Who will be superpowers in 2050?

[Rozan]

Ethiopia

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Russia, US, EU, China.
In the likely resource-troubled times we will face by 2050, I'm putting a massive emphasis on military strength here, in case it wasn't obvious.

[Britanno]

China, Brazil, India, the EU,Russia and Indonesia all have the potential to become superpowers. Wether they will become one and in that time scale is another matter, for the foreseeable future we shall remain in a unipolar system.

The EU? You still think that the EU will be around in 2050? The EU is failing.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

China, Brazil, India, the EU,Russia and Indonesia all have the potential to become superpowers. Wether they will become one and in that time scale is another matter, for the foreseeable future we shall remain in a unipolar system.

The EU? You still think that the EU will be around in 2050? The EU is failing.

The Euro is failing. Too many countries depend on the EU as an organisational body for it to simply fall apart.

Free trade and free movement between member states are two colossal benefits to membership.

[Britanno]

The EU? You still think that the EU will be around in 2050? The EU is failing.

The Euro is failing. Too many countries depend on the EU as an organisational body for it to simply fall apart.

Free trade and free movement between member states are two colossal benefits to membership.

Free trade is still possible out of the EU you know.

The euro will break up undoubtedly, but I think that countries will leave the EU. Britain will be the first, but then other countries will follow. The French will eventually become sick of it, as will the Italians and maybe even the Belgains and Germans. War will break out in Europe, I'm not entirely sure how, but I'm confident it will. With war, will come the fall of the European Union.

[Altito Asmoro]

Because we have no other strong Asian other than China. India is way too corrupt.

Eh, Japan's got robots and anime. That's enough to be a superpower for me.

[Caninope]

Russia, US, EU, China.
In the likely resource-troubled times we will face by 2050, I'm putting a massive emphasis on military strength here, in case it wasn't obvious.

Why do people keep identifying four superpowers?

There can't be four superpowers.

[Altito Asmoro]

Russia, US, EU, China.
In the likely resource-troubled times we will face by 2050, I'm putting a massive emphasis on military strength here, in case it wasn't obvious.

Why do people keep identifying four superpowers?

There can't be four superpowers.

Only USA. Russia and China can, but not now.

But in Cold War, there are USSR and USA.

[Caninope]

Why do people keep identifying four superpowers?

There can't be four superpowers.

Only USA. Russia and China can, but not now.

I highly doubt Russia will regain status as a superpower, for a multitude of reasons.

[Altito Asmoro]

Only USA. Russia and China can, but not now.

I highly doubt Russia will regain status as a superpower, for a multitude of reasons.

Not now.

China can't, so that also mean Russia can't. Or not...

[The Steel Magnolia]

Russia, US, EU, China.
In the likely resource-troubled times we will face by 2050, I'm putting a massive emphasis on military strength here, in case it wasn't obvious.

Four states can't be superpowers at once. It defeats the term.

E: f;b

[Leposaviq]

Kosovo

[Caninope]

I highly doubt Russia will regain status as a superpower, for a multitude of reasons.

Not now.

China can't, so that also mean Russia can't. Or not...

What? I find it highly unlikely that Russia will gain superpower status between now and 2050. China is more likely, and I believe India to be the most likely of the BRICs to gain superpower status by 2050, but that's beginning to push it some.

[Altito Asmoro]

Not now.

China can't, so that also mean Russia can't. Or not...

What? I find it highly unlikely that Russia will gain superpower status between now and 2050. China is more likely, and I believe India to be the most likely of the BRICs to gain superpower status by 2050, but that's beginning to push it some.

China can't. Demographics.

[The Godly Nations]

We will rule the world again, just you watch!


Land of Hope and Glory, Mother of the Free,
How shall we extoll Thee,
Who are born of Thee,
How shall we extoll Thee,
Who are born of Thee.

Higher still and higher,
Shall Thy Bounds be set,
God who's made Thee mighty,
Makes Thee mightier yet.
God who's made Thee mighty,
Makes Thee mightier yet!

[Rehnania]

Sealand will propably rule the world!

[Caninope]

What? I find it highly unlikely that Russia will gain superpower status between now and 2050. China is more likely, and I believe India to be the most likely of the BRICs to gain superpower status by 2050, but that's beginning to push it some.

China can't. Demographics.

Although China will be facing a demographic problem, that doesn't preclude them from being a superpower, if all cards are played right. China does, after all, still have massive manpower, even with demographic problems. I just find it unlikely for them to be a superpower, and not outright impossible.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

The Euro is failing. Too many countries depend on the EU as an organisational body for it to simply fall apart.

Free trade and free movement between member states are two colossal benefits to membership.

Free trade is still possible out of the EU you know.

The euro will break up undoubtedly, but I think that countries will leave the EU. Britain will be the first, but then other countries will follow. The French will eventually become sick of it, as will the Italians and maybe even the Belgains and Germans. War will break out in Europe, I'm not entirely sure how, but I'm confident it will. With war, will come the fall of the European Union.

Trade between EU member states is freer. There's no import tax, for a start.
Exporting countries (ie, Germany) rely quite heavily on this.

Only USA. Russia and China can, but not now.

I highly doubt Russia will regain status as a superpower, for a multitude of reasons.

It's a military powerhouse, enjoying a resurgence and total rebuild of its forces, and total overhaul of its nuclear forces. In terms of the arsenal it currently has, it's the largest in the world in terms of sheer warheads. If not now, it certainly spent plenty of years enjoying that position.
It's an expanding economic power as part of BRIC(S) and a dominant resource power, including energy resources.

What would prevent it rejoining as a superpower? I still regard it as a present superpower, with China as an emergent economic and industrial power.

Russia, US, EU, China.
In the likely resource-troubled times we will face by 2050, I'm putting a massive emphasis on military strength here, in case it wasn't obvious.

Four states can't be superpowers at once. It defeats the term.

E: f;b

No it doesn't.

A superpower is a state with a dominant position in the international system which has the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests. A superpower is traditionally considered to be a step higher than a great power.
Alice Lyman Miller (Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School), defines a superpower as "a country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes, in more than one region of the globe at a time, and so may plausibly attain the status of global hegemony."[2]

In 1945, it was regarded that the British Empire, United States and Soviet Union co-existed as a triumvate of superpowers.

[Caninope]

I'll address your statements point by point.

It's a military powerhouse, enjoying a resurgence and total rebuild of its forces, and total overhaul of its nuclear forces.

Russia is indeed a military powerhouse and great power but not a superpower. Despite everything, the Russian military is facing the demographic crisis of Russia, and lacks the technologies and abilities necessary to overcome this barrier to become a military superpower (most notably, Russia lacks a navy powerful enough to truly challenge the US Navy and guarantee its own naval supremacy). Russia is a great power, not a superpower.

In terms of the arsenal it currently has, it's the largest in the world in terms of sheer warheads. If not now, it certainly spent plenty of years enjoying that position.

Number does become a bit irrelevant past a certain point.

It's an expanding economic power as part of BRIC(S)

Russia's economy is expanding and developing, but do remember that it's not an economic power just yet. Russia lacks many requirements that would make it a true economic power and aid its development, including the lack of a well developed financial system in comparison to the Western nations.

and a dominant resource power, including energy resources.

Russia has increasingly become a rentier state, and as the century progress, that will become a disadvantage as near technologies are developed that threaten traditional dependence on oil and natural gas resources. When that happens, Russia will find itself in a budget crisis.

What would prevent it rejoining as a superpower? I still regard it as a present superpower, with China as an emergent economic and industrial power.

I'd say the fact that Russia is not a dominant state, only a powerful state, prevents it from being or becoming a superpower.

No it doesn't.

Wonderful. You looked up the definition of superpower, something that I have surely never done. There cannot be four superpowers, because you cannot have four dominant states within the international system. The point of being dominant is that there exists only one or two others that can threaten you; there cannot be four contenders to the title of hegemon without defeating the purpose of hegemon (and a primary characteristic of being a superpower is being a very real contender for the role of global hegemon). There cannot be four superpowers because it's a term used to describe a state in relation to others; if every day of my life is amazing, is any day of my life really amazing? It's the same here. If there are a bunch of superpowers, they are no longer superpowers but, rather, great powers.

In 1945, it was regarded that the British Empire, United States and Soviet Union co-existed as a triumvate of superpowers

That was also a system that quickly broke down; the movement to a multipolar system consisting of three superpowers (which is, honestly, the highest imaginable number of superpowers) would place great stresses upon the powers as they came into conflict, most likely forcing at least one superpower back down to level of great power.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

"has the ability to influence events and its own interests and project power on a worldwide scale to protect those interests."
The part of the definition of superpower that I regarded as critical.

If we take power projection by the conventional sense - aircraft carriers - then only the US can be a superpower.
This, however, breaks down hilariously when considering Russia or China, both forces that have spent decades trying to counter the possibility of American air power and superiority in their local area. I have a massive powerpoint in pdf form explaining A) why the F-22 is not the invisible harbinger of aerial death the internet perceives it to be and B) why the US would not be able to launch a successful conventional assault on China, if you'd like.
The Russian Navy, while the world loves to look upon it as a laughing stock, was developed with the sole intention of destroying the USN in the Atlantic, North Sea and Baltic Sea. Mostly its carrier groups. The fact that even Soviet aircraft carriers had a massive emphasis on an anti-ship armament and lulzy supersized air defence cruisers like the Kirov with its three hundred air defence missiles should show how critical the Russians regarded preventing US carriers from supporting NATO forces in Europe.

The Russian Navy, and Chinese Navy for that matter, are both undergoing possibly the most drastic of the reforms in their nations - in Russia, probably only the Strategic Rocket Force's reform is more significant.
Within ten to fifteen years, both aim to have large bluewater navies headed up by conventionally-styled supercarriers for true bluewater capability. The Russians did value the traditional supercarrier, but for both budgetary and doctrinal concerns, they never bothered to finish building the Ulyanovsk. Neither have ever really needed anything more than greenwater capability, for both of them have only really had to fight or intimidate their immediate neighbours. China doesn't need a hundred thousand ton, hundred-aircraft supercarrier to threaten Taiwain, but a handful of Kuznetsov and Kiev modifications will do nicely at that task. The sheer size of their nation's land borders have often largely precluded the need for bluewater navies and the carrier capability typically required to fulfil this category. The US, as a pretty isolated island state (in the grand scheme of things) has had that need. Aside from Britain, and even then only in the interwar period, it's the only country in the world that's had a definite "need" (certainly want and use) for such naval capability.

Yes, warhead total can be a bit meaningless. Until it's quantified. Russia's strategic arsenal always has and probably always will rival that of the US. Meanwhile, they've had a much greater emphasis on tactical-yield weapons. The Russians expected to fight a war in Europe following nuclear exchange. Such weapons were envisaged to decapitate force command structures, staging areas, large armoured and artillery formations, suppress air and infantry operations and further stall the USN in naval superiority, if not destroy them outright.

[Caninope]

*snip*

That's wonderful and all, but all you've done is prove how the Russians and the Chinese are developing ways to deny force, not to project force.

That makes them great powers, not superpowers.

Neither have ever really needed anything more than greenwater capability, for both of them have only really had to fight or intimidate their immediate neighbours.

It'd also add that states who have only ever aspired to fight or intimidate immediate neighbors are not superpowers, but rather regional, middle, or great powers.

[Nidaria]

China, Russia, and Germany

Why do so many people say that the United States will still be a superpower? Unless our entire political (including the economic and social spheres) system is reformed, we will continue along a decline.

[Caninope]

China, Russia, and Germany

Why do so many people say that the United States will still be a superpower? Unless our entire political (including the economic and social spheres) system is reformed, we will continue along a decline.

Because the US isn't really that much of a decline? Because the US is the only state with the necessary infrastructure (at the moment) to be a superpower?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

*snip*

That's wonderful and all, but all you've done is prove how the Russians and the Chinese are developing ways to deny force, not to project force.

That makes them great powers, not superpowers.

Neither have ever really needed anything more than greenwater capability, for both of them have only really had to fight or intimidate their immediate neighbours.

It'd also add that states who have only ever aspired to fight or intimidate immediate neighbors are not superpowers, but rather regional, middle, or great powers.

It's a product of the Cold War.
Russia has in some way or other funded and supplied everyone that the US has had to use its massive force projection capabilities to fight.

As such, Russia has never need to fight those people. They came close to actually putting forces in the middle east in the 60s or 70s, but the Americans were quick to be very vocal of their opposition to that, threatening nuclear exchange.

Its only two actual major opponents in ever since the end of the Great Patriotic War have been China and the US.
Against China, it needs no force projection.
Against the US, Russia has had no interest in the US mainland, contrary to Call of Duty and basically every RU/US movie ever. Russia wants Europe. All the US poses to this is a challenge and a threat.
If Russia gave a shit about invading the US, ie requiring force projection, the Baring Strait would be covered with vast swathes of military units, bases, production and missile sites.
As it is, they're pretty much located in that third of Russia west of the Urals, centring about Moscow. Which is, technically, geographically within Europe.

[Caninope]

That's wonderful and all, but all you've done is prove how the Russians and the Chinese are developing ways to deny force, not to project force.

That makes them great powers, not superpowers.


It'd also add that states who have only ever aspired to fight or intimidate immediate neighbors are not superpowers, but rather regional, middle, or great powers.

It's a product of the Cold War.
Russia has in some way or other funded and supplied everyone that the US has had to use its massive force projection capabilities to fight.

As such, Russia has never need to fight those people. They came close to actually putting forces in the middle east in the 60s or 70s, but the Americans were quick to be very vocal of their opposition to that, threatening nuclear exchange.

Its only two actual major opponents in ever since the end of the Great Patriotic War have been China and the US.
Against China, it needs no force projection.
Against the US, Russia has had no interest in the US mainland, contrary to Call of Duty and basically every RU/US movie ever. Russia wants Europe. All the US poses to this is a challenge and a threat.
If Russia gave a shit about invading the US, ie requiring force projection, the Baring Strait would be covered with vast swathes of military units, bases, production and missile sites.
As it is, they're pretty much located in that third of Russia west of the Urals, centring about Moscow. Which is, technically, geographically within Europe.

That's wonderful and all, but all you're doing is confirming the fact that neither Russia nor China are superpowers nor want to be.