NationStates Jolt Archive

My best guess would be China.

How would a United States of Europe not be the world's superpower? The combined economies of all the European countries are greater than anywhere else at the moment and if they became one country it would be greater than the sum of its parts.
Europe lacks the military capabilities that the USA has or the Soviet Union had. You don't have a strong enough navy to project force, you also don't spend enough to train and equip a large military. The forces you do have are quite good for self defense, but you lack the will to spend the money necessary for a military that can invade and conquer other nations.

You realize that China only has 20 more people per square Km than the EU at this time? Both China and the EU have over 80 more people per square Km than the US.

Quite a big portion of China is Gobi Desert.

Europe lacks the military capabilities that the USA has or the Soviet Union had. You don't have a strong enough navy to project force, you also don't spend enough to train and equip a large military. The forces you do have are quite good for self defense, but you lack the will to spend the money necessary for a military that can invade and conquer other nations.
Yeah but our byrocracy is something so huge and pointless that we should be proud of it.

Europe lacks the military capabilities that the USA has or the Soviet Union had. You don't have a strong enough navy to project force
Can you say 'missle subs'


you also don't spend enough to train and equip a large military. The forces you do have are quite good for self defense, but you lack the will to spend the money necessary for a military that can invade and conquer other nations.

I agree with you on that one

Since the whole is being suckered into keeping our technology based upon fossil fuels, which only benefits a handful of people in comparison to how many it holds back, i'd say a European superstate.

Keep in mind, the Euro is now taking over all of the mid-east oil reserves. Everything in that region is starting to be based off the Euro because of it's gold backing. The Federal Trust is a hollow shell and has been exploited to the hilt. America is definately beyond it's apex in terms of economic power.

My advice, buy land in Eastern Europe and breathe clean air.

Can you say 'missle subs'

Submarines don't project force. Aircraft Carrier Battle Groups do.

Since the whole is being suckered into keeping our technology based upon fossil fuels, which only benefits a handful of people in comparison to how many it holds back, i'd say a European superstate.

Keep in mind, the Euro is now taking over all of the mid-east oil reserves. Everything in that region is starting to be based off the Euro because of it's gold backing. The Federal Trust is a hollow shell and has been exploited to the hilt. America is definately beyond it's apex in terms of economic power.

My advice, buy land in Eastern Europe and breathe clean air.

Strong Currency does not equate to a Strong nation.

In case you all haven't noticed, power and wealth always move west. It started with Greece, headed into Rome...
... and eventually came to America. It's currently in transition from America to Japan. But it won't stay there long after China invades Japan after getting sick of doing all of America's sweatshop labor. :mp5:

Everything in that region is starting to be based off the Euro because of it's gold backing. Gold doesn't back currency anymore.

Strong Currency does not equate to a Strong nation.


If that's true, then a weakening currency, like ours here in the US, is a very bad sign for the future.

Strong Currency does not equate to a Strong nation.

Of course not, but there has always been a strong currency for others to base things off.

Follow the energy if you want to find who will have the power though. Always energy. Whoever has their stamp on that runs the show and we're slowly losing our grip on the majority share.

the economy is like a day at school or work, you have bad days (years), and good ones. Then you have some in the middle. Just because we're haveing a bad year does not mean we're going under.

actually i dont really no what yous are talkin about

And this isn't any new development either. In the past 65 years the dollar has lost 92% of it's buying power? Uhh, yuck? So that one dollar I had stuffed in my back pocket is worth 8 cents today.

It's been a slow, drawn out process and it's not all our own doing.

actually i dont really no what yous are talkin about
Then you are clearly stupid.

Can you say 'missle subs'



I agree with you on that one
Subs can't deliver an invasion force. Subs can only level cities and military bases. It's like the old cold war joke about the two russian tank commanders who met up in Lisbon after the third world war. One says to the other "who won the air war?". It's not funny, but it illustrates that bombs and missiles can't gain and hold territory, just weaken the enemy to make it easier on the grunts.

India has a booming economy, and is a potential superpower.

Submarines don't project force. Aircraft Carrier Battle Groups do.
True Dat.

If that's true, then a weakening currency, like ours here in the US, is a very bad sign for the future.

You need to spend some more time reading that sentence that I wrote. Get back to me when you realize the mistake you made.

The Chinese are doing some truly amazing things as of late. Keep in mind, just months ago they sent a man into space and soon they will be sending a multi-person crew to orbit five times. They are rapidly on the path to becoming a space power. I haven't seen the ESA sending people into space (unless it was aboard an American or Russian vehicle).

China will be able to develop a substantial middle class faster than India can ever hope to in the next several decades due to several advantages:
1. no major violent cultural tensions between ethnic/religious groups.
2. no caste-based discrimination to speak of.
3. hong kong and the new territories is already a major node of international trade and finance, much more so than Mumbai.
4. a staggering wealth of natural resources that comes along with having such a large land area.
5. they can rely on neighbours rather than far flung allies as trading partners: Japan, South Korea in particular.
6. the cultivation of extensive trade ties in latin america (factories recently built in Argentina, free trade agreements with Brazil, etc.).
7. wider access to the education system. it is not enough to say that India's advantage could come from a small technate of elites. it will require widespread educational opportunities to be successful, which is something the Chinese are in a better position to provide.

As for the united Europe, it won't likely happen fast enough. Also, the already developed economies of Europe are foundering at the moment and the pace of economic reform is much too slow to turn things around (Germany's Hartz Vier is peanuts compared to the overall structural changes that would have to take place there and in other European economies in order get ahead). Also, their reluctance in accepting Turkey, which has the potential to be the next South Korea, shows that the Europeans are more interested in archaic concepts of cultural statehood rather than global economic pragmatism.

So between their positively massive military and their rapid growth and development relative to their nearest competitors, my money is still on China.

I do believe out of those list of list nations it would be India. China cannot be a superpower right now or even in 50 or a hundred years. Their economy is relying on the US. If the US just cut off trade with China, then China's economy would collapse. As you cn see everything is made in China. Another thing is how is China going to move a large force fast enough around the world? How are they going to be able to feed this army? The Chinese are having a population and economic boom only because of the US. There is no way of Europe becoming a superpower. Europe is to culturally divided. As a result WWI and WWII and the Napolenic wars. The list is very long in european conflicts. Plus I do give credit to Britain because every colonie they let go has had a stable economy and government(israel,Singapore, USA, Canada,Australia). The problem with UK becoming a world power is their an island. It is to cut off trade with the UK if you have a big enough navl force(Uk imports alot of things like oil). The US would be harder to cut off trade larger shoreline. Finally I say India because they are a democracy(1 step ahead of china in government) and have the military and Sicentific power to keep up. The Chinese will rise fast and fall fast.

I do believe out of those list of list nations it would be India. China cannot be a superpower right now or even in 50 or a hundred years. Their economy is relying on the US. If the US just cut off trade with China, then China's economy would collapse. As you cn see everything is made in China. Another thing is how is China going to move a large force fast enough around the world? How are they going to be able to feed this army? The Chinese are having a population and economic boom only because of the US. There is no way of Europe becoming a superpower. Europe is to culturally divided. As a result WWI and WWII and the Napolenic wars. The list is very long in european conflicts. Plus I do give credit to Britain because every colonie they let go has had a stable economy and government(israel,Singapore, USA, Canada,Australia). The problem with UK becoming a world power is their an island. It is to cut off trade with the UK if you have a big enough navl force(Uk imports alot of things like oil). The US would be harder to cut off trade larger shoreline. Finally I say India because they are a democracy(1 step ahead of china in government) and have the military and Sicentific power to keep up. The Chinese will rise fast and fall fast.

Not every colony they have left behind has ended up with a stable economy.
Following the pullout of the British from Singapore, it was a third world state. It was Lee Kuan Yew, a post-independence Prime Minister who pulled Singapore into modernity, NOT a British governor. Israel's development was not due to the British either, and I'm sure the Israelis would take great issue upon hearing you say that. Let's take a look at Iraq, Nigeria and Egypt, all of these British colonies. Not exactly shining examples of stability and economic development.

It's too easy to say "well, the US could cut off trade relations with the Chinese and they would fall through the floor" but the same person who said this could have said the same thing about Japan or Germany a few decades ago when they were extremely dependent upon the US in the post-war years. Improbable hypotheticals have no place in international economics.

I think China would most likely become the next superpower.

I do believe out of those list of list nations it would be India. China cannot be a superpower right now or even in 50 or a hundred years. Their economy is relying on the US. If the US just cut off trade with China, then China's economy would collapse.
Actually, India's export economy is similar to China's. 20% of Chinese exports go to the US, and 20% of India's exports go to the US. China not only sells to the US but is reliable trade partners with Japan, Korea, Europe, and all other parts of the world. Furthermore, the US will not be able to cut trade with CHina because that would mean vastly increased prices for goods for American consumers, and American citizens would likely revolt.

As you cn see everything is made in China. Another thing is how is China going to move a large force fast enough around the world? How are they going to be able to feed this army?

They would do so just like how the US does it - with lots of money. If China does need to move a large army around, once it becomes rich enough it can do so because all you need to operate an army is money to buy whatever transport or supplies you need. But anyways, why does China need to move massive armies around the world? A superpower does not have to be an imperialist like the US. China can achieve economic, military, and technological superiority over all other nations but does not have to move its army around to invading nations left and right. Throughout history China has proven able to maintain friendly relations with the world and has not been offending foreign countries like the US has. China might make a few deployments to protect resources but I can't imagine them trying to subjugate an Iraq or Afghanistan.

The Chinese are having a population and economic boom only because of the US.
China's population boom stopped in the 1980s and the government is trying hard to curb population growth. Also, having a vast population is not a good thing because it strains resources. Resources limitations is one thing that may hinder Chinese and Indian growth, because neither country has reliable infrastructure and energy, and agriculture in both countries have had to deal with severe decade-long droughts. I have also shown that China's economic boom cannot be attributed only to the US, because 80% of CHinese exports go to other countries besides America.

There is no way of Europe becoming a superpower. Europe is to culturally divided. As a result WWI and WWII and the Napolenic wars.
India is even more culturally divided. India has major conflicts due not only to religion and culture but also caste which is a unique source of social strife not found in Europe or most other places in the world. Europe has not had a major violent cultural conflict in 60+ years, while India continues to have massive cultural conflicts and in the past few years thousands have died due to Muslim-Hindu rioting.

The list is very long in european conflicts. Plus I do give credit to Britain because every colonie they let go has had a stable economy and government(israel,Singapore, USA, Canada,Australia).
Actually most of Britain's former colonies are poverty stricken and experience significant social and economic problems - for example, Iraq, Bangladesh, Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria, Egypt, east Africa, Pakistan, and as I have shown, India.

The problem with UK becoming a world power is their an island. It is to cut off trade with the UK if you have a big enough navl force(Uk imports alot of things like oil). The US would be harder to cut off trade larger shoreline. Finally I say India because they are a democracy(1 step ahead of china in government) and have the military and Sicentific power to keep up. The Chinese will rise fast and fall fast.
It is debatable whether democracy is necessary for a nation to achieve its full economic and military potential. India's democracy has hurt development in some areas, such as West Bengal, due to voters electing governments that mismanaged the economy and instead focused on socialistic or religious goals. China, by having centralized authority, may be in a better position to mobilize the nation's resources for rapid economic and military growth. China's military is currently more advanced than India's military, and Chinese science is just as good if not better than India's, although both nations' scientific innovation is hampered by lack of intellectual property rights.

Thank you! Thank you! It's true; British Pound Sterling is the WORLD'S STRONGEST CURRENCY!!!!!!! THE RAF CAN DEFEAT AIR FORCES OVER 5 TIMES IT'S SIZE - LOOK AT THE LUFTWAFFE. And when Howard is in power, we can build up our armed forces again. (However, i do agree about Charlie. He's an idiot.)
howard won't get in

Trilateral Commission: thanks for defending the pro-China viewpoint so effectively.

Something I've just noticed about this thread, people seem to be forgetting that America is not the only superpower.

Something I've just noticed about this thread, people seem to be forgetting that America is not the only superpower.
Perhaps you could enlighten us, then, as to which country currently rivals the US in military and economic power.

Britain is one

Perhaps you could enlighten us, then, as to which country currently rivals the US in military and economic power.
Bora Bora. They brainwash the rich tourists in their hotels. And then send them into the world to assume positions of influence.

Britain is one
The GDP of the USA is $10.99 trillion. The UK's is $1.666 trillion. See why Britain isn't considered a "superpower"?

Let's be realistic. I predict that none of your options are correct. The United States will not collapse, but instead, will transcend into being the manifest force of the United Nations. In effect, America will become a hyperpowered-'watcher' force. Americans have an almost religious devotion to their nation, so it will not collapse on account of disloyalty. Furthermore, short of an invasion from a highly advanced extraterrestrial civilization the United States is not going to be on the destroyed side of any wars. The fight between Democrats and Republicans is not one of one party abandoning the Union but rather "Who's more patriotic than who"

So, scratch that. So, here is my vote: The United States will 'transcend' into 'watchers' as agents of a United Nations nation.

My personal hope however is that the U.S. withdraws from the U.N. which will inevitably lead to a global civil war which the U.S. should not participate in. Old World nations will destroy eachother as they always have.

Minus the U.N. option, the answer is obviously whatever nation forms from America. The American people will not be able to divide evenly geographically between red states and blue states. So, this divisive in America is an ignorant fabrication. I notice you left out a "Nation of Islam" option.

Matter of fact, this thread is extremely unrealistic.

Europe is economically powerful, but riddled with cowardice. I'd be on the lookout for Japan. Tf they pulled automotive imports, the whole world would be in serious trouble, assuming that america is in shambles. Digital cameras and stuff would be hardto come by, too. If only someone could find that samurai spirit. If they don't be afraid of canada. Don't ask why, just be afraid.

Europe is economically powerful, but riddled with cowardice. I'd be on the lookout for Japan. Tf they pulled automotive imports, the whole world would be in serious trouble, assuming that america is in shambles. Digital cameras and stuff would be hardto come by, too. If only someone could find that samurai spirit. If they don't be afraid of canada. Don't ask why, just be afraid.
riddled with cowardise!? a whole continant! show an example for every country then you can say it.

Actually Turkey should have been on the list, for a couple reasons, they once did rule a huge part of the known world, and if they begin making serious in-roads in Central Asia, they will have access to some serious resources. I am nto saying this is a good thing or a bad thing, but they are definately as much a contender as any other small nation. I consider them far more a contender than Japan for example.

Actually Turkey should have been on the list, for a couple reasons, they once did rule a huge part of the known world, and if they begin making serious in-roads in Central Asia, they will have access to some serious resources. I am nto saying this is a good thing or a bad thing, but they are definately as much a contender as any other small nation. I consider them far more a contender than Japan for example.
Are we talking about the same country? Turkey? ... Did I miss anything? ;)

Since the whole is being suckered into keeping our technology based upon fossil fuels, which only benefits a handful of people in comparison to how many it holds back, i'd say a European superstate.

Keep in mind, the Euro is now taking over all of the mid-east oil reserves. Everything in that region is starting to be based off the Euro because of it's gold backing. The Federal Trust is a hollow shell and has been exploited to the hilt. America is definately beyond it's apex in terms of economic power.

My advice, buy land in Eastern Europe and breathe clean air.


I actually plan to retire to Eastern Europe. Mostly because of personal reasons. The air isn't THAT clean in the winter.

My vote went to China, their government is communist concentrating on the build up of their economy which is quite good and they have the largest landforce in the world. Europe spend to much time squabbling to even be close to being a super power and Britain by itself simply does now have the physical force to back it up (with the reduced navy and army) although they do have the S.A.S...hmm

Where's Jamaica in all this?

The problem i see with a European superstate is that they will still be somewhat connected to the US. Also, European countries vary quite a bit in political and economic issues. I see them as a little too fractured to be a military superpower.

And why is Britian even up there, they already had their British Empire superpower. It aint gonna come back.

Where's Jamaica in all this?
wouldn't you like to know!

Internal dissension with the Arab states make the prospect of an Islamic Superstate forming before an European one. Keeping this debate centered around states formed by U.N. political boundaries seems blinding to the realities of alliances which seem to form no special allegiance to U.N. recognized "states"

Internal dissension with the Arab states make the prospect of an Islamic Superstate forming before an European one. Keeping this debate centered around states formed by U.N. political boundaries seems blinding to the realities of alliances which seem to form no special allegiance to U.N. recognized "states"

Example, the EU represents a "shadow nation" not recognized by the U.N. the United Kingdom's Commonwealth also makes up a "shadow nation" as does "The Arab League" and the OIC, as well as the OAS or NAFTA/FTAA. There is also the U.N. 'shadow nation'

Any of these 'shadow nations' could manifest themselves with greater political reality in a possible future. If the U.S. withdraws from the U.N. the OAS will emerge as the next powerful 'nation' in world affairs. However, if this happens we'll see the OIC emerge and nation states as they are traditionally defined by the U.N. will cease to be relevant as "New Nations" based on these 'alliances' begin to come to power.

Guiness?. Terrible stuff. I'll stick with my English beer.

Also. I'm rather disappointed how many countries have failed to nuke each other. So many stand offs.

Don't you insult my guinness, Ireland will one day conquer the world, and all shall be happy, benevolent, catholic and VERY VERY drunk.
Oh, and don't worry about nuclear stand-offs, India, Pakistan and China will probably all blow each other into one big smouldering crater inside a week.

Switzerland no contest :mp5:

Switzerland no contest :mp5:
We're gonna rule the world! Beware! the Swiss are coming!





:D

Are we talking about the same country? Turkey? ... Did I miss anything?

Turkey used to be called the Ottoman Empire and ruled most of the South East part of Europe, and all of where Turkey is now and a considerably large area of other land. Also, Austria-Hungary used to be a big super power in Europe. If Britain commited to Europe it would increase Europes economic strength, but would decrease Britains economic strength

a) Why are Canada, Israel, and Iraq on the list? How would any of those nations become a superpower? None of them have the right combination to become a superpower. They are each lacking one or more of the following: large population, lots of natural rescources, strong economy, fast-growing economy, lots of land, and a strong military. Iraq especially lacks these. What possibly makes you thinkg they could be a superpower?

b)Why aren't Germany and Brazil on the list? I know Brazil is a long shot, but Germany has Europe's leaading economy and both are more qualified to be superpowers than most of the other nations listed.

c) China will take over when the U.S. falls.

c) China will take over when the U.S. falls.

*if*

China is likely to fall before the U.S. does. American investors have invested a lot in the Chinese Yuan. Sooner or later, the Yuan will be re-pegged against the dollar and the American investor will capitalize on their investment. This will result in massive inflation in China. Their economy will then collapse for a decade or so while the formerly communist nation begins to implement capitalist reforms. At the same time, the dollar will soar to unheard of heights.

Turkey used to be called the Ottoman Empire and ruled most of the South East part of Europe, and all of where Turkey is now and a considerably large area of other land. Also, Austria-Hungary used to be a big super power in Europe. If Britain commited to Europe it would increase Europes economic strength, but would decrease Britains economic strength
I'd rather say that Turkey was part of the Ottoman Empire, but they cannot be compared. You might as well say Italy is the next World Power, because it once was called 'Roman Empire' and ruled over almost all of Europe and the Mediterranean.

*if*

China is likely to fall before the U.S. does. American investors have invested a lot in the Chinese Yuan. Sooner or later, the Yuan will be re-pegged against the dollar and the American investor will capitalize on their investment. This will result in massive inflation in China. Their economy will then collapse for a decade or so while the formerly communist nation begins to implement capitalist reforms. At the same time, the dollar will soar to unheard of heights.

If they peg it, which I doubt, it will be pegged to the Euro. More likely it will be free floating. China has been implementing capitalist reforms for more than a decade now and has only been growing more and more captialistic. The US *will* fall. And it *will* fall by 2030-2050 in terms of being the most powerful nation in the world.

But hey, lets all listen to you and pretend the US is doing dandy instead of guys like Jim Rogers who actually made their fortunes in international trade?

*if*

China is likely to fall before the U.S. does. American investors have invested a lot in the Chinese Yuan. Sooner or later, the Yuan will be re-pegged against the dollar and the American investor will capitalize on their investment. This will result in massive inflation in China. Their economy will then collapse for a decade or so while the formerly communist nation begins to implement capitalist reforms. At the same time, the dollar will soar to unheard of heights.
During this period of spectacular U.S. economic growth, the United States will probably grow a few states in size. Puerto Rico, etc. There will be a ten year period... Quebec will finally realize its aspiration to seperate from Canada, the Canadian confederacy will fall apart and Alberta would likely become a free and independent State of the Union. Other current U.S. territories might take advantage of these huge economic growth and realize statehood.

During the later half of this theoretical decade, the U.S. could withdraw from the U.N. and restyle the U.S. as its successor. The list of members will grow somewhat significantly. Mexico, Israel, and possibly Japan would become members of the U.S. With this enlarged U.S. alliance, it is foreseeable that the U.S. would become the dominant space colonization power. O'Neill space colonies built by the U.S. alliance would allow the U.S. to grow exponentially in population. This event would precipitate the expansion of NAFTA/FTAA to include Australia and Great Britain, creating the conditions for allowing for the eventual membership of these two nations, and possibly South America into the Union. South America will be an interesting place because it will be an essential component to the new space based economy that the U.S. is now constructing in support of President Bush's M2M program.

If they peg it, which I doubt, it will be pegged to the Euro. More likely it will be free floating. China has been implementing capitalist reforms for more than a decade now and has only been growing more and more captialistic. The US *will* fall. And it *will* fall by 2030-2050 in terms of being the most powerful nation in the world.

But hey, lets all listen to you and pretend the US is doing dandy instead of guys like Jim Rogers who actually made their fortunes in international trade?
Jim Rogers may be a great economist, but I somehow doubt he's been keeping tabs on the progress being made on z-pinch fusion research. April of 2006 will be remembered as Bugs Bunny's 'Easter Surprise'

During this period of spectacular U.S. economic growth, the United States will probably grow a few states in size. Puerto Rico, etc. There will be a ten year period... Quebec will finally realize its aspiration to seperate from Canada, the Canadian confederacy will fall apart and Alberta would likely become a free and independent State of the Union. Other current U.S. territories might take advantage of these huge economic growth and realize statehood.

During the later half of this theoretical decade, the U.S. could withdraw from the U.N. and restyle the U.S. as its successor. The list of members will grow somewhat significantly. Mexico, Israel, and possibly Japan would become members of the U.S. With this enlarged U.S. alliance, it is foreseeable that the U.S. would become the dominant space colonization power. O'Neill space colonies built by the U.S. alliance would allow the U.S. to grow exponentially in population. This event would precipitate the expansion of NAFTA/FTAA to include Australia and Great Britain, creating the conditions for allowing for the eventual membership of these two nations, and possibly South America into the Union. South America will be an interesting place because it will be an essential component to the new space based economy that the U.S. is now constructing in support of President Bush's M2M program.

Put the keyboard down and come back when you're not smoking the reefer mmkay?

The Middle Kingdom seems well on its way towards dominating world affairs. China has the greatest growth rate of any country in many respects. It population makes it a juggernaut, particularly when you factor in the amount of cheap labor they have available. Of all the nations/shadow states in the poll only the European Union, China, Russia, and India have any potential. Britain even if it leaves the EU has few resources and limited population. Japan suffers from the same problem with a larger population but it has been stagnating. Don't make me laugh about the rest. They are small countries with limited resources in terms of raw materials, economic strength, and human resources to be exploited.
Out of the top countries:
Russia has been at least a great power since the decline of Poland-Lithuania, but has always been somewhat backward. In many ways it will remain a post-soviet rust belt for some time.
India still has many difficulties dealing with overpopulation.
The EU is a collection of fossil states. Don't get me wrong, they will be quite formidable but their populations high expectations in terms of social services and disinterest in serving in the millitary(US and Japan have the same problem) render this shadow nation limited in ability to project power.
This leaves China. The might of the middle kingdom will surly be upon us all but I doubt that they will have the hegemony that the U.S. has enjoyed. Competition from the U.S., Japan, the EU, Russia, and others should create a decent balence of power.

Speculating on 2030-2050 is a ridiculous notion as it is. By this timeframe we can expect to see fusion, the perfection of nanotechnology, genetic engineering etc.

Even if the U.S. did 'fall' the U.S. is not going to 'fall' by some 'civil war' thus leaving all infrastructure intact. America will fall based on 'lack of faith' more than anything else. If that happens, what ever nation America turns into is going to be the world power. If America was the victim of some nation's imperialist designs China, Europe, or 'Islam' then that would only mean that the next super power will be "The Nation of Cockroaches and other Insects" If, however, the U.S. fell from grace peacefully, it won't be Europe inheriting the reigns of power. Europe has a negative population growth and that trend isn't going to go anywhere. Europe is "assuming" that if America falls Americans will "re-invest" in the "European race" and prop up Europe. I don't see that happening. Americans are far too spiteful of Europe right now and would deny them that luxury out of spite. Remember, America is still the best trained and best educated work force on-large in the world. Europeans can wax philosophical all night long, but when facts comes to figures their technological prowess is not what it used to be.

China will likely be conquered by Islamic Imperialism, as will Europe. Europe first.

There are more nations then the one's represented at the U.N. without the U.S. Islam would go through unchecked, then again, it might do so with the assistance of the U.S. if the Iraq model proves to be hugely successful. There will be pains and convulsions, but I doubt that China is sitting there thinking its got it made. Chinese political analysts, just as in America are probably pretty numerous in the number of them who screaming "The Sky is Falling, China is doomed!"

Political dissidence in America will be nonexistant if the U.S. "falls" because whatever rises to replace it, will probably not allow it.

Unless of course you adhere to my "transcendence" argument which I made earlier in the thread.

Put the keyboard down and come back when you're not smoking the reefer mmkay?
I don't smoke or use drugs.

god forbid that it happens in my lifetime, for when it does, it will be bloody. I do think that China will be the next superpower but only if the communist regime survives that long. If the communists fall from power in china before the fall of the US, than no doubt the superpower will be the European coalition.

god forbid that it happens in my lifetime, for when it does, it will be bloody. I do think that China will be the next superpower but only if the communist regime survives that long. If the communists fall from power in china before the fall of the US, than no doubt the superpower will be the European coalition.
Doubtful. Like I said, explosive Islamic growth and immigration into Europe coupled with negative growth rate of the European population will leave Europe at the mercy of Islam. Muslims will not identify with a geo-centric label and so are not prone to using the label 'European'

In my projected models Europe is actually the first candidate for major collapse into third-world status.

I notice no one has mentioned Australia.

The RAF would kindly have to bend over the table and spread its legs if it decided to enguage in an air war with America. Period. It would be unable to project its power anywhere outside of Europe and North America and would get its army handaly stopped in any country with a decent production base and American designed weaponry (like say, Japan).

err, no. The RAF would simply have to leave the Americans, inventers and developers of "friendly fire" to blow themselves up and dissuade less persistent allies from standing with them.

Doubtful. Like I said, explosive Islamic growth and immigration into Europe coupled with negative growth rate of the European population will leave Europe at the mercy of Islam. Muslims will not identify with a geo-centric label and so are not prone to using the label 'European'

In my projected models Europe is actually the first candidate for major collapse into third-world status.
In fact, this collapse will be the result of Europe's current image of being prosperous. A prosperous & weak Europe makes it more attractive to Islamic imperialists.... err.. immigrants.

IMO, America's going to fall beforte too long. It's not going to be spectacular, or terminal, but it is going to fall - from its position as the most major of world powers. America will doubtless still be a major power, and a regional superpower, but it cannot continue to bestride the world in the way it is doing now. America will gradually decline in influence, its economy being eclipsed by other states and its military power becoming less and less effective. America's decline will match that of Britain in the mid-20th century, IMO.

In my projected models Europe is actually the first candidate for major collapse into third-world status.

I won't hold my breath.

Hey you might have included " none of the above " , let's face it europe as a whole is a dying monolith, china is the most likely in your scenario, if you should travel there you will be stunned by it's rapidly growing cities, it's modern architecture and the golden arches seem to be everywhere, at least everywhere they let you go, peek around the corner and you will see horrifying poverty everywhere.
If you should travel that way take a close look at the rest of asia though and you will find the fastest growing economy in the world today, a massive middle class that is just beginning to understand it's own wealth and is looking out at what the rest of the world has and it wants it all too, look at asia the way you look at europe, as a whole entity :cool:

I think you're all predicting things too quickly. The fact is, America's only been around 200 years. It is far too early to predict opur fall, and who the hell knows who will be the major superpower then? For all we know, a colonzed Antarctica will prevail. I would much rather see the US stay on top however; we are one of the few forces of good in the world. And militarily and economically, CHina is really the only one in the world likely to do achive dominance, as all other major powers are spiraling downwards, thanks to scoialist policies. UK and EU militaries and economies are not growing!

err, no. The RAF would simply have to leave the Americans, inventers and developers of "friendly fire" to blow themselves up and dissuade less persistent allies from standing with them.

Actually friendly fire has been around since the time of the Egyptians. Meanwhile the RAF would handily get its ass kicked in an air war against America. Bring in a few carrier battle groups and you have an airforce several times the size of the RAF and seeing as the US airforce is still more technologically advanced England would be begging for more lube.

Actually friendly fire has been around since the time of the Egyptians. Meanwhile the RAF would handily get its ass kicked in an air war against America. Bring in a few carrier battle groups and you have an airforce several times the size of the RAF and seeing as the US airforce is still more technologically advanced England would be begging for more lube.

I think someone's a little obsessed with backdoor action :eek:

*if*

China is likely to fall before the U.S. does. American investors have invested a lot in the Chinese Yuan. Sooner or later, the Yuan will be re-pegged against the dollar and the American investor will capitalize on their investment. This will result in massive inflation in China. Their economy will then collapse for a decade or so while the formerly communist nation begins to implement capitalist reforms. At the same time, the dollar will soar to unheard of heights.

That made no sense at all. I don't see how American investors can "capitalize" on their "investment." The US does not hold any yuan. China is the one who has invested in our currency, to the tune of several hundred billion dollars. Also, inflation in China would decrease the value of the dollar.

During this period of spectacular U.S. economic growth, the United States will probably grow a few states in size. Puerto Rico, etc. There will be a ten year period... Quebec will finally realize its aspiration to seperate from Canada, the Canadian confederacy will fall apart and Alberta would likely become a free and independent State of the Union. Other current U.S. territories might take advantage of these huge economic growth and realize statehood.

During the later half of this theoretical decade, the U.S. could withdraw from the U.N. and restyle the U.S. as its successor. The list of members will grow somewhat significantly. Mexico, Israel, and possibly Japan would become members of the U.S. With this enlarged U.S. alliance, it is foreseeable that the U.S. would become the dominant space colonization power. O'Neill space colonies built by the U.S. alliance would allow the U.S. to grow exponentially in population. This event would precipitate the expansion of NAFTA/FTAA to include Australia and Great Britain, creating the conditions for allowing for the eventual membership of these two nations, and possibly South America into the Union. South America will be an interesting place because it will be an essential component to the new space based economy that the U.S. is now constructing in support of President Bush's M2M program.

Why would alberta join the USA? I dont get that arguement. Its not as if I hate the USA I just prefer canada even if it is dominated by ontario. And to be honest the USA would have to offer alot to have alberta join the USA. This province would instantly make the USA MUCH less dependant on foreign oil and would be a huge cash cow. Whereas alberta would have the same problems it is having with canada except with even less clout..

Heh. You do know that we actually originated most of the technologies you use, don't you? Things like the jet engine, radar, sonar, Chobham armour and stuff? That we generally have designs that are just as good as yours, and that the American military has yet to prove itself against anything more than a third-world power with abysmal training, equipment and methods? Don't be so sure of yourself, mate. The Luftwaffe outnumbered us four to one; don't recall that Germany won the battle of Britain.

In fact, this collapse will be the result of Europe's current image of being prosperous. A prosperous & weak Europe makes it more attractive to Islamic imperialists.... err.. immigrants.
The US and Europe will both be declining in the coming decades.

At first I laughed when I saw the choices and you had canada listed but I could see something happening with that. :)

If the current split continues between reps and demos in the states, perhaps a another civil war could occur?

Then you would be ripe for the picking! :mp5:


And honestly its china, that country will never be the next superpower. It has always been dominated throughout its history by foreign nations.

It has a bubble economy right now, in 10 years it will emplode.

It has massive rural unemployment, its costal economy could basically be the same size as the states except it has 800 million backward rural people to support and feed. It is a dictatorship which hurts growth.

I just dont see it happening. Major world power yes, super power hell no.

Heh. You do know that we actually originated most of the technologies you use, don't you? Things like the jet engine, radar, sonar, Chobham armour and stuff? That we generally have designs that are just as good as yours, and that the American military has yet to prove itself against anything more than a third-world power with abysmal training, equipment and methods? Don't be so sure of yourself, mate. The Luftwaffe outnumbered us four to one; don't recall that Germany won the battle of Britain.

Jet engines were German designs actually. As far as the rest yes Britain has a good up to date airforce. Doesn't mean you have a chance of winning though.

Once you've actually beaten a first-rate military, then I'll be more likely to listen to American braggadocio regarding the prowess of your armed forces, Until then, you don't impress me overmuch. Also, it's precisely that kind of attitude that will screw America - "we're so much better than you, you're screwed" was proven wrong in Vietnam (twice) and Afghanistan.

There are several entities capable of attaining superpower status, and one that is ALREADY a superpower, though most people 'round here seem reticent to regard it as such.

Possible potentials, listed by plausibility:

1 - European Union

2 - Indonesia

3 - Brasil

Now, the other superpower, the one that exists today, is of course China. I was taught, as a child, that there were three superpowers - The USA, the USSR, and the PRC. I gather most of you were taught that there were only two, the USA and USSR. Oh well. I don't know why anyone would've taught you that, other than to avoid dealing with the topic of China to any great extent.

So I indicated 'China' in the poll, although I really believe them to have been a superpower since the conclusion of WWII.

That made no sense at all. I don't see how American investors can "capitalize" on their "investment." The US does not hold any yuan. China is the one who has invested in our currency, to the tune of several hundred billion dollars. Also, inflation in China would decrease the value of the dollar.
The idea that China has billions of dollars invested in the U.S. economy doesn't change the fact that Americans, thanks to the policies started by Nixon and Clinton have billions upon billions of more dollars invested in China. The value of the Yuan is currently approx 1/8.5 that of the dollar. Americans have invested billions upon billions into China and Asia. So, if conceivably the Chinese repeg their Yuan with the Euro (not smart because Europe is doomed to collapse within 15 years) the Yuan will be re-valued at a value much closer to $1. Now, lets say its re-valued at one-dollar per one-yuan. If I take $100 today I can get something like Y850. Following the re-valuing of the yuan the yuan can now be traded for $850. Which Americans will most likely re-invest in the high-tech industry.

At first I laughed when I saw the choices and you had canada listed but I could see something happening with that. :)

If the current split continues between reps and demos in the states, perhaps a another civil war could occur?

Then you would be ripe for the picking! :mp5:


And honestly its china, that country will never be the next superpower. It has always been dominated throughout its history by foreign nations.

It has a bubble economy right now, in 10 years it will emplode.

It has massive rural unemployment, its costal economy could basically be the same size as the states except it has 800 million backward rural people to support and feed. It is a dictatorship which hurts growth.

I just dont see it happening. Major world power yes, super power hell no.
Great assesment. China will be mired in domestic socialist programs for the next 100 years save an advance in nuclear fusion which is most likely to come from Sandia allowing the US to hold the patent.

The idea that China has billions of dollars invested in the U.S. economy doesn't change the fact that Americans, thanks to the policies started by Nixon and Clinton have billions upon billions of more dollars invested in China.
You lack basic understanding of economics. When we (the USA) invest in Chinese industry we are not investing in the yuan. We are investing in factories, resources, etc. When the Chinese invest in American dollars they are not investing in the American economy. I don't see what you mean by "capitalizing" on our investment and I don't see why we would want inflation in China... many of our imports come from China so any inflation there would cause inflation here in the States.

The value of the Yuan is currently approx 1/8.5 that of the dollar. Americans have invested billions upon billions into China and Asia. So, if conceivably the Chinese repeg their Yuan with the Euro (not smart because Europe is doomed to collapse within 15 years) the Yuan will be re-valued at a value much closer to $1. Now, lets say its re-valued at one-dollar per one-yuan. If I take $100 today I can get something like Y850. Following the re-valuing of the yuan the yuan can now be traded for $850. Which Americans will most likely re-invest in the high-tech industry.
Why would the Chinese increase the value of their currency? Even if Chinese currency is pegged to the euro, they do not have to make 1 yuan close to $1. In fact it is suicidal for the Chinese to make the yuan closer to $1, and the Chinese government has repeatedly vowed that the yuan will be cheap compared to other currencies, in order to give China a huge advantage in exports. Your speculation that China's currency will be revalued to more expensive levels is completely ridiculous and laughable. Furthermore, right now it is very wise for CHina to keep its yuan pegged to the dollar because the dollar is currently very cheap, which makes the yuan very cheap, which makes Chinese goods very cheap, which makes more people buy Chinese goods and thus the Chinese economy is strengthened.

Not to mention that China has one of (if not THE) largest population density of any nation in the world. They also have one of the largest populations, too.

Actually, just for general knowledge Monaco has the worlds greatest population density ;)

The top three countries in the world that will be challenging the US is China, India and I don't know if anyone has mentioned Brazil.

Great assesment. China will be mired in domestic socialist programs for the next 100 years save an advance in nuclear fusion which is most likely to come from Sandia allowing the US to hold the patent.
What socialist programs do you speak of? The US has far more socialist programs than China. The USA has Social Security, Medicare, minimum wage, work hour limits, labor unions, etc. etc. none of which China has.

Actually friendly fire has been around since the time of the Egyptians. Meanwhile the RAF would handily get its ass kicked in an air war against America. Bring in a few carrier battle groups and you have an airforce several times the size of the RAF and seeing as the US airforce is still more technologically advanced England would be begging for more lube.

sorry, should have known you wouldn't have come up with a new idea. You can't deny that you've expanded upon it though. well done.

so techonology is the answer? go vietnam! etc. I was shocked, but not awed by the American performance in Iraq. Technology is only a part of the battle, it is not enough on its own, and certainly should not be relied upon as a single answer.

I will not continue - I have read your posts to date and you are very clearly biased and uninformed. I don't blame you for standing up for your country, but please desist from defaming of others.

There are several entities capable of attaining superpower status, and one that is ALREADY a superpower, though most people 'round here seem reticent to regard it as such.

Possible potentials, listed by plausibility:

1 - European Union

2 - Indonesia

3 - Brasil

Now, the other superpower, the one that exists today, is of course China. I was taught, as a child, that there were three superpowers - The USA, the USSR, and the PRC. I gather most of you were taught that there were only two, the USA and USSR. Oh well. I don't know why anyone would've taught you that, other than to avoid dealing with the topic of China to any great extent.

So I indicated 'China' in the poll, although I really believe them to have been a superpower since the conclusion of WWII.

What Brazil???? LOL

What with its massive crippling foreign debt or massive lack of resourses? Corrupt government anyone? Massive crime + poverty? General down ward tail spin of south america?

Dobbs I swear you smoke the crack pipe, why Indonesia?

I mean hello india? Europe? Russia?

At least Indonesia has oil + gas, plus a fair amount of people. Too bad it has civil war going on and a huge environment + industrial implosion...

Im sure that little tidal wave helped things along too... :rolleyes:

What socialist programs do you speak of? The US has far more socialist programs than China. The USA has Social Security, Medicare, minimum wage, work hour limits, labor unions, etc. etc. none of which China has.


I think he is refering to the whole "commie" style of economic planning. That government still has massive government planning in most areas outside of the coast where its a free for all...

You lack basic understanding of economics. When we (the USA) invest in Chinese industry we are not investing in the yuan. We are investing in factories, resources, etc. When the Chinese invest in American dollars they are not investing in the American economy. I don't see what you mean by "capitalizing" on our investment and I don't see why we would want inflation in China... many of our imports come from China so any inflation there would cause inflation here in the States.
When you invest in China, you invest in the yuan. Chinese industries makes the yuan what it is. The Yuan does not make Chinese industry valuable. Chinese industry makes the Yuan valuable.

Why would the Chinese increase the value of their currency? Even if Chinese currency is pegged to the euro, they do not have to make 1 yuan close to $1. In fact it is suicidal for the Chinese to make the yuan closer to $1, and the Chinese government has repeatedly vowed that the yuan will be cheap compared to other currencies, in order to give China a huge advantage in exports. Your speculation that China's currency will be revalued to more expensive levels is completely ridiculous and laughable. Furthermore, right now it is very wise for CHina to keep its yuan pegged to the dollar because the dollar is currently very cheap, which makes the yuan very cheap, which makes Chinese goods very cheap, which makes more people buy Chinese goods and thus the Chinese economy is strengthened.

Free-market forces will re-value the Yuan. In that, the value of the Yuan is dependent on its industry.

Inflation in China will not be like inflation in the United States. However, the re-distribution of wealth from China will result in a large drain from the Chinese economy. Inflation in China will off-set by the need to purchase "basic" needs. Whereas in the United States that money can be re-invested towards high-tech. Any sensible investors knows to invest in other currency and there will be a lot of pressure from the international community for China to re-value its currency to reflect the reality. I am not saying this will be a bad development for China. China will invest this money in social programs. Food distribution, housing, etc, etc. They will probably start up some sort of Social Security and Welfare programs with their investment. What I am saying is that this economic boom will be 'shared' by the U.S. and China because as you said, bad economy for China = bad economy for U.S., the reverse is also true. Good economy for China = good economy for U.S. do to their high level of integration. The U.S. investments following this event will be largely geared towards high-tech, space privatization, etc. China will need social programs like welfare, medicare, etc.

I understand economics just fine. I took the same college courses as everyone else and then some, so I would appreciate you refrain from your attacks on my intelligence or education.

When you invest in China, you invest in the yuan. Chinese industries makes the yuan what it is. The Yuan does not make Chinese industry valuable. Chinese industry makes the Yuan valuable.



Free-market forces will re-value the Yuan. In that, the value of the Yuan is dependent on its industry.

Inflation in China will not be like inflation in the United States. However, the re-distribution of wealth from China will result in a large drain from the Chinese economy. Inflation in China will off-set by the need to purchase "basic" needs. Whereas in the United States that money can be re-invested towards high-tech. Any sensible investors knows to invest in other currency and there will be a lot of pressure from the international community for China to re-value its currency to reflect the reality. I am not saying this will be a bad development for China. China will invest this money in social programs. Food distribution, housing, etc, etc. They will probably start up some sort of Social Security and Welfare programs with their investment. What I am saying is that this economic boom will be 'shared' by the U.S. and China because as you said, bad economy for China = bad economy for U.S., the reverse is also true. Good economy for China = good economy for U.S. do to their high level of integration. The U.S. investments following this event will be largely geared towards high-tech, space privatization, etc. China will need social programs like welfare, medicare, etc.

I understand economics just fine. I took the same college courses as everyone else and then some, so I would appreciate you refrain from your attacks on my intelligence or education.


I agree, what I dotn understand is why people think ALL of china is suddenly a mecca of flowing rivers of cash. The country was a complete dirt hole 40 years ago. It is having such high levels of growth because the country is building itself from nothing.

Remember for every person in Shanghai you see driving a BMW, you have 40 in some dirt hole village running after goats + pigs. That country has a LONG way to go before it can be considered first world and approach the USA in terms of power.

I think he is refering to the whole "commie" style of economic planning. That government still has massive government planning in most areas outside of the coast where its a free for all...
What "commie" style of economic planning are you talking about? China is like any other communist country in that it has a large police force and dictatorship aimed at keeping everyone loyal to the state. But collectivist farms were abolished in the 80s and 90s, and free enterprise occurs in the inland. In fact the only places where the government still retains economic planning is a few steel factories in the coastal provinces, but these factories are being privatized. China's industry is far more competitive than the USA, due to ridiculously low labor costs and lack of socialist American-style labor rights.

At first I laughed when I saw the choices and you had canada listed but I could see something happening with that. :)

If the current split continues between reps and demos in the states, perhaps a another civil war could occur?

Then you would be ripe for the picking! :mp5:


And honestly its china, that country will never be the next superpower. It has always been dominated throughout its history by foreign nations.
Past history is a very poor indication of the future. Russia has been dominated by foreign nations for the majority of its history but it achieved superpower status in the 1700s. China has only been dominated by foreigners from about 1840 to 1940, before that it was always East Asia's most important power.

It has a bubble economy right now, in 10 years it will emplode.
How is China's economy a bubble economy?
It has massive rural unemployment, its costal economy could basically be the same size as the states except it has 800 million backward rural people to support and feed. It is a dictatorship which hurts growth.

I just dont see it happening. Major world power yes, super power hell no.
THe large population just makes Chinese industry superior to all other nations industry because it keeps labor costs down.

What "commie" style of economic planning are you talking about? China is like any other communist country in that it has a large police force and dictatorship aimed at keeping everyone loyal to the state. But collectivist farms were abolished in the 80s and 90s, and free enterprise occurs in the inland. In fact the only places where the government still retains economic planning is a few steel factories in the coastal provinces, but these factories are being privatized. China's industry is far more competitive than the USA, due to ridiculously low labor costs and lack of socialist American-style labor rights.

Thats incorrect, the government still plans most of the day to days lifes of the common inland chinese...

Its not be "old school collective farms" but freedoms are very limited, whether they be economic or social.

I agree, what I dotn understand is why people think ALL of china is suddenly a mecca of flowing rivers of cash. The country was a complete dirt hole 40 years ago. It is having such high levels of growth because the country is building itself from nothing.

Remember for every person in Shanghai you see driving a BMW, you have 40 in some dirt hole village running after goats + pigs. That country has a LONG way to go before it can be considered first world and approach the USA in terms of power.
I agree, the reason people want to see all this 'cash' is because America has huge investments in China that make Chinese investments in America look small by comparison.

Past history is a very poor indication of the future. Russia has been dominated by foreign nations for the majority of its history but it achieved superpower status in the 1700s. China has only been dominated by foreigners from about 1840 to 1940, before that it was always East Asia's most important power.


How is China's economy a bubble economy?

THe large population just makes Chinese industry superior to all other nations industry because it keeps labor costs down.


China's economy is a bubble economy because of all the speculative building going on. The under valued currency is another reason.

And thats totally true about the low labour costs but when you have all these people to feed and employ its a huge burden on the rest of society.

Thats incorrect, the government still plans most of the day to days lifes of the common inland chinese...

Its not be "old school collective farms" but freedoms are very limited, whether they be economic or social.
Incorrect. I have visited many dirt poor places in China in Zhejiang and Henan province, there is almost no government interference. The government, after its reforms during the 80s, simply does not have the resources to watch over everyone. It's a free-for-all in rural China, although it is less capitalist than feudal. If you can't find food, you're screwed and no one will help you. If your farm does produce enough food, hopefully you can scrape together enough money to send your kids to school in a city. Almost all Chinese farms are privately owned and are motivated by self profit, following the reforms of Zhao Ziyang in the 70s and 80s.

I agree, the reason people want to see all this 'cash' is because America has huge investments in China that make Chinese investments in America look small by comparison.
Therefore, American investment + trade imbalance represents the net flow of money out of the USA to China, making China richer.

The United States is without a doubt the mightiest nation that there ever was, but it is also without a doubt in decline. Between its declining industrial base due to the expense of hiring Americans, and both its national and consumer debt (much of both is in the form of loans from other nations), the United States already weakening in soft power is headed for economic collapse or at best stagnation. I am an ardent American patriot but with current policies we are headed downhill.
China with its cheap labor is headed up very rapidly. They are gaining influence and will be equal to the U.S. at some point in the next half century. I doubt that they will have hegemonic power like the U.S. does now but they should be greater then anyone else.
Global warming and other ecological events are the wild card. Russia and Canada may stand to see increased agricultural yields as the growing seasons in their territories improve. In much of the rest of the world limited water supplies could cause famine leading to those two countries seeing more power then they would other wise. However China is more likely to let a few million people starve then give up on dominance.

communism, like all monopoly's inventually fail. When that happens... well, I do not see China as a world power. With an increase in wealth, eventually, the chinese workers will begin to want social programs like welfare and social security. China will be bogged down in this work while the U.S. is able to invest in high-tech; supercomputers, space industry, fusion research, genetic research (human genome project), medical research, nanotechnology, etc. This is due to the fact that American agriculture and housing. There is a long-held philosophy that civilization advances based on how much it can accomplish / automate without giving much thought to.

For instance, you no longer have to think about "how" to make a fire. You no longer have to sit around and perfect technologies and methods which we've already mastered to a certain degree. Americans are approaching a period in their history where 'space technology' and computer technology have so saturated the culture that these objectives can be accomplished without any great efforts.

Americans are also becoming the most efficient at international diplomacy thanks to the internet. Internet usage by Americans still dwarf the rest of the world, which is becoming saturated more and more with American globalism. A technological breakthrough or social or cultural change in any part of the world can be responded to by Americans or people who have influenced by American culture, online, en-masse in mere seconds allowing Americans an enourmous capacity for effecting global opinion.

American governance is today the most recognizable and familiar form of government in the world. Many nations are on the verge of simply "forgetting" their own forms of government as a result of their brains being constantly exposed to our own and English has become the universal second language which is conducive to spreading the ideals of Freedom around the world, and the world is communicating to each other at the speed of light ushering in an era where the nations are rejecting war in the interest of free-trade and free-international-communication.

Because the internet is not likely to pop out of existance any time soon, and because no government in existance really has any chance of 'disconnecting' from the internet, the American dream of open communication and dialogue is bringing the world closer together as envisioned during the 90s when America invested heavily in laying the groundwork for a global internet infrastructure.

When you invest in China, you invest in the yuan. Chinese industries makes the yuan what it is. The Yuan does not make Chinese industry valuable. Chinese industry makes the Yuan valuable.
That is totally wrong. By Chinese law, 8.27 yuan = 1 dollar. The CHinese industry does not make the yuan valuable. The dollar makes the yuan valuable. Do you understand what the term "pegged to the dollar" means? It means the yuan (or other currencies such as the old Argentine peso) is dependent on the dollar, not on the local economy/industry.


Free-market forces will re-value the Yuan. In that, the value of the Yuan is dependent on its industry.
China does not have to float its currency in the free market. The government has already made it very clear that they will keep the current money policy by which the Chinese yuan is pegged to the dollar.

snip
The rest of your argument is based off of your wrong definition of a yuan so I can't address it. However you might be able to clarify your statements and make it more logical.

I understand economics just fine. I took the same college courses as everyone else and then some, so I would appreciate you refrain from your attacks on my intelligence or education.
Nevertheless your understanding of the relationship between the yuan and the dollar is totally incorrect.

I agree, what I dotn understand is why people think ALL of china is suddenly a mecca of flowing rivers of cash. The country was a complete dirt hole 40 years ago. It is having such high levels of growth because the country is building itself from nothing.

Remember for every person in Shanghai you see driving a BMW, you have 40 in some dirt hole village running after goats + pigs. That country has a LONG way to go before it can be considered first world and approach the USA in terms of power.
The current poverty in China makes Chinese industry highly competitive because poverty stricken Chinese people are desperate to find work and thus are willing to work for wages far below what Americans are willing to work for. And not everyone has to be rich for a nation to be considered a superpower. I forsee China becoming a mighty nation with tremendous scientific, economic, and political power but all of it concentrated unfortunately in a smallish elite.

Therefore, American investment + trade imbalance represents the net flow of money out of the USA to China, making China richer.
China being richer also makes America richer. Prosperity is shared by all. What is in China's best interest is basic needs. This has already been 'automated' into the American system. Americans will be able to focus on research tech, like privatized space, nanotechnology, etc where the Chinese economy falls behind.

It's a global economy and each sector of that economy contributes in different ways. If you're basing your analysis of the American economy on corn or steel, you're looking at it all wrong. Because steel is slowing becoming obsolete as carbon nanotech continues to advance.

communism, like all monopoly's inventually fail. When that happens... well, I do not see China as a world power. With an increase in wealth, eventually, the chinese workers will begin to want social programs like welfare and social security. China will be bogged down in this work while the U.S. is able to invest in high-tech; supercomputers, space industry, fusion research, genetic research (human genome project), medical research, nanotechnology, etc. This is due to the fact that American agriculture and housing. There is a long-held philosophy that civilization advances based on how much it can accomplish / automate without giving much thought to.
Actually the Chinese government is investing in high tech prestige projects instead of welfare and social security. What good will welfare do if it just makes labor costs higher and makes Chinese goods more competitive? This policy may seem cynical and cruel but the Chinese government is rather cynical and ruthless, which is what has made China grow so fast.

Americans are also becoming the most efficient at international diplomacy thanks to the internet. Internet usage by Americans still dwarf the rest of the world, which is becoming saturated more and more with American globalism. A technological breakthrough or social or cultural change in any part of the world can be responded to by Americans or people who have influenced by American culture, online, en-masse in mere seconds allowing Americans an enourmous capacity for effecting global opinion.
Unfortunately America is resented by the world and hated by most so no matter how fast we can deliver messages around the internet, it doesn't really help us if no one likes us.

American governance is today the most recognizable and familiar form of government in the world. Many nations are on the verge of simply "forgetting" their own forms of government
What nations are you referring to?

as a result of their brains being constantly exposed to our own and English has become the universal second language which is conducive to spreading the ideals of Freedom around the world, and the world is communicating to each other at the speed of light ushering in an era where the nations are rejecting war in the interest of free-trade and free-international-communication.


Actually, across Asia, more college students are learning Chinese as their business language rather than English.

CHina.

Incorrect. I have visited many dirt poor places in China in Zhejiang and Henan province, there is almost no government interference. The government, after its reforms during the 80s, simply does not have the resources to watch over everyone. It's a free-for-all in rural China, although it is less capitalist than feudal. If you can't find food, you're screwed and no one will help you. If your farm does produce enough food, hopefully you can scrape together enough money to send your kids to school in a city. Almost all Chinese farms are privately owned and are motivated by self profit, following the reforms of Zhao Ziyang in the 70s and 80s.


Umm the government does control everything you do.

You want to drive a taxi, you buy a permit. If the government decides it has too many taxis it can and will without warning yank your permit. You paid market prices in the first place to get that permit, but whoops its gone and so is your wealth...

Another example, my roomate is from china, lived on a dirt farm. His father sold hay. Government decided that the hay crop was too large, yanked his permit. My roomate's father decided to grow it anyways, his farm was burned and he was sent to prision.

Stuff like that happens alot. It might not be micro economic planning but you still have LOTs of macro economic planning. That will continue to hold back the country.

Interesting question, who will be King of the Hill if the US is not?

I voted for India, after some brief thought, and invested some time reading the thread that followed. I have not made it through all 23 pages, but it is clear that most posts assume substance leads to power: large endowments of natural resources, bigger armed forces, the greatest number of people to be used as workers and consumers, the most money to spend on technology. Sorry to say that does pretty much make the suggestion of Briton a joke.

I agree that substance is required to make you powerful, but I opted for India over China for reasons of (as best I can describe it) culture, which I think is a key factor in determining whether a country achieve superpower status.

The Indian culture has demonstrated an ability to successfully straddle and interact with both Western and Eastern countries. Islamic countries cannot become a superpower because they lack size/substance (or compromise homogeneity in order to achieve the required size) and are not sufficiently open in their cultural structure to become massive. China has the substance but has internal distractions (as noted in the thread to date) and will unite Western opposition to it's ascendency. Europe, like Islam, lacks size or compromises homogeneity to achieve substance, and would unite Eastern opposition, and is unlikely to get to that point as it suffers too many internal stresses, anyway.

India has the substance required, has worked out a more inclusive culture than Islam, and will not unite opposition as it grows. There is a nice mix of hungry, willing to work population and highly educated, advance the technologies population. I don't know **** about armed forces, but I recall titles of newspaper articles that indicate to me the Indian forces are substantial, experienced, and generally effective.

Brazil was an interesting suggestion, but I suspect that it is not so large as India, in terms of population, economy, armed forces, intellectual/technological base. Brazil might do better on natural resources, does anyone have an opinion on that? But I finally favor India over Brazil for reasons of culture: Brazil has the inclusive style but lacks the East/West straddle.

Your thoughts? I think the India v. China and India v. Brazil are the most interesting options to consider further, as the others seem long shots to me.

China being richer also makes America richer. Prosperity is shared by all. What is in China's best interest is basic needs. This has already been 'automated' into the American system. Americans will be able to focus on research tech, like privatized space, nanotechnology, etc where the Chinese economy falls behind.
The very fact that we take welfare, etc. for granted weakens the American economy, because our production costs are high compared to China or India, which means American money goes to investing in other nations instead of in America.

It's a global economy and each sector of that economy contributes in different ways. If you're basing your analysis of the American economy on corn or steel, you're looking at it all wrong. Because steel is slowing becoming obsolete as carbon nanotech continues to advance.
Just remember, anything America can make, China can make cheaper. Whichever American company invents carbon nanotech will most likely immediately build factories in China.

Interesting question, who will be King of the Hill if the US is not?

I voted for India, after some brief thought, and invested some time reading the thread that followed. I have not made it through all 23 pages, but it is clear that most posts assume substance leads to power: large endowments of natural resources, bigger armed forces, the greatest number of people to be used as workers and consumers, the most money to spend on technology. Sorry to say that does pretty much make the suggestion of Briton a joke.

I agree that substance is required to make you powerful, but I opted for India over China for reasons of (as best I can describe it) culture, which I think is a key factor in determining whether a country achieve superpower status.

The Indian culture has demonstrated an ability to successfully straddle and interact with both Western and Eastern countries. Islamic countries cannot become a superpower because they lack size/substance (or compromise homogeneity in order to achieve the required size) and are not sufficiently open in their cultural structure to become massive. China has the substance but has internal distractions (as noted in the thread to date) and will unite Western opposition to it's ascendency. Europe, like Islam, lacks size or compromises homogeneity to achieve substance, and would unite Eastern opposition, and is unlikely to get to that point as it suffers too many internal stresses, anyway.

India has the substance required, has worked out a more inclusive culture than Islam, and will not unite opposition as it grows. There is a nice mix of hungry, willing to work population and highly educated, advance the technologies population. I don't know **** about armed forces, but I recall titles of newspaper articles that indicate to me the Indian forces are substantial, experienced, and generally effective.

Brazil was an interesting suggestion, but I suspect that it is not so large as India, in terms of population, economy, armed forces, intellectual/technological base. Brazil might do better on natural resources, does anyone have an opinion on that? But I finally favor India over Brazil for reasons of culture: Brazil has the inclusive style but lacks the East/West straddle.

Your thoughts? I think the India v. China and India v. Brazil are the most interesting options to consider further, as the others seem long shots to me.


I voted india as well. But brazil is a crazy option. That country is almost bankrupt in a bankrupt region. It has a huge debt, limited natural resourses, corrupt government, crime, AIDS etc etc etc...

The only way I could see America falling is this: A civil war between republicans and democrats considering they seem to be hating eachother more and more each passing day. However, most of the American army is made up of republicans, so I don't think that would actually lead to their downfall, just a momentary weekness before the democrats lost. No one could really exploit that weekness any way, since the UN won't attack anyone and no one else except China poses any threat.

I don't forsee the American economy ever leading to their downfall either. Look at the great depression for example, they took a huge hit and then there was World War 2 and all of FDRs programs and they got back on track. America always seems to be able to resolve its problems in the long run. And usually countries only fall when they are being imperialistic and pushed themselves to their limits..for example Germany, Rome, Greece.... and others. And before you go and argue that George Bush is going to make America that way like some of the more extreme people I know. Whether you think he is or not he is out in four years and the chances of congress allowing something like that are pretty slim, and he can only do so much without the support of congress.

And it doesn't really matter that America isn't well respected since the only conventional army that poses a threat is as I said before is China. I find it quite unfortunate that it is the way it is, but in a strange way there is a reason for it. However, that is a whole other can of worms that I could write pages about.

America has been through quite a bit and always comes out even stronger than before. So basically, I think the whole entire planet would have to go to hell before America fell.

But lets just say for some reason America did fall before everyother nation you have listed ceases to exist, then China would become the Super Power, they have the strongest and biggest conventional army. However it wouldn't last long since communism tends to do itself in, so then it would then pass over to England since they are the only powerful nation who shows any guts now a days when it comes to dealing with thing that need force besides America, although South Korea does too I suppose.

Umm the government does control everything you do.

You want to drive a taxi, you buy a permit. If the government decides it has too many taxis it can and will without warning yank your permit. You paid market prices in the first place to get that permit, but whoops its gone and so is your wealth...
That's like the US too. Our taxi drivers require permits. Permits are good in that it ensures not any random serial killer can start driving a cab.

Another example, my roomate is from china, lived on a dirt farm. His father sold hay. Government decided that the hay crop was too large, yanked his permit. My roomate's father decided to grow it anyways, his farm was burned and he was sent to prision.
What year did this happen?

Stuff like that happens alot. It might not be micro economic planning but you still have LOTs of macro economic planning. That will continue to hold back the country.
There are far less restrictions on free enterprise in China than in the US. In China anything goes. If you own a mine and 500 miners die in an explosion because you didn't give them saftey equipment, you won't be charged for murder because there are almost no safety laws. This makes Chinese businesses more competitive than in other countries. That is why American companies like to build factories in China where there are no minimum wage laws and where workers can get fired for whatever reason the employer wants. Cruel and evil, I agree, but CHina's future dominance is inevitable in current free trade conditions.

So me throwing Brazil out there was successful.

I think that actually it will not become a superpower but may rival the EU if it is successful in integrating some of the other south American countries.

And Jayastan, India last time I checked has a bigger AIDS problem then Brazil.

BTW, anyone interested in this topic should read Orson Scott Card's shadow trilogy- Ender's Shadow, Shadow of the Hegemon, and Shadow Pupetts. A lot of what people are predicting happens in there... in like 2100 or some other such time period, America hasn't completely fallen but isn't really a superpower anymore (kinda like France or Britain today). They cozy up to China because of trading relationships. Anyway, most of the mid-east states (including, surprisingly, Israel), unite into one power. This is after the western nations take over, pacify, and change most of the middle east to be more similar to the west. This amaglam, China, and India are the major superpowers.

china, they are currently in a growth similar to that of 60-70s America which is were we got to the top, they have large numbers, a very strong economy. It will probly go through several reforms before then but it will.

Once you've actually beaten a first-rate military, then I'll be more likely to listen to American braggadocio regarding the prowess of your armed forces, Until then, you don't impress me overmuch. Also, it's precisely that kind of attitude that will screw America - "we're so much better than you, you're screwed" was proven wrong in Vietnam (twice) and Afghanistan.

Actually I'm only talking about an airwar, which we won in Vietnam and in Korea. In the meantime you can continue to pretend that Britain would somehow manage to win an airwar against a nation with an industrial base ~10x your size. With an airforce many times your size, with the ability to project that airforce anywhere over your country, with an airforce that is more advanced than yours and with a navy many times the size of yours. There is no braggadocio, those are simple facts. If you'd like to illustrate to me how Britian would hope to maintain air superioty despite all of that I'd be glad to hear it.

Likewise it is a simple fact that we "lost" Vietnam by our political policies restricting our military actions and had we been able to fight an actual war instead Vietnam would of been won. I note you forget to mention that we won Korea as well.

The British are up there, but is not as powerful as before. It took the British many yars before decline, but took the French a few years, lol.

There's the China Minstration Period. Every 200-400 years, she bleeds. So far, she is barely on her 56th year.

I voted india as well. But brazil is a crazy option. That country is almost bankrupt in a bankrupt region. It has a huge debt, limited natural resourses, corrupt government, crime, AIDS etc etc etc...

Well, that would make me drop Brazil well down the list. But on further reflection I realise it all hinges on natural resources. I think that the impact of AIDS will be significant but equally significant in the countries we are discussing. The contenders (Europe, Canada, etc) where AIDS will have less impact are richer and generally have a smaller population.

I don't know if a corrupt government is a knock-out issue, and can possibly be addressed in the time it takes for the US to decline. Same with huge debt and crime, the situation could change, especially if there are natural resources available. So, does anyone know whether Brazil has a nice stock of natural resources? There is oil in Venezuela, could be some under the Brazilian dirt. Minerals? What does the Amazon Forest offer?

The only way I could see America falling is this: A civil war between republicans and democrats considering they seem to be hating eachother more and more each passing day. However, most of the American army is made up of republicans, so I don't think that would actually lead to their downfall, just a momentary weekness before the democrats lost. No one could really exploit that weekness any way, since the UN won't attack anyone and no one else except China poses any threat.

I don't forsee the American economy ever leading to their downfall either.

...

But lets just say for some reason America did fall before everyother nation you have listed ceases to exist, then China would become the Super Power, they have the strongest and biggest conventional army. However it wouldn't last long since communism tends to do itself in, so then it would then pass over to England since they are the only powerful nation who shows any guts now a days when it comes to dealing with thing that need force besides America, although South Korea does too I suppose.

Dremonius,

It is interesting that you focus on the assumption that the US will not always be dominant. I find the scenarious in which you imagine this could happen as unlikely: exactly where would this civil war between the Republicans and Democrats be fought, they seem to be dispersed and intermingled across the country; and I agree that the US can survive a period of economic depression.

Despite being dubious of your scenarios, I firmly believe that the US will not maintain dominance and is in fact probably hastening its removal from the top dog position. Note that I don't claim the US will cease to exist, I am not declaring its imminent demise. But the US will not enjoy the position of sole superpower beyond the next decade.

It is brinksmanship which will likely bring down the US. While Bush will only be leading the charge for the next 4 years, he is establishing an intolerant legacy and picking a fight that will last far longer. There is a remote possibility of a spectacular demise for the US, and that is because the army in which you place so much value will matter little compared to the detonation of nuclear devices on US soil. Remote, but distinct, possibility so not worth more words here.

The position Bush has declared vis a vis Islam motivates and focuses an otherwise busy enemy, distances the US from the global community and their favors, and allows US competitors to freeride and flourish without facing the same burdens borne by the US. There will be no declaration that the US is no longer a superpower, it will happen slowly as the economy is sapped by war. Europe, India, and China will rise as the US slowly sinks.

China will not do itself in through communism - it is hardly communist at the moment and economically as resilient as the US, if not more so. "England" may show "guts", but that certainly will not make it a superpower. India is well positioned to quietly assume the mantle of global leader. Hope they 'defend freedoms' just like the Americans?

I got a good laugh thinking about Britain retaking the lead. I don't care if their armed forces consist of Jedi and X-wing fighters. They are not likely to go to war with another great power anytime soon, and even if they did it is clear that wars in this era make countries weaker not stronger. Look at Iraq. No its not a mess just because Americans are in it. It's a mess because occupying other countries is hard.

Economics not warefare will be the hallmark of what makes anyone great in this coming era. Scientific, cultural, and millitary might typically take longer to decline that a nations economic base but they will do so. American science will decline due to a lack of personel. We simply don't have enough scientists and forget about native born ones. As our economy worsens foreign students become less likely to stay and they take their carbon fiber expertise elsewhere. Our own government, damn them all, is taking positions that discourage bio-tech. All the while China is in a very good position to expand at our expense.

China, India are good bets, but also Japan. Yes Japan had the economic problems, but they will recover. Put together with the fact they seem to be awesome with technology and building robots and etc, they have the capacity to become Imperial once more.

That's if China does not invade them, and acquire the japanese technology.

Europe: If Europe can get it together, they can use their know how to become very strong. Yes the population may decline, but immigrants boost it up again.

Islamic Caliphate: I can see the Saudi House in Saudi Arabi falling, and others following suit.

Great Britain: Not unless it became ultra militaralistic. Only strong within EU.

South America: I can see a south american country becoming the regional power. Brazil perhaps?

We're gonna rule the world! Beware! the Swiss are coming!





:D

I guess you didn't catch my sarcasm

Yes, one day the United States of America will fall. All global powers meet their end, like Rome and others before them. However, there is also a high probability that the nations on your list will have fallen, as well. News nations will have sprung up and perhaps will unite under the one-world government that should be dreaded for obvious reasons.

-Ninjadom Revival

I assure you that in event of a global collapse of nations, which is really not that likely, there will be no superpowers. I highly doubt that a one world government will rise out of the ashes of global fragmentation. Regional superstates like the EU might form in many regions of the world, but such things will not come to pass for at least another 40-50 years. The U.S. unless current trends are reversed, is in decline today. In 30 years time China may well be its equal. The yuan is kept down in value by being pegged to the dollar, not being propped up. Everyone has internal issues with welfare state problems. China is in a good position to be a major world leader perhaps "the" world leader. For a long time now they have often led other third world nations in opposing policies by the U.S. and the Europeans.
As for one world goverment, it will happen just not yet. Wait till the end of China's tenure.

Where the hell was Germany on that poll?

They have a big influence on the EU (and the currency), and currently enjoy a better economy than most others on that list.

Canada? Gimme a break. They've got their "multi-cultural" head so far up their ass its hard to tell where Canada ends and Hell begins.

Where the hell was Germany on that poll?

They have a big influence on the EU (and the currency), and currently enjoy a better economy than most others on that list.

Canada? Gimme a break. They've got their "multi-cultural" head so far up their ass its hard to tell where Canada ends and Hell begins.

But Canada's too cold to be that close to hell. Germany like the rest of Europe is a fossil. Limited resources (population, natural resources, room to expand), thats where it all comes down to. The EU will be the world power not Germany alone.

Well...I'll take an idea that's already been done by someone else, and make it my own.

Anyone who ever read Tom Clancy's Debt of Honor knows that in that novel, China, Japan and India become "allies"...each with they're own interests and unique ways of helping one another so that everybody gets what they want.

America probably won't fall for at least 150 years or so. I predict it will "Balkanize", splitting into 6-10 smaller nations based on whoever grabs power in which areas.

So we have about 150 years to work with. In that time frame, it is entirely possible that these three nations...China, Japan and India, will have become more politically and socially aligned.

A country compsed of these three nations, with over 1/3 the worlds population, extensive natural resources...and Siberias resources sitting right next door relatively unguarded, technological ingenuity, nuclear weapons,...now THAT would be a SUPER-power

Where the hell was Germany on that poll?

They have a big influence on the EU (and the currency), and currently enjoy a better economy than most others on that list.

Germany hasn't got a hope in hell. History means that they are watched more diligently than other countries, and half of Germany is trying to get over the effects of the Soviet Union.



EU Superpower or China. I voted for China.

Through out history there has always empires/states/ superpowers that rise and fall, currently thought on this subject has comr to believe that the US has been a super power for so long that the former one rises the other falls is no longer applicabel. For the first time in Human History countires are not reverting to isolationist policies, there is a definite and recognised need for dependence both economically and socially. What could lead to the dimise of the US is the current war on terror if Bush is stupid enough to go in to Iran....cos they can fight back. If this is the case I think some where in the Middle East will become very powerful, this would include the EU-I'm not saying the EU is in the Middle East, but in 50 years ppl of muslim faith will dominate the population of EU...

Where the hell was Germany on that poll?

They have a big influence on the EU (and the currency), and currently enjoy a better economy than most others on that list.




Germany is still very much a divided country, 16 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

West Germany was doing very well economically, but with the taking on of East Germany in the unification, the economy was dragged down by East Germany's state of affairs.

Germans from the East find it hard to find jobs, for they now compete with Western Germany.

Indeed, in a sense, there are now two different nations within Germany, and the Eastern half has been psychollically traumatised by the Soviet occupation that occured after the Red Army crushed the Wehrmacht in WW2.

Scars and divisions run deep within Germany. They need the EU quite simply because they would fall apart without it. Dissafection at Berlin's rule, employment rates....and we all know what happened last time that was evident.

Germany's hope lies in it's youth, who are growing up in a united Germany.

Russia: Putin appears to be trying to establish a empire, reestablishing control over former members of the Soviet Union. I get the feeling that if China and Russia don't carry on their current friendship, China will keep Russia in check.

Russian troops are demoralised and from what one can assess from the Beslan siege, poorly trained. That could be Putin's, or Russia's downfall.

America will fall at some time. I'm not saying it will happen anytime soon, I have no idea when it will happen but it will. And when it does happen who do you think will replace them as the world's top dog and more to the point, why do you think that. I think its going to be Brtain. Not just because I am a Brit but right now our economy is supiror to the rest of Europe and America (in terms of growth) and politicaly we are more world widely respected than America (I believe America is more feared than respected) and our armies know how to win the battle for hearts and minds that the American's cannot (Despite patrolling a larger sector of Iraq with smaller numbers of troops, the British army have suffered far less attacks by insurgents than have the Americans).

I think if America goes down, it will take the world with it and there won't be much left to have power over.

West Germany was doing very well economically, but with the taking on of East Germany in the unification, the economy was dragged down by East Germany's state of affairs.

It always puzzled me that they opted to get all of Eastern Europe into the EU in one big swoop.
This situation should have been a lesson to the buraucrats in Brussels.

Hey Guys,

Just wondering why Australia was not considered as a potential super power? We aren't that big, but are about a 100 years ahead of Iraq as a potential Super Power, noting that a reformed Iraq is years away from fruition. Other than that I turn to the Motherland Britiania as the next super power!

Oh yeah and when America finally falls no one has considered that there may be no need for a superpower... there may be *Peace*. God Pending...

I think that alot of people here fail to realize two very important facts. First the US does not need to shatter into bits or be uterly ruined in order for it to "fall" as a super power. It simply needs to gain in power slower then someone else long enough to be surpassed. Second the period of time when nations of very limited size and resources (ie Britainia, France, Italy, Japan, Germany, Iraq, etc) could be superpowers is over. Nations have only done that with over whelming technical and millitary superiority. That no longer works.

The only wild card in the deck in the environment, ie global warming and other problems. If China's environment or India's or anyones for that matter becomes degraded enough the chances of them being a super power drop a great deal.

i would say china for a bit and if europe unites and give cookies to people who have $ex then with a larger population would help stoping the culture changing because if europe united and because 2nd world power and china 1st they won't hold it much for a week because they realie heary on the doller with that weakening that could be there own undoing but if they hold it together and stay the top spot Russia woun't like being surronded by super powers and i think it would become part of europe because it has a seat on the european council but for russia too join i think there could be a civil war there or a major econmic changes

For britain the only way left for us brits would be if we stayed out off europe and tried to make a more stronger commonweath in econmic terms and maybe become one nation with a coucil at it heart where votes are needed from each of its nations members to pass any laws as one nation or to invade another i say the United Nations Of The Commenweath but thats not on there so i chosen Britain because if you look at all te commenweath nations they are in tatical postions to invade almost any nation on the planet

a rebuilt iraq maybe because the same that happened to germany could happen to Iraq with a hitler like person who will sort out there nation and try to get on the world stage

China would be under one conditions.. They have a much higher population.. if there were to send everyone over here.. they would destroy America in a heartbeat...

China would be under one conditions.. They have a much higher population.. if there were to send everyone over here.. they would destroy America in a heartbeat...

It's not just about who has the biggest army any more, as people are capable of taking out whole cities. It's China's fledgling economy that will make it the next superpower.

Ahhh, another endless circle of questions with answers that are only based on theories that other people don't believe. Great!

What will determine a "superpower" in the future? Will it be military? Economy? No telling. I'm going to put my money on China if USA goes down. My reasoning, because someone whom I respect has that same opinion. I dunno why he thinks that...

eu first(virtually right now), then china, then india

Europe.

China not. If they don't want to lose face they have to invade Taiwan.
If they lose face, the government will be gone and we see some chaos for a couple of years, comparable to Russia right now.

If they invade Taiwan, the economy goes down, the country will fall prey to disease and harship and eventually the government is gone as well.

China is walking a tightrope high over the Three Gorges Dam.

When America falls we'll see some interesting development in South America, Africa and the Middle East. And China loses one important export market and income source.


On the other hand, what would happen, if China sold their US Treasury bonds worth about 200 Billion Dollars?

If America falls then most European nations will also fall (I don't think America will fall) along with most other "capitalist" nations if not all of them thus the "next superpower" will most likely be some 3rd world nation that has nuclear weapons and oil.

I don't care. I am going to sit here in forgotten South America, while the whole of North America, Europe and Asia battle it out for supremacy, one over the other, and then, when the dust settles, we will move in and force everyone to play soccer and dance on the beaches. (a problem for switzerland, leichtenstein etc, but we will find a soultion, probably involving having a nap and doing something about it tomorrow)

The Faraör islands I think are also a likely candidate.

China has a lot of internal problems that could prevent it from reaching super power status; groups wanting independence, corruption, every neighbouring nation having a territorial disagreement with it, its dependence on other nations, critical energy shortages...

China has a lot of internal problems that could prevent it from reaching super power status; groups wanting independence, corruption, every neighbouring nation having a territorial disagreement with it, its dependence on other nations, critical energy shortages...

True, but sadly that didn't stop the USSR from claiming superpowerness. To be a superpower all you need is to help win a major war, and have the latest weapons, and an economy even if completely artificially sustained. Hell, its not that hard. I think that China will see a collapse of government long before the fall of the United States. There is no doubt in my mind that one day, soon, the EU will cease to exist as that, and most European nations will simply grow so close, that one will not be able to tell them apart until voila, you have an entirely new and free nation. Don't look so surprised, its was meant to happen. Long live Europe, 'cause I absolutely love it!

Note: Only if the French and Germans start to accept that they are neighbors and not enemies.

huh. i get the feeling that saying "go canada" would be like that episode of the simpsons where they try to race the fruit down the aisle and ralph puts down the banana.

most likely China but a world war does seem incredibly likely should the US fall :(

Probably India.

They have a huge number of people, but at the same time they aren't a corrupt dicatorship like China.

A Chinese-Russian alliance.

Just like old times...


btw, my guess is a renewed bond between a weakened USA and a more powerful Europe, should that happen.

Just like old times.

It always puzzled me that they opted to get all of Eastern Europe into the EU in one big swoop.
This situation should have been a lesson to the buraucrats in Brussels.

I agree.

I can only theorise that the EU did this to stop Eastern Europe from remaining under The Kremlin's influence, to include Eastern Europe, and not to make them feel isolated so that they turned back to an Eastern Bloc.

most likely China but a world war does seem incredibly likely should the US fall :(

The whole world does not revolve around America. If it should stop becoming a superpower, it does not automatically mean the end of the world.

The world does not stop with America.

America isnt really a very good superpower. Nothing like Britain, Spain or Rome were at the height of their power.