There is no other state that holds as much influence to change world events. It should be noted, though, that other states like Russia India, and China also have much influence in world politics but do not hold a superpower status. Another one that most people have forgotten is the EU. And furthermore, many of you are deviating from what a superpower is. In the simplest, most fundamental terms, a superpower is a state that holds the greatest influence in international events.

britishboy
May 13th, 2013, 12:14 AM
The U.S. is the world's only superpower. There is no other state that holds as much influence to change world events. It should be noted, though, that other states like Russia India, and China also have much influence in world politics but do not hold a superpower status. Another one that most people have forgotten is the EU. And furthermore, many of you are deviating from what a superpower is. In the simplest, most fundamental terms, a superpower is a state that holds the greatest influence in international events.

I 100% agree with you apart from the eu, britians leaving soon and they can never decide on stuff

Atonement
May 13th, 2013, 03:09 AM
The U.S. is the world's only superpower. There is no other state that holds as much influence to change world events. It should be noted, though, that other states like Russia India, and China also have much influence in world politics but do not hold a superpower status. Another one that most people have forgotten is the EU. And furthermore, many of you are deviating from what a superpower is. In the simplest, most fundamental terms, a superpower is a state that holds the greatest influence in international events.

I support everything you've said except for your definition of "superpower". I'd agree the EU is a power similar to BRIC, etc. however it is not a state. That being said, it has some tendency to function like a state.

Stronk Serb
May 13th, 2013, 09:29 AM
This is super powers. Not debt. We are worlds best trained military. Equipped to take out anything that gets in our way. That's what I call a superpower

The military part is absolute bull. If China wanted to take you out, Chinese troops would be marching in DC by now. You ar overestimating the strength of your military.

You seem to be confusing morality and power. Power, in a general way, is getting other to do what you want them to do. There is no other nation that has the influence the United States has. Talk about BRIC all you want but they don't currently wield the geopolitical push to be a superpower. China is a regional power in Eastern Asia. India is a regional power in South Asia. Russia is a power in former Soviet states. Brazil is a regional leader in South America. That's all great, but that's not what a superpower is. The United States majorly influences all corners of the globe.

Clearly, debt, unfair wages and outsourcing haven't yet upset the status quo.

Also: What makes you think a superpower doesn't falsify intelligence to get their way? All governments lie. All governments work in their own interests first.

As for the employment rate, being a superpower doesn't make a state impervious to global economic crisis. If anything, the fact that theyare effected by the crisis shows how connected the USA is.


Yugoslavia was taking Middle Eastern oil by making bridges, factories, hydroelectric dams, selling weapons (especially Iraq). In return our oil refining industry skyrocketed. We were not a superpower, but we were a power in our own right. The US could have easily done the same. Yugoslavia was fairly economically stable also. It could have become a superpower if the general stupidity of our leaders got the worst of it.

britishboy
May 13th, 2013, 09:52 AM
The military part is absolute bull. If China wanted to take you out, Chinese troops would be marching in DC by now. You ar overestimating the strength of your military.




Yugoslavia was taking Middle Eastern oil by making bridges, factories, hydroelectric dams, selling weapons (especially Iraq). In return our oil refining industry skyrocketed. We were not a superpower, but we were a power in our own right. The US could have easily done the same. Yugoslavia was fairly economically stable also. It could have become a superpower if the general stupidity of our leaders got the worst of it.

what are you a troll? you was saying only yesterday that Russia was invincible and now China can beat them up? the only people that can touch Russia is the US and even they will struggle and as for Yugoslavia no one cares that was and still is a pathetic country and would never have been a superpower

Stronk Serb
May 13th, 2013, 10:10 AM
what are you a troll? you was saying only yesterday that Russia was invincible and now China can beat them up? the only people that can touch Russia is the US and even they will struggle and as for Yugoslavia no one cares that was and still is a pathetic country and would never have been a superpower





I said DC as Washington DC. Chinese troops would be marching there if they wanted to. Russia is still and will always be a no-reach zone for the US. Go read a bit or ask me and Maticek about Yugoslavia before you make retarded statements like that. If you did not know Professional Russian is from the US. Read where people are from before you do stuff like this.

tovaris
May 13th, 2013, 10:10 AM
what are you a troll? you was saying only yesterday that Russia was invincible and now China can beat them up? the only people that can touch Russia is the US and even they will struggle and as for Yugoslavia no one cares that was and still is a pathetic country and would never have been a superpower

The US could never touch Russia, nor can they touch China that has adopted the tehniques ot the undefetable read army (more solders, more solders, and mor solders).
As far as Yugoslavija becoming a world superpower, it defenatly had the means, it was alredy a major local power and had the means and resaurces to evolve (but due to the stupid man in power and your charished W Block we will newer know)

britishboy
May 13th, 2013, 11:11 AM
The US could never touch Russia, nor can they touch China that has adopted the tehniques ot the undefetable read army (more solders, more solders, and mor solders).
As far as Yugoslavija becoming a world superpower, it defenatly had the means, it was alredy a major local power and had the means and resaurces to evolve (but due to the stupid man in power and your charished W Block we will newer know)

America is the only current super power it's a fact but Russia and China are very powerful I agree they will never ever go to war.

Harry Smith
May 13th, 2013, 11:22 AM
The military part is absolute bull. If China wanted to take you out, Chinese troops would be marching in DC by now. You ar overestimating the strength of your military.

That's fundementally wrong on so many levels, I know you hate the US but do you have any military knowledge. The chinese transport ships would get destroyed by the US carriers, destroyers, Planes and coast guard. That means you only have para's left who would only be able to land on the West Coast with limited supplies. Most of the planes would get taken out in the air due to complete US air superiority. The National Guard could mop up the couple hundred who would land. So I doubt the Chinese would be marching down DC. Please think before sounding stupid

tovaris
May 13th, 2013, 11:25 AM
America is the only current super power it's a fact but Russia and China are very powerful I agree they will never ever go to war.

Who said anithing about china and russia fighting tzey politicly love ech other

Stronk Serb
May 13th, 2013, 11:27 AM
That's fundementally wrong on so many levels, I know you hate the US but do you have any military knowledge. The chinese transport ships would get destroyed by the US carriers, destroyers, Planes and coast guard. That means you only have para's left who would only be able to land on the West Coast with limited supplies. Most of the planes would get taken out in the air due to complete US air superiority. The National Guard could mop up the couple hundred who would land. So I doubt the Chinese would be marching down DC. Please think before sounding stupid



You do not know the Chinese. The US would get an embargo from China since most of the US factories are there. The Chinese would land. They get things done. Their air force and fleet is big, and ground forces bigger.

Harry Smith
May 13th, 2013, 11:35 AM
You do not know the Chinese. The US would get an embargo from China since most of the US factories are there. The Chinese would land. They get things done. Their air force and fleet is big, and ground forces bigger.

Looooooool

The US would use Tactical nuclear weapons, the Chinese have no carriers. How do they provide air cover for the invasion?

The US NAVY has 10 carriers, the chinese cannot counter them. You don't understand warfare, America would be fighting to survive, the whole idea of the chinse shipping say 80,000 troops and supplies across the pacific without any form of attack is stupid.

wake up from your anti-western coma, the chinese wouldn't win removed. -Emerald Dream

tovaris
May 13th, 2013, 11:37 AM
Looooooool

The US would use Tactical nuclear weapons, the Chinese have no carriers. How do they provide air cover for the invasion?

The US NAVY has 10 carriers, the chinese cannot counter them. You don't understand warfare, America would be fighting to survive, the whole idea of the chinse shipping say 80,000 troops and supplies across the pacific without any form of attack is stupid.

wake up from your anti-western coma, the chinese wouldn't win removed. -Emerald Dream

No need for that their is simply so many of them i doubt the americans have enouth bulets ;)

Stronk Serb
May 13th, 2013, 11:41 AM
Looooooool

The US would use Tactical nuclear weapons, the Chinese have no carriers. How do they provide air cover for the invasion?

The US NAVY has 10 carriers, the chinese cannot counter them. You don't understand warfare, America would be fighting to survive, the whole idea of the chinse shipping say 80,000 troops and supplies across the pacific without any form of attack is stupid.

wake up from your anti-western coma, the chinese wouldn't win removed. -Emerald Dream


Transporting planes on ships removed -Emerald Dream.. It is possible. The Chinese have nuclear weapons also, so it does not matter. The Chinese have a million+ large army, so it would not be a problem transporting at least 100,000 soldiers.

britishboy
May 13th, 2013, 11:47 AM
No member of the g8 would fight each other so stop fighting

Emerald Dream
May 13th, 2013, 11:49 AM
Personal insults are unnecessary in a debate. Please stop, or I will be locking this thread and speaking to you individually.

Atonement
May 13th, 2013, 12:02 PM
Somehow this became a debate about superpowers into another thread about who would win in a war. Military strength is important. Of course it is important. However so many of you are ignoring so many other factors to power that you're blinded by guns and bombs.

Jess
May 13th, 2013, 12:24 PM
US is one today; China will be one in the future.

drew6
May 13th, 2013, 12:26 PM
Not enough bullets? that's a good one. Do you realize that the citizens have more guns than there are citizens? That's not even our military, that's just regular people.

Also, without air support how would these chinese get here? You think we're just gonna let them sail into a NY harbor or greet them at an air port? How do you feed the soldiers on the way over?

It's just not gonna happen because it would be bad for everyone. Plus DC has a lotta crime already haha Or some days Americans are so sick of politics that they might say, yeah go ahead, but no take backs!

Stronger
May 13th, 2013, 12:54 PM
The US is unfortunately a superpower although a rapidly weakening one, along with Germany and China. The countries that have the potential to become superpowers are Russia, Chile, Brasil, Colombia, India, and the UK.

Germany isn't a super power, but the US is one, China is just about one, India is close and well I don't know about Brazil. Also Colombia or UK aren't close to being superpowers.

drew6
May 13th, 2013, 12:55 PM
Somehow this became a debate about superpowers into another thread about who would win in a war. Military strength is important. Of course it is important. However so many of you are ignoring so many other factors to power that you're blinded by guns and bombs.

US is one today; China will be one in the future.

Yup. Sorry. I think the EU is incredibly influential, but I don't know if people here would consider them a super power because it's composed of many nations. Personally, Europe and the USA are similar in capacity for influence.

Also, the term super power leads to rankings and comparisons and a natural shift combat from comparison.

China is definitely in the discussion, but won't be a respected as the major non-military influence they could be until they treat the planet and their people better. In the back of the minds of anyone dealing with them, it the notion that, "if they have that little regard for their own people and land, where do we rank".? I think that's part of the reason the USA goes out of it's way to treat the millions of people that are in jail and prison as well as they do.

Anyway, China is a force. No doubt.

britishboy
May 13th, 2013, 12:57 PM
Germany isn't a super power, but the US is one, China is just about one, India is close and well I don't know about Brazil. Also Colombia or UK aren't close to being superpowers.

the UK is head of the commonwealth remember, if the queen gave the order to unify we would be very powerful and close to a superpower, we have no intention of being a super power but we do work close with the us developing weapons

Stronger
May 13th, 2013, 01:01 PM
the UK is head of the commonwealth remember, if the queen gave the order to unify we would be very powerful and close to a superpower, we have no intention of being a super power but we do work close with the us developing weapons

Hmm, I didn't know the Queen could do that, interesting.

drew6
May 13th, 2013, 01:06 PM
Germany isn't a super power, but the US is one, China is just about one, India is close and well I don't know about Brazil. Also Colombia or UK aren't close to being superpowers.

The UK definitely has influence over financial markets, they are a key player in that regard.

The key is the term "influence" in this discussion. UK military influence is far beyond what England has because nations in the UK. Plus, they have a good reputation, so a phone call with a concern to the UN and USA gets a quick response. That's influence too.

britishboy
May 13th, 2013, 02:08 PM
Hmm, I didn't know the Queen could do that, interesting.

she can but only she can she is the absolute leader for the UK, crown countries and the commonwealth, she never will though she doesn't get involved that much in politics. it should be said that the British government could not do it it must have the authority of the queen, just like her authority is required to go to war.

Celtic.
May 13th, 2013, 02:09 PM
wtf happened to Canada?

Professional Russian
May 13th, 2013, 04:05 PM
The military part is absolute bull. If China wanted to take you out, Chinese troops would be marching in DC by now. You ar overestimating the strength of your military.




Yugoslavia was taking Middle Eastern oil by making bridges, factories, hydroelectric dams, selling weapons (especially Iraq). In return our oil refining industry skyrocketed. We were not a superpower, but we were a power in our own right. The US could have easily done the same. Yugoslavia was fairly economically stable also. It could have become a superpower if the general stupidity of our leaders got the worst of it.

I want to know what pot your smoking. Just because chinas military if bigger doesn't mean its stronger the US has the world's best trained military and that's a fact you can't deny.

tovaris
May 13th, 2013, 04:30 PM
I want to know what pot your smoking. Just because chinas military if bigger doesn't mean its stronger the US has the world's best trained military and that's a fact you can't deny.

Thats a fackt one can debate.

Stronk Serb
May 13th, 2013, 04:31 PM
I want to know what pot your smoking. Just because chinas military if bigger doesn't mean its stronger the US has the world's best trained military and that's a fact you can't deny.



Quantity over quality. The Soviets were ill-equipped and untrained but had the numbers, while the Germans were having top-notch training an equipment. The Germans were winning in the beggining, but the whole Eastern front fight ended by Soviet troops planting the Soviet flag on the Reichstag. China has 1,000,000+ active trained and equipped military personell. If they go to war with the US, I think you would be heavily outnumbered. You would have a training bonus, and a small equipment bonus and a bonus that you are fighting on your own land. The Germans had those bonuses, but got crushed by the red tide. By using examples from relatively close history like the Germany vs. the USSR, it has lead me to the conclusion that you would be crushed by the Chinese.

britishboy
May 13th, 2013, 04:37 PM
Quantity over quality. The Soviets were ill-equipped and untrained but had the numbers, while the Germans were having top-notch training an equipment. The Germans were winning in the beggining, but the whole Eastern front fight ended by Soviet troops planting the Soviet flag on the Reichstag. China has 1,000,000+ active trained and equipped military personell. If they go to war with the US, I think you would be heavily outnumbered. You would have a training bonus, and a small equipment bonus and a bonus that you are fighting on your own land. The Germans had those bonuses, but got crushed by the red tide. By using examples from relatively close history like the Germany vs. the USSR, it has lead me to the conclusion that you would be crushed by the Chinese.

quality over quantity, 1 well trained = 10 untrained also why waste lives by not training them?

Stronk Serb
May 13th, 2013, 04:46 PM
quality over quantity, 1 well trained = 10 untrained also why waste lives by not training them?



As far as I know, Chinese soldiers get decent training and equipment. Not as good as the US soldiers do, but they are on par with let's say Germany or UK.

britishboy
May 13th, 2013, 04:52 PM
As far as I know, Chinese soldiers get decent training and equipment. Not as good as the US soldiers do, but they are on par with let's say Germany or UK.

check your facts the is one of the best countries for training and equipping our troops and they all see combat so have experience, we also have the SAS and Germany's good but not great, I don't know. about China and PLEASE DONT MAKE UP FACTS ITS REALLU ANNOYING

drew6
May 13th, 2013, 04:57 PM
As far as I know, Chinese soldiers get decent training and equipment. Not as good as the US soldiers do, but they are on par with let's say Germany or UK.

If by some miracle the chinese were able to even get to the USA, they'd defect immediately and no longer be oppressed. But first it would take that miracle to get them here. Not enough ships. No one is invading us.

TheBassoonist
May 13th, 2013, 10:57 PM
The US is currently the only superpower. The Soviet Union was a superpower when it existed, but Russia is a shadow of the USSR. China may be a superpower in the future, as can India and the European Union. But we'll have to wait and see what happens.

britishboy
May 14th, 2013, 01:37 AM
The US is currently the only superpower. The Soviet Union was a superpower when it existed, but Russia is a shadow of the USSR. China may be a superpower in the future, as can India and the European Union. But we'll have to wait and see what happens.

if the eu united it would be w superpower fact, but it won't ever so it won't haha China will be soon but America is the big daddy

Origami
May 14th, 2013, 05:20 AM
Superpowers?

This is a current thread so why is USSR being mentioned? It's dead. As for Russia, it's a pathetic excuse for a global power in comparison to it's former self. It isn't a threat to anyone.
China is rapidly approaching superpower status. Their economy, actually, is superior to America's. I don't know where people get off saying America's is better. Mind you, America's economy is shit these days. China is simply lacking proper military equipment and training. Until that happens, they will never assert themselves as a global power.
India is growing but it remains riddled with poverty. As a whole, India still has a significant way to go before becoming a superpower.
The UK, next to China, is probably the closest non-superpower to become a superpower. Their economy isn't bad, by any means and they have superb military training that is on par, if not superior to America's.
America, yes, is the only current superpower. But it's obvious that this is rapidly declining. America's economy and government are currently in shambles and are proving to rapidly remove their superpower status. America does still retain the prestige of having the greatest military force on Earth, but they are beyond over-extended. America puts it's nose into everything and has far too many troops overseas at any given time.

Left Now
May 14th, 2013, 05:56 AM
Dramatically,US and western countries will get behind the China and i think once again we will have two blocks in the world,like when USSR was on its feet,
But the difference is here which we will have China in east instead of USSR.

britishboy
May 14th, 2013, 10:57 AM
Dramatically,US and western countries will get behind the China and i think once again we will have two blocks in the world,like when USSR was on its feet,
But the difference is here which we will have China in east instead of USSR.

China needs the us UK and Europe for most of it's trade

Stronk Serb
May 14th, 2013, 11:03 AM
if the eu united it would be w superpower fact, but it won't ever so it won't haha China will be soon but America is the big daddy

The EU would need a unified military, government and economy to b united. That's never gonna happen, especially the first two.

Left Now
May 14th, 2013, 11:19 AM
China needs the us UK and Europe for most of it's trade

UK and US need more...

britishboy
May 14th, 2013, 11:55 AM
UK and US need more...

true anyway all three are in the g8

The EU would need a unified military, government and economy to b united. That's never gonna happen, especially the first two.

were all allies and it had the government and neally the economy


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

Harry Smith
May 14th, 2013, 12:06 PM
Hmm, I didn't know the Queen could do that, interesting.

she can but only she can she is the absolute leader for the UK, crown countries and the commonwealth, she never will though she doesn't get involved that much in politics. it should be said that the British government could not do it it must have the authority of the queen, just like her authority is required to go to war.

The queen can't order the commonwealth to get back together, you have no understanding of our constitutional laws. The queen's power is greatly limited, if the British Parliament vote to go to war then we will go to war. She isn't the absolute leader of the UK, that implies she has domestic control over laws something monarchs haven't had in britain for the last 200 years. The Queen is pretty much powerless

britishboy
May 14th, 2013, 12:12 PM
The queen can't order the commonwealth to get back together, you have no understanding of our constitutional laws. The queen's power is greatly limited, if the British Parliament vote to go to war then we will go to war. She isn't the absolute leader of the UK, that implies she has domestic control over laws something monarchs haven't had in britain for the last 200 years. The Queen is pretty much powerless

that's incorrct she dosent use her power but still has it she is head of state, has a red box like the pm and the pm has to report to her and no secrets are allowed to be kept from her. but if she did try there would be an uprising and laws would be changed taking power away from her but I think we will keep her because us Brits love the queen:p

Stronger
May 14th, 2013, 01:01 PM
The queen can't order the commonwealth to get back together, you have no understanding of our constitutional laws. The queen's power is greatly limited, if the British Parliament vote to go to war then we will go to war. She isn't the absolute leader of the UK, that implies she has domestic control over laws something monarchs haven't had in britain for the last 200 years. The Queen is pretty much powerless

That's what I originally thought....