Is it possible for Australia to rise as a world power in the future?

When you talk about British tradition, the problem lies in America. Why are the military forces of Canada and Australia so weak? To a certain extent, these two countries are typical traditional British countries, with the Anglican Church as the main religion, and the Anglican Church is the closest to Catholicism among Protestant factions. Under such factions, believers are generally more likely to believe in form and etiquette. In the inheritance and distribution of property, the Anglican Church and Roman Catholicism are the same, and both belong to the eldest son inheritance system. In this way, personal property and real estate in Canada and Australia have always been excessively stable because of such religious habits. Therefore, Australia and Canada, in their colonial era, did not form a strong enough competition mechanism like the United States.

Personally, I believe that you and most people in China think that the United States is dominated by British immigrants. Actually, it's not like this. The highest proportion of white Americans is Chinese Americans, which is almost unique in American countries and countries dominated by European immigrants such as Australia and New Zealand. Moreover, such large enterprises as General Motors, Boeing and Rockefeller, which are most related to American hegemony, were founded by American Americans. Americans of American descent, as well as Americans of Nordic or Dutch descent, believe in Lutheranism, which has greatly changed the Catholic doctrine (developed into a Baptist or evangelical church in the United States) and Calvinism (the essence of Calvinism is Puritanism, and developed into a Presbyterian church in the United States). These religious belief factors in the United States are very different from those in Britain, but they are closer to Germany or northern Europe, ignoring religious forms and simplifying worship etiquette. So this is the case. Although the economies of the new world countries are generally good, and the per capita GDP level of Latin America is mostly in the forefront of developing countries, most of them can't get rid of the strange circle of excessive dependence on energy exports and service industries. Only the United States has established a strong military industry and cutting-edge technology research and development system, and only the United States in the new world has strong enough military power to ensure that it can formulate an international economic order.

Therefore, the consequence is that developed countries outside Europe within the Commonwealth, although rich enough, have always lacked independent and powerful R&D capabilities of military industries and high-tech laboratories due to their long-term dependence on stable resource exports and agricultural products exports, thus affecting their military progress. So if you look at the current military strength, Canada and Australia are not as good as Sweden or the Netherlands in Europe.

At the same time, in the southwest Pacific, Australia's own military strength is very weak compared with that of American troops stationed in the western Pacific (based in Guam) and French troops stationed in the south Pacific (based in society islands). (The Australian navy lacks anti-submarine warfare and actually relies on the above-mentioned allies to maintain its own strategic security), which has been marginalized in the military game in the southwest Pacific for a long time. Moreover, in recent years, Chile and Singapore, as military partners welcomed by Western Europe and the United States, have long purchased advanced air and sea weapons. Singapore even maintains a small-scale military presence in Australia. Coupled with Australia's weak military base, it is estimated that Australia will rely on resource exports and service industries for a long time.