Who's the next world superpower?

[black lincon]

#1 I was talking about battles they lost battles because of lack of machine guns if you didn't realize that sorry.

They didn't lack machine guns though, so that's not why they would lose a battle!

#2 no the Russians did not have more machine guns per battalion they had at least 10 less so I have no idea where your getting you numbers.

The Germans had six per battalion, the Russians had eight per battalion.

Source: Jordan, Jonathan W. (November 1, 2002). "Weaponry: Hiram Maxim's machine gun probably claimed more lives than any other weapon ever made" (in English). Military History 19 (4): 16. ISSN 08897328.

Please, just give it up.

You don't know me so I'll forgive you for asking me to give up and I won't.

I looked up your source and it doesn't seem to exist I found the article that cites it but not the article itself.

It was cited on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trench_warfare#Machine_guns

And the article probably hasn't been posted on the net, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And if you get to claim that getting a good grade in world history makes you an expert so do I. I got an A as well but my teacher wrote a book on WWI and it said quite clearly in it Germans had about 35 machine guns per battalion Russians had 15. The book was unpublished but it was big, 100+ pages on printer paper, so please don't ask me to cite it.

1. Please find me a real source for this 35:15 ratio then. I shouldn't have to do the research for you.

2. but it was big? Now why didn't you say that in the first place? Because we all know that the determining factor in a book's credibility is size!

But seriously, if your sources are imaginary, then you're not going to get anywhere here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maschinengewehr_08
that one has a little bit in it saying the Germans had 6 machine per company(that's about 36-45 per battalion) and 72 per regiment. that's in stark contrast to the 6 per battalion you said.
honestly I would like to stop this now i think were both a little wrong during that research session I did find evidence that said Russians had 1.1-3.3 mgs per battalion and that Germans had .65-1.95 mgs per battalion(http://militaryhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_imperial_russian_army_of_1914). That's to the contrary of what both of us said

P.S. company- 75-200 men
battalion- 500-1500 men
regiment- any number of battalions
that's how I got the numbers in case you were wondering

 

[stompy]

Possibly, but I also mention transportation. I don't see Brazilian upper-atmosphere technology (yet).

Ah, but what's a space shuttle without fuel, eh? Those tenacious Brazilians adapt working models of current space-faring vehicles, and we're all set. Even better, we get a research coalition of the BR- sorry, I'll stop this now.

Edit: black lincon, Shivari, how 'bout we stop this fussin' an' fightin', m'kay? Ya'll are de-railin' this here fine thread, so please stop, m'kay?

Edit Edit: Why do I have the feeling that I'm gonna get ignored? That's right, 'cos no one pays attention to poor ol' Stompy...

 

[MurderousToaster]

the US will stop being the superpower of the world.

I doubt it will happen.

maybe the power will actually be in the hands of multiple nations.

Kinda is. The UN, anyone?

The US isn't the superpower of the world. It just thinks it is, like an arrogant bratty child it claims to be the sole reason the world hasn't exploded into lawlessness. If invading Third-World countries in a bid to steal their oil is what the world needs to keep it intact, then so be it, but otherwise, I have no reason to believe that America was ever and will ever be the world's superpower.

 

[Brett Alex]

the US will stop being the superpower of the world.

I doubt it will happen.

maybe the power will actually be in the hands of multiple nations.

Kinda is. The UN, anyone?

The US isn't the superpower of the world. It just thinks it is, like an arrogant bratty child it claims to be the sole reason the world hasn't exploded into lawlessness. If invading Third-World countries in a bid to steal their oil is what the world needs to keep it intact, then so be it, but otherwise, I have no reason to believe that America was ever and will ever be the world's superpower.

Oh the comedic japery. Nice wit and all but America bashing does not make you right.
America is a superpower.
Just because you don't like doesn't change that fact.
Just because they aren't doing the best job doesn't change that fact either.
Hell, I don't think doing a good job is part of being a superpower, but thats a moot point. America is one, and currently it is the worlds sole superpower.

EDIT: That sounds kinda harsh, don't mean to knock you, just pointing out a flaw in your statement.

What we are discussing here is not 'Who is a superpower?' as we already have that answer, but rather, 'Who will be the next superpower?'

 

[MurderousToaster]

the US will stop being the superpower of the world.

I doubt it will happen.

maybe the power will actually be in the hands of multiple nations.

Kinda is. The UN, anyone?

The US isn't the superpower of the world. It just thinks it is, like an arrogant bratty child it claims to be the sole reason the world hasn't exploded into lawlessness. If invading Third-World countries in a bid to steal their oil is what the world needs to keep it intact, then so be it, but otherwise, I have no reason to believe that America was ever and will ever be the world's superpower.

Oh the comedic japery. Nice wit and all but America bashing does not make you right.
America is a superpower.
Just because you don't like doesn't change that fact.
Just because they aren't doing the best job doesn't change that fact either.
Hell, I don't think doing a good job is part of being a superpower, but thats a moot point. America is one, and currently it is the worlds sole superpower.

EDIT: That sounds kinda harsh, don't mean to knock you, just pointing out a flaw in your statement.

What we are discussing here is not 'Who is a superpower?' as we already have that answer, but rather, 'Who will be the next superpower?'

Well, there is a little place spanning a couple continents called the EUROPEAN UNION. So it is NOT the world's sole superpower.

 

[The Wooster]

Japan's constitution prevents them from even having a "real" military. They are limited to a self-defense force, and many think that the Japanese government broke the law when they contributed to the Coalition in Iraq.

You're going to look so wrong when giant robots start firing lasers at the whitehouse.

 

[Lord Krunk]

Japan's constitution prevents them from even having a "real" military. They are limited to a self-defense force, and many think that the Japanese government broke the law when they contributed to the Coalition in Iraq.

You're going to look so wrong when giant robots start firing lasers at the whitehouse.

Japan doesn't need a defence force. They'll just take the world through hypno-manga and interbreeding.

But China's going to be the next world superpower, stupidness aside.

 

[stompy]

Japan's constitution prevents them from even having a "real" military. They are limited to a self-defense force, and many think that the Japanese government broke the law when they contributed to the Coalition in Iraq.

From my reading, most, if not all, the Japanese troops were used for humanitarian or support roles, not combat, like water purification and engineers. Though, you did have some Japanese combat troops, though they were there to protect the aforementioned NCOs... hell, the Japanese actually needed Australian and British troops for protection, so how exactly did they break the law?

 

[Dommyboy]

Naturally America will decide that anyone else who isn't a strong ally and is a super power is a threat. Also what if Godzilla destroys Japan and China? It happened in a movie so it must be legit.

 

[falcontwin]

China is the next superpower. How do you fight against 1.5 billion people?


Americaland needs to give up thinking they are of any importance in the modern world.

 

[RetiarySword]

If the EU pull together, then they will be the next super power.

 

[stompy]

China is the next superpower. How do you fight against 1.5 billion people?

Nuclear strikes. Lots o' nukes.

On a more serious note, in my opinion, you don't need the strongest military force in order to become the next superpower in the coming world. Hold the global economy, and you should be able to strangle and dissenters. Think about it: if you hold the world's resources, or other essentials for a society to not only sustain itself, but also resist you, and then deny them these necessities, then their survival, let alone their ability (or will) fight back, will be severely crippled.

Of course, no one country can hold that much power, so a single country ruling is ruled out. I'm sounding like a broken record (which no one seems to be hearing, but broken nevertheless), but a coalition will be needed to take the mantle of superpower from the cold, dying hands of the US (when the time comes).

 

[BmC]

Chuck Norris...
Wait, Chuck Norris already is a superpower

 

[Sheanus]

I think that World War Three will be fought when China invades Russia ala "The Bear and the Dragon" by Tom Clancy.

My vote is on China.

pfft, are you kidding? if anything it's probably gonna be like "the day after tomorrow" by Robert Heinlein, if china can indeed get it's s**t in one sock.

 

[jezz8me]

Swizerland will coem out of neutrality and reveal the secret WMDs more powerful than 10,000 A-bombs they have been secretly manufacturing in the mountains.

I'd like to say Australia but we will never be more than an awsome country to live on and a little bit of firepower for the US and UK.

If Israel could overcome the rivalry in the area they would be a powerful army. If they have survived this long they must be good.

 

[Yami Blade]

A mighty alaince of Canada, Switzerland, and Belguim. Three countries that nice must be hiding something...

 

[Brett Alex]

The US isn't the superpower of the world. It just thinks it is, like an arrogant bratty child it claims to be the sole reason the world hasn't exploded into lawlessness. If invading Third-World countries in a bid to steal their oil is what the world needs to keep it intact, then so be it, but otherwise, I have no reason to believe that America was ever and will ever be the world's superpower.

Oh the comedic japery. Nice wit and all but America bashing does not make you right.
America is a superpower.
Just because you don't like doesn't change that fact.
Just because they aren't doing the best job doesn't change that fact either.
Hell, I don't think doing a good job is part of being a superpower, but thats a moot point. America is one, and currently it is the worlds sole superpower.
EDIT: That sounds kinda harsh, don't mean to knock you, just pointing out a flaw in your statement.
What we are discussing here is not 'Who is a superpower?' as we already have that answer, but rather, 'Who will be the next superpower?'

Well, there is a little place spanning a couple continents called the EUROPEAN UNION. So it is NOT the world's sole superpower.

C'mon chocolate. Back in your box.

Not only is the European Union on a single continent, its also not one single country, and as far as I know there is no multinational military force, meaning it has no standing army or air force or navy. And you cannot, in todays world, be a superpower without military might.

Maybe, one day, maybe the EU will become a superpower, but at the moment it is more of an economic grouping.
For example, if Denmark can have their own army, and if they wanted to go to war with China. If they did, its very unlikely that the rest of the EU would jump in. Reasons like this mean EU cannot be a superpower because it is not unified enough.

Look at the US on the other hand, if an army unit based in California invaded China, it would be at the directive of the Federal Government, and they would be supported by the military of the rest of the superpower, because they are part of a bigger unified single entity.

Britain hasn't even adopted the Euro, thats not superpower like behavior.

Basically, the EU is currently too fractal to be superpower. The worlds sole superpower, at the moment, is, in fact, the US. Like it or not, wether they are doing a good job or not, they are.

 

[BigKingBob]

Hmm this is an interesting question... (with some rather bizarre responses)

The next round of world politics probably won't contain any superpowers. The US is currently declining and it may soon lose it's superpower status. With the Chinese economy based on selling products to the US (and legitimised industrial servitude) it too will start to decline and possibly collapse under its own weight, as more wealth becomes concentrated in the richest 1% and the bottom 90% become more and more dissillusioned.

India has potential for superpowerdom, it has a strong economy, large population and burgeoning middle class. However it is very close to china, to the extent that any attempt by either country to extend their power will likely bring it into direct conflict with the other. Hilarity will then ensue.

Russia seems more like an old prize fighter that relishes the fact that it can still intill fear in the young 'uns. It is declining, and will continue to for the forseeable future. Militarily still scary, and controlled by that nutter Putin, it will likely remain a power on teh world stage for years to come but will never reach the heights of power it had in the height of the cold war.

Brazil seems interesting, it has alot of potential and is something of a regional leader, if it were to modernise and drag the rest of latin america with it then it could become truly powerful (and funky, don't forget funky.) But it is not the most stable or efficient of places (something it shares with the whole continent) so it will be along time in coming.

Israel? It currently is the biggest, scariest dog among a pack of unstable scary dogs. Yes it has a powerful military for its region but it has no ability to project that power and has too many enemies at the various gates to expand itself further. Also it is very dependant on the US and EU to protect from the bigger scarier threats in the region (*cough* IRAN *cough*.) The entire of the middle east infact (much like saharan and equatorial africa) is so unstable that any single nation that tries to grow economically and politically is likely to find itself mired in a bog of petty disputes and national vendettas that will stunt its growth.

The EU is very economically unified and powerful, while at the same time being very politically and nationally divided. This is so unprecedented as to be virtually quantum! This will have be decided fairly soon, the induction of Turkey may well be the point at which we find out if this particular cat is alive or dead. If it purrs then we will see greater integration of those countries that have been particularly cautious and reluctant about it (i.e the UK) and a further cementing of the euro as the possible successor to the dollar as the international currency of choice. If its dead however... Well, we've all studied the cold war haven't we...

The interesting thing is that only the EU has anything like the military power and economic infrastructure to provide a reasonable rival to the US. It is becoming more and more energy independent of other countries and seems to be the new habitat of choice for the worlds scientific researchers.

However the likely outcome is that in 20 years time we no longer have a single or pair of superpowers but 4 or 5 proto-superpowers all fighting for a piece of the juicy international pie.

Now my hand hurts from the typing...

 

[Duskwaith]

Isnt Russia already a super power?Since it has a prettybig armie and a ton of nucleear warheads to boot?

Chine is clearly the next one, there armie is massive and decently equipped while overall being pretty self sufficent.

 

[Zeke109]

Backhairistan.