Originally Posted by
Boredpayne
Why are you even ranking superpowers by their military capability? Canada and Australia don't have the military capabilities of the U.S., but why should that matter? They are both highly developed first world countries with large populations. Only a child would rank countries based on their ability to kill others.
I agree wholeheartedly with the bolded statement.
Alice Lyman Miller (Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School), defines a superpower as "a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time, and so may plausibly attain the status of global hegemony."
A superpower could conceivably be purely economic, or via the respect and agreement of others.
Currently China
is a superpower, as they have massive economical control.
Other countries, such as the Saudi Arabia for oil, and Australia for raw minerals, could be considered superpowers for control of resources.
The UN, although not a country, can be likened to a superpower due to its global influence. An optimist may say that the UN could create a hegemony, and thus create a United Earth, rather than splintered and forever bickering countries.
Wiki names several 'potential' superpowers;
Brazil, China, EU, India and Russia.
Last edited by Gormen; Jan 20, 2011 at 08:38 AM.