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!
) 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!
)
South American Union - I think a step or two behind the NAU.
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.
