Talk:Superpower/Archive 3

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

The United States as a superpower : off-topic?

This section goes into a lot of detail about the US, much of which is uncited. I bet the United States article does a better job of it. So, I think this section should be pretty much decimated, except for the intro paragraph and the few points that are really relevant to saying why it is a/the superpower. --Tifego 07:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I rather agree. I think this article would be improved if we confined it to a discussion of the concept of the superpower - a discussion of the concept in the abstract; try to avoid getting into large sections debating the merits or not of the US. Any detail can then be merged within the appropriate articles. I have proposed something similar for the Major power article. There, the sections of some of the individual major powers have developed along the same lines as the US entry in this article - it all leads to something that is quite cluttered and unwieldy.
Xdamr 20:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok...a new sugestion : why not to create a new article called The United States as a superpower ? I agree with you when you propose to confine the article to a discussion of an abstract concenpt, but you cannot deny that there is an important about the role of US in the world. is the article about US enough for such discussion ?201.27.47.41 17:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
No, that wouldn't help to make "The United States as a superpower" its own article. I just said the "United States as a superpower" section should be condensed a lot, I didn't say it should be removed entirely. I think it's currently about 3 times as long as it needs to be to get across the relevant ideas. --Tifego 18:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that there should be a 'US as a superpower' section, but the factors which make up the power of the US (strong military, large economy, cultural influence) can be summarised in a relatively brief paragraph or two. Anyone who wishes to research the US further could then go to any of the pages dealing specifically with the US, its economy, its military etc. I don't dispute the importance of the US, I just don't think that the attempt that has been made here, to enumerate every aspect of US power, works.
Xdamr 22:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I have some points to discuss:

What I cannot truly understand is the reason of the existence of specific articles for emerging superpowers such as China or India (more delicate and subjective articles in my opinion), and the opposition to an article dedicated to the US as a superpower.

Also I think the specific related US articles (US economy, US military,etc) do not have this focus: why is the US considered a superpower? A person has to read many points inside many articles to catch the reasons ? Also, the article is not that long. 201.1.157.86 23:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Another point: I don´t think to consider the US as a superpower is a POV. This is widely documented by the press. I agree with qualitative points such as the American way of life to be a good thing or not. But you deny that it has a huge influence on the world ? (so...a model for many people). Why do some people consider this article poor ? Because it is not informative ? Many POVs ? 201.1.157.86 23:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually most of it doesn't look that bad to me as it is. I'm not sure what's POV about the article, only that others believed it was POV and haven't since declared it to be NPOV. The part that sticks out most as being much too long is "Space technology factor". Also, there are way too many images on the right side interrupting the list; when I look at it I see more than 20 lines of blank space inserted between list items because of those pictures on the side. --Tifego 23:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


I don't think that it's partcularly POV, just too long. The article is about the Superpower. We should describe the factors which lead to a nation being considered a superpower and list the current superpowers (all one of them!) along with a brief note as to how they measire up to the respective criteria.
Just taking a quick look at the US section and picking out the Military factors subsection; It currently consists of some 170 words, I can paraphrase thus:
'The USA spends more on its military than the next twelve countries combined. It has the second largest nuclear arsenal and combines technologically advanced weapons systems with the expeditionary capability to project military power to any point in the world.'
That comes to 40 words and I hope is a reasonable summary both of the original subsection and of US military power generally (insofar as it relates to superpower classification). If we could do something like this to the other parts of the section then we would end up with the relevant points, but at a more reasonable length.
Xdamr 23:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the China/India as a Superpower articles only narrowly survived deletion recently. I think that there is a general consensus that they need to be changed.

Xdamr 00:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I summarized some points...take a look..and change what it is needed.Cloretti2 00:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


Education

Hello

Why does it say: Demographic - Population of approximately 280 million. Large, well educated labour force for the US. But not well educated force in the Soviet Union, The Soviet Union hade more people who hade passed higher education then the US hade. (Deng 02:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC))

Organize This

This talk page is a real mess. So let's give everyone a well sorted out idea of what we want from this article. I seem to get the idea we want more of an explanation of the actual term superpower and how it ecompasses particular nations and not others. The Origins Section seems alright to my mind. I personally don't like the format of the Cold War section are reckon each of those nations should get two paragraphs each and that's it. I also agree with the idea of having a seperate page for the United States Superpower and perhaps call it United States Power, I was also thinking that the Potential Pages should be changed to China Power and India Power, as what these articles do is give everyone an idea of their power points. Please give your ideas new dot points and headings so that each can be discussed one by one. It would also be better to have votes as opposed to some guys going up and doing something and the other guy reverting it. Nobleeagle (Talk) 22:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Worth a try. First of all, I'm not happy with the China/India etc as a Superpower articles. I think that they are full of conjecture and the concept smacks too much of the crystal ball for my taste. What can be salvaged ought to be put into the national pages, the articles themselves ought to go - but that's just me :) So here is my brief plan for the article:
  • The Concept
- What is a Superpower? (Discussion of the various facets: military, diplomatic, soft power etc.
- Position in relation to Major Power, Regional Power etc.
  • History
- Discussion about Cold War and the evolution of the concept of the superpower.
- Describe what made the USSR and US distinct from France, UK etc. (briefly, not in exhaustive detail)
- Present day - US sole superpower
  • The Superpowers today
- US - addressing ouselves to the various facets above, explain shortly and succinctly how the US fulfils them.
  • Tommorrow's Superpowers
- Note the potential of India, China EU etc.
This would be the broad outline of the article. Any comments? If we can agree on a broad structure then we could start to work out the details which merit inclusion.
Xdamr 23:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I would rather the Potential Articles stay, but that has very little to do with this page now. I also note you did not include Major powers in your outline, which I believe is a very good idea. This article is about Superpower and that article is about Major power. So they don't deserve a place in here. I'm planning to upgrade the power (international) page into a sort of mini-portal for the power pages, but that comes later. I'm hoping we can organize this into a sort of WikiProject, perhaps part of WikiProject Politics. My eventual aim is that not only this page, but Major power, Middle power and Regional power are also up to top standards. In reference to your structure, it's nice, but I reckon the headings should be Concept, History, The United States Superpower and Emerging Superpowers. Nobleeagle (Talk) 02:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. You're right, the major powers don't really belong here, I also think that your idea to make more of the power (international) page is excellent. re. the headings, I'm happy with Emerging Superpowers but I'm not too sure about The United States Superpower. One of my thoughts was to abstract the article as far as is possible. Simply describing it as The Superpowers Today (or something along these lines) enables us to seamlessly insert other countries as neccesary. Avoiding specific reference to the US in the structure might help us avoid the article being overwhelmed, as it was here, by US content. I think that inserting a subheading in the The Superpowers Today for the US should enable us to deliniate content appropriately.
Xdamr 10:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
That logic works out fine with me. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, nice work with the Cold War era section, but remember we don't want to get too comparitive, the reader should come to their own conclusions in accordance with WP:OR, we shouldn't be asserting any POV on them. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing Russia from Potential Superpowers Section

Some user has added Russia on the Potential Superpowers category, I'm sure this was discussed somewhere long ago and we all agree that Russia is a major power in a somewhat declining state (in some sectors) and is not a Potential Superpower to the extent of India, China and the E.U. We need to draw the line because we will otherwise begin to get stuff like Potential Superpowers - Brazil being added to this page which will make it look trivial. I am removing it, if you have any objections, please reply? Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I wasn't even paying attention. No objection from me as it's already been agreed on. –Tifego(t) 00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I think Russia has more chances to become superpower again than China and, no dobt, India. Though the chances of both countries are rather small (if not negligible). I think the alone potential superpower is EU.--Nixer 10:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe China/India are emerging superpower, many countries have the potential to be a superpower, but China and India are emerging at a quick pace, while Russia is in decline in some areas after the fall of the Soviet Union. While it has the potential, it just isn't up to that of India and China. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the rate of economic development is not indicative. I think China has chances only if they annex Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Tailand and all the South-Eastern Asia. But this is fantastic. India has no chances.--Nixer 12:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I trust you have read the articles in particular? I believe both China and India have a huge chance to become superpowers. Rapid economic development isn't the only statistic in their favour, the carry the two largest militaries in the world, the two largest populations in the world, the two fastest growing R & D and Manufacturing sectors in the world as well as dominant cultural influence and huge diaspora. But this isn't for this article, I just find your comments very dismissive of facts. Nobleeagle (Talk) 22:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I think they do not have any chance. Especially India.--Nixer 13:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, we'll agree to disagree. I think opinions on this topic will vary very much on what region the user themselves is from. I'm sure Russian newspapers and the sort will love to make the odd boast on superpower status once in a while. Like Indian and Chinese newspapers definitely do. My opinion though is based from the perspective of Western newspapers, that don't mention Russia as anything greater than the United Kingdom, or even a lesser power than the United Kingdom. Nobleeagle (Talk) 02:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree, in some sence Russian power not exceeds that of UK and I think even in many aspects much lesser. I do not say it's emerging superpower (especially due to crisis of ideology). But it keeps some chances mainly because its large territory. These chances mostly poterntial and speculative. But I think the EU may become a superpower if
1. It becomes a single unit.
2. Its ideology becomes differ than that of US.
India has no chances - remember: becoming superpower now - is to become nearly-equal to whole Western World in philisophy, science and strategic thinking. In which language do Chinese scientists publish? In English. And best Chinese scientists live in the US. In the SU times Soviet sciientists first published in Russian. Before WWII many scientists published in German. I think it is much more difficult for an Asian state to become a superpower than for European.--Nixer 05:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
While most of Europe, Russia and the United States follow a religion that originated around Jerusalem and was spread a lot by the Roman Empire. India and China have developed a number of religions between them that are preached commonly within the nations (here I talk of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism (India) and Taoism, Confucianism (China)). This gives them unparalleled cultural history, which in turn provides them with a booming tourism industry, which boosts their economy. These nations have the potential to be very cultural superpowers. Diaspora for these nations, is the key to their success. Their ability to converse in many different languages is the key to their success. For India, their Information Technology Industry is the key, as they are beginning to produce more IT professionals than the United States in an era in which the world is turning to computers, robotics and digitalization. No offence I hope, but I believe a European opinion of Potential Superpower will differ greatly to an Asian opinion of Potential Superpower. The two are different cultures and have different national histories. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I think religion is not the meaningful factor, especially for China and India (though I consider Islam as negative factor to become a superpower). Saying "philosophy" I did not mean religion or ancient philosophers, but real, contemporary scientific philosophy and developed ideology. Europe has its advances not due Christianity, but due the Classical Antiquity. Tourism, diaspora - all not the factors. While Chinese scientists publish in English, most population does not know this language. But a superpower shall have many sattelite and allied countries - we do not see any Indian sattelite countries and I cannot say China has any certain sattelites (unlike the EU). Russia also has some sattelite countries, but some of them are now switching to become EU sattelites. There is no former Russian sattelite that became a Chinese sattelite - even Mongolia did not. For IT in India - this makes me laugh. The number of programmers does not have any sence. I think Russia has also many programmers -). The key point differ. For example, take the USSR. It could continue to keep being superpower. But the thing that it was not able withstand was information revolution. USSR had many IT specialists as well as advanced technology and computer science. But why did not it manage the IT revolution? While it was era of mainframes all was OK. But whien it came era of PC's the USSR had several choices: 1. Make its own computers not compatible with the IBM PC (the most wide-spread computers in the world), 2. Make clones, compatible with IBM PC, 3. Buy IBM PC's. The USSR tried first choice - it produced its own computers not compatible with those based on Intel processors - though they were not bad computers, they were uncompatible with IBM PC software and thus unusable anywhere except for industry and science. Then the USSR made attempt to the second choice. Several IBM PC clones were produced, but they were worser than the original ones and issued several years later (for example, when Intel produced i486, the Minsk electronic factory produced clones of i286). And then the USSR had no choice other then buy IBM PC's. Any country that pretend to become superpower shall develop and produce processors that either a) not compatible with AMD and Intel ones and not less spread or b) produce AMD and Intel-compatible processors that not worser than AMD and Intel original ones. Having Intel development center, for example, on its territory does not mean anything. This country also shell have an OS for PCs developed by its manufacturers, which is either wide spread or compatible with Windows.--Nixer 06:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe Russia indeed has the chances to become a superpower once again. We're not discussing whether it WILL indeed become one, but merely its POTENTIAL. Hence, it deserves to be in the same category as the EU, China and India.


With respect I don't think that the paper you cite supports your position. Russia has been at a very low ebb, recent improvements leave Russia still very far short of superpower status. Russia also faces formidable demographic, structural and political problems. We aren't discussing Russia's potential to improve its present status, to become more worthy of consideration as a major power. What we are looking at here is whether Russia has any realistic chance of becoming a superpower. The answer to that is a resounding no.
Xdamr 23:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I fully respect your views. However, I once again fundamentally disagree. Russia:

Is geographically the largest country of the world and has control over a variety of strategic raw materials;

Stretches over 11 time zones. It is has the potential to be a more influential power in Eastern European, Middle Eastern, Central Asian and East Asian affairs simultaneously. We are seeing signs of a gradual re-surgence of Russia's influence in those regions even now too (see: http://www.saag.org/papers17/paper1682.html);

Is on the way to become the world's no.1 energy superpower. Currently, it ranks #2 (narrowly behind Saudi Arabia) in oil production and is by far the biggest natural gas supplier in the world on which most of Europe is highly dependent. Russia's recent deals with China (and potentially with Japan) means that it will become more influential in Asian politics. This will especially be the case if through the Pacific pipeline it can gain access to Asian energy markets too. In the next decade, we may also see Russia selling natural gas to the US via Alaska.

Owing to its natural resources, Russia's economic potential is huge. In a 2003 report prepared by Goldman Sachs, Russia together with other BRIC countries has been listed as one of the countries with the potential to become economic superpowers in the future. Recently, Price Waterhouse Coopers also estimated that by 2050 Russia will have a GDP per head of more than 42,000$ and will be among the top 10 economies world-wide. In 1998, Russia only had 10bn$ in its foreign reserves. Within the next few months, that figure will hit a quarter trillion dollars. Just five/six years ago, 40% of its population were in destitute. Today, that number is around 20% and is falling rapidly. At least in that respect its prospects are better than those of India and China where hundreds of millions of people are still below the poverty line;

Russia remains a nuclear superpower with 16,000 bombs in stock and is still capable of producing first class military weaponry. As the Topol-M, Bulava and Sunburn missile systems demonstrate, there are areas where its military technology is superior even to that of the US. In its space industry too, it is coming up with recent innovations like the Klipper spacecraft and the GLONASS satellite system.

see this article: http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=187

In many areas there have been marked improvements since Vladimir Putin came to power. While Gorbachev and Yeltsin destroyed many of Russia's abilities, Putin is keen on re-building them one by one. I agree that BIG challenges still remain. These are: demography, corruption, badly functioning judiciary and de-moralization/bad discipline of the troops. There is also the question of whether this huge economic potential can be managed in the best way to yield the best results. However, if somebody of Vladimir Putin's calibre and determination can continue leading Russia for the next 15 years or so, some of the other problems may be overcome. If economic situation gets better, the demographic concerns may be alleviated by an increase in birth rate and improvement in the currently poor state of the health services. An economically prosperous Russia can also serve as a magnet to many workers in its 'near abroad'. In any event, the EU and Japan also show tendencies of going through a demographic crisis.

Nobody is claiming that Russia IS a superpower. We're merely discussing its POTENTIAL to become one. I am not claiming that it does or can overtake countries like the US or China either. But, if the prophecies of a multi-polar world become true in the next quarter century, there is no simple reason why Russia cannot form one of these poles. The author of the below article expresses most of my views. For these reasons, my answer to the question is YES. Whether we like or not, Russia's potential to influence global politics is far bigger than those of the small countries like the UK or Japan and thus it should be placed in a higher category.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_Superpowers_-_Russia

See the vote below which states that the names of the articles may be changed from POTENTIAL to EMERGING, so your arguments should be based on the title of 'emerging'. Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

dear nobleeagle, the UK is nothing more than a lapdog of the USA.Mmhakki


It seems to me that Russia, as the legal successor to the USSR (which was definitely a superpower), retains certain aspects of a superpower. However, it does not meet all of the superpower criteria. Of course Russia is a major power; this is not in dispute. But is it rising or declining? If it is declining, then it will probably lose its current superpower attributes. On the other hand, if it is rising, then it will likely retain its current superpower attributes and may gain (re-gain?) the others. I don't think anyone will disagree that it was declining during the early and mid-90s. Nor can someone reasonably argue that it hasn't risen by a considerable degree since then. So it seems that we now have a rising major power. For a rising major power to become a superpower, it must have the theoretical potential to achieve this status (e.g. natural resources, adequate technology, etc.), and it must also rise fast enough to keep up and outpace its competitors. Does it have the theoretical potential? It seems to me that the answer is yes when one considers those superpower attributes that Russia already has. So this leaves the question of whether it will rise fast enough to outpace the competition. We don't know yet, but it's certainly feasible. China and India are certainly fast-rising major powers, but in some ways they still haven't matched Russia (for instance, they still buy their military technology from Russia). So if China and India are classified as potential superpowers, it seems to me that Russia can also be classified as such.

69.138.134.88 23:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well what are the superpower attributes that Russia has?
  • Large territory size
  • Natural resources
  • Nuclear weapons
  • Large armed forces
  • Permanent UN security council seat
Now let's take a look at Russia's problems:
  • Population in drastic decline
  • Endemic corruption in public and private spheres
  • Underfunded armed forces, leading to indiscipline, bullying and lack of combat effectiveness
  • Chronic social problems (eg. very high rates of alcaholism, spread of AIDS)
  • General institutional breakdown (institutions of civil society), leading to a lack of general social cohesion.
  • Decline of infrastructure.
Can we look at the points for and the points against and conclude that Russia can become a superpower? The USSR only managed it through being a militaristic, totalitarian dictatorship. The US is the current superpower, compare it with Russia - there is no comparison between the two. As I have said here before, in my view Russia has a way to go even before it has secure status as a Major Power.
Xdamr 00:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
First, the USSR was not dictatorsip after Stalin, nor it was militaristic. Next. I think such factors as alcoholism we should not take int account when we discuss potential superpowers. The permanent factor is territory for example, but not institutional breakdown. I agree Russia can loss status of major power, but even in this case it has much mor chances to become a superpower than China and no doubt India.--Nixer 23:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think quite a few people would disagree with your view about the USSR, but that's history. Looking to the present, what makes a nation a power or not? In my view it is its people. Certainly without decent territory not a lot can be done, but even with it, if people are not capable, motivated, optimistic in outlook then things will not happen either. I don't think that Russia's social problems can be divorced from its status, or potential change of status. So long as Russia remains (to generalise) a depressed society, they will not move forward, only backwards.
Xdamr 15:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! So can we get some of America's social problems (drugs, crime, poverty, illegal immigration) into the US section then? Guinnog 16:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that its a question of putting social problems into the article. What we are being asked is whether Russia is a potential superpower. Taking into account the situation in Russia, as a whole, it seems (to me at least) highly unlikely. Therefore Russia is not a Potential/Emerging superpower. This is just the same process that we go through to determine that the UK or France are not potential superpowers.
Xdamr 20:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with those who put Russia on there. The only nation with really any chance is India for many reasons, but still the odds are highly neglidible. The EU hs no chance without a federal system, and China is well, we can all hopefully agree that the economic situation for the majority is very poor. And education has a long ways to go. Russia has the resources, populous and everything else needed, except leadership. Anyways, this debate is kind of pointless IMHO, because we're attempting to look into a crystal ball. We really have no idea if any of these potential powers will ever emerge, and we can hopefully agree they got a long way to go. 12.220.94.199 18:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


I think we should do as Xdamr suggests and do a comparison of Russia to the U.S., (and maybe to the U.K. and France, since they were mentioned as well). We should also take into account the current trends of Russia (i.e. where it’s growing, where it’s declining). I will do this now – let’s see what conclusions we can draw.

  • Political: Russia’s influence has been growing quite a bit since the beginning of the 21st century. Part of this is due to oil and gas exports. Part of it is because of Russia’s diplomatic efforts abroad. It is trying to set up a common economic sphere with several CIS countries and it has set up a common security zone. Of Russia also has some of the influence it retained form the USSR (like a permanent UN Sec. Council seat). It’s also part of some important organizations like the G-8 and the SCO. Comparing it to others; the U.K. and France also have influence (but overall it’s probably no greater than Russia’s), and their influence hasn’t really grown (nor declined.) The U.S. has a lot of political influence, but it hasn’t grown either (and maybe even declined somewhat after the whole fiasco with Iraq and WMD).
  • Geographic: Not much to say here – Russia is the biggest country in the world and has huge natural resources. Certainly, it has more oil and gas than the U.S., though obviously the U.S. is by no means a small resource-poor country.
  • Cultural: Russia certainly has accomplishments in this area from the perspective of art, literature, and science. As for cultural influence, this extends throughout the whole CIS region, and even to the Baltic states. There are still quite a few Russian-speakers living in those countries (who watch, read, and listen to Russian-language media) and the Russian language is official in some CIS countries. It is also being pushed to become official in places like the Crimea, Ukraine. The Russian movie industry has recovered nicely and has been beating major U.S. blockbuster like Spiderman 2 and Lord of the Rings at the Russian box office. Of course, the U.S. has serious cultural influence in the world (this is well summarized in the superpower article) but this is also resented in a lot of places and it isn’t helping in places like the Middle East.
  • Military (nuclear): On the nuclear aspect, the U.S. and Russia are about equal (Russia’s arsenal is somewhat bigger), and of course they are both way ahead of the U.K. and France in terms of numbers. Delivery systems are also pretty much equal in capability. Russia’s aging nuclear arsenal is being renewed (somewhat slowly, but surely) and they are developing new systems to defeat the U.S.’s ABM shield. Technologically, both countries are about equal.
  • Military (conventional): Size-wise, both countries have large militaries. The U.S.’s is well-funded, trained, and disciplined but even so it has had problems in Iraq, where soldiers had to do things like improvise armor for their vehicles because the right kind of equipment was not manufactured in large enough quantities. Russia’s military, while still under-funded, has been improving. The Russian Defense Minister gave a press conference on 3/28/2006 where he gave some interesting figures. The budget has increased from 205 billion rubles in 2000 to 711 billion in 2006. Even accounting for inflation, that’s a huge increase. In 2000, almost the entire budget was being used just to sustain the army, now 40% of the budget is being used for new equipment. Of the military-industrial complex, about 40% of it is being utilized, which (according to the Minister) is comparable to other advanced countries. The big difference is that in other countries the remaining 60% are used for civilian or dual-use production. Russia is moving toward an all-professional army (the Minister said that it should be 2/3 professional within 2 years.) Of course, it is now quite active and has been having major exercises with China and India (something it couldn’t afford to do in the 90s). Technology-wise, Russia can build equipment that is equivalent to what the U.S., U.K., and France can produce. In fact, when French specialists inspected some new Russian avionics, they were impressed by their quality.
  • Space technology: This doesn’t need much discussion. Russia and the U.S. are about equal and Russia is increasing its space budget. The U.S. has great accomplishments like the Mars rovers, but it is also having problems with the shuttle. As for the ISS, a large part of it Russian components and it is being supplied by Russian spacecraft. And of course both countries are ahead of the U.K. and France in space matters.
  • Economy: Of course the U.S. economy is bigger than Russia’s but it also has a record budget deficit and growth rates are quite modest. Compare that to Russia which has budget surpluses, a huge reserve fund of gold and foreign currency, and impressive growth. This fund is being used to pay off foreign debt and to finance national projects. Infrastructure is also being gradually improved. Russia is also slowly diversifying away from oil/gas, though oil/gas still account for most of the growth. Are the economies of France and the U.K. growing as fast and do they have the same wealth of resources? It is my understanding that Russia’s economy, while smaller that the economy of any G-8 country, is also growing faster than anyone else in the G-8.
  • Demographics: This is really Russia’s biggest problem. It still has a large and well-educated population, but obviously it is declining and has problems with AIDS and alcoholism. Still, even the most pessimistic forecasts I have seen don’t predict Russia’s population dropping below 100M anytime soon. So they still have time to address the problem. And according to a statistic presented recently on RTR (Russian TV), the birth rate has increased slightly. Maybe this is a good sign. Comparing Russia to the U.S., it has a long way to go, but then again, the U.S. has a long way to go to catch up to China and India with their 1B+ populations. Suddenly Russia and the U.S. don’t look that far apart anymore. As for the populations of France and the U.K., they are at about 60M, so they are quite far away even from Russia.

So, now we have done the comparisons and, taking into account the current trends, it looks like Russia compares quite favorably to the U.K. and France, and it doesn’t fare that badly against the U.S. either. So, given all the factors that we considered here, it looks like Russia should definitely be included amongst the potential superpowers. 63.162.209.2 16:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think comparison with UK and France is purposeful because these countries have no chance to become superpowers because of their territory. Much more informative would be comparison with Canada or Australia. The second significant factor in my view is fundamental science (not technology!) and in this sence Russia has very poor positions.--Nixer 19:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If you mean funding for pure scientific research, then yes, that has seriously suffered throughout the 90s, but still, in the theoretical sciences Russia is pretty strong, especially in things like physics and mathematics. As the economy improves, we will probably see more money being allocated to science (this has already started to happen). Of course we can't really separate science from technology, since without good science the technology falls behind, and so far Russia has kept up nicely. Regarding the comparison with the U.K. and France, I think it was useful to show Russia in relation not only to the U.S. but to other Major Powers. The U.K. and France are good examples of Major Powers (and they were mentioned by another user earlier in the discussion). I agree that comparing Russia with Australia and Canada would also be useful because those countries have large territorries, but I don't think that it would affect the final conclusion that Russia does indeed belong in the potential superpower category. 63.162.209.2 20:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing Major powers section

Any objection to my removing this? I don't think that it belongs here on the Superpower page. There's a perfectly good Major power article, which goes into a lot more detail (a bit too much, but that's another story). Views?

Xdamr 10:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok with me. What do you think to remove potential superpowers (China and India and EU) as well and just to make citations?Cloretti2 16:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Speculation isn't what wikipedia is about. Most of this article is still very poor. Take it out. Guinnog 16:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree, remove major powers and potentials. Sijo Ripa 16:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Major powers should be removed, but I think a section on "Potential superpowers" still belongs in this article. Speculation can be removed from it without removing the whole section. It just has to be changed to cite what well-known or respected people have to say about the possibility of those countries becoming superpowers. Hopefully made NPOV by citing arguments for both possibilities (that they are or are not likely to become superpowers). If no such citations are possible, then it should be removed. –Tifego(t) 00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK then, I'll remove the Major powers. As for the potential superpowers section, I happen to be rather well disposed towards this (although not towards the 'x' as a Superpower articles) - so long as they are kept brief.

Xdamr 18:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I just noticed that there is already a separate "Potential superpowers" article, so shouldn't it just link to that article without the other stuff in that section? Either that or Potential superpowers should be moved to replace that section in this article because it's too short to be its own article as it is. (P.S.: Somehow I had an edit conflict with myself submitting this comment...) –Tifego(t) 00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
How about we leave the Potential Superpowers section in the Superpowers article. We reduce the section down to the briefest of notes, stating that the EU, China and India have the potential to become superpowers - nothing more. For further information we can link to the Potential Superpowers article.
I think that the existing Potential Superpowers article needs a bit of a rewrite. As I've mentioned above, the general consensus seems to be that the 'x' as a Superpower articles are deeply unsatisfactory in their present state. But that's a job for another day.
Xdamr 21:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Potential Superpowers belong here, I don't think there's any need for a seperate Potential Superpower page. It is directly related to Superpower status and its definition, what this page should be about. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
No, the reason why Potential Superpowers were all moved out was a page size issue. Trip: The Light Fantastic 20:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Brazil

Brazil is indeed a "potential" superpower. Anyone who claims otherwise quite frankly is ignorant either of the dictionary definition of "potential" or of the basic facts regarding the country. Here, therefore, are some of those facts: Brazil is larger than the Continental U.S.; it has a correspondingly large population (185 million), though not so large as to be a destabilizing factor; it is already a solidly middle-income country, rather than a poor one; it has stabilized its economy and largely vanquished the problem of high inflation; it has had a stable democratic government for the last 20+ years; it is a world leader in some technology fields, such as biofuels and tropical agriculture. Regarding the last two, especially, it is well worth pointing out that because of its size, tropical climate, near absence of arid or mountainous regions, and highly sophisticated agricultural sector, Brazil is widely predicted to expand its current lead in the production of biofuels, whether ethanol from sugar cane and corn, or biodiesel from soybeans. With a dwindling global supply of fossil fuels and ever-increasing demand for energy, that alone warrants inclusion in any well-informed list of potential superpowers. And, yes, the country does have serious problems as well: a large income disparity, which results in millions of miserably poor people; a high crime rate in the cities; environmental problems; very uneven educational opportunities. But if those factors would exclude Brazil, they would do likewise in the cases of China and India. Another point to consider is that those two countries, unlike Brazil, must deal with serious separatist movements or threats of external conflict, even nuclear war, which needless to say would bring their superpower ambitions to a decidedly final resolution.

Lastly, lest my arguments be discounted because of my nationality, here are some supporting links.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Wfgiuliano 02:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand your points, but firstly, we do have a section on Brazil on the Major power page, where you can see how many points it really has. If you believe you can add to that then by all means add to it. But at the moment, that section is miserable compared to the depth in Potential Superpowers - China and Potential Superpowers - India. This is despite the fact we must have two or three Brazilians working on these articles. Apart from that, I was about to mention the idea that we change the titles from Potential Superpowers to Emerging Superpowers, because even Australia has 'potential' to become a superpower. Brazil was removed from the Superpower page a long time ago and put on the Major Power page, it is now listed as a Potential Major Power, if you disagree, please solve it peacefully on the talk page with other editors in that page. Brazil and Russia cannot be included on this page at the moment. Oh, and Brazil's military is nowhere near as advanced and has nowhere near as much manpower and WMDs when compared with China and India. And the lack of Nuclear Weapons really damages your point in a way you may not realise. Every other Potential Superpower and Superpower as well as a few Major powers and two noted Regional and Middle powers have nuclear weapons. Brazil doesn't look like it's going to get them too soon. But please don't add it on your own accord, you're only going to get your work reverted. Nobleeagle (Talk) 03:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Reverse it they might, but I would consider such an action to be unjustified and arbitrary, and the fruit of inherent prejudice on the part of the English-speaking world towards Latin America. I do not understand on what basis it is being argued that Brazil lacks even the potential to become a superpower given the strengths it does enjoy, when despite said negative attitudes on the part of most English-speakers I can present multiple citations supporting Brazil as—that word again—a potential superpower. To make things even clearer, for a country to be a potential superpower it should not be necessary for a particular group of Wikipedia users to think that it will in fact become one. All that should be required is an open-minded recognition that, if there is not a Second Coming and concomitant Armageddon, if there is no alien invasion of the Earth, if things work out well for Brazil, then there is a reasonable chance that it will.
As to nuclear weapons, I think that they are, notwithstanding the fact that Brazil probably could build them without great difficulty, only tangentially relevant to superpower status. After all, they have been of little value to the countries possessing them, save in deterring an actual foreign invasion, however unlikely that may have been in the first place. For anyone who doubts, let us analyze the historical record: while possessing myriad nuclear weapons, against foes who did not at the time, the United States were forced to supply Berlin by air, became mired in a quagmire in Korea, were defeated in Vietnam, suffered the worst terrorist attack in history, and are currently facing a second humiliating debâcle. The Soviet Union also suffered defeat, in Afghanistan, and then ignominiously collapsed, all while hoarding thousands of useless nuclear devices. As to your oblique mention of Israeli and North Korean nuclear weapons, those seem to me much more evidence of two ultimately non-viable states grasping at straws than a real proof of strength.
Finally, your implication that if Brazil were to be included, then Australia would also have to be (and by extension other inappropriate countries) amounts to nothing but a fallacy of relevance. Whether or not Australia, or Nigeria, or Nauru should be included as potential superpowers rests on the merits of those questions, and has nothing to do with whether Brazil should. In the case of Australia, I would argue that it should not because despite being a developed country (and a simpatico one, I might add), due to the facts that it has a very small population by world standards, that current demographic trends do not indicate a multifold increase anytime soon, and that something like four-fifths of it consists of deserts with litte potential to sustain a large population or much economic activity. Wfgiuliano 05:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I understand your points but note that the Potential Superpowers pages are likely to be changed to Emerging Superpowers, this is in an attempt to cut down on crystal-balling (see WP:WWIN). You see, here on Wikipedia we don't deal with Reasonable Chance, we deal with stuff that's here now, if you look at the Indian and China pages, references to the future are few, references to the past and many are those that do not get removed. Nuclear deterrent is important, do you honestly believe any nation in the world will try and invade the United States without the safe knowledge that they have nuclear weapons. I am sure you know why Russia and the United States never engaged in open warfar and I am sure you know why India and Pakistan didn't go to war in 2002, nuclear deterrent is very important.
Perhaps leave Australia, but if you see Major power you would see that Brazil's current power has been ranked as lower than that of Russia (a non-English speaking nation, in reference to your first paragraph), the United Kingdom and Japan. I am sure patriots from those nations will see terrible injustice when they view Brazil's presence on this page and yet see no mention of Russia, the United Kingdom and Japan. I suggest your argument should be put forward on the Major Powers page, as Brazil is not considered a strong Major power yet (based on the content of that page) let alone an Emerging Superpower. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Your "population argument" isn't really valid. Brazil has about 115 million people less than the United States (300 million), the country with the lowest population of the list of existing & potential superpowers. This population gap will only increase as Brazil's fertility rate is already below the United States and is projected to keep falling in the coming years, while the U.S. fertility rate is rather stable or even increasing. Furthermore the United States is a net receiver of immigration, while Brazil is an emigration country. That's not a "a correspondingly large population", as you said, let alone when compared to the population of the EU (450 million), China (1.3 billion) or India (1.1 billion).
Furthermore, your links:
  1. Foreign Affairs: that article said that there could be a multipolar world, with Brazil as a regional major power in it. That's not the same as a superpower.
  2. CIA Fact book: only points out that the GDP and economic growth of Brazil is lower than that of the US and most other candidates.
  3. Indymedia: that link is about BRIC and Putin's statement of "in putting together the most powerful coalition of regional and superpowers in the world". This most likely means that Brazil and Russia are the future regional powers in that sentence, as China and India are most likely candidates of being the superpowers.
  4. Jonathan Power: Undeniable that he thinks Brazil will become a superpower, but I think he does not apply the same meaning to superpower as we do, as he emphasises that Brazil will become economic superpower, while he neglects other superpower aspects, like military power (nuclear weapons, etc.) Even more, he only talks about the possibility of surpassing Russia's, Canada's & Mexico's economy, not about equaling the economy of the U.S. (or EU, China, India for that matter).
  5. Economist: talks about the possibility that Brazil could become an agricultural superpower. The term superpower becomes inflated, and is in this article merely used to point out that Brazil could very well become one of the biggest granaries of the world. No mentioning of real superpower possibilities and capabilities.
Without any doubt, you can find sites that suggest the Brazilian superpower possibility, but on the other hand the internet is so huge that it wouldn't surprise anyone. I dislike the whole superpower potentials part, as it is crystalballing, but there are not only more but also a lot of academic sources that deal with the possibility of EU, China or India being a superpower. When I search for academic sources about Brazil's power, they mention the fact that Brazil is increasingly becoming a regional dominant power, but never a superpower.
Another point I wish to emphasise is that by adding Brazil the treshold for adding other potentials is becoming very low. Why not Russia? Why not Japan? Why not Turkey? Why not Nigeria? Perhaps you don't agree with adding these countries, Wfgiuliano, but I think that others would have arguments also, would also point to sources. Etc. In the end we have a dozen or more potentials, each time by lowering the treshold criteria. Sijo Ripa 14:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I am Brazilian. But I agree withNobleeagle. Brazil was part of this page a long time ago and now it is part of the Major powers page. After much discussion, it was proposed just to focus on the concept of superpower. All adjectives such as "potential" carries itself the clear problem of "crystal balling". Just the US will have a small portion of this article (small...believe it) to avoid claims such as that above. Again I propose to wipe the subarticle "potential superpowers" out here. Just mere citations such as "some consider China, India.. superpower." Take a look of the articles itself such as Major powers or the other Potentials...They lack format and they are filled with POVsCloretti2 12:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Potential/Emerging Superpowers

I know many of you want to remove them from this page but I wanted to cast a vote here (as there are less contributors to the actual Potential Superpower pages) to change their names to Emerging Superpowers. Why? A) It is a fact that they are emerging superpowers and B)It makes it sound less like crystal-balling C)will stop people ridiculing the articles with comments like Potential Millionaires - Me or Potential Superpowers - Papua New Guinea as you can't call PNG an emerging superpower but it may have very distant potential. D) If we work on the articles we could remove all indications of crystal-balling and just leave the reader to analyze a list of facts from the present and past, as opposed to enforcing any sort of opinion. I would like this to be a vote and possibly be kept open for a few days before we speedily rename the articles. Nobleeagle (Talk) 21:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

General Comments

Enter any comments on the topic here Nobleeagle (Talk) 21:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm..why are we disussing this here? This only effects this article by renaming a section, it affects those articles by re-naming an entire article. I think the discussion should be moved to WP:RM. the place for discussing..moves! It will provide more community input then just the people who worked on those articles and visit these talk pages. :) Flying Canuck 17:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"Requested moves is the place to request and vote on article moves that are not straightforward, or that require the assistance of Wikipedia administrators. Normally, logged in users can do uncontroversial moves themselves using the [move] tab found he top of every page (see Help:Moving a page for more information). However, sometimes this does not work because the target is already occupied (usually in the form of a redirect with a page history). In other situations a move may be controversial and will require discussion to reach a consensus." I'm not sure whether this move can be considered controversial...I've put a note on the talk pages of each of these articles so that people can vote here, as you can see at the top of each article Those articles are sub-articles of Superpower. Nobleeagle (Talk) 02:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely no offence to any users meant here. But I was just wondering on whether Anon users have voting rights, as I have not seen any anon users voting on Rfa or FA or Featured Portal or even Rfd. I think this is because one anon user can, even though I have no suspicions in this particular article, go on many different computers can build up a large number of votes. This is in light of the results after around a week of voting 6 Support, 5 Object (inc. 3 anon). Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Voting

  • Support I believe we need to change the names based on the reasons I've presented above. Nobleeagle (Talk) 21:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • support Guinnog 00:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Oneearth 11:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Against There is no evidence that any country will become a superpower. Even the EU - the only real candidate.--Nixer 12:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - but a very brief article (a citation - 3 lines) and including all potential without any analysis. Leave it for the reader. I think just US deserves a space. Cloretti2 12:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Potential points to the potential which includes the lack of certainty. Emerging points to a determination, to an inevitable happening. There isn't any proof that China, India and the EU will all become sAnd uperpowers. There is only proof that they are relatively stronger in economic power than a few decades ago. Furthermore, in academic circles at least some researchers doubt that any of these will become a superpower, as they think that there will either be no superpowers anymore (only regional dominant powers) or that there are enough indications that the US will remain the lonely superpower. And among those who state that one of these could become a superpower, the dates tend to vary, from 2020 to 2100 or later. Sijo Ripa 15:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support We have to make a nod to reality here. Most people think that China, India and the EU have the potential to become superpowers. Given that the intent behind this article is to give a reasonably comprehensive treatment of the subject I think that the suggested changes are worth supporting.Xdamr 11:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect "a nod to reality"? Can you prove to me with 100% certainity that all three candidates will become superpowers? If even one of the three doesn't, the title "emerging superpowers" is inappropriate.It's not because people think/hope/strive/... that it will be the case, even if the majority of people think so. Sijo Ripa 16:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Emerging Superpower does not give an absolute sense of certainty, but it is clear that these three nations are already very strong and are in a period of unparalleled growth, therefore it is clear that they will maintain their power for a long time. If I wanted to give a sense of certainty I would say Future Superpowers. If you have a better title than Emerging than please present it and we can have a vote on it. Potential can no longer be used as it reeks with crystal-balling and perhaps even provokes crystal-balling. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Against- same reason as Nixer201.1.153.139 14:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Against- For a "potential superpower" one has to show that the country could in theory reasonably meet all the superpower criteria at some point without guessing as to when it might happen. For an "emerging superpower" one has to show that the country is rising (quickly enough) in all the superpower criteria or that it has already achieved some criteria and is rising in the remaining ones. For the purpose of this article, a brief description of "potential superpowers" would be more illustrative (and more to the point) of the superpower topic. An "emerging superpower" section would have to be fairly long in order to provide support for why the country is considered an "emerging superpower", and at this point we would start to lose focus. I think we should keep the "potential superpowers" section here and have a link to "emerging superpowers" where the matter can be examined in detail. 69.138.134.88 00:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Against-The world can't just get new superpowers. We have no idea whether they ever will be. While India, seems the most likely, the EU isn't looking like its going to be able to adopt a federal system, and China has enough against itself. Either way, we don't know what is happening. We're acting like we're looking into a crystal ball, which is against wikipedia policy. 12.220.94.199 19:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Brazil as a regional superpower

I moved the below essay down here because I think it deserves merit. Brazil is the dominant regional power in South America, and will be so for the forseeable future.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 04:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi all,

My name is Fabio Moraes Milan, I'm a Portuguese-Italian Brazilian or an Brazilian-American, depending the way you look. I was born in US, my family is Brazilian, I grew up in Rio de Janeiro, but I currently live in Orlando. I'm a software engineer graduated at UFRJ, Rio.

The above introduction was to present myself but and also to illustrate some important facts about Brazilian population diversity: you can literally have any ethnic background and still be Brazilian. The racial tensions in Brazil do exist, but are next to nothing when compared to other countries. The blacks are still the poorest, but since 55% of the population is mixed there is no sense in taking any racist position very seriously.

Brazil expends less than 2% of its GDP on military. I account this as an advantage, not a weakness. Since it also implies we don't have enemies on our borders. Argentina once was Brazil's traditional enemy, today is the may partner on Mercosul. I don't foresee any need for increasing military expending; maybe it happens to protect our borders not from enemies, but from drug traffic.

The population increases around 1.1% per year, but we are still only 185m, so there is plenty of space, resources and time to spend our market, and more important than anything else, oil independence: the capacity to expand its need for fuel without using expensive oil and, moreover, keeping internal reservers for other more noble uses. Also, the possibility to increase electricity generation using hidrolic potential energy, wind energy, and nuclear energy is there too. So, there will be no need for oil. Brazil can achieve the same level of individual well-being without incurring on the current oil addiction US has. Even more, it can profit from the future demand for biofuel. Most probably many other African countries will find they can make profit too, however Brazil will have a very efficient operation by then. Petrobras will be profiting incredibly well, by selling oil AND ethanol. I'm already buying their stocks.

Since I'm a software engineer, I must mention the fact that the Brazilian software industry has being growing 10% per year, but since there is a huge local demand for software products, we didn't bother to go abroad. However it's something that's changing now, since the overall economic growth was only around 3% or 4% lately and, as I said before, the software industry has been growing 10% a year, now it needs to find new markets. India and China has the high ground here, the Brazilian currency is not as favorable as the above mentioned countries, so its labor is not as attractive. However, since the software exports grew four times in the last few years to something around US$2b, they must have found a way.

I really don't believe Brazil will ever become a superpower in the military sense, since we've being in peace for too long. We can take part in peace keeping missions and we may one day be in the UN's security counsel, but I really doubt we will ever be a belic society. It would take WWII type situation to make us get involved in any war. But we do have a belic industry, it was relatively big in the 80s, but it was largely dismantled. It was too dependent on exports and some bad moves killed it. Namely, the help some Brazilian companies (and most certainly the Brazilian government) gave to Iraq in developing nuclear weapons. Now its coming back slowly, Embraer is growing to become the third largest civilian aircraft manufacturer in the world, I don't believe they would try to produce military aircrafts in large scale, civilian planes are plane simply more profitable; but I do believe it would be just natural for it to supply FAB's need for new transport, training aircrafts. Maybe in the future it would cooperate with other countries to produce a world class fighter for the Brazilian Air Force and other developing countries air forcers as well, which would be a extremely profitable move. The was also some tanks and missile and light weapons manufactures, today, most of them are still around but downsized to suppy internal demands. So, the potential and experience for a big belic industry is there, but not the need.

Today Brazil is a stable, Christian, western, democratic, competitive, entrepreneurial country. I firmly believe US will dramatically change its attitude toward us within the next two decades, today they don't take us very seriously (the same way we take ourselves, btw...) but it will start seeing us as the South American version of US itself, which is true in many ways and completely false in many others. But in, lets say, 20 years, the US will start taking Brazil seriously and than we will have the FTAA treaty signed. US will come to the obvious conclusion that US and Brazil have more similar than different position simply because they both stem from the same Christian western source.

I could keep exercising my mind here in thinking why I believe Brazil is simply destined to become a major power in the world (any not a superpower, as I read above), but it’s already 11PM and I want to go back home. I’m still in my office.

Bye…

I'm guessing your point is that Brazil is a Potential Major Power and Regional Power as opposed to a Superpower? Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that the concept of regional superpower exists. Superpower, yes. Regional power, yes. But not regional superpower. Brazil is certainly the dominant regional power; but seeing as it is not a superpower at present, and there appear to be formidable obstacles to it becoming one (by the current criteria at least) within the next 10-15 years, I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make.
Xdamr 12:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
You're probably right. Regional, or super, but not both. In Brazil's case, they're certainly the regional power. I use "super" as a superlative to indicate the one on top: There may be many regional powers in a given region, but only one regional superpower: that is the country that is the most dominant. By my definition: lets say we were to talk about Africa. There are many regional powers in Africa: South Africa, Kenya, etc. but South Africa would appear to be the regional superpower as it's the dominant of the surrounding nations. Perhaps it's just my terminology, but I think we agree on the same thing. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi again,

Ah... 10 or 15 years? No, you should say 30 or 40 years. And I really doubt we will be a superpower. We lack the military culture to become one. What I can assure you is that we will be a very prosperous society within the next 50 years, that we will have prominent regional influence, that we will transcend the regional power status sometime in the next 50 years without ballooning our military spending, but I don't think we will never be a superpower. We will be, maybe, what Japan was in the 1980: a very prosperous and rich country without weapons. The only way this will change is if we were directly threatened for some major power abroad, which will not happen, since all economies will be so interconnected by then that it would be a huge waste of money to jeopardize the commerce with us. As Darcy Ribeiro once said: “You may think is funny but Brazil is the next Rome.” I used to regard it as nonsense. No more.

Technology criteria. Vote to replace space tech for technology factor

Shouldn't space technology be included in a wider technological superiority criterium? Reason: USA and USSR were superpowers before they put people into space or build spacestations. Even more: certain technology can be more important than space technology. Sijo Ripa 23:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you think ?

  • in favour 201.1.152.111 04:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Differing View - There used to be an old site that I can't find anymore, that detailed all the superpower criteria. It was this site that was used to develop the criteria. Space Technology wasn't there and neither was Technology. This is why it was included in Possible Future Criteria due to the fact that Dick Morris believed this. Right now, most technological innovations come down to economic gain. That is why technology and space technology have been differentiated. Anyway, my point is that all forms of technology should be included as Economic Power, seeing as affording a Space Expedition requires great economic strength and is an indication of prosperity. Your views? Nobleeagle (Talk) 03:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's even better. Didn't like the technology criterium either, as more technology only means more economic power and military power (stealth, WMD, missile technology, satellites, etc). Disliked the specific space technology criterium even more though. Sijo Ripa 04:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Space technology is no longer a criteria of a superpower (except for special space challenges such as human landing on Mars or long-term Lunar base). --Nixer 14:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - if you consider the arguments from Marx (infrastruture vs superstructure), he argues that the most important changes (economic, military, social - superstructure) are propelled by technology changes (infrastructure). Thus, our economic life is determined by the stage of technology. Cloretti2 23:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)