Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News If not US and USSR who else?

  1. Jun 6, 2005 #1
    Most people say that US is "bad" "evil", etc (no doubt about it) Others say that if USSR came to power it would be as bad as US and so who according to you all should be the super power ? Please state your nationality and your place of residence and which ethnicity when you post.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 6, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Maybe because we don't need a superpower, but a conglomorate of nations working together with an agenda to care for the World citizens, i'd hardly call the UN a working model of this, especially when its founding members seems to obey it when they please, take for example the USA's Iraq War.

    Spanish, Dominican Republic, Caucasian.
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2005
  4. Jun 6, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    UN with member states committed to working for the UN rather than their vested interests. Pale Scandinavian.
  5. Jun 6, 2005 #4
    Britain used to have an Empire that would have been classed as a Super Power. Now however we have a Commonwealth of 53 countries holding about 1.8 billion people (30 percent of the worlds population). Which means that each country tries to act for the benefit for all members.

    Large 'Superpowers', like the USSR and the US are doomed to failure. Not because of any particular idealology but because of the logistics of controlling and managing so many areas at once. It becomes unwieldly and slow, where decisions take years and years to effectivly operate by which time new problems have arisen etc, etc.

    All Empires throughout history have met the same fate.

    Welsh, Caucasian
  6. Jun 6, 2005 #5


    User Avatar

    Fully agree - History is littered with the ashes of past empires. In most instances the collapse started from within. The USA will eventually go the same way.
    China could also be considered a 'superpower' It's not so visible on the world stage as it follows an 'isolationist' style policy but in terms of destructive capability it's certainly up there with the best.
  7. Jun 6, 2005 #6
    I think tomorrow superpowers will be no more countrys and will be corporations. or at least Groups of corporations..

    The trilateral comision, and the bliderbergs.

    Burn, Argentina, Caucasian
  8. Jun 6, 2005 #7
    US and USSR both fail(ed) to take care of their citizens, as did Britain and Rome, as will China and as would the Trilateral Commission and Bilderbergs. If a supreme leader is in control he will abuse the populace, if the masses are in control, they will destroy the world with their ignorance. In short, humans are incapable and incompetent of taking care of themselves.

    Caucasian, Canadian/French, Canada
  9. Jun 6, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm not ! So I should be in charge ! :approve:

    UeberMensch, Belgian, France.
  10. Jun 6, 2005 #9
    I would rather have no superpower that imposes its power on other nations. My country held a neutral stance on both sides since its creation. THe smaller countries should be wary of any "superpower" wether it is the US or USSR or whatever. THat said, it was better from our perspective when the USSR still existed.It was a counterbalance to the US and kept it in check. Now we can see the effects of a lone superpower having its way .

    Malaysian ,Malaysia, Chinese
  11. Jun 6, 2005 #10


    User Avatar

    Okay Vanesch you can be in charge of yourself but only for a 30 day trial period :smile:
  12. Jun 6, 2005 #11
    I also think that given time, the super powers will fail. I would hope something along the lines of a World Council will emerge. Perhaps a few steps up from the UN.

    Native American, USA
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2005
  13. Jun 7, 2005 #12
    Hey Kaos, just a bit of trivia. Malaysia joined the British Commonwealth back in 1957. Have you had a personal experience on how that's affected your country?

    It will have the same problem as a Superpower where disagreements will prevent anything going forward. The only way to solve this would be:

    Dictatorship (not a good idea)
    Majority vote (leaving millions unhappy with itchy trigger fingers).
  14. Jun 7, 2005 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Ha, can you tell that to my wife ? :tongue2:

  15. Jun 7, 2005 #14

    This argument is flawed. In old empires it took months for information to travel from one part of the world to another. Now it takes seconds. While I agree that large empires all inevitably fall, it has nothing to do with what you're saying. Its far more related to corruption and self-serving interests. When there becomes a dichotomy between the ideology and the reality, that is when empires fall.
  16. Jun 7, 2005 #15

    Not the least bit arrogant. [/sarcasm]

    And its ubermensch.
  17. Jun 7, 2005 #16


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    People also need to remember that "superpower" and "empire" are not synonomous.
  18. Jun 7, 2005 #17
    As far as i know it didnt affect my country much. But the commonwealth did help us with communist insurgency that my country experienced in the 40s-60s. British and Australian troops help fight the commmunist who were mainly ethnic chinese who had loyalty to mainland China . The commonwealth also help us face Indonesia in the confrontation(indonesia did not recognise malaysia and regarded some malaysian territory as theirs).

    As for personal experience, there is none i can think of.
  19. Jun 7, 2005 #18


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No, the U takes an umlaut, but you can replace that with an -e on a US ascii keyboard...
  20. Jun 8, 2005 #19
    The 'flaw' in the argument is that it wasn't complete. Corruption and self-serving interests also play a part in the downfall of a superpower. I was refering to examples such as:

    1) If a one leader has a small group of people to lead then there usually can come to some consensus that is good for the group.

    In larger groups there will a greater number of people who are dissatisfied with their leaders decisions and more people will think they can lead better which, in turn, can fracture a group more.

    In Superpowers that problem is amplified greatly.

    2) The EU is a budding superpower but the problems I've mentioned are highlighted there in spades. The retification will never come about as long as one country disagrees with it and as the EU grows, the chance of that grows as well.

    No, but they are equivalent when you are comparing histories.
  21. Jun 8, 2005 #20


    User Avatar

    Information may flow in seconds but troops to quell unrest take longer. The military buildup for the Iraq war took months and that was despite starting with a fairly sizable force already in situ. I believe America's world-reach will start to diminish fairly soon for three reasons.
    1) the Copernican principle would suggest so.
    2) America is already over-stretching herself in terms of overseas military commitments to keep a lid on the countries it now occupies and manning overseas bases in world hot spots. They are now finding it difficult recruiting sufficient numbers for the armed forces.
    3) The cost of maintaining their current level of military interventions are huge and are stretching the American economy to breaking point. Eventually the deficit will have to be met with higher taxes or reduced spending on domestic programs, both of which will greatly affect public support for foreign adventures.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook