Future World Superpowers?

You wanted great powers for the future, well here they are. At least according to this person:

And it will be a very complex system, for to my mind there will be six great powers - the United States, the European Union, China, India, Russia and Japan, but also probably seven very substantial powers whose interests, ambitions and military capabilities will have to be taken into account by the great powers and the rest of the world: Indonesia, Pakistan, Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria, Iran and Turkey.

www.atimes.com...


Looks like were heading for a nice level of multipolarity.

Mexico in the group of the 7subpowers?, I guess thats good..

i'm just wondering when people say an 'EU forming together'.

do you mean european union countrys coming together sharing technogly/resources (bascly operating as one country but NOT)!!.

or do you mean the EU forming together as the 'united states of europe' just like america (which is bascly 50 countrys put into one).

if its the USofE your talking about, (it will never happen)!!

history ABOLISHED,
nations ABOLISHED,

what are nations going to do, one miniute be british (french, italian, spanish etc) - then no longer be that nationlity??? we would be citizens of the good ol 'united states of europe!!'

it will never happen, that means us being ONE with the french frog eaters and the germans


[edit on 22-3-2006 by st3ve_o]

I believe that at the moment there are 5 nations that are most likely to develop into superpowers.To state the obvious,China is an un exception.Along with India and Japan(There is a great chance for Japan) these nations have bright futures in their role on Earth.They also all happen to be Asian countries.

Nigeria i believe has a bright future in becoming a reigonal power,but not a superpower.Their GNP rate is growing too slowly(from what i heard lasttime their GNP was $1,000,in 96` it was $500,doubled,it doubled in 10years but still a slow increase).Nigeria is also a young nation,it has a long way to go before it can achieve any significant statuas in the world.Although I hope to see an improvement in this nation.At the moment its too corrupt.

Turkey has some political issues itself.Right now the nation is having to deal with a growing identity crises(Europe/Asia??)and growing critism over its treatment of humanbeings(in general in prison and woman of faith).This is one of its problem factors in getting into the European union but hopefully will change.As for its military,Turkey has great control over the black sea and holds a significant key in Asian European trade(middle eastern to be exact).But its only because of its geographic location that helps it hold some sort of power.Its military is moderate,but does not show much of a future in significant growth.This nation is growing,but I do not see it as a superpower in the future.The near future atleast.

Brazil and Australia I hold great faith in their futures as superpowers.These nations are becoming increasingly powerful and their armies are increasing in size.Also their global contributions,military and interm of donations.Australia is currently playing a key role in peacekeeping in some South Asian nations and they have military outposts in the middle east.They also play a major role in Southeastern pacific relations.

Brazil is already a major power on the South American continent and is plays a large role as a nation interms of climate.They also hold a large fraction of Earths freshwater concetration(remember its not just about how powerful a nation is,its also about where its situated geographically).Brazil has also contributed alot to worldwide peace keeping.We just do not hear about this.And as for its economy,its looking very healthy at the moment(just not shared..)and future predictions are bright for the vast nation.

Also the world should keep a close eye on South Africa,Indonesia and Argentina.

We shouldn't confuse superpower with regional power or even big power. When I posted the article up top it was talking about some of the important powers of the future, including superpowers. I remember reading an article talking about how Turkey's economy is rising fast and if they could get it to increase in it's growth it could rival Germany's or Japans. Their identity problem is something they share with alot countries it wouldn't necessarily stop their growth.

As for Australia, if you take a look at every power that was mentioned as a potential and highly probable superpower all of them had one thing in common and that was a huge population. Russia has something like 130-150 mil people, Japan 120 mil , EU over 300 mil , USA 300 mil , India and China, both just over 1 billion. In a world of over 6 billion people and counting, you can't be a superpower with a small population. Even the other nations mentioned have bigger populations than Australia. Mexico 100mil, Brazil 175 mil, Nigeria 130-150 mil, Pakistan 160 mil, Turkey 72 mil, Iran 68-72 mil, and Indonesia over 200 mil. Australia simply has 20 million people that's too little. Plus the government there is talking about that lack of growth rate from child rearing from the ethnic Australian's. Simply having a strong economy and military is not good enough, you need numbers also. Despite that a superpower is on a whole other level and most of the other nations mentioned at the end of the paragraph won't become that.

[edit on 29-3-2006 by NeoQuest]

Hey when you listed potential super powers you forgot Canada. Come on we have lots of...water I know I know we'll never be mighty and powerful because it's so cold up here no one wants to live here.

Of interest to all you people interested in International Studies, for it seems that the folks at Yale University think otherwise on at least two possible selections, so named within this topic on varying occasions:

Despite impressive growth, the rising Asian giants have feet of clay

Every day, countless commentators prophesize the ascendance of the world's next superpowers, China and India, the two "Asian giants" shaking off their ancient slumber and rising to the call of the 21st century. According to popular punditry, their place in the firmament of globalization's success stories is already guaranteed. Yet economist Pranab Bardhan argues that a much more complicated picture belies the rosy visions of optimists. In China, rural and urban inequality grows at alarming rates, stirring unrest amongst those hundreds of millions who remain impoverished. In fact, China, responsible for only 6 percent of world trade, has actually lost manufacturing jobs in the past ten years. Meanwhile, India's much-vaunted hi-tech sector accounts for less than one quarter of one percent of the country's labor force. The nation still boasts the world's highest illiteracy rate, while poverty reduction continues to slow. In short, Bardhan suggests, only patience and struggle – not destiny – can guide India and China to the level of superpowers.
China, India Superpower? Not so Fast!

seekerof

Aregentina... Oh my dear Argentina..
How many opportunities have you squandered? The latter half of the 20th century; It was make or break for you, and you broke!

"Don't cry for me Argentina.." - Evita

I tend to disagree with the fact that a superpower needs population to succeed.
France is a case in point. It has the attitude of a 'lone ranger' when needed; it has the military firepower and power projection(2nd only to the USA), and its in the process of cleaning up its economy(going about it the wrong though! ).
Europe cannot coalesce.Steve_03 makes the mindset of the europeans very clear..

Originally posted by ProudCanadian
Hey when you listed potential super powers you forgot Canada. Come on we have lots of...water

I know I know we'll never be mighty and powerful because it's so cold up here no one wants to live here.

Canada is already Superpower in its own right in my opinion.But if this is not shared by many,ofcourse i would of mention it.

i think canada defaintly has got potential, its a big country (in terms of land span)!!

but its got to come out from under the wing and shadow of its closest neighbor 'the united states'.


[edit on 30-3-2006 by st3ve_o]

Originally posted by Daedalus3
France is a case in point. It has the attitude of a 'lone ranger' when needed; it has the military firepower and power projection(2nd only to the USA), and its in the process of cleaning up its economy(going about it the wrong though!

).
Europe cannot coalesce.Steve_03 makes the mindset of the europeans very clear..

france is a country on the you only have to see those protests the other day on tv!!

their economy is in a mess, their military is not 2nd best at all (first time ive heard anyone say that infact)!!

in europe, all countrys are far behind the UK in MOST aspects,

for example the g8 (worlds most powerful and rich countrys) the UK has the 2nd highest economic growth rate in the g8 (behind the united states).


[edit on 30-3-2006 by st3ve_o]

Watch out for Brazil, they have huge potential. If they could stamp out some of there corruption and bring more law to the country they could go far.

Originally posted by st3ve_o

france is a country on the

you only have to see those protests the other day on tv!!

their economy is in a mess, their military is not 2nd best at all (first time ive heard anyone say that infact)!!

in europe, all countrys are far behind the UK in MOST aspects,

for example the g8 (worlds most powerful and rich countrys) the UK has the 2nd highest economic growth rate in the g8 (behind the united states).


[edit on 30-3-2006 by st3ve_o]

Just wait till you're forced to buy em' Rafales!!
You'll be eating you're words, frog legs et all!! ..
naw just kiddin no offence intended.

And about growth rates: A superficial google disclosed that the UK has forcasted growth rate of around 2% for 2006 while France has it at 1.6%.
I don't see a MAJOR difference there at least.

Students protesting doesn't necessarily indicate the 'decline' of a country.
Look where China was when Tianneman took place and look where it is now!
If France were to go the same way then....
Infact if you see revitalisatio nof France (economy and all) after the 1968 student riots then well again..

[edit on 31-3-2006 by Daedalus3]

ive got no problem with the rafele (if the f-35 project goes pear shaped)

ive just been looking through browns budget report, its says britains growth rate is 2.8%

Interesting debate/argument.

Immediately on the horizon? India.

The next big things? Brazil. Maybe South Africa. Both of these countries have huge potential. SA was briefly a nuclear power, Brazil had/may still have a programme.

Australia has massive, massive potential. Its has a third of the population of the UK and a landmass 32 times greater (it's the sixth largest country in the world). Over the next 100 years or so I see great things for the folks down under - think of the US 100 years ago compared to now.

Its interesting to me how a fair few posters on here seem unable to look below the equator

.....

As for the pseudo history lesson thats been going on between the UK and US poster, some interesting facts;

Sorry to say it but the US was late into WW2 Up to that point we were unable to prop up Continental Europe but we were holding our own in the UK.

Hitler dropped all plans to invade the UK after the Battle of Britain in 1941 in order to concentrate on the Russians, so whilst the US helped out with the lend lease (thank you) and in the liberation of Europe BUT the UK itself was not under threat of invasion after that point - the Germans could never have competed with the Royal Navy in the channel.

Had the Chamberlain Government mobilised the empire more rapidly in the late 30's it may have been possible for the empire forces and the russians to have subdued the Germans on their own, but as this didn't happen, we'll never know. Its interesting to note that the Russians had the geography, manpower and resources to defeat Hitler on their own, after absorbing the initial blows of Barbarossa.

The UK's nuclear deterrent is based on US technology, which was a political decision made to save money in duplicating the costs for systems like Polaris and Trident - not because Britian couldn't produce its own weapons - we developed our own initial nukes, H-Bombs, long range bombers, stand off weapons and IC/IR BM's.

The UK's forces are equipped mostly with British/European weaponry. The exception to this is that RAF used the Anglicsed F4 Phantom in the 70's and briefly considered using the F-16 instead of Panavia Tornado. The world and his wife uses Sidewinder missiles as standard. The JSF was supposed to be heavily Anglicised for use over here but it seems that the current US administration has renaged on that side of the bargain.

The UK developed the VSTOL capability of the Harrier on its own, and licensed the tech to McDonnel Douglas in the US.

Its highly doubtful that the US has received more charity in the 20th Century than it has handed out. However, in the 18th and 19th Centuries the US received alot of support from France and the UK.

I

France, as a super power? COME ON!!!!!!!!!! The French suck!!!!!!!!
Chirac caved in to a bunch of lazy, spoon fed, arrogant unproductive socialist kids faster then his predecessors did to an outnumbered and outgunned German army in WWII.
All this does is hammer another nail into the coffin that France is putting herself into.
France as a power? HAH!!!!!!! New Zealand has a better chance of beign a superpower than France does.
By the way, my ancestry is English...I hate the damned frogs!!!!!!!!!