Who will emerge as the leading superpower of the twenty first century?

Of course it was a reasonalbe prediction.
I was arguing the fact that US hadn't over-taken GB by the time youmentioned. Not about your assumptions.
But yes, of course it was going to happen some time.
At the end of the day, natural resources will usually win through.
A country of millions of sq miles will always have more and ususally better options than one of around 90,000.
Being actually able to go isolationist helped considerably too - in Europe, not entriely possible, far too close together and perpetually stepping on each others' toes.
Hell, even after all the awfulness and mismanagement that the USSR went through - it still succeeded in giving the US a run for it's money - why? (or more accurately - how?) because it had the resources there.
When a country has to basically steal the resources (eg GB), it will end, it always does.
That's why comparing the 2 countries directly (US and GB) is a bit misleading - and why of course it was a good assumption that the US could make something of itself - frankly if it hadn't there'd have had to be something seriously wrong somewhere.

 

The wrong question at the wrong time...its over.

Who will emerge as the leading superpower of the twenty first century?"

And, I guess just as importantly:

"Who will reflect that the type of thinking that articulates and understands notionals such as 'power,' 'influence' and 'authority' (let alone over-the-top versions thereof, such as superpower, super-influence, et cetera) right now has begun its descent into no longer applying...anywhere?"

 

United States: Starts out in the lead with advantages that the previous two-time champ (England - I reject the idea that Germany was the leading power of the 19th century) didn't have. England's power was based on its colonial empire. The United States' power is based on its domestic population and its considerable domestic resources. The American people are basically patriotic and have a stable political system. Americans have the freedom and liberty to be innovative and creative. This has served the U.S. well. Considering the weaknesses of the potential rivals, it will be difficult for any of them to catch the U.S. any time soon (even within a hundred years).

European Union: The EU has the technical ability, the population and the resource base, but will it develop the cohesion that is required. I am VERY doubtful that they will. Besides, their general lack of interest in pursuing military power in the modern era seems to indicate that even if they did develop the necessary cohesion, they may not pursue the military necessary to challenge for the crown.

Russia: Yeah, right. Population base and resources galore, but the mess left over from the previous Communist oppressors have left that country in a bind that it will take decades to recover from. Add to that various ethnic groups that are more interested in forging their own path rather than joining for greater Russian glory seem to indicate that Russia will be fighting more battles INSIDE its territory rather than outside it.

China: Serious structural problems. This is still essentially a third world country and as one person already noted, it has become the sweatshop of the world. They have too high a population and not enough resources to sustain a modern lifestyle for all of them. They have five times the population of the United States with one-third of the arable land of the former. Furthermore, while they are developing a formidible military, at some point, the greatest enemy of their government will be their people. As has already been discovered in the former Soviet bloc, you can't supress a population forever in the modern world.

India: Serious structural problems. Some the same as CHina, others different. Same population problem. Too many people, not enough resources. An earlier poster noted that they have a larger high tech industry than China, and that is true, but the country seems woefully disorganized. Also, they have been encircled by the brutal Chinese regime with its encircling alliances with Pakistan and Myanmar as well as its closer relations with Bangladesh. Not to mention the communist rebel movement China supports in Nepal. India has too much in its own neighborhood to deal with to think about becoming the next superpower.

China may pose the strongest challenge, but in the end the very nature of its regime will be its undoing. The U.S. will emerge as the champion once again.

 

Assuming your distinction is a valid one -- a dubious assumption at best -- you don't HAVE a choice.

Meanwhile, do us all a favor -- get your visa now, head to your EU country of choice.

Oh, and good luck trying to find a job THERE.

 

Me?? Predictable?? Brings new meaning to phrase, "kettle calling itself black."

Simply, silly boy.

When you have a completely totalitarian political system, coupled with significant natural resources, run by a ruthless political establishment, you can have, to use a soccer term, the "run of play" for a while.

But sooner or later it can all come crashing down.

Ask around.

 

The largest university and college system, where virtually anyone who wants it can receive a higher education.

 

So, was the USSR - your personal favorite Evil Empire - ethical, or not a superpower?

 

Euhm, you can't be serious about the anyone who wants it bit, cause you have to know yourself that's BS.

And since the US is about the largest Western country, isn't it logical their college system is large as well?

What does this have to do with the quality of the education? What I was asking for is proof that the US education system is better than lets say the Japanese, French, Belgian, Dutch, British, Scandinavian, ...

Not just an opinion.

 

Why should I have to justify what I believe to YOU??

YOU?? and others like YOU??

C'mon, all you guys are just SOOOO *#*#*#-ing negative about the USA.

Right?? C'mon, admit it. Deep down in your soul, you think other countries -- like, ohmiGod!! ....Belgium?? -- have it better than us??

Look...ever been on a big time college campus lately? In any engineering schools? In any business schools? Graduate schools in the sciences??

Where are the Indians, and the Chinese, and the Japanese, and Koreans -- and, yep, you guessed it -- the Europeans...choosing to go? Why they are coming to OUR schools, to get OUR kind of education. They ain't flocking to Ghent or Louvain.

I continue to be astonished at the absolute naivete and complete absence of realism and understanding of what actually goes on in the world from posters on this board.

 

Here's one indicator. Where do the best & brightest from Europe, Asia, Latin America & Africa send their children to university? It ain't Sweden.

 

Don't be such a child.
You put forward the highly dubious statement that the US has the best educational system in the world. You were called on it now you don't see why you have to back it up?

Nevertheless, you do.
Very predictably again.

You are being just as stupid and narrow minded as those who you lambast.
You haven't got a clue how Belgians live - once again you assume that the US is better. Not to a native Belgian it isn't.
I do hope you're trying to be everything you despise round here because if not we've got a serious case of blinkered hypocrisy.

The Sun gets the biggest circulation of all newspapers in the UK - it doesn't mean it's a good newspaper. It means it's a popular one, though not necessarily due to it's sheer quality of news reporting - there's other reasons, like tits on page 3 for example.

And there's a fair fucking few of your countrymen round here and particularly in London. Is it because they don't see the US as the great bastion of all things wonderful in the world and have decided that the UK is better?

Once again there seems to be some issues seperating qualitative and quantitative.
A bit like Mr Cam but not quite so absurd - you strike me as a middle management version of him.

 

The United States has had a least one war with a European country every century since the US has become a country (even before). And yes, European countries started most of them.

It is not unreasonable to predict that within the next 100 years the US will go to war with at least a few countries in Europe.

 

Mainly because Swedish isn't a world language. English however is. Couple that with the fact that it has decent weather depending on where you go. And you get the reason a lot of the world's brightest (etc etc) send their offspring to the US. They could send the little'uns off to the UK and they do in droves - the Universities and private schools are full of Americans. So let's not get too proprietorial over the world's clever people.
It's not only due to the total majesty of the US educational system that people go there.

There's a bigger picture there somewhere.

 

[sarcasm] oh, the overpowering wit of the super-intelligent American. Must be due to that wonderful education system of yours[/sarcasm]

Hang on a minute. In a previous post, you were saying it was impossible for India or the EU to become superpowers because of their "proclivity to socialism", yet in a later post you admit that the USSR became a superpower for "a while" (50 years!) because they had the "run of play".

Maybe you spent too many years in that American education system,

 

The Ivy League schools are all in the northeast and most are in New England which has cold weather & maybe 3 months of summer. Not exactly attractive to an Indian or Nigerian used to 95 degree weather. But amazingly they all want to go to Harvard, Yale & MIT anyhow. Strange, isn't it? Likewise if they can get into Oxford & Cambridge, the dreary English weather isn't much of a deterrent (now the people on the other hand....).

The bigger picture - English universities are popular with the former colonies (hence the Americans) but the US is popular with all countries.

 

as much as I hate to do the old 'fixed your post' gag....

There are a very large number of foreign students coming to the UK for their education, but somehow it seems that because you only know that foreign students go to America, you don't realise they go to other places too (or that there are American students overseas, probably even in Belgium). Rather like how may over there asume that because a lot of foreigners emigrate to the US, that means everyone wants to live in the US and nobody emigrates to other countries. Britain's population grew by nearly 5% in the last 20 years, and with a slightly declining birthrate, that's purely down to immigration. Of course if you believe the tabloids then the entire population of Albania will be living here by 2007.

 

There you have it.

3 MONTHS!!

Lucky if we get 3 weeks. We had to wait an eternity for this nice summer.

 

Funny that - most of the foreign students on my course were from the continent (principally Germany). The next biggest foreign group was Chinese. I don't think there were any from the "former colonies", unless you count the Irish Republic. A completely unrepresentative sample, but interesting nonetheless.

 

You don't, but if you present something I believe to be BS as an undeniable truth, I do love to know what exactly you are basing it on.

Well, we're not better off, but we're certainly not worse off either.

Know what the *#*#*#*# you are talking about. People from all over the world come to Louvain (especially to study medecine, science, history) and there isn't a shortage of foreigners studying at Ghent either.

So if that is a good measurement for the quality of education, we are right there up with you on that one. But to me, the number of foreign students is a bogus argument anyway.
I still haven't seen any proof that the US educational system is any better than the ones I mentioned in my previous post.

You should talk, to you anyone who questions anything about the US has an absence of realism and understanding. You can believe whatever you want to believe, but don't expect the rest of us to agree.

 

Keller knows full well that the American educational system as a whole is garbage. I'm surprised nobody has called him on this.

 

I guess they are merely practicing this motto of America - "if you can't beat them, join them." - they are joining the bully, they want to become a bully themselves one day.

But that doesn't imply the education here is better than the one in their own country. Most likely the opposite is true...

 

1. I don't think we're going to be butting heads with Italy or Australia.

2. The JSF can not compete in air to air combat with the supercarrier standby's. The JSF is a drastic improvement of the aging harrier, but it can still only go about mach 1.4. The f/A-18 is capable of mach 1.8 and the f-14 is known to go around mach 2.4. Besides, the tomcat can use it's radar to spot a target (up to six at a time) 30 miles out and launch a fire and forget missile. The JSF was not designed to be an air superiorty fighter. It is a close support airplane capable of the speed of sound, and it can hold it's own in a dogfight. A plane that was designed to do everything willnot defear a plane that was designed to take out intruders before they were even seen. The f-14 is an air superiorty fighter. The JSF is multirole.

3. Big deal.

4. US troops can deploy to a hotspot in hours. They're called the marines, and they can be on the seen in 48-72 hours. It took us a month to invade afghanistan becuase we had to grieve, make sure we knew who did it, wrangle with the taliban for custody of OBL aswell as ask the uzbeks and the turkmens for permission to use their territory. By that time it was already October.

By the way, ever heard of the F/A-22? No? Too bad. It's only the best fighter plane ever developed.

 

Coincidentally I just read an interesting article on China. The conclusion was that the majority of the Chinese do not feel opressed to the extent of revolting. Besides that, Chinese culture lays the 'being right' at the leaders. So even if they do not-so-good things... they must do them for a reason.

Besides that China and the party are slowly evolving. This might just work out quite well... and if that is to be... the Chinese will probably not revolt ever.

It can really go two ways... but as long as the party doesn't go out of line too far they will probably be in power for many years to come.