Ok I know this isn't techcially history, but it relates to it. I personally think that China will emerge as a world superpower (no real doubt there). India possibly later on in the century, with the US, not declining but losing their status as the only superpower. EU won't become a superpower in miltary terms I believe but possibly ecomonic wise, providing we get all our workers off their backsides. Russia will decline sharply, Possible flashpoints are Taiwan, Caspian Sea area (one of the last untouch gas and possibly oil reserves left, not sure if there is oil so correct me if i am wrong), South Korea, and the middle east.

I think it will move back to the way it was in the 18th-17th centuries, no clear cut superpowers, instead there are four or five (proably more now) major powers, all about equal in strenghth. As for who these will be only time can tell, the U.S., China and India certainly have spots, I could also see a european country or two, japan, and maybe isreal or iran.

I agree that there will be a few major powers, and many minor ones. The unique situation of the Cold War was due to the fact that only 2 of major powers survived WW2 largely unscathed. (USSR was badly damaged in Europe but not in Asia.) With the demise of the USSR, a power vacuum has been left that can be assumed by several states. China is clearly a front-runner in this regard, having an enormous population and access to a wealth of natural resources, as well as a long tradition of education. Its only real threat is from within, due to the tenuous nature of its politics. India is also a clear favorite, with its large, highly educated population. The EU is not much of a unified power yet, but this may change in the future. It can become a major power likewise through a large, educated population. The US, I doubt, will be downgraded, just forced to contend with more competitors.

Others might be Russia and Iran. Both have access to important natural resources and have to be contended with.

The United States and China certainly. They both have large populations, are rich in resources, and are geographically well-positioned. A major power may yet develop in South America, perhaps in the form of an economic union. India won't make it unless they do some draconic population control. I think people underestimate Russia. They have a sizeable population, are rich in natural resources, have a well-educated population, and a lot of influence in Ukraine and Belarus. (They're also in a great position to benefit from global warming.)

I also am not one to count Russia out just yet. If they can get their economy under control, and possibly stimulate population growth, they'll be big once again. Siberia probably has a wealth of gold, oil and diamonds in it, and if Global Warming actually comes knocking in the next little while, it'll be much easier to get at.

I hope there is not need for empires anymore.

Europe, China, India, USA.

I think there would be several major powers (not superpowers) and a few minor ones, like in the Mediterranean in the 3rd-2nd century BC or Europe in the 17th-18th century. A few countries I see as major powers are the USA (their influence had declined but they still have a strong economy and military), China, India and Russia (these three will match the US in economic and military strength by the next century, but will be a lot less stable internally). The Arab-Muslim world will be much more unified and maybe emerge as a major power. As for Europe I think there's too much diversity and conflicting ideas for every country to work together as a single superstate beyond an economic or defence alliance, but Europe will still be a major power. A few minor powers will rise, eg Nigeria, South Africa, Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Japan.

I think a major hotspot is in between australia and indonesia.
Indonesia is over populated muslim country with lots of little break away provinces who want to leave.

Australia is a big empty western nation. Who likes to support the break away provinces.

Eventually War!

I forsee the U.S./E.U. running world affairs for many years to come. Other powers will emerge, but the atlantic alliance will become more and more vital as time goes on.. and it will be enough to prevent other nations from reaching 'superpower' status.

I reckon whenever a world government enters the scene, things won't be so swell.

The US will continue to be very powerful, but won't be the sole superpower anymore. I agree with Marshal Zukov, the situation will likely look somewhat similar to how the world looked in the 17th or 18th centuries - several large, powerful countries or empires, none quite powerful enough to destroy the others entirely, balancing each other out.

As for who these nations will, the US and China are the favorites, and the most obvious. Barring something drastic happening (A complete collapse in the central government, or a nuclear sneak attack on either - unlikely) that prediction will probably hold true. I imagine India will be rather strong this century, as well - the US would do well to cultivate relations with that great democracy, they would be an excellent ally to help keep China from getting too big for it's britches. Russia could revive itself, but I have my doubts, as their population is spiraling downwards and they need a larger population to take advantage of all their land and resources. (If Christianity or Islam became much more prominent, their birthrates would probably go up)

Europe will likely be strong, but not quite as strong as people are predicting. It's a shame that they are dragging themselves down with their low birthrates and bad social policies which are negatively impacting their economies, Europe would be an excellent ally to the US.

Some wildcards could be Brazil and the Middle East. Brazil is shaping up to be a regional power capable of maintaining order in South America; another country the US should try to court. They need to deal with some corruption problems, however, and with their deforestation problems. The Middle East is unlikely to be much different in this century than in the last couple of decades, but if, and this is a big if, one nation able to seize control of much or all of the ME, then that could spell trouble. With that much oil, they could cause a lot of problems for a lot of the rest of us if the ruling government wasn't friendly to outsiders, which they probably wouldn't be.

Africa will probably get better, but won't be in any position to challenge the US, Europe, or powers of Asia anytime soon.

China will not amerge as a world superpower for anothe 100 years. A nation with so much starvation cannot survive as a superpower. Also the goverment isn't supported by the people. Why people don't support bush they don't support the violent overthrow of the goverment. Based on that and a average income of 6000 dollars per person it is nearly impossible for them to be on the same level as the U.S. China would need to spend money it doesn't have and can't get to elevate itself.

As for the european union superpower. There is no possibility in the foresable future. Due the differing cultures. Greece and Britian will never be in the same state. Also the stature the pope would wan't to have wouldn't be good. Europe will have to become more centralized before this can possibly happen.

Africa will probably get better, but won't be in any position to challenge the US, Europe, or powers of Asia anytime soon.

This is partly because the protectionist economic policies of the developed world are designed to prevent African countries from competing with them on a fair footing. In some respects the world is like a giant game of Civ: the powerful countries get more powerful, and the weaker ones tend to lose what power they have.

China will not amerge as a world superpower for anothe 100 years. A nation with so much starvation cannot survive as a superpower. Also the goverment isn't supported by the people. Why people don't support bush they don't support the violent overthrow of the goverment. Based on that and a average income of 6000 dollars per person it is nearly impossible for them to be on the same level as the U.S. China would need to spend money it doesn't have and can't get to elevate itself.
Their economy is growing at a simply amazing pace - about 12% last year, I believe. Thanks to our trade deficit, pretty soon they'll have all the money and infrastructure they need; we are effectively subsidizing their growth.

As for the european union superpower. There is no possibility in the foresable future. Due the differing cultures. Greece and Britian will never be in the same state. Also the stature the pope would wan't to have wouldn't be good. Europe will have to become more centralized before this can possibly happen.
They don't need to become one in every area to act in concert and be either a great help or a great threat. All they need is a common military and foreign policy department. Sure, in order to become truly unified they are going to need to make a lot of changes, but they are on their way.

This is partly because the protectionist economic policies of the developed world are designed to prevent African countries from competing with them on a fair footing. In some respects the world is like a giant game of Civ: the powerful countries get more powerful, and the weaker ones tend to lose what power they have.
Very true. But Africa has something valuable - almost untapped resources, especially mineral resources. With China and India growing so fast, they are reaching into Africa to find all the metal and timber and other materials they need. I think it's quite possible that Africa will be in a lot better position in 50 years than they are now, based on that fact alone.

Of course, it's entirely possible the warlords will keep all the money and screw Africa over, again.

China will not amerge as a world superpower for anothe 100 years. A nation with so much starvation cannot survive as a superpower. Also the goverment isn't supported by the people. Why people don't support bush they don't support the violent overthrow of the goverment. Based on that and a average income of 6000 dollars per person it is nearly impossible for them to be on the same level as the U.S. China would need to spend money it doesn't have and can't get to elevate itself.

As for the european union superpower. There is no possibility in the foresable future. Due the differing cultures. Greece and Britian will never be in the same state. Also the stature the pope would wan't to have wouldn't be good. Europe will have to become more centralized before this can possibly happen.

what about the USSR they had many of the problems that china now have

Do you see the U.S.S.R anymore.

Obviously:
*USA
Probably:
*PRC
Possibly:
*UK
Probably not but has a slim chance:
*Russia
*India
*France
*Brazil
*Iran
*DPRK
If my friends and I can get some military companies to sell us tanks, airplanes, and other military stuff:
*The Empire (that's the name of our micronation; not affiliated with the Aerican Empire)
But the USA will remain the strongest.

So the UK has much more potential on becoming a superpower than Germany, that's not even mentioned, not even in "probably not but has a slim chance", that has more population, much better average person income, and a more modern system of... well.. about everything?

Edit: Oh, and same for Iran and Brazil?

I'm glad to learn France still has a slim chance to be the superpower of the next century :goodjob:

Obviously China, and India, with other powers being Japan, Brazil, perhpas Nigeria, and Indonesia also, Iran has great potential if it can get over some issues.

Iran has great potential if it can get over some issues.

Like the fact that is being surrounded by a super aggressive super power.

Like the fact that is being surrounded by a super aggressive super power.

Yeah thats the main one, it Iran can survive the next 20 years without getting bombed by the US, (a slim chance) then it has oppurtunities and options for greater economic growth and regional power.

So the UK has much more potential on becoming a superpower than Germany, that's not even mentioned, not even in "probably not but has a slim chance", that has more population, much better average person income, and a more modern system of... well.. about everything?

Edit: Oh, and same for Iran and Brazil?

Germany has no carriers. :p

I agree that there will be a few major powers, and many minor ones. The unique situation of the Cold War was due to the fact that only 2 of major powers survived WW2 largely unscathed. (USSR was badly damaged in Europe but not in Asia.)

Well but all influental man made was in European part. Like when USA would lost all within Alaska and California;)

I hope another one rises, we Americans are spoiled here all alone, although I'd rather it not be China, not my choice and it seems inevitable, but they just make me uncomfortable, I like that they're trying to change, but they're still not that ideal country... not that the US is.. but their army could do alot, obviously, and thats not necessarily a good thing. I don't think India will do well unless they can overhaul reforms, how many people live in poverty there??
so, hey Europe! Rise again! eh? I know you wanna. And South America. Some of you may get a shot, go for it! Australia! keep it real, dont go overkill ok?

So the UK has much more potential on becoming a superpower than Germany, that's not even mentioned, not even in "probably not but has a slim chance", that has more population, much better average person income, and a more modern system of... well.. about everything?


Much better income? They are essentially identical (and England is actually better in nominal values): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
The level of technology is basically equal as well.
Militarily, England is certainly stronger, since Germany is controlled.

I don't think either of such small countries will become a power on its own in the modern world, but neither is really stronger than the other.

USA
China
India

Militarily, England is certainly stronger, since Germany is controlled.

Can you elaborate on that?

Much better income? They are essentially identical (and England is actually better in nominal values): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
The level of technology is basically equal as well.

Germany has more manpower and on industrial power UK is far behind.

Don't forget Poland ;)

Seriously, I think that European age finally ended.

There will be no Superpowers, no China is not gonna be a Superpower and America is no longer a SuperPower anymore
they are replaced by a world Government, and which ever country has weapons capable of Destryoing the World they are Superpowers, wars will only be fought between countries that are poor and have no nuclear weapons

There will be no Superpowers, no China is not gonna be a Superpower and America is no longer a SuperPower anymore
they are replaced by a world Government, and which ever country has weapons capable of Destryoing the World they are Superpowers, wars will only be fought between countries that are poor and have no nuclear weapons

No no no, we're talking about this next century, not 1984;)

Brazil has made spanish a mandatory language in their schools.

If they want to dominate south america, they will have to do it in spanish, because Argentines, Peruvians etc, are not going to learn portuguese.

Personally, I think europe is looking like its doomed for a major downhill slide. The vitality of the US has always been, whatever its circumstances, state of our economy, military, etc. is its fascinating, out-of-nowhere capacity for innovation, whereby it has singlehandedly, practically, created the modern era, and owns all the patents...This trend does not actually appear to be changing. Production in the US always far outpaces avilible markets. CHina emerging is great, with almost infinate markets, and will probably wind up, liek it or not, the new best friend of the US.
Europe has never had that much production. What production there is in wurope, mainly germany, seems to magically have no profit. Mysterious. Anyway, while I hope i dont offend anyone, I think the economic strength of europe has often recently depended very much on the US. Now that the US has a new economic buddy to hang out with who is more hip than europe, maybe europe is gonna get in serious trouble? Well, this is my speculation.
I also think that many places which have been arrested in development because of fundamentally temporary problems, such as africa, must eventually get over them. Africa has amazing wealth in resources, and theres no reason that something in africa cant eventually get around this mess and shape itself to be a new world player. hard to say where right now, but something eventually. Nigeria?

Personally, I think europe is looking like its doomed for a major downhill slide. The vitality of the US has always been, whatever its circumstances, state of our economy, military, etc. is its fascinating, out-of-nowhere capacity for innovation, whereby it has singlehandedly, practically, created the modern era, and owns all the patents...This trend does not actually appear to be changing. Production in the US always far outpaces avilible markets. CHina emerging is great, with almost infinate markets, and will probably wind up, liek it or not, the new best friend of the US.
Europe has never had that much production. What production there is in wurope, mainly germany, seems to magically have no profit. Mysterious. Anyway, while I hope i dont offend anyone, I think the economic strength of europe has often recently depended very much on the US. Now that the US has a new economic buddy to hang out with who is more hip than europe, maybe europe is gonna get in serious trouble? Well, this is my speculation.
I also think that many places which have been arrested in development because of fundamentally temporary problems, such as africa, must eventually get over them. Africa has amazing wealth in resources, and theres no reason that something in africa cant eventually get around this mess and shape itself to be a new world player. hard to say where right now, but something eventually. Nigeria?

So Nigeria will soon be a world power, while Europe will go in serious trouble, right? :lol: :crazyeye: Sorry but I don't believe this.

It's nice to see that Europe's financial markets begin some sort of small-scale emancipation from the United States. Once, they used to say, that when America coughs, Europe has a cold. While Europe and the United States are more dependent on each other than ever (Europe knows this, the US obviously doesn't), it there sure is movement.

However, the EU's problems are numerous. Economic woes and unemployment aside, the EU has a massive structural problem. Since the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, there are 27 commissioners on the Europe Commission, with posts for things that would merit only a sub-department in a national government: Multilingualism, or Information Society & Media.

Thanks to outgoing French President Chirac's political maneuvering, an obviously ill-informed electorate and institutional confusion, the EU 'constitution' treaty has been put on ice for the time being. However, the institutional changes envisioned in the treaty will have to be implemented. If an ever-enlarging EU (with Croatia due in 2009 and Turkey probably some time after 2015) does not find a way out of its current deadlock between national interests, an interventionist Commission and the waning confidence of its electorate, Europe sure is heading for trouble.

Militarily speaking, the EU is among the few powers in the world that have power-projection capabilities. While these capabilities are mainly due to the British and French military, as well as the Germany's army (by the way the largest in Europe, not counting Russia), they are there nonetheless.

Of course, the US is the sole superpower (some, indeed, say hyperpower) and it will remain that way if US military spending goes on increasing like this. The United States have true power projection capabilities, with bases and fleets around the world, a large force of carrier battle groups, a large carrier wing, and, most importantly, a head of state that may act without consulting Congress (which is questionable democracy- and checks and balances-wise).

Russia is re-arming as well. With its boundless resources in Siberia, it surely is an energy superpower that likes to strong-arm neighbours by cutting off the crude and natural gas supply (see Belarus, Ukraine).

Africa? No way. The African Union is far too disorganised to form a political and military heavyweight (sorry, Nigeria ;)).

China surely is a rising star, with an exploding defence budget as well as an exploding self-confidence as Asia's major player - though it might perhaps have to make domestic concessions.

India, "the world's largest democracy". I've read somewhere that India may indeed surpass China in terms of GDP. They are at a geostrategically sensible position, armed with a fleet of carriers as well as some nuclear bombs - and modernizing fast.

In South America, I'd mostly put my money on Argentina or Brazil, though the left-wing populism of a large number of South American heads of state might jeopardize important trade agreements with Europe and the US (the resolution of the Doha Round problems, for instance).


Anyway, my take is that the US will continue to dominate the political landscape though they will have to make concessions to both Europe and Asia, probably to Latin America as well...

most importantly, a head of state that may act without consulting Congress (which is questionable democracy- and checks and balances-wise).
He's not the only one. Most of the head of state can act without consulting the American Congress :p

More seriously, the French president also act without consulting the parliament. He has even more power (in term of right to do things, not about military power at his disposal) than the US president.

He's not the only one. Most of the head of state can act without consulting the American Congress :p

You're sure of that? ;) Anyway, there's Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress) as an umbrella term for all presidential system legislatures. :p


More seriously, the French president also act without consulting the parliament. He has even more power (in term of right to do things, not about military power at his disposal) than the US president.

I agree; but France almost certainly would not act alone, without consulting at least the German government. While France wields some power - both politically and militarily - in its former African colonies, mostly, the French government seems to know the wisdom of consulting with allies concerning important geopolitical decisions. I don't think France would embark on a nearly unilateral adventure like the War in Iraq on its own.

I agree; but France almost certainly would not act alone, without consulting at least the German government. While France wields some power - both politically and militarily - in its former African colonies, mostly, the French government seems to know the wisdom of consulting with allies concerning important geopolitical decisions. I don't think France would embark on a nearly unilateral adventure like the War in Iraq on its own.
We won't make large intervention like in Iraq alone. But we can do regional ones (like in Ivory Coast). We did this with the backing of EU and UHN, to get as much legitimacy as possible.
But for a specific situation, the French president can send the French army on his own decision if needed. It doesn't mean he'll do that, but in case of emergency he has the power to do it.

I think the 3 main 'superpowers' will be...

USA
China
EU

USA will remain strong, China is an obvious choice due to many facts what everyone here is aware of. The EU is technically very very advanced, I feel that in say 50 years they will probably have a unified force, and as such will have great ability to project its powers where needed. This force I believe will be a little more complex, with each nation contributing for agreed peacekeeping etc. However the EU does need political reform so it can take descisions in a more unified manor, this I fell will also come with time. And despite tit for tat disagreements the EU will still be culturally very much one and the same as the US and they will have a very strong Atlantic allience.

I think the 3 main 'superpowers' will be...

USA
China
EU

USA will remain strong, China is an obvious choice due to many facts what everyone here is aware of. The EU is technically very very advanced, I feel that in say 50 years they will probably have a unified force, and as such will have great ability to project its powers where needed. This force I believe will be a little more complex, with each nation contributing for agreed peacekeeping etc. However the EU does need political reform so it can take descisions in a more unified manor, this I fell will also come with time. And despite tit for tat disagreements the EU will still be culturally very much one and the same as the US and they will have a very strong Atlantic allience.

Sounds like your list could be modified:

Oceania
Eurasia
Eastasia

Only Russia seems to be slacking off, making the 2nd less possible. Time to buck up, Russia! :mischief:

Sounds like your list could be modified:

Oceania
Eurasia
Eastasia

Only Russia seems to be slacking off, making the 2nd less possible. Time to buck up, Russia! :mischief:

Exactly! I said so early, in other words.

The US may be begining its decline now (I hope not i don´t want to be ruled by comunist China or Gas producing Russia). If they wan´t to avoid it they have to take some very serious problems and solve them. The first one is the increasing rising of religious and political fundamentalism, which could have on the long time a big impact on the economic and scientific levels of the US, this would lead to the loss of military power, not to speak of the growing bad reputation that the US is adquiring on the World. Other Problems they need to solve are education (begin by ending the evolution debate to go away from fundamentalism), enviroment, economic competivity(still one of the highest in the world but has begun to decrease), social welfare programs (medical treatment has to reach more people), science (stem cell research should definitely be alowed) and public deficit (begin by reducing Defence spending).

EU is today the biggest econmic power, but it suffers from an excessively interventionistic state that limits its grow and is surely going to made it lose this position against China and the US. Diplomatically and militarily they are weak because they are multiple diferent countries for the outside World.

China is going to be the biggest or the second biggest economic power in wery short time (50 years) but they still have to solve the problem of lack of liberties which can cause great inestability and lack of development outside the special economic areas. They also have to begin to adapt to a more competitive high-tech economy and to reduce their damage to the environment.

India may probably surpass China sometime. Mostly because it is jumping directly to a high tech economy. Some of their most important industries today are computer services and pharmaceutical companies. Their great problems are again inequal development like in china, enviromental problems and the low level of basic infastructures and services.

Russia seems like a temporal great player, mostly thanks to its energy resources. Their power will sink as soon as the world moves to other energy sources, but if they invest their money well, they could improve their economy.

Japan seems provably to maintain its status as great economic power and doesnt seem to be facing any great change. They have done a really great job for reaching this stability.

China's political woes are much greater than most people here seem to think. The centralized government and the regional governments are starting to come unstuck while an amazing level of corruption is to be found at all levels. And nobody there likes communism much to start with. I forsee China overheating in a most amazing way.

Nothing about Africa inspires any confidence in me, superpower wise. Takes more than resources to become a superpower.

The US is heading downhill, but slowly, it'll be awhile before anyone can go toe to toe with em.

East European countries that have joined the EU are rearing to go. Europe's economic influence can only go up. As for the EU becoming more unified, yeah, right.

Hard to tell where Russia is heading, but they do love to blackmail in natural resources, and have europe by the balls there.

India seems to have nowhere to go but up. Up being a regional superpower.

But the future is going to be dominated by climate change, and massive population displacements. There will be wars over resources such as fresh water and still usefull land and I suspect the sanctity of life will be much diminished.

America, China, and a European country.

Hm, china faces their economy over heating, or if they take action against that a loss of confidence in their shares. Thhat aside there isn't much you can do to top such a large, naturally rich, populous nation becoming very powerful.

US
China
<----EU if it unities
India

The US will still have a massive economy and as chian grows that will in turn make the US and EU grow as they have so much invested in china, india benefits from democracy and other things, they will still have the third largest economy in 2050 if they continue their current growth, and their growth has been a lot more sustainable then china's.

OI! Russia doesn't have we europeans by the balls, we will just go elsewhere for our oil and gas, we will have to pay more yes, but the again right across the EU there is a clean energy drive atm.

Brazil, with all that water, and resources, if they get over the corruption problem and educate the poor they could boom, have the rest of latin america pretty much behind them ( who cares about bolivia, really?)

EU, looks to expand ever further, into eastern europe and perhaps the middle east, some of the mediterean wants to make union there to, and it would be europe led obviously.

Africa will/is be bought up by other countries as they try to secure resources.

Sounds like your list could be modified:

Oceania
Eurasia
Eastasia

Only Russia seems to be slacking off, making the 2nd less possible. Time to buck up, Russia! :mischief:

Yep, and the obvious place for Russia and Ukraine and Belarus to join up with is the EU... they are all european after all. Who can guess when that could happen but the juncture of Russian resources and rest of Europe technologies and markets would be such a powerful combination that in say 50 years it could overtake the US. The US is currently exhausting itself with a huge budget deficit and China might not be stable politically as it tries to leverage growth. Remember that oil is going to get horribly expensive in the next 30 years once we have gone past peak oil... and Global warming might start playing havoc with the climate...

Brazil has made spanish a mandatory language in their schools.

The students can choose between Spanish and English.


If they want to dominate south america, they will have to do it in spanish, because Argentines, Peruvians etc, are not going to learn portuguese.
No sane brazilian has any interest in dominating South America. Our government of course does not qualify as sane, and it's childish attempts to become leader of the continent always seem to go hilariously wrong.

The USA is the sole superpower at the moment. At the moment the USA has the largest developed economy with a steady growth and a GDP 5-6 times that of China. The world is largely dependent on America's economy and if it crashes we would have a second great depression.
With an annual military budget of $460B accounting for almost half of the Global military budget ( $960B ) it has the most advanced and most rapidly advancing Military. US Military bases are all across the world enabling control of those areas and quick strikes to any region if neccesary. With a strong Navy, Canada as an ally and a relatively weak Mexico, threats to the mainland are not possible.
America posseses around 8000 nuclear warheads, should it be necessary, more then enough to destroy the world 10 times over.
The American Inteligence system is the most complex system in the world, they know what is going on all the time, they know how the world works, and the plan things for years in advance.
The USA has big cultural influence on the whole world with music, holywood, food etc.
List of US Allies include: UK, Canada, Australia and to an extent all of Nato's members.
Finally the US has a functioning political system and immense ideological influence i.e. Capialism.



China has a growing economy, relatively weak military compared to US and Russia, not many allies, much much less nukes and a lot worse technology for nuke delivery. They do have a big army but that proves little in todays military.
I doubt China will rise to a superpower status any time soon.
Id rather put my bets on Russia.

As a conclusion, I think the USA will remain as the world Superpower and wont decline, but in the future it may have to compete with Russia and China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC

The world is changing pretty quickly these days, to a point that the superpowers in 80 years could be called:

- Microsoft
- Google
- NASA
- Bank of China
- Wallmart
- Catholic Church
- Islam
- FIFA
- Sony
...

I mean it is very possible. As we speak many peoples that have existed for centuries, many Nations, are slowly ceasing to exist. For example I believe all those of Western Europe are gone forever - the French, German, English Nations will soon have no meaning anymore, other than define puppet States and Administrations trying to defend a few private interests.

Whether (scenario 1) other peoples of the world will also dissolve and we shall see other superpowers and frontiers emerge (such as those I listed above), or whether (scenario 2) there will be a world-wide nationalist and identitarian "renaissance" is a major question for the current century and I believe no one has the answer. Too many contradictory trends are going to clash violently.

As for Africa and in case of scenario 2, I would not count them out for the dynamism of their population and ethnical sense of identity; they are already fast constituting loose cultural colonies all over Europe at the moment, and the trend is bound to increase rapidly in the coming decades. Sooner that one might think the future of the citizens of Europe might be partly decided in Abuja, Bamako or Nairobi. It is possible that, similarly to the European Nations emerged from the fall of the Roman Empire, African Nations might become more and more powerful on their continents and abroad, with areas of cultural and demographic dominance outside of Africa.

In terms of "Nations" in the classical sense of the word, the most powerful ones I can think of today (scenario 2) are:
- China
- Japan
- Korea
- Vietnam
- Russia
- Iran
- Turkey
- Pakistan

As for the USA:
scenario 1 - I believe at some point "globalization" will turn against them, just like it is right now vs the Nations of Europe. Except in resorting to massive imperialism (which IMO would fail), I do not see how they will eventually fight this negative trend.
scenario 2 - they would need to massively re-organize the way their country is built should the world go towards an era of protectionism and global recession, and the outcome of such change is doubtful - at best

Just a thought...

I don't see where people are getting this idea that russia is a major power any more, they are suffering a demographic diaster, they are population is going down, birth rates are dropping and death rates are not, HIV is starting to get a real foothold now in southern russia. TB has become resistent to drugs becuase of the over use of antibiotics in Russian prisons and is starting to spread, especially where HIV is present.
Yes they do have nuclear weapons, but so does Britain and France, and you can't really call them superpowers

I don't see where people are getting this idea that russia is a major power any more, they are suffering a demographic diaster, they are population is going down, birth rates are dropping and death rates are not, HIV is starting to get a real foothold now in southern russia. TB has become resistent to drugs becuase of the over use of antibiotics in Russian prisons and is starting to spread, especially where HIV is present.
Yes they do have nuclear weapons, but so does Britain and France, and you can't really call them superpowers
So Russia has a small population. Power, if you haven't noticed, isn't measured in manpower alone now. They are the second most advanced nation in the world in terms of military technology, they have probably the greatest supplies of natural resources of any nation in the world, they not only have nukes but the second most advanced delivery systems in the world, and their economy is growing at an astounding rate. They not only are a great power, they are becoming moreso everyday.

So Russia has a small population. Power, if you haven't noticed, isn't measured in manpower alone now. They are the second most advanced nation in the world in terms of military technology, they have probably the greatest supplies of natural resources of any nation in the world, they not only have nukes but the second most advanced delivery systems in the world, and their economy is growing at an astounding rate. They not only are a great power, they are becoming moreso everyday.

Concerning the economic point, if you discount the effects of oil, their economy is nearly stagnant. Moreover, their military technology is Cold War-vintage, whereas, say, China's is modernizing.

Concerning the economic point, if you discount the effects of oil, their economy is nearly stagnant.
Nonetheless its booming. Poverty is dissapearing rapidly, and this is creating opportunities in other fields.
Moreover, their military technology is Cold War-vintage, whereas, say, China's is modernizing.
Yes...by buying Russian technology. Russia too is modernizing. By 2010, GLONASS will be able to do everything that GPS can do, while the Beidou system hasn't even begun to experiment on global coverage, and the Sukhoi 47 will soon be entering production.

Nevertheless, the real new powers are India and China. Russia, Brazil and etc are merely sidekicks.

Concerning the economic point, if you discount the effects of oil, their economy is nearly stagnant. Moreover, their military technology is Cold War-vintage, whereas, say, China's is modernizing.

Putin has really reorganised the country for the better. Outsider influence has been minimised, internal problems are being resolved, selling precious oil, gas and weapons the economy is rising and Russia is the World Military Superpower.
Russia has the world's top of the line tanks, fighters, helicopters, armored units, Nuclear Warheads such as Topol etc.

What China has is outdated Russian technologies from the Cold War. It is being modernized of coarse but mostly depended on Russia.

Putin has really reorganised the country for the better. Outsider influence has been minimised, internal problems are being resolved, selling precious oil, gas and weapons the economy is rising and Russia is the World Military Superpower.
Russia has the world's top of the line tanks, fighters, helicopters, armored units, Nuclear Warheads such as Topol etc.

What China has is outdated Russian technologies from the Cold War. It is being modernized of coarse but mostly depended on Russia.

This is in a theoretical world where the United States doesn't exist, right? Because last time I checked, the Russians haven't been in the lead of anything since Sputnik.

The next ten years are crucial to the development of the 21st century, as many nations will be under governments which were elected or otherwise formed in a distinctly 21st-century milieu, relatively uninfluenced by the concerns of the 1990s.

If things keep going the way they're going, military power will become increasingly irrelevant. Already we see that total war between great powers is simply not an option, because in any total war situation, everybody loses (i.e. nuclear war). Sub-total conventional war is simply too costly, and the opportunity cost is far too high; why should China spend billions attacking the US and then spending even more billions trying to rebuild whatever it is was destroyed when they could make still more billions by not going to war and just selling the Yankees gewgaws and laptops?

The fact is, the more the Great Powers trade with one another, the more they limit their options to just economic and "soft" power (political influence, clout in international institutions, etc.)--which favors Europe, with its well-developed economy, good international reputation, and large bloc of nations (read: UN and WTO votes) which will probably continue to act as individual nations for as long as humanly possible. In addition, it is the only power that is physically expanding (though this may or may not mean anything).

The US is also well-positioned for such a world. Among other things, it is the chief catalyst of the globalization which drives this integration. For another, it can usually count on European support thanks to the commonality of US and EU interests and the resurgence of Atlanticism with the political trifecta of Merkel, Sarkozy, and Blair/Brown (they're both very pro-American, though the latter doesn't care for the Iraq War); given the relative popularity of Merkel, the fact that Sarkozy must stay for the next five years (barring anything weird), and the sympathy of the only realistic PM in the next ten years (David Cameron) to Atlanticism, I think that Atlanticism is here to stay.

India could also do well in this system. Nations generally listen to India because they want to, not because they're afraid (USA, China) or have nothing better to do (Europe, at the moment), on account of the image India projects as a Third World success story. It has positioned itself as a heart of trade and commerce, shunning dirty industrialization for God-knows-what. It has strong trade links to all major players, as well as to Africa.

China, which would traditionally be considered the most likely to succeed, has to tread carefully in order to avoid becoming the next Japan--touted and then floundering. It has military capacity, but, as explained above, it cannot pursue its current strategy of economic integration without limiting its military options. As the Chinese economy expands, it relies increasingly on foreign investment, much of which comes from the areas where China would seek to use its military--the West, Japan, and Taiwan. Taiwan in particular has built itself what is essentially a mile-high wall by providing such insanely large quantities of cash to Chinese businesses, and by making itself such a ready and willing supplier of starting funds to the mainland. The one country that China would like to invade is ironically the one country China cannot invade; it's too lucrative. Thus China must seek to expand its sphere through economic means. However, they will find it difficult to do so in their region: South Korea, Japan, and Thailand are already firmly under American influence; North Korea nobody wants to deal with; Laos is poor; Vietnam is generally pissed off at China. Thus they must expand to Africa--not a bad choice, really, it's the only territory that could go either way--but they must contend with the West, which doesn't want China to get anything, and India, which has established trade links with Africa from the sixties and seventies, established as part of Nehru's grand strategy for the Non-Aligned Movement. In short, China has the obvious advantages, but may find itself unable to take advantage of them.

This is in a theoretical world where the United States doesn't exist, right? Because last time I checked, the Russians haven't been in the lead of anything since Sputnik.

I did not say Russia is in the lead in anything. If you read my posts carefully you would have noted I said the USA is the sole Superpower in the World.(See post 51) Russia is a Military Superpower, in other words it is the only country in the world that can more or less compete with America militarywise.

@Lockesdonkey It seems you know what you are talking about, Can you expand your thoughts on Russia ?

@Lockesdonkey: I don't think China will remain dependent on foreign investment for much longer. It's other asian countries (and beyond Asia) that are becoming dependent on trade with China. The way things are going china won't need to invade Taiwan to take it over...
India has the advantage of being less feared than China, true, but that is because nobody yet takes India's ambitions seriously - and with good reason, I believe. It can't even control the totality of its own territory, it's fully surrounded by hostile neighbors, and its government has a history of failing to achieve the goals it sets.

I agree with Lockesdonkey that "If things keep going the way they're going, military power will become increasingly irrelevant." Reading all those posts it seems that the three dominating factors for being a future super power are military, ressources and population. In my opinion this is too much based on "hard" facts.
I think global influence will be more and more transported by three other "soft" factors:
1. economic power, and i mean more the power of knowledge, technology, innovation and financial influence than ressource-export based economic power like the recent russian economic renaissance.
2. cultural values: I don't want to sound like the "clash of civilizations"-Huntingdon, but a World-Super-Power can only have influence if it can provide ideas, social and cultural values. In the Cold War this was a huge factor. I can imagine various types of such values, the religious ideas being at the moment the most dynamic ones in some world regions.
3. Will and capability to solve the real, most dramatic world problems: The future Super Power must deal with the consequences of climate change, with the down sides of globalization, with third world poverty and with the conflicts that rise from the factors 1 and 2.
All mentioned super powers have deficits in one or more of these factors.

Great Powers have always had economic power to some degree or another, for the simple reason that huge armies require horrendous upkeeps, ie a large economy backing it up. The exceptions are rare and instructive.

And economic Power without a military arm to back it up, well, history never has favored those very much. To boldly state that that is about to change, it may be very Star Trek, but not very real-politiek. Economically linked nations may be less inclined to go to war with each other. That is competely different from won't. Might has an ugly tendency to make itself right.

And it's often the threat of military intervention where a military shines politically as Power. Far more usefull than actual intervention.

I think the key limiting factor will be the energy requirements to project military power beyond regional status to superpower. Without major technological revolutions in energy, the world is likely to become a patchwork of condensed regional powers. Superpowers will potentially hold onto their power, but only by being very frugal about where they spend it.

Their economy is growing at a simply amazing pace - about 12% last year, I believe. Thanks to our trade deficit, pretty soon they'll have all the money and infrastructure they need; we are effectively subsidizing their growth.

@Lockesdonkey: I don't think China will remain dependent on foreign investment for much longer. It's other asian countries (and beyond Asia) that are becoming dependent on trade with China. The way things are going china won't need to invade Taiwan to take it over...


While it is true that China will become decreasingly dependent on foreign investment over time, the importance of this fact is negated by two factors: one, that no nation can completely be free of foreign investment, even if it wanted to be, and two, that even after the outside world ceases to become critical to China's internal infrastructure building (which won't happen for at least another ten years), the outside world is still a market for China. When was the last time Wal-Mart or Kmart or Target invaded your house to steal your money? It's much less costly to just sell you things.

India has the advantage of being less feared than China, true, but that is because nobody yet takes India's ambitions seriously - and with good reason, I believe. It can't even control the totality of its own territory, it's fully surrounded by hostile neighbors, and its government has a history of failing to achieve the goals it sets.

Hmm. I'll analyze this point by point:

1. "India can't control its territory." India is also more diverse than China. Most of China, at least, has a common cultural identity, and literally everyone learns a single standard language at school. China also does not have to deal with federalism or democracy, both of which are in effect in India (the former out of necessity, the latter out of good fortune). In essence, the situations of India and China are not comparable. Furthermore, the parts of India that India cannot control are either involved in border disputes (the most important, Kashmir, may be with Pakistan, but others are with China), and it must be noted that India administers substantial chunks of land that China claims for itself. In addition, the parts of India that India cannot control are rather small and for the most part economically irrelevant (for the moment). India could probably enforce control over these lands soon, but is more interested in the general betterment of the country.

2. "India is surrounded by hostile neighbors." By which you mean Pakistan and China, neither of which desires war with India. India could take Pakistan in a fight any day of the week, and their dispute is mostly posturing. China and India might go to war, but both would be reluctant--they're part of the same economic supply chains. Beyond that, who else? Bangladesh? In addition to the fact that Bangladesh loves India, half the Bangladeshi army is in the Congo or Liberia or other such places on UN peacekeeping operations. Nepal? That would be like Canada invading the US. Bhutan? Myanmar? Don't make me laugh. The hostility of India's neighbors is irrelevant; they can't do anything because in the two areas where it matters--war and economic transport--they are impotent (India has the perfectly serviceable Arabian Sea to get its oil if Pakistan ever decides it would be cool to tempt fate and close the pipelines).

3. "India fails to achieve goals." Cite your sources, dear friend. Sure, they may not meet the claims they make, but you have to remember--India is a democracy. Either the people making these statements have to get elected or their bosses do. As anyone who lives in the US of A knows, politicians tend to get carried away in their statements.

On the other hand, India has shown a remarkable ability to meet long-term strategic goals. And by long term, I mean very long term; many of the plans of which I speak were laid down by Nehru and Nehru's planners forty to fifty years ago and are only now coming to fruition. India spent years slowly but carefully building on the infrastructure left by the British Raj, and encouraging native industry (Tata comes to mind). My mother, who grew up in southern Africa shortly after independence, often talks about how in the 1970s, many Zambians would rather buy a Tata car than a European car, because any idiot could fix the Tata and the Tata just plain lasted longer. It ran crappily, sure, but it ran forever. To say the least, this made India look very good in Africa.

Beyond that, the more recent strategies--such as the liberalization instituted by Manmohan Singh back when he was Finance Minister--appear to have worked as well or better than planned.


@Lockesdonkey It seems you know what you are talking about, Can you expand your thoughts on Russia ?

Russia is a wild card. The other powers have ideas about what they want to do--not Russia. Vladimir Putin--and by extension, the person he picks to replace him--is a chess player. He sees this as a grand game, where you go for the advantage, move the way the wind is blowing. America successful and popular? Go down to Crawford and "bare your soul" to Shrub. America stuck in the mud in a country even you can barely find on the map? Announce that America's policy has been terrible. Europeans smiling at you? Let the gas flow. Europeans helping your neighbors wiggle out of Rodina's grasp? Well, I suppose that Berliners will now mean frozen jelly doughnut. That's how it works. Russia fundamentally follows a "tit-for-tat" strategy, responding the the event immediately previous, avoiding initiating plays; however, its eye is always on the future, preparing the best strategy for each and every possible situation six, seven, even eight moves down the line.

1. "India can't control its territory." India is also more diverse than China. Most of China, at least, has a common cultural identity, and literally everyone learns a single standard language at school. China also does not have to deal with federalism or democracy, both of which are in effect in India (the former out of necessity, the latter out of good fortune). In essence, the situations of India and China are not comparable. Furthermore, the parts of India that India cannot control are either involved in border disputes (the most important, Kashmir, may be with Pakistan, but others are with China), and it must be noted that India administers substantial chunks of land that China claims for itself. In addition, the parts of India that India cannot control are rather small and for the most part economically irrelevant (for the moment). India could probably enforce control over these lands soon, but is more interested in the general betterment of the country.

Also wanted to adress this, China has just as much a problem with parts of its territory as Russia has with Chechnya and India has with Kashmir. China has, for reasons I can't comprehend insisted on holding on to its territorial possesions in Tibet and Uyghurstan. While problems in Chechnya and Kashmir are calming down and clearing up, things have gotten significantly worse in Uyghurstan, especially as Islamic Fundementalism is getting involved in the struggle, as opposed to the tradition Turkic/Uyghur Nationalism, and therefor an increase in violence, funding, supplies, and training.

The safest bets are today's economical superpowers , Eu and Usa. However China has several technical advantages that also make them a potential superpower . There is some political uncertainty however , if they want to battle corruption and if they believe in industrialization and how easy will it be. The political situation in China may be a problem or it could be improved in the future , for the time being i believe it will be a problem.

one, that no nation can completely be free of foreign investment, even if it wanted to be, and two, that even after the outside world ceases to become critical to China's internal infrastructure building (which won't happen for at least another ten years), the outside world is still a market for China. When was the last time Wal-Mart or Kmart or Target invaded your house to steal your money? It's much less costly to just sell you things.

Yes, but that kind of dependence works both ways. China won't have to invade (or even threaten to) any country to bring pressure to bear upon it. The balance it that China is not getting increasingly dependent on other countries, quite the opposite.



The hostility of India's neighbors is irrelevant; they can't do anything because in the two areas where it matters--war and economic transport--they are impotent (India has the perfectly serviceable Arabian Sea to get its oil if Pakistan ever decides it would be cool to tempt fate and close the pipelines).


Oil, certainly. Natural gas, no.
And, surrounded by hostile neighbors, India cannot do what traditionally defines a "superpower", project power upon other countries. Not counting Bangladesh, Nepal and Butan.
Also, India cannot take on Pakistan in any war any longer - not if it values have its bigger cities standing.


3. "India fails to achieve goals." Cite your sources, dear friend. Sure, they may not meet the claims they make, but you have to remember--India is a democracy. Either the people making these statements have to get elected or their bosses do.
(...)
On the other hand, India has shown a remarkable ability to meet long-term strategic goals. And by long term, I mean very long term; many of the plans of which I speak were laid down by Nehru and Nehru's planners forty to fifty years ago and are only now coming to fruition. India spent years slowly but carefully building on the infrastructure left by the British Raj, and encouraging native industry (Tata comes to mind).


Ok, I must agree with you here.

I don´t fully agree that military power will not be so necesary. Wars between mayor powers are defintely something of the past, such a war would not be only a risk of mutual nuclear destruction but also an economic suicide. War between mayor powers and "poor countries" is probably going to be less frequent. But Rouge or failed states like Iran, North Korea and Somalia are still going to exist at least for the next 40-70 Years. The use of modern and future military forces not more to figth wars but to act as a deterrent, carry precision strikes against small concrete objectives (terrorist, WMD productions facilities, etcc...) and to act in emergenci cases like Katrina or Sumatras Tsunami.

What is going to be definitely true is that ALL nations will be more dependant of foreing invests and markets than ever. This is one of the most important reasons why international relations are changing dramaticaly.

If I have to choose who is going to be the next superpower I would bet for India. India is as oposed to China a democracy, and really ads to the stability of a country. In a democratic sistem there are clear rules about how things should work. Today´s chinese leaders seem to know what they are doing but can the same be said for the next ones, in a system in which the will of the party is rule nobody knows what the next ruler could do.
India produces two times more university graduates than Europe, this doesn´t seem surprisingly until you realize that India has two times more population than Europe but is considered a third world country. This means that the percentage of university graduates in India is slighly less than in Europe. While
China has a scarcity of well prepared proffesionals, India is training a great number of Doctors, engineers, Scientiss, Bussinesmen, Lawyers, etc...
A consequence of this is that while China´s economic grow relies heavily on low-value products that require great quantities of workers, India is going directly to a high tech and services economy based on areas such as computer science, pharmaceutic and others.

If I have to choose who is going to be the next superpower I would bet for India. India is as oposed to China a democracy, and really ads to the stability of a country.


You know, the opposite might well be true in some cases. As an example, the chinese may have been luckier in 1990 than the russians.


India produces two times more university graduates than Europe, this doesn´t seem surprisingly until you realize that India has two times more population than Europe but is considered a third world country. This means that the percentage of university graduates in India is slighly less than in Europe. While
China has a scarcity of well prepared proffesionals, India is training a great number of Doctors, engineers, Scientiss, Bussinesmen, Lawyers, etc...


I don't know where you get your statistics, but those are very wrong. From the UNESCO database (http://stats.uis.unesco.org/), 2004 data:

School age population - tertiary education, total:
China: 101684177
India: 100778666
US: 20499567
United Kingdom: 3737727
France: 3856521

Enrolment in total tertiary. Public and private. Full and part time. Total:
China: 19417044
India: 11852936
US: 16900471
United Kingdom: 2247441
France: 2160300
North America and Western Europe: 32870246

As you can see, the percentage of university graduates (over the total population) in India is much less than in Europe (11% vs. ~60%). China has already more tertiary education students than either Western Europe or North America, India is quite behind.

Considering this data, then if indeed China has a scarcity of professionals and India doesn't this leads me to believe that the chinese have a more technology-oriented economy than India.

Except that China, for better or for worse, has committed itself to old-fashioned industrialization, at first picking up the slack from Europe and the American Midwest, then pulling it from their hands with great force. They want to be the workshop of the world, and the world is content to let them achieve that goal. India has other ideas. The prevalence of English nudged India in the direction of helping Americans and British out in long-distance services; the IITs' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institutes_of_Technology) heavy emphasis on engineering and technology, and the high-quality professionals they produce, means that large numbers of Indians are very attractive to Western companies, who then take them to work in the US, Canada, or Europe. And while many stay in the West, a large chunk either return to India or start trans-Pacific businesses hiring younger Indian engineers.

In addition, India wishes to be a financial center, whereas China, which sees itself as not needing one (Hong Kong!) is not as invested in the idea.

I think we need to take Africa more seriously as a major power in a generation or two. Historically, Africa was so sparsely populated, that there was nothing for an empire builder to conquer. That is no longer true.

The untapped resources have been cited a couple times. The political disunity as well. What has not been mentioned, and is critical in several emerging situations, particularly India and China, is the education base. I think it was Confusius that said, "If you plan for a century, educate children." South Africa in particular has excellent science and engineering.

For central and southern Africa to emerge as an economic power, several things have to happen: viable trade across borders; availability of education to the equatorial population; evolution of some world class manufacturing companies; settling of tribal frictions; mobility to jobs, evolution of a single business language. None of these are over the top, and a couple are in sight already. South African cell phones are seen deep into the jungle these days. Trucks traverse most of the continent. English is already everyone's second language of choice.

One area that may become politically important is the role of Christianity. Africa is more Christian than Europe now, and much more devout. It is a commonality that spans both tribes and countries. Rivalries, nationalistic and tribal, are still a very serious problem in a lot of local situations, but the sides can talk through their churches. Those we talk to, we trade with. Those we trade with, we acculturate to. Money is the great leveler.

Can you imagine the effect of a pan-African monetary system? Since the Euro has been a clear success, it might happen.

J

Can you imagine the effect of a pan-African monetary system? Since the Euro has been a clear success, it might happen.

J
While not all of africa, all of central africa uses the Central African Franc.

I don't see Africa as likely to produce a native Great Power anytime soon; the nations are still too poor, too weak, and have a massive disease problem. However, South Africa is already taking on the mantle of a global Middle Power, and Nigeria and Kenya might do so as well. If the dominant power in Africa adopts a strategy of offshore balancing, they may use these nations as the executors of their African grand strategy and give them some say in the shape of that strategy.

Norway, no doubt about it...their time has come.

I don't see Africa as likely to produce a native Great Power anytime soon; the nations are still too poor, too weak, and have a massive disease problem. However, South Africa is already taking on the mantle of a global Middle Power, and Nigeria and Kenya might do so as well. If the dominant power in Africa adopts a strategy of offshore balancing, they may use these nations as the executors of their African grand strategy and give them some say in the shape of that strategy.
Demographically, culturally, histrocially and even religiously as it was pointed out, African peoples are well-positioned to submit Europe within the century. At least Western Europe. No one has commented my post and the fact, obvious to me, that a civilization is going to finally disappear sooner that most think. It is highly predictable that Europe will again divide in 2, again West vs East (roughly), this time the East being the only part faithfull to its origins and civilization while the west will be under always increasing influence of Africa, and islam. I do not believe any resistance to such trend will succeed, though they will happen.

So yes definitely, Africa is going to shape the world of this century more than ever since a very, very long time. We are already seeing signs of Western European sovereignity slowly shifting towards Africa. This is going to be more and more visible in culture, music, political polls, migration and industrial policies, and religion.

You know, the opposite might well be true in some cases. As an example, the chinese may have been luckier in 1990 than the russians.



I don't know where you get your statistics, but those are very wrong. From the UNESCO database (http://stats.uis.unesco.org/), 2004 data:

School age population - tertiary education, total:
China: 101684177
India: 100778666
US: 20499567
United Kingdom: 3737727
France: 3856521

Enrolment in total tertiary. Public and private. Full and part time. Total:
China: 19417044
India: 11852936
US: 16900471
United Kingdom: 2247441
France: 2160300
North America and Western Europe: 32870246

As you can see, the percentage of university graduates (over the total population) in India is much less than in Europe (11% vs. ~60%). China has already more tertiary education students than either Western Europe or North America, India is quite behind.

Considering this data, then if indeed China has a scarcity of professionals and India doesn't this leads me to believe that the chinese have a more technology-oriented economy than India.


Sorry, you may be rigth, I probably confused the numbers I heard on the radio once.
But even this dates reflect this reality, maybe not so drastic, that India has a great number of University students for a country that is suposed to be very poor. It has a number that is very near to the US and China.
It is still true however that the Indian economy is moving towards a high tech based economy.

About Russia, you are rigth that it didn´t went so good, but we are speaking about a country that had to do a drastic change from a comunism dictatorship to a democratic free market society. India is a democracy since it gained independence in 1947. The greatest change they have to face is to move from an state controled economic system to a free market one.

EDIT: Man, crack is whack. Disregard this post.

i dont know about china, because the US is the reason that it is growing. if the US falls most of the contries that trade a lot with the US will decline to, like china and india. and for me i do not want America to fall.

From Neo Hitler's fine template:

Probably:
*USA

Possibly:
*UK
*China

Probably not but has a slim chance:
*Russia
*India
*France
*Germany
*Brazil
*Iran

Demographically, culturally, histrocially and even religiously as it was pointed out, African peoples are well-positioned to submit Europe within the century. At least Western Europe. No one has commented my post and the fact, obvious to me, that a civilization is going to finally disappear sooner that most think. It is highly predictable that Europe will again divide in 2, again West vs East (roughly), this time the East being the only part faithfull to its origins and civilization while the west will be under always increasing influence of Africa, and islam. I do not believe any resistance to such trend will succeed, though they will happen.

:crazyeye: Do you base this opinion on anything? :crazyeye:

Do you base this opinion on anything?
Yes: a close look at the evolution of the youth, as well as "popular culture", in particular in a country such as France and to some extent Belgium, Holland, Germany. They lead the trend, I see no reason other Western European countries will not follow - the UK being a different case altogether. Unless there is a major shift in History (basically a war and/or a regime change), such trend will naturally and much quicker than most think, bend Western European sovereignity towards Africa. The main legal tool that will enable this is dual-citizenship between both continents, which is becoming increasingly common to the advantage of Africa.

The main legal tool that will enable this is dual-citizenship between both continents, which is becoming increasingly common to the advantage of Africa.

As a Frenchman would know...

As a Frenchman would know...
Hey, I am not trying to be particularly vindicative here but merely to put forward a fact that the destinies of Western Europe and Africa are now tied, will be more and more, and probably towards the advantage of African culture and Nations because this trend is rather one-sided. This will have major geopolitical implications, one of which could be the rise of African Nations; I have noticed that few anticipate this - especially in North America and Eastern Europe. That's all I am saying and I am not commenting on this fact - though I have my own opinions about it.

Hey, I am not trying to be particularly vindicative here but merely to put forward a fact that the destinies of Western Europe and Africa are now tied, will be more and more, and probably towards the advantage of African culture and Nations because this trend is rather one-sided. This will have major geopolitical implications, one of which could be the rise of African Nations; I have noticed that few anticipate this - especially in North America and Eastern Europe. That's all I am saying and I am not commenting on this fact - though I have my own opinions about it.

One thing I have got to say about Africa and the future: I believe that the Sahara Desert will become much more of a positive aspect to the countries that have territory in that expanse of land. I think the land is too large to be held as insignificant forever.

That doesn't make any sense.

At the very best, you're talking about an increase in North African culture in many west european nations. So?

That doesn't make any sense.

At the very best, you're talking about an increase in North African culture in many west european nations. So?

What makes no sense?

At the very best, you're talking about an increase in North African culture in many west european nations. So?

No: first it is not only about North Africa but maybe even more so sub-saharan Africa; the largest migrations towards Europe are now from there, and demography trends are extremely high there, average in North Africa and extremely low in Europe. Sub-saharan African migrations to Europe (and maybe to North Africa itself!) will not only increase, they will explode. This is mathematical. Second, I am talking as in all cases of cultures penetrating rather peacefully another civlization, of conversions to such more dynamic cultures, especially since inter-mariages are booming. Conversions that can have many aspects (from religion to less radical shifts) but that will, on a mid-term, radically change the face of Western Europe. This has already started, for those that can see, but it suprises me still how so few notice.

Any cultural change is alright as long it doesn't lead to more extremism and foolishness. But maybe I'm dreaming.

Any cultural change is alright as long it doesn't lead to more extremism and foolishness. But maybe I'm dreaming.

Whether a "cultural change" is "alright" is purely a subjective point of view; however such change is never neutral and always profound, with durable influences on both the societey and its individuals, and geopolitics at large. And as far as one can be objective about it, it will always benefit more to some than to others, since such change is never unanimously praised, accepted or welcomed - even when it happens more or less peacefully. There is always a "loser", so to speak.

Whether a "cultural change" is "alright" is purely a subjective point of view; however such change is never neutral and always profound, with durable influences on both the societey and its individuals, and geopolitics at large. And as far as one can be objective about it, it will always benefit more to some than to others, since such change is never unanimously praised, accepted or welcomed - even when it happens more or less peacefully. There is always a "loser", so to speak.

Yeah, that's a fact of life. But if the winner brings more discord and reverses human progress, that is very unfortunate.

African people will not submit Europe , though there may be some few riots , no Europe will (Had) Submit Africans which will now be Europeans. And here is a small solution to the aging problem , sooner or less , immigration though may need a few generations before some become Full citizens in belief also.

Though there may be some problems it can also be advantageous for a European country.

The way i see it , Europe will enjoy a quite hegemony over the following years. The only thorns over that may be conflicting interests over Turkey , Ex Russia influence countries , the middle east and Usa puppets. Mainly, because Europe doesn't act Globally with military expedition as one unlike Usa and it's allies. Therefor Usa can annex trading parters of Eu countries and Eu can do nothing than bark. However , the strongest economy , doesn't depend on military domination . And so even if peaceful hegemony could be a fact Turkey is a thorn that may bite many in the ass. The unreliability of this country forces me to label it as a potential danger to all it's neighbors.

Considering each "countries " past and it's today actions it is easier for EU to buy from Middle East and easier for Usa to destroy Regimes that won't Trade with them . I am uncertain which strategy would be more efficient in the Long Run.

And China , they are a completely different kind of power than the other ones.

Yeah, that's a fact of life. But if the winner brings more discord and reverses human progress, that is very unfortunate.

1/ at first, such a change always brings discord and disunity, which can and often does lead to violence and/or deep political recomposition such as territorial partitions (but not always)
2/ asserting such a thing as "human progress" is completely subjective and basically every "civilization", or independant school of thought, will have different opinions/answers on what it means
3/ when everyone on the planet agrees on what "human progress" means, then there will be only one civilization, and one Nation, left - to speak in civ terms; this also could happen more quikcly than most think, see scenario 1 above...

African people will not submit Europe , though there may be some few riots , no Europe will (Had) Submit Africans which will now be Europeans. And here is a small solution to the aging problem , sooner or less , immigration though may need a few generations before some become Full citizens in belief also.

Let's not confuse citizenship with nationality, economic sphere of influence with cultural/social sphere of influence. Yes African migrants into Europe are European citizens and yes, on puely economical terms, this can be a huge benefit. Yet the cultural, social changes these new ctizens are bringing along will have impacts, influences and consequences beyond what most imagine. A close look at a country like France or Belgium can give some idea, but I guarantee that it will be more and more spectacular in the future. The geopolitical implications will be both immense and distabilizing. For example in 50 years time, current trends remaining "equal", an average French citizen if such a Nation still exists will feel culturally much more related to Mali or Algeria than Poland or Ireland. Political implications of this will be huge.

For instance, I believe the EU will not survive much longer as (the embryo of) a political entity. At best, it will remain an economic trade zone that will continue to expand east and south. All those thinking of the EU as a major geopolitical force will, IMO, be proved completely wrong. Geopolitically the EU might have as little relevance as the Hanseatic League used to, or as ASEAN has today; its destiny is to split I believe, for it is weak and more and more diverse.

On Turkey you are very right: it is a key country, and a strong one. It can either go back towards one form or another of European domination (which can maybe be peacefully achieved, and which is in line with its historical goal) or turn towards the islamic world, turn its back to the West and lead at least the sunni part of islam in a geopolitcal way - which has also been, at least partly, its historical goal. This decision should be taken soon and I believe it will be the 1st, whatever some members of the EU might say about it.

Let's not confuse citizenship with nationality, economic sphere of influence with cultural/social sphere of influence. Yes African migrants into Europe are European citizens and yes, on puely economical terms, this can be a huge benefit. Yet the cultural, social changes these new ctizens are bringing along will have impacts, influences and consequences beyond what most imagine. A close look at a country like France or Belgium can give some idea, but I guarantee that it will be more and more spectacular in the future. The geopolitical implications will be both immense and distabilizing. For example in 50 years time, current trends remaining "equal", an average French citizen if such a Nation still exists will feel culturally much more related to Mali or Algeria than Poland or Ireland. Political implications of this will be huge.

For instance, I believe the EU will not survive much longer as (the embryo of) a political entity. At best, it will remain an economic trade zone that will continue to expand east and south. All those thinking of the EU as a major geopolitical force will, IMO, be proved completely wrong. Geopolitically the EU might have as little relevance as the Hanseatic League used to, or as ASEAN has today; its destiny is to split I believe, for it is weak and more and more diverse.

On Turkey you are very right: it is a key country, and a strong one. It can either go back towards one form or another of European domination (which can maybe be peacefully achieved, and which is in line with its historical goal) or turn towards the islamic world, turn its back to the West and lead at least the sunni part of islam in a geopolitcal way - which has also been, at least partly, its historical goal. This decision should be taken soon and I believe it will be the 1st, whatever some members of the EU might say about it.



Let's not confuse citizenship with nationality, economic sphere of influence with cultural/social sphere of influence. Yes African migrants into Europe are European citizens and yes, on puely economical terms, this can be a huge benefit. Yet the cultural, social changes these new ctizens are bringing along will have impacts, influences and consequences beyond what most imagine. A close look at a country like France or Belgium can give some idea, but I guarantee that it will be more and more spectacular in the future. The geopolitical implications will be both immense and distabilizing. For example in 50 years time, current trends remaining "equal", an average French citizen if such a Nation still exists will feel culturally much more related to Mali or Algeria than Poland or Ireland. Political implications of this will be huge.


Either i am underestimating the cultural significance of African immigration or you are overestimating it . Actually i believe , by having a good interpreting system , African immigrants can blend with French/English /add , on cultural levels also.

The problem is only there when the interpreting system is problematic. Maybe in France for political reasons they support those riots and the African identiy. Maybe Royal party. But i think it is an achievable process to interpret slowly immigrants to a new culture . Given enough Educat ... Brainwashing everything is achievable.

So i agree there may be some danger for destabilization but i don't think it is so evident.


For instance, I believe the EU will not survive much longer as (the embryo of) a political entity. At best, it will remain an economic trade zone that will continue to expand east and south. All those thinking of the EU as a major geopolitical force will, IMO, be proved completely wrong. Geopolitically the EU might have as little relevance as the Hanseatic League used to, or as ASEAN has today; its destiny is to split I believe, for it is weak and more and more diverse.

Geopolitically Eu is very powerful unless you don't count Trading and Economic power as a Globalization and control parameter. I agree that militarilly Eu will not " ever" act as one , economically , Politically and as a Global government though it is is a different story. The one currency , Global and Political realities of Eu , and so on will lead more and more countries to enter the Eu axon as i call it. Trade is only going to get better based on the patronage of Eu. Also you are underestimating Eu ability to control ,threaten and integrate other countries into it's system. The benefits are so many that i don't see Eu "ever" being disbanded or losing it's place. What many fear is lack of Progress , however if Eu evolved so much in so little time it is possible it will evolve more in the future. When we see middle east countries to start selling Oil in Euros than Dollars , then we see Eu as a taking direct benefit and influencing the Global policy of each country.
There are thorns , but they are thorns. Money makes the world go around and if it works at making money it will continue to exist as it does.




On Turkey you are very right: it is a key country, and a strong one. It can either go back towards one form or another of European domination (which can maybe be peacefully achieved, and which is in line with its historical goal) or turn towards the islamic world, turn its back to the West and lead at least the sunni part of islam in a geopolitcal way - which has also been, at least partly, its historical goal. This decision should be taken soon and I believe it will be the 1st, whatever some members of the EU might say about it


While i understand all your positions on this country , i will never accept the 1st for National , for Political and humanitarian reasons. While 50% of my country is controlled by Turkey troops since 1974 when they invaded , i can't even bother to look at any Eu interests. What Eu is trying to do but can't decide as an entity , is to enter Turkey into a long series of talks and take control of the country's trade routes , and use a potential good market. However Eu doesn't wish Turkey to become a full member. What i called as Thorns do.

In this case my cause could also be seen as a thorn to Eu global policies so the term thorn doesn't correspond to any moral relative word but only if it is a problem to Europian Union domination.

That's funny, St Exupère is supposed to live 86 km from me, but reading him I have the feeling he is from another planet.

That's funny, St Exupère is supposed to live 86 km from me, but reading him I have the feeling he is from another planet.
Salut voisin! so what is so "from another planet" about the potential scenario described here?

That's funny, St Exupère is supposed to live 86 km from me, but reading him I have the feeling he is from another planet.

:lol: Me too, though he lives much farther (1972.5 km) from me.

I don't know where you get your statistics, but those are very wrong. From the UNESCO database (http://stats.uis.unesco.org/), 2004 data:

School age population - tertiary education, total:
China: 101,684,177
India: 100,778,666
US: 20,499,567
United Kingdom: 3,737,727
France: 3,856,521

Enrolment in total tertiary. Public and private. Full and part time. Total:
China: 19,417,044
India: 11,852,936
US: 16,900,471
United Kingdom: 2,247,441
France: 2,160,300
North America and Western Europe: 32,870,246

As you can see, the percentage of university graduates (over the total population) in India is much less than in Europe (11% vs. ~60%). China has already more tertiary education students than either Western Europe or North America, India is quite behind.

Considering this data, then if indeed China has a scarcity of professionals and India doesn't this leads me to believe that the chinese have a more technology-oriented economy than India.
You make a valid point, but I dont think it is a major one.

India's power in education can be seen in its marketability more than its raw numbers. Indian professionals have penetrated, extensively, the highest levels in the industrial world. For example, the impact of Indian doctors on medicine in the USA is widely acknowledged, and out of proportion to the numbers. Similarly accounting and software design.

It is having an impact in the subcontinent as well. India's middle class is growing rapidly, and the results can be seen in the growth of liesure and consumer spending.

Comparing to the Chinese is difficult, since they are not exporting expertise. It is useless to compare graduation rates, since advancement is driven by a relative few. Culturally, the competition seems to becoming intense. They may drive each other to the top. At the moment, however, I see no clear leader.

J

Salut voisin! so what is so "from another planet" about the potential scenario described here?
Hmm... Where to start from... Almost everythiing?

Hey, I am not trying to be particularly vindicative here but merely to put forward a fact that the destinies of Western Europe and Africa are now tied, will be more and more, and probably towards the advantage of African culture and Nations because this trend is rather one-sided. This will have major geopolitical implications, one of which could be the rise of African Nations; I have noticed that few anticipate this - especially in North America and Eastern Europe. That's all I am saying and I am not commenting on this fact - though I have my own opinions about it.

Stupid comment drunk when I wrote it.

Are you on drugs.

He has a valid point. Why don't you stop being juvenile and repudiate it with your reasons?

1/ at first, such a change always brings discord and disunity, which can and often does lead to violence and/or deep political recomposition such as territorial partitions (but not always)
2/ asserting such a thing as "human progress" is completely subjective and basically every "civilization", or independant school of thought, will have different opinions/answers on what it means
3/ when everyone on the planet agrees on what "human progress" means, then there will be only one civilization, and one Nation, left - to speak in civ terms; this also could happen more quikcly than most think, see scenario 1 above...

I don't claim that I have a universal idea of human progress, but I think most reasonable modern people hold that the separation of politics and religion is more progressive than the alternative. And the sort of discord I'm talking about is the rise of intolerance, which can happen on both sides.

scy,


Either i am underestimating the cultural significance of African immigration or you are overestimating it . Actually i believe , by having a good interpreting system , African immigrants can blend with French/English /add , on cultural levels also.

Maybe you are under-estimating it, but even more so maybe you are over-estimating what is left of "French identity" and its will to continue to exist per se, ie having a destiny of its own. Sure, blending happens but IMO happens in such a way that I am sure that in 50/70 years time France will look and feel more African than European to a Pole, a Russian or an Argentinian. And I mean culturally.


But i think it is an achievable process to interpret slowly immigrants to a new culture . Given enough Educat ... Brainwashing everything is achievable.

My point here is not even to talk about achievability, degree of violence... but simply to point-out that the current migration trends in Europe (mainly Western) will have geopolitical implications of the magnitude of those that followed the north and eastern migrations of Europe from 4th century ac, onwards. All of this can happen "peacefully", though violence is likely.


So i agree there may be some danger for destabilization but i don't think it is so evident.

Again, this is true but is not the point I wished to make in terms of power perspectives and geopolitics for the century to come.


Geopolitically Eu is very powerful unless you don't count Trading and Economic power as a Globalization and control parameter.

Trading is politically very powerful... provided you intend to use it to your advantage. To my knowledge, the EU does not have (today) a protectionnist/discriminatory vision of economy and trading, but rather an unbiased and global one - bar some exceptions such as agriculture. Basically today, in all trade meetings and treaties around the world, Europe is in a weak position and by the years its geopolitical/economic position is worsening in terms of sovereignity and capability to act. The recent take-over of European steel by Indian funds and interests was a remarkable example of what I am trying to say. The EU is much, much weaker and divided than most imagine today. It lacks will, it lacks a power to discriminate, to forge itself a destiny in opposition to other powers and blocks surrounding it. It is not even able to open a discussion on its borders, it is hardly ready to protect and/or defend its borders.


The one currency , Global and Political realities of Eu , and so on will lead more and more countries to enter the Eu axon as i call it.

As it exists today the EU is the embryo of a world-wide free market ruled by international bodies. In other words, there is nothing European about the EU, it is just a Union - a loose, free-market based Union.


Trade is only going to get better based on the patronage of Eu. Also you are underestimating Eu ability to control ,threaten and integrate other countries into it's system.

Take Turkey: the EU has no position, and no will to have any on whether Turkey should or not be in Europe. The discussions are purely administrative and technocratic. The essence of the EU is to have no positioning of its own on real, touchy and thorny issues.


The benefits are so many that i don't see Eu "ever" being disbanded or losing it's place.

Again this is not the point; the point I make is that the EU is not European, and will not exist as a geopolitical power in the way the USA, China and others do.


While i understand all your positions on this country

I did not state any "position" on Turkey of my own; just said that the EU will be divided and un-democratic about Turkey's membership, and that because of its weakness the EU as a whole will never oppose to Turkey's entry. It is Turkey that sets the pace here, and the EU will either bend and accept Turkey's entry, or break apart because of its divisions on this thorny issue such as many others. Just look at the current embroglio regarding visas to the USA - even on this the EU is incapable of having any sort of real sovereign power.

All this being said, I am only describing what I believe is a strong trend; trends can and do change, especially when surprising events do occur. And they always do.

Cheers

aelf,


I don't claim that I have a universal idea of human progress, but I think most reasonable modern people hold that the separation of politics and religion is more progressive than the alternative.

"modern"? or did you mean "western"? Church and State seperation is purely a christian concept; it became separation of religion and politics when the West stopped being christian roughly a century ago, more or less. It is not a concept that carries the same relevance, or meaning, in other civilizations.


And the sort of discord I'm talking about is the rise of intolerance, which can happen on both sides.

Again, "tolerance" is a purely subjective term that would have you define some kind of norm of what is acceptable (or tolerable) and what is not. Based for instance, on "human rights". Your standpoint will always be subjective, and your tolerance will look very intolerant to other civilizations that have based their sens of right/wrong on something different.

^ St Exupere,

The biggest thing with which I totally don't agree is that there is going to be a big gap between Western and Eastern Europe. I believe it's going to be EXACTLY the opposite way. I just came back from Germany, and I travelled almost 40 hours by bus. When I got to Romania, I've seen literally HUNDREDS of trucks from France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and when I got home 3 people asked me for directions in English. And I'm not even talking about Hungary, there almost 1/2 of the cars on the big highways have foreign numbers.

What I am trying to say? This area has more connections with Western Europe than it ever had since the Roman Empire split. The idea that there is going to be a big gap between them in the future is total nonsense to me.

"modern"? or did you mean "western"? Church and State seperation is purely a christian concept; it became separation of religion and politics when the West stopped being christian roughly a century ago, more or less. It is not a concept that carries the same relevance, or meaning, in other civilizations.

Again, "tolerance" is a purely subjective term that would have you define some kind of norm of what is acceptable (or tolerable) and what is not. Based for instance, on "human rights". Your standpoint will always be subjective, and your tolerance will look very intolerant to other civilizations that have based their sens of right/wrong on something different.

True. That doesn't prevent me and many others from believing in these things, though, Western or not. I guess Islamics (not just Muslim) would rather live under Islamic law. That's what they believe in.

scy,


Maybe you are under-estimating it, but even more so maybe you are over-estimating what is left of "French identity" and its will to continue to exist per se, ie having a destiny of its own. Sure, blending happens but IMO happens in such a way that I am sure that in 50/70 years time France will look and feel more African than European to a Pole, a Russian or an Argentinian. And I mean culturally.


My point here is not even to talk about achievability, degree of violence... but simply to point-out that the current migration trends in Europe (mainly Western) will have geopolitical implications of the magnitude of those that followed the north and eastern migrations of Europe from 4th century ac, onwards. All of this can happen "peacefully", though violence is likely.


Again, this is true but is not the point I wished to make in terms of power perspectives and geopolitics for the century to come.


Trading is politically very powerful... provided you intend to use it to your advantage. To my knowledge, the EU does not have (today) a protectionnist/discriminatory vision of economy and trading, but rather an unbiased and global one - bar some exceptions such as agriculture. Basically today, in all trade meetings and treaties around the world, Europe is in a weak position and by the years its geopolitical/economic position is worsening in terms of sovereignity and capability to act. The recent take-over of European steel by Indian funds and interests was a remarkable example of what I am trying to say. The EU is much, much weaker and divided than most imagine today. It lacks will, it lacks a power to discriminate, to forge itself a destiny in opposition to other powers and blocks surrounding it. It is not even able to open a discussion on its borders, it is hardly ready to protect and/or defend its borders.


As it exists today the EU is the embryo of a world-wide free market ruled by international bodies. In other words, there is nothing European about the EU, it is just a Union - a loose, free-market based Union.


Take Turkey: the EU has no position, and no will to have any on whether Turkey should or not be in Europe. The discussions are purely administrative and technocratic. The essence of the EU is to have no positioning of its own on real, touchy and thorny issues.


Again this is not the point; the point I make is that the EU is not European, and will not exist as a geopolitical power in the way the USA, China and others do.


I did not state any "position" on Turkey of my own; just said that the EU will be divided and un-democratic about Turkey's membership, and that because of its weakness the EU as a whole will never oppose to Turkey's entry. It is Turkey that sets the pace here, and the EU will either bend and accept Turkey's entry, or break apart because of its divisions on this thorny issue such as many others. Just look at the current embroglio regarding visas to the USA - even on this the EU is incapable of having any sort of real sovereign power.

All this being said, I am only describing what I believe is a strong trend; trends can and do change, especially when surprising events do occur. And they always do.

Cheers




Maybe you are under-estimating it, but even more so maybe you are over-estimating what is left of "French identity" and its will to continue to exist per se, ie having a destiny of its own. Sure, blending happens but IMO happens in such a way that I am sure that in 50/70 years time France will look and feel more African than European to a Pole, a Russian or an Argentinian. And I mean culturally.


I think you have a blend image of French culture when what i am saying i don't care how the culture will change by adding Africans to the system as long as those Africans identify themselfs as French and Europeans. And i think , this is happening , at least in England , by not extreme-Muslims. A few generations after their won't be any gap. That is the culture that i am referring . I don't get how it would look more than an African , country , explain that . As long as it isn't a destabilization factor , i don't care.



My point here is not even to talk about achievability, degree of violence... but simply to point-out that the current migration trends in Europe (mainly Western) will have geopolitical implications of the magnitude of those that followed the north and eastern migrations of Europe from 4th century ac, onwards. All of this can happen "peacefully", though violence is likely.

A lot migrations happened the previous years and i think , the problems are not as bad as we assume. There are problems , Indeed , though. And some countries to face bigger problems than others and on them , yes the problem may be big but not in all Europe. The problem has less to do with migration rates and more with the birth rates of the immigrants that surpasses those of Europeans . It isn't easy to tell if this will be a problem.




Trading is politically very powerful... provided you intend to use it to your advantage. To my knowledge, the EU does not have (today) a protectionnist/discriminatory vision of economy and trading, but rather an unbiased and global one - bar some exceptions such as agriculture. Basically today, in all trade meetings and treaties around the world, Europe is in a weak position and by the years its geopolitical/economic position is worsening in terms of sovereignity and capability to act. The recent take-over of European steel by Indian funds and interests was a remarkable example of what I am trying to say. The EU is much, much weaker and divided than most imagine today. It lacks will, it lacks a power to discriminate, to forge itself a destiny in opposition to other powers and blocks surrounding it. It is not even able to open a discussion on its borders, it is hardly ready to protect and/or defend its borders.

Europe is the strongest Economy on the Planet and has the largest population on the planet. It may not always globally act as one but it doesn't have to Globally act as one. I will not argue how will Europe act towards it's neighboors , i will just say that what matters most is the effect that Europian Nations have in the entity that is called European Union. Bulgaria , Romania for example , their entry was best thing that ever happened to them in recent times. Few countries will resist entering Eu , considering the political benefits.
That means more and more countries industrialize and enter an axon of rich countries with the Help of Eu money. The situation is set to improve more and more in the future.
The one currency of the strongest economy in the Planet is reason enough for any country to change it's policy towards all Eu nations , because all use the same currency.


I don't think Europe is under a need to protect it's borders although i agree it can't act Globally in the way the other superpower does , to protect it's interest. And they don't want to. But what i am arguing is , do they have to ?



But i guess you agree a bit of the above but what you don't "like" is that Eu doesn't act as a sovereign power. I guess if European Nations do not agree on one issue , several of them create axons , teams based on their interests and so i agree , there is division in Eu. However , trends change , like you said.
But i also think that their are common Eu interests and in that case some of Eu members create an opposition to that interests if it's against theres. That is why i described the Thorn , because it isn't always two opposing Euorpian teams but one European one and an other one that fights for Other Interests. Which is better , as there is less division on the interests of Europeans.



Quote:
Originally Posted by scy12 View Post
The one currency , Global and Political realities of Eu , and so on will lead more and more countries to enter the Eu axon as i call it.
As it exists today the EU is the embryo of a world-wide free market ruled by international bodies. In other words, there is nothing European about the EU, it is just a Union - a loose, free-market based Union.

European Union also tries to act as one Mega -Government and European laws overcome National laws. Their European policies on Health , Education and so on and there is also the European court . The economical and immigrant policies are also very important. I see Eu more like a world government rather than just one economical union. And ofcourse Countries would want to enter for the political gain of expressing their opinion in political and other matters of such organisation. European Union is a baby and look how it is , it is unimaginable , how it may evolve. The abolishion of all National goverments all the creation of a Federation ( if it isn't already done) state isn't out of the question. You can't accuse an organisation for weakness when it is in the evolution progress.




I did not state any "position" on Turkey of my own; just said that the EU will be divided and un-democratic about Turkey's membership, and that because of its weakness the EU as a whole will never oppose to Turkey's entry. It is Turkey that sets the pace here, and the EU will either bend and accept Turkey's entry, or break apart because of its divisions on this thorny issue such as many others. Just look at the current embroglio regarding visas to the USA - even on this the EU is incapable of having any sort of real sovereign power.

In this example , it is in Eu interest not to accept Turkey as a full member. Yet there is division . That means that Usa Forces other Eu countries or they act on common interest in a direction that creates problems with Eu. However we still don't know how Eu will act in this situation. It is not Black and White , there are conflicting interests in the Eu , sure but for how long ? Why i call them thorns ? Because their is a clear common Eu interests axon and then some other countries try to disagree on that based on Pressure from other powers. How do they handle this , especially with every member having Veto power , i don't know. But While Money flows rapidly in Europe , who cares if Eu doesn't act like a decisive , National Entity/Government , would.

Like i said, Is it so important ?

I'm amazed at the current discussion here! There is no "African Culture" opposed to an "European Culture" to threaten it. What remains of african cultures is a mosaic too divided to ever "take over" Europe. In fact the current Africa has been heavily influenced by european culture.

I don't like to simply use the term "culture" (too broad), but I'll use it as it has been used in the discussion. There is a natural evolution of culture, as it must respond to technological changes. Because Europe has been at the forefront of those technological changes for the past 5 centuries, we say that it has exported "european culture" over the world, either modifying or completely superseding other cultures. The fact is that many of those cultures had to change, and could not change organically in time to keep with technological changes brought to their region - they were wiped out, or heavily influenced by "european culture". But that european culture is, to a large degree, just modern culture - unavoidable and inescapable! America first, then Africa, because they were (let's be frank!) the most technologically backwards regions of the world, had their natives cultures almost totally destroyed. The process is still happening in Africa, but when it is finished (and it will be) there will be little left of any genuine african culture. And because the change has to be radical it affects almost every aspect of life there.
Asia fared better because it wasn't technologically backwards, and could change slowly to adapt to new realities. It kept many of its morals and created its own particular approaches to address some changes, different from those prevalent in Europe.

So I don't see how can "african culture" take over Europe. We could talk about "african morals", treat morals independently from broad culture. Or of particular african traditions. But that is just a small part of what culture encompasses. And even there africa has very little to export to Europe. The main influence was and is from Europe to Africa, not the opposite.

Culture expands only to connected territories. As it has already been pointed out, France has far more connection with the rest of the EU that with Africa. So even the balance of foreign influences is against any prospect of "african culture" taking over france.

I can't resist writing about Turkey also. Why should Europe refuse Turkey?
Turkey is very much a part of Europe. And I would hope that the southern shores of the Mediterranean are also. Why do some people view them as so different? I know, for a fact, that life there is little different from what life on the northern shores of that sea was a few decades ago. We shouldn't develop a phobia of northern africans just because they have a different religion and that particular religion is going through a period of convulsions and change. Or because we, europeans who mostly live on cities in relative wealth, have forgotten our recent ancestors were mostly peasants not much unlike the image we have of those on some north african countries...
Both Europe and North Africa (and Turkey) are changing, having to change. We have a long history in common, and can choose to continue it. Or we can refuse that now, and loose that option forever in a few decades, as both sides have to develop to face the changing world. Think about it before simply hiding in the closet fearful of imagined "barbarian hordes" taking over Europe.

While i understand all your positions on this country , i will never accept the 1st for National , for Political and humanitarian reasons. While 50% of my country is controlled by Turkey troops since 1974 when they invaded , i can't even bother to look at any Eu interests.

Why did greek cypriots refused the UN and EU sponsored plan for the reunification of the island?
Are there any other ideas to solve this problem?

Why did greek cypriots refused the UN and EU sponsored plan for the reunification of the island?
Are there any other ideas to solve this problem?

The plan was another proof of European and Un Moral bankrupsy and a Pathetic plan , that was disastrous for Cyprus . We can discuss it elsewhere if you want.
I hope if you have already decided something on this matter to be able to have an open mind because what i am used to , in discussions is if a person isn't informed and supports position A , he will continue to do so , later , because of ego/pride.

I don't know any details about what the plan involved or why it failed, wasn't following that question. I was asking about it because I had heard there were high hopes for it, and yet it failed.

St Exupère I'm really interested in what you have to say. Can you tell me how you arrived at these conclusions?

I'm amazed at the current discussion here! There is no "African Culture" opposed to an "European Culture" to threaten it. What remains of african cultures is a mosaic too divided to ever "take over" Europe. In fact the current Africa has been heavily influenced by european culture.

I don't like to simply use the term "culture" (too broad), but I'll use it as it has been used in the discussion. There is a natural evolution of culture, as it must respond to technological changes. Because Europe has been at the forefront of those technological changes for the past 5 centuries, we say that it has exported "european culture" over the world, either modifying or completely superseding other cultures. The fact is that many of those cultures had to change, and could not change organically in time to keep with technological changes brought to their region - they were wiped out, or heavily influenced by "european culture". But that european culture is, to a large degree, just modern culture - unavoidable and inescapable! America first, then Africa, because they were (let's be frank!) the most technologically backwards regions of the world, had their natives cultures almost totally destroyed. The process is still happening in Africa, but when it is finished (and it will be) there will be little left of any genuine african culture. And because the change has to be radical it affects almost every aspect of life there.
Asia fared better because it wasn't technologically backwards, and could change slowly to adapt to new realities. It kept many of its morals and created its own particular approaches to address some changes, different from those prevalent in Europe.

So I don't see how can "african culture" take over Europe. We could talk about "african morals", treat morals independently from broad culture. Or of particular african traditions. But that is just a small part of what culture encompasses. And even there africa has very little to export to Europe. The main influence was and is from Europe to Africa, not the opposite.

Culture expands only to connected territories. As it has already been pointed out, France has far more connection with the rest of the EU that with Africa. So even the balance of foreign influences is against any prospect of "african culture" taking over france.

I can't resist writing about Turkey also. Why should Europe refuse Turkey?
Turkey is very much a part of Europe. And I would hope that the southern shores of the Mediterranean are also. Why do some people view them as so different? I know, for a fact, that life there is little different from what life on the northern shores of that sea was a few decades ago. We shouldn't develop a phobia of northern africans just because they have a different religion and that particular religion is going through a period of convulsions and change. Or because we, europeans who mostly live on cities in relative wealth, have forgotten our recent ancestors were mostly peasants not much unlike the image we have of those on some north african countries...
Both Europe and North Africa (and Turkey) are changing, having to change. We have a long history in common, and can choose to continue it. Or we can refuse that now, and loose that option forever in a few decades, as both sides have to develop to face the changing world. Think about it before simply hiding in the closet fearful of imagined "barbarian hordes" taking over Europe.
Very good post, I agree entirely.

The US shows no real sign of declining, except perhaps Iraq. China is going to emerge as a world superpower, that's where most of the computer game geeks are. :p

Japan just needs to add sublimal messages in their games (Nintendo and Sony) and the world will be following them.

Brazil is going to be the major power in South America, but maybe not a superpower. I think the EU has a good chance of an Economic superpower, and if turning into a NATO-like organization as well, perhaps a military superpower.

Of course, CFC will eventually become the superpower in game fansite forums, or at least Civ fansite forums. :p

Of course, CFC will eventually become the superpower in game fansite forums, or at least Civ fansite forums. :p
No! CFC will become the most recognized name in fair minded political and historical discussion in the world! :lol:

I reckon this will happen:

USA and China mistrust one another. They nhuke eachother. Thier economies disolve. Britain takes the opertunity to regain the USA and launches an invasion from Canada. The dominions become colonies, and Europe and Asia are forced to bow down to the mighty British Empire.

(I wish.)

Europe is today the biggest econmomy, but has not the biggest population in the world.
The greatest problems for Europe today are its excesively interventionistic goverments (just see what happened in Spain whit the scandal of the Endesa power company) and the lack of unity in a system in which everybody can block mayor decisions, especially towards the outside world (just look to what happened whit the Irak war) another great problem is the mistrust of many europeans towards the idea of the European union. This comes mostly from the absolutely wrong idea tha free markets will make many people to loose its job or economic welfare.

Because most of this problems don´t seem that they are going to be resolved soon, I think that Europe will soon be surpased as an economic power by China and US.

China will dominate, too many consumers for the economy to ignore, too much military for armies to ignore, too much culture/history for historians to ignore, too much pollution for environmentalists to ignore, etc.

The 6 superpowers:

USA, European Union (The same old 3 leading the way -France, England and Germany), Russia, China, Japan and Brazil.

Note: Lookout for Australia. As far as India goes...its a wild card, big population but...too near China...cof...cof

Note: Lookout for Australia.
As a strong middle power that can shift alliances' relative power and influence key WTO and UN votes, maybe (especially now that it looks like Labor and Rudd are going to win and pull Australia away from the whole Bush-on-steroids policy) but not as a Great Power in itself. Too few people. Too tightly linked to other powers.

As far as India goes...its a wild card, big population but...too near China...cof...cof

If you're talking invasion, forget it. They've got the Himalayas between them, which are what, the highest, larges mountains in the world? Mmmhmm. It doesn't take much to turn that into an impenetrable barrier. Furthermore, neither country is interested in seizing territory--it's costly and takes a long time to break even on the investment. Their main point of competition will be in selling to Westerners and expanding spheres of influence in Sub-Saharan Africa (already, South Africa is aligned with India).

Australia Too few people.

Surely immigration will help that though?

^ Yeah but Australia has a lot of desert... Might be harder to fit many people there. :)

Las Vegas is a desert. Doesn't stop 600,000 people living there...

Las Vegas became that large because it had the largest resevoir in the world right next to it. Before that, being a desert certainly did prevent people from living there, it had only 5,000 people.

Las Vegas became that large because it had the largest resevoir in the world right next to it. Before that, being a desert certainly did prevent people from living there, it had only 5,000 people.

Yes, who built the reservoir?

The U.S., but I don't theres not enough rivers in Australia to make the Outback livible.

Many things can be done with today's technology.

Many things can be done with today's technology.
You cannot make water out of nothing, at least not yet.

You cannot make water out of nothing, at least not yet.

You can put water there though; build canals perhaps.

You can put water there though; build canals perhaps.
Yes, but theres no where to bring the water from. Which again gives us our problem of creating water out of nothing.

Yes, but theres no where to bring the water from. Which again gives us our problem of creating water out of nothing.

Indian Ocean. As I said, canals can be built, and surely there is the technology to build a sufficiently long canal.

Indian Ocean. As I said, canals can be built, and surely there is the technology to build a sufficiently long canal.
But you can't drink from the Indian Ocean, or Grow Crops with it, or really do anything usefull for it.

But you can't drink from the Indian Ocean, or Grow Crops with it, or really do anything usefull for it.

Unless there is technology to purify the water.

^ Yeah, but that's already SF. If we could do that in huge quantities, we would use Global Warming in our advantage, and will keep the growing waters under control by "manually" inserting phreatic water below the Sahara, Gobi and Rub Al-Khali. Those areas would all become useable in some decades.

But that's very, very far away, and we don't know if we'll be able to do that.

^ Yeah, but that's already SF. If we could do that in huge quantities, we would use Global Warming in our advantage, and will keep the growing waters under control by "manually" inserting phreatic water below the Sahara, Gobi and Rub Al-Khali. Those areas would all become useable in some decades.

But that's very, very far away, and we don't know if we'll be able to do that.
Besides which its useless to imagine a world in which technology will soley benefit Australia. If such a technology existed, then Australia still is behind China and America, because of their newly useful land.

If you're talking invasion, forget it. They've got the Himalayas between them, which are what, the highest, larges mountains in the world? Mmmhmm. It doesn't take much to turn that into an impenetrable barrier. Furthermore, neither country is interested in seizing territory--it's costly and takes a long time to break even on the investment. Their main point of competition will be in selling to Westerners and expanding spheres of influence in Sub-Saharan Africa (already, South Africa is aligned with India).

Between? Tibete anyone? They already are in the mountains lol. They could be impenatrable for a 19th/20thishyy century army, but with China´s today military by the time India said Punjab! Red Flags would be hasting in New Delhi. The only counter is India as Atomic Weapon or "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraquishh....:mischief:


And no, i was talking in an economic/cultural invasion of India by China, but that´s like i said a wild card....

Between? Tibete anyone? They already are in the mountains lol. They could be impenatrable for a 19th/20thishyy century army, but with China´s today military by the time India said Punjab! Red Flags would be hasting in New Delhi. The only counter is India as Atomic Weapon or "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraquishh....:mischief:



Tibet is a high plain. The serious Himalayas run along the Chinese borders with Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, and Bhutan; Everest is on the China/Nepal border. You have to cross HUGE mountains to go from India to China by land...it's virtually impossible with a prepared force on the other side.


And no, i was talking in an economic/cultural invasion of India by China, but that´s like i said a wild card....

They're tied up at the moment. China has a small but significant lead in the economic arena, but India more than makes it up by its huge cultural influence (Indian TV, film, and music dominate not only the Indian market, but also the Pakistani, Afghan, and Southeast Asian markets, and do brisk business in the Middle East and Africa, whereas the Chinese are constantly fending off cultural "threats" from South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan).

The US, China, Russia, EU, and South Africa

[QUOTE=RickFGS;5549294]Between? Tibete anyone? They already are in the mountains lol. They could be impenatrable for a 19th/20thishyy century army, but with China´s today military by the time India said Punjab!QUOTE]
The Himilayas are not just limited to the territory of Tibet. They're the largest mountain range in the world. Last time India and China fought, it was with the handfull of troops they could support in the region. A war between them would be much the same. Also, the Indian army is nothing the scoff at, even if the himilayas weren't there.

If you listen to most knwoledgable economists:

BRIC: Brazil (disputable), Russia, India, China

plus US and EU bloc.

EDIT: Or BRICS: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa. Personally, I don't see South Africa having anywhere near the same potential as Brazil, Russia, India, and China. If a bloc of African countries got their act together similarly to South Africa, that would be something, but South Africa alone is dubious at best.

EDIT 2: Possibly also an Arab Mid East power, but with the gradual decline of oil, the divided nature of the Persian Gulf, the fundamentalist conservativism of Saudi Arabia, it is not all that likely. Iran could, if it gets its act together, emerge as a major power, which seems more likely than the Arabs.

New!

The MEC, US, Brazil, Russia, EU, India, China, Japan, and South Africa...

South Africa? Maybe a rugby superpower, but definitely not a world super power.

On the subjest of the E.U a lot of people are skeptical that it will be united as i am myself. I beleive it will happen 1 day but there will certainly be opposition especially in the U.K where even some people in the U.K want idependance for member countries(especially in Scotland as SNP are in charge).

I hope the E.U does'nt unite as it would drag down the economies of countries like Germany and the U.K.(The pound is very strong just noe, especially against the dollar).

A united europe would ruin some things that the government have spent years building up. Think about the NHS, the British govenment has spent years putting lots of money into it however if Europe was united it may not have free healthcare.(Or an insurance based system like in the U.S)

Don't worry, you'll get French mob marching to burn Bruxelles down before they accept a united Europe without healthcare

On the subjest of the E.U a lot of people are skeptical that it will be united as i am myself. I beleive it will happen 1 day but there will certainly be opposition especially in the U.K where even some people in the U.K want idependance for member countries(especially in Scotland as SNP are in charge).

I hope the E.U does'nt unite as it would drag down the economies of countries like Germany and the U.K.(The pound is very strong just noe, especially against the dollar).

A united europe would ruin some things that the government have spent years building up. Think about the NHS, the British govenment has spent years putting lots of money into it however if Europe was united it may not have free healthcare.(Or an insurance based system like in the U.S)

Don't worry, it won't be fully united until all its members reach the degree of development that the current leading ones have.
(after that, I certainly hope it will, but I don't know when it'll happen)

South Africa? Maybe a rugby superpower, but definitely not a world super power.

It's the greatest power in africa, thats why

Actually, Nigeria, Egypt, and Algeria can compete. Algeria and Nigeria have oil/natural gas (And Nigeria has lots of hackers) and Egypt can basically control a vital sea route via the Suez Canal.

It's the greatest power in africa, thats why

I don't know about that, but I'd say it has a great deal of potential, more so than most other African nations.

Actually, Nigeria, Egypt, and Algeria can compete. Algeria and Nigeria have oil/natural gas (And Nigeria has lots of hackers) and Egypt can basically control a vital sea route via the Suez Canal.

Strike Egypt from that list. It is a fully bought and paid for subsidary of United States of America, Inc.

Strike Egypt from that list. It is a fully bought and paid for subsidary of United States of America, Inc.

They sure as death don't act like it. We aren't getting our money's worth! :cry:

Oh, to stay on topic, new superpowers? EU, China, Russia.

New regional powers? Yeah, put South Africa in there. Maybe Brazil, definitely India. I would have said Iran two or three years ago, but they seem to be imploding under seriously poor management. Their oil wealth is running out of steam only a generation from now, and if they don't develop a non-oil industry soon, they could be in trouble.

It's all about how much value your labor can add to the system, or using leverage to sustain productivity growth (as the terminology goes). They are not incentivizing growth, which will put them behind in the long run. You can be as religious as you want, but not knowing how to manage your resources is a sin of the greatest proportion for a leader, that is if you have any sense of responsibility.

Don't worry, it won't be fully united until all its members reach the degree of development that the current leading ones have.
(after that, I certainly hope it will, but I don't know when it'll happen)
Europe will only be united (again) when justice shall be rendered throughout all its courts against the same absolute moral principles - and not necessarily in the same language, nor according to the same book of law.

If this is achieved (which I do not believe) then all the rest, with the help of time and the pressure of external conflicts, will follow.

Europe will only be united (again) [...]Sorry to interrupt you but could you tell me exactly when Europe has been united in the past ?

The Roman Empire was only about the Mediterranean Sea, both Napoleon and Hitler have never eliminated all their opponents (they've actually been eliminated by them). As such, the only remaining competitor would be the Vatican City during the High Middle Age (before the Reform), but there were so strong local powers everywhere that I doubt it could really be considered as "united".

Nope, at the opposite of the Indian and Chinese subcontinents, the European subcontinent has never been united. Considering the limited space of each of its kingdoms and their constant competition for domination, this is probably the reason why Europe has colonized the whole world despite being less technologically advanced untill the 16th century.

However, now that the world is a fully globalized village and that Europe's advance has been caught back by many others, what used to be an advantage has become a severe drawback. Either Europe unites or Europe gets colonized. There's no middle ground.

I was indeed thinking about the Catholic Church, and the christian faith. Europe has never been united politically but it has been spiritually, morally and even legally with the roman canon applied on the majority of jurisdictions in the Middle-Ages along with other, local and/or traditional, sources of law. Hence a clear European civilization, that was so strong and homogeneous that it was able to conquer the world and did not break apart until the double-suicide attempt of the XXth century.

This being said, I fully agree (see my other posts in this thread) that Europe is not only under the threat of colonization, but that the process has already started - a colonization that takes various forms, some deadlier than others. A utopist will to unite politically at all costs will IMO produce the opposite effect. It is in terms of identity, in the unity of hearts and minds, that Europe can survive and retain its sovereignity. There is only one path to this: renewed christian foundations - just like 1000 years ago when we were under "similar" threats.

They sure as death don't act like it. We aren't getting our money's worth! :cry:


The government does what it's told: it provides torture services, military bases, an "alliance" with the largest power in the Middle East, and someone to generally do the USA's Mideast dirty work (i.e. the things the higherups need done, but can't have the US do for political/image reasons...and might even be contradictory to what we have declared our interests to be). You can almost see their mission statement: "At Arab Republic of Egypt LLC, it is our mission to serve our client's wishes to the fullest in those matters which he or she should find uncomfortable, and to do so with zeal, courtesy, and an upright image." In exchange, the US provides cash, food, and guns. The people are another matter...

Europe will only be united (again) when justice shall be rendered throughout all its courts against the same absolute moral principles - and not necessarily in the same language, nor according to the same book of law.

If this is achieved (which I do not believe) then all the rest, with the help of time and the pressure of external conflicts, will follow.

What absolute moral principles? From where?

Sorry to interrupt you but could you tell me exactly when Europe has been united in the past ?

The Roman Empire was only about the Mediterranean Sea, both Napoleon and Hitler have never eliminated all their opponents (they've actually been eliminated by them). As such, the only remaining competitor would be the Vatican City during the High Middle Age (before the Reform), but there were so strong local powers everywhere that I doubt it could really be considered as "united".

Nope, at the opposite of the Indian and Chinese subcontinents, the European subcontinent has never been united. Considering the limited space of each of its kingdoms and their constant competition for domination, this is probably the reason why Europe has colonized the whole world despite being less technologically advanced untill the 16th century.

However, now that the world is a fully globalized village and that Europe's advance has been caught back by many others, what used to be an advantage has become a severe drawback. Either Europe unites or Europe gets colonized. There's no middle ground.

I agree.

I was indeed thinking about the Catholic Church, and the christian faith. Europe has never been united politically but it has been spiritually, morally and even legally with the roman canon applied on the majority of jurisdictions in the Middle-Ages along with other, local and/or traditional, sources of law. Hence a clear European civilization, that was so strong and homogeneous that it was able to conquer the world and did not break apart until the double-suicide attempt of the XXth century.

This being said, I fully agree (see my other posts in this thread) that Europe is not only under the threat of colonization, but that the process has already started - a colonization that takes various forms, some deadlier than others. A utopist will to unite politically at all costs will IMO produce the opposite effect. It is in terms of identity, in the unity of hearts and minds, that Europe can survive and retain its sovereignity. There is only one path to this: renewed christian foundations - just like 1000 years ago when we were under "similar" threats.

I agree.

I can actually see America collasping and suffering a second depresion if say countries using US dollars switch to Euro or Yen and China want its money back.

Okay lets see the few contenders

China is a definite in, its large land mass and population at its feet, it massive economy. Its power seen in military strenght, influence and economicaly. But it has to bring its new weatlh to its povety. Deeper parts of china are pretty much splat compared to the coast. It also has pollution, corruption and rampant diseases to fix.

India is also gonna be a Superpower. Like China its huge in size and population and its growing quickly economically and industrially especially its IT base. But like China it has pollution to mend but i am not sure if corruption is rampant.

Europe not so much. Maybe before it included the Eastern European States but not now. Basically getting 27 countries to agree on something is gonna be hard. I mean you are asking 27 different countries of different thinking, culture and polictics to agree on one thing. Not gonna be easy.

So you believe India has more chances than Europe because of the Eastern European countries in Europe, which are anyway richer than most parts of India?

So you believe India has more chances than Europe because of the Eastern European countries in Europe, which are anyway richer than most parts of India?

No i am saying India has mroe chance because Europe has too many members to make a decision. It could have been a super power when there was just 15 states, and even thats alot but with the inclusion of the eastern european states there are 27 countries. All too busy bickering with each other over petty things than actually making a decision

No i am saying India has mroe chance because Europe has too many members to make a decision.

On what?

10 char.

On what?

10 char.

on anything

^ Yeah, but that's already SF. If we could do that in huge quantities, we would use Global Warming in our advantage, and will keep the growing waters under control by "manually" inserting phreatic water below the Sahara, Gobi and Rub Al-Khali. Those areas would all become useable in some decades.

But that's very, very far away, and we don't know if we'll be able to do that.

right now, one colonel is actually sucking water from under Sahara...

It's a shame, because I kind of like him.

on anything

Define anything, because at this rate the EU is still going to be a far more viable power than India for a long time.

Very interesting topic.

USA, China and India have spots already. If russia get's back on track then there likely to be a superpower again. Brazil, Iran and Saudi Arabia are possibilities. If Venezuela get's back on track as well then they can become rich and a regional superpower. Not sure about them being a global power though. Other then that, the EU. And possibly Australia if the exploit there resources. As someone said before, the area around the caspain sea has huge amounts of Oil etc. So my prediction is that there going to become small powers, but not super powers.

Define anything, because at this rate the EU is still going to be a far more viable power than India for a long time.

Gee how do you define anything? uhhh anything? Again, 27 bickering countries can not be more effeicent then a united country

Gee how do you define anything? uhhh anything? Again, 27 bickering countries can not be more effeicent then a united country

:lol: Once again you exhibit your limited understanding. What is "anything"? You need to come up with some concrete illustration on how the European Parliament is less effective than the Indian Congress (I think it's called a congress). And India has quite a number of states, and these states have their own governments and are not developing at the same pace as each other. Some states suffer from weak government and are notoriously poor. So, again your definition of "united" is pretty simplistic and unrealistic. A single country isn't necessarily more efficient than a collection of countries.

:lol: Once again you exhibit your limited understanding. What is "anything"? You need to come up with some concrete illustration on how the European Parliament is less effective than the Indian Congress (I think it's called a congress). And India has quite a number of states, and these states have their own governments and are not developing at the same pace as each other. Some states suffer from weak government and are notoriously poor. So, again your definition of "united" is pretty simplistic and unrealistic. A single country isn't necessarily more efficient than a collection of countries.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,361374,00.html

With France and Britain showing a complete unwillingness to compromise on the European Union's next budget, a major summit in Brussels collapsed on Friday. The EU is in a rut and it's not clear how it will get out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3315447.stm

European summit ends in failure......European Union leaders have failed to reach agreement on a constitution at a crucial summit in Brussels.


If such highly developed countries like UK, Netherlands, France and Germany can not even work out a constitution or even plan a budget, can they actually work together in enough harmony to become a superpower?

India on the other hand has both a budget and a constitution and has taken part in several victorius wars so does that make them more or less effecient.

And India has quite a number of states, and these states have their own governments and are not developing at the same pace as each other. America has 50 something states and I dont have a map of Jesusland

Some states suffer from weak government and are notoriously poor.

Seeing that India is considered poor, no it does not suprise me that some states are poor. Are you trying to say they get no funding? India is still developing and is a huge country. Being only 50 next year and still in indrustrialisation. Again it does not surprise me some states have weak, maybe corrupt goverments.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,361374,00.html

2005


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3315447.stm

2003

If you go back further in time, you may actually even found some wars between the current members of EU.

Here is a more recent link, 2 weeks ago. EU agreed on the new treaty proposed by French president Sarkozy after negociations
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/president/focus/council_062007_en.htm

Do not confuse population density with superpower status. Political cohesion, technology, willngness for power and ambition is much more important.

I can see USA, Russia, China and to some extent Japan playing the lead role.
The EU will tag behind the American project.

I would say anyone that has atleast 1% of the world population, and access to a large enough amount of resources (an area larger than the size of France or the Ukraine these days) stands a good chance at becoming a superpower. That's a minimum of about 66 million, roughly 18 countries - not including the EU (or you could use 3% as a 'comfortable' estimate, and that's 198 million, which leaves China, India, US, and Indonesia. Brazil is just under that figure, and I'm not sure if Indonesia's size will allow them to have the spread of resources they would need.). Those that fall in the 1-2% range are - Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Russia, Japan, Mexico, Philippines, Vietnam, Germany, Ethiopia, Egypt, Turkey, and Iran - some of which, are obviously too small (Bangladesh) to even be a superpower.

If I could set up rules defining a superpower...

1 - Directly control 3% of the world's population within the nation's borders. (large potential workforce in case of war)
2 - Must have global militaristic (as in having the equipment to move large amounts of troops to the other side of the world for an extended period of time. Skill is also a factor), political, and cultural influence.
3 - Must have a strong economy (industry, workforce, and one that can withstand a large population. I'm no economist, but if you go by GDP, it seems most nations have a better economy due to their small size or small population. There's probably another factor like economic potential of larger nations, like China, India and Brazil.)
4 - Must have a common language (written - i.e., medieval China - or oral -- doesn't have to be official).
5 - Loyalty to the country over ethnic, religious and ideological lines.

China and India certainly fit the population ranking. China definately fits global culture (why do you think there's a Chinese Carry out at every shopping center? It's the McDonalds of the Far East). Political influence is quite regional right now, I think, as well as military. I'm not sure about India's political and military influnce - pakistan maybe? But that's just a regional dispute. I think they have parts of SE Asia in the cultural side, but it's not global yet. (No, Sanjay Gupta on CNN doesn't count! :p) India certainly is drawing in a high tech workforce, which means more money into their economy, and a higher GDP. I've read that China, India, and Brazil all have the potential for superpower status, although I'm not sure if Brazil is large enough, or even has the worldwide influence. I've seen some put Nigeria into the list (vast diamond resources, I suppose), but I don't think even they're large enough, and do have a distinct north/south split over religion.


As far as "superstates" are concerned...

European Union - I think they still have a long way to go in unifying on many issues before really combining as one nation.
African Union - While almost every nation in Africa belongs to it, I think it functions more like the UN and a trade union than a super-national union.
North American Union - Still in its' infancy, I think. (Now put down those tin-foil hats! :p)
South American Union - I think a step or two behind the NAU.

I would say anyone that has atleast 1% of the world population, and access to a large enough amount of resources (an area larger than the size of France or the Ukraine these days) stands a good chance at becoming a superpower. That's a minimum of about 66 million, roughly 18 countries - not including the EU (or you could use 3% as a 'comfortable' estimate, and that's 198 million, which leaves China, India, US, and Indonesia. Brazil is just under that figure, and I'm not sure if Indonesia's size will allow them to have the spread of resources they would need.). Those that fall in the 1-2% range are - Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Russia, Japan, Mexico, Philippines, Vietnam, Germany, Ethiopia, Egypt, Turkey, and Iran - some of which, are obviously too small (Bangladesh) to even be a superpower.

I can't really see Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Philippines, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Egypt, Turkey and Iran as candidates for leadership.

However, Brazil can work something out with Argentina, Egypt could figure something out with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States and

Russia, Japan and China are all full of potential. India does not have the internal strength to make it happen. Then again, for global leadership, we could see Britain and a revitalized Commonwealth challenge the US leadership, as language and global appeal is part the package.

I can't really see Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Philippines, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Egypt, Turkey and Iran as candidates for leadership.

However, Brazil can work something out with Argentina, Egypt could figure something out with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States and

Russia, Japan and China are all full of potential. India does not have the internal strength to make it happen. Then again, for global leadership, we could see Britain and a revitalized Commonwealth challenge the US leadership, as language and global appeal is part the package.

Of course you beeing from England clearly as no influence in your statement. Britain is UE, but then again when it comes to take the credits of something they aren´t, since they are a commonwealth, they achieved it all on their own.

As for Brazil, a 200 million people country with oil, a growing economy is clearly no candidate to assume a world leadership.

Problem with Brazil is the immense production and wealth disparity. If Britain is bad on the Gini Index, Brazil is the recordholder worst. Add corruption and several other factors. But Brazil can become a major contender, the only one from the Latin world, that is quite clear. Yet, Brazil needs to do something with crime, corruption, the plantation economy and so on.

I can't really see Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Philippines, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Egypt, Turkey and Iran as candidates for leadership.
Well, Mexico, Egypt and Iran would be credible candidates as regional powers, perhaps Vietnam, too, even if it's sandwiched between China and Thailand. Although Thailand's loss due to the junta is Vietnam's gain. Ethiopia is simply too poor and has too many internal problems, notwithstanding lots of military aid from the US. Turkey's future would be in the European Union but if it doesn't turn out that way, Turkey may become more assertive about regional problems, such as Iraq or Armenia..


Then again, for global leadership, we could see Britain and a revitalized Commonwealth challenge the US leadership, as language and global appeal is part the package.

I doubt that very much. Sure, lots of Commonwealth countries have plenty of ressources but have a long, long way to go in terms of democracy or even stable leadership. Anyway, it seems doubtful that those countries that just had gotten rid of their colonial powers come flying back into Britannia's arms. ;)
Britain's superpower status is gone since World War Two or, at the latest, since the Suez Crisis. Its future, political and economical, is in the EU - even if a lot of people across the Channel don't like that idea.

I can't really see Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Philippines, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Egypt, Turkey and Iran as candidates for leadership.

However, Brazil can work something out with Argentina, Egypt could figure something out with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States and

Russia, Japan and China are all full of potential. India does not have the internal strength to make it happen. Then again, for global leadership, we could see Britain and a revitalized Commonwealth challenge the US leadership, as language and global appeal is part the package.

I never said they would be. They just meet one criteria. England? I'm not so sure about. Maybe 350 years ago when they had colonies all over the place England itself (minus Wales, Scotland, Ireland) is about the size of Italy (I'm guessing here). Now, maybe if England were to lead the European Union, but then again, it would be the EU, not England.

England: 130,395 km²
Italy: 301,318 km²

England: 130,395 km²
Italy: 301,318 km²

Well, atleast maybe Great Britain. But, it's hard to tell on Google Earth or Google Maps sometimes.

As far as "superstates" are concerned...

European Union - I think they still have a long way to go in unifying on many issues before really combining as one nation.
African Union - While almost every nation in Africa belongs to it, I think it functions more like the UN and a trade union than a super-national union.
North American Union - Still in its' infancy, I think. (Now put down those tin-foil hats! :p)
South American Union - I think a step or two behind the NAU.

Actually, the South Americans have actually gotten around to forming a union (the Union of South American Nations), but the process is going a bit slowly. Still, they probably won't be too far behind schedule in achieving their aims of an integrated market, common passport, and foreign-policy coordination. North America as yet has only NAFTA, so I'd say that the South Americans are ahead of us now. I'd credit it to stronger cultural links (all of the significant South American nations speak either Spanish or Portuguese, which are easy to learn if you know one...and as I recall, a Portuguese speaker can understand most things said in Spanish, though not the other way around), and to the wave of the left that has swept South America, meaning that most of the countries are on the same page politically (the current bloc of conservative government in North America will not last very long as the US is more than likely to elect a Democratic President and Congress next year).

I'd rather be a pathetic, insignificant country than be a part of the United States of Europe. I am saying this both as a Welshman and a Brit. So don't come out with "well you would say that because Wales is insignificant anyway". I know a lot of people across the UK share my sentiments.

To be honest, i think the EU could still become a superpower whilst maintaining it's structure as a grand alliance of sovereign states. If all of Europe openly shared technology (civilian and military), scientific discoveries and ideas and the EU finally stopped it's expansion, then Europe would be a force to be reckoned with.

We would defend each other from external threats and continue to share our unique cultures and traditions. There is really no need for one flag, one anthem, one leader, one capital, one constitution, one military, one currency etc. Why fix it if it isn't broken?

The main argument from most people in favor of "One Europe" is that it would make Europe and it's people safer and stronger militarily. This is simply not true. If Russia or China attacked Greece for example, do you really think the rest of Europe would sit back and do nothing? Of course not, Europe would instantly unite against that common foe. Besides it's highly unlikely Europe will ever be attacked anyway, as long as Britain and France maintain their nuclear arsenals.

The main thing stopping the EU from becoming a global superpower is constant bickering. Let's stop arguing about a pointless constitution and get on with the more important things!

I'm sorry that i went off on a rant about the EU. I tend to get carried away with my posts.

We would defend each other from external threats and continue to share our unique cultures and traditions. There is really no need for one flag, one anthem, one leader, one capital, one constitution, one military, one currency etc. Why fix it if it isn't broken?

I would agree as long as the need for one set of moral system, or faith, is there. If that ciment is there then the rest if useless and even dangerous. Alas, that ciment is long gone.


If Russia or China attacked Greece for example, do you really think the rest of Europe would sit back and do nothing? Of course not, Europe would instantly unite against that common foe. Besides it's highly unlikely Europe will ever be attacked anyway, as long as Britain and France maintain their nuclear arsenals.

I disagree and here are 3 counter-examples:

1/ Cyprus is invaded by a non-EU Nation and no one protests, even better that Nation is offered a seat in the Union.
2/ The UK sovereignly knights a man and that prompts a high-pakistani official to call for terror attacks on the UK (which almost happen a few days later); has any member of the EU, or EU itself, asked for apology from Pakistan, threatened Pakistan in anyway for having so lowly targeted one European Nation? no, everyone crawls and shuts up.
3/ Economics: recently the major European steel manufacturer was bought by Indian assets, the major European aeronautical manufacturer is under severe similar threat - yet EU shows disunity, pickering and weakness in front of all this, again.

Unless issue n°1 is solved one way or another, the EU will continue to be a joke and will finish either breaking apart, or more likely continue to be a Union that will have nothing European anymore.

SE

Those are good counter examples. However, if Cyprus was invaded by anyone (EU member or not) I do believe Europe would act. Maybe not as a united force, but as a coalition of the more powerful states (UK, France etc).

In regards to your second example; Pakistan never threatened Britain (or any other nation as far as i am aware) with direct military action. If it had, Britain would still not have backed down. We would have still given the knighthood to Salman Rushdie and would have gone as far as counter threaten Pakistan with military action of our own. If this situation or one similar were ever to arise, i'm confident the EU would side with Britain when the chips were down. Likewise, if another European country (EU member or not) found itself in such a dilemma, Britain would certainly take the side of it's continental ally.

Finally, I also have faith in the European economy. You give examples of how European manufactures have been bought by and face tough competition from other powers. But how widespread is this trend? The EU is still a major player in the fields of science, medicine and e-commerce and will continue to hold it's own in many other key areas.

In regards to your second example; Pakistan never threatened Britain (or any other nation as far as i am aware) with direct military action. If it had, Britain would still not have backed down. We would have still given the knighthood to Salman Rushdie and would have gone as far as counter threaten Pakistan with military action of our own. If this situation or one similar were ever to arise, i'm confident the EU would side with Britain when the chips were down. Likewise, if another European country (EU member or not) found itself in such a dilemma, Britain would certainly take the side of it's continental ally.

There were calls for terror attacks on the UK by a Pakistani member of government, that is no small talk. Furthermore, the days of classical military confrontation are long gone. The "battlefield" is moral, cultural, spiritual, even demographic. That, Europeans do not realize.


Finally, I also have faith in the European economy. You give examples of how European manufactures have been bought by and face tough competition from other powers. But how widespread is this trend? The EU is still a major player in the fields of science, medicine and e-commerce and will continue to hold it's own in many other key areas.

I agree it still is, yet losing sovereignity on such very key industrial giants can only be negative and weaken us all. The reality is that today, the EU does not practice some level of economic protectionism like other great powers do, and will do more and more. And I do not believe it will in the future, for this would disadvantage some Nations (such as the UK, but not only).

Those are good counter examples. However, if Cyprus was invaded by anyone (EU member or not) I do believe Europe would act. Maybe not as a united force, but as a coalition of the more powerful states (UK, France etc).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus

Guess what, France and England did not help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus
Guess what, France and England did not help
*sigh* Why do you keep throwing links at us without trying to show at least of bit thinking, reading your own links and checking they have a common reference or are up to date?
The invasion of Cyprus was in 1974.
Greece joined EU in 1981. Cyprus in 2004.

Why should France and England have helped 33 years ago?

*sigh* Why do you keep throwing links at us without trying to show at least of bit thinking, reading your own links and checking they have a common reference or are up to date?
The invasion of Cyprus was in 1974.
Greece joined EU in 1981. Cyprus in 2004.

Why should France and England have helped 33 years ago?

Aww u beat me to it.

Yet, since 2004, and since such invasion is still on-going, one could expect a little more pressure than the "come and be our guest in the Union" official position.

*sigh* Why do you keep throwing links at us without trying to show at least of bit thinking, reading your own links and checking they have a common reference or are up to date?
The invasion of Cyprus was in 1974.
Greece joined EU in 1981. Cyprus in 2004.

Why should France and England have helped 33 years ago?

He said and I qoute "However, if Cyprus was invaded by anyone (EU member or not)"

He said and I qoute "However, if Cyprus was invaded by anyone (EU member or not)"

No technically they are right, I was not specific enough.
What I meant is that being part of the EU did not help Cyprus free itself from Turkic invasion - on the contrary, I would say. Nor did it spring particular added European solidarity on the matter.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,361374,00.html

Ok, so how did that affect the EU's economic power? And are they not now going to have another attempt to iron out their disagreements? Just because there's a difficult political process involved, which is quite in the nature of a democratic system, doesn't mean that they will never be stronger than they are. By your logic, Myanmar would become a superpower more easily than the EU :rolleyes:

Take a look at the Weimar Republic - weak coalition government beset by economic problems. Didn't change the fact that it had a solid foundation that promised a quick rebound once the economic problems were over.

If such highly developed countries like UK, Netherlands, France and Germany can not even work out a constitution or even plan a budget, can they actually work together in enough harmony to become a superpower?

:lol: And in India everyone agrees with each other? Take note that the EU deals is a collection of countries with separate identities. The fact that they could cooperate to the current extent is, I believe, already unprecedented. India, on the other hand, has quite a few problems to resolve before it becomes the kind of stable democratic country that you find in the West.

India on the other hand has both a budget and a constitution and has taken part in several victorius wars so does that make them more or less effecient.

:lol: at the bolded part. Europe colonised much of the world, including India, so that makes them much more efficient ;)

America has 50 something states and I dont have a map of Jesusland

And America is in a similar situation with India because? Do you know any other map besides that of Leekuanyewland?

Seeing that India is considered poor, no it does not suprise me that some states are poor. Are you trying to say they get no funding? India is still developing and is a huge country. Being only 50 next year and still in indrustrialisation. Again it does not surprise me some states have weak, maybe corrupt goverments.

Much of Europe is already industrialised and a lot less corrupt. India may be a superpower one day, but chances are Europe will be greater for a long time more.

*sigh* Why do you keep throwing links at us without trying to show at least of bit thinking...?

Don't be surprised. It's a common technique used in Singapore schools.

Ok, so how did that affect the EU's economic power? And are they not now going to have another attempt to iron out their disagreements? Just because there's a difficult political process involved, which is quite in the nature of a democratic system, doesn't mean that they will never be stronger than they are. By your logic, Myanmar would become a superpower more easily than the EU :rolleyes:

It doesnt. Now, you just admit the EU bicker quite alot and have problems. You said they were going to iron out their problems. Now if the EU does that, stick with it and contiune to be best friends. Then I will say EU will be the next Superpower maybe even faster than China. Now I am still unconvinced because I think their main obstacles is that there are too many countries to make a decision. And for you convience this is what I think makes a superpower.

My logic to what makes a superpower is
1.occupied a continental-sized landmass
2.had a large population
3.stable administration
4.a superordinate economic capacity
5.plenty of supplies of food and natural resources
6.military supreme and influential
7.clear sense of national identity


Both India and EU have that. Well almost....

:lol: And in India everyone agrees with each other? Take note that the EU deals is a collection of countries with separate identities. The fact that they could cooperate to the current extent is, I believe, already unprecedented. India, on the other hand, has quite a few problems to resolve before it becomes the kind of stable democratic country that you find in the West.

Okay I agree with this

:lol: at the bolded part. Europe has colonised much of the world, including India, so that makes them much more efficient ;)

Europe was never a country. But seperate European countries did colonise the world. Whatcha saying?

And America is in a similar situation with India because? Do you know any other map besides that of Leekuanyewland?

You dont make sense here


Much of Europe is already industrialised and a lot less corrupt. India may be a superpower one day, but chances are Europe will be greater for a long time more.[/QUOTE]

He said and I qoute "However, if Cyprus was invaded by anyone (EU member or not)"
This is relevant once Cyprus became a member of EU, not 30 years before.

England and France might not have helped Cyprus, but Wales did. It's a little known fact that Wales sent it's most powerful (and only) warship to liberate Cyprus. Sadly, it sunk on the way when a gust of wind tipped it over. All 3 crew members were rescued safely though.

P.S. Don't go looking for this on Wikipedia, it's been taken off there due to an anti-welsh conspiracy. I suspect crab people (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_people#The_Crab_People) are behind it! :scan:

Okay, so firstly we should wonder what makes a superpower. The power of a country is determined by its ability to have an influence, either regional or worldwide, on other countries.

The population and the land area are not directly factors of power. Their influence is only undirect. There are only two big categories of direct influence : Trade exchanges : implying natural ressources, level of GDP, trade barriers, etc...
Politics and diplomacy : implying hard power (military), soft power (bilateral agreements, diplomatic network), etc...

Now that the two big categories are determined, here are some of the obvious criterias helping to determine one country's status of power :

Economically speaking, the most obvious are GDP, exports (but also imports as the US have shown on the monetary market), influence in the WTO (not only on one's own but also through coalitions), economical and monetary agreements with other countries.

Politically and diplomatically speaking, the most obvious criterias are detaining nuclear power or not, permanent membership in the UN Security council, the number of military base abroad, the capacity to lead military operations anywhere on the planet, of course the size of the military, the size of the diplomatic network (number of embassies), the political and security agreements between different countries.

The EU is very specific in the meaning that it's totally united considering the economical sphere of power, and totally divided considering the diplomatic and political sphere of power.

Indeed, the EU is represented as a single entity at the WTO. It also represents a single market (there's no inside tariff), and it has a single currency (sorry for you Brits but the pound is getting more and more insignificant). On the other side, Britain and France are both permanent members of the UN security council (not the EU), each country is fully sovereign towards its own military, every country has its own diplomatic network, and also its own security agreements with other countries.

Considering this, I can see currently only 5 global powers: The United States
China
France
The United Kingdom
Russia
Now here are my reasons... These 5 countries are all nuclear powers, they are all permanent members of the UN security council, they have all a military capacity making them able to intervene in distant battlefields, they have all a very strong diplomatic network at a global scale, and finally they are all key trade exchange players (the UK and France through the EU). You can find other countries reaching some of these criterias, but only these 5 reach all of them.

Anyway, let's check which countries have the potential to become world powers in the upcoming century : China : It has become a key player through its massive exports. Its GDP will most likely exceed the one of the US during the 21st century. Furthermore it starts to become very influent politically speaking in third world countries (predominantly Asia and Africa).
The United States : few things to say, they have everything to remain a strong world power.
The European Union : several signs tend to prove that after the economical integration, the EU will get into a political integration. The current period is actually crucial to know which direction will be followen, but I would keep that one as most likely. The big question mark is about Turkey's integration. If Turkey gets in, then Europe won't become ever a united political power.
India : the Indian economy keeps growing, there are few reason why it won't become a power, however, I still believe it will remain less powerful than the three above (though it depends on the EU political integration being made or not).
Russia : Russia should succeed to maintain its world power status. Its economy will probably continue to develop, and might exceed again those of Western European countries individually such as Germany, Britain, France and Italy. However, I can't see how it could reach the same influence it had after world war 2.
Japan, Brazil, South Africa : If these countries succeed to become permanent members of the UN security council, then they will necessarily become world powers. If not, they should remain regional powers.

The United States
China
France
The United Kingdom
Russia

I've never understood this, and I've seen it sometimes. :) Why is France or the UK more of a superpower than Germany? It has a lot bigger industry (like being such a huge producer of cars), more importance in politics, a lot more GDP, more developed infrastructure and it's the biggest country in Europe, excepting of course Russia with which no country in the world can compete in size.

I've never understood this, and I've seen it sometimes. :) Why is France or the UK more of a superpower than Germany? It has a lot bigger industry (like being such a huge producer of cars), more importance in politics, a lot more GDP, more developed infrastructure and it's the biggest country in Europe, excepting of course Russia with which no country in the world can compete in size.Actually, in size, France is the biggest in the EU... Germany is more populous though. ;)

Anyway, as I've stated in my post, population and land area doesn't determine power. They can help undirectly, but they don't determine it, otherwise the Netherlands would have never controled Indonesia. So if you had read fully my post, you wouldn't ask such a question. ;)

Ok, so we live in a world where "countries" are recognized as the only independent administrative entities. That means that no rule that hasn't been agreed by one country can be applied inside its own borders. Given that, the power of a country is determined by its ability to exert power on other independent countries (through negociations, military strength, etc...).

Germany has been constrained at the 2nd world war to heavy sanctions which have massively harmed its power abilities. Untill the fall of the Berlin wall, neither West Germany nor East Germany had even an independent foreign policy. It's only with Gehrardt Schröder that Germany has started again to talk independently.

This being said, why Germany isn't more powerful than britain despite having cooler cars ? Well, Germany isn't a permanent member of the UN security council. Permanent members have two great advantages that are not shared by any other countries. They participate to all UN strategical debates, and they can put their veto on any of them (especially those against their own interests). Globally, it means that the UN can take any decision it wants against any country on the planet except the 5 permanent members (and those these 5 permanent members consent to protect).

This is huge. Globally, it means that the only countries which are not constrained to anything internationally speaking are the 5 UN permanent members. For instance, if they want to devellop a nuclear arsenal, they can. And guess what... all of them did. If one of the 5 UN permanent members wants to militarily intervene anywhere in the world, it also can.

And this opens huge perspectives. For instance, if Romania wants to discourage Russia to invade, then it just has to sign a deal with the US saying the US would join the war in case Russia attacks. Romania buys few US jets, and the deal is done. Germany couldn't do so, France and Britain could, but Romania considers the US as a better pal, obviously.

International relationships are about perpetual negociations, France and Britain both have a lot more cards in their hands to negociate with another country than Germany has. So to put it in a nutshell that's why they are more powerful.

I've never understood this, and I've seen it sometimes. :) Why is France or the UK more of a superpower than Germany? It has a lot bigger industry (like being such a huge producer of cars), more importance in politics, a lot more GDP, more developed infrastructure and it's the biggest country in Europe, excepting of course Russia with which no country in the world can compete in size.
To complete what Marla said:

If you list the coutry by GDP, PP, International monetary fund:

5 Germany 2,436,004
6 United Kingdom 2,006,078
7 France 1,835,696

Germany is indeed first, but it's not so much more that it dwarf France or UK.

Some other interesting fact: here is the ranking of countries according to their EEZ: Exclusive Economic Zone (seazone over which a state has special rights over the exploration and use of marine resources).

United States 11,351,000 km²
France 11,035,000 km²
Australia 8 148 250 km²
Russia 7,566,673 km²
Japan 4,479,358 km²
New Zealand 4,083,744 km²
United Kingdom 3,973,760 km²
Canada 2,755,564 km²

Germany EEZ is ridiculously small here. Although probably a little bigger than Lesotho or Liechtenstein


Now population:
14- Germany 82,314,900
19- France 64,102,140
22- UK 60,209,500

There again, Germany is first. But it's nothing like China or India.

However:
- France and UK are permanent SC members, with veto right. Germany is not.
- France and UK have nuclear weapons. Not Germany.
- France and UK have aircraft carriers, and plan to build new one. Not Germany.
- France and UK can project forces anywhere in the World, Germany cannot.
- French and English are languages present worldwide, on the 5 continents.

All this make Germany a stronger regional power (in Europe, especially now that the EU has been expended eastward, the center switched more to Germany than France), but it is relatively weak as worldwide power.

I think putting France in the top five is a result of a mix of nostalgia, conventional political science doctrine and a belief in the francophone vision.
France is a major power, but not a global power, and overseas territories and aircraft carriers do not alter that.

I would add something about projections of greatness, something we can attribute China, Russia and Brazil.


So, my top list would be:

1. USA (big surprise=
2. China (big surprise)
3. Great Britain (Great Surprise, but can be explained about global economics controls, financial institutions, political intelligence, special relationship to the US as well as the Commonwealth, Echelon and so on)
4. Russia (Yes, Abramovich and Beresovskij left Russia with their money, and did not go to Paris, they went to London)
5. Brazil, the latin American dark horse coming up very quickly in some 15 years.

Japan, France, India, Japan and Saudi Arabia would come next.

@Provolution :

I'm sorry but I have strong difficulties to understand how exactly the Uk is more powerful than France is. Probably you're the guy who has any kind of nostalgia.

Economically speaking, their GDP are very similar (slight advantage for the UK), their exports are very similar (slight advantage for France). Both are EU members, both are UNSC permanent members, both are nuclear power.

Frankly, differences between both countries are marginal. The UK foreign policy is more tied to the US, but that makes of it more a kind of follower than a real leader. Furthermore, I fail to understand how being part of Echelon is a genuine sign of power. Quite the opposite, I would say that it seems to prove even more that Britain has put itself fully behind the US strategically speaking. France has more of an independent voice, foreign countries tend more to consider France as a diplomatic alternative than they do for the UK. Of course, that doesn't make France more powerful since it could be simply considered as a matter of choice, but it certainly doesn't make it less powerful.

As for the commonwealth, it's frankly as much a joke than is francophonie. Even countries such as Australia or New Zealand are fully behind the United States, they don't care of the UK.

A superpower not yet mentioned:
The Chinese Democratic Superstate, to be founded by me and my "Anti-Communist Party 'Blue Army'". We will make the great state of China a real superpower and a model for a great Capitalist-Democracy!

Who wants to join the blue army?

That is the fun question, how much say has the British with the US.
You would be amazed if you knew.

That is the fun question, how much say has the British with the US.
Minimal.
Ten Chars.

I really think the term "Superpower" needs to be redifined. Personally I think it can really only be used when there are maybe 1 or 2, possibly at the max 3 candidates. Any more than 3 candidates than you no longer have a "Superpower", instead you have more of "Globalpowers". The difference being:

1) Superpower - Nation that can exert it's policies and military influence on the rest of the world with little opposition.

2) Globalpower - Nation that has the potential to exert it's policies and military influence but is kept in check by other globalpowers.

See during the Cold War, there were Super Powers because only the U.S. and the Soviet Union had tremendous amounts of power, no one really kept them in check. However now, a lot of nations are getting to the superpower status and they all continuously can keep each other in check, thus making them more "Globalpowers".

Anyway these are my candidates for Globalpowers in the next 50 years.

United States- Large country geographically with a democratic form of government. Capitalism helps the economy and they have a very strong military. Good relations with most European countries and good trade partners with Asian countries like China, India and Japan.

China- Large country geographically, booming economy due to large workforce and large number of exports. Advanced and large military.

India- Also a large country geographically, strong economy that is set to expand even more (by 2050 is predicted to have the 2nd GDP in the world, passing the United States). Also has a large workforce of engineers, doctors, IT professionals. Has a strong standing military and is a democracy.

European Union- Not a country, but a group of countries that together produce a large chunk of the world's economy. United has a strong military force and is a diplomatic union.

You might want to add Russia (if they get back on track) and Brazil on that list.

my candidates for next superpowers in the next century:

China: Duh. Its big, its bad, and its getting stronger.

India: Its big, its corrupt, but its a democracy. Its military is still mostly Cold War style, but that could change...

Russia: Its big, its dark, but it has tons of nukes and tons of resources.


Next tier superpowers (secondary powers):

Brazil: Growing economy, tons of resources...

EU: Maybe not so early, because it still somewhat "vassal" to the US (not real vassal, but you know what i mean).


as for the US, i am not so sure, but i think i'd put it a little less than a first-tier superpower... i dunno... who knows...

EU - Good chance of surpassing US economy
Russia - $$$ Oil/Natural Gas $$$
China - Large workforce
India - ^^

Also possible superpowers

ASEAN
OPEC - Unless they run out of oil
Some Latin American Country

I don't think Russia should be in any Superpower's list. Maybe it could be in the Regional Powers list as it is an important supplier of energy.

Vatican City :joke:

Well, there is no doubt China will be (If not already) a superpower.

India is a possibility.

Maybe Japan, for its uber games and a dedicated workforce.

EU is looking nice. Maybe it'll become a country with the former countries as states. Who knows? :p

Russia has some possibility, but its on a turbulent economy.

Of course, an Asian union (Think UFAR in Empire Earth: Art of Conquest) would totally kick ass.

Europe (well the EU) has been called the silent superpower and I think it makes sense.
Barring economic or military power, isn't a superpower in the 21st century supposed to inspire confidence and act as a role model for the rest of the world. I'm not implying that the EU is a role model, but the title of next superpower should also include core values (human rights, freedom and such...)

Face it, a large part of the world just plainly hates the US and/or China (not including myself, but a thought shared by a lot of people I know and something I've seen numerous times here at CFC).
I also think that we have to get rid of the old cold war superpower mindset (where the 2 superpowers were the ones that had the most nukes).
Besides if you try to project yourself in the future (say, a hundred years) it looks quite bad. Unless we really start to think globally and really try to save mankind as we know it (in all its diversity), well, we're doomed.
And to go back to our favorite game : this is where shooting for he stars makes sense. When is the next ice age due ? What will happen when the earth gets hit by a giant meteor ?

So, it would be great if the next superpower would just be the human superpower. Building a space elevator and spreading humanity to another cradle, that should be our goal as a species. Not arguing who will have the biggest dick in 50 years.

sorry, I've been rambling a bit, it's late. Good night.

So true, and it happens I descend from both 'hated' countries. :lol:

I can understand why people might hate America, with its huge amount of spoiled informal masses. (Hey, what can you do? Its a free country after all)

China, I can't really understand, besides the lack of civil rights...

(Blocking internet websites like forums... :cringe: )

actually, there are nations that "like", or, a better term, "prefer" China. for example, a random African state with some history of human rights abuse can get help to improve the economy from either America and China.

if they go with America... thers a catch. you have to stop all your rights abuse and stuff or else we won't help you.

but if you go with China... no catch!!!

wow...

actually, there are nations that "like", or, a better term, "prefer" China. for example, a random African state with some history of human rights abuse can get help to improve the economy from either America and China.

if they go with America... thers a catch. you have to stop all your rights abuse and stuff or else we won't help you.

but if you go with China... no catch!!!

wow...

If you go with China, the people making the human rights abuses are the ones getting money, furthering that whole system.
And America may support it, just making sure no one really knowns about it, so long that a dollar is made.

If you go with China, the people making the human rights abuses are the ones getting money, furthering that whole system.
And America may support it, just making sure no one really knowns about it, so long that a dollar is made.

Why does everyone think china and india in 25-50 years?

In 50 years, China and india will have 1 billion old people each.

Yeah, real superpowers.

Why does everyone think china and india in 25-50 years?

In 50 years, China and india will have 1 billion old people each.

Yeah, real superpowers.

I'm not quite sure why you quoted me, I was commenting on china, not saying it would be a super power. Although I do think so. India, not so much.

Why does everyone think china and india in 25-50 years?

In 50 years, China and india will have 1 billion old people each.

Yeah, real superpowers.

They already have more than 1 billion people...

They already have more than 1 billion people...
try to read all the words. There's is a tiny 3 letters word between billion and people in darky333 post.

Yes, these nations will have very very many elderly to take care of with limited resources, India and China.

try to read all the words. There's is a tiny 3 letters word between billion and people in darky333 post.

okay fine i read a little fast

We start to know of you bad habits :mischief:

even with 1 billion old people... there'll be two billion not-so-old people to take care of them! :mwaha:

No one has mentioned Indonesia yet.

no, because out of these 2 billions people, 1,900,000,000 will be boys to busy fighting each others to win access to the 100,000,000 girls.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

no, because out of these 2 billions people, 1,900,000,000 will be boys to busy fighting each others to win access to the 100,000,000 girls.

:goodjob:

And this brings out the same problem for China: will they face a disquilibrium between the sexes at some point? And if yes, will it be how much significant?

Αll population and demographic problems will be solved by 2050 , by cloning. The country that makes the most progress is going to populate the earth and conquer it by sheer numbers.

no, all population and demographic problems will be solved/not-solved by 2100 with an Apocalyptic World War.

Wrong, my NES had WW3 in 2020, but it wasn't apocalyptic.

On topic, I believe cloning might be key to sheer numbers, but then there would be too many mouths to feed, therefore, all humans die.

no, all population and demographic problems will be solved/not-solved by 2100 with an Apocalyptic World War.

Won't happen. We'd probably nuke each other by then...

Maybe the two solutions are compatible.

2050... I'll be in my seventies, but I may still enjoy my Uma Thurman clone...

Won't happen. We'd probably nuke each other by then...
fine. let me rephrase that:

"no, all population and demographic problems will be solved/not-solved with World War III."


Wrong, my NES had WW3 in 2020, but it wasn't apocalyptic.

yes, but i didn't mean that World War III WILL be apocalyptic... just saying that we'd be wiped out by an Apocalyptic War by 2100, not meaning that it is World War III... who knows, maybe tomorrow someone will accidentally launch nukes at each other and we will (almost) all cease to exist.

I think people should see the movie "Idiocracy", at least I moved more into the Eugenics crowd seeing that. It is not about quantity but quality, and if we dilute our gene pool or dilute the quality of our new citizens with mass production, we may see a more brutal and primitive society in a short while.

From what my military specialist friend tells me, cyborg and drone technology, as well as better understanding and manipulation of brain waves, are going to transform world power more than anything else. George Bush IX's Christian Zionist theocratic Eugenitocracy will go marching around the world in 50 years time with an army of psychokinetic cyborgs and drones clearing various lands of "human pollution". All those young Muslim and Chinese people will be able to do is sacrifice 100 of themselves for a cyborg that can be manufactured in Detroit for $5. ;) :o

I think we need to wait until the unavoidable world war and the mass genocide that has to happen in 2024. Gordon Brown went through the streets. The Scottish national panted. In a small dark ally he waited. Then he pulled the trigger. Immediatly England dissolved the U.K. and granted freedom to Wales and Scotland (but not Northern Ireland) then they invaded both countries. Russia had seen enough and declared war on England. Then France declared war on Russia... then promptly surrenderd. Germany insulted by the fact they didn't start the conflict declared war on Britain then Iran declared war on America and so did the rest of the Mid-East. Isreal was swamped after 12 days of fighting. America declared war on Russia and China declared war on America. Now with two huge fleets coming to meet. All Japan and the Pacific islands could hope for was minor devastation. The war in Europe was intensifing as Poland and Denmark and Norway, and the Balkans had allied with Britain. The Neatherlands stayed nuetral... then Germany annexed them and Austria and the Czech republic. The war in Saudi Arabia was fierce as both Islamic Russian American and Chinese forces fought for the oil. America had made one major miscalculation Mexico was not on their side. With the WW1 promise finally fufilled the Mexicans invaded with a huge force and civilian fighting started in the American Southwest. The North surrenderd their sovergnty to Canada and the south fought on. After conquering most of contenental Europe the Germans and Russians declared peace with Britain under the conditions of a free Scotland and Wales. Russia then promptly invaded China. With most Chinese troops in Australia, China feel quickly. Now the war was between Russia and wait wait oh.... Russia already won. Anyone got a better version?

Then France declared war on Russia... then promptly surrenderd

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That's going in my French-bashing themed sig.

Anyone got a better version?

heres mine: (its worse, though. :D)

2012 - year of the supposed apocalypse, NOT... but there is a major unexpected crash in the American market that sends it alllllll spiraling downwards in the world, and America is going into chaos.

Then, stupidly, the Americans decide it is time to go in Iran. but before they do so, a missile misfires near China, and China counters with missiles of its own, and voila, we got WAR. China and America are at war, but half the Americans don't want war with China, and try to make peace with it. China, realizing that this could mean helping quicken the speed of America's demise, make friends with the people who are okay with them in America.

however, the anti-Chinese have had enough, and they seceed to form their own country, the Republican States of America, and civil war erupts in America. the war goes on, and Russia, Israel, Europe, India, and everyone is pulled into a long and pointless conflict.

then it ends in 2030, though American would remain divided, China, India, and Russia emerge as world powers, and the scene is set for the next World War...

Here's mine!

The war began when Russia became communistic again, and declared war on France. France then quickly asked Britain for help and Britain did. Britain sent tons of troops to France, to protect them from a yet-another-surrender. Spain declared war on Portugal to gain control of the entire peninsula. Portugal fought back. And took Gibraltar. England declared war on Spain and Portugal, while northern Ireland asked to join Ireland, starting a bloody civil war in england. Italy tried to stop the war between Spain and Portugal. But that triggered the Basques to declare there independence! Albania declared war on Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia tried to help the problem but failed, while Bosnia became a battlefield.

Mexico declared war against USA to join in on the fun... and to gain control of Texas. Venzuela went into a civil war to get rid of Chavez, While Argentina attacked the Falkland islands again! Japan and Australia were at war over a new discovered island. China attacked India! Then American troops went on to attack Iran after they finished with Iraq. Iran were also at war with Saudi Arabia, while Isreal and Lebanon were at another war, while troubles remained in Palestine, But then Palestine was annexed by Egypt who just recently declared war on Greece. Greece had it's own trouble, they were fighting turkey over the Island of Cyprus!

Malta and Gibralter went to war over Lampedusa. The war had to be stopped by Italy who controlled Lampedusa. An african civil war was started in the south of the Sahara. South Africa annexed Botswana!

And the war will never end!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But that won't happen with the UN right? ;)

Here's mine.

2020: Novayan party tries to win election, and is banned for trying to put up leader as a dictator. Eventually, they start a revolution. They take over Russia. Then, they invade all former countries that were part of the Soviet Union. Ukraine had been part of the EU, and the EU declared war on russia. America was busy with conflicts in Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Africa. The United African Patriotic Front is formed in Algeria, and conquers North Africa. Novaya Russia then nukes the EU. America then nukes all trouble spots. Then, everybody else launches nukes. Now, Earth is like Fallout. People go to Mars, and aliens come and destroy them. :)

After total Russian domination of the world a small American-British expaditionary force went and set up base in Antartica. There they would form a new civilization and challenge Russian supremacy.

Here's mine:

Italy rules the world.

or... alternatively... while everything is falling apart in 2012, a huge earthquake happenes, followed by a huge-*** global blizzard, which coincidentally gets to its climax around Dec. 21, and almost everybody dies.

Both ways the Russians still win.

Here we go.

The UN bans vodka, sex, beer, sugar, and drugs. (Including smoking)

VODKA!!!!!!!!!!!! WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

stupid un...

If they did that, they'll start a global civil war..

The UN bans vodka, sex, beer, sugar, and drugs. (Including smoking)

im assuming they "control" it, not ban it, because they can't kill the human race and its future generations, can they...