NationStates Jolt Archive

Would the world be better off with one superpower (like now with the USA), two superpowers (like the USA/USSR), or no superpowers?

Poll coming.

No super powers ideally. But as long as there is one, there needs to be at least two.

At least two, to avert the current hegemony enjoyed my myopia incarnate, however a situation akin to pre-1914 Europe is more desirable.

Since I live in the only super power, I choose one. But I can understand all the "lesser nations" being a bit peeved. :D

Since I live in the only super power, I choose one. But I can understand all the "lesser nations" being a bit peeved. :D

It does neither the world, nor you, any beneficience.

It does neither the world, nor you, any beneficience.
Sure it does! I get to see all the E.U. nations get all pissy and bitch about evil America, while I sip Yukon Jack from my diamond encrusted scotch glass and chase it with watered down American beer. :D

Sure it does! I get to see all the E.U. nations get all pissy and bitch about evil America, while I sip Yukon Jack from my diamond encrusted scotch glass and chase it with watered down American beer. :D

Still, we can sing "those Canaan days" in french accents, sipping wine and reminiscing about the old days.....:p

Seriously though, whilst it was a tad ominous, the existence of two superpowers did tend to curtail the excesses of both.

Still, we can sing "those Canaan days" in french accents, sipping wine and reminiscing about the old days.....:p

Seriously though, whilst it was a tad ominous, the existence of two superpowers did tend to curtail the excesses of both.
I agree with you there. One of the most peaceful times in human existence (considering) is due to two nations being on the brink of global annihilation. As Alanis Morrisette would say, "Isn't it Ironic"?

I agree with you there. One of the most peaceful times in human existence (considering) is due to two nations being on the brink of global annihilation. As Alanis Morrisette would say, "Isn't it Ironic"?

Please do not quote her, she pisses me off immensely, especially the spoony forky ironic song.

Still, we can sing "those Canaan days" in french accents, sipping wine and reminiscing about the old days.....:p

Seriously though, whilst it was a tad ominous, the existence of two superpowers did tend to curtail the excesses of both.

hehe

I agree with you there. One of the most peaceful times in human existence (considering) is due to two nations being on the brink of global annihilation. As Alanis Morrisette would say, "Isn't it Ironic"?
With her grasp of irony, she would be more likely to say "Isn't it simile?"

No superpowers, but an alliance of smaller nations which together form the same sort of capabilities a superpower would have.

Then ideally the members of the alliance would serve as checks and balances for themselves, without the need for potentially violent disagreement as was the case during the Cold War (a time during which primarly third parties suffered).

Since I live in the only super power, I choose one. But I can understand all the "lesser nations" being a bit peeved. :D


ALL Empires fall my friend

Two Superpowers. To Quote A Very Good Book, Be Afraid In The Time Where The Bombs Aren't Falling, For Then The Spirit Is Lost.

Two or possibly more superpowers. It's worth it just for the technilogical progress the rivalry spawns.

There should be more than two superpowers, but I chose two because it was the closest choice to what I had in mind (ideally, 3-8).

I feel that one superpower creates too much hegemony and two will cause the world to polarize and fluctuate unstably. No superpowers will cause massive competition, land grabs, and war. Three or more should ensure good governance because the world would be kept in a state of constant but stable flux, and would thus be democratic when it comes to the say of individual nations. With this sort of flux, free-markets and democracies would be the optimal choice of governance for non-superpower nations, since they would have to take money and aid from many superpowers (and would need their populations to do it). However by this model, the world would eventually become an oligarchy, because poor nations would become very indebted to the superpowers, and we have a situation like the Cold War, in which two superpowers have to restore war devastated nations and put the world in danger in the process.

It's the military that makes the superpower, but the more superpowers there are, the less likely militaries will have to be involved, since the different economic influences should cancel each other out through their economic influences on other nations for about a hundred and fifty years.

This probably won't happen in practice, though. Then again, it might, with globalization and all.

What do you think will happen?

Two or more superpowers = brushfire conflicts all across the globe as the various powers seek to establish an advantage over one another. This is what happened from the collapse of the Roman empire until the collapse of the Soviet Union. People in Western countries may have idealised memories of the Cold War because the brushfire conflicts didn't take place on our soil. Latin Americans, Africans and Asians may have a slightly different memory!

No superpowers = similar to the above, as different nations seek to gain pre-eminence. I don't think all the countries of the world would get along nice and dandy in the absence of superpowers. I think there would be more trade disputes, and more armed conflicts (particularly in less developed countries, since crackpot leaders would be able to do as they please with impunity, knowing that no nation is powerful enough to stop them).

One superpower = not ideal, but better than the alternatives I think. As long as the superpower spells out its intentions to the rest of the globe and acts accordingly.

two will cause the world to polarize and fluctuate unstably. No superpowers will cause massive competition, land grabs, and war.

Arov makes the case I planned on making against having either two or no superpowers. Personally, though, I prefer one superpower. Maybe United States hegemony isn't the best world system, but I think it's superior to all the alternatives. That said, if the hegemon was not the US, I would probably be much less comfortaable.

Two or more superpowers = brushfire conflicts all across the globe as the various powers seek to establish an advantage over one another. This is what happened from the collapse of the Roman empire until the collapse of the Soviet Union. People in Western countries may have idealised memories of the Cold War because the brushfire conflicts didn't take place on our soil. Latin Americans, Africans and Asians may have a slightly different memory!

Under two superpowers, the Latin Americans, Africans, and Asians would polarize from each other and politics in these places would either travel to the right or to the left as interests compete between different political factions. The lack of money in these countries would make these conflicts even more extreme, and this is why there are dictatorships in these areas today. More than two would cause these countries to take advantage the supwerpowers' particular advantages, since the market influences of three or more superpowers would cancel each other out through competition. Conflicts between political factions in third-world countries wouldn't be as extreme, and there would be fewer brushfire conflicts because these nations would be influenced by more than one supwerpower in some way, be it through agreements between superpowers themselves (indirectly) or directly through economic or military dependency on more than one superpower.

What would most likely happen in a three-superpower setting is that two superpowers would conflict, and the third would be the economic/military intermediary that keeps a cold war from erupting. Depending on who is in power in the third-world countries, we should see an even number of nations join all three, and the superpowers would cancel each other out, but the world wouldn't be in flux.

A fourth nation or beyond would cancel out the interests of the other three and the two-conflicting one-intermediary format would be rendered obsolete, since the focus would shift towards dealing with a few powerful neighbors rather than a "cold war" between two national factions. Of course, there would be flux in this situation.