Talk:Superpower
|
|
Re: "Superpowers in History"
From my understanding, most people in a position of authority on the matter do not retroactively apply the term 'superpower' to any of the states listed, or indeed any country before the 20th century. A superpower is supposed to be able to exercise power on a global scale, which is what makes them different from normal world powers. Before a suitable level of technology was obtained, this was simply not possible for any of histories previous powers, which would seem to delegate them to mere world power status. As an example, both Rome and China were expansive powers at the same time, but there was no significant interaction between the two because neither was able to project power to the others part of the world. It seems unfair and inaccurate to label either a superpower using the common definition (stated at the beginning of the article). Of all those listed, only Britain might be able to justify a claim on being retroactively granted the title of 'superpower,' but even their power-projection capabilities were severely limited in many parts of the world.
[edit: I just recently spoke to a couple Political Scientists, and they both agreed that the term Superpower can not be applied to any country prior to WWII, that those countries were only 'Great Powers']
I don't think the potential superpowers in the world including the PRC, India, Brazil and the EU only. Russia should also be considered as one of them due to its large area and population. Its economy is growing fast too. Besides, it is one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Concil which marks its notable political influence in the world.
I just wanna say this is extremely American. Meaning, get your head out of your ass and realize the superpowers before America. Mike Sarfati
Extremely stupid. The title of the article is "Superpower", not "Post USSR collapse American foreign politics". Someone please rewrite this! -217.215.132.201
Anthere, do you really think we need those two links here? They are both included in the Second Superpower article. -º¡º
- yes I think so. Hum...let's wait to see what happens with that meme before any further move. ant
- However, many observers of the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq would conclude that the US military has proven its ability to resoundingly defeat enemies who are using asymmetric tactics. Likewise, the large number of Al-Qaeda arrested and the fact that their have been no major terrorist attacks on US soil since the War on Terror began demonstrate that conducting global terrorism is very difficult and subject to substantial disruption by an enemy with superpower resources.
See comments above - this article should be about superpowers in general, over all history - not about a couple of US wars in the last couple of years. Further these "counterpoints" are at best peripheral - they do not rebut the preceding paragraphs... Martin 13:35 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)
China does not have a "small nuclear deterrance". It's the world's third nuclear power. Isn't it? - Yves Marques Teixeira
- I think that France is the world's third nuclear power, and China is fourth.--Todd Kloos 04:48, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I reverted the following version by Finlander, with a critique of it on their talk. My critique's shortcomings reflect mostly my carelessly tripping over their pose of (two versions of) it being primarily abt the desirability of substituting "United States of America" for "America". (Absurd, pointless here, and POV, IMO, but also in any case a red herring here.)
- United States of America was allegedly attacked by the Islamist terrorist network Al-Qaida in 2001. The event resulted in a new policy of fighting a perpetual "War on Terrorism" world-wide. First the Taliban government in Afghanistan was brought down, and in the early 2003 Iraq was invaded and the regime of Saddam Hussein dismantled.
My attention is going elsewhere; perhaps someone who follows this article can edit-for-the-enemy with Finlander. --Jerzy 09:49, 2004 Jan 4 (UTC)
| Contents |
Material Moved from the Article
The following text is the result of two edits on Superpower summarized as "removed editorializations" and "toned down anti-US editorialising". Whether or not those are accurate descriptions, they left the article less encyclopedic and considerably more muddled: a worse article. I am inclined to think there are PoV problems in the text i am reverting back into Superpower, but these 4 'graphs are not (in their present form) nothing like a solution. Someone may want to work on them here on Talk:Superpower, toward clear versions that could replace, or be grafted in with, the reverted text and any incremental improvements on the reverted text that may be made in the meantime. --Jerzy 06:39, 2004 Jan 12 (UTC)
America's position as the sole superpower
reflexive historical analysis of the United States position describes the current state of affairs as the Pax Americana, with the United States as self-claimed guarantor of world peace (paralell to the Pax Roma when Rome ruled the known world). Harsher critics say that America is acting as an imperialist nation, though this all hinges on the definition of what constitutes imperialism in the 21st century.
The United States global power is in contrast to its flirtations of isolationism with respect to global affairs outside the Western Hemisphere at various times in the first half of the 20th century, particularly between the World Wars.
American power abroad
America's position as a superpower has involved it in almost every major conflict world-wide since 1917, including Europe, Asia, South-East Asia, and the Middle East. Some would call these "engagements", others "entanglements".
Defenders of American foreign policy regard their interventions as forced on them by moral necessity or lately as self-defence. One simplistic analysis paints world affairs in moral terms, with "good guys" and "bad guys", which then becomes fuel for propoganda to the American public. Another analysis puts world affairs in straight power-politics, where action is determined by realpolitik and moral equivalence. US foreign policy has always been a mix of these analyses, depending on Presidential style, relative regional power structures, and stated goals (or lack thereof).
(The two preceding subsections moved from article by Jerzy 06:39, 2004 Jan 12 (UTC); see #Material Moved from from the Article.)
My User:Davejenk1ns only attempt with the edits was to remove some glaring sarcasm and a tone of cyncism toward US power abroad. Nevermind personal political positions-- the term "entanglement" is loaded. Also, how can an author here accurately sum up US foreign policy into a simplistic goodguy/badguy paradigm so easily? Again-- sarcasm and cynicism.
I must agree with the comments above that this article must be reworked toward the concept of "superpower", and not cheap diatribes for/against US foreign policy post 1991.
The more I read the article, the stronger it gets if we simply remove the stuff from the table of contents on down:
- 1. Yes, US is the sole superpower, but any ramifications/reasons/evil/good that comes from that doesn't belong here.
- 2. American Power Abroad should be a clinical listing of bases and/or manpower, not editorialising on why or the thinking of how (unless someone can raise John Foster Dulles from the grave and convince him to write the paragraph)
- 3. The asymetric war stuff may be alright, but only as a link to another article
- 4. Potential Superpowers? no. First of all, the term may not apply anymore, and if there are that many, then they are no longer "super".
Move here, since most of this seems to be incorrect. First of all there is the problem that asymmetric warfare is being used as a synonym for terrorism. Second, effective measures against terrorism (and for that matter guerrilla warfare) are not particularly hard to construct. They generally require the cooperation of the host population, but this is often readily available (especially when you are dealing with the homeland).
Superpowers and asymmetric warfare
Whilst a superpower is in a position to win any all-out war against a lesser power, it is less able to fight an asymmetric war against a weaker opponent that is willing to use terrorist tactics. In this case, the extensive civilian, industrial and military assets of the superpower provide a wide range of targets to an enemy which is willing to attack from hiding without notice.
Military strategists have anticipated this situation for many years, but effective measures against asymmetric warfare have been hard to construct.
- Traditional military methods have little effect, as terrorists can hide among the civilian population.
- Democratic powers may exhibit reluctance to use weapons of mass destruction.
- Police tactics are only likely to succeed with the co-operation of the community from which the terrorists come - and heavy-handed police or military behavior will tend to radicalize host communities, increasing support for terrorists.
EU bigger economy?
The recent change has the EU as the largest economy-- from what I understand, the US is around $11 Trillion, whilst the EU was around $8.5T... did I miss something?Davejenk1ns 11:50, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- The Euro has gained in value relative to the dollar by about 60% over the last 4 years, and several new countries have been incorporated into the EU. At the current exchange rate, the EU economy would be about $12.5-13 trillion.--Todd Kloos 19:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia's list of GDP (PPP) by Country ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29 ) The EU has the second largest economy when measured in International Dollars. .--Fred_Fury
EU - A Super Power-NOT
I say not hardly. The EU is a Confederation or an alliance. Run by the Germans and the French (same difference, the French are Germans who speak a corrupt form of Latin). They can not decide on a common currency. Many of the member countries are almost third world if not so. The French and Germans are amongst the biggest debtor nations in the world. What about the former east bloc countries? Many of whom are disgusted with socialism in all its forms and are tacit alolies of the US. What about the smaller Western European countries who remember French and German Imperialism and want the US to stay involved in Europe? What about the Europhiles in US politics who would like to see the US involved in the EU in one way or another. What about the French attempt to revive the defunct Western European Union to replace NATO as the perceived Military arm of the EU. Which it is not. The EU got away from the Franco-German control and is now in the hands of the more US friendly countries, which include most of the newer members. The EU is just that, a Union, it is not the United States of Europe and it will not become so in our lifetimes as the rest of Europe remembers life before.--Tomtom 17:50, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If you take anything you wrote seriously then you are a very naive and bigoted person TomTom - Aneditortypeguy
Aneditortypeguy
Initial posting by User:Aneditortypeguy moved from User talk:Lowellian to here. --Lowellian 16:31, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC):
- Why do you see it fit to dedicate the page superpower to American foreign policy? Yes, the United States maybe the only military superpower currently in the World but that does not mean that wherever superpower is mentioned so too must American foreign policy.
- Please leave the page superpower as it is, I have edited to better describe the term. --User:Aneditortypeguy
User:Aneditortypeguy, please sign your comments. You can do so by typing "~~~~". I have done so for the comment you posted on my page (and BTW, I almost missed your comment since you added it to the middle of the page rather than the new comments section; please read the notice on my user page about how to get my attention) which I have moved here, since your post is about this article. I reverted your edits (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Superpower&diff=6031899&oldid=6028087) for a number of reasons:
- Spelling errors ("concludsion", "lable", "millenium", etc.)
- Stylistic errors (capitalizing "World", "Medieval European Empires")
- POV statements (the EU "possesses the World's largest and strongest economy")
- The dewikification of much of the article.
- The movement of InterWiki links from the bottom to the top of the article. See Wikipedia:Interlanguage links.
- Most importantly, you completely rewrote an article which had been arrived at over time by many users without posting any justification for your edits. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Please read and check out the links on Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers, and while it is true that you should be bold in updating pages, as that page also recommends, do not be reckless in doing so.
Also, please do not make personal attacks on users. Calling User:Tomtom a "very naive and bigoted person" does not help anyone. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
Try reading the article again. The page is not dedicated to "American foreign policy." It is about what a "superpower" is. Wikipedia will welcome your contributions, but please try to work with what has already been written, especially on a page that has already been worked on by many experienced users, rather than just rewriting it completely.
--Lowellian 16:31, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
How did this come back in?
I`m sorry, but did I miss a meeting or something? I thought we had all come to a a tacit agreement to leave the Pax Americana stuff off this page until a) a reasonable structure could be worked out, b) some workable text could be written. All I see here is a re-insertion of the old text, which is flame-baiting, slanted (both ways), and rife with non-sequitors and assumptions. Moreover, the grammar is piss-poor. For example, nations cannot declare themselves superpowers-- only media, commentators, and political essayists can do so, which views then become generally accepted. Just as the Iron Curtain did not declare itself, but was rather a metaphor used by Churchill (in a citable speech) and then taken up by everyone else, the term Superpower is a perception, not a hard-fast rule or self-declaration. I do not want to start another edit war, but I think we had better remove these recent paragraphs back into the discussion page. - User:Davejenk1ns
removed text re: American foriegn policy
This text was on the page a while ago, but removed after a fair amount of discussion. It is slanted, assumptive, and off-topic. Self-claimed garantor? "It has been argued"? passive voice as well as uncited argument? Why refrence to all the wars? How does that aid the definition of Superpower? How does the moral arguments around US foreign policy aid this definition? (yes, I contributed to that text...) What does 9/11 have to do with being a superpower?Davejenk1ns 00:20, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
America's position as the sole superpower
Both critics and some supporters of the United States describe the current state of affairs as the Pax Americana, with the United States as self-claimed guarantor of world peace. It has been argued that America is acting as an imperialist nation.
This is in contrast to its position of isolationism with respect to global affairs outside the Western Hemisphere at various times in the first half of the 20th century, particularly between the World Wars.
American power abroad
America's position as a superpower has involved it in almost every major conflict world-wide since 1917, including WWI, WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam War, sporadic violence in the Middle East in regards to Israel, and most recently the Gulf War and Iraqi War.
Defenders of American foreign policy regard their interventions as forced on them by moral necessity or lately as self-defence. These actions are generally portrayed in moral terms, with "good guys" and "bad guys", but the actual policy motivators may be realpolitik and moral equivalence.
America was attacked by the Islamist terrorist network Al-Qaida in 2001, and is now fighting a "War on Terrorism" world-wide. In early 2003, America invaded Iraq and dismantled the regime of Saddam Hussein, though critics charge that the invasion of Saddam Hussein was not related to the "War on Terrorism".
Trade blockade text
Its relative wealth and dominance on the global market are important reasons why the United States is considered a superpower. Ending up on the opposite side of the United States in a conflict can lead to trade blockades, and is avoided because of this dominance.
I would rather not see this paragraph in there: The first sentence is a repeat of a statement made earlier, and the sencond sentence is pretty far-fetched, as if trade blockades happen at the drop of a hat (they don't). I agree it is better than that food-dominance goofiness listed previously, but the salient question remains: does the text help someone understand what the word Superpower means, or is it a cheap shot at the US?Davejenk1ns 23:32, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I agree. Actually, I didn't mean for it to sound like a cheap shot at the U.S. And the anonymous user who wrote the old paragraph _certainly_ didn't mean for it to sound like that. He probably considers himself a great american "patriot". Anyway, I'm quite content with the paragraph being left out of the article. — David Remahl 23:39, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- No, I didn't think your text was a cheap shot. I use that phrase as the acid test for NPOV or biased stuff. If I read a sentence and it doesn't seem to fit, I ask myself that basic question (replacing US with Japan, Kennedy, insert noun here). America as Superpower is such a minefield to start with-- any overt power vein associated with the US becomes an instant lightning rod for blind support or marxist critique (IMHO). We just need to state facts, here. Certainly we can state common wisdom or current theories about power, but those should be states as such: theories or interpretations. Davejenk1ns 01:04, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Creeping bias
There seems to be some sort of creeping bias here over the Potential Superpowers section. Eg.
"China, which has limited nuclear capabilities, a large but obsolete military, the world's largest population, and a large and growing economy (2nd largest in PPP)."
"India, which has a population of over a billion, a powerful nuclear and conventional arsenal, as well as a thriving economy (4th largest in PPP)."
From the basis of this, the reader may get the impression that India has a more powerful military than China, which is simply incorrect. India's nuclear capability is very new, and compared to the massive Chinese deployment, very weak and short ranged.--Fangz 01:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- China's military has also been modernized a lot over the last few years. I am not sure if it is fair to say that it is obsolete since it seems to have about the same level of technology as India does.
- We also need to think about these potential superpowers some more. Several of them have been steadily growing in power. How do we decide when one of the potential superpowers becomes an actual superpower?--Todd Kloos 04:38, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- China's military has not modernized that much. If it's to be described in terms of a superpower, then it must be compared to the military capability of the United States, in which case it is even still generations (technologically) and decades behind. The same can be said of most European nations, and even of the most advanced in particular areas; it's not a slight, it's simply a matter of fact. Frankly, I have seen no real discussion of many of these nations becoming full-spectrum superpowers (the sort of power that leads to sometimes descriptions of a 'hyperpower'), and certainly not peer superpowers even economically save for a few. India becoming an economic superpower, China becoming an economic and political superpower but not a full-spectrum military superpower as the U.S. (which would require money it does not and will not have to create the sort of hard-power assets necessary, as well as a critical factor - a vast array of bases, large and small, around the world, something China will never have in remotely the same numbers as the United States), Japan as an economic superpower (as it already is; its GDP is three times that of China's, which will have to expend its period of extremely high growth and then some over the next 15 to 20 years just to catch it; Japan is already far and away the second-largest single economic power on the planet), the EU as a political and economic superpower -- yes on these points. Brazil could become a great power, and should Russia regain stable economic health it could consolidate and reconstitute its extremely rotted military power well enough to be considered a second-tier military superpower (though even at its height it did not possess the ability to project and support power that the United States now wields; the USSR did not even have true aircraft carriers).
- The US is much more powerful than any other country in terms of military strength, but that strength has always come from the superior power of the US economy. If any other country surpasses the US in economic strength, then it will likely match the US in military strength 10-20 years later. Saying that no other country will ever be as powerful as the US seems rather short sighted, comparable to someone 100 years ago saying that no one would ever match the power of the British empire.
- If the EU coalesces into a single power and decides to have an active foreign policy, it could easily afford to build a military that would rival the US. Likewise China, and later India, will probably eventually have sufficiently large economies to build militaries capable of challenging the US.
- When you compare the sizes of different economies, I think that PPP is a better measurement than exchange rate, especially considering the degree to which exchange rates are manipulated by many governments. The exchange rates also are subject to sudden changes that significantly change the relative sizes of countries from year to year. For a good measure of economic power and influence, it might be best not to use GDP at all. If you instead measure the total volume of trade that a country has, that should give a better idea of the ability of that country to influence the economies of other countries.--Todd Kloos 08:35, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Superpowers in History
The best way to balance out the American bias is to add perspective. This planet has seen many empires rise and fall. In history great empires were built on charasmatic leaders. These countries soon fell apart, or were reconquered within a century of the leader's demise. Normally it wouldn't take long for the conquerers to get soft. Soon after that, the oppressed and the foreign came rushing in. --Benk625 18:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I changed the wording from "could be seen" to "is" in terms of the United States and superpower status. If you want to debate the moral aspects, historical relevance, or anything like that, that's great, but let's not skirt the issue or the reality.
Cheers
Fictional Superpowers
I removed the following:
Superpowers are also the fictional superhuman abilities that distinguish most superheroes such as Superman and supervillains such as Magneto from ordinary people. Typical superpowers include superhuman strength, speed, or stamina; the ability to fly; or abilities such as X-ray vision.
Perhaps it belongs in a different article... srs 19:58, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'm returning the paragraph to the article. It is separated by a horizontal rule from the rest of the article and is a legitimate definition of superpower. —Lowellian (talk) 03:26, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
- If you want to move the paragraph to another article, go ahead and create that other article and link to it from this article. However, you should not just remove information. —Lowellian (talk) 03:27, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Putting the superhero powers blurb in this article or under this name is just silly. Nobody searching for information about superhero powers is going to look here. Superhero powers also go by other names: abilities, special powers, superhero powers. If you check the dictionary, the other "superpower" definition is this one. Yes, the fictional one is used sometimes, but other less ambigious names exist. Daniel Quinlan 04:07, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
- If you look at "what links here", either through the article in chief, or the redirect superpowers, you come across such things as Batfink, Spiderman, and City of Heroes. This strongly suggests to me that the definition of fictional superpowers as the powers possessed by superheroes belongs in this article. At minimum, there should be a disambiguation statement at the head of the article pointing people to the superhero article. -- Smerdis of Tlön 00:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- A disambiguation link at the beginning would be fine with me. Daniel Quinlan 00:54, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Removed Paragraph
If understood properly the term "Superpower" signifies only a bipolar situation. Therefore the existence of three, four or more "Superpowers" is not possible; in such a context the proper term to use would be "Great Power". Journalists and the media often do not respect such a distinction and therefore imagine situations where the USA, the EU, China and India all at the same time yield "Superpower status".
Not sure what this paragraph was intended to explain. I certainly don't believe that the word superpower refers to a bipolar situation. Why? Countries can yield power in different ways - even if we accept that there can only be one superpower within a given domain, there might be many relevant domains in reality - military, economic, cultural, sporting etc Rob cowie