NationStates Jolt Archive


Definition of superpower

Risottia
03-05-2007, 16:52
In so many threads, questions have arisen about "who will be superpower in ...", "next superpower", "is USA the sole superpower", "is EU a superpower", "is Russia still a superpower"...etc.

Wikipedia gives this list of factors to determine whether a power is a superpower or no (they admit it is not ultimate, and a state might qualify as superpower even without some of these requirements).


Cultural
Strong cultural influence, having soft power. Cultural influence implies a developed philosophy and ideology.

Geographical
It should have a wide land or sea area under its control. Territory allows a country to mine minerals and grow food, increasing its self-sufficiency. It is an important factor in warfare as it allows possibilities such as retreat, regrouping and reorganization as well as placing distant radars and missile silos - even a richer country with smaller territory is more vulnerable in a military sense.

Economic and financial
Superior economic power is characterized by access to raw materials, volume and productivity of the domestic market, a leading position in world trade as well as global financial markets, innovation, and the ability to accumulate capital. Human space exploration may be considered one of the key defining economic characteristics of the Cold War superpowers, as this ability was a source of intense rivalry between them for decades. Space exploration represents an ability to spend in drastically wide-scale operations.

Demographic
A superpower should have a large and educated populace and should have a highly developed infrastructure and pronounced cultural and economic ability to shape the regions around them as well as the ones under direct control.

Military
Pre-eminent military ability, characterized by relative invulnerability, ability to deter or cause great damage, and capacity to effectively project unified military power globally, including nuclear weapons. However, nuclear weapons alone do not necessarily make a nation a superpower, and being a superpower may not necessarily require nuclear weapons, although some would agree that one should at least have the ability to create them relatively quickly. Nations such as Japan would fit this definition.

Political or ideological
A functioning political system that is capable of mobilizing resources for world political goals and immense ideological influence.


I'd say that, by these definitions, that the current superpowers are USA, EU (even in its unique "loose union" form), Russia and Japan, with India and China en route to superpower status. This is reflected in the G-10 group.
Brazil might be a new candidate to superpower status, yet their internal market and the low military capability (when confronted with full-fledged superpowers) place Brazil in the regional power list, I think.

Anyway, about the military issue, I would simplify that to "impossible to beat on its own territory in a non-nuclear confrontation".
About geography, even partial self-sufficiency of resources isn't that important once a state has a superior economical power. And "sea" under control? The ocean isn't that important, after all. Land is far more important.

Input and discussion superwelcome!
Call to power
03-05-2007, 17:06
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/11-10-04.asp

be afraid, be very afraid :eek:
South Lorenya
03-05-2007, 17:14
Don't forget nutcases who think that making a nuclear bomb will insantly give them superpower status.
The-Low-Countries
03-05-2007, 17:19
Russia and Brazil dont have the poppulation to be a superpower, nor do they have the stability.

Russias nuclear arsenall is failing, in the last 2 nuclear tests of 2006, there was 100% failure, one was personally witnissed by Putin of whom youd expect the army would have made sure that he would have seen sucess.
Remote Observer
03-05-2007, 17:21
This is reflected in the G-10 group.

As you note, nations that don't have the superpower status in one form or another are not included in major world decisions.

The G-10 is probably far more influential on what happens to everyone else in the world than the UN will ever be.
Call to power
03-05-2007, 17:28
Russia and Brazil dont have the poppulation to be a superpower, nor do they have the stability.

Brazil has the 5th largest population in the world Russia has the 8th I'd also add Brazil is fairly stable at the moment and on the whole so is Russia

Russias nuclear arsenall is failing, in the last 2 nuclear tests of 2006, there was 100% failure, one was personally witnissed by Putin of whom youd expect the army would have made sure that he would have seen sucess.

source?
The-Low-Countries
03-05-2007, 17:31
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russian_Strategic_Missile_Test_Fails_999.html
Call to power
03-05-2007, 17:45
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russian_Strategic_Missile_Test_Fails_999.html

"Four other tests have been successful, ITAR-TASS news agency reported."

um yeah a test firing missile failed 2 out of 6 times with no mention of Putin
The-Low-Countries
03-05-2007, 17:54
Indeed, last 2 tests failed read again, and yes Puting wasn't at this one so what?
HC Eredivisie
03-05-2007, 18:31
Indeed, last 2 tests failed read again, and yes Puting wasn't at this one so what?
Because you just said so?
United Beleriand
03-05-2007, 19:34
A superpower is a power that is super in everything it does. Like electing a decent head of government, protecting the environment, etc...

Don't forget nutcases who think that making a nuclear bomb will insantly give them superpower status.Like who? India, Pakistan, Israel?
Lacadaemon
03-05-2007, 19:38
Nah, the age of the super power is over. It's going back to having a bunch of great powers.
New Manvir
03-05-2007, 19:53
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/11-10-04.asp

be afraid, be very afraid :eek:

yep....LONG LIVE INDO-CHINESE BRAZILIAN RUSSIA
Vetalia
03-05-2007, 19:56
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/11-10-04.asp

be afraid, be very afraid :eek:

Like India or China would ever ally with him...they're just using Russia for its abundant energy and raw materials. They couldn't care less if the nation itself sank or swam.
Soheran
03-05-2007, 20:21
be afraid, be very afraid :eek:

Of what?

Putin is no scarier than Bush... probably less.
Maxus Paynus
03-05-2007, 20:38
Of what?

Putin is no scarier than Bush... probably less.

No...Putin is definitely scarier, atleast domestically he would be. He's an actual autocrat, all his goonies are from KGB guys, he knows jujitsu or something like that. Yeah, I'd be scared of Putin there.:eek: