Talk:Superpower

For older discussion, see archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

WikiProject Power in international relations?

The current International Power-related articles fit the criteria to be formed into a WikiProject. As we have so many articles to keep a track on and so many discussions relate to all of the articles as opposed to simply one of these articles, I think it would be alright to create such a project...what are your views? Please express your views before and if you believe this is alright then put your name into the Approving User list directly below: I'll be able to organize most of the project but may ask for a bit of help. Nobleeagle (Talk) 03:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

I think a Wiki project is a great idea. There are a lot of articles and we do cover a lot of content that is controversial which makes it the more important to have a project with a designated discussion page. I am already part of the Auto Wiki Project and it has greatly helped to improve the quality of articles, settle disputes between editors and adopt new policies. Signature^brendel 05:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea, well done for coming up with it. Turning it into a WikiProject might also help in getting some more editors on board, hopefully filling up some of these sourcing holes.

Xdamr^talk 06:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, but we'll have to monitor that we're not turning into some sort of exclusive club, discouraging new editors to take part Trip: The Light Fantastic 22:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to put my own name in...WikiProjects can actually help get more people editing, there are often some random signed in users that put in a couple of edits to these pages, if they join the project they can be allowed to express their opinion. For example, if you're not from a Commonwealth Nation you probably wouldn't have even heard much about cricket, but yesterday WikiProject Cricket got its 100th participant. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just wandering by and thought I'd probe a little more into the ambit of this proposal. After skimming power in international relations, it appears that a Power in IR WP would be framed to appeal to users with a realist perspective. This is not necessarily a bad thing but, given the lack of a WikiProject International relations as a upper level coordinating forum, it may be worth giving thought at some point to the scope of the project and how it might interact with country and regional notice boards, WikiProject International development, etc. Or I may simply not be on everyone else's wavelength. - BT 15:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a fair idea BanyanTree...I'm going to be opening discussions on the title of the project and its scope after we get a decent number of approving users. This is part of WikiProject Politics, but that particular project seems dead...so a fresh project is required. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think WikiProject Politics was just a little too unspecfic to have any real impact. There is simply too much to cover and it'd be best off split into Wikiproject French Politics and similar subdivisions. I mean, come on, it's like having Wikiproject Science or something crazy like that! Trip: The Light Fantastic 23:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is WikiProject Politics of India but it deals more with things like Politicians and Elections as opposed to International Relations. Thus the need for a new project. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, why not. It would be good to try and discuss all the articles in perspectives (with balance) and can encourage new editors with new sources. Should be "interesting". :P -Heilme 09:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm in. I think it's good to have someone like me who isn't from any of the nations in question involved.Kevlar67 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Approving Users Enter your username here using a # yourname . We will move onto the next step after we get more than 7 or 8 users.

1. Signature^brendel
2. Xdamr
3. Trip: The Light Fantastic
4. Nobleeagle
5. ACamposPinho
6. Heilme
7. KEVLAR

Step 2: Scope and Name

Since we almost have enough users and many people will probably join once I begin advertising. You can still put your name up their of course, but you can't vote here until your name is up there. I'll move on to the next step: Propose a name for the project, the name should be representative of the scope you have in mind. For example, WikiProject Power in international relations would probably refer to few more than the articles in the {{International power}} template at the bottom of each of these pages... Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Propose a new name by using '''my name''' . If you support an already proposed name, list it under that particular name using the following '''Support''' COMMENTS # ~~~ . We'll keep it open until all that have put their names down have voted...in the event of the tie, cut out any outliers and get the people that voted for that to vote for something else...I wish we had 7 participants so there couldn't be a tie in the end, but if that happens then I'll think about it. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject: Power in international relations'

• my name WikiProject: Power in International Relations I like this one, it's what we've been referring to it as and it just about sums up the articles that need to fall under it. And with a name like that, we can always expand the project to include any articles necessary. Trip: The Light Fantastic 14:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support I also think WikiProject: Power in International Relations is the best title for this project. It clearly outlines the scope of the project. Regard, Signature^brendel 17:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support COMMENTS 1 (or 2 = same) Heilme 22:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support per above...I agree that perhaps to immediately include the scope of all International relations articles would be too much for our small group of six editors. And you sometimes lose the plot when the Project is too broad. Nobleeagle (Talk)

• Support Xdamr^talk 15:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be unanimous, I'll create the project when I have time next week. From then on, we can have general and important discussions over there. As well as be able to coordinate the article-improvement-effort. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I've got a lot to do at the moment, bear with me...I can't give any time guarantees. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking I might go on partial wikibreak for a while. Check my contribs, I only check my watchlist but haven't made any decent contributions for quite some time. So anyone that wants to work on it while I don't have time can visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Power in international relations. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Bias

I've added the neutrality tag as the whole article is so biased towards God-blessed america it sounds almost like a parody. The best example being Superpower#The_United_States, which may as well be entitled "why america is better than anyone else". Please remove the tag only when neutrality is restored - Jak (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right there is some POV there but please also consider that this is a controversial issue. Regards, Signature^brendel 03:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but you should come here and discuss this with the editors. This is a highly sensitive issue and we have a strict rule on tagging the page that involves concencus. So I'm taking your tag off. Now, please quote some sentences and examples and maybe we can all work on changing the POV areas you describe. Trip: The Light Fantastic 01:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

India's growth

For some interesting facts and opinion on changes and stagnancy in India, see Pankaj Mishra's 6 July 2006 op-ed in The New York Times, "The Myth of the New India".

It's a disputed subject, one can find many many articles in favour of India, while one can also find many many articles against India. It's really hard to hit NPOV in this series of articles. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and even if we did, the nature of world politics means it will already have changed by the time we do. We just try to offer both sides of the issues and let the reader decide themselves. Put some of the points into the India article, definitely. Trip: The Light Fantastic 01:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

India preferred by the U.S.

"India is generally preferred as an emerging superpower by the United States,"

What does this mean? That the U.S. would rather see India become a superpower than China? --67.68.23.85 15:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what its intended to say, yes. It is a somewhat controversial view based on the thory that because India has similar domcratic values and no as authoritarian a government as China it is seens a more favorable by the US. Personally, it sounds plausable to me, but I doubt that China will cause the US economic harm and beleive that most economist in the US feel quite similar. China would not profit from America, its main customer in which it has so heavily invested, suffering a recession and excessive job loses. Regards, Signature^brendel 02:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

India is super Power in Poverty and Hungry also. vkvora 18:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleared up US section

After many complaints I had a bash at removing the bias from the US section. Here's what I did, anyone have any problems, don't revert, let me know and we can discuss it.

• Removed Education section - Is not a critera.

• Economy - Mentioned the US economy is smaller than the EU economy and is expected to be smaller than China's by 2050.

• Infrastructure - Removed "The infrastructure of the United States is well planned and highly developed." Well planned? Says who? Didn't cope too well with Katrina, did it?

• Debt - Removed "* It has the largest capital markets in the world[1], and is the largest debtor nation, owing more than USD $9 trillion in 2005, a debt growing at the rate of $1.2 billion per working day.[2]" Erm... why is that good?

• Dollar as a world currency - Mentioned the Euro.

And cleaned up some other sentences. Hope that helps. Some of what I've said will have to be sourced, but it won't be hard to source it. Trip: The Light Fantastic 00:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That sure helps, I wasn't daring to remove all that POV- thanks for doing so. Of course my favorite is, "The infrastructure of the United States is well planned and highly developed." I live in the US and trust me the US infrastructure isn't very good- I think anybody who has driven the Autobahn and the Interstate in CA will know what I am talking about ;-) and of course my favorite pet-peeve, above ground power lines in residental neighborhoods. Don't get me wrong the US is a nice country and if you haven't you should defenitely visit, just remember that American infrastructure is sub-standard for an industrialized country. Signature^brendel 18:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the Autobahns... about the only good thing Hitler did for Europe. Trip: The Light Fantastic 01:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

He did that?

He started the Reichsbahn and built the Avus yes. But the idea of the Autobahn as actually born earlier, as an expressway between Potsdam and Berlin. The idea was in the 1920s to built a road w/o intersections, the predecessor to the world's first freeway. The modern Autobahn system you see today was built mostly in the 1970s. Signature^brendel 06:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Aye, he did. Taken from the Autobahn wikipedia article:

"Just days after the 1933 Nazi takeover, Adolf Hitler enthusiastically embraced an ambitious autobahn construction project and appointed Fritz Todt the Inspector General of German Road Construction. Soon, over 100,000 laborers worked at construction sites all over Germany. As well as providing employment and improved infrastructure, necessary for economic recovery efforts, the project was also a great success for propaganda purposes. In retrospect, one can say another aim of the autobahn project, beyond creating national unity and strengthening centralized rule, was to provide mobility for the movement of military forces (see Nazi architecture)." Trip: The Light Fantastic 21:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not say he didn't. He built the Reichsbahn and Avus. The idea for an intersection free highway originated earlier- the current idea of a freeway w/ 4 lanes began w/ the Reichsbahn yes. Most of the Autobahn was however built after the war- especially during the 1970s. I do not dispute the text above. Signature^brendel 21:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I never said you said he didn't. Trip: The Light Fantastic 23:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay I didn't mean to say that you said that I said that you said that I said he didn't ;-) Signature^brendel 03:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Social justice

The paragraph on Soviet 'culture' reads: "Vast influence over neighbors, varied and rich history and culture. Wielded influence through socialist and communist governments and organizations around the world." As the one for the USA mentions its strenght —or main propaganda item, if you mind—, would you agree to add "Social justice attractive to many on the world" when talking about the USSR? We can't just tell the pros of one of the superpowers, and as the table is pretty neutral for this Wikipedia's standards it would be nice to treat the Soviet Union the same way that the United States. It's true that the actual meaning of social justice depends on the reader's ideology, but the same does freedom of speech. Regards, 200.85.113.254 05:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Mention it by all means, but 'social justice' does seem a loaded term. Perhaps simply note that the 'USSR's communist idealism was attractive to many'?

Xdamr^talk 10:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's good. Perhaps "USSR's communist ideals was attractive to many, especially below the poverty line" should be considered also? Trip: The Light Fantastic 00:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Believe me that freedom of speech, in this context, is also a loaded term. Anyway, I agree with your proposal. That of the below the poverty line is not always true. Regards, 200.85.113.254 06:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Objective Analysis Of Superpower Status

In order to get beyond the politically charged notions of what being a superpower really means, it would be nice to have some logical, almost scientifically and technologically methodological criteria against which to determine whether or not a certain country possesses 'technological fluency' in a key set of technologies so as to allow for valid attribution of the superpower term.

In particular, would it be possible to analytically determine a countries technological capabilities in a technology by technology assessment that reflects wikipedia's categorisation of what technology actually is? I suppose that something of a few analytical examples that show how it is that technologies from different areas have been used to implement a political 'will' would enable one to better understand how it is that social, technological, philosophical and cultural effects enable a superpower to implement its 'will' in a particular type of way. Perhaps general themes that recur in a variety of examples would also appear. To give greater meaning to this, consider the example of the nuclear arms race between the US and the USSR, this resulted in strategic improvements in both nuclear weapons systems and the ability to deliver them. An analogous example would be the creation of tank and anti-tank weaponry. In both cases there is a strong competitive element spurring technical progress. In both cases the production of one sides 'superior' military weaponry prompted the other side to surpass that weaponry (UNTIL, some technological/politcal/other saturation point is reached).

This would enable a more thorough assessment of the capabilities of a superpower on a more objective basis (if this can be done at all!).

Apologies for any 'fuzziness' in argument. The important point about how society is organised (cultural/social effects) would indicate to me something about whether or not a society is capable of generating/maintaining a particular form of technology (so, a society where all the intellectuals are dead would probably not satisfy this requirement, neither would one where most of the population is too poor/stupid to comprehend how to implement technology due to the intelligentsia unwillingnees/social ineptitude in regards to making that technology usable).

--NukeMason 00:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You're looking at technology wrong though, the reason why it isn't a factor is because it's tied into Economic factors. Any nation with a strong economy can afford better education and research and advance through technological factors, if managed properly. And besides, technology isn't even required in being a superpower, in my view, anyways. Any nation that plays its political, economic and military cards right can accrue a sphere of influence and international power and become a superpower. It's just that little bit easier to advance in certain factors with the help of technology, ie; technology can streamline the economy and improve the military. Technology's more of an upgrade to the factors, rather than a factor outright, if you know what I mean. I hope that makes sense to you! Trip: The Light Fantastic 00:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Diversity

"Built by immigrants, and aided by continuing immigration, is the most racially and ethnically diverse country in the world.

While the US is no doubt diverse, I don't think one can fairly say it is the most diverse. If such a judgement can even be made, I would think there are several countries (perhaps smaller) that could claim to be more diverse. Even if restricted to potential superpowers, China, India, and Europe are incredibly diverse places. Xyzzyva 03:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

They are, but the US is perhaps still the most diverse as no single ethnicity constitutes more than 23% of the population - not all white Americans are one ethnicity (As you said, Europeans are a diverse people and so are Euro-Americans). German-Americans are the largest ethnic group with only 23% followed by the Irish w/ something like 14%. There are very few countries where the largest ethnic group is only one-fith of the population and whose culutre is such as hodgepoge of different cultures from around the world. Signature^brendel 04:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't see how this affects whether the US is a superpower or not; this simply conjecture - we badly need to put this article on a sound academic footing.

Xdamr^talk 10:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That's true. I guess diversity matters because it lends cultural strength and thus also helps strenghten the economy, at least indirectly. There is however no reference for any such theory here and you're right diversity is not directly related to the subject matter of this article. Signature^brendel 16:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

July 27 2006 major resequencing of the article

I've taken it upon myself to reorganize the flow of the article into a logical sequence (it had grown like topsy without much. I didn't add or subtract much, except for some redundancies that became clearer when the article was put into a logical outline. The basic flow is:

• brief summary of what a superpower is (this needs to be clean and quick)
• etymology
• superpowers in WWII: UK, USSR, USA
• decline of UK
• collapse of the USSR
• hyperpower, multipolar stuff
• expanded definition section (which looks at multiple axis)
• expanded definition section as it applies to the USA
• future superpowers: EU, China, India, Russia
• usual stuff at the bottom

This makes more sense to me as an outline. If others have a better outline form, suggest it here. --69.228.81.49 05:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay please read the last archive on this talk page. You cannot put the EU in the same section as China or India. China or India lack economic development but are nations. The EU is obviously already developed and has the world's largest economy and consumer market. Also, the EU is not a country. There is a justified opinion stating that the EU is already a superpower. That's why we called it debate. The entire concept of "superpowers" is an ideology; thus there is no guideline written in stone. There is an ideology according to which only the US is a superpower, another according to which the EU is a superpower and another one according to which superpower have ceased to exsists due to international economic interdependecies. All three ideologies are referenced and need to mentioned here. We had a very, very lenghty discussion in regards to this issue here a while age, you can read some of it in the last archive. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's fine to restructure, if you feel it's necessary, but I have many issues with what you propose, such as:

- You cannot "cleanly" and "quickly" say what a superpower is. That's the whole problem. It's an immensly complicated term.

- It's shaky as to whether the UK was a superpower in WWII. And if the UK was a superpower, wasn't Nazi Germany, too? No. So it can't go in. UK stays out of it.

- The decline of the UK has nothing to do with superpowers.

- Collapse of the USSR is covered in the "collapse of the USSR" article, has no place here. Can be covered in a sentence here, as it is.

- Hyperpower/multipolar should only be on the "see also" section at the bottom, methinks. They're not commonly accepted terms and hyperpower in pparticular flies in the face of the EU and "second superpower" articles.

- Expanded definitons...? I don't get this bit and it jumps around so much it kinda defeats what you're trying to do..

- EU goes on its own as there's a raging debate as to whether it's already a superpower.

- Russia. No. We kicked that out before.

Trip: The Light Fantastic 00:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Re. the UK, I think that it's been accepted for a while now that the UK (+Empire and Commonwealth - important point) was thought of as a superpower in the post war period. The chap who came up with the concept included the UK with the USSR and US so I'm not sure that it's up for debate. When this status was lost is perhaps debatable: after Suez, after Indian independence, etc, etc?

Perhaps Nazi Germany could have been a superpower, but the problem is that it fell before the term was coined so any application will be retroactive - which as we all know 'is an anachronism' (or at least so these articles used to claim ).

Xdamr^talk 01:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've always been taught that the UK represented the first modern superpower. --Woogums 22:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Applying the term superpower to the British Empire is anachronistic. The term superpower was coined during the Cold War between the USSR and the US, by which time Britain had already fallen Trip: The Light Fantastic 23:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Not quite - at least not according to this article as it presently stands:

The term in its current political meaning is relatively new and was coined in the book The Superpowers, written by William Thornton Rickert Fox, an American foreign policy professor at the Columbia University in 1943 ... According to him, there were (at that moment) three states that were superpowers: the United States, the Soviet Union, and the British Empire.

Provided the origins of the term have been correctly identified, it seems to be conclusively proved that the UK was a superpower at one point.

Xdamr^talk 01:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

UK was not superpower, it was colonial power just as France.--Nixer 06:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I think that the passage quoted above is conclusive. If Mr William Thornton Rickert Fox did indeed coin the term in his book (as this article claims) and he included the British Empire as a superpower, then the UK was a superpower (at least at that point). Incidentally I think that you will find that during and in the aftermath of WW2 the UK was considered an equal of the US and USSR. At this point the whole empire idea wasn't dead - controlling 25% of the world's surface counted for something. I can refer you to a number of contemporary speeches which indicate acceptance of the UK's place at the top table.

But regardless of speeches, if Fox did indeed come up with the term then the UK's position becomes a non-issus.

Xdamr^talk 13:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is not conclusive. If Fox proposed the idea of the UK being a superpower and it never caught on, then it simply becomes an anomaly. Trip: The Light Fantastic 15:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well in that case it falls to us to examine the political consensus of the time. As I say, I am aware of a number of post-war speeches which acknowledged the British Empire as being on a par with the US and USSR. At the end of the day no-one is suggesting that the UK held this position for long, it was probably lost after Suez, certainly the UK wasn't one of the Cold war superpowers. However as one of the chief victors in the aftermath of WW2, still with an immense empire, I think that the point can be reasonably conceeded.

Xdamr^talk 15:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

B-2 bomber

Before you start whining, we needed a picture up there to draw readers into the article and further ilustrate out point. So I nicked it off our friends over at the French version of the superpower page; synchronise the two language versions a bit. So blame them not me. I kinda like it. Trip: The Light Fantastic 01:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Even though I do not beleive in Hard Power, but rather Soft, economic, power in being the primary charcetristic of a superpower, I do like the picture. If you think about all NATO countires are guranteed to win in traditional war fare, no country would take on any of the NATO countries as messing w/ one NATO countiry means messing with all of them (one for all, all for one-NATO), So... from a military perspective... As I said, I do, however like the picture. Signature^brendel 02:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The picture's good, well done. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)