They will only need to devote a small fraction of their resources to be a great military power. Beyond that, we're arguing semantics.
If the US has a rival, it will be China. Russia and India have far more to gain by working with the US than against it (in fact, those 3 countries are natural allies at this point in time), and the EU doesn't have what it takes to be a military superpower--they're perfectly content being pvssies and letting us be the dicks that keep the assholes from shitting all over everything.
Money, people, and time. Despite all the fanfare and media blitz, China's GDP per capita is a meager $1,000 now. You simply can't educate the whole population the way the US or Japan are doing, with this kind of money. And without a well educated population (not just academically, but a well-rounded education), it takes more time for a country to move ahead. Even 50 years is being optimistic IMHO.
In all seriousness, Japan, Germany, India, Brazil are all possible. Or it could very well be somebody totally unnoticed by us now, such as Israel.
They're just professors that study it for a living, but not a single one of my EU professors would agree with your statement. You're supposition would require a depression on the part of the US as well as a hell of a lot of cultivated spillover on the part of the EU, not to mention tossing out all national interest on every member nation's part. Not to mention the problems with your assumption that W.'s policies will remain a constant for the next, say, 5 administrations. And that's just a start on the flaws of your argument.
The new Argentina will become a workers paradise and a powerful model for the world to follow. (And the official language will be Chinese)
I believe Iran will be a major world power in less than 50 years. In fact, in roughly the next couple of decades. There are, of course, some wild cards in this equation that could steer Iran off course. The two most prominent ones are a catastrophic military conflict on the one hand, and the inability of the regime to eventually reform itself sufficiently to allow for a more or less democratic system of government regardless of nominal labels. Iran's major assets are the following: 1) Rich natural resources, strategic location, well educated young populace, large enough landmass and population. 2) Imperial tradition and ambition with strong influence in its neighborhood, including in soon to be emerging regions once dominated by the old Soviet empire in the Caucaus and Central Asia. 3) The possibility, if ever realized, of offering the world's one billion moslems a model of government that would appear authentic (not merely copied) yet democratic and permissive of competition in the economic and political sphere. That is quite possible if one day the reform movement that was so promising ever succeeds in its aspirations. 4) A growing industrial and technological base in both the industries of old and the new emerging sectors. 5) A largely self-sufficient, and improving, military-industrial sector that already produces all sorts of armaments and which has projects to build even more impressive systems within the next decade. 6) A history that has left it under US economic sanction allowing it more room to assert an independent path, yet increasingly in trade and commerce with much of the rest of the world.
I don't think it's possible for ANY nation to challenge the US or the EU if they throw away half (the distaff half) of their talent. I don't know about Iran, or China, enough to say how far away they are from achieving this. But no way the male half of China can compete with all of the EU or all of the US or all of India within even my children's lifetimes.
Nice. But these aren't just any old college professors, Dave. If you have ever studied the EU in depth, which you obviously have not, then you'd find the opinions of John Peterson and William Wallace to be fairly credible. If you don't see the faults in your argument of Bush's policies making the EU a superpower, and at the same time choose to ignore the rest of my post, you're not only misinformed, you're being illogical.
How about Japan? It's a leader in a lot of super power categories. Technology, military, economy, culture.
This strikes me as people saying in the 1800's who the next colonial empire will be after Great Britain. When superpowers can't enforce their will on second-division powers like Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, the idea of a military superpower needs to be revised. And with global economy increasingly knotted together, we won't have an economic superpower as much as a network of mutually dependent plutocratic oligarchies. China, India, Indonesia, Japan - they all have too much population for their resources to become a traditional superpower, anyway. Japan came close, but that's as close as they'll come. China's two billion people are a problem, not an asset. Picture the United States tripling in population, and the resource drain there. Paper economic growth thanks to financing George Bush's debt is not the same thing as being a superpower. When Pakistan and Taiwan can flip you off with impunity, China and India, you're not close to being a superpower. Although who knows, the Mongols are due for a comeback.
Russia if they can get their hands on Ukraine again like they are trying to do this minute. Here is another question: Which country will most likely change their status from developing to developed?
I don't have anything against Iran or Iranians (in fact, I would like to visit there someday--can't explain why), but I think you're nuts. Nothing you said above is in the slightest bit convincing. 1) Iran's sudden population burst following the Revolution has yet to prove itself an advantage. The population doubled in a generation, more or less. That's a huge strain on the infrastructure. The world is covered with countries with 'rich natural resources' (Russia, Zaire, Saudi Arabia) which have somehow failed to convert that raw wealth into real power or influence. And a strategic location is only an advantage if you're strong enough to dominate it--otherwise, everybody wants a piece of you, and they can take it. 2) Wonderful, an imperial tradition. Welcome to the 20th--I mean 21st--Century. I'm sure the Kazahks can't wait to start paying taxes to Persopolis again. 3) Yes, I'm sure the world's one billion muslims can't wait to take leadership from one of only two predominantly Shiite Muslim countries. And I'm sure lots of things MAY be possible IF the reform movement which WAS so promising EVER succeeds in its aspirations. 4) In what industrial or technological sectors is Iran's economy not playing catch-up with the West? 5) George Bush is taking notes. 6) Let me clue you in--a true emergin superpower doesn't stealthily carve out an independent path UNDER SANCTIONS. China is Communist country which commits grevious human rights abuses and threatens our ally, Taiwan. Guess what US economic policy towards the People's Republic of China is?
I think the U.S. will remain the world leader for a long long long time. Past super powers came and went because the entire world was unstable and in constant upheaval, but today, I'd say with the exception of a few bad apples, the world is very stable and the U.S. will remain world leaders.
That's what Commodus said. Seriously though, whether it's 50 or 500 or 5000 years down the track, history suggests that the US eventually going to fade into comparative irrelevance or substantially reduced influence, and another nation or group comes to the fore. Of course, one may well argue that it may not ever happen at all, but it's an interesting thing to think about nonetheless.