News Who Should Be the Next Superpower?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chound
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the concept of superpowers and their impact on global politics, with participants expressing skepticism about the effectiveness and morality of current superpowers like the US and the USSR. Many argue that large superpowers are inherently flawed due to their unwieldy nature and the challenges of managing diverse regions, leading to eventual decline, as seen throughout history with past empires. There is a call for a more collaborative approach among nations, suggesting that a conglomerate of countries could better serve global interests than a single dominant power. Some participants propose that future power dynamics may shift towards corporations or coalitions rather than traditional nation-states. Concerns are also raised about the consequences of military interventions and the need for a more balanced world governance structure, potentially evolving from the UN into a more effective World Council. The discussion highlights a general disillusionment with the current geopolitical landscape and the desire for a system that prioritizes the well-being of global citizens over national interests.
  • #31
Art said:
bear in mind because of the reduction in Scottish representation in Westminster they lost 19 seats

To be precise there were 13 less seats in Scotland (all former Labour safe seats) and boundary changes removed Labour's safe seat status in a further 6
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
China + India + Russia = New World Super power
 
  • #33
The islamic world although not a single country works together in many respects. This is a growing power in the world. Also they have growing influence in the areas which attract immigration.

Obviously the massive populations of china and India give superpower status.
 
  • #34
himanshu121 said:
China + India + Russia = New World Super power

what is the basis of yours argument? :bugeye:
 
  • #35
Daminc said:
Which is why a lot of people (in Britain at least) was surprised that Bush was voted back in.

In the UK Blair has lost a lot of support over the War and it was only because of the track record of strengthening the economy and other plans that he got back in (that, and the fact that Mr Howard was the only serious rival and people trusted him even less than Blair).

And I could be counted among the surprised
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
16K
  • · Replies 85 ·
3
Replies
85
Views
15K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K