Talk:Superpower

For older discussion, see archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

NOTE: Brazil and the word "superpower"

While there are references in the media to Brazil as a food superpower or energy superpower, that casual use of the word "superpower" (meaning roughly "a world leader in" that category) should not be confused with categorizing the nation as a superpower. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

68.143.88.2's (January 15 2009) "Restoring ... to ... former glory" edit

It would seem reasonable in a collaborative environment, that if someone wishes to return an article to a previous state, that they give a better rational than "Restoring article to it's former glory" and a POV accusation of edits since that time. ("Now if people would stop POV pushing that would be great").

• Please specify when such "former glory" state was achieved, so it can be determined how many editors work is being dismissed as POV.

• Please not revert to 68.143.88.2's "former glory" version (again) without discussion here.

Proofreader77 (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the so called "former glory" version. It doesn't go into much detail about actual charactereistics of a superpower, but rather potential superpowers, which there is an entire article for already. Plus this sentence China and India appear to have the greatest potential amongst all the other nations of achieving superpower or near-superpower status within the 21st century and are often termed as emerging superpowers. is not true. As EU, China, India, and Russia are all considered potential superpower, with one's own potential is not greater then the other. The "former glory" also lacks many sources for many of the points compared to the current version. Also, to the POV pushing, that's never going to stop. There's people from all over the world that think there's another superpower or that their own country is a superpower, and they're going to push for it. Even if we go to the same so called "former glory" version, there's still going to be POV pushing whether you like it or not. Deavenger (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

USA GLOBAL DEBT

Usa global debt(private+public) /gdp is about 900% (for istance in EU is 140%).The public debt(considering as well FNM and FRE-check Wikipedia)/gdp is about 140%(like Jamaica or Lebanon).How can Usa to be defined superpower when debts are out of control and all the world (Russia,EU,China) has money to control them and weapons to cancel them? Only a very good imagination can consider at the moment Usa a supepower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.60.119.15 (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to do more research on the subject on debt? Russia and china have weapons to control them? USA has a way more advance weapons to control the debt, and that's not imagination. Not too mention, no body will control the debt, as the U.S is the single most important country to the world's economy, and if something happens to the U.S's economy, something is going to happen the world's economy. Deavenger (talk) 05:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Russia/China/Eu could harm the US by canceling our debt??? The only ones hurt in that scenario would be Russia/China/Eu, dumbass. Third World countries have had their debts cancelled in the past--this was done to HELP them--the countries canceling the debt are the ones put out. If your credit card company cancels your debt who gets screwed here, you or the company? Hey, go ahead and cancel our debt!!! P.S. If the EU is such a strong, stable, single nation, why are so many people in the various EU nations debating LEAVING the EU, or at least looking for "opt-outs"?? You think these ppl want to have a single entity in Brussels with the ability to draft them for a EU war(much less a war with the US?), or to tax them all directly from Brussel or give them direction from there??? So much for the EU being ONE nation. Let me know in a few decades if and when you've solved those issues. P.S.S. If the EU doesn't have the guts to send even a single divisional strength unit to Afghanistan, and if EU nations like the UK debate leaving the war in Afghanistan just because they suffer a WHOPPING 15 KIA's in a month, where the hell would they get the guts to take on the US? And if they had the guts, would they launch an invasion the of US with their 4 small aircraft carriers (and what makes you think Britain and France would let the EU borrow theirs?)? 68.164.5.236 (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This is only a theory that MUST be shown.We can say that Usa are TODAY a NORMAL nation by several official datas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.60.117.238 (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And the fact that you're saying that USA today is a NORMAL nation is still a theory as there are still equal amounts of academics saying that U.S is a superpower, despite the financial crisis, and there are the usual who say U.S is not a superpower. Deavenger (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

IF THE US ISN'T TO BE CONSIDERED A SUPERPOWER NOW, WHAT IS A SUPERPOWER??? Regardless of debt (we've had debt before), the US still has the highest GDP of any nation (sorry, the EU is only a nation on paper--besides, when asked, most Europeans don't consider the EU to be their nation!), it has the biggest, most powerful, technologically advanced and trained military (and has more than enough nukes to blow apart the entire planet), it has by far the world's biggest navy (a blue water navy with 12 active carriers--and more in mothballs--that enables the US to project its power anywhere), it has bases all over the world, thus enabling it to reach ANYPLACE with it's military (something NO OTHER NATION CAN DO), it has bombers that can hit anyplace on Earth (something no other nation can do), it has allies all over the world (and has mutual defense treaties with many of them, not to mention troops in their countries), it's the foremost country in NATO (thus giving it a foot in the door of the EU, where it has thousands of soldiers, airmen, and seamen stationed anyway), it's culture (music, television, cinema, modern architecture, fashion, Jeff Spicoli leisurely attitude, etc..), whether one likes it or not, permeates every pore of the planet, its economy has insinuated itself into almost every country (and no major country could go to war with it without having their stock market crash), it has a veto on the Security Council, its currency IS THE WORLD'S reserve currency, it still has more diplomatic pull in the world than any other country (as is evidenced by its being able to pull other nations into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan even when the populace of those nations were against those wars), it is agriculturally self-sufficient (and if it withheld it's agriculture, dozens of nations would drop dead from starvation), it is resource-wise virtually self-sufficient (and for resources it could use more of, its military has been positioned, and companies positioned, to secure the use of whatever it needs, as well as denying resources to those who are enemies--no other nation can claim this, and unlike the EU, China, and India it is not at the mercy of foreign oil supplies, for at least the US has the ability to immediately seize oil supplies in the Persian Gulf or Venezuela, whereas those nations can't!), it has the third largest population and is growing every year (without having to deal with the problems of overpopulation like China and India do), it has the most prominent universities on the planet (and benefits from the brains of citizens who come from all over the world), it has most of the biggest companies in the world (sure, there may be a recession, but the US has survived much worse in the past), it has THE MOST CULTURALLY DIVERSE POPULATION OF ANY NATION, it has a unified national narrative and mythology (which is more important than one may think, and the EU sure has heck doesn't have a unified culture or sense of purpose), the Bush years notwithstanding, the US still has a positive message to the world (something China and Russia sure as hell don't have), it has the world's foremost Space Program, and it is in the top-tier of technological research. For proof of the US's power, consider how it's at war in a completely landlocked Afghanistan (and of how it invaded), where it still hasn't had a draft (and still has thousands of soldiers in non-warzone areas like Korea, Europe, Latin America, etc.), and is using bases that are all in former Soviet countries, and thus in Russia's sphere of influence, and Russia isn't exactly friendly to the US. Could the EU, China, Russia, India conduct large scale military operations thousands of miles away from home in another hemisphere, for years, like the US has done like this? Don't think so. If the US ain't a superpower, than the word "superpower" simply doesn't have a meaning. (Oh, for those snipers who would like to point out the fact that the War in Afghanistan is still going on, keep in mind that the US hasn't had a draft, the conventional part of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan was phenomenally successful--never before in history has a military so thoroughly wiped out another nations army with such small losses, and that if it wasn't for trying to win "hearts & minds" the insurgency in both countries would have ended years ago). Sorry, not trying to be Captain America here (I hate Bush and am an internationalist), but some of you America-Bashers here need a bit of truth. Besides, is the need to spite America really worth going back to a multipolar world? All multipolarity has done was bring the world Global War. Do any of you really think that world peace would best be created by having the US, EU, Russia, China, India, and maybe Brazil and Indonesia ALL superpowers???? That sounds like a recipe for WWIII.68.164.5.236 (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot af people is talking about EU or China as superpowers.This is the demonstration that talking of superpower today is impossible and telling that Usa is a superpower ridicolous considering economic (and not only us financial) crisis and the growing power in military sectors of EU and China.(in many many sectors they are superior in number and technology to Usa).For istance if Usa attack EU the same Usa would disappear for nuclear answer!EU has first economy in the world (check gdp lists) and is a political power linked politically in every sector.How can you consider Usa a superpower in front of this?It's only theory and propaganda to make yourselves and other people surer about Usa. Here in EU telling Usa is a superpower today is a joke.

"Here in EU telling Usa is a superpower today is a joke." Really? Well, then how is it that the US has thousands of troops in the EU, and has EU nations FIGHTING FOR THE US in Afghanistan (and before in Iraq), and the EU doesn't have ANY troops in the United States? Whose the real "bitch" here? Go fetch Fido!68.164.2.38 (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Mr. Anomymous IP, the EU is not a unified entity. The EU lacks a unified foreign policy. You state that "For istance if Usa attack EU the same Usa would disappear for nuclear answer!" I don't know where to begin. This isn't intelligent of even coherent. Second, you don't seem to realize that the EU is not a single entity that the U.S. could declare war upon. Furhermore, your scenario of the US and EU going to war is ludicrous. Also, although the EU as a whole has a slightly larger economy than the United States, an essential aspect of a single economy is a unified currency. The Eurozone itself has a smaller economy than the United States. America and Europe have been joined under NATO, as well as steadfast allies. In addition, though you claim "a lot af people" claim the US isn't a superpower, here at Wikipedia, we only use reliable, academic sources, not POV and original research. The next time you spout off your unsubstantiated theories, bring solid, academic proof of the claimns you make. --Hobie (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Unless accredited sources can be provided passing Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability it is just WP:OR and WP:SYN -- Phoenix (talk) 05:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

EU is a political being (check Wikipedia).It's the first power in the world considering economy(check Wikipedia) and many other datas in all sectors.The speaking of Usa nationalist in EU it's a joke today.EU laws about defence are more important than Nato agrrements.It's valid now EU first and not Nato first in an attack.For istance if Usa attack Spain suddenly would have against all EU armies (conventional and non conventional!).You are served!

 Oooo, I'm scared!!! Good luck trying to organize and coordinate the military operations, supplies, and command and control 
 of 27 EU nations to fight the USA (especially since many nations, especially the UK and Poland) would not fight the US (and  
 nations like IReland, and some of the Scandanavian/Baltic countries would refuse to fight on general principal). Oh, what 
 about all those thousands of US troops already Europe, especially Germany, and all those US naval and air bases (check that 
 out on Wiki)? Anyway, some EU nations have very peacenique Socialist governments, and even if not in power, these groups 
 are very well represented in the EU. You really think these groups and the Greens would be for a EU-US war? OH, 
 HOW WILL YOU COORDINATE THE ACTIONS OF MILITARY UNITS USING 27 DIFFERENT LANGUAGES??? You make me 
 laugh. Please keep the idiotic statements coming, for you amuse me.68.164.5.236 (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

EU is an indipendent political being (from Nato or whatelse)It's superpower.Today everybody has weapons but nobody has so much money and low debts like EU(neither the so mentioned China).EU global debt/gdp 140% vs Usa global debt/ gdp 862%.I think looking at this ,a new answer is PATHETIC! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.60.118.98 (talk) 10:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Spain and Italy have one of the largest economies in the world, yet, they are not considered great powers. Lets see, by October 2008, America had a global debt of 13 trillion dollars. Just taking UK and Germany from the EU, their debt exceeded America, and I didn't even bother adding France, Italy, Spain, or other EU member countries.

Oh yeah. Since so many countries in the EU are part of NATO, they won't be able to do anything, as NATO countries don't attack other NATO countries. So, the other EU member countries will be doing what all countries do when war comes, try to push for peace.

And here's something what's pathetic, it takes 27 countries just to be able to beat America's economy, and they just barely beat it. Plus, while America is in recession, all the major EU countries with the exception of France (unofficial recession) are in recession, along with some little ones. And last time I checked, a majority of the EU countries are working by themselves to get out of the financial crisis, like UK and Germany. And like other users were saying, bring back some sources. And one of the guys is from an EU member country. Deavenger (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the funny thing. Since the EU is so big on the power of the UN (except when it doesn't suit them--see the Bosnian intervention), to attack the US they would need the okay of the Security Council, which the US would veto. Ooops! Besides if the EU attacked the US, the ICC in the Hague would immediately indict all the leaders of the EU, for that would be a "War of Aggression", wouldn't it?68.164.5.236 (talk) 03:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

EU gdp is 35% more than Usa gdp.EU has its own defense system that is over Nato system agreement.You are describing a situation of '70's.All the modern world knows that EU is the main power today. In April in fact your chief (mr Obama) will come to EU and not EU President to Usa.You like a EU divided but EU treaties cancel your wishes and Nato weight.Don't worry Usa debts are all there :global debt/gdp 900%!A very pathetic situation!

Actually, the US does NOT want a divided EU--indeed the US has given its blessing numerous times when the EEC was becoming the EU. And if it wasn't for the US political/military/economic power giving Europe stability and protection (and allowing Europe to spend its money on social welfare programs) since 1945, THERE WOULDN'T BE A EU TODAY. If you guys had any honor, you'd pay us back a little for all this.68.164.2.38 (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

First off, it's a real shame that just because of the Bush administration, rabid anti-American EU-Nazis could go so overboard as to completely start viewing the US as your enemy (if it wasn't for us bailing out and feeding Europe after both world wars your whole continent would be a stinking corpse, and if it wasn't for our troops you'd either be suburbs of the Third Reich and Greater Germany or you'd all be living la vida loca was one big, fun-loving Stalinist paradise). Thanks for the gratitude, asswipes! Your EU "President" has a term for 6 months and has no real authority to do a damn thing (and your former Czech President WAS FOR DISMANTLING THE EU!!!), Bozo. Second, nations of the EU HOLD much of the US debt--if the US debt causes the US to go under, THE WORLD GOES UNDER (besides why don't you actually read up on debt, moron)! Third, if the EU and US went to war--which is utterly ludicrous--many of the EU nations would not fight--and even if they did fight, what with (not to mention we could totally wipe out Europe with nukes)???? If Russia were to attack a EU nation in Eastern Europe, THE EU WOULDN'T DO A FRIGGIN' THING IDIOT, THAT'S WHY THEY (ESPECIALLY GERMANY AND FRANCE) DON'T WANT THE UKRAINE TO BE IN EITHER THE EU OR NATO. The EU is the ultimate paper tiger and will always be that way (cause if the EU had any honor or real power, they wouldn't have sat still and said nothing while Russian generals in the last year threatened Poland with nuclear destruction over their proposed missile defense bases--great job sticking up for a fellow nation, buttholes!). Have you ever wondered why NATO still exists and why the Eastern European nations want to join it? They join because they know the EU is weak, spineless, and Westro-Centric, and if they got in trouble with Russia, only the US (and the UK) would have the guts and the integrity to defend them. NATO still exists, and almost all main EU nations support it (and France has rejoined the Command part of it), because those EU nations know that in reality, the EU HAS NO CREDIBLE COMMON DEFENSE STRATEGY OR CAPABILITY! Oh, take a look at the GDP projections on Wikipedia (the US will have a GREATER GDP THAN THE EU before the century is out, largely due to the fact that virtually your entire continent has a negative population growth rate, while the US will keep growing and becoming ever more multi-cultural, something that will give the US more sympathy in the world than the EU, which is basically a land of white people). Have fun with that fact. Besides why are you so keen to have Europe as a Superpower? So Europe can go back on the world scene, like it did with impunity before 1945, and push other countries around? Believe me, the world has had enough of Europe and their penchant for World War and mass-murder. Go back and pass some more resolutions in Strasbourg, see if anybody actually gives a good goddamn. PRINT THIS OUT AND TAKE A LOOK AT THIS IN 20 YEARS--THE USA WILL STILL BE A SUPERPOWER AND THE EU WILL STILL BE FRACTURED AND RIDING OUR COATTAILS. 68.164.5.236 (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If everybody knows this do you have any academic accredited sources can be provided (passing Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability) that you can bring to the conversation? -- Phoenix (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You can check this in Wikipedia (for istance "Global debt Usa" and similar)or other official sites or several international financial societies.Before than writing on Usa people has always to think twice and read MORE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.60.117.13 (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

According to wikipedia, wikipedia is not a reliable source. Do you have anything that can be backed up that is an academic and accredited source that will pass Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability? -- Phoenix (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You can check UBS datas on Usa or other finacial societies. You can ask at any SERIOUS economical accademies.The numbers are always the same.The global debt (private+public )/gdp in Usa is 900% while in EU 140%. Go and ask instead of wrting about thing known.If you come to EU and talk about Usa like a "superpower" people think you are telling a joke.We must be honest and serious an live on the Earth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.60.116.67 (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

And when you come back to earth, only a few academics say that the EU is a superpower, yet they say that the U.S is still a superpower. And the guy Phoenix is from the EU, and at my school, all but 1 of the 10 exchange students are from the EU, and from talking with all of them, none seem to say that the EU is a superpower, and they all say US is a superpower. And if debt was such a serious thing, there would be no superpower. Just ask any SERIOUS economist or political scientist. Deavenger (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that you need to read the following official policy from wikipedia.

Synthesis of published material which advances a position : Material published by reliable sources can inadvertently be put together in a way that constitutes original research. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.

hope that helps :-) -- Phoenix (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that world has already changed and it's time to change many things in rubbish books too old.There are A LOT of official private and public stuidies to check about Usa decadence and economic situtaion.The President of ECB said 2 days ago that Usa situstion is a disaster about these numbers.Only a blind or an actor can't understand it.The number of global debts / gdp 900% in Usa is out of control(EU 140%).In the next months with new worse numbers to make you understand (because you understand but you act like american actors)i ' ll turn the knife in the hurt.You are facing leaving word superpower about Usa (the only true superpower is EU!) a tragicomical situation. - unsigned comment from someone...

That would be great... if the European Union was a Country. Thats like arguing that the UN is the biggest superpower. If we were to acknowledge that, then we should have athletes competing under the EU during the Olympic Games... --Rockstone35 (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

EU is the first political power as political being.Check all datas.You can see the men of EU at UN ,G8,G20 ,everywhere.Under EU there all the political sectors from economy to defense.I think people dislikes the world power that overtakes their own ideas. Check plase EU Wikipedia site or better EU official site.There also a EU site where are cosidered for istance all the medals won by EU contries at the Olympic Games...EU beats also in sports USA!Sorry!WORLDPOWER27 (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The EU is not a country, therefore it is not a superpower. You are ignoring my argument. Second, the USA could still crush the EU without thought if it wanted. Example: In NATO (which most EU countries are in) More than 50% of it's military power is directly from US forces. --Rockstone35 (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

In EU there are weapons to cancel Usa.EU is the greatest political being in the world.To be a superpower isn't at all necessary to be a nation today.In EU there are nukes able to cancel Usa in few seconds.France and UK above all have nukes on rockets launched also from submarines and other kind of weapons. The most part of Nato today is composed by european armies that are under the EU Defence Ministery PESD.All over EU weapons is valid the law EU "first" (Nato second).Wake up ,Usa have lost they're position since several years.They talk about China or India because it's easy beating them ,but Usa know that it's impossible to beat EU without their suicide in the military or economical point of view!WORLDPOWER27 (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be very easy to track and sink the handful of active UK/French SSBN carrying nukes. Once the US did that, the US could nuke Europe at their leisure without suffering a single casualty in the process. Chew on that my impotent friend. Oh, BTW, I notice you said "to be a superpower isn't at all necessary to be a nation today". So you finally admit that the EU isn't a nation? Also, China would be much more difficult to beat in war than the EU, not the other way around. You also need to keep in mind that the only nations in Europe who still have any guts are the UK and Poland (though even the UK is slipping now considering they're thinking of leaving Afghanistan just because they lost 15 soldiers in a month!). The rest of your continent is utterly spineless and is the epitome of cowardice in the world. If the EU were to ever declare war on the US, dozens of European governments would be toppled the next day by peacenique protesters, and the French would probably offer the US a Vichy Agreement just to bring us to the table to let there be peace again. It's funny how so many millions of Europeans died in the last century from war just so spoiled, chest-thumping, America hating weasels like yourself, who have never experienced war, can be so eager to seek out another World War. You're living proof that the EU has no business being a leader on the world scene, for your continent has learned nothing.68.164.2.38 (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There are many more nukes in the USA than in the EU. Most of the NATO army is comprised of US forces. Of course all EU weapons are valid with the EU law, because they are EU weapons. Granted, I'll admit that the USA vs. the EU would likely be the worst war ever fought because both would be a wasteland, but the USA is still on top. --Rockstone35 (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The EU nukes are able to destroy Earth several times.Many US and Russian weapons are unuseful in front of it.They are only a cost to mantain.Russia has the top numbers of nukes but they are unuseful like their huge submarines ,the best in the world.One day not too far Russia will enter in EU.Its destiny is already written. I visited your profile.I think we're very very close as ideas. I'm a conservative catholic too.Pope is the most powerful man in the world and this is our lucky!WORLDPOWER27 (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Only Frace and the UK have nukes, and not many of them, and the UK (and Eastern Europe) has a hell of a lot more military ties with the US than the EU, and they sure as hell wouldn't nuke the US just so impotent Eurotrash like yourself could feel a thrill of vicarious power. The only danger to the world, and to the friendship the US and Europe have, is crap-for-brains morons like yourself. Get some prozac or go get your kicks watching two groups of guys kick a ball up and down a field for two hours--YES! HOW EXCITING! 68.164.5.236 (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As long as Russia has creeps like Vladimir Putin in charge, and is infested with corruption, has internecine war in some of its republics, befriends thug regimes like Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela, SYSTEMATICALLY RIGGS ELECTIONS, has no respect for freedom of the press, MURDERS jounalists/activists critical of the Kremlin, thinks of Eastern Europe as their own personal slave states, RUSSIA WILL NEVER PASS THE LITMUS-TEST TO EVEN BE CONSIDERED FOR EU MEMBERSHIP (nor is Russia anymore even a Superpower, as tiny Italy has a higher GDP than they do). Even if Russia did get its act together, there is no way Germany or France would want to share the power they have in the EU with Russia (AND THERE IS NO WAY RUSSIA WOULD WANT TO GIVE UP CONTROL TO BRUSSELS OR HAVE THE GERMAN CENTRAL BANK (I.E., THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK) BE THEIR CENTRAL BANK. The US has a better chance of merging with the EU in an Atlantic Union, or forming it's own North American Union (provided, of course, Republican idiots don't fuck that up), than Russia joining the EU. 68.164.5.236 (talk) 02:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this very ignorant guy should be cancelled .His datas are false and his talking offensive.Be quiet now Ua are only 2nd after EU.EU states (not only France and UK,but unofficially also other states own nukes produced in EU)have nukes to cancel Earth several timesones are unuseful.EU economy is the first in the world (19 trillions about vs 14 Usa).Please cancel this ridicolous and offensive guy.151.60.119.119 (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The only one who should be canceled is you, for the "data" you present is utter chauvinistic BS. Other EU nations have "unofficial" nukes??? Perhaps you could provide a reference to this piece of nonsense? Besides the UK and France, the only nukes that were ever in Europe were US nukes that, for the sake of law, were temporarily considered to be in "the possession" of the nations in question (like Pershing missiles were technically, temporarily part of the West German defense). This was just a formality, though, for in reality US troops were in sole control of these warheads and the only part that could authorize the use or movement of these warheads was the US military.68.164.1.56 (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The EU isn't officially ranked...mostly because it isn't actually a country but also because it's individual members are all independent countries in their own right. But if it was it would be first, but not by trillions of dollars. No country even ranks in the trillions, they are ranked in millions. Also the EU ranks at $15,247,163 to the US's $14,264,600 according to the International Monetary Fund.

Also, it isn't polite to demand that someone be 'canceled' because they disagree with you, especially when your numbers aren't exactly correct either. 69.132.221.35 (talk) 07:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

EU is a whole political being (check Wikipedia).To be a superpower you mustn't be tightly a nation.Nowhere is written.The EU is the biggest gdp and is a political being (Nafta for istance is only economical).The problem that is hard to accept for a nation or a political being the upgrades of other ones and the downgrade of itself.This is clearer and cleare day by day.The article is updated but to clean as Wikipedia suggest because isn't anymore scientific.the rest is bla bla bla...Time is the best doctor.151.60.117.148 (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is it written you can be a superpower without being a country? Arnoutf (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

A superpower must only be a political being ,not a contry.Roman Empire that i know much better than you wasn't a country...but of course a superpower.The true romans in the high Empire lived in Italy only under the Appennini mountains an the Rubicone river.The rest of the Empire was a poltical being under the Roman laws.There were 2 different realities for who was in Italy and outside of Italy..then if you want to invent superpowers you're free of everithing...a lot of people is knowing more things by me that from critical,disruptive and false sentences.I lost also too much timre for today answering you...151.60.117.148 (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well then according to this theory NATO, the UN, ASEAN, the Latin American Union, etc. are all superpowers, which would be utter nonsense. Sure the Roman Empire, like the British Empire wasn't just one country, yet they were superpowers. The fact was, though, that those empires were driven from a single focal point, for a common array of purposes, and they each had the military, and the will to use that military, to back up all their diplomatic and economic endeavors. The EU DOES NOT have this capability--nor does the will in the EU exist to either want to develop this capability or, much less, to use this capability (heck, EU nations in Afghanistan think of pulling out just because they suffer 3 KIA's in a month!). Actually, this is a good thing, for the world--especially Europe--has suffered great misery when European nations did enjoy military gusto (mostly because they were jingoistic, chest-thumping fools like yourself who felt it was worth while to kills millions just so they could relieve their impotence via war). Sorry, but economic power isn't enough to be a superpower. As a test of this, if Russia were to invade Estonia (an EU nation), and US-led NATO didn't intervene, would the EU itself do anything more about this than file official protests at the UN? To be sure, the eastern European nations would probably have the will to fight back, but would the western European nations? No way in hell. Sorry, but until you guys find a backbone, and stop hiding behind the aegis of the US military, the EU will NEVER be a superpower and it's only a matter of time before the EU's much vaunted "soft power" is shown for the hollow thing it really is (which is why the EU does NOT want the Ukraine in the EU or NATO, because they know that if Russia were to then invade the Ukraine, as they say they would if this happened, the EU would be powerless).68.164.1.56 (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The term superpower was coined in the early 1940's...so the Roman Empire could be considered a superpower...but back in the year 1 AD nobody would have called it that because that word didn't exist. Also the Roman Empire, at it's center, was a country...and that country could be called a superpower going by modern definitions of the word. Anyway according the the article the be a superpower you must be a 'sovereugn state, and the EU isn't a country, all of it's member states are still independent countries able to have their own militaries and defenses and control their own economies. For example the UK still uses the RAF and spends the pound sterling to buy things and it's still part of the EU. 69.132.221.35 (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Do not feed the troll.

No use answering this editor (who has been blocked under many names for this editing). Either you say the US sucks and the EU is the one and only Superpower on earth and be his friend, or you are a pro US propagandist and should not be taken serious. Whatever answer will only support him as being taken seriously. Arnoutf (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

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. Deavenger (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well communist East Germany was called the "German Democratic Republic". So much for names.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".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. --Rockstone35 (talk) 22:55, 5 April 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).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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc900 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

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. Deavenger (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you 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[1] has claimed that Russia has been reborn[2] and has restored it’s county as superpower once again[3]; even during the global recession, Russia still holds on as a reborn superpower[4]. Even the US government[5] [6]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[7] 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.--24.176.171.32 (talk) 23:25, 26 April 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. 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?--24.176.171.32 (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Parag Khanna, [8]. Richard Haass [9], Jeffery Mankoff [10], Fareed Zakaria [11]. 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. 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.--24.176.171.32 (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

First, all IPs and users, please sign your name using four ~~~~.

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. 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.10.169 (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

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. Deavenger (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with 78.53.10.169.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 )[12] 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[13] 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”[14]? It is absurd but totally ridiculous to say such a thing 78.53.10.169

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. 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. Deavenger (talk) 03:43, 29 April 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.

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.151.60.116.125 (talk) 12:03, 29 April 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.--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.151.60.118.29 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• FYI. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 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: [15] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.20.15 (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC) --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. Deavenger (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the article says on the title Superpower Reborn, asked the writer Ronald Steel that question but the title is the topic of the material. Second first it was said by Hobiehunter don't use Youtube or anything but Youtube, Google news was fine to him. Google News is also used by the Associated Press freeds. 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 stuff down that is outdated on the article currently but I haven't. 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.--75.128.20.15 (talk) 01:40, 9 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.

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.

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. CuteRobin (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)