Talk:Superpower/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

France

Just a minor correction. France has the 6th largest economy in the world, not the 5th. California is #5.

Pardon the ignorance but California? Is that a country or is it part of the USA or some other political entity all together?

France should be 6th at Market exchange rates behind US, Japan, Germany, China, and UK.--Todd Kloos 06:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

California will be listed in fifth place as soon as Führer Schwarzenegger declares independence.(Wfgiuliano 01:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC))

Junlee and China POV

I'd just like to get a little bit of consensus here. Who else apart from me agrees that the edits by User:Junlee containing some WP:POV statements that violate Wikipedia rules regarding WP:NPOV? What is the best course of action to take? I realise the very nature of the article makes for POV statements, but we need some way to distinguish between opinion, fact, and unfair use of facts. Jombo 01:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Apart from Junlee's constant exaggeration of the Chinese economy (might I add without any evidence), he has also in the past deleted large portions of the India article in a clear attempt to play down any chance that India would surpass China. I too believe that Junlee does not have a Neutral Point of View.203.214.59.216 05:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

To Jombo

Why dont you openly discuss points you disgree right here. Junlee

To Jombo. Its interesting you bring up the Wiikipedia policy. Let me show you some it then.

"Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DR

 Go read it yourself. You are the one who violate the Wikipedia policy by simply reverting other people's changes without discussion. Junlee

China: Ecnomic part

"Chinese entrepreneurs built extensive global network through innovative management skills and taking risk. The Chinese are also building global level companies through merger and acquisition. Reports have shown that China is not only a major manufacturing export country, but also moving up to become a high-tech product export country. During 2005, China's high-tech export is about 80 million US dollars. The Chinese government also put great efforts to push for exporting medical supplies and software. [3]"

I added these two points under economy in China. I here to ask anyone wants to refute my editing?

Is there any proof that you are able to present? It is common knowledge that China is not the most technologically advanced nation in Asia, a sport firmly held by Japan. It is clear that a turn to Robotics would destroy China's Manufacturing Industry and put millions of people back into proverty. It is also clear that China's currency is undervalued, a point you simply deleted in order to brighten up the image of China. But it can be seen that all you wish to do is delete the point of other wikipedia users and add your own...the Points Against the Rise of a Chinese Superpower is rather short and would astonish any knowledgeable reader of the article.

China has indeed become the world's largest exporter of high-tech products. However, that is a bit misleading because many of the exported products are based on imported components and only have the final assembly in China. Still, China's technology is improving at a very rapid pace, and I don't think that a shift to robotics would hurt China as much as you believe. China has also become the world's largest producer of scientists and engineers, which should help China sucessfuly adapt to new technologies.--Todd Kloos 21:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You accusation against me is extremely unfair. The points against China are 6 points comparing to India's 4 points. I did not simply delete all the points against China. I wrote on this discussion board to tell you why I delete these points. For example, saying China will go to war with US with nukes in the future is just childish and mere speculation. Even Soviet Union didn't go nuclear war with US. And saying every country in the world hate China is not true. While I agree with you many China's neighbors are still suspicious of China, there is no reason to say Latin American and African countries to hate China. JunLee

Also, describing Sino-US relationship as "incredibly weak" is not true either. Sino-US relationship has up and downs. But US acknowledge the fact they need China's support to fight terrorists and counter North Korea. China also realise the need for US to maintain a stable world peace. You said "It is common knowledge that China is not the most technologically advanced nation in Asia, a sport firmly held by Japan." Not true, this is your own opnion, not a fact. Did you even read the footnote 3 about China exporting software and medical supplies. You want proof, you got it. I also can provide other article about China building up its own high tech industry, if you want to read it. Junlee

Hi, JunLee, How are you? Thank you for inviting me here. I am interested in this article. But I am afraid that I cannot totally agree with you about the points you made. Firstly, I don't agree that China and India should be compared and decided who is stronger. We are still weak. Do you think China or India is stronger than the other one will solve any problem. If compare, compare to US. And secondly, I think to mention BRIC in superpower is a mistake. They are not superpowers and this made this article too long. And finally, it's natural that people have different (sometimes opposite) opinions. That's wikipedia's advantage. So please don't delete others' sentences. Your contributions about China in this article are good. Let's show some positive pictures of today's China. Don't pay attention to those negative points. Readers will read and judge. Xiaojeng 05:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Will it be good to move BRIC to something like emerging superpower?

Since superpower nowadays is US only and in the past were US and SU. Why don't we discribe them only and move BRIC to another item like emerging superpower? We can also move France, Germany, Japan, GB to majorpower? This item is too long. I don't have patience to finish reading it. :) Xiaojeng 02:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Xiaojeng, The point is that some subarticles (UK and India) are extensive long. Some writers insist to describe, in details, points such as defense, intelligence agencies, etc...(points discussed in other articles). Yeah, it is really tiring to read everything. The point of article is already missing - compare the nations and its features as powers - in general terms.Cloretti 16:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Besides that, POVS predominate in article such as EU, China and even India.Cloretti 16:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, do you think there is some good solution for it? How about cut it short and change it to a general description and make items like India as superpower, China as superpower, UK as superpower, etc?Xiaojeng 05:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sino-Indian War

It seems that this 1962 war, only 15 years after India gained independence, has been brought up as a valid point to degrade India's military and a matter of a pride for the Chinese military. An emphatic victory though it was, it has little representation of today's Indian military. After the war, the Indian military regrouped and private government enquiries were held on the subject. A series of measures taken upgraded the Military substantially, which led to India conquering much of Pakistan's land in the war of 1971, including the creation of Bangladesh.

The most recent sign of military tensions between India and China was in the 1980s, which led to the creation of Arunachal Pradesh, a state that China claims belongs to the PRC. However, China does not wish to do anything about it? Why? Because they cannot risk open war with India, especially when India may use it to make a bit for Tibetan Independence.

Hey, what's your point? You want China to fight against India again? Remember: China and India are both still too weak. It's far too early to debate about who is stronger (or weaker). Let's do something meaningful. Xiaojeng 05:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you guys think it's pointless to compare India and China in this item?

Do you guys think it's pointless to compare India and China in this item? They (we) are far from superpowers. The fact is the only superpower is US. See the chart of military spending in US subarticle. BRIC, still too weak. Xiaojeng 05:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. China has a chance only if it conquer Japan and all South-East Asia. European Union has a chance - but only if speads to the East, incorporates colonies of European states and Britain makes dintance from the US. Another possibilities (in distant future) include Australia (it needs population and territory - possibly in Antarctica or Oceania) and Latin America.--Nixer 08:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think China is close to achieving superpower status. It alreay has about a 15% share of GWP (in PPP terms), and continues to grow at a rapid pace. The US has about 20% and the USSR at its peak only achieved about a 10% share, so it could already be considered an economic superpower. India is further away from superpower status, being in most respects similar to where China was 10 years ago, but both have the potential to surpass the US in the first half ot the 21st century.--Todd Kloos 22:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

When comparing economic power, it should be noted that the most important statistic is the nominal gdp, with put China with only 5% of the global GDP, compared to 30% of the USA and the EU. The PPP gdp is important in measuring the stantard of living not the relative economic power with is determined by the industrial productivity of tradeable goods with is reflected in the nominal GDP. Also, the Soviet Union never was an economic superpower (it produced less than 15% of the automobiles produced by Germany in the seventies) it was a superpower because it had many nukes and a huge army.--RafaelG 17:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is way too long.

This article is way too long, and it's lost its point. It's meant to be about the term 'Superpower'. Not Major Power, BRIC or emerging superpowers. Would anyone object if we shortened this article by only including the history of the term 'Superpower', the Soviet Union and the United States? We can move BRIC and Major Power to their respective articles. Jombo 13:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Moved them to Major powers. Mjolnir1984 14:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Erm, stunning that you moved this article without a vote on changing it. I think they should have all stayed where they are. Trip: The Light Fantastic 17:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear poterntial of Russia

USSR never achieved exact nuclear parity with the USA.

Now nuclear potentials of Russia and the USA as widely known in Russia, relate about as 1:1.7.--Nixer 14:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Other way round. Russia surpassed the nuclear capacity of the United States, but didn't surpass the United States with tactical nuclear weaponry. Jombo 00:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved all potentials back

What is discussed is not their role as "major powers" but as potential superpowers. They should remain tied to this article. Do not move them again without consulting everyone here.

What we can do instead is have a brief summary of the nations and have sub-articles. Trip: The Light Fantastic 17:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit: I have made the sub-articles for the nations myself. It took me a very long time, don't change the idea radically without consulting me, please :) .

Germany, United Kingdom and France should be removed

Not one of them have a chance of becoming a superpower equal to the US or China unless they are with the European Union. End of. They should be taken out and their sub-articles deleted. Trip: The Light Fantastic 17:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Furthermore Wikipedia should not make hypotheses about what country could become a superpower (and implicitly: what country could not). Wikipedia is an ecyclopedia, meaning its about "facts". In the long run every country can be a superpower. Mjolnir1984 19:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but can the edits i did to these pages be saved somewhere?Guinnog 19:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It will be saved in history. You can use it later for another article.--Nixer 04:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

All potentials should be removed OR have references

Wikipedia should not make hypotheses about what country could become a superpower (and implicitly: what country could not). Wikipedia is an ecyclopedia, meaning its about "facts". In the long run every country can be a superpower. One could however mention that currently important and credible (media) sources refer to some countries as potential superpowers (=fact). But is this the case with Russia, Brazil and Japan? As a frequent reader of a wide array of news sources I only read that they are considered as (potential) regional hegemons/major powers/great powers, but NOT as potential "superpowers"? If anyone finds such articles, provide a list of links. Than we can at least have references and let this never ending guessing game end. Mjolnir1984 21:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Russia and Japan are major powers, but they are in relative decline and have little chance of rivaling the US in the near future. Brazil has potential for growth, but right now it is hardly even a major power. China, the EU, and India are the only countries with the potential to become superpowers in the near future.--Todd Kloos 22:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's get this perfectly straight...China and India are potential supepowers, the European Union is obviously a potential superpower. But Russia, Japan and Brazil (especially Brazil) are only Major Powers/Potential Major Powers without any indication of rising to Superpower Status. They are in relative decline. It is also mentioned that Brazil only fits one of the criteria. Why is Brazil still on this page?

I would agree with everyone here on the count that Brazil, Japan and Russia are severely unlikely to become Superpowers.

However, the media and many politicians have explicitly mentioned China and the European Union as potential superpowers many times and therefore these two must stay in this article.

As for India, it's a moot point. Maybe a superpower? Maybe not. I won't come down either side on India. It's up to someone else to decide that one. Trip: The Light Fantastic 20:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If we truly believe and agree on the criterion presented on this page, it is clear that Brazil, Japan and Russia hardly meet all the criteria. It is however clear that India, China and the European Union fit the criteria already, while they are only considered potential superpowers. All three even fit the recently removed 'geographic' criteria. It depends on whether we agree on this criteria or not, if we agree on the criteria, then we agree that Brazil, Japan and Russia are not potential superpowers. If we believe they are potential superpowers, then we don't believe the criteria and should set up a vote on that criteria instead.203.214.4.10 04:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Vote

I think - as already stated above - that only the EU, China and India should remain in the category of potential superpowers as this probability is referred to in a significant ammount of media sources (these references should be added of course). If you support this move, vote yes and if you oppose this move, vote no. Mjolnir1984 21:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree (obviously) Mjolnir1984 21:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree Guinnog 23:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree Jombo 03:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree - I also think that if this vote goes through, all the "Major powers" articles should be kicked out of here. This is a superpowers article, not a MP article. Trip: The Light Fantastic 16:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree As mentioned previously, any discussion in these sections must cite references (note the plural) and represent worldwide (not just United States, Britain, or any single country's media) concensus (=fact). --TheLimbicOne(talk) 17:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree I echo the comments of 'Trip the light fantastic' above; However, broadly speaking, I see little place here for a discussion of potential superpowers, this page should reflect the world as it is now and not engage in crystal-ball gazing. Perhaps we could also tone down the specific references to the US in the page, re-orientate the article more to the abstract concept of the 'Superpower' - rather than the 'US as a Superpower' which it appears to be just now. Xdamr 12:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think India should not be indicated. If India - then why not Australia?--Nixer 17:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Because in many media sources India is mentioned as a potential superpower, and Australia is not. Just google and typ for instance superpower (possibly combined with news) and compare the sources between Australia and India. RoLeoVers 00:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

India fulfills all five criteria, that should be enough, Australia does not have a bullish economy and is too dependent on Wall Street when it comes to the stock market. Australian companies outsource jobs to India. Australia has fragile relations with neigbours Indonesia and Malaysia especially due to the recent drug-related arrests.

And India of course has 50 times as many people as Australia. Piet 10:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Map

Why was the map removed? Cameron Nedland 02:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, why was the map removed? I came up with that idea, it's very illustrative. Trip: The Light Fantastic 20:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, but feel free to add it back in. Jombo 14:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but why not put a map at the introduction of the two superpowers the world has ever known (US and USSR) at the introduction. And a seperate map at the "potential superpowers" sections, where the 3 potential superpowers are shown. Mjolnir1984 16:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Jombo 19:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice job, Jombo. But: Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia and Turkey are currently not members of the European Union. Mjolnir1984 19:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I know, that's why I coloured them differently and made a note about them on the image page. Jombo 21:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I didn't check the image page. Mjolnir1984 23:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

From Fossil fuel superpowers to Commodities Powerhouses

What about the other commodities ? Not just oil skyrocket, but iron, cooper, zinc, coffee, etc...wouldn't be interesting change the name of this subartilce to include other commodities? Besides, Saudi Arabia, Iran and other Middle Eastern countries are not superpowers (we had several oil crises along the last 30 years)..Cloretti 13:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Second Superpower

Can someone clarify this section, please? It uses lots of jargon and doesn't seem particularly relevant to the article - is it inferring that blogs act as a nation in competition with the United States? This strikes me as a bit of a stretch... rob 21:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree. It is not relevant for this article. I think it could be removed from this page, as there is already a link added to it in the disambiguation page. RoLeoVers 21:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Righto, removed. rob 00:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Economic points

I mentioned points that I believe are essential to characterize the economic power of the US that were not cited before.201.42.58.51 18:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The main criteria

I think the main criteria is the superpower can realize such projects that no other country can. Not second, but do it first.--Nixer 16:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

But such criteria can be considered as purely guess-work. It is possible that France, Germany or Japan, Major Powers in our mind to realize projects that the United States do not.203.214.90.104 01:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you please give an example? I do not mean better production or engineerting works. But superpower can take much more risk and make more effort than a conventional country. Their scientists lay a track by which can later follow others.--Nixer 12:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

This article not only contains no citations whatsoever (strike 1), it then goes beyond the statement of facts into analysis of those facts in a way that's a textbook case of original research. This article needs quite a bit of work referencing and weeding to turn it into a good article about an important topic --Night Gyr 11:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

All the Potential Superpowers pages are being considered for deletion. So I appeal to all those that have put their blood, soil, sweat and tears, amidst fighting predictable POV editing, to save the articles and vote Keep. It would be great if the articles were not deleted, but were improved instead.Nobleeagle 07:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What About Ancient Superpowers?????

Rather than go into detail about the cold war era of history there should be a section about ancient superpowers, and the years, etc. Such as Greece, then Rome, then Germany in the post world war 1 era I would but I'm sure all of you know more about that than me, thanks!

Power Template

I have replaced the See Also section with a template based on international power. I would like it if people worked with me in improving this template, expanding all sections on International power and perhaps spreading it to any pages you know of. You can get to the template by following this link{{International_power}}

You can place the template on any page by adding {{International_power}} in its code. The result looks like this:

v • d • e Power in international relations

Types of power	Power (sociology) · Soft power · Hard power · Political power (Power politics • Realpolitik)

Types of power status	Middle power · Regional power · Great power (Potential great powers) · Superpower (Potential superpowers · Energy superpower) · Hyperpower

Geopolitics	African Century · American Century · Asian Century · British Century · Chinese Century · European Century · Indian Century · Pacific Century

Theory and history	Historical powers · Polarity in international relations · Power projection · Power transition theory · Second superpower · Superpower collapse · Superpower disengagement

Organizations and groups	G8 +5 · BRI(M)C · Next Eleven · SCO · NATO · ANZUS

Nobleeagle 05:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Chinese and UK economic rankings

The Chinese economy is described in this article as "currently the world's fourth largest economy in terms of market exchange rates" but further down the page under 'Major Powers' the UK's economy is also described as the fourth largest in terms of market exchange rates. I think that China may have recently overtaken the UK's economy, but I am unable to find data on this. Zackery the Fence 18:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added {{TotallyDisputed}} to the article. I was going to add NPOV but I noticed I could just algamate NPOV and factual accuracy into one. I suggest looking over the Post-cold war section. Statements in there are completely POV, such as calling the US a model for democracy which is totally dependant on where in the world you are. remember the international audience! I will try to help fix the article the best I can. Flying Canuck 20:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Let's see if we can tone down the pro-US bias a bit. I'll start with the space programme. Guinnog 21:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry Flying Cannuck..but I am Brazil...US is a model for democracy (the independence, the constitution, bill of rights) are/were truly influences. That is true for Asia, Latin America and many other countries. Basic thing in our history books (Brazilian ones ate least). Nobody is saying it is the best. Again, it is a democracy as well as Canada, France or Italy...can you deny...so agin reestablsinhg. Removing is a pure POV.Cloretti2 23:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please observe the following sentence Let's see if we can tone down the pro-US bias a bit.. Pure POV. Just facts please...when I say that America is a continental country, the US dollar is the most important cuyrrency, NYSE has a market cap superior than other country...it is FACT...!!! Nothing else.Cloretti2 23:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. Looks like a True Believer. Help, anyone? Is this article worth saving from the dreck it has become? Guinnog 07:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear...Guinnog is a true believer and biased editor. We need intervention. Guy cannot judge months of work of so many editors...probably do not konw the history of the article. This is an article saying what is a superpower and why US is a superpower. This article was splitted in ohter articles (Potential superpowers China and India and major powers). He himself defined Let's see if we can tone down the pro-US bias a bit. A biased affirmation. Also see Is this article worth saving from the dreck it has become? That was a result of many debates. See the history discussion. And now he asks himself ..." Is it worth it ?". We need intervention of editors. Please see the kind of comments he did. Probably he has bias against US. I truly do not care, because I have enough problems in my country (Brazil). But putting comments that many people in US do not know about the Apollo Program changes the condition of superpower ? Debt really changes the condition of superpower...guerrilla in Bagdah changes conditions of superpower ? developing a program to Mars or planning...? The problems with election in Florida is more important than the historic role that US had in history ? So because of that, US is no longer a democracy ? What is democracy, China ?

Help from editors please200.171.172.136 11:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

200.171.172.136 and Cloretti2 appear to be harming this article with their reverts, by reverting to an older version that has fewer facts and more style problems. For example, the revert replaced

It has a high literacy rate and the most expensive educational program of the G8 countries.PDF

with

It has a high literacy rate and a well-organized educational program.

Clearly that is replacing a fact about how expensive the educational program is with an (uncited) opinion about how well the educational program is organized. Also, the revert removes the {{TotallyDisputed}} tag, which should probably not be removed by somebody who is in the midst of participating in the dispute. I'm not saying the revert was totally unjustified (I've no opinion on that), but it should be done with more care to preserve useful edits that were made after the 9th. --Tifego 16:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Their work verges towards vandalism. Guinnog 16:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it vandalism. Unhelpful changes aren't necessarily made with vandalistic intent. --Tifego 19:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I've started merging revisions together to what appears most NPOV and encyclopedic. To anyone who disagrees with any of these changes, please edit the offending individual changes instead of reverting entirely to a previous version. --Tifego 16:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Good to have some contributions from a native English-speaker! Guinnog 16:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

As Guinnog is claiming that my edits appear to be harming the article and have inclination to vandalism (what is just ridiculous and expresses no sense), I officially request help from ãdminsitrators. Cloretti2 19:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog didn't say they appear harmful, I did. But I didn't say it's vandalistic (because it's not). I just said that it's not a good idea to revert 6 days worth of changes to an article like that. --Tifego 19:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

201.26.86.234 19:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC) I agree with you Tifego. It is not good to revert 6 days of work. But look the comments that he has done. It is crazy. Along all the article. All comments were biased against the US, not changing its condition as superpower. Also, this article took a long time to take a form. A lot of discussion and spin-offs. That is why I asked for another editor to interfere. And he is right. Thank God you are an English native speaker. I can agree with him when he claims that US is not a pure democracy, but a representative one. But what about the other points ??? But please review his comments before deletion. The article lost its form and objective. I started to revert his comments, explaining why (you can see that in the history of article). But then he reverted everything (he was the first to do that on March 14 23:56 claiming that should be discussed before deleting...if you see each deletion that I´ve done was commented and tagged). The facts you have mentioned (as the most expensive educational program of the G8 countries) are true. Also, is it the US the only superpower ? Today it is. We can have China as one. But it is not yet. So why the change of the title ? It is not a POV, it is a fact. Nobody here defends or opposes the US govmt. We are talking about a true condition. Best RegardsCloretti2 19:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed the title from "The United States as the world's sole superpower" to "The United States as a superpower" because

The article text immediately underneath that title says the US is the only superpower, so it was redundant to also have it in the title.
It couldn't be left alone because another editor kept changing the title to a question.
- The question version was unacceptable because it implied that the section is considering the issue of whether it is a superpower.
The new title is still true, and as an added bonus is more likely to remain true in case some other country also becomes considered as a superpower.

--Tifego 20:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Is only United States as a superpower disputed NPOV? If so I suggest we switch to {{NPOV-section}}. If no has any objections..... Flying Canuck 20:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. I think someone said the paragraphs immediately above that were also potentially POV so I added it up there to include them as well as "The United States as a superpower". Also, someone removed the other off-topic tag (which is really being used to mean "too much detail on this topic"), but I don't believe that was the consensus reached here so I put it back. --Tifego 22:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Space

Is space exploration really taht important to become a superpower? EamonnPKeane 18:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It is more of a future idea. But it is also about power projection, to have space power really makes a country look more powerful.Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the article should mention at some point that the necessity and relevance of space exploration is disputed. Either that or give some real justification for it being listed. --Tifego 22:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

How about putting satellites into orbit, propaganda value, boost for the economy, development of new technologies, vast amount of resources required? All make it pretty much a superpower-only project. Trip: The Light Fantastic 20:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Why?

is 'Any retrospective application of the term to an earlier great power or global empire is anachronistic.' a true statement? Guinnog 23:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about it being anachronistic, but my understanding is that it simply isn't done. I think that you will find a discussion about it in the archives.

Xdamr 22:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives