I think there are several other superpowers already out there, but people are either too slow to accept it---or too ignorant. Or...both.
Look at the European Union. The euro is stronger than the US dollar. 163 of the world's 500 largest corporations are headquartered in EU countries. The EU member states and the EU collectively are the largest contributor of foreign aid in the world. The EU has a low inflation rate, high population, and with the US growing more and more unpopular outside its borders, well...
Quote from Wikipedia:
"Europe has long been a powerful cultural force in the world. Overall the twenty-seven member states also have significant cultural influences on the entire globe, with European fashion, art and food being commonplace in nearly every corner of the planet. Europe has developed cultural power in architecture, cinema, dance, education, literature, music, and theatre. European languages are used not only in Europe, but around the world."
Now, military-wise, the EU can't compare to other great military powers, like Russia, China or the US. However, they do have a unified peacekeeping force, and France and the UK possess 2 of the 3 blue-water capable navies in the world. Does the EU necessarily need a huge military to be a superpower? Certainly not. There is certainly room for improvement but for the most part, the EU doesn't want to compete with the US militarily---it doesn't NEED to. Does this mean the US would in against the EU in a war? Depends? Would the EU win in a war against the US? Depends.
The EU currently features the world's largest GDP and consumer market and has considerable control over the global allocation of resources. Also, the economies of 27 member states is generating an estimated nominal GDP of €11.9 trillion in 2008 according to the International Monetary Fund.
And now China. Professor Shujie Yao of Nottingham University has said "China will overtake the United States to become the world's largest economy by 2038 if current growth rates continue," and that China's GDP will overtake that of Japan by 2017 or 2018, and Germany's by 2008. China possesses the world's largest Army, the world's third largest Air Force, and overall is a significant military power. It's not without it's weaknesses however, such as limited supplies of energy and raw materials, questions over its innovation capability, inequality and corruption, and risks to social stability and the environment. China is also heavily dependent on Russia for the supply of weapons to its Armed Forces.
Then there's the Russian Federation. Ah, mother Russia. The Russian Federation is a suggested potential candidate for resuming superpower status in the twenty-first century due to its fast-growing economy, energy superpower status and the size of its military. It has the world's most advanced anti-ballistic missile system.
Wikipedia:
"In May 2007, the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation held special hearings devoted to Russia. They came to the conclusion that Russia is returning to the international arena as an influential political and economic power. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried, said: 'Russia has restored its position of a large political and economic force recently', also adding that 'Russia’s strengthening has been accompanied by a cool down in its relations with the U.S.' Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said that the West "has few instruments of influence on Russia left.'"
But it also has its problems, such as a rapidly shrinking sphere of influence lost to the EU and China and a rapidly shrinking and aging population. A shrinking workforce leads generally to a stagnating or shrinking economy. In addition, Russia is currently only the tenth largest economy in the world by nominal GDP, and by this parameter is approximately twelve times smaller than the US economy. Russia is heavily reliant on resource extraction, especially fossil fuels, for its economy.
Let me adress the United States in current politics. It is the world's only current superpower, wields considerable political and military power, and is one of the world's top economies. The US will probably continue to be a major world player for many years to come thanks to its huge economic booms in the last century or so.
Now here comes my rant >_> <_<
---
However, it also has a myriad of problems. Look at the economy today. Oil prices are on the rise. House prices are going this and that. Not to mention, the US is the laughing stock of the world, and a lot more simply hate the country. Why? Interfering with other countries affairs, the invasion of Iraq, etc. etc. Here in America, people hate the French more than we did because France refuses to support America in Iraq. Thus, anti-French solgans came up. But does ANY country need/want to help the US in Iraq? No. Afghanistan is another story, which is why France has helped the US in that region instead (France has 1,670 troops in Afghanistan). Some people in America might hate them "sand niggers", "camel jockeys", "Stone Age stupid fucks". Oh, look, the Middle East is a wasteland, there's no signs of life there at all.
My ass. Plenty of the cities in the Middle East can compare to Western cities like London, New York, and Toronto. Dubai. Jerusalem. Tehran. Riyadh. Not to mention Egypt is a key US ally thanks to its strategic location. Quote from a UN weapons inspector:
"to all the Americans who want to bomb Iran, you better pick a city, cause that city's gonna go. Go on, pick any! Miami, Los Angeles, Washington, New York, Chicago, PICK ONE. Cause one's going, from a militant Islamic weapon."
Bombing Iran will also make the U.S. even more hated, unite the Arab and Islamic world against the US, and make more enemies of Washington D.C. Some might say "fuck them sand niggers, blow the Middle East up. We don't need their oil." YES WE DO. The Caspian Sea. Saudi Arabia. Iran. Iraq. All are huge treasure troves of oil. If we nuked them, say bye bye to oil, and say hello to a new Great Depression. Except THIS Great Depression will last around 100 years.
Think how many lives you lose if we "nuked" the Middle East and the Isalmic world. How many historic sites go. All the Persian history, gone. Jerusalem, a holy city for Christians, Muslims, and others. GONE. The pyramids of Egypt. Guess what buddy? Gone. And what will nuking the Middle East do? You think that's where all the terrorists are? Oh no buddy, they are in EVERY country. Yes, even in the West. They have cells in North America and Europe, whether you like it or not. Blowing up the Middle East will portray Americans further as "war-mongering cowboys", infuriate millions more, and America will be branded as a terrorist country. Some might argue, "well let's blow up the entire world then if they don't like us!" Well, do that, say good-bye to the world, including America. You see where I'm going? For the people who say "nuke the Middle East", you're asking for America to be attacked by Earth. Every country will bring all their hammers down in a united swing, and trust me, whether we nuke them back or not, we will feel the blow.
Which is why I think a North American Union will be put into effect. "WAI, WAIT, THAT WILL MEAN AMERICA WILL LOSE HER INDEPENDENCE AS A COUNTRY!" Bloody hell it wouldn't. Britain is a influential member of the European Union, has the UK lost its sovereignty? NO. I see absolutely NO threat to US sovereignty from a North American Union. Wouldn't it stabilize our economy? Maybe. Would it erase borders? NO. Just because free travel would be permitted between Mexico, Canada and the US doesn't mean borders mean nothing. If an invasion force landed in the eastern coast of the US, would it be landing in "North American" territory or "American" territory? AMERICAN TERRITORY. Borders will still mean something, if not everything.
And last on my rant list, a world government. I don't mean a utilitarian One World Government. That's just a piece of shit conspiracy theory. What makes you think that kind of government would succeed? A unified religion? A unified language? A unified government? NO. Earth is so varied in culture and religion, and we have been embracing religion ever since we left the caves, that a total unification would be impossible. So what if this "Illuminati" group has its hands in the world's economies and consists of members of the world's most richest men and women? What makes you think controlling the world's wealth means? When it comes to total world domination, pieces of paper and coins don't mean SHIT.
However, Earth is rapidly deteriorating. It's environments are rapidly being polluted and cut down. We have to expand into the Solar System. SOON. No single country can afford even partial colonization of a planet. It requires a PLANETARY effort. That's why a world govern...no, a world federation should be established. NOT total unification, but think of it as a world-wide European Union-style alliance. National governments would still retain some sense of identity.
Read that again. NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS WOULD RETAIN SOME SENSE OF IDENTITY. That means, there is a planetary, centralized, unified government with a government, military and economy coming from every single country. However, a government cant control every square inch of Earth, so that is where smaller, semi-independent governments come in, to manage their own regional affairs. Each continent has a central government (North American government, European government, African government, etc.), HOWEVER, countries like the United States, Australia, the UK, Germany, etc. would be sort of like "states": each managing their own affairs, military, etc. etc., but they have the continental government and the world-wide government to answer to. Again, THIS DOES NOT MEAN COUNTRIES WOULD LOSE ALL THEIR SOVEREIGNTY. Their cultures, language, flags, etc. would remain unchanged.
Well, that's my rant. Flame me, hate me, discuss, I don't care. I just wanted to get this out. I'm BORED anyway
