Talk:Hyperpower/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

United States military strength

"The United States has a military strength approaching that of the rest of the world combined."

This doesn't sound accurate.

--User:Alterego

In terms of manpower, no - North Korea has a larger military. In terms of planes and tanks, no, China has a larger air force and probably a larger army. But in terms of strength of these men, planes and tanks, the quality of the items and the quality of their training, the US could very well holds its own against the bulk of the world's forces -- in a defensive war. Nice to have them oceans, ya know. And this isn't even including our tens of thousands of nuclear warheads. But yeah, it's probably inaccurate. :) --Golbez 04:40, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
There are no tens of thousands nuclear warheads. Russia has more warheads and the numbers don't count anyway when just a limited amount of salted thermonuclears is enough to render entire North America lethal to all mammals, or if the red-button man happens to want, more or less entire Earth. In reality, even Israeli's warheads could be enough to effectively destroy U.S. Quality or strength of U.S. men, tanks or planes is not something greatly different from most developed countries. United States has an advantage only in traditional warfare against developing countries far overseas. --Janechra 18:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The basis of global power rests on wealth and the use that it is put. Switzerland is a wealthy nation, but doesn't send expeditionary forces to foreign lands. The power of the British Empire rested largely on control of the oceans by the Royal Navy. Most of the world trade goes by sea. Control of the world's oceans is now the remit of the USN. Combined with air superiority, the USA can project its military power globally. To have a large army on its own is not particularly useful. "The USN has a naval strength greater than the rest of the world combined" would be a more accurate comment. (27 Nov 2004) UK

Any state with mutual destruction capability can effectively control the oceans. --Janechra 18:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The current statement as of this posting is:

… the United States has a military strength comparable to the combined military strength of the next 17 nations.

Where does this quantification come from? "Combined strength" implies that there is some quantity (or quantities) being added to arrive at this total. Is this true? If not, is this quoted from some reliable source? It's too specific not to have authoritative backing. — Jeff Q 18:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that that comes from a comparison of the world's military budgets. However, this is not necessarily an accurate measurement of military strength when you consider differences in purchasing power, questions about what should be included as military and what should not, and differences in the composition of different forces. With so many variables, it is very difficult to come up with an accurate measurement of military strength. For instance, while the US may have a power projection capability comparable to the rest of the world combined, it certainly would not be able to fight the combined armies of the rest of the world with any chance of winning.--Todd Kloos 08:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
One wouldn't need
I did some checking and found that the "17 nations" text was added on July 15, 2004 by anonymous user 172.186.233.236. I suggest that nobody else knows where this supposed figure came from. Unless someone can cite a credible source, this statement should be replaced with something based on published information, however questionable its meaning might be. The new statement should also specify what measurement is used, so readers have some idea what such statistics might imply. — Jeff Q 00:53, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Moreover, the ~$1.2 trillion cited as the US defense budget is far off. The US in 2004 spent $454 billion on defense (from Congressional Budget Office www.cbo.gov). This funding amount is supported, ironically, by the cite provided for the $1.2 number, SIPRI ($455.5b). In addition, the US expenditure is 47% of the world's total spending. Including the US, the top 15 nations have a combined expenditure of ~$800 Billion (US dollars) [SIPRI].

There is an article online at http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pdffiles/00376.pdf that states the United States is currently spending more on the military then the rest of the world combined. Granted, this doesn't equate to military superiority (after all, we could spend it all on calvary and not be very effective). However, the US spends it on modern equipment and is constantly revising existing designs and developing more powerful weapons for the future. this does give the US a considerable advantage over other nations. In the end though any nation that has enough nuclear missles to destroy the rest of the world is a power that cannot be conquered. Until there is an effective missile shield that is.

I think the power of the US is exagerated. If the US were to fight a war against say, China, UK, Russia, India, and N. Korea, the US would be skrewd.Cameron Nedland 03:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right, expect for N. Korea, which definitely doesn't have enough nuclears (although it has a huge economical and political threat..). Other countries with mutual destruction capability are France and Israel.--Janechra 18:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that it can be argued that in this day of MAD (mutualy assured destruction) there really are no hyperpowers.87.112.80.163 19:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

British Empire: Hyperpower?

The article claims that the British Empire was a Hyperpower in the early 19th century. However, some of the other European countries were quite powerful during this period, so I don't think that Britain was "vastly stronger" than all potential rivals.--Todd Kloos 00:35, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to offend any British folks, but during Britains prime the world was pretty multipolar.Cameron Nedland 03:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Britain was the world's only industrial economy for most of the century. They defeated Napoleon, enforced a Pax Britannica, ended the reign of the Barbary pirates, broke up the Atlantic slave trade, ended the Thuggee cult. ... I think it's safe to say that the British Empire was the 19th century's hyperpower. Who else came close? --Brunnock 15:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
According to this article [1], To be sure, the United Kingdom had a moment of "hyperpower" in the immediate aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars.... --Brunnock 13:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
This article states the opposite. This is a misquote. Read the article.
Also, check out Size of Empires. --Brunnock 13:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Umm, well perhaps for a few years, but afterall the Concert of Europe left 5 great powers, Austria, Prussia, Russia, France, and the GB were were of relatively equal strength. Of course, Prussia and the GB became the strongest followed by France, but still there is no "hyperpower" status. 12.220.94.199 23:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? When the Concert was formed, continental Europe was devastated by the Napoleonic wars. --Sean Brunnock 09:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Great Britain was not capable at the time of conquering France, Prussia, Austria, or Russia. The British were not able to field large enough armies. So basically my point is that Britain even if it was tempoarily a hyper power it was not able to hold the status very long. The Russians under Nicholas I were miilarily dominant, even though they would quickly lose that. By the 1850's France once again dominated Europe, and by the 1870's Prussia took that position. If Britain was a hyperpower they maintained that at most till 1830, but probably no later than 1820. 12.220.94.199 17:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
One, we're talking about hyperpowers, which are world powers. You're talking about Europe. Two, who won the Battle of Waterloo? Why do you think the years 1815 to 1870 are called Pax Britannica? --Sean Brunnock 17:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Uh, are you suggesting France, Spain, and Russia weren't world powers??? Yes Britain prospered during that time but prosperity does not equal hyperpower. Hyperpowers are the unchallenged elite nation in the world. Britain couldn't win a war without an ally in Europe. That's hardly a characteristic of a hyperpower. The U.S. is far stronger than the European great powers of Italy, Germany, France, and Britain combined. The GB was not. Finally on Waterloo, you seem to forget that Britain would not have won the battle without the aid of Prussia and according to wikipedia's article only 9 of Wellington's brigades were British, the remainder were Dutch or German. And that is one battle, how many battles did Austria, Russia, and Prussia fight during the war. Even in Iberia, without Portugal and Spain's troops Britain would have lost miserably. 12.220.94.199 22:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Almost forgot, Pax Britannica refers to one aspect of a hyperpower, the navy. Britain had the best navy, thats a fact but they didn't have the best army. 12.220.94.199 22:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I am saying that the British Empire qualified as a hyperpower. You seem to be hung up on the size of its standing army. If a standing army makes a nation a world power, then the US is running behind Vietnam and North Korea!
Umm, no. Its the quality of the military. The U.S. army is better than every other army currently standing, as is there navy. Its a combination. The British, were not dominant in Europe, or Africa. As your own source says "Yet the United Kingdom was never truly hegemonic in the century that followed. The "Pax Britannica" depended mainly on the Royal Navy, O'Brien explains, "and was therefore bound to be far more constrained than the 'penetrative' military power which allowed governments ... in Washington to become really 'hegemonic.'" The first senetnece in the article is "A hyperpower is a state that is vastly stronger than any potential rival." Britain was not. Besides, whether or not the U.S. is a hyperpower is debatable. 18:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
But this is Wikipedia and it doesn't matter what you or I think. It only matters what we can cite. To repeat, To be sure, the United Kingdom had a moment of "hyperpower" in the immediate aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars (Niall Ferguson, [2]). --Sean Brunnock 16:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
See above. Your source is poor, its doesn't give a date for British hyperpower status, it states that it was just a "moment." 12.220.94.199 18:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
And your source of information is? --Sean Brunnock 18:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The quote above was your source as was the first one if the above paragraph. The second quote was from our article on Hyperpower. 12.220.94.199 18:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that Britain was the hyperpower of the 19th and early 20th century and there is no point in disputing this as all the facts and figures tell us this is true.87.112.80.163 19:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about being a Hyperpower, not about the size of a country's colonial empire. Britain was always competing with the other European powers. At no time did its power dwarf that of the other European powers. It was one of the great powers, but not a "hyperpower".
Read WP:V, At the beginning of the 20th century, the British Empire was an unopposed hyperpower, Jonathan V. Last, The Weekly Standard [3] --Sean Brunnock 18:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your "Liberal elites ruined Britain as a hyperpower. Could America meet the same fate?" article from the Weekly Standard. It is an interesting opinion piece, with no view at establishing facts. Thanks for the read, but that is definitely not a valid source.
It's a valid source which illustrates that such an opinion is held by certain people. Determining whether the opinion is true or not is outwith our role as editors. The fact that some people think that the British Empire was a hyperpower merits inclusion (an approach justified by WP:V) - something along the lines that 'the term as orignially defined encompassed only the US, but later writers have attempted to extend the label to the British empire, as a similarly pre-eminent power'.
No point speculating on whether Ferguson, Last, and their ilk are right or wrong - the fact that they make the claim is justification enough. It's a silly term though, it's not really based in factual academic study - more a polemical term dreamed up by some vainglorious Frenchman. Still, it is a term which is now out and about in the world, so we ought to have an article on it no matter how foolish it may be.
Incidentally, why are there two identical active threads on this topic?
Xdamrtalk 15:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Britain's empire was the largest the world has ever seen. It covered nearly one third of the world. The sun never set on the empire. Some people label America as a hyperopower. Even though it has never had an empire and there are countries that threat it's economic dominance. Whilst Britain's Empire was at its height there were no challenges from other nations, simple.87.112.75.254 16:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Also earlier you said that Britain was being challenged by other European powers. Which ones???????????87.112.75.254 16:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

France, Germany, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Spain, Portugal and the USA. All of which were at various point in time arguably more powerful than Britain.

Roman Empire: Hyperpower?

Would the Roman Empire at its height count as a hyperpower? China and other powers existed in reality; but I believe the Romans had no knowledge of them. Were the Arab powers strong enough to constitute a balance of power at the Romans' height? I think the Germans were divided. I could be wrong about some of this. --Closeapple 06:26, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Rome certainly knew about China but the interaction between the two was minimal so Rome can be seen as the hyper power of West EurasiaDejvid 21:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Of course. The Romans were the strongest in the "known world." It should be understood that our modern understanding of a world view did not exist during that time. So during that time Rome was the hyperpower of their world. In the same context it could be argued that China has obtained that status t various points during its history. This is a much better example than the GB. 12.220.94.199 23:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not on a world view.Cameron Nedland 03:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

"Surpass economically"

ISn't the EU already "bigger" economically in most respcts than the US? Rich Farmbrough 11:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It depends, on both the set of statistics used and the interpretation of them. You can find a large body of statistics showing EU economic superiority over the United States — and an equally large body of statistics showing US economic superiority over the EU. —Lowellian (talk) 03:55, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
I've added a proviso in accordance with Lowellian's explanation. I've also again reverted 216.12.31.99 (talk · contributions)'s edits, in which he removes Brazil from the list of nations that some people think might surpass the U.S. economically in the future, and a lot of irrelevant data about how individual European countries compare ecomincally with the U.S. I've asked him to discuss his concerns here. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:31, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The EU is less of a "country" than the Holy Roman Empire was during its last years. So, it really can't count. If however a federal consitution was to be adopted that would be a different story, but countries like France and the Netherlands are unlikely to sign any such treaty in the near future. 12.220.94.199 23:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

EU is made up of many countries and the US is just one... The US obviously wins. Its like putting the UN vs the EU. Every stupid because it is made up of many nations. [kindergartenkid]

Per Capita GDP

Added per capita GDP numbers, which are obviously relevant to any discussion about "surpassing the U.S. economically". If anyone thinks it should be removed, please list your reasons for doing so.

The fact that 24/25ths of the EU has a relatively tiny per capita GDP compared to the U.S. is a fact about the entire Union, not individual countries. I could reference the overall per capita GDP of the EU if that bothers anyone. It is also much lower than the U.S.

-216.12.31.99

In terms of economic power, isn't total GDP more important than GDP/capita? So by surpassing the US economically, we are talking about surpassing the US in total GDP rather than GDP/capita.--Todd Kloos 05:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I would venture that per capita GDP is at least as important as raw total GDP, if not moreso. How could anyone venture that China has "passed" the U.S. economically on the day it has more total raw GDP PPP, if it divides this wealth among 1.5 billion citizens? Is it possible for China to supass the U.S. economically if 99% of its citizens would fall far below the U.S. poverty line? It is an odd thought that China could become an economic superpower, even one rivaling the United States, if it remained a devastatingly poor and impoverished country on a personal basis. --216.12.31.99
I still think that raw GDP is much more important than GDP/capita. I mean, we aren't talking about the mighty Hyperpower Luxembourg. However, there are other factors that should be considered, like how much trade a country has(more trade= more influence), how much of the money can be spent on things besides basic food/shelter, and how well the country's industrial base can support the needs of the military. While China is relatively poor, it scores fairly well in those areas so I think that it can be an economic superpower even if the average GDP/capita is significanlty lower than in the US.--Todd Kloos 20:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Both seem relevant. Luxembourg is not a hyperpower because of total GDP. China is not a hyperpower because of per capita GDP. The U.S. is the only country that scores at the top of both of these figures, and that's precisely why it is a hyperpower. You may feel that raw GDP is more important (and I'd agree that China is more of a hyperpower than say the United Kingdom), but per capita GDP (on a PPP basis) is still important and relevant - perhaps because of some of the things you mention. Do you honestly believe that China scores well on the portion of money that can be spent on things beyond the basics, compared to the U.S.? That is precisely the sort of thing that per capita GDP is a pretty good measure of. I suppose we could think of China as a "poor man's superpower", but that seems an oxymoron to me. Wise 08:32, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The gdp is just a statistic,you have to understant what it means.It's just means that the usa produouce and consumes more goods.The problem now is that,if your burning petrol because your stuck in trafic,or because thers -40 otside or because you have 2 million peopol in jale,in all cases it adds up in the gdp.despite that you could argue that been stuck in trafic or having many prisons is not exacly what makes you more rich.An other problem is that the statistics on gdp are taken diferently,for example,in europe software is consider a cost,in america is consider a good and it's count in.And thrdly,europeans have chosen to take longer vacations,despite loss on income,how do you mesure vacations on a gdp statistic?You relly beleav that thers zero valiou in them?--Ruber chiken 22:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

British Empire: Hyperpower?

It is fair to say the United States is a hyperpower if you choose to use that term. I would say that it could be argued that the British Empire was a hyperpower in the 1800s, administrating over a quarter of the world's land and people is a good argument to claim such a title. I can't remember exactly but I believe that it was not until 1910 that Germany's and the U.S.A.'s GDP surpassed that of Britain's (although I could be wrong), those two countries being more populous than Britain at the time as they are now, obviously. However, I am afraid I do not have a source handy to prove it, just playing devil's advocate for arguments sake. P.S. I am a little perplexed about the reference to 24/25ths of per capita GDP of the EU being 'tiny' relative to U.S. per capita GDP. I wonder on what source this is based?

Could Britain unaided fight a land war in Europe? Can anyone give sources that describes the British Empire as a hyperpower? Does anyone seriously argue that the 19th century was a unipolar world?Dejvid 23:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The use of the term 'hyperpower' with regard to the British Empire is anachronistic. Jooler
I would argue that the US is less power than most historical superpowers. In the past 5 years it has required 2 colilitions and most of its militry forces to occupy 2 minor countries. The UK, France and serveral others happily held huge chunks of the earth's surface. The rules were obviosly different in those days but that is what made the countries powerful. The US hasn't won a major conflict single handed in the past century. This is the age of the colition.
As to the world of the British Empire being multi-polar. Is that any different than today? No-one has argued that the French or Spanish empires equaled that of the British. So it was clear that the British were the biggest power. The other european powers could have taken the British if they combined their efforts but it has also been proven that the EU can defeat the US when it works as one unit (such as in the argument over steel tariffs). josh (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The British empire also fought most of its wars as part of a coalition, and I don't think it is accurate to say that the US requires most of its military to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan. There are only 150,000 troops in Iraq, compared to 1.5 million active duty personel in the US military + millions of reserves.
If you want to compare the relative stregnths of the US and British Empire, look at the navies of the two countries. The UK was primarilly a naval power, but the Rn was still only about as powerful as the 2nd and 3rd largest navies combined. The USN, on the other hand, is arguably as strong as the ROW navies combined.--Todd Kloos 00:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I am forced to agree that classifying Great Britain as a hyperpower in the 19th century would be false. For a considerable length of time, the British Empire maintained a strict naval policy. Their navy was to be larger then the 2nd and 3rd largest navies of the world combined. However this policy became unsustainably expensive for them as the world wars approached. Also given the fact that in terms on military strength, in the end one wins the war on the ground. The navy gets the troops there, airpower assists them, but the troops on the ground get the job finished. The British afforded their navy as long as they did because they did not attempt to build as powerful an army. (Historians have noted that it is remarkable that the British did what they did with so few soldiers) This worked as a great hinderance to them in the world wars, in both they were able to blockade Germany. However they were still unable on their own to defeat the Wehrmacht, and its named foreruner. In addition to this the kriegsmarine's U-boots in gruppen tactics (wolfpack is actually an american term)gave the smaller Kriegsmarine the ability to exert a great deal of power in the oceans. Namely the sinking of shipping. Now lets review all the events leading up to this point at which the British Empire was at its true Zenith Despite their massive Navy, and the 13 colonies lack of one. The British Empire was unable to hold onto this part of North America. (Not being jingoistic here, I undrstand the fighting heart of the American soldiers was not the only reason for victory). However the fact remains they were unable to hold onto their colonies. Events which transpired in other parts of the world left them as such. A true hyperpower should be able to take control of multiple points of the world without undue strain. Now we come to America as a hyperpower, many things factor into this. World War II was when America rose to its global state of power, and as well all know spent many years competing with the Soviet Union for the position. I forget the exact numbers but in World War II we lost somewhere around three to for sherman tanks for every Panzer we destroyed. This number increased to five or six for Tiger Tanks, and even more for King Tiger's and Panther-II's. However for every Tiger Tank Germany produced, we produced somewhere around 20 shermans. The Third Reich's superior technology was defeated because Germany made to many of the wrong enemies 1: The Biritsh Empire, the world's largest navy knowing the implications (Research Tirpits risk theory) 2: The Soviet Union, the world's largest army. 3: The United States, a nation possessing a large military with the capability and resources to supply all other countries involved. Research the Lend Lease Act The Allies and namely the United States had both numbers and the ability to replace lossess. Which is just as important as the current number of soldiers and their strength. The Waffen-S.S. was one of the best fighting forces the world ever saw, but when you are fighting odds of 10-1 that only goes so far. That is even more poineant when your choice soldiers are lost and there are no replacements. So desperate was germany that they were creating fighters to run off of lawnmower gas and be piloted by Boy Scouts (He-162) The point is to have military supremacy you have to be able to replace your lossess. While the US may have at one time been a hyperpower, the growing strength of China is rapidly removing that distinction. While the US has the most powerful navy, a navy is useless without air superiority. After all fighters ended the battleship era. China has the largest Air Force in the world. The drawback is that most of its fighters are 20, 30, or even 40 year old MIGs aquired from the Soviet Union. However China recently aquired the Cheng Dju (under questionable circumstances) providing them an ability to replace replenish and rebuild their aging air force. Beyond this China has a far larger army, and far more people to replace the soldiers lost in combat. In a head on conflict with China the US might win with better technology and decent numbers, however the US would likely end up like the Third Reich, having to send those who are still legally children into battle. (I am not taking the heart of the soldier into account her after all many army's fighting for "right" have still lost) The greatest weakness to the United States power is that to few manual labor jobs left, and to few people accustomed to doing them. Something vital for waging a long prolonged war. Many of these jobs and skills are transfering to China making them stronger. Admiral Isoroko Yamamoto stated to Emperor Hito "I can gurantee you no more then 18 months of unchallenged victory against the United States. After which point, their awesome industrial might will overcome us". Admiral Nagumo attatched to the Midway operation also pronounced his resmected of American industry. America no longer has that same industrial dominance, and as america's grows weaker china's grows stronger. The US may still be a hyperpower, but that status is rapidly fading and will only change with a serious change in policy. Therefore in summation I must disagree with Britain being classified as a hyperpower, and must assert that if America is a hyperpower that distinction is almost gone.

By your reasoning, the US was never a hyperpower since they did not defeat North Korea or North Vietnam. --Brunnock 16:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

My point was that America is not in fact a hyperpower, and that the only nation close to being so in history itself was not such a power. While the United States may be capable of winning any conflict on paper, North Korea proved the leadership is not always willing to do what it takes to win. While Vietnam proved that often times the populace can become to soft to do what it takes, while incompetent/unwilling leadership at home can continue its negative effects.

MacArthur wanted to nuke china for getting involved in Korea. At the time the United States could have easily bested China, and even the Soviet Union had they gotten involved. While the soviets did in fact have nukes, they lacked the means to get them to the US in sufficient numbers to do any good.

While in Vietnam the generals were forced to fight with both hands tied behind their back. When it came time for peace talks, and the Vietnamese refused the generals were finally allowed to go to work. Thats when the navy and air force started bombing the holy hell out of North Vietnam they quickly came to the table. The ability to exert such power over the world is not based only on miliary power at a given time. But on the ability to sustain a prolonged action, and the continued support of the nation's populace to aid in the war effort.

To many in America have demonstrated that they wouldn't fight even if the enemy was invading. When a mentality such as this exists in such numbers it is extremely dangerous. Take for example ancient Rome, at one time serving in the legion was an honor. However after a thousand years of being fat and happy, the honor became a burden. So much so that when the time came to fight Attilla, roman farmers were going so far as to cut off a thumb to avoid serving in the Legion. Which forced Rome to rely on goths and other nationals to serve in their military. I think most of us know what that eventually led to.

The United States was never a hyper power. The sad truth for those of us who live in the US, is that there are to many who are either A to cowardly, or B to idealistic to fight and support fighting when need be. In this age of unrivaled power and technology, the achillies heel is the portion of the populace who whether they intend to weaken the nation or not do so with a lack of resolve and or understanding of the way the world is. For this reason more then any other the US probably could have never been considered a hyperpower, and if at any point it was that title is gone.

The term hyperpower is not one which seems to have wide use. It was coined to describe the US and the US alone. This is sourced as per WP:OR. It's a questionsble term as it seems to be a political/polemical concept rather than a Political Science concept, but nevertheless... Anyone wanting to extend the definition to the British Empire/Napoleonic Empire/Roman Empire/Genghis Khan, etc, etc will have to come up with a source for it. Wikipedia is not about putting down what we believe, its about putting down what we can properly source and verify. Decisions which are taken as a result of group consensus, rather than as a result of proper sourcing, cannot stand.
Xdamrtalk 19:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Here are two verifiable sources-
To be sure, the United Kingdom had a moment of "hyperpower" in the immediate aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, Niall Ferguson, Foreign Affairs, [4]
At the beginning of the 20th century, the British Empire was an unopposed hyperpower, Jonathan V. Last, The Weekly Standard [5]
--Sean Brunnock 20:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Right then, I think that you can include the British empire. Something along the lines that 'the term as orignially defined encompassed only the US, but later writers have attempted to extend the label to the British empire, as a similarly pre-eminent power'. No point speculating on whether Ferguson, Last, and their ilk are right or wrong - the fact that they make the claim is justification enough. I've no objection to adding other countries/empires per se, I just don't want to see us adding unsourced material based on our own arguments here. It's a silly term though, it's not really based in academic study - more a polemical term dreamed up by some vainglorious Frenchman. Still, it is a term which is now out and about in the world, so we ought to have an article on it no matter how foolish it may be.
Xdamrtalk 21:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The Weekly Standard article is an opinion piece aimed at US liberals. It is not a valid source. In addition, the "Foreign Affairs" article states that the British Empire's hegemony is a myth. Read the "THE BRITISH MYTH" section. Diplomatically, it starts by stating that it "had a moment of "hyperpower"", only to spend the rest of the article destroying that concept. That's called diplomacy and effective writing. The point of the article is that there was never a British hegemony. No matter how appealing the idea, the British Empire was not a hyperpower.Sprotch 15:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no opinion on whether the the UK was a hyperpower or not - as I say, I think that the term is misconcieved. Setting aside the Weekly Standard article, we have Ferguson, a respected historian. The fact that he holds this view justifies its inclusion here. He might be right, he might be wrong (although goodness knows how you would decide this given the unclear ambit of the term) but the fact that he has made the claim is enough to merit a sentence or two. The source is proof that the opinion is held, that is all it should be used for.
Sorry I was not clear, my point was that this is a quote of the Ferguson article taken completely out of context. His article is on the fact that the BE was NEVER an "hyperpower". Read the article. Especially the "British Myth" section.
Xdamrtalk 15:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the term hyperpower is simply ridiculous no country in the modern world would label themselves as one. But if we are using it I think it would be fair to say that Britain was a hyperpower.87.112.75.254 16:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Where to begin?

This article seems to consist largely of original research and POV statements. I might not be the best person to rewrite it though so I am just going to stick a NPOV on it. For now. Guinnog 19:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well done Brunnock! It is beginning to look a little better. Guinnog 18:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I use a KISS approach to editing articles which unfortunately runs counter to most editors' styles. --Sean Brunnock 19:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What is a hyperpower?

After World War 2, there were two superpowers, the USA and the USSR. The two things that make a nation a superpower are a high level of technology and a large army. A superpower must have nukes but nukes do not make one a superpower.

After the breakup of the USSR the USA became the sole superpower, some call it a hyperpower. It combined military might with economic influence. It had the largest navy in the world including twelve aircraft carriers. It had more combat aircraft and more tanks than any nation except for Russia.

The United Kingdom occupied a similar position relative to the other Great Powers in the Nineteenth Century. It didn't have the technology, it didn't have the manpower, it wasn't the scientific leader that the USA was.

On further study and reflection, I'd like to conclude, the term hyperpower could also be a reference to the most powerful nation in the world. It implies a leadership role but it does not have to imply superpower status. In that sense it could be used to describe a regional power in the ages before modern technology or a global power at any time.

User:Awis 8 May 2006

  • I'm not so sure that would be consistant with the media's definition of hyperpower. Anyway, this site has an interesting definition of hyperpower. [6]
"A hyperpower is "hyper" in two separate, albeit related, senses. First, it is hyper in the original Greek sense of the prefix: over or above, or superordinate (as in hypersonic). Thus a hyperpower is one where there is a considerable and indeed, as I will argue below, an unbridgeable distance in capacity between it and all others in the international system. But a hyperpower is also "hyper" in its secondary and more normative sense of something that is well above the norm, or excessive (as in hyperactivity): in other words, a hyperpower uses its superordinate power capacities in a manner well beyond what others do, seeking almost obsessively to define the behaviour of others as conflicts of interest, and to ensure that in those conflicts of interest with others in the international system, its interests prevail." 12.220.94.199 01:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, unless you can come up with any specifics, I'm removing all tags on all Superpower pages, as promised. Trip: The Light Fantastic 21:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

no hyperpower

if such a thing had ever existed(extremly more powerfull then all the rest).Don't you think that it whould have concured the holle earth,since normaly it wouldn't be any rival of it's class.And of caurse it wouldn't have deklind,or it couldn't be hyperpowerfull to begin whith.--Ruber chiken 04:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree, this article seems very POV. Hyperpower? Who exactly coined that term and where is the difference between a superpower and a hyperpower? This seems very US-centric. Signaturebrendel 06:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

common peopol,hyperpower???The usa superiority thing is realy delirious.--Ruber chiken 06:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hyperpower is a real term I believe...the entire United States superiority thing is not delirious, it is fact. Can you name one nation that would stand up to the United States and willingly fight them in the modern world stage? Note that this does not count Unions in which France will fight and yet the United Kingdom will not. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
"you name one nation that would stand up to the United States and willingly fight them in the modern world stage?" - If you your statement is in regards to diplomacy, Germany and France have stood up to the US and the Bush admin more than once, the actually foreced Bush to revert his steal tarrifs. So, yes Western European great powers (the other G8 members) have and can preassure the US into changing its policy. American economists know fullwell that the US depends on trade w/ the other G8 nations. But if that's your defenition than Germany and the UK might be hyperpowers as well since nobody would fight them as too many nations rely on their exports. No country would fight any of the G8 on the modern world stage. Of course, the US is the largest developed nation by far, so nobody would fight it (except the crazy loonatic that's running Iran maybe). Signaturebrendel 17:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

like i said delirious.What you realy think that they are gods,and all the rest of us are babouns.Whel if a wher saying afganistan,you whould reply what?Learn,that some times in order to lead you mast fallow.--Ruber chiken 07:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read the article. The term ‘hyperpower’ was popularized by French foreign minister Hubert Védrine in the 1990s to describe the United States and explain what had replaced the dominance of international relations by superpowers and great powers. That's what this article is about. --Sean Brunnock 10:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I have read it but according to him, France is a superpower and the US hyperpower. It seems that he coined the term so he could claim France to be a superower. Signaturebrendel 17:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Racial conflict a threat?

In the section "Potential Threats to US hyperpower status," there is a mention of racial conflict between racial groups being a threat. Is this really appropriate or acurate? Can it at least be better defined on the page?

If you think about organizations such as the KKK and Black Panthers, bloody racial conflicts are very much possible. --TonyM ｷﾀ━( °∀° )━ｯ!! 12:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
You are suggesting that the Black Panthers and the KKK are going to start a bloody race war that is ultimately going to destroy the United States as a world power? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? That whole paragraph picks out the most ridiculous arbitrary faults just to have a “they’re not so great” section. Redd Dragon talk Contributions 22:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The Ethic conflict was mentioned by Emanuel Todd which is why I included it - I do not agree with him and put a statement that this was unlikely - but somebidy removed it

I agree its ridiculous. I would like to see one credible article backing up a claim that the "racial tension" in the states is about to cause the country to demise. Thats plain stupid. Some drunk hick calling some black guy the N-word in a rare instance doesnt exactly count as a major threat to the American economy or country as a whole. I going to check back in one week and remove that statement if its still up. -sojourner

I also agree. This strikes me as something that is very unlikely. Is there an elaboration? Maybe racial tensions within the US will lessen its stature in the political eyes of other countries? Barring extreme events, I can't realize a small minority causing such a extreme occurance as a Civil War. -Chapparal 09:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Potential Threats to US hyperpower status

I am removing the following from the “Potential Threats to US hyperpower status.”

  • Military - The US has unparalleled military capabilities and at present there is no direct military threat to the US homeland from a hostile government. However, there have been complaints that the US military is spread too thin; and the geopolitical position of the United States leaves it likely to remain the target of terrorism, especially from non-national entities.
  • Social - There is a potential threat of racial conflict between racial groups in the US, as well as the potential for religious-driven conflict based both from within and outside the country.

None of the above constitutes a threat to the US being a world power. (I refuse to say hyper power. Since there is no such thing. The term was created so lesser powers can call themselves a superpower) Terrorism could (and has) kill thousands of Americans, however, that would not affect the power or influence of the United States at all. It even says the only thing (military-wise) that could threaten the US is not possible. “The US has unparalleled military capabilities and at present there is no direct military threat to the US homeland from a hostile government.” Racism is a ridiculous argument and doesn’t even deserve a sentence in my paragraph. Redd Dragon talk contributions 05:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the ridiculous statements about racial tension being a threat to the US. That statement had no logical or sound line of reasoning to back it up. -Sojourner

shrugs It's about as sensible as the rest of the page. —Nightstallion (?) 01:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Isolationism as threat to US Hyperpower status

I question whether isolationism, in this article portrayed as US disengagement from Iraq, can really be considered a threat to the US's alleged hyperpower status. Firstly, the US's campaign in Iraq is all but a unilateral one. Because of this, disengagement might in fact bring the US closer to its traditional European allies rather than being so much an act of "isolationism." Secondly, I think the opposite could be argued: the Iraq War may very well indicate that the US is in fact no longer a sole superpower, much as the Afghan War indicated that the Soviet Union's days as a superpower were numbered. Theshibboleth 12:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Will China be the next hyperpower?

As the article says the USa's NO.1 ranking is under threat from China. Does China have what it take to become No.1?87.112.75.254 16:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to threaten US "hyperpower" status?

Someone removed the whole "section" that contained threats to the US "hyperpower" status, and I don't think that helped at all, because many of the resons given were true.

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/y/p/Talk%7EHyperpower_Archive_1_e9b9.html"