Next Superpower?

[Estilpón]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
That isn't a terribly good definition because then the UK and France and a few other countries would also be 'superpowers'.

Uk and France can "project those forces to countries beyond their immediate neighbors"

I think they can´t do it.

[axi]

I see a tripolar system: US, EU, China emerging.

Which is good, because tripolar systems are the most stable empirically.

Are you sure this is good? It looks too 1984 to me...

Oceania (US+UK+Canada+Australia+dependent states of Latin America+dependent states of South Africa)

Eurasia (EU+Russia+Middle East)

Eastasia (China+Japan+Korea+SE Asia+big chunk of central asia)

It looks more probable nowdays than it did in 1949, when 1984 was written...

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Estilpón
Uk and France can "project those forces to countries beyond their immediate neighbors"

I think they can´t do it.

Of course they can. What about the Falklands War or the war with Iraq? Don't you think they count? For that matter, there were British troops operating in Afghanistan.

[Transcend]

Originally posted by axi


Are you sure this is good? It looks too 1984 to me...

Oceania (US+UK+Canada+Australia+dependent states of Latin America+dependent states of South Africa)

Eurasia (EU+Russia+Middle East)

Eastasia (China+Japan+Korea+SE Asia+big chunk of central asia)

It looks more probable nowdays than it did in 1949, when 1984 was written...

Nah, the formation of super nations won't happen by geography, but more by similarities in political, economical, and religious systems.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by Estilpón
Uk and France can "project those forces to countries beyond their immediate neighbors"
I think they can´t do it.

We don't have lot of weapon and troops, but still France have a lot of soldier in Africa by exemple. Not for humanist reason through ...

Our 'Legion Etrangère' is an example of one of our projection forces.

Still nothing comparable with US in quantity.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by ZoboZeWarrior


???

Compliment to US ???







1) EU want to be free from US influence, not to be its vassal. Of course, some country in EU are cleary under US influence...
It's logical that you use the right of the stronger on us. But it's our right to accept or to seek another solution. After the WWII, choosing between the influence of the URSS and USA, the choice was simple. But now things are different.

2) It will take time for countries which were opposed by 2 deadky world wars during the last century to unify their army and have total confidence in each other. Have still a different past and different allies.
Our military power is actully oriented for home protection. Just some 'elite' troopers are sent around the world, for "helping" diplomatic relationship.

Rome ne s'est pas faite en un jour!

The problem for europeans is not 'Damned, have we a chance to become a superpower in the futur ?'. The problems is, if we want not to disappear into the shadow of the other superpower we have to succeed our unification. I hope for our childrens we are on the good road. The theory of evolution apply itself to civilizations too.

I absolutely agree.

We must however ameliorate the the level of information the EU citizens get from the EU institutions.

EU seems distant to many people and that's got to change. Also transparency needs improving as well as democratic accountability of some institutions.

And we must pursue the unification process in a much more aggressive manner.

The economic foundations for the political unification have been layed down! There's no use in delaying or being overcautious.

[9 ECAC Titles]

> And one case doesn't do very much... try looking at all the wars/conflicts from 1400 to present, like my professor did. Took him about 6 years just to compile the list of wars/conflicts

Read R. Williams Jr.'s (sociology prof emeritus at Cornell and Yale) scholarship on the sociology of war and peace. He studies all of history and essentially arrives at this conclusion: multi-polar balance of power systems are the most stable. You either get The Concert of Europe, or low intensity regional/proxy conflicts. The fewer powers, the more likely that you have interbellum stretches, but the worse the wars themselves become. WWI is the result of a loss of believable balance enforcement at the center of the system -- a reduction in the n-polarity of the system.

If you want another tripolar system, try UK, France, and the Habsburgs. Constant global warfare throughout the late 17th through mid 18th centuries.

Bipolar systems are the least stable. Long periods of bristling stalemate, punctuated by horrendous ideological clashes that mobilize entire populations and feature the greatest degree of demonization of the opposition. (Bipolar struggles always resolve to The Great Satan vs. The Axis of Evil).

For greater stability, up the n in the n-pole system.

Well, I guess there is a balance of sorts in a mono-polar system. Pax Romana, Pax Britannia, Pax Americana. Just do what we say and nobody gets hurt.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Right !

The unification process is slowned or misguided by local political point of view.

And as people have fcew information about the european system they have not confidence in it. And some politics use these for there own interest ...

Time to use the Guillotine again...

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by 9 ECAC Titles
He studies all of history and essentially arrives at this conclusion: multi-polar balance of power systems are the most stable, because even situations of more or less constant warfare are restricted to regional conflicts. The fewer powers, the more likely that you have interbellum stretches, but the worse the wars themselves become.

It is a natural sheme : Balance is due to multiple forces directed in all direction with different strenght.

This true from the atom laws to the living laws and the social laws.

[9 ECAC Titles]

> This true from the atom laws to the living laws and the social laws.

Careful, you are moving into Ernst Haeckel territory.

I prefer to think that even if social systems may appear to mimic natural science patterns, these similarities are accidental and without meaning. At least until we reach Avogadro's Number in base population, let alone number of states.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Other: Microsoft.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by 9 ECAC Titles
> This true from the atom laws to the living laws and the social laws.

Careful, you are moving into Ernst Haeckel territory.

I prefer to think that even if social systems may appear to mimic natural science patterns, these similarities are accidental and without meaning. At least until we reach Avogadro's Number in base population, let alone number of states.

I've no knoweldge in sociology , but still through (limited of course) observation, I've more and more the 'feeling' that all things on this world obey to the same mathematical shemes.

[Estilpón]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Of course they can. What about the Falklands War or the war with Iraq? Don't you think they count? For that matter, there were British troops operating in Afghanistan.

and...will they operate alone?


Falklands? ahhhh, las islas Malvinas

It's a different question, if some country attacks... the Channel Islands, UK counterattacks, in the same way that if another attacks Sicily for example, Italy counterattacks...


(excuse my poor english )

[Bereta_Eder]

Faklants?

Oh Maggie what have we done?

who said that?

[Estilpón]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Faklants?

Oh Maggie what have we done?

who said that?

well, I don´t know what means Faklants, but Maggie... ¿Tatc***?