WHO is the next superpower?

[North Suran]

The reason the sun sets on the British Empire is that they got rid of Hong Kong.

Blasphemy!

We still have Gibraltar and that (unrecognised) slice of the Antarctic!

...those are on the map.

He claimed that the empire ended because we lost Hong Kong.

To that I say, who needs Hong Kong when you have a rock...

*snip*

...and a barren, featureless wasteland!

*snip*

I think what he was saying, in a purely logical interpretation, is that the *sun* would *rise* on the British Empire if they still owned Hong Kong because - and this is a purely, taking it at face value kind of thing - Hong Kong is in the Far East. And, as I'm sure you know, the sun rises in the East and sets in the West.

Lies and French propaganda!

From now on, the Sun rises in the South, moves up to the North, salutes to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and then takes a 90 degrees turn and sets in the West.

And yay barren wastelands.

Kneel before them!

[Minotzia]

America is #1 in terms of superpowers, China is a high and rising industrial power. Leader in clean coal technology. described by Forbes; Hu is number two (it even rhymes.) Is China next in line? If you believe this is true how long until China overtakes the US?

First off, I would say that China currently is a superpower, as are the US and possibly Russia (as a result of its military parity with us), but regarding the status of global hegemony I see no reason the US will not be number one.

China is incapable of replacing the US and rising to the number one spot within the next 50 years at least. The fact is that in China, a nation that's going to have more old people in 20 years than we have people, has no infrastructure to deal with the elderly. Now the US has very poor care for its elders as well, but the major difference here is that Chinese culture puts the elderly much higher on a social ranking, and responsibility for care of the elder falls to the younger generation. When China doesn't come up with a solution to its old people problem, and they won't because it's far too late to fix now, they're going to be facing revolution. This alone won't drive the Chinese people to rebellion, but you can see over the last 40 years how the Chinese government has been facing resistance all along. We saw some relatively progressive movements from the Chinese over the last decade, but they have reversed a lot of that policy and certainly ruined their sentiment. Cracking down once more on an overburdened (especially in 2030 when the 300-400 million Chinese elderly can't work anymore) populace is simply not going to work for China, and whether or not they will have an actual revolution or massive shift towards introspective police actions still bring one result: China will not be able to put in place an effective international infrastructure to be the next hegemonic power.

At the point where China falls out of runner-up, we're left with a motley crew, Russia, who will most likely ally with the US against China and/or other powers, India, who refuses to accept foreign investment and faces an internal crisis that threatens their stability, the EU, who lack any form of centralization or desire to take up the hegemony, and Brazil, and well Brazil is quite simply a ludicrous option.

As far as the next 50 years go, the US will see continued hegemonic status and total dominance of world affairs that we've enjoyed over the last century. After 2060 it's very hard to predict anything solid, but it's possible that that would be the turning point in shifts of power away from us.

[South Norwega]

I know its a long shot, but britan is on the rise.

-snip-

The reason the sun sets on the British Empire is that they got rid of Hong Kong.

Blasphemy!

We still have Gibraltar and that (unrecognised) slice of the Antarctic!

...those are on the map.

He claimed that the empire ended because we lost Hong Kong.

To that I say, who needs Hong Kong when you have a rock...

*snip*

...and a barren, featureless wasteland!

*snip*

I think what he was saying, in a purely logical interpretation, is that the *sun* would *rise* on the British Empire if they still owned Hong Kong because - and this is a purely, taking it at face value kind of thing - Hong Kong is in the Far East. And, as I'm sure you know, the sun rises in the East and sets in the West.

Oh no. I was saying that if the British still controlled Hong Kong there would be no time when the sun was below the horizon on every British Territory.

[Tarsas]

Swaziland....duh....

[Cameroi]

stars fade, even as they rise.
there will come a time without a niche for unbalanced unilateral powers.

leadership of wisdom
leadership of technological development
leadership of tangible infrastructure
leadership of humanitarian infrastructure

each of these areas will have their own 'superpowers' in the sense of dominance of their exemplaryness.

who ever each of these are, it is unlikely that any will resemble today's america.
nor, for that matter, any of today's nations very closely.

[Jaunty tunes]

India, on the other hand, is a very poor country, and cannot afford to pay for all it's citizens. That is why China is controlling the population.

With those strange plastic toys which leave a greasy residue on your hands if you touch them. They're a bit suss, but they're cheap and the kids love 'em.
The USA will ALWAYS attract the smartest people in the world so we will always be the best.

Who cares if India is poor now. Wasn’t China once poor? The US didn’t start off as rich because the rich people stayed in Europe until most of the Indians were dead and slavery was installed in the US.

The major part of creating a new super power is a developing country. The US did this when the people fled Europe and desired to build a new world for themselves. China is doing this by manipulating its economy and censoring dissent to keep its dollar low and sell lots of shit ... um .. necessary items to the rest of the world.

India is in a simular position to what China was when its population was starving. Big changes need to be made but the Indian army already has nukes, a very strong regional say and is in a fantastic position for future trade both geographically and in terms of population structure. The country is emerging with new structures being built every single day and a progressively more educated and open environment being installed for its children.

I see the US falling to the state England is now and possibly even further if religous dogma isnt given the boot in the next 500 or so years. I just cant see the US as anywhere near the super power if the majority of its people believe what is in the bible over science and vote on ethical instead of economical issues.

However we may miss the days when US was the super power as I don’t see China doing much in its own country let alone other countries to install democracy and freedom. And if India is the next super power who knows what that will be like when Indian crowds appear incredibly racist during sporting events today.

[Yumikayk]

Japan

[Lackadaisical2]

Burundi.

[Glorious Homeland]

America is #1 in terms of superpowers, China is a high and rising industrial power. Leader in clean coal technology. described by Forbes; Hu is number two (it even rhymes.) Is China next in line? If you believe this is true how long until China overtakes the US?

First off, I would say that China currently is a superpower, as are the US and possibly Russia (as a result of its military parity with us), but regarding the status of global hegemony I see no reason the US will not be number one.

China is incapable of replacing the US and rising to the number one spot within the next 50 years at least. The fact is that in China, a nation that's going to have more old people in 20 years than we have people, has no infrastructure to deal with the elderly. Now the US has very poor care for its elders as well, but the major difference here is that Chinese culture puts the elderly much higher on a social ranking, and responsibility for care of the elder falls to the younger generation. When China doesn't come up with a solution to its old people problem, and they won't because it's far too late to fix now, they're going to be facing revolution. This alone won't drive the Chinese people to rebellion, but you can see over the last 40 years how the Chinese government has been facing resistance all along. We saw some relatively progressive movements from the Chinese over the last decade, but they have reversed a lot of that policy and certainly ruined their sentiment. Cracking down once more on an overburdened (especially in 2030 when the 300-400 million Chinese elderly can't work anymore) populace is simply not going to work for China, and whether or not they will have an actual revolution or massive shift towards introspective police actions still bring one result: China will not be able to put in place an effective international infrastructure to be the next hegemonic power.

At the point where China falls out of runner-up, we're left with a motley crew, Russia, who will most likely ally with the US against China and/or other powers, India, who refuses to accept foreign investment and faces an internal crisis that threatens their stability, the EU, who lack any form of centralization or desire to take up the hegemony, and Brazil, and well Brazil is quite simply a ludicrous option.

As far as the next 50 years go, the US will see continued hegemonic status and total dominance of world affairs that we've enjoyed over the last century. After 2060 it's very hard to predict anything solid, but it's possible that that would be the turning point in shifts of power away from us.

Interesting thoughts, but I disagree. China isn't a supper power as it's economy is heavily reliant on western money... to the tune of a net income of around $500bln a year.
India certainly takes in western money, and their trade with the outside world is increasing; Mital steel is trying to take over steel industries where it can, while India is becoming the cheap service sector of the world; namely call centres these days. Nevermind their newly developing native heavy industries that will allow them to produce quality military hardware, from tanks to planes to ships. They probably would take more investment if we didn't put it all in China.
Brazil is also an emerging power, with a growing population of just under 200m, strong diplomatic ties with just about everyone and a fast growing economy. Russia on the other hand, it isn't really a superpower at all. It's economy is as strong as India's, while only about 40% bigger than the tiny Netherlands. It's military is weak, regardless of it's size and it has a heavy reliance on exporting oil and gas to the western world, as well as weapons to the developing world. It also is a net importer of investment money.

[Andaluciae]

stars fade, even as they rise.
there will come a time without a niche for unbalanced unilateral powers.

leadership of wisdom
leadership of technological development
leadership of tangible infrastructure
leadership of humanitarian infrastructure

each of these areas will have their own 'superpowers' in the sense of dominance of their exemplaryness.

who ever each of these are, it is unlikely that any will resemble today's america.
nor, for that matter, any of today's nations very closely.

Indeed, in one key area you have already proven yourself to be a superpower: In transcending the need for the shift key and spellcheck!

[Rolamec]

Haha, sure. And I'm the King of Pop

[Birnadia]

I think China and India are definitly on the rise.

[Geilinor]

Considering how things are going now, China. They're expieriencing quite rapid economic growth right now.

[Israslovakahzerbajan]

Considering how things are going now, China. They're expieriencing quite rapid economic growth right now.

Or India, Russia, and Japan will get scared silly thus enabling them to get off their butts.

[Jaunty tunes]

Please all thoes countries will do is whine and trade about Chinas rise. The leaders will continue to wine and dine with each other as the people of their countries continue to strive for a better life.

[The Parkus Empire]

China isn't a very developed country, so I don't see it being a superpower.

[Chrobalta]

China isn't a very developed country, so I don't see it being a superpower.

Really? It is already developing itself as the premier industrial nation of the world, having claimed the title of top exporter. It is rapidly developing a military that will be able to challenge US interests in East Asia. Within 2 decades it will overtake the US in GDP, making it the largest economy in the world. China will be easily be able to project power on a global scale, influencing events in other nations. The fact of the matter is that China will be able to greatly influence the direction the world goes in, in the future.

[United Dependencies]

China. [/thread]

[Indo-Iran]

China, obviously. It's weathered this recession, so it'll probably be able to weather its oncoming demographic crisis. The EU will also be a soft-power superpower, I think. China's nefarious as hell, so I sure hope it doesn't become so powerful with the current government type.

India doesn't seem to planning to be a superpower just yet. It's rapidly growing economically, but half of its population still shits in ditches, it doesn't have nearly as large a sphere of influence as China, nor is it planting military and economic seeds worldwide as much as China (which is already putting stakes in Africa and naval power). Maybe if Pakistan fell apart and consolidated with India, along with Bangladesh. It'd be a much less scary superpower than China, certainly. Once its five largest cities get skylines to rival those of China's, we'll talk.

That's just short-term, though. Plus China had an almost twenty-year jump start in economic liberalization, so let's be fair. Oil shocks/peak oil in the next ten years can REALLY change this too. Assuming the world largely switches to alternative energy and doesn't completely collapse, that is. With the Middle East/Central Asia no longer being Great Gamed by the west for oil and with certain political turmoil from the precarious economics sure to happen after the obsolescence of oil, I can really see India throw its weight around as a stable beacon of the near east. That's all theoretical, though.

[Minotzia]

China, obviously. It's weathered this recession, so it'll probably be able to weather its oncoming demographic crisis. The EU will also be a soft-power superpower, I think. China's nefarious as hell, so I sure hope it doesn't become so powerful with the current government type.

India doesn't seem to planning to be a superpower just yet. It's rapidly growing economically, but half of its population still shits in ditches, it doesn't have nearly as large a sphere of influence as China, nor is it planting military and economic seeds worldwide as much as China (which is already putting stakes in Africa and naval power). Maybe if Pakistan fell apart and consolidated with India, along with Bangladesh. It'd be a much less scary superpower than China, certainly. Once its five largest cities get skylines to rival those of China's, we'll talk.

That's just short-term, though. Plus China had an almost twenty-year jump start in economic liberalization, so let's be fair. Oil shocks/peak oil in the next ten years can REALLY change this too. Assuming the world largely switches to alternative energy and doesn't completely collapse, that is. With the Middle East/Central Asia no longer being Great Gamed by the west for oil and with certain political turmoil from the precarious economics sure to happen after the obsolescence of oil, I can really see India throw its weight around as a stable beacon of the near east. That's all theoretical, though.

The US sees that China represents the largest threat to our hegemony, and believe it or not we don't just sit idly by and watch them catch up. Fact is that America is either an ally or has close relations with all ASEAN countries and has way more influence in Africa than China. Europe strongly prefers America to China, as does Russia (and therefore Central Asia), leaving the Middle East. In the Middle East the US controls military dominance through various military bases and Israel's support, whereas China has not one ally in the region. Most Chinese foreign policy is belligerently and openly expansionist, and as such everyone stays as far away from China as they can.

The myth of Chinese expansion into Africa can be easily dispelled by simply looking at the facts: out of total Chinese FDI only .02% is directed at the African continent, of which around 95% goes to one country, Zimbabwe, and the rest to Sudan. Strategic military placement of Chinese forces in Africa is close to zero, and the ability for China to mobilize in Africa is equally low. Only the most corrupt, weak leaders even look for Chinese aid or investment, as China is notoriously heavy-handed in diplomacy, whereas the US and aid organizations are simply willing to give billions of dollars out for free.

Even in East Asia, you can see that absolutely no country except DPRK is going to side with China over the US, and between Russia, Europe, Africa, Southeast Asia, South Asia (to a limited extent, though India is far more anti-China than anti-US), East Asia, and pretty much every state that hasn't gone rouge, there's no way China could expand even if they could handle their domestic crises. If oil production sharply declined in the next 20 years, the hardest hit would not be the US, contrary to popular belief, but China. They already use massive quantities of coal and natural gas, and as their short term economic expansion continues we'll see a major rise in the Chinese automotive industry, which in turn will require China to control vast quantities of oil. As stated earlier, China lacks a strong foothold in the Middle East or Southeast Asia, which are its best bets for oil importation, so they will be hard pressed for any kind of expansion at that point.

[Jaunty tunes]

So China may need a bit longer to arrive in parts of the world. The fact is that china is the largest country and the fastest growing with an unknown military budget.

The US has extended itself into numerous combat failures. The chinese just target countries that serve its own intrest. It is a selfish super power that would not care less if a country was wiped off the map as long as the refuguees do not enter china as that would cost china money. Everything they do is to maximise profit. World responsibility is put on the back foot.

If by super power you mean military deployment in different regions America is the top. But financially China has a much bigger say for most countries than the US has.

[Minotzia]

So China may need a bit longer to arrive in parts of the world. The fact is that china is the largest country and the fastest growing with an unknown military budget.

The US has extended itself into numerous combat failures. The chinese just target countries that serve its own intrest. It is a selfish super power that would not care less if a country was wiped off the map as long as the refuguees do not enter china as that would cost china money. Everything they do is to maximise profit. World responsibility is put on the back foot.

If by super power you mean military deployment in different regions America is the top. But financially China has a much bigger say for most countries than the US has.

China's military budget cannot be even close to US military expenditures, but in any case they need at least 20-30 years to develop a navy, airforce, and support structure for their massive army. Even still, they can't use it anywhere because every nation on the planet, barring around 5 or 6 rouge states or corrupt dictatorships, is actively opposed to Chinese growth.

In fact the US has extremely larger say in most ASEAN, East Asian, and South Asian economies than does China, and even if we lost economic control of these regions, political support of the US will continue to dominate all spheres of the international climate. There's no significant FDI outside of Asia in China's budget, and even the development there is mostly concentrated on its own assets that fall into marginally different territorial lines. Financially China is pitiful, and its economic "growth" is entirely based on capital accumulation and land based expansion, which can never compete with the dynamic economies of the US and Europe.

During the most recent global recession China managed to alienate potential European supporters by abusing market control by inflating the renmibi to, as you put it, maximize profit. And all the while the Chinese shouted at the top of their lungs how they would be rising to the occasion and moving on to superpower status. The less than stellar human rights record of China, as well as its belligerent expansionism, causes every sensible nation to back away from Chinese influence.

To combat US unipolarity you need a balancing of world powers, but the US has the military, economic, and political infrastructure in place to keep China in check and maintain dominance, whereas China has got no international support and very little economic infrastructure for managing a global hegemony. Candidates for US replacement certainly include China, but not for the next fifty years, at the very least.

[Panzerjaeger]

Uzbekistan or Rwanda depending on who can finally fix their inflation and solve Nuclear Proliferation.

[Karsol]

China.

[Minskia]

the united states will be the last super power. havnt you guys heard from mr gore the world is gunna end in 50 years?