![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
I see no talk page discussion on the issue. If the issue has been resolved/non-existent, i plan to remove the NPOV tag. If there is a doubt, can someone plz illustrate how the neutrality of the section can be improved by giving specific examples. thanks! Anir1uph ( talk) 01:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
We will take over USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.81.192 ( talk) 00:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
how do we get superpowers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.92.160 ( talk) 20:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Really? Canada? They have a high economy, but usa has a higher one, Canada has no nuclear weapons, there population isn't that high, there better, and less corrupt then the usa al give you that, but Canada has no way of turning into a superpower. -- Ty Rezac ( talk) 20:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay. -- Ty Rezac ( talk) 15:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Topic says USA as potential superpower whereas USA is already a Superpower..right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.203.235.56 ( talk) 04:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes it is currently the only superpower. -- Ty Rezac ( talk) 20:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The British Empire was the most powerful superpower, but when it dissolved the most powerful nation to succeed was UK. UK has been ever since rising up, but slowly. It has been rising too slowly to be recognised as potential superpower, but it's now clearly rising. Also because it's slowly rising, it has been in the shadows of China & India, what are fast growing potential superpowers. I believe that China and India will go down as fast as they came and they will not stay as a superpower for a long time. Also could the US be a superpower without UK or France? Of course it would have enough military power alone, but what about economy and political influence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ransewiki ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Just.... No.... UK isn't powerful enough, and USA was the most powerful country after. --
108.92.162.111 (
talk)
01:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I, mean that succeed from British Empire/Commonwealth. The US left much earlier. Ransewiki ( talk) 22:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
In the case of Japan, it qualifies all of the qualities necessary to achieve superpower status, except for one (aging population). Predictions made in the past have not been perfect. For example, in the 1980s, many political and economic analysts predicted that Japan would eventually accede to superpower status, due to its large population, huge gross domestic product and high economic growth at that time.
Though it may have an aging population, Japan has still shown the potential to emerge as a superpower. Japan has the longest overall life expectancy at birth of any country in the world: 83.5 years for persons born in the period 2010--2015.
It has recently been greatly influencing the world with its culture; including J-pop, anime, manga, fashion and lifestyle. Recently a campaign was started known as Cool Japan in an effort to spread out Japanese culture.
Another area to point out is that Japan is a leading nation in scientific research, particularly technology, machinery and biomedical research. Nearly 700,000 researchers share a US$130 billion research and development budget, the third largest in the world. In the mobile telecommunications field, Japan was the first country to launch both a 3G Network (NTT DoCoMo launched 3G UMTS in 2001) and a 4G Network (NTT DoCoMo launched 4G LTE in 2009).
Japan is also one of the most advanced nations in space research. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) is Japan's space agency; it conducts space, planetary, and aviation research, and leads in development of rockets and satellites. It is a participant in the International Space Station: the Japanese Experiment Module (Kibo) was added to the station during Space Shuttle assembly flights in 2008.
As of today, Japan is a well-thought of as a potential superpower; is a great power, great economy and has made great advances in its technology. It has been argued that Japan has the technology, raw materials, and the capital to produce nuclear weapons within one year if necessary, and some analysts consider it a de facto nuclear state for this reason.
Contrary views: Though it is still the world's third-largest economy as of 2012 in terms of nominal GDP, Japan has faced an ongoing period of weak growth since the "lost decade" of the 1990s, and has been suffering from an aging population since the early 2000s, eroding its potential as a superpower. The Myth of Japan's 'Lost Decades'But, Eamonn Fingleton presents a counterargument to the perception of Japan's so-called stagnation.
Due to its aging population, Japan's population is expected to drop to 95 million by 2050. Demographers and government planners are currently in a heated debate over how to cope with this problem.
Japan is also engaged in multiple territorial disputes with its neighbors: with Russia over the South Kuril Islands, with South Korea over the Liancourt Rocks, with China and Taiwan over the Senkaku Islands, and with China over the EEZ around Okinotorishima. Japan also faces an ongoing dispute with North Korea over the latter's abduction of Japanese citizens and its nuclear weapons and missile program (see also Six-party talks).
So even though Japan has the potential for superpower status, it still faces many problems with its decreasing population and its neighbors that could greatly affect its future. Sai317 ( talk) 14:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Russia will not be a superpower again, look at whats going on! Corruption, danger, economy not doing good, bribes, poverty. Russia is the 2nd most corrupt european country! Russia can not be a power! It's impossible! China,India,Brazil now were getting somewere! Brazil will one day be more powerful then the usa, China and India will beat usa's economy, India will be the dominant superpower, EU, not a country! Why don't we just put NAU, or OAS, or SAU, if it was it would have great powers, and be dominant superpower. -- Ty Rezac ( talk) 20:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
There is danger in Russia, Gronzy Russia is the 7th most dangerous city in the world. -- Ty Rezac ( talk) 15:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Should this section also note the potential of the Eurasian union, as this has potential to be stronger than Russia by itself and will have a simular format to the EU? Jakreiser ( talk) 05:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree, it's unlikely for Russia to be considered a superpower. The corruption and poverty. Not many allies. Also during WWII, the Empire of Japan defeated the Russian Empire in the Russo-Japanese War, despite being largely outnumbered and the odds against them. They also defeated most China, most of Northeast Asia. And, literally all of Southeast Asia. So I wouldn't count Japan out. They have more Allies and technological capabilities today. They were able to bounce back pretty good after WWII. Sai317 ( talk) 03:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
You never know though. I think the US should try to help Japan become a superpower, considering the growing threat with China. The future remains unclear at the moment. Sai317 ( talk) 07:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
South Korea or a unified Korea has a very high population and economy. South Korea's military is one of the best in the world. South Korea or a unified Korea is likely an emerging power. What do you guys think?
It appears that recently we have another country ascending to the ranks of such suggested potential superpowers as Brazil and Canada (of which the former has gone through significant scrutiny); Japan. I am not against the addition of new countries to the list. I cite my older involvement in the Brazil case as evidence of this (even though I'm older now so yeah. I was cringing going through the archives). Now, it appears as if the section created mostly by User:Viller_the_Great is media reports that have been strung together into an argument for Japan being a potential superpower. Technically these support Wikipedia's policy for requiring reliable sources (however half of the section in Japan's favour is unsourced). I've tagged the relevant pieces that ARE in need of such sources. I don't want to start an edit war, so I've simply tagged it as requiring reliable sources (also tagged Russia as in need of expansion while I was at it). I personally don't see Japan rising as a superpower for the remainder of this century and nothing I've read has suggested Japan will rise either - instead falling behind the rising economic power of the BRIC nations and countries like Indonesia and Mexico. The most recent work I've found discussing Japan as a superpower in any way is from 2012, is a google book riddled with blanked pages, but by Kenneth G Henshall of the University of Canterbury. Everything else I found was from the 1989 to 1996, suggesting that Japan has not been seen as a contender for superpower status at least since the millennium. Henshall's book is even a third edition of a 1999 work and seems rather to examine Japan as a culture with a Darwinist view of global politics. It's riddled with gaps so it's hard to make out clearly. It can be seen here. As it is, I've decided to open this up for discussion so that we can either create a community consensus in agreement to keep a considerably improved Japan section or alternatively to remove it as not supported by contemporary academia. I'm hoping that by stating outright that I don't believe Japan is a potential superpower I can at least serve as a kind of devil's advocate if we do decide to keep the section on and edit it considerably. Comics ( talk) 10:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I AM A PROUD OTAKU AND OF COURSE JAPAN COULD BE A SUPERPOWER — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
187.156.150.3 (
talk)
21:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
@Above, you should watch the anime "Rainbow: Nisha Rokubou no Shichinin". Sai317 ( talk) 06:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
By the way, I just found this a few days ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberpunk_2020#Megacorporations coincidentally... Sai317 ( talk) 06:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Please keep Japan. Zebusadams ( talk) 17:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
You know, Japan really does not that much power, but who knows? It is unlikely they will come back though, but i see someone already readded the section....We should all discuss here if we would like to add new superpowers. I mean, even though powers like Indonesia, Mexico, annd others are rising economically, it does not mean they will be superpowers. Nor South Africa just because it is in BRICS.... Viller the Great ( talk) 22:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Global Trends 2030 report says that Turkey is Potential superpower. 95.114.69.139 ( talk) 16:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh sorry. But then all other hits are wrong, too. Did you check the other hits? That's my link it shows 48.5 million hits.. --> https://www.google.de/#hl=de&safe=off&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=turkey+superpower&oq=turkey+superpower&gs_l=serp.3..0i13j0i7i30l3.160848.161696.21.161792.6.6.0.0.0.2.174.722.1j4.5.0...0.0...1c.1.2.serp.btWPv7qYYtg&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=1238c623514a4693&biw=1280&bih=863 95.114.69.139 ( talk) 16:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Well this should be objective?
95.114.69.139 ( talk) 17:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
So Turkey? Narutosuperpower ( talk) 03:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Ofc.. ? It is strongest muslim power and it have second largest army in western world. 95.114.78.12 ( talk) 21:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The is EU is down as "no" regarding security council, noting France and the UK are permanent members, but down as "yes" regarding nuclear weapons, noting that France and the UK have them. There needs to be conformity here one way or another - in both cases the EU itself doesn't have the thing in question (the organisation does not have a seat at the security council nor does it have a military let alone nuclear weapons)... but two of its members do.
So there are two issues here: firstly, that there has to be conformity - both have to be "yes" or both have to be "no". That leads to the second issue... I can see arguments for and against in noting the situation (for either security council/nuclear weapons) as "yes" or "no". The trouble with "yes" is that it wrongly implies that the EU itself has these properties. The trouble with "no" is that it wrongly implies that the EU does not posses these properties (can't think of a better word, sorry!) in any sense.
Now I know there's the footnote noting that the UK and France have these things, but I think either way it's (to the casual observer/immediate impression) misleading. Is there another word or acronym or so we could use instead of "yes" or "no"? (Still with the footnotes of course.) Alternatively - and I'll make this edit now as a temporary (perhaps) arrangement - is "(yes)" followed by the footnote. Your thoughts please! David ( talk) 22:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Global Trends 2030 report says that Turkey is Potential superpower. 95.114.69.139 ( talk) 16:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh sorry. But then all other hits are wrong, too. Did you check the other hits? That's my link it shows 48.5 million hits.. --> https://www.google.de/#hl=de&safe=off&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=turkey+superpower&oq=turkey+superpower&gs_l=serp.3..0i13j0i7i30l3.160848.161696.21.161792.6.6.0.0.0.2.174.722.1j4.5.0...0.0...1c.1.2.serp.btWPv7qYYtg&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=1238c623514a4693&biw=1280&bih=863 95.114.69.139 ( talk) 16:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Well this should be objective?
95.114.69.139 ( talk) 17:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
So Turkey? Narutosuperpower ( talk) 03:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Ofc.. ? It is strongest muslim power and it have second largest army in western world. 95.114.78.12 ( talk) 21:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The is EU is down as "no" regarding security council, noting France and the UK are permanent members, but down as "yes" regarding nuclear weapons, noting that France and the UK have them. There needs to be conformity here one way or another - in both cases the EU itself doesn't have the thing in question (the organisation does not have a seat at the security council nor does it have a military let alone nuclear weapons)... but two of its members do.
So there are two issues here: firstly, that there has to be conformity - both have to be "yes" or both have to be "no". That leads to the second issue... I can see arguments for and against in noting the situation (for either security council/nuclear weapons) as "yes" or "no". The trouble with "yes" is that it wrongly implies that the EU itself has these properties. The trouble with "no" is that it wrongly implies that the EU does not posses these properties (can't think of a better word, sorry!) in any sense.
Now I know there's the footnote noting that the UK and France have these things, but I think either way it's (to the casual observer/immediate impression) misleading. Is there another word or acronym or so we could use instead of "yes" or "no"? (Still with the footnotes of course.) Alternatively - and I'll make this edit now as a temporary (perhaps) arrangement - is "(yes)" followed by the footnote. Your thoughts please! David ( talk) 22:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps there are one or two African countries which should be discussed, most obviously Nigeria, with 170m people and described by President Obama as the "world's next economic superpower" ( http://www.360nobs.com/2012/08/obama-nigeria-is-worlds-next-economic-superpower/). cwmacdougall 7:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
How can the EU be a superpower?
EU has all.The largest economy,the largest net wealth and a huge military system nukes able to cancel life on Earth several times and athe largest conventional military).The article is well set. Mediolanum ( talk) 12:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Brazil seams a little out of place in this article don't you think? Like a man who has just walked into a ladies changing room. Sure, he likes what he see's, but he knows he doesn't belong and must leave. The same applies to Brazil in this article.
The only supporting citation giving any reference to Brazil as being a potential superpower is The Cornell Daily Sun citation (a daily newspaper published by students!!). The other citations that 'apparently' support Brazil being a potential superpower are all dead links and cannot be used as reference anymore. So dealing with the citation that is left remaining, The Daily Cornell Sun, it reports that during a lecture entitled "Brazil as an Emerging World Power?", Leslie Armijo said... “Soon, we’ll have two superpowers in the Western Hemisphere". She was also reported saying that Brazil is not a Great power but an emerging power. Quite frankly, where she was reported saying that there is soon to be two superpowers in the western hemisphere, appears slightly sensationalist to me and nothing more than bias rhetoric thrown into a lecture to capture an audience. Hardly Wikipedia material! There are a few more citations in the Brazil section, but they only mention Brazil being a potential economic superpower rather than a contemporary superpower like the United Sates. So I will ignore them as they do not specifically mention Brazil as a potential superpower.
Many would agree that the case for Brazil on this article is very weak. In fact, it is hanging on a single thread (The Daily Cornell Sun citation). So the question to my fellow editors is, where do we go from here? In my opinion, either one of two things should be done. A, The citations for Brazil should be greatly improved and therefore Brazil can stay in the article, or B, a consensus should be reached and a decision made on whether to delete Brazil from the article or keep the status quo. If nobody responds to this discussion after a week then I will be WP:BOLD and delete Brazil.
A few additional points I would like to add to my argument is that all the other nations listed on this article are Great powers, while Brazil is not a great power. Dr Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, Strategic Vision: America & the Crisis of Global Power (published 2012), he appraised the worlds current world powers. He goes on to name China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States as being the current great powers. Dr Zbigniew Brzezinski is a political scientist, geo-strategist, and former United States National Security Advisor, a highly qualified academic and a very well informed person. Of those, China, India and Russia appear on this article. So, while China, India and Russia are considered great powers with he potential of becoming superpowers - Brazil is still merely a nobody seeking superpower status. Getting too far ahead of yourself are we Brazil?
In militarily terms and other traditional avenues of 'hard power' Brazil is irrelevant and non existent. Far removed from being the potential superpower this article suggests. I also question editors here, can Brazil really catch up with the United States or other potential superpowers in order to actually become a superpower? In economic terms for example, even by the year 2050, Brazil is very unlikely to achieve a GDP 25% the size of the USA, that's not superpower potential in my books, not now, not ever. See: List of countries by past and future GDP (nominal). A bit of commonsense on Wikipedia goes a longs ways aways.
Brazil may feel like a superpower down in Latin America surrounded by its small and insignificant neighbours, but in the real world, nope. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 22:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Several contributors are getting ahead of themselves, in the discussion on potential superpowers. I wish to make the following points on this subject (some of which have already been made earlier by other editors):
1. The concept of a superpower is a fairly modern phenomenon (ie. late 19th/early 20th century). Probably only USA, USSR & UK (pre 1945), could be considered such.
2. The number of superpowers at any given time has been very small (one, two or none at all). It is quite feasible, that as the world continues down the path of multipolarity, in 30 or 40 years there may be no superpowers at all, but rather just a small group of global powers, none so powerful so as to effect far reaching change just by themselves or in concert with their smaller allies.
3. Popular widespread speculation on who might become a superpower, has shown itself to be completely off the mark in the past (eg. how many of those in the know predicted the weakening of the Japanese economy (potential superpower) in the 1990’s or the collapse of the USSR in 1991, for that matter?). Such speculation is of little value and not worthy of too much consideration.
4. The probability of an emergence of a global superpower cannot be determined by a google search featuring a given country eg. “Turkey Superpower” - 48.5 million hits. Such an approach is blatently nonsensical, to put it mildly!
5. People need to be discerning in what they read. Newspaper and electronic media articles written by journalists with moderate to no knowledge of global dynamics or geostrategy, cannot be held up as authoritative sources on the subject of global power. X number of newspaper/internet articles saying “Y”, does not necessarily make Y to be factually true. A better source of information is that of respected political scientists, geostrategists and others who study this field, and have expertise in this area.
6. Neither military expenditure nor economic size by themselves necessarily make a great power or superpower (although these indicators may be factored into the equation). I would ask all editors to at least consult the Wikipedia articles on ‘Great Power’ & ‘Superpower’, to better understand the definition of these concepts, before making assertions about the qualifications of a particular country.
7. On the question of Brazil being a potential superpower, I wish to make the following points:
a) One needs to become a great power first, before attaining superpower status.
b) I wish to put forward a conjectural notion: How many informed people (ie. those that follow the news, take a general interest in world affairs) outside of Brazil can name the President of Brazil? I would suspect, not too many (especially those outside the American continents). How many could name the Foreign Minister of Brazil? I suspect far fewer. Yet if indeed Brazil was a great power, I believe a substantive portion of the world population would be able to name its president. By contrast, most people could name the Prime Minister of Britain, and a fair number could also name the Foreign Minister of Britain. I would put this largely down to the fact that Britain is a global power, whilst Brazil is not. I accept that this may be a somewhat crude measurement of determining a country’s power status, but I don’t think that it can be totally dismissed.
c) What is Brazil’s position on global issues? For instance, what is its position on Syria? Besides the fact that most reasonably informed people would not know Brazil’s position here, the fact is that few people would care. Broadly speaking, what Brazil thinks about Syria or Libya or North Korea, or most other international issues doesn’t really matter a great deal. Brazil’s stance has little consequence for anybody, but this would be less likely to be true if Brazil really was a great power or emerging superpower. Furthermore, when the Great Powers do occasionally organise a conference to resolve issue X, whereby the affected parties + Great powers are invited, you would rarely (if ever) see Brazil invited to take a seat at the table. Brazil’s international role is quite minimal, whereas the international role of a great power is significant, and it is this that largely distinguishes a great power from a regional power.-- Mrodowicz ( talk) 16:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing those bits out, i'll upload a new version once a decision has been made. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 12:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Until proven otherwise, all sources claim vehemently that Brazil is an emerging superpower. With all due respect Antiochus, but you at least read the papers have made available? If you only mastered the English language, as soon as he read an article in Portuguese? Scientific articles produced by renowned Brazilian universities! Out the items I have made available in English. If the article is on the "emerging superpower" because I have to prove that Brazil is a superpower comparable to the U.S. or Britain? We're talking about emerging superpowers! It is not clear this? Do not rush things here do not. In a little over a week now wanted to close the topic as conclusive now that appear to sources refuse to discuss seriously? Good contributions! Hallel ( talk) 02:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The issue as I see it is that some editors (and I think Hallel is one) don't fully grasp the meaning/difference of the term superpower as opposed to "power" in either a general ( power in international relations) or other specific ( great power, regional power, et al.) way. The sources suggest Brazil is an emerging power - some do mention "superpower" but not in the true sense, only in narrow areas such as agriculture. And this is the point of this whole motion to delete Brazil (and perhaps Russia) - that editors for whatever reason (quite possibly national POV) are using whatever sources, whether they actually refer to actual superpower status or not, to push a certain nation onto this article, which should actually be a fairly short article. Brazil is an emerging power, there is no doubt about that, but it's not even a great power yet and as keeps being pointed out, no decent academic source suggests true superpower status for Brazil.
I can only suggest to Hallel that the constructive way forward is to transfer much of the Brazil stuff from this article to the developing emerging power article, which is a much more suitable "home" for it. In this article, as has already been suggested, we can still mention Brazil and Russia as emerging powers with some potential for superpower status because of agricultural/energy output or whatever. Frankly that is the truth of the situation out there in the real world. I cannot understand how anyone with any real understanding of the world can seriously suggest that Brazil is anytime soon going to be a superpower - that person either doesn't understand the situation of the world's nations or doesn't understand the term superpower and is mixing up with other terms for power as I mentioned above.
If this matter goes to arbitration I cannot see how the sources provided for Brazil can be upheld as demonstrating academic references to Brazil's potential as a superpower. They demonstrate Brazil as an emerging power with a strong future in certain areas. Do we really have to take this all through the mill? Well, sadly I can see the nationalists out there doing anything in a desperate attempt at keeping their country in this article (as if it changes anything in the real world..!) but they really would be wasting their (and our, and arbitrators') time. David ( talk) 08:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Who Rules The World? - Survey by Bertelsmann Foundation (2007) http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/bst/de/media/xcms_bst_dms_23371_23372_2.pdf I thought this link may be of interest given the debate. -- Mrodowicz ( talk) 12:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
In relation to the Bertelsmann survey, it's interesting that so few people view the other great powers (besides USA, & possibly China) as great powers. Russia, Japan, UK, Germany, France & EU all score between 22% - 39%. I suppose that this is because whilst many of us would subdivide the world into 4 categories. 1. Superpower 2. Great Power 3. Middle Power 4. Small Power, the general population may think of world power distribution in terms of only three categories: 1. Superpower/Great Power 2. Middle Power 3. All the Rest. Under this distribution, USA would be in Cat. 1 by itself (or perhaps with China). Cat. 2 (middle power) would have all the remaining powers, on account of them being so far behind the US in terms of strength, and Cat. 3 is self-explanatory. -- Mrodowicz ( talk) 15:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
To be fair to Hallel, he does provide one good source to make his point that Brazil might be considered a global power. Source Attachment No. 11 (No. 12 here) [12] is a respectable source written by academic Leslie Elliott Armijo in 2007. Of course it represents the opinion of one individual, but it's a good source. The article is worthwhile reading. I’ve taken out a few excerpts, to give some sense of what is says. See below:
This section thus far has examined the category “the BRICs countries” in the light of a realist framework emphasizing the relative power of individual sovereign states. China looks quite consequential, India and Russia somewhat less so, and Brazil still less so, although the order depends significantly on the specific metric employed. We conclude that it is certain that China is or soon will be a major power, eventually second only to the US, and reasonable to anticipate that the other three also soon could be major powers. On several relevant dimensions each of the four soon will outstrip the US’ traditional Western European allies—although this judgment would change dramatically if the Western European countries were to move toward close political union. Though the US remains overwhelmingly first among equals, multipolarity is increasing.
Tellingly, however, many realist analysts worry about the emergence of China—and the reemergence of Russia—as major powers in the current century, but seem unconcerned about Japan, India, and Brazil. Perhaps this is because China and Russia appear to pose a greater military threat, as both are long-declared nuclear states with large standing armies. But there is more to the argument than simply a concern over rising material capabilities among countries that were weak following the Second World War. What many realist scholars actually fear is the rise of a powerful anti-Western and anti-liberal-values coalition, led by China but possibly also including Russia.
This section began with two queries. We asked whether it was reasonable to imagine that, in purely material capability terms, any or all of Brazil, Russia, India, and China could by the mid-twentieth century [sic] be considered “major powers.” A variety of evidence suggests that by this criterion first China, then India and Russia, and then Brazil, all would be indisputable members of the set of top five to seven major powers--at the latest approximately three decades hence.
Moreover, both India and Brazil have demonstrated considerable soft power, or attractive and persuasive international capabilities. For example, India was a leader in both the Non-Aligned Movement of the 1950s through the 1970s and the New International Economic Order of the 1970s and early 1980s, each of which might have found greater long-run success had more of their members been democracies like India. More recently, Brazil and Argentina have improved their relations dramatically since both have democratized. If some democracies that are major powers (the European members of today’s G-7) are substituted for by other newly powerful democracies (such as India and Brazil), then we may expect global governance institutions, overarching liberal values, and processes to remain much the same.
In fact, a look at the business literature suggests that the core proposition even among scholars is simply that the BRICs’ economies will be large and therefore must be important—as markets, investment destinations, and competitors. Economic liberals who are logically consistent should care about factors such as the quality of national economic governance within emerging market economies. In contrast, a concern with relative size—and thus relative power— implicitly transports us to the cognitive territory of political and economic realism.
A realist approach suggests that advanced industrial countries whose relative international position may be slipping are justified in fearing the rise of the BRICs. Moreover, within a pure balance-of-power mental model for interpreting trends in the international political economy, the structure of relative material capabilities among units or countries shapes systemic outcomes: The end of American hegemony may undermine global stability. Yet there is more to be said. In particular, the realist model is unclear about why Japan or Germany, enemies of the United States (and the liberal democratic “West”) within living memory, are universally perceived today as reliable Western allies, while China and Russia arouse enormous suspicion.-- Mrodowicz ( talk) 15:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Após esta afirmação me recuso a continuar este debate em inglês: "I think this is because the British and Germans have a very healthy attitude and understanding when it comes to state power and global affairs, probably because both the World Wars (and the following Cold War) have a unique importance in our culture/society and therefore influences our outlook on the world. However, there is still allot of confusion among the general public as to what a 'World power' or 'Great power'". Os senhores que "se virem" para entender o que irei escrever. Primeiro: apresentei artigos científicos de renomadas universidades brasileiras. Não foi o bastante! Continuei com os argumentos, e o que colocam um texto fora do contexto, selecionando um fragmento que convém e não o conjunto da obra... a análise do autor. Mas tudo bem, apresento lhes mais estas fontes pra se deliciarem com um trabalho acadêmico digno de respeito:
Façam uma busca rápida na internet, e vocês terão a sua disposição estas literaturas de suporte. Ah, e quanto a acusação de bairrismo (sou bairrista e não nego!), me admiro muito de vossas senhorias britânicas me falarem tais coisas, pois estavam tecendo comentários sobre uma provável Potência Elizabetina! Vamos colocar os pingos nos ís, ok?! Saudações tupiniquins! Hallel ( talk) 03:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, placing a section break here for ease of editing etc. As agreed upon its been roughly a week at this stage since the discussion started and perhaps now we should decide upon where to go from here. Also how should we proceed with Russia? Antiochus the Great ( talk) 12:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree largely with David on the matter and my suggestions and principles for this article are as follows:
I don't know if adding more mention of economic, agricultural and energy superpowers to this article is a good idea, as I think it will further blur what is means to be a "Potential superpower". Perhaps expanding the Emerging powers article by adding mention of how some emerging powers are often referred to as economic, agricultural or energy superpowers would be better. Britain has be described of as a "cultural superpower" and there is a case for Britain being a "financial superpower" via the City of London. Also, Canada, Russia and Saudi Arabia are described as being "energy superpowers" and Brazil an "Agricultural superpower" - but these terms are often used only to describe one aspect where a nation holds considerable power and influence, not necessarily as a potential superpower. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 14:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I can understand on Brazil but not Russia, Russia is not a great power and nor should it be listed as a emerging power, that's ridiculous; it's a potential superpower or emerging superpower. If you compare Brazil and Russia, Russia is the ruler, if you compare India and Russia, Russia rules over military and economics [15] on India it outcast on others such as population, some military and some global affairs. There are plenty of stats online that point Russia as an emerging superpower. There are US dipolmats & world leaders who have made official statements on Russia's power surge on the world stage, Brazil doesn't have that grip on the world. India, so so but their ecomony does impact the world stage as much as Russia is. The article should place Russia back as it was, there was foreign relation expert sources that were defending article and they shouldn't be ignored.-- 103.246.114.80 ( talk) 17:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
India's economy is projected to overtake the Russian economy within 7 years not 50 years. Russia's population is in terminal decline and by the 2050s will have a population of around 100 million... in comparison the United Kingdom is projected to have a population of 80 million by the late 2040s. Russia is simply NOT a potential superpower and whats more there is no academic consensus that reinforces the idea of Russia as a potential superpower. This discussion should be closed as per policy to preserve the decision of the consensus. A new section should be opened to discuss any relevant issues. Arguments starting off like "I have a different opinion" from Subtropical-man are not valid because as he said its his opinion (POV). Antiochus the Great ( talk) 17:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
It suggests that the EU and China are widely considered to be superpowers, which is simply not the case (and indeed if it were so would make the whole article pointless). Another aspect of this article that needs dealing with!! David ( talk) 21:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Article is well written.The former one was confused and accepted "all".EU and China are without doubt in the list with USA.India is in the article even many people doubt of it.Brazil and Russian Federation must stay out without doubt to be realistic.They miss in many many sectors.They miss in economy (not only in GDP but also and above all in global net wealth that made them insignificant in the world economy) and population.Brazil miss in military and Russia in conventional military too (Check well datas.All have inside nukes able to cancel life on Earth.Conventional military becomes the main one and in this Brazil and Russia aren't at the level of USA,EU and China capabilities).According to the majoriy of people that are in economy ,social and military studies considering Brazil and Russian Federation potential superpower is not trustble.EU owns a its clause of mutual defence based on the article 42.7 of the Lisbon Treaty,so no doubts on EU military might. The post at the bottom of the article is perfect.It gives well the idea of superpower.The guy that writes anonymous is brazilian or russian.One thing is reality another prpaganda.I like this article because realistic and far from propaganda that is very common in policy articles. Mediolanum ( talk) 11:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Brazil should be back -- 108.92.162.111 ( talk) 23:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
@ 103.246.114.8, CNN is not a reliable source for an article such as this. Also, you keep claiming that Brazil and Russia have academic citations that describe them as potential superpowers! Will you please produce these said citations? Additionally, the citations for Brazil have be examined by me and a few other editors - the result was that they are unsuitable to support Brazil's place on the article. NONE of the citations described Brazil as a "potential superpower". Get real or go home. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 20:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Opened new thread for those who wish to raise their opinions/issues on the current consensus. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 18:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Sprenger very good point and I may say too there is a baby boom going there too and the Russian Federation may have 3 countries that may join the Federation as one nation because some countries want to be in their economics & financail interests, apparently there is money there. I don't see India making the same except for huge deportations because of jobs in the US and other countries. http://rbth.ru/articles/2012/11/26/can_russian_baby_boomers_change_the_game_20417.html http://www.nbcnews.com/id/23972762/ns/world_news-europe/t/russia-experiencing-baby-boom/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/russianow/business/9200168/Russia-baby-boom-sales.html CNN did a report on this last year on the boom in Russia and while India is going strong, I don't think we added all on both nations on the article but however one of the editors eliminated both Brazil and Russia off the article in order to discuss that. Should we agree to open the "Brazil oh really" discussion since it was closed yesterday after 2 weeks of talks. I think we were setup on the article and somebody intended close out the discussion on both Brazil and Russia before more would weigh in on the matter. I think so. Open the "Brazil oh really" discussion and lets get more feedback on this.-- 103.246.114.122 ( talk) 00:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Invited to comment Only four people framed the consensus which is way too low considering the highly controversial nature of the topic.....you should have waited till more people(not socks) commented on the topic. I think at least 10 people were required to frame the consensus here....considering the highly controversial nature of the topic... PS:I'm in favour of the consensus but just don't like the way it was reached. Thanks, TheStrike Σagle 02:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
There were no academic sources for Brazil and Russia. Infact, most the the sources for Brazil were all dead links!! So 103.246.114.86 do not make false claims in an attempt to support your argument. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 10:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
There were no academic sources for Brazil and Russia. It is pointless for you to continue saying there were and not produce evidence! Antiochus the Great ( talk) 20:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Well I have a few comments to share with everyone:
My last comment is that most people in these discussions agree on the same thing that Brazil and Russia should be removed because they do not have the high quality references, only a very small handful of people think that Brazil and Russia should stay, but these small number of people do not provide adequate references and sources! But like I said before we should do what Greyhood says and put Russia in a subsection because it has one good reference. Languid Scientist ( talk) 20:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Russia according to many academics and people in policy will be "eaten" by EU (see article Eurosphere )that even today has a strong influence on Russia.Russia like Brazil hasn't sufficient population and has a small economy compared to the other ones cited in the article today and in a foresable future.It'd be just ridiculous propaganda.Article is really complete.Stop with trolling. Mediolanum ( talk) 21:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
They lack a unified currency. Their people would never allow it to become one country. Each country has centuries of history, the people would not give that up. They are in an economic sh*thole. UK will probably be out of the EU within a decade. Even Germans are starting to want to leave. The EU is not, and never will be a potential superpower. The only ones are US (existing superpower), India, and China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copulative ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
EU is a political being with a larger economy that Usa and inside a larger military than Usa. (see art. 42.7( Lisbon Treaty). Mediolanum ( talk) 12:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Nowehre is written that to be a superpower a political being must be a common nation.Nowhere.EU according to Lisbon Treaty art. 42.7 has cluase of mutual defense that links all EU states.EU owns (rapresented by The EU Miltary Staff) today a huge military system .Check better datas,then write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediolanum ( talk • contribs) 16:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
The EU very much is a potential superpower! Has anyone thought that maybe the EU does not need to become a country to become a superpower? When you look at the British Empire in world war two the armies of some of its colonies helped England fight the war. The EU has been described by many as an empire too, I am sure if Europeans get a closer bond and work closer with military matters then one day we could be a superpower, we don't need to melt into one giant country to do it! But this is just my opinion, plus David is from England where there is a surge of euroscepticism which is understandable as the English have maintained their historic distance from Europe and have the famous attitude of Churchill! Languid Scientist ( talk) 21:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
UK in the reality is an EU state.Article is well wrtten and to keep in this way without any useless change. Mediolanum ( talk) 21:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Generally, European Union is atypical entity, official is an economic and political union of independent states but this is a fairy tale for children. EU states not have a full sovereignty. European Union ruled by parliament of EU and states of EU have limited opportunities, like autonomous regions in federal country. Today, European Union is political (the top three in the world), economy (1st in the world), demographic (3rd in the world) superpower, and potential military superpower (a lot of staff, modern equipment, nuclear weapons, but this is not common army, yet; with exceptions: Common Security and Defence Policy, European Defence Agency or European Union Force, EU Battlegroup, EUROMARFOR etc). Subtropical-man ( talk) 21:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
If EU isn't a potential superpower India and China must disappear too from the article for economic ,political and military reasons.EU many times in articles is described holding even a too low profile.This article is well written and complete.
Mediolanum (
talk)
21:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
You are offending and making personal attacks because you've nothing to say.Please,it's time to stop this guy .
Mediolanum (
talk)
15:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The source for the EU does not say it is a potential superpower, it actually seems to be making up a new definition of a superpower. Darkness Shines ( talk) 21:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
( Personal attack removed) Mediolanum ( talk) 22:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Antiochus the Great already reported all reasons in a very complete way, so please stop.Political (and not scientifical )way isn't the good method.Trying to join the policy of "all happy" in the subsection attacking here Antiochus the Great with no sufficient reasons is not correct."Do ut des " means in latin "I give you because you must give"-.Translated in this situation is "I attack here article to have subsection" .Really strange that the attack hasn't been taken on India (above all) or China that have weakest points.This isn't the right scientifcal philosphy to write an article.People must be scientifical and not political in writing article. I accused and accuse you of useless and disruptive trolling. Mediolanum ( talk) 07:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The article lists many reliable sources that name the EU an emerging superpower, and several that challenge this view (implicitly acknowledging it is relevant to discuss EU in terms of potential superpowers).
Although I do agree that potential superpowerdom is leaning towards predictions of future, the only consequence could ever be to remove the article entirely.
The above discussion for removal above does not list any sources and teems to be more of a
soapbox argument grounded in personal ideas of the editors which nations should be seen as worldleaders than any usueful,
neutral attempt at improving Wikipedia.
Arnoutf (
talk)
08:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
In this sense even the article Superpower should be totally removed.In the history according to the main academics (one of them,the most famous in the world, is Franco Cardini of the University of Florence) a Superpower in the pure sense is "a political being with high wealth and civilization and able to influence and hit everywhere without having back a lethal hit".The last one real Superpowers were the British Empire and USA from 1945 to 1949.Many people (and the best academics would think the same) think that some ideas to change the article (that are in the minority) aren't the best ones,it would lead to a too strong relativism.Superpowers must be intended under a new point of view (not in the absolute sense ,but in the relative sense and respecting some main basical datas),the one that Antiochus the Great described.In this sense it's more scientifical to hold this article well written unchanged and to better the article Superpower. Mediolanum ( talk) 09:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I just try to say that Turkey is going to be leader of the Muslim world. In this sense it is a potential superpower. Now you will cry and say how it can be that's impossible, because it has less population compared with china, and less economy compared with usa.. stop comparing turkey with any other states. turkey will gain more influence than the ottoman empire did. with your logics none muslim country could be a superpower. since it will be the largest faith group. the Sunni islam is already the world largest confession. 95.114.22.135 ( talk) 23:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
If Turkey would in future regarded as the most important Muslim country, it is not enough. If whole muslim world (1.6 billion people, more than China) formed one country, "Greater Muslim Country" will potential superpower or even superpower. However, even then, the economy will be weaker than the USA or EU, the army with obsolete equipment, only a political issue to be significant, USA, EU and China will be afraid of such a colossus ;) Turkey as superpower in the world? Very funny. Subtropical-man ( talk) 08:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, instead adding Turkey. Just add "Muslim World" and mentioned the muslim Countries: Turkey, indonesia and Egypt. (Maybe Pakistan and Iran, too. although I have big doubts because Pakistan, Iran and Egypt are very instable.).. because it sounds ridiculous that the Muslim world will be ruled by Usa, China and India.. 95.114.101.147 ( talk) 11:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Comparison Germany (one state of the European Union) and Turkey - result 7:1 for Germany:
Population | HDI |
GDP (power of economy) |
GDP per capita |
Oil reserves |
IMF voting power |
Defense spending |
Military personnel | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() (one state of 27 of the EU) |
81,799,600 (16th) | 0.920 (5th) | $3,401,000 billion (4rd) | $41,513 (21th) | 276 (56th) | 6.12% (3rd) | $45.8 (9th) | 331,898 |
![]() |
75,627,384 (18th) | 0.722 (90th) | $794,468 billion (17th) | $10,609 (62th) | 262 (57th) | 0.00% | $18.2 (15th) | 1,041,500 |
Turkey may be the only as potential great power, never as potential superpower. Subtropical-man ( talk) 11:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
There are no ways that the so called superpowers China, India could cultural and ideological influence the Muslim world. Fact is that Islam is going to be the worlds number one religion. But how comes that Christian World have two superpowers? (Usa and European Union) It is very clear that there will at last 1 Muslim global power. The Muslim world is rise in relevance, they are not isolated. There is Immigration in Europe and Norht America. Populations in India and China. Your comparison with Germany shows that Germany is regional power with high economic capital, and that Turkey is a Great power with global political capacity and soft Power. Nor Japan or Germany have such as Agenda. Edit: Because of globalization it will possible that also small countries will fit to becoming superpower. 95.114.101.147 ( talk) 22:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Google search is
original research, as is all of the discussion above. It may be true, but it should be {{WP:verify|verifiable]] using
reliable sources, preferably secondary source. The above does not follow this and is therefore not a good argument for inclusion.
In other words: Bring in a reliable secondary source, or we can stop this thread.
Arnoutf (
talk)
17:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
I see no talk page discussion on the issue. If the issue has been resolved/non-existent, i plan to remove the NPOV tag. If there is a doubt, can someone plz illustrate how the neutrality of the section can be improved by giving specific examples. thanks! Anir1uph ( talk) 01:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
We will take over USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.81.192 ( talk) 00:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
how do we get superpowers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.92.160 ( talk) 20:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Really? Canada? They have a high economy, but usa has a higher one, Canada has no nuclear weapons, there population isn't that high, there better, and less corrupt then the usa al give you that, but Canada has no way of turning into a superpower. -- Ty Rezac ( talk) 20:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay. -- Ty Rezac ( talk) 15:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Topic says USA as potential superpower whereas USA is already a Superpower..right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.203.235.56 ( talk) 04:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes it is currently the only superpower. -- Ty Rezac ( talk) 20:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The British Empire was the most powerful superpower, but when it dissolved the most powerful nation to succeed was UK. UK has been ever since rising up, but slowly. It has been rising too slowly to be recognised as potential superpower, but it's now clearly rising. Also because it's slowly rising, it has been in the shadows of China & India, what are fast growing potential superpowers. I believe that China and India will go down as fast as they came and they will not stay as a superpower for a long time. Also could the US be a superpower without UK or France? Of course it would have enough military power alone, but what about economy and political influence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ransewiki ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Just.... No.... UK isn't powerful enough, and USA was the most powerful country after. --
108.92.162.111 (
talk)
01:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I, mean that succeed from British Empire/Commonwealth. The US left much earlier. Ransewiki ( talk) 22:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
In the case of Japan, it qualifies all of the qualities necessary to achieve superpower status, except for one (aging population). Predictions made in the past have not been perfect. For example, in the 1980s, many political and economic analysts predicted that Japan would eventually accede to superpower status, due to its large population, huge gross domestic product and high economic growth at that time.
Though it may have an aging population, Japan has still shown the potential to emerge as a superpower. Japan has the longest overall life expectancy at birth of any country in the world: 83.5 years for persons born in the period 2010--2015.
It has recently been greatly influencing the world with its culture; including J-pop, anime, manga, fashion and lifestyle. Recently a campaign was started known as Cool Japan in an effort to spread out Japanese culture.
Another area to point out is that Japan is a leading nation in scientific research, particularly technology, machinery and biomedical research. Nearly 700,000 researchers share a US$130 billion research and development budget, the third largest in the world. In the mobile telecommunications field, Japan was the first country to launch both a 3G Network (NTT DoCoMo launched 3G UMTS in 2001) and a 4G Network (NTT DoCoMo launched 4G LTE in 2009).
Japan is also one of the most advanced nations in space research. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) is Japan's space agency; it conducts space, planetary, and aviation research, and leads in development of rockets and satellites. It is a participant in the International Space Station: the Japanese Experiment Module (Kibo) was added to the station during Space Shuttle assembly flights in 2008.
As of today, Japan is a well-thought of as a potential superpower; is a great power, great economy and has made great advances in its technology. It has been argued that Japan has the technology, raw materials, and the capital to produce nuclear weapons within one year if necessary, and some analysts consider it a de facto nuclear state for this reason.
Contrary views: Though it is still the world's third-largest economy as of 2012 in terms of nominal GDP, Japan has faced an ongoing period of weak growth since the "lost decade" of the 1990s, and has been suffering from an aging population since the early 2000s, eroding its potential as a superpower. The Myth of Japan's 'Lost Decades'But, Eamonn Fingleton presents a counterargument to the perception of Japan's so-called stagnation.
Due to its aging population, Japan's population is expected to drop to 95 million by 2050. Demographers and government planners are currently in a heated debate over how to cope with this problem.
Japan is also engaged in multiple territorial disputes with its neighbors: with Russia over the South Kuril Islands, with South Korea over the Liancourt Rocks, with China and Taiwan over the Senkaku Islands, and with China over the EEZ around Okinotorishima. Japan also faces an ongoing dispute with North Korea over the latter's abduction of Japanese citizens and its nuclear weapons and missile program (see also Six-party talks).
So even though Japan has the potential for superpower status, it still faces many problems with its decreasing population and its neighbors that could greatly affect its future. Sai317 ( talk) 14:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Russia will not be a superpower again, look at whats going on! Corruption, danger, economy not doing good, bribes, poverty. Russia is the 2nd most corrupt european country! Russia can not be a power! It's impossible! China,India,Brazil now were getting somewere! Brazil will one day be more powerful then the usa, China and India will beat usa's economy, India will be the dominant superpower, EU, not a country! Why don't we just put NAU, or OAS, or SAU, if it was it would have great powers, and be dominant superpower. -- Ty Rezac ( talk) 20:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
There is danger in Russia, Gronzy Russia is the 7th most dangerous city in the world. -- Ty Rezac ( talk) 15:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Should this section also note the potential of the Eurasian union, as this has potential to be stronger than Russia by itself and will have a simular format to the EU? Jakreiser ( talk) 05:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree, it's unlikely for Russia to be considered a superpower. The corruption and poverty. Not many allies. Also during WWII, the Empire of Japan defeated the Russian Empire in the Russo-Japanese War, despite being largely outnumbered and the odds against them. They also defeated most China, most of Northeast Asia. And, literally all of Southeast Asia. So I wouldn't count Japan out. They have more Allies and technological capabilities today. They were able to bounce back pretty good after WWII. Sai317 ( talk) 03:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
You never know though. I think the US should try to help Japan become a superpower, considering the growing threat with China. The future remains unclear at the moment. Sai317 ( talk) 07:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
South Korea or a unified Korea has a very high population and economy. South Korea's military is one of the best in the world. South Korea or a unified Korea is likely an emerging power. What do you guys think?
It appears that recently we have another country ascending to the ranks of such suggested potential superpowers as Brazil and Canada (of which the former has gone through significant scrutiny); Japan. I am not against the addition of new countries to the list. I cite my older involvement in the Brazil case as evidence of this (even though I'm older now so yeah. I was cringing going through the archives). Now, it appears as if the section created mostly by User:Viller_the_Great is media reports that have been strung together into an argument for Japan being a potential superpower. Technically these support Wikipedia's policy for requiring reliable sources (however half of the section in Japan's favour is unsourced). I've tagged the relevant pieces that ARE in need of such sources. I don't want to start an edit war, so I've simply tagged it as requiring reliable sources (also tagged Russia as in need of expansion while I was at it). I personally don't see Japan rising as a superpower for the remainder of this century and nothing I've read has suggested Japan will rise either - instead falling behind the rising economic power of the BRIC nations and countries like Indonesia and Mexico. The most recent work I've found discussing Japan as a superpower in any way is from 2012, is a google book riddled with blanked pages, but by Kenneth G Henshall of the University of Canterbury. Everything else I found was from the 1989 to 1996, suggesting that Japan has not been seen as a contender for superpower status at least since the millennium. Henshall's book is even a third edition of a 1999 work and seems rather to examine Japan as a culture with a Darwinist view of global politics. It's riddled with gaps so it's hard to make out clearly. It can be seen here. As it is, I've decided to open this up for discussion so that we can either create a community consensus in agreement to keep a considerably improved Japan section or alternatively to remove it as not supported by contemporary academia. I'm hoping that by stating outright that I don't believe Japan is a potential superpower I can at least serve as a kind of devil's advocate if we do decide to keep the section on and edit it considerably. Comics ( talk) 10:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I AM A PROUD OTAKU AND OF COURSE JAPAN COULD BE A SUPERPOWER — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
187.156.150.3 (
talk)
21:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
@Above, you should watch the anime "Rainbow: Nisha Rokubou no Shichinin". Sai317 ( talk) 06:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
By the way, I just found this a few days ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberpunk_2020#Megacorporations coincidentally... Sai317 ( talk) 06:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Please keep Japan. Zebusadams ( talk) 17:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
You know, Japan really does not that much power, but who knows? It is unlikely they will come back though, but i see someone already readded the section....We should all discuss here if we would like to add new superpowers. I mean, even though powers like Indonesia, Mexico, annd others are rising economically, it does not mean they will be superpowers. Nor South Africa just because it is in BRICS.... Viller the Great ( talk) 22:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Global Trends 2030 report says that Turkey is Potential superpower. 95.114.69.139 ( talk) 16:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh sorry. But then all other hits are wrong, too. Did you check the other hits? That's my link it shows 48.5 million hits.. --> https://www.google.de/#hl=de&safe=off&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=turkey+superpower&oq=turkey+superpower&gs_l=serp.3..0i13j0i7i30l3.160848.161696.21.161792.6.6.0.0.0.2.174.722.1j4.5.0...0.0...1c.1.2.serp.btWPv7qYYtg&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=1238c623514a4693&biw=1280&bih=863 95.114.69.139 ( talk) 16:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Well this should be objective?
95.114.69.139 ( talk) 17:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
So Turkey? Narutosuperpower ( talk) 03:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Ofc.. ? It is strongest muslim power and it have second largest army in western world. 95.114.78.12 ( talk) 21:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The is EU is down as "no" regarding security council, noting France and the UK are permanent members, but down as "yes" regarding nuclear weapons, noting that France and the UK have them. There needs to be conformity here one way or another - in both cases the EU itself doesn't have the thing in question (the organisation does not have a seat at the security council nor does it have a military let alone nuclear weapons)... but two of its members do.
So there are two issues here: firstly, that there has to be conformity - both have to be "yes" or both have to be "no". That leads to the second issue... I can see arguments for and against in noting the situation (for either security council/nuclear weapons) as "yes" or "no". The trouble with "yes" is that it wrongly implies that the EU itself has these properties. The trouble with "no" is that it wrongly implies that the EU does not posses these properties (can't think of a better word, sorry!) in any sense.
Now I know there's the footnote noting that the UK and France have these things, but I think either way it's (to the casual observer/immediate impression) misleading. Is there another word or acronym or so we could use instead of "yes" or "no"? (Still with the footnotes of course.) Alternatively - and I'll make this edit now as a temporary (perhaps) arrangement - is "(yes)" followed by the footnote. Your thoughts please! David ( talk) 22:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Global Trends 2030 report says that Turkey is Potential superpower. 95.114.69.139 ( talk) 16:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh sorry. But then all other hits are wrong, too. Did you check the other hits? That's my link it shows 48.5 million hits.. --> https://www.google.de/#hl=de&safe=off&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=turkey+superpower&oq=turkey+superpower&gs_l=serp.3..0i13j0i7i30l3.160848.161696.21.161792.6.6.0.0.0.2.174.722.1j4.5.0...0.0...1c.1.2.serp.btWPv7qYYtg&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=1238c623514a4693&biw=1280&bih=863 95.114.69.139 ( talk) 16:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Well this should be objective?
95.114.69.139 ( talk) 17:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
So Turkey? Narutosuperpower ( talk) 03:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Ofc.. ? It is strongest muslim power and it have second largest army in western world. 95.114.78.12 ( talk) 21:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The is EU is down as "no" regarding security council, noting France and the UK are permanent members, but down as "yes" regarding nuclear weapons, noting that France and the UK have them. There needs to be conformity here one way or another - in both cases the EU itself doesn't have the thing in question (the organisation does not have a seat at the security council nor does it have a military let alone nuclear weapons)... but two of its members do.
So there are two issues here: firstly, that there has to be conformity - both have to be "yes" or both have to be "no". That leads to the second issue... I can see arguments for and against in noting the situation (for either security council/nuclear weapons) as "yes" or "no". The trouble with "yes" is that it wrongly implies that the EU itself has these properties. The trouble with "no" is that it wrongly implies that the EU does not posses these properties (can't think of a better word, sorry!) in any sense.
Now I know there's the footnote noting that the UK and France have these things, but I think either way it's (to the casual observer/immediate impression) misleading. Is there another word or acronym or so we could use instead of "yes" or "no"? (Still with the footnotes of course.) Alternatively - and I'll make this edit now as a temporary (perhaps) arrangement - is "(yes)" followed by the footnote. Your thoughts please! David ( talk) 22:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps there are one or two African countries which should be discussed, most obviously Nigeria, with 170m people and described by President Obama as the "world's next economic superpower" ( http://www.360nobs.com/2012/08/obama-nigeria-is-worlds-next-economic-superpower/). cwmacdougall 7:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
How can the EU be a superpower?
EU has all.The largest economy,the largest net wealth and a huge military system nukes able to cancel life on Earth several times and athe largest conventional military).The article is well set. Mediolanum ( talk) 12:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Brazil seams a little out of place in this article don't you think? Like a man who has just walked into a ladies changing room. Sure, he likes what he see's, but he knows he doesn't belong and must leave. The same applies to Brazil in this article.
The only supporting citation giving any reference to Brazil as being a potential superpower is The Cornell Daily Sun citation (a daily newspaper published by students!!). The other citations that 'apparently' support Brazil being a potential superpower are all dead links and cannot be used as reference anymore. So dealing with the citation that is left remaining, The Daily Cornell Sun, it reports that during a lecture entitled "Brazil as an Emerging World Power?", Leslie Armijo said... “Soon, we’ll have two superpowers in the Western Hemisphere". She was also reported saying that Brazil is not a Great power but an emerging power. Quite frankly, where she was reported saying that there is soon to be two superpowers in the western hemisphere, appears slightly sensationalist to me and nothing more than bias rhetoric thrown into a lecture to capture an audience. Hardly Wikipedia material! There are a few more citations in the Brazil section, but they only mention Brazil being a potential economic superpower rather than a contemporary superpower like the United Sates. So I will ignore them as they do not specifically mention Brazil as a potential superpower.
Many would agree that the case for Brazil on this article is very weak. In fact, it is hanging on a single thread (The Daily Cornell Sun citation). So the question to my fellow editors is, where do we go from here? In my opinion, either one of two things should be done. A, The citations for Brazil should be greatly improved and therefore Brazil can stay in the article, or B, a consensus should be reached and a decision made on whether to delete Brazil from the article or keep the status quo. If nobody responds to this discussion after a week then I will be WP:BOLD and delete Brazil.
A few additional points I would like to add to my argument is that all the other nations listed on this article are Great powers, while Brazil is not a great power. Dr Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, Strategic Vision: America & the Crisis of Global Power (published 2012), he appraised the worlds current world powers. He goes on to name China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States as being the current great powers. Dr Zbigniew Brzezinski is a political scientist, geo-strategist, and former United States National Security Advisor, a highly qualified academic and a very well informed person. Of those, China, India and Russia appear on this article. So, while China, India and Russia are considered great powers with he potential of becoming superpowers - Brazil is still merely a nobody seeking superpower status. Getting too far ahead of yourself are we Brazil?
In militarily terms and other traditional avenues of 'hard power' Brazil is irrelevant and non existent. Far removed from being the potential superpower this article suggests. I also question editors here, can Brazil really catch up with the United States or other potential superpowers in order to actually become a superpower? In economic terms for example, even by the year 2050, Brazil is very unlikely to achieve a GDP 25% the size of the USA, that's not superpower potential in my books, not now, not ever. See: List of countries by past and future GDP (nominal). A bit of commonsense on Wikipedia goes a longs ways aways.
Brazil may feel like a superpower down in Latin America surrounded by its small and insignificant neighbours, but in the real world, nope. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 22:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Several contributors are getting ahead of themselves, in the discussion on potential superpowers. I wish to make the following points on this subject (some of which have already been made earlier by other editors):
1. The concept of a superpower is a fairly modern phenomenon (ie. late 19th/early 20th century). Probably only USA, USSR & UK (pre 1945), could be considered such.
2. The number of superpowers at any given time has been very small (one, two or none at all). It is quite feasible, that as the world continues down the path of multipolarity, in 30 or 40 years there may be no superpowers at all, but rather just a small group of global powers, none so powerful so as to effect far reaching change just by themselves or in concert with their smaller allies.
3. Popular widespread speculation on who might become a superpower, has shown itself to be completely off the mark in the past (eg. how many of those in the know predicted the weakening of the Japanese economy (potential superpower) in the 1990’s or the collapse of the USSR in 1991, for that matter?). Such speculation is of little value and not worthy of too much consideration.
4. The probability of an emergence of a global superpower cannot be determined by a google search featuring a given country eg. “Turkey Superpower” - 48.5 million hits. Such an approach is blatently nonsensical, to put it mildly!
5. People need to be discerning in what they read. Newspaper and electronic media articles written by journalists with moderate to no knowledge of global dynamics or geostrategy, cannot be held up as authoritative sources on the subject of global power. X number of newspaper/internet articles saying “Y”, does not necessarily make Y to be factually true. A better source of information is that of respected political scientists, geostrategists and others who study this field, and have expertise in this area.
6. Neither military expenditure nor economic size by themselves necessarily make a great power or superpower (although these indicators may be factored into the equation). I would ask all editors to at least consult the Wikipedia articles on ‘Great Power’ & ‘Superpower’, to better understand the definition of these concepts, before making assertions about the qualifications of a particular country.
7. On the question of Brazil being a potential superpower, I wish to make the following points:
a) One needs to become a great power first, before attaining superpower status.
b) I wish to put forward a conjectural notion: How many informed people (ie. those that follow the news, take a general interest in world affairs) outside of Brazil can name the President of Brazil? I would suspect, not too many (especially those outside the American continents). How many could name the Foreign Minister of Brazil? I suspect far fewer. Yet if indeed Brazil was a great power, I believe a substantive portion of the world population would be able to name its president. By contrast, most people could name the Prime Minister of Britain, and a fair number could also name the Foreign Minister of Britain. I would put this largely down to the fact that Britain is a global power, whilst Brazil is not. I accept that this may be a somewhat crude measurement of determining a country’s power status, but I don’t think that it can be totally dismissed.
c) What is Brazil’s position on global issues? For instance, what is its position on Syria? Besides the fact that most reasonably informed people would not know Brazil’s position here, the fact is that few people would care. Broadly speaking, what Brazil thinks about Syria or Libya or North Korea, or most other international issues doesn’t really matter a great deal. Brazil’s stance has little consequence for anybody, but this would be less likely to be true if Brazil really was a great power or emerging superpower. Furthermore, when the Great Powers do occasionally organise a conference to resolve issue X, whereby the affected parties + Great powers are invited, you would rarely (if ever) see Brazil invited to take a seat at the table. Brazil’s international role is quite minimal, whereas the international role of a great power is significant, and it is this that largely distinguishes a great power from a regional power.-- Mrodowicz ( talk) 16:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing those bits out, i'll upload a new version once a decision has been made. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 12:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Until proven otherwise, all sources claim vehemently that Brazil is an emerging superpower. With all due respect Antiochus, but you at least read the papers have made available? If you only mastered the English language, as soon as he read an article in Portuguese? Scientific articles produced by renowned Brazilian universities! Out the items I have made available in English. If the article is on the "emerging superpower" because I have to prove that Brazil is a superpower comparable to the U.S. or Britain? We're talking about emerging superpowers! It is not clear this? Do not rush things here do not. In a little over a week now wanted to close the topic as conclusive now that appear to sources refuse to discuss seriously? Good contributions! Hallel ( talk) 02:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The issue as I see it is that some editors (and I think Hallel is one) don't fully grasp the meaning/difference of the term superpower as opposed to "power" in either a general ( power in international relations) or other specific ( great power, regional power, et al.) way. The sources suggest Brazil is an emerging power - some do mention "superpower" but not in the true sense, only in narrow areas such as agriculture. And this is the point of this whole motion to delete Brazil (and perhaps Russia) - that editors for whatever reason (quite possibly national POV) are using whatever sources, whether they actually refer to actual superpower status or not, to push a certain nation onto this article, which should actually be a fairly short article. Brazil is an emerging power, there is no doubt about that, but it's not even a great power yet and as keeps being pointed out, no decent academic source suggests true superpower status for Brazil.
I can only suggest to Hallel that the constructive way forward is to transfer much of the Brazil stuff from this article to the developing emerging power article, which is a much more suitable "home" for it. In this article, as has already been suggested, we can still mention Brazil and Russia as emerging powers with some potential for superpower status because of agricultural/energy output or whatever. Frankly that is the truth of the situation out there in the real world. I cannot understand how anyone with any real understanding of the world can seriously suggest that Brazil is anytime soon going to be a superpower - that person either doesn't understand the situation of the world's nations or doesn't understand the term superpower and is mixing up with other terms for power as I mentioned above.
If this matter goes to arbitration I cannot see how the sources provided for Brazil can be upheld as demonstrating academic references to Brazil's potential as a superpower. They demonstrate Brazil as an emerging power with a strong future in certain areas. Do we really have to take this all through the mill? Well, sadly I can see the nationalists out there doing anything in a desperate attempt at keeping their country in this article (as if it changes anything in the real world..!) but they really would be wasting their (and our, and arbitrators') time. David ( talk) 08:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Who Rules The World? - Survey by Bertelsmann Foundation (2007) http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/bst/de/media/xcms_bst_dms_23371_23372_2.pdf I thought this link may be of interest given the debate. -- Mrodowicz ( talk) 12:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
In relation to the Bertelsmann survey, it's interesting that so few people view the other great powers (besides USA, & possibly China) as great powers. Russia, Japan, UK, Germany, France & EU all score between 22% - 39%. I suppose that this is because whilst many of us would subdivide the world into 4 categories. 1. Superpower 2. Great Power 3. Middle Power 4. Small Power, the general population may think of world power distribution in terms of only three categories: 1. Superpower/Great Power 2. Middle Power 3. All the Rest. Under this distribution, USA would be in Cat. 1 by itself (or perhaps with China). Cat. 2 (middle power) would have all the remaining powers, on account of them being so far behind the US in terms of strength, and Cat. 3 is self-explanatory. -- Mrodowicz ( talk) 15:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
To be fair to Hallel, he does provide one good source to make his point that Brazil might be considered a global power. Source Attachment No. 11 (No. 12 here) [12] is a respectable source written by academic Leslie Elliott Armijo in 2007. Of course it represents the opinion of one individual, but it's a good source. The article is worthwhile reading. I’ve taken out a few excerpts, to give some sense of what is says. See below:
This section thus far has examined the category “the BRICs countries” in the light of a realist framework emphasizing the relative power of individual sovereign states. China looks quite consequential, India and Russia somewhat less so, and Brazil still less so, although the order depends significantly on the specific metric employed. We conclude that it is certain that China is or soon will be a major power, eventually second only to the US, and reasonable to anticipate that the other three also soon could be major powers. On several relevant dimensions each of the four soon will outstrip the US’ traditional Western European allies—although this judgment would change dramatically if the Western European countries were to move toward close political union. Though the US remains overwhelmingly first among equals, multipolarity is increasing.
Tellingly, however, many realist analysts worry about the emergence of China—and the reemergence of Russia—as major powers in the current century, but seem unconcerned about Japan, India, and Brazil. Perhaps this is because China and Russia appear to pose a greater military threat, as both are long-declared nuclear states with large standing armies. But there is more to the argument than simply a concern over rising material capabilities among countries that were weak following the Second World War. What many realist scholars actually fear is the rise of a powerful anti-Western and anti-liberal-values coalition, led by China but possibly also including Russia.
This section began with two queries. We asked whether it was reasonable to imagine that, in purely material capability terms, any or all of Brazil, Russia, India, and China could by the mid-twentieth century [sic] be considered “major powers.” A variety of evidence suggests that by this criterion first China, then India and Russia, and then Brazil, all would be indisputable members of the set of top five to seven major powers--at the latest approximately three decades hence.
Moreover, both India and Brazil have demonstrated considerable soft power, or attractive and persuasive international capabilities. For example, India was a leader in both the Non-Aligned Movement of the 1950s through the 1970s and the New International Economic Order of the 1970s and early 1980s, each of which might have found greater long-run success had more of their members been democracies like India. More recently, Brazil and Argentina have improved their relations dramatically since both have democratized. If some democracies that are major powers (the European members of today’s G-7) are substituted for by other newly powerful democracies (such as India and Brazil), then we may expect global governance institutions, overarching liberal values, and processes to remain much the same.
In fact, a look at the business literature suggests that the core proposition even among scholars is simply that the BRICs’ economies will be large and therefore must be important—as markets, investment destinations, and competitors. Economic liberals who are logically consistent should care about factors such as the quality of national economic governance within emerging market economies. In contrast, a concern with relative size—and thus relative power— implicitly transports us to the cognitive territory of political and economic realism.
A realist approach suggests that advanced industrial countries whose relative international position may be slipping are justified in fearing the rise of the BRICs. Moreover, within a pure balance-of-power mental model for interpreting trends in the international political economy, the structure of relative material capabilities among units or countries shapes systemic outcomes: The end of American hegemony may undermine global stability. Yet there is more to be said. In particular, the realist model is unclear about why Japan or Germany, enemies of the United States (and the liberal democratic “West”) within living memory, are universally perceived today as reliable Western allies, while China and Russia arouse enormous suspicion.-- Mrodowicz ( talk) 15:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Após esta afirmação me recuso a continuar este debate em inglês: "I think this is because the British and Germans have a very healthy attitude and understanding when it comes to state power and global affairs, probably because both the World Wars (and the following Cold War) have a unique importance in our culture/society and therefore influences our outlook on the world. However, there is still allot of confusion among the general public as to what a 'World power' or 'Great power'". Os senhores que "se virem" para entender o que irei escrever. Primeiro: apresentei artigos científicos de renomadas universidades brasileiras. Não foi o bastante! Continuei com os argumentos, e o que colocam um texto fora do contexto, selecionando um fragmento que convém e não o conjunto da obra... a análise do autor. Mas tudo bem, apresento lhes mais estas fontes pra se deliciarem com um trabalho acadêmico digno de respeito:
Façam uma busca rápida na internet, e vocês terão a sua disposição estas literaturas de suporte. Ah, e quanto a acusação de bairrismo (sou bairrista e não nego!), me admiro muito de vossas senhorias britânicas me falarem tais coisas, pois estavam tecendo comentários sobre uma provável Potência Elizabetina! Vamos colocar os pingos nos ís, ok?! Saudações tupiniquins! Hallel ( talk) 03:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, placing a section break here for ease of editing etc. As agreed upon its been roughly a week at this stage since the discussion started and perhaps now we should decide upon where to go from here. Also how should we proceed with Russia? Antiochus the Great ( talk) 12:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree largely with David on the matter and my suggestions and principles for this article are as follows:
I don't know if adding more mention of economic, agricultural and energy superpowers to this article is a good idea, as I think it will further blur what is means to be a "Potential superpower". Perhaps expanding the Emerging powers article by adding mention of how some emerging powers are often referred to as economic, agricultural or energy superpowers would be better. Britain has be described of as a "cultural superpower" and there is a case for Britain being a "financial superpower" via the City of London. Also, Canada, Russia and Saudi Arabia are described as being "energy superpowers" and Brazil an "Agricultural superpower" - but these terms are often used only to describe one aspect where a nation holds considerable power and influence, not necessarily as a potential superpower. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 14:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I can understand on Brazil but not Russia, Russia is not a great power and nor should it be listed as a emerging power, that's ridiculous; it's a potential superpower or emerging superpower. If you compare Brazil and Russia, Russia is the ruler, if you compare India and Russia, Russia rules over military and economics [15] on India it outcast on others such as population, some military and some global affairs. There are plenty of stats online that point Russia as an emerging superpower. There are US dipolmats & world leaders who have made official statements on Russia's power surge on the world stage, Brazil doesn't have that grip on the world. India, so so but their ecomony does impact the world stage as much as Russia is. The article should place Russia back as it was, there was foreign relation expert sources that were defending article and they shouldn't be ignored.-- 103.246.114.80 ( talk) 17:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
India's economy is projected to overtake the Russian economy within 7 years not 50 years. Russia's population is in terminal decline and by the 2050s will have a population of around 100 million... in comparison the United Kingdom is projected to have a population of 80 million by the late 2040s. Russia is simply NOT a potential superpower and whats more there is no academic consensus that reinforces the idea of Russia as a potential superpower. This discussion should be closed as per policy to preserve the decision of the consensus. A new section should be opened to discuss any relevant issues. Arguments starting off like "I have a different opinion" from Subtropical-man are not valid because as he said its his opinion (POV). Antiochus the Great ( talk) 17:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
It suggests that the EU and China are widely considered to be superpowers, which is simply not the case (and indeed if it were so would make the whole article pointless). Another aspect of this article that needs dealing with!! David ( talk) 21:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Article is well written.The former one was confused and accepted "all".EU and China are without doubt in the list with USA.India is in the article even many people doubt of it.Brazil and Russian Federation must stay out without doubt to be realistic.They miss in many many sectors.They miss in economy (not only in GDP but also and above all in global net wealth that made them insignificant in the world economy) and population.Brazil miss in military and Russia in conventional military too (Check well datas.All have inside nukes able to cancel life on Earth.Conventional military becomes the main one and in this Brazil and Russia aren't at the level of USA,EU and China capabilities).According to the majoriy of people that are in economy ,social and military studies considering Brazil and Russian Federation potential superpower is not trustble.EU owns a its clause of mutual defence based on the article 42.7 of the Lisbon Treaty,so no doubts on EU military might. The post at the bottom of the article is perfect.It gives well the idea of superpower.The guy that writes anonymous is brazilian or russian.One thing is reality another prpaganda.I like this article because realistic and far from propaganda that is very common in policy articles. Mediolanum ( talk) 11:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Brazil should be back -- 108.92.162.111 ( talk) 23:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
@ 103.246.114.8, CNN is not a reliable source for an article such as this. Also, you keep claiming that Brazil and Russia have academic citations that describe them as potential superpowers! Will you please produce these said citations? Additionally, the citations for Brazil have be examined by me and a few other editors - the result was that they are unsuitable to support Brazil's place on the article. NONE of the citations described Brazil as a "potential superpower". Get real or go home. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 20:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Opened new thread for those who wish to raise their opinions/issues on the current consensus. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 18:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Sprenger very good point and I may say too there is a baby boom going there too and the Russian Federation may have 3 countries that may join the Federation as one nation because some countries want to be in their economics & financail interests, apparently there is money there. I don't see India making the same except for huge deportations because of jobs in the US and other countries. http://rbth.ru/articles/2012/11/26/can_russian_baby_boomers_change_the_game_20417.html http://www.nbcnews.com/id/23972762/ns/world_news-europe/t/russia-experiencing-baby-boom/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/russianow/business/9200168/Russia-baby-boom-sales.html CNN did a report on this last year on the boom in Russia and while India is going strong, I don't think we added all on both nations on the article but however one of the editors eliminated both Brazil and Russia off the article in order to discuss that. Should we agree to open the "Brazil oh really" discussion since it was closed yesterday after 2 weeks of talks. I think we were setup on the article and somebody intended close out the discussion on both Brazil and Russia before more would weigh in on the matter. I think so. Open the "Brazil oh really" discussion and lets get more feedback on this.-- 103.246.114.122 ( talk) 00:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Invited to comment Only four people framed the consensus which is way too low considering the highly controversial nature of the topic.....you should have waited till more people(not socks) commented on the topic. I think at least 10 people were required to frame the consensus here....considering the highly controversial nature of the topic... PS:I'm in favour of the consensus but just don't like the way it was reached. Thanks, TheStrike Σagle 02:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
There were no academic sources for Brazil and Russia. Infact, most the the sources for Brazil were all dead links!! So 103.246.114.86 do not make false claims in an attempt to support your argument. Antiochus the Great ( talk) 10:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
There were no academic sources for Brazil and Russia. It is pointless for you to continue saying there were and not produce evidence! Antiochus the Great ( talk) 20:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Well I have a few comments to share with everyone:
My last comment is that most people in these discussions agree on the same thing that Brazil and Russia should be removed because they do not have the high quality references, only a very small handful of people think that Brazil and Russia should stay, but these small number of people do not provide adequate references and sources! But like I said before we should do what Greyhood says and put Russia in a subsection because it has one good reference. Languid Scientist ( talk) 20:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Russia according to many academics and people in policy will be "eaten" by EU (see article Eurosphere )that even today has a strong influence on Russia.Russia like Brazil hasn't sufficient population and has a small economy compared to the other ones cited in the article today and in a foresable future.It'd be just ridiculous propaganda.Article is really complete.Stop with trolling. Mediolanum ( talk) 21:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
They lack a unified currency. Their people would never allow it to become one country. Each country has centuries of history, the people would not give that up. They are in an economic sh*thole. UK will probably be out of the EU within a decade. Even Germans are starting to want to leave. The EU is not, and never will be a potential superpower. The only ones are US (existing superpower), India, and China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copulative ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
EU is a political being with a larger economy that Usa and inside a larger military than Usa. (see art. 42.7( Lisbon Treaty). Mediolanum ( talk) 12:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Nowehre is written that to be a superpower a political being must be a common nation.Nowhere.EU according to Lisbon Treaty art. 42.7 has cluase of mutual defense that links all EU states.EU owns (rapresented by The EU Miltary Staff) today a huge military system .Check better datas,then write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediolanum ( talk • contribs) 16:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
The EU very much is a potential superpower! Has anyone thought that maybe the EU does not need to become a country to become a superpower? When you look at the British Empire in world war two the armies of some of its colonies helped England fight the war. The EU has been described by many as an empire too, I am sure if Europeans get a closer bond and work closer with military matters then one day we could be a superpower, we don't need to melt into one giant country to do it! But this is just my opinion, plus David is from England where there is a surge of euroscepticism which is understandable as the English have maintained their historic distance from Europe and have the famous attitude of Churchill! Languid Scientist ( talk) 21:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
UK in the reality is an EU state.Article is well wrtten and to keep in this way without any useless change. Mediolanum ( talk) 21:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Generally, European Union is atypical entity, official is an economic and political union of independent states but this is a fairy tale for children. EU states not have a full sovereignty. European Union ruled by parliament of EU and states of EU have limited opportunities, like autonomous regions in federal country. Today, European Union is political (the top three in the world), economy (1st in the world), demographic (3rd in the world) superpower, and potential military superpower (a lot of staff, modern equipment, nuclear weapons, but this is not common army, yet; with exceptions: Common Security and Defence Policy, European Defence Agency or European Union Force, EU Battlegroup, EUROMARFOR etc). Subtropical-man ( talk) 21:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
If EU isn't a potential superpower India and China must disappear too from the article for economic ,political and military reasons.EU many times in articles is described holding even a too low profile.This article is well written and complete.
Mediolanum (
talk)
21:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
You are offending and making personal attacks because you've nothing to say.Please,it's time to stop this guy .
Mediolanum (
talk)
15:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The source for the EU does not say it is a potential superpower, it actually seems to be making up a new definition of a superpower. Darkness Shines ( talk) 21:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
( Personal attack removed) Mediolanum ( talk) 22:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Antiochus the Great already reported all reasons in a very complete way, so please stop.Political (and not scientifical )way isn't the good method.Trying to join the policy of "all happy" in the subsection attacking here Antiochus the Great with no sufficient reasons is not correct."Do ut des " means in latin "I give you because you must give"-.Translated in this situation is "I attack here article to have subsection" .Really strange that the attack hasn't been taken on India (above all) or China that have weakest points.This isn't the right scientifcal philosphy to write an article.People must be scientifical and not political in writing article. I accused and accuse you of useless and disruptive trolling. Mediolanum ( talk) 07:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The article lists many reliable sources that name the EU an emerging superpower, and several that challenge this view (implicitly acknowledging it is relevant to discuss EU in terms of potential superpowers).
Although I do agree that potential superpowerdom is leaning towards predictions of future, the only consequence could ever be to remove the article entirely.
The above discussion for removal above does not list any sources and teems to be more of a
soapbox argument grounded in personal ideas of the editors which nations should be seen as worldleaders than any usueful,
neutral attempt at improving Wikipedia.
Arnoutf (
talk)
08:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
In this sense even the article Superpower should be totally removed.In the history according to the main academics (one of them,the most famous in the world, is Franco Cardini of the University of Florence) a Superpower in the pure sense is "a political being with high wealth and civilization and able to influence and hit everywhere without having back a lethal hit".The last one real Superpowers were the British Empire and USA from 1945 to 1949.Many people (and the best academics would think the same) think that some ideas to change the article (that are in the minority) aren't the best ones,it would lead to a too strong relativism.Superpowers must be intended under a new point of view (not in the absolute sense ,but in the relative sense and respecting some main basical datas),the one that Antiochus the Great described.In this sense it's more scientifical to hold this article well written unchanged and to better the article Superpower. Mediolanum ( talk) 09:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I just try to say that Turkey is going to be leader of the Muslim world. In this sense it is a potential superpower. Now you will cry and say how it can be that's impossible, because it has less population compared with china, and less economy compared with usa.. stop comparing turkey with any other states. turkey will gain more influence than the ottoman empire did. with your logics none muslim country could be a superpower. since it will be the largest faith group. the Sunni islam is already the world largest confession. 95.114.22.135 ( talk) 23:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
If Turkey would in future regarded as the most important Muslim country, it is not enough. If whole muslim world (1.6 billion people, more than China) formed one country, "Greater Muslim Country" will potential superpower or even superpower. However, even then, the economy will be weaker than the USA or EU, the army with obsolete equipment, only a political issue to be significant, USA, EU and China will be afraid of such a colossus ;) Turkey as superpower in the world? Very funny. Subtropical-man ( talk) 08:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, instead adding Turkey. Just add "Muslim World" and mentioned the muslim Countries: Turkey, indonesia and Egypt. (Maybe Pakistan and Iran, too. although I have big doubts because Pakistan, Iran and Egypt are very instable.).. because it sounds ridiculous that the Muslim world will be ruled by Usa, China and India.. 95.114.101.147 ( talk) 11:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Comparison Germany (one state of the European Union) and Turkey - result 7:1 for Germany:
Population | HDI |
GDP (power of economy) |
GDP per capita |
Oil reserves |
IMF voting power |
Defense spending |
Military personnel | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() (one state of 27 of the EU) |
81,799,600 (16th) | 0.920 (5th) | $3,401,000 billion (4rd) | $41,513 (21th) | 276 (56th) | 6.12% (3rd) | $45.8 (9th) | 331,898 |
![]() |
75,627,384 (18th) | 0.722 (90th) | $794,468 billion (17th) | $10,609 (62th) | 262 (57th) | 0.00% | $18.2 (15th) | 1,041,500 |
Turkey may be the only as potential great power, never as potential superpower. Subtropical-man ( talk) 11:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
There are no ways that the so called superpowers China, India could cultural and ideological influence the Muslim world. Fact is that Islam is going to be the worlds number one religion. But how comes that Christian World have two superpowers? (Usa and European Union) It is very clear that there will at last 1 Muslim global power. The Muslim world is rise in relevance, they are not isolated. There is Immigration in Europe and Norht America. Populations in India and China. Your comparison with Germany shows that Germany is regional power with high economic capital, and that Turkey is a Great power with global political capacity and soft Power. Nor Japan or Germany have such as Agenda. Edit: Because of globalization it will possible that also small countries will fit to becoming superpower. 95.114.101.147 ( talk) 22:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Google search is
original research, as is all of the discussion above. It may be true, but it should be {{WP:verify|verifiable]] using
reliable sources, preferably secondary source. The above does not follow this and is therefore not a good argument for inclusion.
In other words: Bring in a reliable secondary source, or we can stop this thread.
Arnoutf (
talk)
17:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)