what do you think next superpower or somthing that's gona fail or anything else?

China

i heard china basicly owns the u.s now

i heard china basicly owns the u.s now

thats a lie.

I don't know. It's a few years off from "Superpower", but it'll probably reach that stage about the same time China does, there'll be three. Also, by that time India, Russia, and Japan will be sizeable global powers as well. Provided that Indonesia and Brazil get their act together, they might be there too).

Much as the rest of the world likes to browbeat the USA for it's current roll, when the EU and China get there, it'll be better for us and them.

~String

i meant that u.s has borowed so much money from china that the chinise could change the dollar to the value of one yen if they wanted too is that true?

...Also, by that time .... and Japan will be sizeable global powers as well.

Japan? lol.

yea japan second largest economy of the world japan

thats a lie.

Indeed. In fact, you'll find in the next decade or two, that the USA will probably grow closer and closer together than you can imagine. The two are symbiotic in nature, most people just don't see it now because of the current growing pains in the relationship.

The wildcard, IMHO, is Europe and not China. China is a seething capitalist like the USA... it's Europe's "do-gooder-ness" (not intended to be a negative statement) that will stir the mix more than China or the USA.

~String

evry nation is evil i think at the moment the u.s.a is been looked down on cuase of it curent role but if the e.u got it people would look at them the same

i meant that u.s has borrowed so much money from china that the Chinese could change the dollar to the value of one yen if they wanted too is that true?

Yes and no. It won't benefit them to tamper with the American economy to the detriment of the USA-- any negative effects would instantly be reflected back to their economy. In the 1940's a nation could fuck with another nation by manipulating their economy without any ill effects to the home nation-- in the case of China, they are too global and too capitalistic to do so. They want a stable world economy as much as the next guy.

No, I'm not betting on their "peace loving nature", I'm betting on their desire to keep a profitable economy.

Japan? lol.

Yes, Japan. Love or hate them, they are and will probably be the world's refiner of ideas. That's a powerful card. Add in the fact that the world's industrial pivot will be "USA-Japan-China", it will give them a significant role. Japan is also steadily, increasing it's military expenditures. It's expected to increase military spending to surpass the UK this year-- making them second to the USA. Add in the mix that the Japanese own more of China, Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines than anybody else, and, again, you have a sizable "regional" superpower and easily, a global player bigger than the UK or Russia currently is.

the uk should hit super power satus and if it can achieve it with having happen to it what happened to us it will be great for the world.

nah the u.k wont be able to no natural resources not enough population i dout it maybe with the e.u

nah the u.k wont be able to no natural resources not enough population i dout it maybe with the e.u

I don't want to speak on behalf of pjdude, but I'm guessing he meant "EU" and mistyped "UK".

~String

wow caps mean that much

E.U. is too weak to wield the superpowers. There's too much differences and contradictories among EU members.

Also, there is crucial moment of dependence on the only one real superpower in the world.

What EU can do except blind following?
Or expressing the endless awareness, objections and concerns about conflicts, crisis, etc. which is nothing more than an empty talk.
EU has words, but it lacks deeds.

No. EU is too elitist and too spineless to become real world power.

US will be the only one superpower for a long time.

yea right the U.S will cease to be superpower man it's bound to fall evry nation that raises will fall.

yea right the U.S will cease to be superpower man it's bound to fall evry nation that raises will fall.

The one curveball in the mix is regional and global unification. There is already momentum to unite North America & possibly South America into one Union a la the EU. Couple that with the slow crawl towards global unification (say, in about a century) the issue of "who's a superpower" becomes moot.

~String

More like megapower. One world government, an endless grinding machine with no goal.

once we do that were gona go to space and start wars with them out of boredom :P

once we do that were gona go to space and start wars with them out of boredom :P

Oh, don't worry, we humans can have our little civil wars or violent wars against some other groups ....you know, just for the fun of it and all. I seriously doubt if, even with a world power structure, wars and conflicts will end.

Baron Max

I dont know whats to become of the EU.
Please get some structure in your writing, i had to read that twice to see what you meant!

The EU is not going to become a superpower for a number of reasons.

In the first place, the momentum towads a unified foreign/security policy has disappeared, so it's doubtful that the EU will ever emerge as a coherent global actor in the way that the word "superpower" implies. If a beaurocracy for coordinating trade, development and monetary policy can be a superpower, then you'll have to count the WTO as well.

Second, Europe's demographics and spending priorities preclude superpower status. Specifically, population growth has hit a wall (population is now declining and aging), and generous social welfare states with minimal defense expenditures are the norm. The result of this situation is that Europe is incapable of fielding an independent security policy, and instead must rely on America to do her defense spending for her. Unless Europeans suddenly come around to the idea of working lots more hours, having more kids, retiring later, and not receiving nearly as many benefits, there's simply no way for them to accrue enough hard power to be taken seriously as a superpower.

Third, the two previous prerequisites for EU super-powerdom (transfer of real authority to the EU and demographic/military regenesis) are probably mutually exclusive, judging by European history. Any member states that underwent a population surge and remilitarization would probably have little appettite for enlarged EU authority. The whole EU project can only really work in an environment were security is provided externally (i.e., via NATO).

Two or three decades from now, the EU will find itself contending with Russia and Brazil for 4th place behind the USA, China and India. Japan's demographics are even worse than Europe's, so the odds of them being more than a regional power are slim, military reform and spending or no. Nobody's scared of an army of 60-year-olds, even if they do sell a lot of cars around the world.

You all are only thinking about superpower in American terms, i.e., what Americans consider superior power.
That's like playing a game where one player invents the rules that suit only himself.

I'm not referring to the EU now, but there can be a spiritual superpower, a cultural superpower, a social superpower, an arts superpower.
You don't have to wield a canon or think that money is everything when a word can change the world. Pen can be mightier than the sword.

You all are only thinking about superpower in American terms, i.e., what Americans consider superior power.
That's like playing a game where one player invents the rules that suit only himself.

Well, the term "superpower" was invented in America, to describe America (and the USSR and British Empire) so I'm not sure what you expect people to understand it to mean. At any rate, here's how some prominent (and not all American) scholars have defined it:

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower ):

According to Lyman Miller, "The basic components of superpower stature may be measured along four axes of power: military, economic, political, and cultural (or what political scientist Joseph Nye has termed “soft”)."

In the opinion of Kim Richard Nossal of McMaster University, "generally this term was used to signify a political community that occupied a continental-sized landmass, had a sizable population (relative at least to other major powers); a superordinate economic capacity (again, relative to others), including ample indigenous supplies of food and natural resources; enjoyed a high degree of non-dependence on international intercourse; and, most importantly, had a well-developed nuclear capacity (eventually normally defined as second-strike capability)."

Former Indian National Security Advisor Jyotindra Nath Dixit has also described the characteristics of Superpowers. In his view, "first, the state or the nation concerned should have sizeable territorial presence in terms of the size of the population. Secondly, such a state should have high levels of domestic cohesion, clear sense of national identity and stable administration based on strong legal and institutional arrangements. Thirdly, the state concerned should be economically well to do and should be endowed with food security and natural resources, particularly energy resources and infrastructural resources in terms of minerals and metals. Such a state should have a strong industrial base backed by productive capacities and technological knowledge. Then the state concerned should have military capacities, particularly nuclear and missile weapons capabilities at least comparable to, if not of higher levels than other countries which may have similar capacities."

In the opinion of Professor Paul Dukes, "a superpower must be able to conduct a global strategy including the possibility of destroying the world; to command vast economic potential and influence; and to present a universal ideology". Although, "many modifications may be made to this basic definition".

According to Professor June Teufel Dreyer, "A superpower must be able to project its power, soft and hard, globally."


I'm not referring to the EU now, but there can be a spiritual superpower, a cultural superpower, a social superpower, an arts superpower.

As you can see, the above definitions almost all include these categories in the requirements for superpowerdom. That nobody has mentioned them in this thread reflects the fact that those are not the areas in which the EU is lacking. Well, except the spiritual part anyway... and I'm not sure what you mean by a "social superpower." How does one project "social power" around the world? For that matter, the outflow of arts from Europe has been pretty anemic lately, compared to, say, America... But, hey, the EU is definitely the front-runner for the job of America-criticizing Superpower.

Anyway, you risk redefining the word "superpower" out of existence. You might as well argue that every individual on earth is a superpower in their own special, unique way. This would miss the point of the term, however, which is to label certain entities with overwhelming geopolitical importance. The EU has trouble projecting power even inside of Europe, let alone in far-flung corners of the globe.


You don't have to wield a canon or think that money is everything when a word can change the world. Pen can be mightier than the sword.

That's a nice thought, but probably little comfort when an actual superpower is driving tanks down your streets, or raining nuclear weapons on your cities.