Jump to content

Talk:Superpower: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
 
(804 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{Controversial}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|
{{WikiProject Power in international relations|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid|American=y|American-importance=mid}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 11
|counter = 13
|minthreadsleft = 7
|minthreadsleft = 1
|algo = old(14d)
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Superpower/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Superpower/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{merged-from|Superpower collapse| 15 March 2024}}
{{talkheader}}
{{merged-from|Superpower disengagement| 11 May 2024}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
<!-- Talk page begins here. -->
{{PIIR article|class=B|importance=Top}}
{{Broken anchors|links=
{{WPIR|class=B|importance=high}}
* <nowiki>[[Satellite state#Soviet Union|satellite states]]</nowiki> Anchor [[Satellite state#Soviet Union]] links to a specific web page: [[Soviet Union]].
{{WikiProjectPolitics|class=B|importance=mid}}
* <nowiki>[[Liberal democracy#Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie|dictatorship of the bourgeoisie]]</nowiki> The anchor (#Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie) is no longer available because it was [[Special:Diff/1160717353|deleted by a user]] before. <!-- {"title":"Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie","appear":{"revid":490700302,"parentid":485790865,"timestamp":"2012-05-04T21:53:51Z","replaced_anchors":{"Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie":"Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"},"removed_section_titles":["Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie"],"added_section_titles":["Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"]},"disappear":{"revid":1160717353,"parentid":1160716083,"timestamp":"2023-06-18T09:43:15Z","removed_section_titles":["Political stability","Famines and refugees","Human development","Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie","Excessive reliance on procedural formalities"],"added_section_titles":["Increased political stability","Better use of resources","Health and human development","Marxist criticism","Socialist and communist criticism"]}} -->
}}
}}
{{Controversial}}
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot|age=14}}

== USSR error ==

The USSR was communist, not socialist Why does this page refer to them as socialist? They are not the same thing. Socialism=good, Communism=bad.
:Their economy was socialist, the government type was communist. Not to mention, they were known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. [[User:Deavenger|Deavenger]] ([[User talk:Deavenger|talk]]) 00:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
::Well communist East Germany was called the "German Democratic Republic". So much for names.[[Special:Contributions/68.164.5.236|68.164.5.236]] ([[User talk:68.164.5.236|talk]]) 03:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
::The USSR was a totalitarian system, where the government and economy were completely entwined. "Communist" is a much better term for them than "socialist". Besides, Socialism doesn't necessarily mean agricultural collectivism. Use "Communist".[[Special:Contributions/68.164.5.236|68.164.5.236]] ([[User talk:68.164.5.236|talk]]) 03:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk about POV. They both are bad, they both serve to weaken their own economy. --[[User:Rockstone35|Rockstone35]] ([[User talk:Rockstone35|talk]]) 22:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
: Most Scandinavian systems (Norway, Denmark, Sweden) have a very socialist background; China is distinctly communist; hadly the weakest economies around
: On the other hand, unchecked capitalism (subprime mortgages in the USA) has not done the world economy much good in the recent crisis.
: So lets keep personal political beliefs out of this and try to stick to the facts.
: If you look at the core of the liberal-capitalist and communist ideologies their aims are not that different; everyone works to capacity and consumes to needs. The way to get there is very different though.
: The perversions of both systems is the consequence of trying to apply ideals in reality. [[User:Arnoutf|Arnoutf]] ([[User talk:Arnoutf|talk]]) 05:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Communism is a type of socialism so in this context either is correct [[Special:Contributions/115.70.58.126|115.70.58.126]] ([[User talk:115.70.58.126|talk]]) 12:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

== USA is fourth largest country in the world during the Cold War ==

USA only became the third largest in 1996, which is after the Cold War. During the Cold War, it was the fourth largest. I provided the link at footnote 23 that links to World Factbook 1989 edition when USSR still existed. Currently the world's third largest country is in dispute. It is not accurate to list USA as third largest. Please take note of this.
:Well, when talking of "large" are they referring to population or land area??? If population than the US is third, if land area, then that is open to debate because China considers some of its area to be part of China while most other nations dispute this (I think this is the area taken from India).[[Special:Contributions/68.164.1.56|68.164.1.56]] ([[User talk:68.164.1.56|talk]]) 17:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, US total area back then was approx. 9,372,000 km2. Not 9.6. Not 9.8 as it is currently. That is because since 1996 US has included into its territory numerous water space, some valid, some questionable. See here: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0001.pdf <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jc900|Jc900]] ([[User talk:Jc900|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jc900|contribs]]) 03:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== India & Russia potential superpowers ? ==

The introduction names these 2 countries as superpower candidates. India has the largest poor population the world, while Russia is still economically underdeveloped. I found it odd to name these 2 in the introduction. It seems misleading and baseless.

:To us, India and Russia do not seem to be potential superpowers. India and Russia probably will not be superpowers. However, some academics believe that India and Russia are potential superpowers (potential if they manage to fix some of their problems like poverty, etc.) due to other strong points. So it's not really misleading or baseless. [[User:Deavenger|Deavenger]] ([[User talk:Deavenger|talk]]) 21:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

::I disagree with you [[User:Deavenger|Deavenger]]. India by population and economically could be considered a superpower but not quite under military level but with Russia they are a different story as they pass most test for superpower contests. I read some of your past comments months ago criticizing lack of International Relations experts on materials about superpower countries claiming a superpower is only a superpower if reviewed or affirmed by an International Relations expert or maybe such as a International Relations PhD. Right?

::I have also viewed an expert on this subject who seems to have a different position on Russia and is now. According to an IR expert named Ronald Steel[http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people4/Steel/steel-con0.html] has claimed that Russia has been reborn[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/opinion/24steel.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss] and has restored it’s county as superpower once again[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/opinion/24steel.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss]; even during the global recession, Russia still holds on as a reborn superpower[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/opinion/24steel.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss]. Even the US government[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9079543725663390621&ei=fOb0Sc3JBJ3YqAOhlvmrDg&q=russia+superpower&hl=en] [http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0822/p09s03-coop.html]is also informing us that Russia has made its relations as a world peacemaker (superpower) once again and they have to act as responsible as a superpower[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9079543725663390621&ei=fOb0Sc3JBJ3YqAOhlvmrDg&q=russia+superpower&hl=en] for world affairs because the US considers Russia as a superpower again. Personally there needs to be some changing here as there is no such thing as one superpower, not today. I would ask we change the US as one superpower into 2 superpowers in current position and if someone wants to update anything on India or China, than we also update them as well.--[[Special:Contributions/24.176.171.32|24.176.171.32]] ([[User talk:24.176.171.32|talk]]) 23:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

:::The only reason the US still calls Russia a superpower is because if we didn't, hubris-laden Putin the Idiot would be upset. My God, Italy has a higher GDP than Russia does, and France has a military budget that is almost TWICE that of Russia. Additionally, Russia no longer has the means to militarily act outside Eurasia, and if it came to a war between the EU (or China) and Russia, and Russia couldn't use its nukes, Russia would be absolutely pounded (and if WW2 happened today, Germany would clean their clock). The only claim to power Russia still has is its huge number of nukes. Without them, Russia is a has-been, and with Putin in charge and his penchant for the tried and failed solutions of the past, chances are Russia will only get worse.[[Special:Contributions/99.150.202.187|99.150.202.187]] ([[User talk:99.150.202.187|talk]]) 02:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

:::Let's see. The one by Ronald Steele I addressed that while in the title he called Russia a superpower, in the article he constanly called Russia a great power, which is different from a Superpower. Number 6 refers to it as a superpower, but that would fit more under potential superpower due to the fact that most within the IR community, there is not a consensus if there is another superpower. All of them say US with a few exceptions, there are some who want to argue that _______ is a superpower, while others agree and say that _______ is a superpower, while others disagree and say there are no superpower, or just one superpower. And saying that since Russia is a peacemaker ≠ superpower. That here is called Original Research and Synthesis. Also, we have also discussed it on this page and other pages that politicians, especially after the subject country just invaded another country. We had a so called source of Obama saying Brazil is a great power, but didn't add that for the reason as he was a superpower.
:::India has the 12th largest economy, and has over 20% of it's population living in poverty, and a very low HDI.
:::Before there some "updating" there has to be consensus within the IR community, and here on wikipedia. Most editors here believe that EU is a superpower. However, as much as we would like to include that, we have to wait until there is a consensus. BTW, Fareed Zakaria, Parag Khanna, Zherebetsky, Richard Haas, and Jeffery Mankoff are just some IR experts who will say, even after the war, that Russia is a superpower. [[User:Deavenger|Deavenger]] ([[User talk:Deavenger|talk]]) 23:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
::::Then Make that phone call right now to Fareed Zakaria, Parag Khanna, Zherebetsky, Richard Haas, and Jeffery Mankoff then. Get them on the phone and update it. Don't ask members to speak for you, go to the IR expert sources and provide them here. Consensus should not show a history of negative post to the consensus such as members helping members to conflict bar play the article to what the article should say (I have looked at your talk pages on a history of asking your special superpower ip members to hype up the article from backup specifically; those guys are not Fareed Zakaria, Parag Khanna, Zherebetsky, Richard Haas, and Jeffery Mankoff). Lastly Ronald Steel titled "Russia" as "Superpower Reborn", that isn't the term Great power. Can you get some kind of Russia, USA, China, India 2009 updated IR article on here now?--[[Special:Contributions/24.176.171.32|24.176.171.32]] ([[User talk:24.176.171.32|talk]]) 00:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
::::: Parag Khanna, [http://www.amazon.com/Second-World-Redefining-Competition-Twenty-first/dp/0812979842/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240791994&sr=8-1]. Richard Haass [http://www.newsweek.com/id/154906], Jeffery Mankoff [http://www.cfr.org/publication/18274/], Fareed Zakaria [http://www.amazon.com/Post-American-World-Fareed-Zakaria/dp/0393334805/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240792165&sr=8-1]. Look at the Ronald Steele article again. He uses the term superpower, then calls it a great power in the article. If you took the time to read the article instead of doing a google search, you would know that. Maybe I should call Steele to update his work? And for me asking other members to come and talk, they are members that work on the page and are part of the same project. And for someone who has access to multiple IPs and can change them or ask other people to go on other IPs and use them as sockpuppets (oh yes, we had plenty of that before). And as the for IR page, we have a page for that already. As the current page says ''After the Cold War, the most common belief held that only the United States fulfilled the criteria to be considered a superpower,[2] although it is a matter of debate whether it is a hegemon or if it is losing its superpower status.[3] China, the European Union, India and Russia are also thought to have the potential of achieving superpower status within the 21st century.[4] Others doubt the existence of superpowers in the post Cold War era altogether, stating that today's complex global marketplace and the rising interdependency between the world's nations has made the concept of a superpower an idea of the past and that the world is now multipolar.[5][6][7][8]''. The page for the new countries are on a different page, as these are the most commonly viewed potential superpowers. Some people think they're superpowers, others don't, and we have an entire thing for each country. Which is pretty much the type of page you're asking for, and we have mention of that on this page. [[User:Deavenger|Deavenger]] ([[User talk:Deavenger|talk]]) 00:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


:Deavenger - What ip, sock or no sock or member introduces any statement, is it always your intentions to contact your group of friends on Wikipedia on any conclusion to anyone or everything that either modifies or consensus to modify or beings up any consensus, to stop them on their tracks each time? I read this comment you made to Phoenix’s talk page:

"”””Hey, there's an IP on the Superpower talk page saying how u.s is not a superpower, and anyone who thinks so has a lot of imagination and are following propaganda. I've been arguing with him, but I'm think he can't be convinced. Should I just ignore the Ips, seeing how he hasn't made any changes to the page? Deavenger (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)--Reply by-- D'oh -- Phoenix (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)”””””

:You replied “seeing how he hasn't made any changes to the page? ” What are you referring to as the page? Don't touch it? Is it a members only page or club?

:I see that you have been patrolling the superpower, potential superpowers and great powers on almost everything or anything that consensus a subject to the pages. I am not that ip you questioned back last month on the user questioning the US is not a Superpower or whatever but personally, why do you spend so much time patrolling these pages? I have read pages and pages for the last 2 to 3 hours on comments you have defended everything on the superpowers page since early 2006. I have read where you have used Fareed Zakaria and Parag Khanna countless of times in particular on everything referring to superpowers. Have you ever thought of any other IR expert author? Personally 2 guys like Fareed Zakaria and Parag Khanna are not the total say so the US is a superpower or no power, or great power or whatever power, there are plenty of other IR experts who will have different or similar opinions but this subject should not be on based on these 2 guys on this entire superpower article. Even so as I have to question as I am reading a lot of your writings that I feel you are really trying to defend the content more than hearing consensus from other people. I am not sure if your unemployed or a fulltime student or a full time on wikipedia user but when do people have any say so to bring new consensuses up to allow the content to be heard rather than making contacts to your friends to bring along with you criticize? The 2 particular links you provided me yesterday by Fareed Zakaria and Parag Khanna, I am reviewing and have some comments I wish to questioned on those links you forwarded me. I will forward them back to you to also comment on them what I read vice versa. Concerning Ronald Steels article “Superpower Reborn”, the term great power is used once in the article, it terms Great powers but not specifically Russia but the powers of Great powers in particular. Ronald Steel titled the article “Superpower Reborn” not “Great Power Reborn”, there is a complete difference in those 2 titles. However the title is the subject and Ronald Steel is indeed a world opinion as much as Fareed Zakaria and Parag Khanna have also. There is a cross fire on the subject but the subject by Steel has weight on it’s feet vise versa. Everyone knows Russia is a military superpower but the question or consensus does it fulfill it’s economic, political, and cultural also as a superpower. That is not a question I have but to consensus the subject more on where it stands over it’s military strength.--[[Special:Contributions/24.176.171.32|24.176.171.32]] ([[User talk:24.176.171.32|talk]]) 08:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

::First, all IPs and users, please sign your name using four <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>.
::Hmm, asking a senior member if I should ignore an IP or not. As it usually would be better to engage in dialouge that could turn into an OR or forum conversation. And all Phoenix did was come and ask the IP if he had any sources that were not OR, SYN, and verfiable. And when I said he hasn't touched the page, he didn't start engaging in an edit war or start vandelizing the page as so many IPs like to do. If you bother to look at the history, the times I reverted IP edits when it was vandelism, not supported by a reliable source that wasn't OR or SYN, or they accidently got a fact wrong like saying USSR did not state they had a socialist economy.
::Wow, me patrolling and working on many pages that have to do with a subject I know. Hmmm, that' slike an engineer working on something related to engineering. Then, if you actually decided to read the current superpower page, no works by Fareed Zakaria and Parag Khanna are used, as their works deal with what they think are or will become the superpowers in the 21st century. And I did not rewrite the entire potential superpower page based on their veiws. All I and other users did was take their opinion on the subject, add a small sentence or paragraph, and left it. As for the Ronald Steele article, he uses the word three times. Then, when the newspaper calls the article a superpower reborn, yet his introduction states that the US should treat Russia like the great power it is (it's in the intro, his thesis most likely judging from his article). And a great power is different then a superpower. But according to you, Fareed Zakaria and Parag Khanna are not the total say while your guy is!!. Probably every single member and IP who regularly works on this article will probably tell that they think US and EU are superpowers. I can have Parag Khanna, John McCormick, Mark Leonard, Amy Chua, and Andrew Redding to name a few who would agree with a view like this. Even though I have all of those academics and IR people to support me, there is not a consensus within the IR community as a whole. For the US, an overwhelming majority agree that the US is still a superpower. There are only a few people who say "No superpower" or "US is a hyperpower". Then, there is no consensus whether there is an actual superpower to challenge the US, whether the world has become multipolar, still unipolar, or as Sam P. Huntington put it, a uni-multipolar world (one overall strong power, with several weaker but still strong powers underneath). The potential superpower page is just for that. As there have been so many academics predicting this, that we created the potential superpower page. As while they still can't agree whether it's a unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar, they all agree that there is one or more of these four countries/organizations that are predicted to become the next superpower. [[User:Deavenger|Deavenger]] ([[User talk:Deavenger|talk]]) 03:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is time to cite credible sources which clearly state that Russia or India have NO ability to be a recognized potential superpower. Anybody who thinks that these countries have more powers beyond their own territories should ask themselves WHEN or WHERE was that power projected in the last 10 years ? Russia is great power and India is a regional power but nothing more. There is no indication of future power accumulation. Unlike China or the EU (collective power of its members) which already have influence over world affairs Russia and India had no significant progress. They should be removed from the introduction. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/78.53.10.169|78.53.10.169]] ([[User talk:78.53.10.169|talk]]) 12:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:India and Russia, while it not seem to you, are considered potential superpowers. There are several reliable sources that are not SYN or OR. And since they are actually mentioned enough as potential superpowers to be notable, they are in the page. Who knows, Russia might become a superpower instead of EU, India might become a superpower instead of China. Only time will tell. [[User:Deavenger|Deavenger]] ([[User talk:Deavenger|talk]]) 03:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

::India will eventually become a superpower (unless it and Pakistan nuke each other out of existence). As for Russia, forget it. Japan has more potential to be a superpower (and Germany itself) than Russia, a country who's gdp is less than Italy's. As time goes on, and the EU and China grow more powerful, Russia, by relative comparison, will get only weaker (especially as the world gradually transitions to non-oil energy sources, which would pretty much remove the one economic source of power they have in the world). Besides, I think in this discussion, cultural power and influence must be considered as a factor in superpower status. In this regard, what does Russia have? Though they had some great writers and composers in the past, what do they have today that influences the world in any way? India's Bollywood has more cultural influence on the world than Russia. Unless Russia develops some fantastic, lucrative technology (unlikely since they're having a brain drain), or develops some dread weapon and uses it with abandon, Russia's days as a Superpower are over.[[Special:Contributions/99.150.202.187|99.150.202.187]] ([[User talk:99.150.202.187|talk]]) 03:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with 78.53.10.169.[[User:WORLDPOWER27|WORLDPOWER27]] ([[User talk:WORLDPOWER27|talk]]) 17:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

:[[78.53.10.169]] - If you totally disagree, then you would provide some resources for it. Personally Russia has moved from a collapse like a depression period, then they recovered beyond over a great power but as a peace maker. I have no idea why you would want to state specifically why Russia or even India have no potential aspects of becoming a superpower? Sounds like you want to put them down (your quote “They should be removed from the introduction” [[78.53.10.169]]
::Russia's a peacemaker? Stop drinking the koolaid.[[Special:Contributions/99.150.202.187|99.150.202.187]] ([[User talk:99.150.202.187|talk]]) 03:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
)[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASuperpower&diff=286631805&oldid=286631666] and have no say so on the subject. I do not agree to consensus something with no possibility, not in the 21st century. If somebody wants to say Brazil is a superpower and they have provided case citings, I have no deed to put them down by standing on no possibility or saying they never will. Same case with Russia; like the European Union such as France and even Great Britain have publicly stated in 2008 Russia has moved beyond a great power in world affairs. What other county would the US fear today if there was any country to even fear about in the 21st century; the worse thing the US has have ever dealt with in its history of world events was one Germany (WWII) and after the Cold War. What is different from the Cold War and Post Cold War? Even IR professor Steven Rosefielde[http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521836786] has said Russia has demonstrated it intends to re-emerge as a full-fledged superpower before 2010 challenging America and China and potentially threatening a new arms race.
Ip [[78.53.10.169]] how can you say Russia and India show “no indication of future power accumulation”[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASuperpower&diff=286631805&oldid=286631666]? It is absurd but totally ridiculous to say such a thing [[78.53.10.169]]

:Well the diff between the Cold War and the Post Cold War worlds is that Russia is only a shadow of what it used to be when it was the USSR. The USSR had almost 50 million more ppl than the US did. Now the US has over 2x the population of Russia. The USSR had almost twice the industrial capacity of modern Russia and a military many times larger. The USSR had a large navy that could, with its huge number of subs, give the US Navy a run for their money. Russian ships today can just barely reach the Atlantic. The USSR had an ideology (a despicable one) that mesmerized many left wing radicals around the world. Russia today has no ideology, except for maybe supporting countries they know the US doesn't like. The only thing today that Russia has that gives its power is it huge number of nukes, but unless they're prepared to blackmail the world (or end it), these toys really don't do very much to increase its influence in the world, do they? Russia ain't a superpower. Sorry.[[Special:Contributions/99.150.202.187|99.150.202.187]] ([[User talk:99.150.202.187|talk]]) 03:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

::If they can bring in a couple reliable sources that state the their country is a potential superpower, and the sources not OR or SYN, and there is a discussion, the country is added. The most recent argument was Brazil. The one user brought in several sources that were pure OR, SYN, and some were not even from reliable sources. Not to mention, the same user did not even take basic wikipedia protocal of talking it over first before making a big change the the article. When he wrote the section, it was not even written in a balanced way. It was basically nationastic advertising. Another user before wanted to add Brazil (this was more recently on the great power page). He did not do what the previous user did. He actually went and discussed it first. When it was found that the user did not have a reliable (non OR, and SYN) source, he did not do what the previous user did, which was insulting me because I was Indian, or vandelizing the page. He went and said he would look for a couple of reliable source so he could add Brazil and India. [[User:Deavenger|Deavenger]] ([[User talk:Deavenger|talk]]) 03:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

India is a third world country which has seen some developments in some second class technology sectors. Russia does not even influence inner EU affairs (it´s close neighbour) not to mention US politics or economy.

Even more important, the age of superpowers is over. Every so called IR expert which still uses a terminology of this past era, in my eyes disguises himself as incompetent. This is an article which should deal with history and the most common knowledge of the present. In the present and midterm future (5-10 years) India will at most achieve a stable regional great power status. Russia has to deal more with inner national problems. Where does Russia influence politics, culture or economics on a global scale? Nowhere. Is Russia a source of militaristic provocation ? Yes. But that is not a sign of any active power politics.

Sorry to say that, Japan, Germany, France and the UK are far more influential on a global scale compared to Russia. It devaluates the article to name every second nation which was mentioned with the term superpower in the same breath.

:You can think that the age of superpowers is over, as that's your own opinion, like India, Russia, China, EU becoming or are superpowers are other people's opinion. In the begining of 2009, Russia shut off gas to Ukraine. 18 different countries were affected by this, including big EU countries like Germany. Economics, while it does not wield the same economic power the USSR had or US has, it has a large control over natural gas, and one of the fastest growing economies in the world. Politics, almost all major organizations have Russia in it, and Russia plays a major part. Several IR experts, even the ones who say Russia is not a superpower, will say that Russia is one of the most important and powerful countries in the world. [[User:Deavenger|Deavenger]] ([[User talk:Deavenger|talk]]) 03:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

::It's easy for a developing country to have a high rate of growth. If you start out with a dollar and by the end of the year have ten dollars, that's 1000% growth (much more than the growth of somebody who starts out with one billion dollars and by the end of the year has 1.2 billion dollars). As time goes on, the EU will be less addicted to Russian oil, and the world, by and large, will use more non-oil energy sources (and it's a tribute to the US's power that it can influence OPEC to sell cheaper oil, thus totally undermining the blackmail power of Russian oil and their buddies in Venezuela and Iran). While Russia is surely still a great power, it is no longer a superpower (and this a a good thing for everybody, for that country has never done a good turn for anyone in their entire history).[[Special:Contributions/99.150.202.187|99.150.202.187]] ([[User talk:99.150.202.187|talk]]) 03:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Since when is fast growing a sign of power ? It is a sign of an underdeveloped economy catching up nothing more. Only advanced countries grow at moderate slow rates because they are the peak of the civilization. I´m sorry to say that, anybody who truly believes that Russia has global significance can´t be considered an IR expert. A great power with regional influence? Yes. A future superpower ?
Certainly never. Russia is the very small neighbour of the EU countries and China. The only reason why published sources say otherwise is, that some American Cold war warriors are still thinking in superpower categories and mistakingly spread their outdated views.
:Most ppl calling Russia a superpower are not Americans. The only reason why American leaders still call Russia a superpower is for the sake of not upsetting their still substantial pride (for although they're not a superpower, they still can be a pain in the butt).[[Special:Contributions/99.150.202.187|99.150.202.187]] ([[User talk:99.150.202.187|talk]]) 03:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

One word to Ukraine, this country is also very much more influenced by western (EU) standards than by Russia. Again, if this article, which is obviously hard to handle because of patriotic interests, wants to be taken seriously, crystal balling has to be avoided. India is no candidate in every respect and Russia is a regional, great power, full stop.

I totally agree with 78.53.10.169.Anyway iRussia next decade will disappear from this discussion because will enter in EU like all ex Ussr states.EU can 't be compared as superpower at any other political being just TODAY.The rest is PROPAGANDA and lost time.[[Special:Contributions/151.60.116.125|151.60.116.125]] ([[User talk:151.60.116.125|talk]]) 12:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
:Ah, the master of propaganda is back. Russia would never be allowed to join the EU (especially since only one veto of a member state is needed to keep it out, and all the Baltic and eastern European nations all despise Russia and Putin). Even if this weren't the case, Russia, as is, simply doesn't fulfill the criteria to join the EU. It doesn't have legitimate, free elections (at least according to EU election monitors), it has no respect for free speech, protest, or the free press, most Europeans think Putin is to blame for the murder off all those anti-Kremlin activists and journalists, Russia is in the middle of internecine war in the Caucasus, and it's unlikely that Russia would agree to have the European Central Bank to become their central bank. Plus, why would most EU leaders want to put up with the obstructionism, intimidations, and provocations typical of the Russian administrative mind? Plus, why would Germany and France want to give up their pride of place in the EU for Russia (esp. Putin's Russia)? Keep dreaming![[Special:Contributions/99.150.202.187|99.150.202.187]] ([[User talk:99.150.202.187|talk]]) 03:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

:([151.60.116.125]] Russia will is not going to join the EU or NATO, there is countless of audio files that says Russia refuses to join when the EU calls Russia the superpower of Europe. There is no need to eliminate any discussion, just to correct misconfusion.--[[Special:Contributions/24.176.171.32|24.176.171.32]] ([[User talk:24.176.171.32|talk]]) 18:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


Russia economically is already under EU (check trades).Anyway EU is the only superpower today.The rest is lost time for propaganda.[[Special:Contributions/151.60.118.29|151.60.118.29]] ([[User talk:151.60.118.29|talk]]) 19:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

* [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EU 100%|FYI]]. Cheers, [[User:This flag once was red|<b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:This flag once was red|<span style="color:#f00">propaganda</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/This flag once was red|deeds]]</sub> 17:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

:::I am bringing this case to the article, it is a CNN interview with 2 US Senators clarifying Russia is a superpower, it is on Google News. You can view the clip here as I would like to add this to the article: [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9079543725663390621&ei=jmhtSv69O5v-qAOCyJAd&hl=en] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.128.20.15|75.128.20.15]] ([[User talk:75.128.20.15|talk]]) 08:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->--[[Special:Contributions/75.128.20.15|75.128.20.15]] ([[User talk:75.128.20.15|talk]]) 08:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
::::Hey, I like how you decided to add it as a potential superpower instead of claiming it as a full blown superpower. However, video google, youtube, etc cannot be used as sources per wikipedia policy, and the article only calls Russia a superpower in the title, and calls Russia a great power throughout the actual article itself. [[User:Deavenger|Deavenger]] ([[User talk:Deavenger|talk]]) 19:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::Well the article says on the title Superpower Reborn, asked the writer Ronald Steel[http://college.usc.edu/cf/faculty-and-staff/faculty.cfm?pid=1003734&CFID=4808238&CFTOKEN=41122632] that question but the title is the topic of the material. Second first it was said by Hobiehunter don't use Youtube at all or anything but Youtube, Google news was fine to him and several other people claimed the same comments. Google News is also used by the Associated Press feeds. So no Youtube is here or if CNN is pointing this clip are you claiming the feed is not correct if it is a CNN news feed? There are other feeds out there, they are all going to say the samething. Listen you have the verification right there, it says it several times on Russia. If I had a choice, I would knock some other published sources down that are so outdated on the article currently but I haven't which you have tried to backup them up to keep them. The article needs updated sources, these are fine as they stand. You have an International Foreign Relations professor claiming his source on the Reborn article, that clearly makes it a valid source on it's title, not a great power.--[[Special:Contributions/75.128.20.15|75.128.20.15]] ([[User talk:75.128.20.15|talk]]) 01:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
While I don't like how Steel couldn't keep on refering to Russia as a superpower in the actual article besides just the title, we can keep the source. However, I believe that the CNN clip can be found in the actual site. Even if BBC has it's own channel on youtube (which it does) wikipedia policy still says we cannot use youtube as a source. 23:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
:I will check with CNN to find the actual video link on their site. I saw the samething on Youtube and Yahoo but a couple of people claimed not to use Youtube at all but just find any video site instead. I will check on it though; what is important we have a message from 2 US Senators claiming what Russia is.--[[Special:Contributions/75.128.20.15|75.128.20.15]] ([[User talk:75.128.20.15|talk]]) 07:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

== Ancient superpowers ==

Ancient Egypt was not a superpower. It never conquered non-Egyptian cultures.
Ancient China was not a superpower. It never conquered non-Chinese cultures.
Ancient India was not a superpower. It never conquered non-Indian cultures.
Ancient Russia was not a superpower. It never conquered non-Russian cultures.

Ancient Greece was a superpower. It conquered central Asian cultures.
Ancient Iran was a superpower. It conquered central Asian cultures.
Ancient Turkey was a superpower. It conquered east European cultures.

No power in the ancient world was a superpower. They were regional powers to be sure, but "superpowers"? Not a chance. Ancient Greece didn't conquer central Asia, one individual, Alexander the Great, did--and when he died his empire fell into divided pieces that were only just able to hold themselves together. The only premodern powers that could be considered superpowers were probably the Mongols, the early Caliphate, and the Turks.[[Special:Contributions/99.150.202.187|99.150.202.187]] ([[User talk:99.150.202.187|talk]]) 03:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Speed, not size, defines a superpower. In 1875, China was still the world's largest economy with the largest population and largest army. But she was unable to fend off invasions by small but speedy European nations. In 1925, USA was the world's largest economy. But she was unable to lead the League of Nations or influence huge German reparation claims by small but
speedy European nations.

:What??? The US didn't lead the League of Nations because the US WASN'T IN the League of Nations. The US, did, however, start the League of Nations, which the "speedy European nations" didn't do, did they, and the US very much influenced German reparation claims by insisting that the speedy nations of France and Britain pay the US back for WWI, which caused these nations to insist that Germany keep paying the reparations, wherein the speedy nation of Germany took out loans from the US to pay France and Britain.[[Special:Contributions/99.150.202.187|99.150.202.187]] ([[User talk:99.150.202.187|talk]])

Malthus was right indeed. Population is a liability for the nation until (converted into an asset) empowered by continuing education. As of 2009, UK and France have overtaken USA as net creditors. In the ancient times, governments decided the fate of their peoples. Today, companies decided the fate of the governments.
[[User:CuteRobin|CuteRobin]] ([[User talk:CuteRobin|talk]]) 10:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

== Edition ==

I've edited the parts of this article related to [[Potential Superpowers]] to match the Potential Superpowers article. [[User:CEBR|CEBR]] ([[User talk:CEBR|talk]]) 23:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

== Addition ==

I have added section "Modern superpowers" with a map and characteristics of the USA, the Peoples Republic of China and Russia. [[User:C-b90|C-b90]] ([[User talk:C-b90|talk]]) 00:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks for your contributions but this is entirely [[original research]] on your part. No recent study in the academic community suggest that these three states are current superpowers as the term is usually defined. Please stop edit warring and read [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:OR]] [[User:Nirvana888|Nirvana888]] ([[User talk:Nirvana888|talk]]) 19:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
::I am not sure how this happened but above entry by C-b90 was, according to the history, made on 15 Nov 20:49 UTC. C-b90, please use the automatic signature by entering four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); but in any case do not sign your own time zone with [[UTC]] as it is clearly not yet 16 November in Greenwich. [[User:Arnoutf|Arnoutf]] ([[User talk:Arnoutf|talk]]) 20:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

:::The USA, China and Russia are today superpowers. It is written here: http://vlasti.net/news/20477. And here: http://www.vz.ru/politics/2007/11/9/123643.html.

:::These three countries completely and absolutely approach under the term "superstate". If China with Russia do not approach, then the USA too does not approach, because at it the largest debt and the most negative trading balance.
:::Thanks.[[User:C-b90|C-b90]] ([[User talk:C-b90|talk]]) 12:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
::::[[User:C-b90|C-b90]], you are right about the almost inevitable bankruptcy and decline of USA, but please, just don't bother and don't wage pointless edit wars. Here the superpowers are defined by what we found in the works of Anglophone scholars, and while they get their salary in dollars they mostly will continue to write that USA is a superpower and others aren't. [[User:Greyhood|Greyhood]] ([[User talk:Greyhood|talk]]) 16:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
::::This source - http://www.vz.ru/politics/2007/11/9/123643.html - is interesting. It claims that in a 2007 poll conducted by [[Harris Interactive]] in Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Great Britain and USA around 95% of people consider USA a superpower, around 90% consider China a superpower and around 85% consider Russia a superpower. However I can't find the source in English.[[User:Greyhood|Greyhood]] ([[User talk:Greyhood|talk]]) 16:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
:::::I found source in English: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1139 [[User:C-b90|C-b90]] ([[User talk:C-b90|talk]]) 17:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
::::::Thank you. But see, the problem is that the term ''superpower'' wasn't used in that poll, it was about the most influencial countries in the world. Most editors here wouldn't accept such poll as a proof that China and Russia are superpowers. Though, perhaps, we could start a section called '''Public perception of most influencial countries''' here or in the [[Great power]] article and put the results of that poll there.[[User:Greyhood|Greyhood]] ([[User talk:Greyhood|talk]]) 17:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If you must keep adding the source for 3 superpowers dont cite the vlast article as it is citing an August 22 opinion piece ''The outlook on a triple-superpower world'' in the Christian Science Monitor by Helena Cobban at http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0822/p09s03-coop.html as its source. Instead cite the source article directly.[[User:Driftwoodzebulin|Zebulin]] ([[User talk:Driftwoodzebulin|talk]]) 14:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

:Ok. Thank you. [[User:C-b90|C-b90]] ([[User talk:C-b90|talk]]) 14:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
::Zebulin, the proposed source is an opinion article, and can therefore not be considered as a reliable and neutral source. [[User:Arnoutf|Arnoutf]] ([[User talk:Arnoutf|talk]]) 15:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
:::they were all opinion pieces. I had edited the content to reflect that this source outlined this opinion but server issues blocked the edits so I later dropped the link here so the derivative vlasti article wouldnt continue to be used. opinion pieces can't be used to state flatly that there are 3 superpowers and a single piece certainly doesn't back a section titled "modern superpowers" but it could have been used as an example of a particular source advocating the idea of 3 superpowers.[[User:Driftwoodzebulin|Zebulin]] ([[User talk:Driftwoodzebulin|talk]]) 11:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
::::True for that limited aim they can be used as [[primary source]]. [[User:Arnoutf|Arnoutf]] ([[User talk:Arnoutf|talk]]) 12:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The Superpowers of world are a topic of perpetual debate and will remain as they are connected to patriotism(i.e. my country is best because .... err.. I was born here!) but we all know that isn't the truth so here is my opinion on this topic :

1 Brazil-A country with a very fast growth rate and now it seems that it has finally managed to achieve internal prosperity its now destined to become a major economic power.However it isn't a big military player its military had one of the lowest military investment until recently(1.1% gdp) and its personnel number has remained largely intact (1997-3,14,000 2009-3,69,742).Brazil is a very influential nation in Latin America (and soccer fields) but it doesn't have that much influence out of Latin America.It can be best categorized as a superpower in far far away future.

2 Russia-The country with oh-so-deadly nukes and devil know what kind of flesh eating chemical weapons sure it is suicidal to attack Russia but we are talking of superpowers right?The Russia in my opinion has made huge strides in recent years they have finally regained/re-initiated many of Soviet era programs/research which is a huge achievement.Also,they have improved their world image(goodwill) considerably due to more friendly posture and gained trust of many in EU.The missile defense program was dropped due to their influence.I think they will become a superpower in near future if they succeed in their claims over arctic oil fields and price of fuel keeps rising.

3 India-The India is now the serious contender to superpower status thanks to its growing cultural/economic influence.Though due to its high population growth and consequently low PPP(read:high poverty) its claim is somewhat... diluted.It has been seriously upgrading its military for
some time and it seems to be only country other then USA that likes aircraft carriers.They haven't built an ICBM yet though some may argue that since they have sent a mission to moon they can do it too but we cant take that into account.Their biggest weakness is over-reliance on outsiders for arms supply.Most hardware is bought from Russia and now America has entered the fray.It is established fact that no one sells their cutting-edge weapons so its a big drawback.Their strongest point beside economy is their goodwill as they never seem to threaten anyone which is a huge plus in todays I-can-build-nukes-too world.

4 China-Most commonly cited contender for superpower.It has a strong economy and it has been expanding its military considerably.China has been making big strides in market and is now famous for owning a hell lot of US funds.Though its growth has been impressive its not quite there.Its airforce contains lots of obsolete planes and it is yet to own a aircraft carrier.However its biggest weakness is its government.The hostile attitude towards several nations and proliferation of nuclear technology to Pakistan and North-Korea are something that no responsible nation would attempt.Also the inner unrest (they lead the world in execution),completely state controlled media(read:propaganda),mass infringement of copyright laws and violation of human rights hampers its claim as superpower is not a nation who has x trillion dollars but rather an globally impressive force which people strive to follow.

5 European Union(EU)-A very respectable union which if taken as a whole is clearly a superpower but wait can we take them as whole?
As most of us know EU comprises of 27 nations and is pretty powerful due to immense internal trade and jointly funded military research programs.But what will happen if one of them is attacked?I find it really hard to believe that UK/Germany/France(the most powerful members) are going to enter a war for each other.I mean think of resentment if France is to enter war for Germany.My opinion- Not Gonna Happen.Remember its EU which can be termed "Economic Union".Its rather a marriage of convenience to facilitate internal trade and collaboration.No doubt they are economically and culturally a Superpower but not military wise.

6 USA-The country which we all love,we all hate and we all love to hate.The USA is,despite economic slowdowns,most impressive military in the world and that too by a huge margin.It spends an ungodly amount every year in military expansion/development/research($607 billion the nearest is China with $85 billion a huge difference indeed).Besides it is biggest cultural influence in the world.Every morning we woke up,regardless of whether we live in Asia/Africa/Europe, reading what America is doing or what Obama said about our country/rival country/cat/dog etc.Their media dominates the world.But all is not well and good.America has been terribly affected by global slowdowns and credibility of dollar is being questioned.But the thing which hurt its image as Superpower is ,what we call, military cowboyism .Bombing Afghanistan/Iraq to dirt even when almost no resistance was present and that too on false grounds of possessing WMD when what they were really after was oil is something which ruined America's image as a global leader.Though I don't mean it has lost its superpower status it still is most powerful nation by a huge margin but it is declining or at its best slowly improving while countries like China/India are rapidly growing.So perhaps in far away future we may have other nations besides America as superpower its only a matter of time.

Cheers,
[[User:Swift&amp;silent|Swift&amp;silent]] ([[User talk:Swift&amp;silent|talk]]) 16:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

:Nice analysis. But how should it affect this article or [[Potential superpower]] article? And by the way, human rights in China have nothing to do with its superpower potential. When [[British Empire]], [[Soviet Union]] and [[United States]] were rising to power, the situation with the human rights in these countries was terrible (in modern understanding).[[User:Greyhood|Greyhood]] ([[User talk:Greyhood|talk]]) 16:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

:I was just following wiki guidelines step 1- Gain consensus (here my point is importance shall be given to Military/Economy AND Culture) Step 2-Edit\discuss/edit.Are you suggesting I should have edited article without discussion?
:I believe that Soviet era definition of superpower is no longer applicable.In those days the term basically stood for a country which possessed nuclear weapon and a big army but nowadays even little dictatorships like North-korea can gain nuclear weapons so in my humble opinion its no longer the case.Today culture and economy are at least as important as military.Also I must say that I completely disagree with your view that "human rights have nothing to do with superpower status" because nowadays superpowers are more of a globally influencing icons unlike our classic hack and slash British empire.

Cheers,
[[User:Swift&amp;silent|Swift&amp;silent]] ([[User talk:Swift&amp;silent|talk]]) 19:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
::But what do you propose, fellow? Before gaining consensus on something you should state what you want to change. And you just have expressed your opinion on potential superpowers and the fate of USA. But no clear proposals regarding the article.[[User:Greyhood|Greyhood]] ([[User talk:Greyhood|talk]]) 19:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

:What i propose is
Brazil is not a potential superpower it is rather an Economic power unless the term 'potential' stands for 25+ years.
EU can not be included in Superpower list neither current nor potential as it is ,in its essence, an economic union.
Some people have said USA isn't a superpower but this is still far from truth.Perhaps in near future...
And most importantly what I wanted to say is-We cant ignore the cultural aspect.We simply can't carry on the age old philosophy of military/economic superpower in modern world.What good does USA military did when it invaded other countries?We no longer can expect military to conquer capital and citizens to accept new ruler/administration as it used to happen in the past.So yeah I think cultural influence is an important factor.

cheers,
[[User:Swift&amp;silent|Swift&amp;silent]] ([[User talk:Swift&amp;silent|talk]]) 05:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
:Once again you make no specific proposals regarding the article, but only express your opinion. And look, both the Brazil and EU potential superpowerdom is supported by academic sources - which is the main basis of IR articles in Wikipedia, not personal opinions. Of course, if you find some academic sources that support some of your views, you are very much welcome to add them.[[User:Greyhood|Greyhood]] ([[User talk:Greyhood|talk]]) 12:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


::[[WP:Don't feed the trolls]]. No reliable academic source claims anyone other than the United States to be a superpower between 1991-present. Simple as that. [[WP:No original research]]. There is already an article on [[potential superpowers]]. You may have your own opinions as to who is or isn't a superpower but this is an encyclopaedia and not a forum for you to voice those opinions. [[WP:Wikipedia is not a soapbox]]. I'll also add a personal note that if a country (Russia) whose nominal GDP and military expenditure struggle to get in the top 10 and is not even 20% that of the United States' nominal GDP and military expenditure then all other countries who rank higher than or similarly to that country (this case Russia) in terms of nominal GDP and/or military expenditure could also claim to be superpowers, such as: France, United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Italy, and so on. That's why it's a non-starter. No offence to Spain, but a country (Russia) whose nominal GDP is the same size as Spain's cannot be considered a superpower. Or should we now be considering including Spain as a superpower too? For any country to be a superpower its nominal GDP would have to be at least larger than Japan's, who is itself a great power and not a superpower. A would be superpower cannot have a nominal GDP smaller or similarly sized to that of a great power or else it itself is also a great power, let alone a nominal GDP smaller or similarly sized to that of a middle power. [[User:Bambuway|Bambuway]] ([[User talk:Bambuway|talk]]) 16:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

::Where did it said that Russia is a superpower?When did it said US is not a superpower??
::@Bambuway You yourself say we are all entitled to our own opinions.It wasnt like I talked about cake recipe on a superpower article.
::Ofcourse original research is not allowed but you are saying since Russia has GDP similar to Spain it cant be a superpower.Dont you think it is your original research and personal opinion?
::PS:I dont have any problem with your opinion we are all entitled to free thoughts.
::PPS:Would you kindly cite source for your claim that "For any country to be a superpower its nominal GDP would have to be at least larger than Japan's"
:::Cheers,
:::[[User:Swift&amp;silent|Swift&amp;silent]] ([[User talk:Swift&amp;silent|talk]]) 11:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

:::I do not agree with that, Russia is already a superpower or in the tip of a superpower. Just one month ago Russia has purchased 5 new fully loaded aircraft carriers and 7 being built in the next 9 years. Building as they are doing, you have to have a lot of money, especially Russia having more than 74 nuclear warhead submarines in operation, that's more than the US has. The GDP is also a lot different than Spain and lets remember, Spain does not have a Superpower miltary, they have nothing. Second a GDP is not what the US generals think, a country that can destory the world with its own aresenals is a superpower as only 2 countries can do that, Russia and the US. When you consider how many nuclear arsenals Russia has it is astonishing to know that many they have over the US, no wonder why Obama wants to decrease the Star Treaty Act on nuclear weapons with Russia, they have too many in operation. Scary stuff as NATO is breaking off the old Soviet borders of expansion to ease off Russia because Ukraine and Georgia have been rejected membership permanently. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/66.215.55.224|66.215.55.224]] ([[User talk:66.215.55.224|talk]]) 11:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Im pretty sure that if Spain or any other of european major countries remove free health care and use all of that money to make nuclear arsenals, they would have twice as military power as Russia.
In today's world, war is not possible because mutual destruction is assured. So a superpower cannot be so just because it has a lot of nuclear bombs. A country like Israel could destroy every human being in Russia in 30 minutes, yet Israel is not a superpower. It is the influence on other countries that determine if a country is a superpower. Russia has got influence in energy affairs, and even internal affairs of eastern european countries, kazajstan, etc. But the decisions russia makes cannot be felt in western europe, america, or australia. By the way, the article is british biased with phrases like "the largest the world has ever seen", etc. [[Special:Contributions/213.98.229.216|213.98.229.216]] ([[User talk:213.98.229.216|talk]]) 15:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
: Being able to destroy the world is not enough. Being able to project global military, economic, and political influence must all be met. And if Russia closes it oil delivery to the EU (because of conflict with Ukrain) as they threatened to do today that is economic influence over Europe.[[User:Arnoutf|Arnoutf]] ([[User talk:Arnoutf|talk]]) 16:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Isreal cannot destroy the world with its arsenal, maybe a country (not Russia, too big) but not the entire world. When you can wipe it away with 1/4 your arsenal less than 30 minutes, sorry but the west as much to fear with Russia's military capabilities. If you hear the US generals claiming what makes a superpower and what doesn't, Isreal would need the rest of the middle east which is not going to happen. Russia and the US are the only 2 country that have superpower capabilities. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/71.9.52.67|71.9.52.67]] ([[User talk:71.9.52.67|talk]]) 01:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== New York Stock Exchange ==

I propose the New York Stock Exchange image be removed from this page. The picture of an enormous American flag, accompanied by smaller American flags on the front of a building is not relevant to the section. [[User:B. Fairbairn|B. Fairbairn]] ([[User talk:B. Fairbairn|talk]]) 09:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


{{old move|date=7 June 2024|destination=Superpower (politics)|result=no consensus|link=Special:Permalink/1229440734#Requested move 7 June 2024}}
:It is completely relevant. Please stop removing it without consensus. Economic power is as much a characteristic of a superpower as military power is. Therefore there are two images, one depicting economic power of a superpower and another image depicting military power of a superpower. A picture of a stock exchange is the most representitive when representing nominal GDP and world reserve currency. The New York Stock Exchange is the only stock exchange of a superpower and therefore the only stock exchange which should be used to represent the economic power characteristic so to not confuse or mislead readers. The only problem you seem to have is "an enormous American flag" being in the picture. The New York Stock Exchange always has "an enormous American flag" outside these days and I see no reason why this should be a problem. After all, the United States is the only superpower anyway. Perhaps your problem is with this rather than the image. [[User:Bambuway|Bambuway]] ([[User talk:Bambuway|talk]]) 02:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


== American overseas military map graphic - Should be altered? ==
::I managed to find an image without the large US flag covering the front of the New York Stock Exchange. I really shouldn't have had to replace the image just because of a big flag. It's one of the most pathetic reasons for not having an image I've ever heard. Personally, I'm not sure if this new image really represents the New York Stock Exchange properly as it always has a large US flag covering its exterior nowadays. I think it's basically just anti-American POV that the image shouldn't include the flag, having to go to lengths to find an image without it.[[User:Bambuway|Bambuway]] ([[User talk:Bambuway|talk]]) 03:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The graphic overstates the extend of American military hegemony. For instance, Brazil is colored - but there are only 27 military personnel stationed there, which is more of a diplomatic or training mission than a superpower projection.
:::While I agree a stock exchange is "a possible" symbol of economic power, it is the institution, not the building that hold this power. Leading back to the question why this rather uninteresting building is featured. [[User:Arnoutf|Arnoutf]] ([[User talk:Arnoutf|talk]]) 18:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


I think the map should only highlight countries with at least 100, or 500, or 1000 stationed personnel.
==Has anyone found academic research defining A modern superpower based on it's GDP and Population?==
<blockquote>
''"A superpower is a state with a leading position in the international system and the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests; it is traditionally considered to be one step higher than a great power."''
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
''"Alice Lyman Miller (Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School), defines a superpower as "a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time, and so may plausibly attain the status of global hegemon."''
</blockquote>


I'm getting the numbers from this German media report which details personnel numbers across the world:
Is there academic research defining a modern superpower based on it's economic dominance in the global market place? Defined by it's [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) GDP]] and [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population Population]]? Has it been considered that the definition of a superpower in today's world could be based on population and [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product gross domestic product]] of any given country? [http://www.livescience.com/culture/080815-china-as-superpower.html Will China Become the No. 1 Superpower?]
https://kritisches-netzwerk.de/sites/default/files/us_department_of_defense_-_base_structure_report_fiscal_year_2015_baseline_-_as_of_30_sept_2014_-_a_summary_of_the_real_property_inventory_-_206_pages.pdf


I propose that Honduras, Brazil, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Bulgaria, Greece, Philippines, and Australia should not be colored on the map due to low personnel sizes based on the figures in the aforementioned report.
Also it appears that the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower#Characteristics Characteristics]] focus within this article is based on US military and stock exchange (NY). Article portrays little in regards to the other countries with similar capabilities. Maybe China should be considered in the same light to maintain neutrality, though a clear 'modern' definition of today's superpower status would need to be clarified first.


== Unilateral edition ==
Someone edited the part about emerging superpowers and decided to delete informations about Brazil and the image showing potential superpowers was substituted without any discussion about it. Personal feelings are not determinants in Wikipedia, at least it shouldn’t be.


== Merge proposal: Potential superpower ==
--[[User:Netsight|Netsight]] ([[User talk:Netsight|talk]]) 20:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
{{Discussion top|result=To '''not''' merge, given that a merge would unbalance the target. It is agreed that a joint article would not be [[WP:TOOLONG]]. [[User:Klbrain|Klbrain]] ([[User talk:Klbrain|talk]]) 09:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)}}
Following the merge of superpower collapse and superpower disengagement, I believe the page [[Potential superpower]] could be merged into superpower. I don't believe there is enough difference to justify the two distinct pages. Merging them would improve the main superpower page significantly. The content can be put into the existing section of the same name. [[User:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:grey">GeogSage</span>]] <sup> ([[User talk:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:grey">⚔Chat?⚔</span>]]) </sup> 22:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
: '''Support.''' There's no reason to have two separate articles on basically the same subject. It dilutes editor efforts and results in lower quality articles. [[User:Thenightaway|Thenightaway]] ([[User talk:Thenightaway|talk]]) 23:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' - Unless you're also suggesting large-scales reductions in detail the merged article is likely to be too long to be easily navigable. [[User:Rambling Rambler|Rambling Rambler]] ([[User talk:Rambling Rambler|talk]]) 13:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
::'''Comment'''- If the merge is accepted, I would encourage any editor to help boil down the merged section to remove redundant information and keep the page navigable. [[User:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:grey">GeogSage</span>]] <sup> ([[User talk:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:grey">⚔Chat?⚔</span>]]) </sup> 02:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Vastly different topics. [[User:REDISCOVERBHARAT|REDISCOVERBHARAT]] ([[User talk:REDISCOVERBHARAT|talk]]) 07:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


:*'''Support''', Upon inspection, both articles may cover different information, but there are some similarities. [[WP:OVERLAP]] may have to do with this.
:[[Special:Contributions/148.222.132.74|148.222.132.74]] ([[User talk:148.222.132.74|talk]]) 03:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' - It does not appear to me that ''potential superpower'' is recognized by sources a distinct enough concept to merit a distinct article. [[User:Jno.skinner|Jno.skinner]] ([[User talk:Jno.skinner|talk]]) 06:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Strong Oppose'''- Per arguments listed above. These are different topics. [[User:Archives908|Archives908]] ([[User talk:Archives908|talk]]) 23:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
*:*'''Comment''' per arguments listed above, do you have sources that assert this is a distinct enough concept to merit a distinct article?
*:[[User:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:grey">GeogSage</span>]] <sup> ([[User talk:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:grey">⚔Chat?⚔</span>]]) </sup> 23:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)


:'''Oppose'''. Not because they are vastly different topics (yes, they are different concepts, but they are not that different so that they couldn't be merged), but because the "Potential superpower" article is so detailed and long and contains so many references that it would either bloat the other article or lose a lot of depth; I don't think it could be shortened to an adequate length where it could be merged without losing much background information. Also, the article is very likely to become even larger in the future, e.g., when other countries become candidates for potential superpowers or countries lose their status as a potential superpower and would therefore be moved into the "Former candidates" section and commonly cited reasons for their downfall would be given. [[User:Maxeto0910|Maxeto0910]] ([[User talk:Maxeto0910|talk]]) 21:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
== 1800s superpowers ==
:[[WP:SIZESPLIT]] arguments are lacking in detail.
Little infomation on super powers during this period.
:[[Potential superpower]] is 1500 words and [[Superpower]] 3542. Combined they'd be 5042. That's less than the 6,000 minimum for justifying splitting. Even then, 6,000 is a lower bound suggestion; beginning from 8,000 it becomes a firmer recommendation.
:Size split argument could go either way I think. I don't think what will or won't be a superpower will change so quickly that we should anticipate a significant expansion in either article. Imo what should be the deciding factor is how distinct of topics they are. [[User:seefooddiet|seefooddiet]] ([[User talk:seefooddiet|talk]]) 12:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
::When I wrote that merging the article would "bloat the other article", I was not referring to the total length; I rather meant that the merged content, when keeping the detailed descriptions, would make up a disproportionately large part of the article, thus already justifying its own article for better clarity, even considering that they are not vastly different topics. As for my argument that the "Potential superpower" article will become larger in the future, I can already see reliable sources coming up in the next few months or years with the idea that Russia is not a potential superpower anymore, which would mean we'd have to put it in the former candidates section, along with Japan, and add commonly cited reasons for why Russia is usually not seen as a potential superpower anymore or why its status is at least contested by academics. If we merged the article, that would mean that this article would cover three topics: The history of superpowers, potential superpowers, and former potential superpowers (including countries whose status as a potential superpower is heavily debated, such as perhaps Russia or even Brazil in the future). I don't think that's a concise solution. [[User:Maxeto0910|Maxeto0910]] ([[User talk:Maxeto0910|talk]]) 08:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
{{Discussion top}}

Latest revision as of 09:52, 16 November 2024

American overseas military map graphic - Should be altered?

[edit]

The graphic overstates the extend of American military hegemony. For instance, Brazil is colored - but there are only 27 military personnel stationed there, which is more of a diplomatic or training mission than a superpower projection.

I think the map should only highlight countries with at least 100, or 500, or 1000 stationed personnel.

I'm getting the numbers from this German media report which details personnel numbers across the world: https://kritisches-netzwerk.de/sites/default/files/us_department_of_defense_-_base_structure_report_fiscal_year_2015_baseline_-_as_of_30_sept_2014_-_a_summary_of_the_real_property_inventory_-_206_pages.pdf

I propose that Honduras, Brazil, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Bulgaria, Greece, Philippines, and Australia should not be colored on the map due to low personnel sizes based on the figures in the aforementioned report.

Unilateral edition

[edit]

Someone edited the part about emerging superpowers and decided to delete informations about Brazil and the image showing potential superpowers was substituted without any discussion about it. Personal feelings are not determinants in Wikipedia, at least it shouldn’t be.

Merge proposal: Potential superpower

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge, given that a merge would unbalance the target. It is agreed that a joint article would not be WP:TOOLONG. Klbrain (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following the merge of superpower collapse and superpower disengagement, I believe the page Potential superpower could be merged into superpower. I don't believe there is enough difference to justify the two distinct pages. Merging them would improve the main superpower page significantly. The content can be put into the existing section of the same name. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There's no reason to have two separate articles on basically the same subject. It dilutes editor efforts and results in lower quality articles. Thenightaway (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unless you're also suggesting large-scales reductions in detail the merged article is likely to be too long to be easily navigable. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- If the merge is accepted, I would encourage any editor to help boil down the merged section to remove redundant information and keep the page navigable. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Upon inspection, both articles may cover different information, but there are some similarities. WP:OVERLAP may have to do with this.
148.222.132.74 (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It does not appear to me that potential superpower is recognized by sources a distinct enough concept to merit a distinct article. Jno.skinner (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not because they are vastly different topics (yes, they are different concepts, but they are not that different so that they couldn't be merged), but because the "Potential superpower" article is so detailed and long and contains so many references that it would either bloat the other article or lose a lot of depth; I don't think it could be shortened to an adequate length where it could be merged without losing much background information. Also, the article is very likely to become even larger in the future, e.g., when other countries become candidates for potential superpowers or countries lose their status as a potential superpower and would therefore be moved into the "Former candidates" section and commonly cited reasons for their downfall would be given. Maxeto0910 (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIZESPLIT arguments are lacking in detail.
Potential superpower is 1500 words and Superpower 3542. Combined they'd be 5042. That's less than the 6,000 minimum for justifying splitting. Even then, 6,000 is a lower bound suggestion; beginning from 8,000 it becomes a firmer recommendation.
Size split argument could go either way I think. I don't think what will or won't be a superpower will change so quickly that we should anticipate a significant expansion in either article. Imo what should be the deciding factor is how distinct of topics they are. seefooddiet (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I wrote that merging the article would "bloat the other article", I was not referring to the total length; I rather meant that the merged content, when keeping the detailed descriptions, would make up a disproportionately large part of the article, thus already justifying its own article for better clarity, even considering that they are not vastly different topics. As for my argument that the "Potential superpower" article will become larger in the future, I can already see reliable sources coming up in the next few months or years with the idea that Russia is not a potential superpower anymore, which would mean we'd have to put it in the former candidates section, along with Japan, and add commonly cited reasons for why Russia is usually not seen as a potential superpower anymore or why its status is at least contested by academics. If we merged the article, that would mean that this article would cover three topics: The history of superpowers, potential superpowers, and former potential superpowers (including countries whose status as a potential superpower is heavily debated, such as perhaps Russia or even Brazil in the future). I don't think that's a concise solution. Maxeto0910 (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Superpower&oldid=1257723137"