Dave wrote:I think China will need to come to terms with its past before it can have a bright future. Not so much economically, but they seem to lack what it takes for global social and political leadership
they can be thugs just like all the rest no? I think they foresee a weakened America in coming decades and just aren't willing to assert themselves quite yet.
economically they are an unstoppable powerhouse at this point.
perhaps.. I'd like to debate it a bit, but I have to do some reading before tomorrow. I think any country that becomes the next superpower will need to be much more egalitarian than China has been, and I also think that's the same reason the United States is declining.
I'm looking forward to the day America is not a superpower and we can just stay home and get out of everyone else's country and just concentrate on making our own country good again.
Eraser wrote:I think it's obvious it's going to be the netherlands.
I realise this sound like joke #3254 in this thread, but this time it's serious business.
you lot had your chance in the 16th century with the Dutch East Indies Company(Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie) must say, for a small nation you did well :icon14:
but like the South,you will never rise again
Ehm, no. France, Britain, Germany, Russia - all kinda equal. No one knew how WWII would turn out before WWII started. France looked pretty safe behind that Maginot line for example. So no superpower here.
And America? America's only advantage at the beginning of WWII was it's relative invulnerability due to being on the other side of the world. Not really a superpower yet either.
EDIT: I'm not talking about WW1 or WW2 Splish... think Macedonia under Alexander, or Mongolia when Genghis walked the earth or even the Napoleonic era. All nations that dominated the world as they knew it.
Last edited by Ryoki on Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
busetibi wrote:
GB was considered a superpower at that stage of history
That was earlier. And America pretty much showed them that they weren't.
is that a fact?
try this :
by 1921, the British Empire held sway over a population of about 470–570 million people — roughly a quarter of the world's population — and covered about 15 million square miles (nearly 36 million square kilometres), roughly 33% of the world's total land area.
i myself would class that as a "Superpower"
Ryoki wrote:Please explain how the mongolian empire was not superior to other empires in that stage of history.
The point isn't that there were never predominant forces before.
The point is that everyone and their momma are trying to interpret future events based on the most recent experiences.
Even though France and GB may have been superpowers during napoleon's time, they weren't considered as such. There wasn't a cold war, there was no arms race, BUT there was a big war. How is that comparable to the events during 1945 and 1990? Not at all.
And just like that isn't comparable, the future relationship between China and the US won't be comparable. There won't be another 'cold war'. There won't be another arms race. There won't be a nuclear war.
by 1921, the British Empire held sway over a population of about 470–570 million people — roughly a quarter of the world's population — and covered about 15 million square miles (nearly 36 million square kilometres), roughly 33% of the world's total land area.
And needed America's help to defeat Germany before and after. Go sing "Rule Britannia", I don't care and neither did Europe back then.
Edit: Being a superpower to a bunch of native tribes isn't that hard, you know. It's when you go against your equals when it counts.
The point isn't that there were never predominant forces before.