显示：tmd怎么连苏格兰都管不动 对于欧珠小国来说，大印帝国确实也算强国之一。。。 带英现在发电量已经比越南墨西哥都低了，还吹自己是强国呢。 6月2日，美国《外交政策》刊登了剑桥大学教授布伦丹·西姆斯的文章。
文中认为，当今世界只有4个大国。即美国、中国、俄罗斯和英国，标准：
1. 大国拥有丰富资源，强大军事、核威慑、能长期竞争的工业基础。
2. 投射全球的军事基地、关键航道控制、情报与外交网络。
3. 声誉好，被其他国家承认、自己也按大国身份行事。
4. 韧性强，扛得住内外危机[挖鼻]
英国人写的，把英国塞进来可以理解。
但没想到文章遭到了大量印度网民围攻。
《印度时报》昨天发文质疑英国学者故意将印度排除在外的动机！[怒]
信不信老仙一发功，大英就得完蛋！
↑↓生气了竟然不提它名字 weary10 发表于 2026-6-4 20:45
这里的英是赠品还是什么情况？
英联邦 我东方大国印度呢 mengsu 发表于 2026-6-8 10:08
讲道理，如今的大英和印度比那确实不配上桌，人家阿三好歹还能说一句未来可期，你大英到底还剩下啥？ ...
祖上阔过 您说的一定是英联邦吧，英联邦第一大国是不是巴拉特 如果大英正统在印度，多少还有点点道理
—— 来自 Xiaomi 22041211AC, Android 13, 鹅球 v3.5.99-alpha 竟日孤鸣 发表于 2026-6-4 23:06
“文章没一个字提法国，但明眼人都能看出，通篇文章都笼罩在法国国旗的巨大阴影里” ...
哪有什么髮国国旗，我只看见一面红旗，一面白旗，一面蓝旗，中间那面最高，迎风招展。 带英先把自己的海军舰船数量和陆军坦克数量都提升到比各自的将军数量多再吹自己是世界top4吧 星〇影 发表于 2026-6-5 00:24
昂？英法合并了？
英法合并就能top4了？ 如果你仍旧把↑↓看成英国的一部分的话，这一切就都说通了 zewubbfa 发表于 2026-6-5 10:27
带英现在发电量已经比越南墨西哥都低了，还吹自己是强国呢。
毕竟有氢弹的，至少可保自身不被入侵，墨西哥嘛它能防其它国家入侵吗 俄美中英是要凑amazing的谐音吗，读快一点蛮像的 看了一下全文，其实是在直球辱骂髪国和暗搓搓影射美国——
According to these criteria, several great-power contenders can be discounted. Some economically significant actors such as Germany and Japan lack the military capabilities, especially nuclear weapons, to be great powers.
When it comes to reach, Germany, Japan, Brazil, and Indonesia have largely regional military capabilities; some of them enjoy considerable global influence through their diplomatic services and overseas aid policies. Germany and Japan have substantial soft power, but Brazil and Indonesia do not. All four have shown themselves to be brittle in the past and thus lack the necessary resilience.
Despite the endorsement of many, India does not meet most of the criteria either. It has nuclear weapons and the world’s fifth- or sixth-largest economy, but New Delhi’s military reach is largely regional. India claims a reputation as a “world teacher,” but it understands this role in non-great-power terms. Given the country’s relative youth in its modern form, India’s resilience is hard to measure—but its propensity to suffer terrorist and communal violence and its persisting poverty suggests vulnerabilities.
France is hard to assess. It is a large economy and commands a nuclear arsenal more independent than that of Britain, but it has lost important parts of its sovereignty, such as control over its own borders and currency, to the European Union. Paris still enjoys a lot of influence in Africa and has a significant presence in the Indo-Pacific, but it is on the retreat in the former and challenged by anticolonial movements in the latter. France also enjoys a global brand distinct from the Anglo-Saxons, China, and Russia.
In terms of resilience, though, France has repeatedly experienced state collapse in the 19th and 20th centuries, most notably when it was overrun by Germany in 1940 and had to be re-constituted by the Anglo-Americans after the war. It is much more brittle than the United Kingdom.
What is clear is that the extent to which the great powers enjoy resources, reach, reputation and resilience, and the balance between these capabilities, varies considerably. No great power is configured quite like any other, and they differ considerably in capacity and vulnerabilities. It has always been thus. In the past, none of the great powers were exactly as strong as any other, and some were considerably weaker—for example, 18th-century Prussia and late 19th-century Austria-Hungary.
Likewise, the great powers of today differ considerably from each other both in terms of individual strengths and overall strength. Though the United States and China are economically and militarily far ahead of Russia and the United Kingdom, all four states have attributes that mark them out from the next rung of major actors on the world scene. There is also one country, France, whose great-power status is unclear.
This list—those it includes and those it leaves off—may take some by surprise. Seen historically, however, its consistency is remarkable. Although the balance between the actors has shifted considerably, this configuration of great powers would have been recognizable not merely to our grandparents but our great-grandparents. In all likelihood, it will remain so to our children and grandchildren.
根据这些标准，可以排除若干大国的竞争者。一些经济实力雄厚的国家，如德国和日本，缺乏成为大国的军事能力，尤其是核武器。
就影响力范围而言，德国、日本、巴西和印度尼西亚的军事能力主要局限于地区层面；其中部分国家虽通过外交服务和海外援助政策享有相当大的全球影响力。德国和日本拥有强大的软实力，但巴西和印度尼西亚则不然。这四个国家过去都曾表现出脆弱性，因此缺乏必要的韧性。
尽管获得许多人的认可，印度也未能满足大多数标准。印度虽拥有核武器且经济规模位居世界第五或第六，但新德里的军事影响力主要局限于地区层面。印度自诩为“世界导师”，但其对这一角色的理解仍停留在非大国的范畴内。鉴于该国现代国家形态相对年轻，其韧性难以衡量——但其频发的恐怖主义和族群暴力事件以及持续存在的贫困问题，都表明其存在脆弱性。
法国则难以评估。它经济体量庞大，且拥有比英国更独立的核武库，但已将主权的重要部分——如边境管控权和货币主权——让渡给了欧盟。巴黎在非洲仍享有很大影响力，并在印太地区拥有显著存在，但在非洲正处于退守状态，而在印太地区则面临反殖民运动的挑战。此外，法国拥有区别于盎格鲁-撒克逊国家、中国和俄罗斯的独特全球形象。
但在韧性方面，法国在19世纪和20世纪曾多次经历国家崩溃，最显著的例子是1940年被德国占领，战后不得不由英美两国协助重建。其国家韧性远不如英国。
显而易见的是，各大国在资源、影响力、声誉和韧性方面的优势程度，以及这些能力之间的平衡，存在很大差异。没有任何一个大国的构成完全与其他大国相同，它们在能力和脆弱性方面存在显著差异。情况一直如此。过去，没有任何一个大国的实力完全与其他大国相当，有些甚至明显较弱——例如18世纪的普鲁士和19世纪末的奥匈帝国。
同样，当今各大国无论在单项实力还是整体实力上都存在显著差异。尽管美国和中国在经济和军事上远超俄罗斯和英国，但这四个国家都具备使其区别于世界舞台上次级主要行为体的独特属性。此外，还有一个国家的大国地位尚不明确，那就是法国。
这份名单——无论是所包含的国家还是被排除在外的国家——可能会让一些人感到意外。但从历史角度来看，其连贯性却令人惊叹。尽管各国之间的力量平衡已发生显著变化，但这种大国格局不仅我们的祖父母辈，甚至我们的曾祖父母辈都能认得出来。极有可能，它对我们的子孙后代而言也将依然如此。 众所周知，中国专打世界第三，因此五常=四强，没毛病 我萧某大好男儿,竟与你这种人齐名
—— 来自 samsung SM-S9110, Android 16, 鹅球 v3.5.99 实在要凑4个把三哥放进来呗
韩国：目前四大强国韩中美俄 巴克队长 发表于 2026-6-9 11:16
看了一下全文，其实是在直球辱骂髪国和暗搓搓影射美国——
According to these criteria, several great-p ...
不愧是英国佬写的 这里头有带英什么事吗 不写笔记 发表于 2026-6-9 10:32
英法合并就能top4了？
这俩好好过日子也许还行，但是这俩好好过日子不太可能 以前还能聊聊印度，现在印度要内爆了，只能当世界第一的被看乐子国
页:
1
[2]