Talk:Superpower/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] Incorect Facts

Under the 'The Cold War era' section, the USSR and US comparison chart has incorect info under the Demographic section. The population of the USA was not "over 300 million" during the Cold War. Seince that is incorrect, I suggest someone also check to make sure the USSR population is correct as well. I suggest using a range from 1946 population to 1990 or 1991 (wichever was the final collapse of the Soviet Union), such as (just an example, this is not correct) 175 million - 350 million. Thanks, 68.57.110.172 05:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)Lord Blaine

[edit] Turkey and EU...dont think so!!

Someone needs to update the emerging superpowers map under the "emerging powers page". First of all Romania is now a full member and Turkey, sorry to say, is not oficially. Someone please change this missleading map.- Thanks

[edit] Brazil?

Brazil has now been added to the emerging superpowers section based on one Op-ed piece. The Brazil as an emerging superpower article will likely be deleted soon. I remain doubtful that Brazil the 10th largest economy as an emerging superpower. Why not France, which has a much larger GDP, UNSC seat and nuclear weapons? same goes for the UK. I think it will take more than one op-ed as reference to list Brazil as an emerging superpower based largely on it having an economy smaller than that of the state of California.CA's GDP Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that this should be reverted as and when it appears. If the supporting sources are improved then perhaps we can reconsider the issue - but personally I don't think that the 'Brazil as a superpower' thesis is going to fly (at least to nowhere near the same extent as China and India).
Xdamrtalk 21:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'm going to be bold. The only justification for adding Brazil is that the "... Federative Republic of Brazil is considered as one of the possible emerging superpowers of the world." A single opinion piece ([1]) is simply not good enough, failing both WP:V and WP:RS. As for Russia, we can argue about it all day, but the section is without any meaningful content. Therefore I will revert both.
Xdamrtalk 21:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You want references? He looks at:

I would not be insisting if he was false. João Felipe C.S 21:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


Nobody is arguing with you that Brazil has the 10th largest economy, etc. This is not a dispute over statistics. The problem is that (as I said above) a single opinion piece ([2]) is simply not good enough to establish the basic premise (that Brazil is widely regarded as being an emerging superpower). This piece is a mere journalistic opinion, it fails both WP:V and WP:RS. Take a look at these two policy pages, they will give you a better idea of the standard required for sources.
(The deletion debate for Brazil as an emerging superpower should give you an idea that there is a problem with your additions.)
Xdamrtalk 22:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

See this: [3] João Felipe C.S 22:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That does not explicitely state Brazil to be an emerging superpower. You need to prove "Brazil is widely regarded as being an emerging superpower." Nobody is arguing GDP figures, there facts. The problem is that there aren't sufficient references to support the assumption that Brazil is an emerging superpower. Signaturebrendel 05:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Brazil is a better candidate for a potential great power and was treated as such (controversially and unencyclopaedically) on Major power before that page was deleted. See this. It was by far the country with the least plus-points out of all the Major powers. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 09:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What such to place the Brazil and the Russia in a section Emerging superpowers controversy ? João Felipe C.S 14:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh... sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. Signaturebrendel 17:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
No...emerging superpower isn't a power status, it is a state of advancing from a relatively minor status to the superpower status. A state of growth or emergence. Thus you can't have a section on the emerging superpower controversy (in any case, it would be OR). Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 07:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, now I get what he said. I agree with Nobleagle. Besdides, there is still not enough evidence to put Brazil on this page, sorry. Signaturebrendel 07:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Cold War era

I think that the population,and other atributes of USA should remain those at the time of the collapse of ussr.Not updated.--Pixel ;-) 17:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed--Nixer 01:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NATO? NAFTA? UN? OPEC?

If the EU can be considered a Superpower despite not being a sovereign state then perhaps NATO, NAFTA, OPEC, and even the UN should be added as potential superpowers. Each of these organizations encompasses vast amounts of economic and/or military clout that easily rival that of the EU. Zebulin 16:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No, they can't for several reasons:
  • The EU is much closer of an organization that NATO or NAFTA. There is no organization like it-its unique. The debate exsists becuase some beleive that the EU is close enough together to count as a superpower. No one is making that claim in reference to NAFTA-besides there are numerous pieces of evidence that NAFTA or NATO countries arn't as close as EU countires. For example, there are border check between NAFTA countries, there arn't any between Belgium and Germany. A Belgium citizen can just move to Germany and enjoy all the rights of citizenery-as he is a EU citizen. Can a Mexican just come to America?
  • The economy of the EU toghether is 13 billion. Obiovusly NATO would be the worl's number 1 superpower as it includes the EU and the US, who togther control 51% of the world's economy. Nonetheless, the NATO or G8 are not as closely bound together as the EU (At least in the minds of enough analysts to create a controversy section).
I hope this answers your questions. Best Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 16:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

how does freedom of movement relate to superpower status?

freedom of movement did not exist (at all) in the USSR. Does this disqualify the USSR as a superpower?


In more general terms if we wish to highlight differences between the EU and other supranational organizations as the basis for excluding them from superpower status while assigning superpower status to the EU those differences need to be connected to the concept of superpower in some concrete way.

For instance if freedom of movement were granted between NATO countries this would certainly make them closer but it is difficult to see how this would make NATO function more as a superpower. Zebulin 17:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It does becuase policies by more unified political entities tend to be more in-line and thus carry greater ramifications for the global community. In other words, when the EU decides to ban a certain pesticide, world-wide production of that pesticide might end; thus having an effect on Chinese workers and consumers everywhere. The fact that aluminum cans have slowly been replaced by plastic bottles is an actual example of such a scenario. The policies of NATO and the G8 are not, however, as unfified in their approach. Thus greater "freedom of movement" does "relate to superpower status." And yes, the USSR was a former superpower. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 20:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

IIRC There is nothing stopping NAFTA from agreeing to collectively ban products or practices from it's market as well. Could you help clarify how the EU exercises it's market influence? I had assumed that it's binding decisions required near unanimous consent of it's individual constituent sovereign state members.

Furthermore do we have any evidence of the term "superpower" having been used to describe a situation where power exists soley as a result of manipulating total global supply and demand of certain commodities? If so then I would still maintain that OPEC should be regarded as a superpower nearly on par with the EU given the crucial role of petroleum as a commodity in the world's economy. Zebulin 20:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And there is exactely the point. We do have references for the EU being a superpower, but not for NATO and the G8. How does the EU influence things? Remember the steal tarrifs the Bush admin imposed. The EU preassure the US into withdrawing the steel tarrifs within weeks. Also, the EU is closer to being a political entity than NAFTA or the UN. Look at the heavy immigration restrictions the US has against Mexico. Now, Pres. Bush has the option to sign a bill that would create a 700 mile fence between Mexico and the US. Inter-EU border on the other hand are open. This is the perhaps most drastic example of how the EU is more of an entity, than NAFTA. Manipulating the global economy is an important defacto characteristic of a superpower as it shows power over the allocation of resources. The more you have power over how global resources are allocated, the more power you have period (Military might is an economic resource as well-it can be hired). The OPEC is simply not close enough to being a political entity-it's member states have more freedom of movement, as you call it. Best Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 22:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether the EU is, or could be, a superpower is a matter for debate. I, with a typical Northern European attitude, say no, others with a more Franco-German axis attitude say yes - as a result of this dispute we make note that there is a debate. Whether OPEC, NAFTA, or anyone else is a superpower is not really up to us or our arguments here. What we need is to find reputable opinion, either for or against. I doubt that there are too many people around who would regard OPEC as a superpower, but if you can find an academic or politican of standing who does then we can consider the matter.

Xdamrtalk 22:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


IIRC the steel tarrifs were removed in response to pressures applied via the WTO by several WTO member countries and not due to any direct action by the EU. Perhaps it is the WTO which was demonstrated to be the true superpower in that case. Zebulin 05:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

As to the suggestion that we have academics or politician of standing who consider the EU to be a superpower I hope there are better examples than the cited "The United States Of Europe: The New Superpower and the End of American Supremacy." reference. There is nothing to suggest that author is a credible academic or politician of standing that I can find. Zebulin 05:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There WAS freedom of movement in the USSR. The boundaries between thr republics meant nothing. One could exchange his flat for another in other part of the country and live there. --Nixer 21:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
There is debate over the EU being a superpower. The EU is more of a political entity than NAFTA or OPEC; thus the EU is a superpower contender and not NAFTA. The steal tarrifs were removed under EU preassure-the EU influences the WTO-one reason for it being a superpower. The EU section is well established-if you'd like to include a "NAFTA controversy section"- just provide the references. If NAFTA was more of a political entity, like the EU, it would be a superpower-but it's not. "Freedom of Movement" is important-otherwise, what makes the US a superpower? None of the 50 states is one by itself-US states are known to challenge the Federal Government, even disobey it. But the US is more of an entity than OPEC-thus it is a superpower. The EU is more of a political entity than NATO because much like the 50 US states are closer together than OPEC member states, the members of the EU are also closer together (not as close as the US obviously) that OPEC. If we argue that "Low freedom of movement" is not a superpower hallmark, than the superpower status of the US could be disputed. I hope you see my point about why being more of a political entity as OPEC or NAFTA, makes the EU a superpower contender. Best Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 06:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


Thanks!

You appear to be asserting that for an organization of states to qualify as a superpower there must be a certain number of political ties between the individual states. However we must return to the original concept of a "superpower". All definitions revolve around the concept of the organization wielding some kind of "power" in the pursuit of a global agenda that is of it's own making. This means that whatever ties we are interested in (political or otherwise) between constituent members need only relate to the exercise of that power and to the formulation of a unified agenda to direct that power towards.

For instance freedom of movement did not exist between the constituent republics of the USSR but as this did not limit it's exercise of power or prevent the formation of a unified agenda this absent political tie was irrelevant to it's super power status.

The only political ties we need to see between member states of an organization to qualify them for consideration as a superpower will be those ties which are necessary to form a unified global agenda and those that are necessary to direct the power at the disposal of that organization towards serving that agenda.

In the case of OPEC the ties within the organization are entirely related to the projection of it's power in the pursuit of it's unified agenda. Adding freedom of movement or any other irrelevant ties between the opec members would in no way facilitate the formation of a unified agenda for OPEC or in any way facilitate it's pursuit of that agenda.

If we are to disqualify OPEC from superpower status consideration based upon a lack of political ties we must indicate how those ties would better enable OPEC to form and effectively fulfill it's own global agenda.

Conversely if we are to offer up a large number of political ties between members of an organization as evidence of superpower status, we must describe how those political ties allow it to better form and effectively fulfill it's own unified global agenda. Having done that we must also show that ties necessary for the formulation and fullfillment of it's own unified global agenda are not absent in a way that would disrupt efforts of the would-be superpower. If members of that organization are free to undermine the unified agenda by acting directly against it on the world stage then we cannot really consider the organization to be in any meaningful way a superpower.

For your example of the US, freedom of movment between the states is not what allows the consideration of the country as a superpower. Neither would we consider other political ties such as federal education standards, the social security system, federal oversight of broadcasting or any of a vast plethora of political ties that have *nothing* to do with the formation and fullfilment of a unified global agenda to be in any way relevant to it's consideration as a superpower. Removing any or all of those irrelevant ties does not in any way reduce the effectiveness of the US as an actor on the world stage serving it's own unified agenda.

Rather in the case of the US the only ties that will matter will be those relating to it's unified command and unified control of it's military capabilites, and to it's unified command and unified control of all foreign relations.

Essentially if we are to consider the EU in it's current form to qualify as a superpower then we have to allow that even if every US state were free to form it's own foreign policy and had exclusive control over it's own military and that the US itself lacked any military under direct federal control that it would *still* be a superpower. In the case of the recent gulf war for instance this would have meant only a fraction of the total US military being committed as several large states would refuse to participate. We would have to conclude that the US was a superpower exclusively as a result of it's potential military power (in the event that all it's constuent members happen to agree and act in concert) and as a result of it's ability to form and pursue a limited economic agenda through pushing some levers in the world market to influence the world markets towards a *unanimously* agreed upon agenda.

It was mentioned that whereas non of the US states are free to disobey the federal government or even to challenge it, that the members of OPEC have been known to disobey from time to time. Currently both Germany and France are willfully disobeying the EU by running up illegal deficits. If disobedience by OPEC members disqualfies OPEC then won't disobedience by EU members likewise disqualify it from superpower consideration as well?

The US would obviously be much weaker as an actor on the world stage in that condition and even more importantly we would have to admit that the residual abilities it would posses to form and successfully implement a global agenda would also be possesed by a number of other non state actors on the world stage.

If we are to continue to discount such non-state actors on the world stagge as superpowers on the basis of a mere difference in the number of ties between constituent members then we must explain how those ties specifically reduce the power of these actors on the world stage.

I believe I have shown how centralization of foreign policy and control of military is a tie that is of critical importance to the status of the US as a superpower but it does not appear that anyone has explained how various other ties increase that power and facilitate it's exercise towards a unified agenda.

Zebulin 15:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

With respect to the notion that the EU can be considered a super power because credible academic references or high profile politicians regard it as such I must disagree. The vast majority of such references only conclude the the EU may be a *potential* future superpower based on an assumption that it will further unify. None of the references which appear to claim the EU in it's current form may already be a super power appear to be any more credible than a newspaper editorial.

Zebulin 15:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

These are some that claim the EU already to be a superpower-that's why we added the "Controvery" phrase to the title. The EU is already more unified than any other international orgnaization, has the world's largrest GDP, multiple UNSC seats and a sizable nuclear arsenal. Also, consider that US states have been known to disobey the Federal Government. Here in California, gubanetorial canidate, Phil Angelitis has vowed that if he is elected, he will bring the California National Guard home from Iraq-this means that a US state would be withdrawing its state militia from Iraq. Nonetheless the US is still more of an entity than the EU, which is more of an entity than NATO, NAFTA, OPEC, or the G8. Anyways, the article now is fine, if you want just find a source for G8, and we'll include it as a "G8 as a superpower?" or something. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 16:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the claim that Phil Angelides vows he will remove troops from Iraq if elected is quite extroidinary. I couldn't find any mention of it in the Phil Angelides article or the California gubernatorial election, 2006 article. Could you help me find more information on this? I am not aware of any incidence of any state in the 20th or 21st century succeeding in defying the federal government.

See [4] SignaturebrendelNow under review!

The EU has a large GDP, but it is not indisputably the largest in the world (the US is often listed higher) and is certainly smaller than the GDP of NAFTA.

I think at this point in the discussion I am becoming less interested in adding new organizations as superpowers than in moving the EU entry into the "emerging superpowers" section as it would seem it cannot possibly function as a superpower without considerable change. Zebulin 19:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read the archives (There are weeks of discussion over this issue), there is good reason for the EU being listed spereately from other emerging superpower. For one, they lack economic developement but are already political entities. The EU is economically developed (w/ the world's largest GDP-World Bank) but lacks political unification. China and the EU are not in the same position. Second, there are some who argue that the EU is already a superpower (as it has the sufficient GDP, UNSC seats). Third, Indian and China are countries. The EU is not and will never be a sole country-so listing it in the same section as India and China gives the wrong impression. As for states disobeying the fed, google the phrase "state defying federal government"- you'll get 651k returns. A good example is the medical Marijuana Law conflict between the Fed who says all Marijuana is illegal and California which allows Medical Marijuana despite the total federal ban. Legally a peace officer in California can arrest a person for marijuana possesion-citing federal law (this has happened). Legally that person may sue the departement in state court and win. As there is a discrepency between state and federal laws. Google it, there will be a bunch of articles on it. What I am trying to illustrate is the degree to which public policy in any large Union, including the US varies. South Dakota outlaws abortion, Oregon legalized assited suicide, Viriginia has sodomy laws while Massechusatts legalized Gay marriage. The US is not as unified as many other centralized countries in its approach to public policy, the EU is not as unified as the US, NAFTS isn't even close. As for the EU, it is not as unified as the US, but more unified as NAFTA (there is no 700 mile fance between France and Spain). The argument "If the EU can be considered a Superpower despite not being a sovereign state then perhaps NATO, NAFTA, OPEC, and even the UN should be added as potential superpowers."-is false -It doesn't work because the EU is more unified than NAFTA. But please before we recylce weeks of disucssion (that is repeat it)-read the archives on this issue (I think its numbers 4, 5 and maybe 6). Thank you. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 21:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Reading the archives took some considerable length of time. How was this supposed to have been helpful? Nothing posted in the archives (whose pro EU as superpower content consisted almost entirely of restatements of your posts here by you and ruber chicken) addressed my main point. That point being that connections between members of an organization must relate to it's to it's unified command of it's military assets and unified control of all of it's foreign relations. Other forms of connections not relating those two abilities will not allow a non-state organization to behave more as a single state on the world stage. They may give a stronger impression of being a unified state to those within the organization but to all external appearances the organization will still behave as a collection of discrete individual states and not as a single state.

I have read your archives now please kindly read my posts in return.

Whenever challenged in this page or in the archives the status of the EU as qualifying as a state while other larger organizations are disqualified you have always replied that the EU qualfies as a superpower while the other organizations do not simply because it has more connections than those other organizations.

I have already replied that those connections are irrelevant for erasing the distinction between a state and a collection of states because those additional connections that make EU members "closer" do not at all improve the ability of the EU to form and project a unified foreign policy much less a unified military command.

Earlier I pointed out that one of the specific examples of those closer connections you gave, freedom of movement, was an ideal of an example of how a connection that draws countries in an organization closer together fails in any way to contribute to the countries superpower status. The same can be said of any connection that does not confer an ability to form a unified foreign policy or unified military command.

For example suppose that the states of the US were brought closer together by converting from a federation of states to a unitary state. The status of the united states as a superpower would not be effected one whit but such a profound unifying change. This is because both before and after such a change the united states foreign policy and military command would be unified to *exactly* the same degree.

What nobody has ever done in the archives or anywhere in this discussion is explain how closer connections between EU members than between the members of other organizations allow it to qualify as a superpower while simultaneously not recognizing any other organization of sovereign states as a potential superpower.

Furthermore for all the talk of the very exceptionally "close" connections between members of the EU, those who would call the EU a current superpower have never addressed how the great chasm of totally seperate foreign policy is bridged between EU members by these numerous other connections. Who makes foreign policy decisions for the EU? What levers does that body or individual have to pursue the EU's foreign policy? What can that indivudal or body do when one or more of the EU members pursue a foreign policy directly contrary to the one they have chosen for the EU?

As far as I can tell the no body of the EU even has the ability to form it's own foreign policy much less any means to pursue such a foreign policy once formed.

How can an organization that lacks any body to form a foreign policy possibly be a "power" of any kind on the world stage much less a superpower?

On the other hand if the constituent members were ever to surrender their power to form foreign policy to a body of the EU then the EU would at that moment cleary function as a super power. That has not yet happened but plenty of references can be found which indicate that such a transfer of power may occur in the future.

Why then do you oppose describing the EU as an emerging superpower when clearly it's superpower status is contingent upon changes not yet realized?

Well, I'm sorry that you didn't find the archives helpful (I thought you might but...) There are two main reasons for the EU being in a seperate section:
  1. There is no definite answer for whether or not the EU is currently a superpower (There is a pretty definite answer for China and India). The archives were supposed to show you exactely that-how one can argue endlessly over the EU's current position and might.
  2. The EU is not comparable to China or India. Both China and India are countries, sovereign nations; the EU is not. So while, the EU is not a country, it is more of entity than NAFTA. You could also pose the question whether or not the EU should even be mentioned at all, as it is not a nation. There are perhaps those who might never recognize the EU as a superpower as it will never be a country. So how can you put the EU in the same category as China, India or even the US?
The EU's unique structure, the fact that it is not a country, but that it may or may not be a de-facto superpower warrant a seperate section for the EU in the article. Is the EU a superpower? Will it be a superpower? Can it even be superpower? and What is required, what is lacking? There are some like me who say: It already is. You say, meybe in the near future. Others might say, neven-only a nation can be a superpower. We need to mention all those points of view concerning the EU's undetermined status and unique strucutre. The only way to accurately reflect these vantage points is it to mention the EU all by itself in a section as unique as the EU controversy itself. The Eu's status is undetermined as it is a genuine political structure. Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 20:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
European Union has a national flag; a national anthem; its own executive, legislature and judiciary; its own currency; a national budget; foreign relations; passports; embassies..? Can we really not see how it resembles a country in a way that sets it apart from all other organisations? Really? Trip: The Light Fantastic 17:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The EU cannot be considered a superpower for the mere fact that it does not have an army. Anyways, both our points of view or Original Research. You have to find (scholarly) secondary sources first before you can make claims such as these. Intangible 17:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I agree with Trip: The Light Fantastic. We do have source to back the current arrangement on the article; that there is a debate over the EU as a superpower. Scholars have, just like we do, different opinions on the subject. SignaturebrendelNow under review! 19:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The EU cannot be considered a superpower for the mere fact that it does not have an army.

EUFOR 88.104.248.225 16:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it can. Some consider it a superpower, some don't. This is a vague concept where no opinion is wrong or right. SignaturebrendelNow under review! 21:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it is a potential superpower. Having an unified army is not necessary for superpower when it has other means of defence.--Nixer 21:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that "an unified army is not necessary for superpower when it has other means of defence." I also, however, agree with those who state the EU to be a current superpower-there is no definite answer as to the EU's status; thus we gave it its own section and called it "EU debate." Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 21:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical superpowers

I'm going to add a historical section on the superpowers, before world war 2. Please share your views and adjust. Remove if you believe it inappropriate. This comment was left by 68.6.230.65

Well, you will need to make sure that such a section is properly referenced. The term superpower came into prominence after the Second World War, thus the idea of a historical superpower is somewhat self-contradictory. You may also have trouble finding sources stating 19th century Germany or Britain to be supepower. But if you find reliable supporting the exsistance of a historic superpower, then that would certainly be worthy of discussion here. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 20:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't favour this at all. I think, rather like the Great power page, that this term is prima facie inapplicable to pre 1945 powers. This question has recurred from time to time (see archives), the broad consensus has been that such powers should not be included. I don't think that the term does enjoy broad use for pre 1945 powers, at least not in anything other than a sloppy, shorthand sense - as far as IR etc goes, I think that it is not done. If this usage can be sourced then there is a case for considering the question further, but I don't think such a source will be easily found.
Xdamrtalk 23:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yup, I agree with Xdamr's argument- "the term does [not] enjoy broad use for pre 1945 powers... If this usage can be sourced then there is a case for considering the question further, but I don't think such a source will be easily found." SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 00:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
You missed off a pretty important part of my argument there! In it's full version it goes...
I don't think that the term does enjoy broad use for pre 1945 powers... If this usage can be sourced then there is a case for considering the question further, but I don't think such a source will be easily found.
Xdamrtalk 00:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Ooops! Sorry I misrepresented my inentions there- I edited my post's quote. I also do not agree that the term was commonly used before 1945. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess it should be removed. But before one does so, remember that the Roman empire was a superpower as it had the capabilities of a superpower of its time. The known world was well within its range and was economically, politically and militarily the most powerful nation and could challenge any. So could Alexander's Macedonian empire and King Darius' Perdsian empire. Superpowers are not invincible, but they do have Super power.

I think whats clouding our judgement is the fact that the Soviet Union and the United States had nuclear weaposn that could annihalate the earth many times over. Other than that, I cannot see why only the post 1945 period deserves superpowers. There have always been cold wars between superpowers often being hotter than the cold war of post 1945 in only that there was no nuclear technology. The Mongolian empire was at one time an unstoppeable superpower.

It's becuase the term superpower was coined in reference to the USSR and the US after 1945. The actual term superpower is commonly only used to describe the USSR and the US. True, the Roman Emprie was one of the grestest if the not the greatest power (taking into account historical circumstances- Rome was more powerful in the ancient world than any power is in the modern world). Yet the phrase superpower is commonly not used for ancient powers. I think there is an article concerning ancient or historical powers; if not perhaps there should be one. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 02:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I think in fact Rome was the only historical superpower. I think also that the definition of superpower shell say that the country should have earn its legacy from the Anciet Rome to be considered superpower.--Nixer 01:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Rome was barely even in contact with China. China was about as large and powerful as Rome. If *neither* of these greatest powers of the time were even capable of directly contacting each other, much less actually *influencing* one another how could either be considered a super power? I don't think "superpower" can be meaningfully applied to any state whose power is limited to non global influence of a purely local (if broad) nature. There were no superpowers because the world was too primitive for anybbody to fill such a role.
If a global nuclear war were to essentially wipe out modern civilization we might imagine centuries later some kind of states being established in for example south america and another in southern africa and perhaps one in southeastern Asia all descended from the few surivors. We might assume that these new states were the only civilized states in the world but so long as they had no contact with one another how could any of them be considered to be superpowers?
Zebulin 22:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
With all respct, China was not a superpower at any rate. --Nixer 23:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Since I tried to make perfectly clear that Rome and China were not superpowers of their day, indeed that no superpower status was even possible in those times I wonder if you are saying something more here than agreeing that China was not a superpower.
Certainly one does not usually begin an expression of concurrence with "With all respect".
Perhaps you believe that there *was* one or more superpowers in that era but are stating that China was not one of them? In that case I hope you do realize that at that time (the years of Roman Empire) there was no political entity demonstrably more advanced and powerful than China.
It is safe to say that if Rome and China did not qualify as superpowers (and it seems clear they did not) then nothing at that time qualified as a superpower.
Zebulin 19:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Warring States period.
Warring States period.

When Rome was at the height of its power, China wasn't even united and was in the Warring States Period of Chinese history, while Rome controlled the whole of Europe, China featured numerous kingdoms who were spread out like in the image I'm adding here. Compare with the pic at Roman Empire. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


why not compare with china at it's height in the same period? Or at least try the Han dynasty which has by far the most overlap with the roman empire. Further if you consider population and technology in each empire through the Han period you will find that China matches or exceeds rome through the entire era.
Check out this link for a direct comparison of Han China with the Roman empire:

http://www.chinainstitute.org/educators/curriculum/han/comparative.html

Zebulin 05:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russia

So why isn't there a section on the Russian Federation? I mean right now the country is showing some good growth rates and it has been the heart of the Soviet Union. It is definitely the most powerful Eastern Europe nation and given the right timing it will restore its superpower status. Remember that most of Chinese technology is from Russia and that Chinese military as such doesnt match Russian in terms of quality.

You have to look deeper into this. Try the fact that Russia's population is projected to fall by up 33% by 2050 for a start.
Xdamrtalk 22:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
But that is true only if nothing is going to change. There are millions of Russians living abroad,and given the right living conditions they will surely return. I mean you would probably laugh if someone told you about Russians power nowadays back in 1998 when Russia received economical aid from the EU. Russia is a very unpredictable country I must say.
Take a look at this: http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2006-18-9.cfm .
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.57.147.151 (talk) 08:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] No Superpowers today?

Some person just changed the "Superpowers Today" and claimed there aren't any. Is this just plain vandalism or is this true? Even if it is, it must be cited since it's commonly known that since the fall of the Soviet Union, the US became and still is the sole superpower of the world. NoItAl 03:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Plain vandalism I'm afraid. Before this article officially changes to say that there are no superpowers in the world I can guarantee you that there will have been a hell of a lot of argument here first!
Xdamrtalk 03:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


I don't agree with the editor who made the bald faced matter of fact claim that there are no current superpowers in our article but how does such an edit constitute vandalism in any sort of wiki sense?
Zebulin 16:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, let's say that it was an edit of dubious good faith. A combination of factors from the quality of the edit, lack of sourcing, lack of discussion before essentially changing the entire nature of the article; all these are bound to raise questions.
Xdamrtalk 17:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japan

I think that Japan as second largest economy should be mentioned as potential superpower.--Staberinde 16:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please present sources, also, with its subdued military after World War II, I doubt it can possess the power projection that the United States presents. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 03:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
China and India(and EU) also doesn't possess the power projection that the United States presents, still they are mentioned in article as potential superpowers.--Staberinde 15:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I doubt in the future it can possesss the power projection the US presents, also because its possible projection would have to be in the same region as the US itself. Please provide sources. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 04:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Japan should be considered a superpower especially if great powers such as the UK, France, Germany, and Italy merge into the EU, and the superpowers of the world are considered to be the United States, the European Union, Russia, China, India, and maybe then Japan as it would still be the 3rd largest economy, a G8 member and it also has a considerable defence budget and largest reserves of gold not to mention it being pretty much the most advanced country and weilding many of the largest companies and a huge trading nation plus a reasonable population size and world's largest city. Somethingoranother 02:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Japan has absolutely no hard power as it is a pacifist nation and has been since WWII. This is a requirement for being a superpower; to what extent is arguable, but it is a requirement and Japan does not fulfil it. Also, dense or not dense, a country with a territory the size of Japan's can never be a superpower without accruing more territory. 88.104.235.182 18:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if Japan loses its pacifist constitution in the near future as signs are beginning to show then having an economy the size that it has would allow it to spend very large amounts on its defence. It curently is limited to spend only 1% of its GDP on defence and already its defence budget is one of the highest. If it were to start spending 3% - 5% on its defence it would have the defence budget equivalent to a superpower Somethingoranother 20:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

My point wasn't compareing Japan and USA. I compared Japan to China, India and EU which are all mentioned in article as potential superpowers. In my opinion Japanese potential is comparable to potential of those countries. That doesn't mean that Japan certainly will become a superpower but also nobody can be sure that India or EU become a superpowers. They all have a potential to become one, so why are EU and India mentioned in article and Japan isn't?--Staberinde 10:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
We had Japan mentioned on here at one point, along with Russia and Brazil. If you bring back Japan you have to do it because other sources say Japan is a potential superpower not because if think it could be. That's the difference between a good article and original research. Our job is not to examine the evidence and decide who is or isn't a superpower. Our job is to report what other sources say. Kevlar67 01:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The map

Could someone please fix it, I don't know which one we used...and next time could User:Somethingoranother discuss before pushing the POV that Japan, Brazil and Russia (out of all nations) are emerging superpowers. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 22:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yer someone sort it out, please. 88.104.157.163 16:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I loaded the offending image into Photoshop and removed the POV nations. I uploaded it as Image:EmergingSuperpowers.png. I'm surprised that there didn't seem to be a way to roll-back the changes that were made, can anyone suggest a reason?
While trying to sort this out I came across a substantial number of POV/OR variants of this map. Amongst others we have:
  • Image:Superpowers3.PNG
  • Image:Emerging super powers.PNG
  • Image:Superpower2.png
  • Image:Superpower3.png
  • Image:Superpower4.png (more a case of redundancy than OR)
Shall we send these straight to Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion? The more that I look at the page though, the more I think that we really need a purge and 'Year zero' revision, a la Great power.
Xdamrtalk 05:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Well many parts of this page are well referenced and do not need to be purged. I like to think that this page isn't quite in the same poor repair as the Great Powers article was. To some degree, however, I do concur that there is a need of references in some parts. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 06:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree that many aspects of this page are satisfactory, it's just that quite a bit is not. This, combined with the fact that the present structure of the page is rather confused, perhaps suggests that an article 'restart' would be worthwhile—perhaps freeing us from the mental shackles of confirming with the present non-working layout etc.
Xdamrtalk 06:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
There's too much good stuff here to scrap everything. And thanks for fixing the images, get the others out of my sight... lmao yer put them up for deletion I think.. what the hell's with the little circles? I don't know Trip: The Light Fantastic 19:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have finally got around to putting these surplus images up for deletion.

I think that takes care of all the problematic/obsolete Superpower maps.

Xdamrtalk 16:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think so, thanks for finally getting rid of those. Signaturebrendel 20:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weird problem

This article has two French inter-wiki link. One of them is garbage. But when I go to delete it, I can't kind it in the code. I think I'm loosing it! Help. Kevlar67 02:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I see the problem, the {{IRTheory}} template is also giving us the French IRTheory template when we put it on this article. I fixed it. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 03:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] merge

Dont think theres a need for this to be a separate article. -Ste|vertigo 06:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This article features enough material to justify itself. Signaturebrendel 07:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the article should be merged into the main document - it does not stand alone well without an understanding of superpower, and should not be seperate.The7thone1188 16:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being unusually dense, but where exactly do you propose that this is merged to? What is the 'main document'? Superpower has been a separate article for at least as long as I have been editing here, and almost certainly for a long time before; where do you think that this content would be better placed?
Xdamrtalk 22:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactely where would this article be merged to. Besides I remain convinced that "this article features enough material to justify itself." Regards, Signaturebrendel 23:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)