what defines a superpower -- FawnDoo's Cavalcade of Whimsy

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 08:01:44 03/20/03 Thu
Author: Goktimus Prime
Subject: what defines a superpower
In reply to: WarCore 's message, "One Superpower" on 04:15:07 03/20/03 Thu

"even the other countries in the world agree that there is only one superpower...and they hate it."

That kind of comment really embodies the kind of American arrogance that gives the rest of the world the shits.

Dictionary.com defines the word superpower as "A powerful and influential nation...that dominates its allies or client states in an international power bloc."

Whether a country is a superpower or not is not measured by popular opinion, but by various factors -- primarily economic and military might.

Until not that long ago, the Soviet Union was another world superpower. Of course, that superpower no longer exists.

At the moment, the leading world superpowers are:
(1) The United States of America. World's richest nation with the world's most technologically advanced military, with nuclear capability.
(2) Japan. The world's second richest nation with the world's largest stock exchange. Self Defence Forces only capable of short-range assault and is often involved in UN peace-keeping missions. No nuclear capability.
(3) The People's Republic of China. World's fastest growing economy with the world's largest military, with nuclear capability. Some economists argue that China's economy, if it continues to grow at the rate that it has been doing in the last decade, may easily overtake the US economy and dominate the world market.

In any case, this hasn't got much to do with the war in Iraq. The point that was made is that it is because the United States is such a rich country that they are allowed to defy the authority of the United Nations like this and lead an Internationally unauthorised strike on another country. It's a known fact that many countries in the UN will not outrightly defy the will of the US because they are afraid of economic backlashes. This extremely unfair, as it gives the United States the power to pressure other countries into submitting into its will. It's hardly a true form of democracy.

Speaking of which, it could also be argued that the United States is also turning its back on International democracy by ignoring the wishes of the majority of UN nations and charging into war without their approval. It seems that democracy is only worthwhile when it is pro-American democracy. Whether you support this war or not, I still believe that it was a mistake to make a pre-emptive strike without UN sanction.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

So you also disagreed -- WarCore, 13:15:41 03/20/03 Thu
Uh...like WarCore said... -- Perceptor II, 19:48:14 03/20/03 Thu