Talk:Power in international relations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is related to the WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of Politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..

Hyperpower gets an article but not Great Power?? -- CJWilly

At least not yet. You are free to write it, and connect it properly to the other articles. From the What links here-link you can see that an article of its own might be motivated, but that's not necessarily so. Some Wikipedians would maybe argue that this article is best integrated. --Johan Magnus 07:11, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Disputed powers 2 Disputed Powers 3 Dates 4 Poland-Lithuania and Denmark Not Fake 5 Regional Powers taken off 6 India as a Minor Power 7 Germany and Japan 8 Great Powers post WWII 9 Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 10 A plan of action for this page 11 Remember, this is a Great Power page, not superpower 12 Portugal 13 Great Power v. Power in International Relations 14 Superpower Criteria IS Sourced 15 Power in international relations template 16 Current Powers 17 History of ALL super powers, 18 Sources

[edit] Disputed powers

Canada and Australia as disputed powers? Now that's funny! And what about Mexico, Brazil, Egypt, Israel, they're far more powerful.

The thing about Canada and Australia is that they are developed countries, while Mexico, Brazil, and Egypt are developing. Israel is much too small to be a great power. It would be like saying that Luxembourg should be a great power because Luxembourg is a role player in the European Union. Casey14 00:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Mexico, Brazil and Egypt are still more powerful, and Israel too in terms of military, influence, and nuclear power.

Added the Netherlands to Great Powers throughout history, instead of disputed. Since the Netherlands is officially the first modern superpower. See superpower.

Portugal frustrated the Ottomans in the Indian Ocean/India and booted the Dutch out of Brazil in the 17th century (so much for Dutch "superpower" - great: yes, super: no). Hence deleted Portugal from disputed. 1 Dec 05 (A.W.C.M)

Read this: Dutch Golden Age aswell as Second Anglo-Dutch War. Around that time the Netherlands have been regarded as a world power. Wich is also in the 17th century. So at a certain time in history they have been a superpower.

Conceded - after all have done a few edits myself highlighting how the rise of Dutch power in that time. Cheers. Rob 7 Jan 06

[edit] Disputed Powers

I'm sure Portugal and Italy were great powers at some point in history. Portugal had a large empire around the time of the huge Spanish empire, and Italy was a great power around the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Italy was not a great power. It was powerful at a time, but not a great power. The only time Italy could be considered a great power was the years before World War One through World War Two. But then again, Italy was a weakling, during World War One, compared to neighbors Austria-Hungary, France, and Germany. After World War One, leading up to World War Two, France and Germany were still more powerful. Mussolini was considered a play thing of Hitler. Casey14 00:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Italy fought 11 great battles against the Austrians in WWI in incredibly mountainous terrain - against entrenched forces - diverting massive numbers of Austro-Hungarians from the Western Front. They felt aggrieved that their major contribution was down played at the end of the war. In stark contrast WWII Italy was pathetic. 1 Dec 05 (A.W.C.M)

The major issue I want to report is Italy, first of all the downfall of Italy as a great power was 1943 and not 1945. In 1943 Italy surrendered and in the two subsequent years it passed thru German invasion, Civil War and Allied Occupation. So 1945 is wrong. The bigger mistake is not considering Italy as a Great or even Major Power from the 80's till present. Italy is a member of the G-7, meaning is a major economic power,in certain years was the 5th major on earth, the Made in Italy is the second most competitive after Made in Germany, the international trade is big, since the war it has grown at a very high rate, almost like Japan. It has a population, GNP and economic position like that of France and UK,altough in recent years it has fall behind a little. If you consider GDP PPP Italy as the same amount of total GDP as France. Italy has many more big or medium companies than Russia, India or China. It has companies active in gas and oil field, the biggest of whose is ENI,which is one of the major players in that fiels. Take Germany for an instance, it has none, only subsidiaries of foreign companies, it has Rurhgas and some Utilities but a Petroleum company it doesn't have, and Italy has. Italy also has a residual amount of Gas and Petroleum but nevertheless it has more petroleum than Germany, Japan or France, altough it has almost none too. The diplomatic and International Relations of Italy in the recent years changed too.Now Italy is not anymore the silent partner of the Franco-German axis on EU, it is an important partner of UK and has halted some federalistic ambitions of the Franco-German axis. Even on the World stage its word is more important than someone could judge at first glance and than many countries. What was the diplomatic achivement of the G4 so far, none. Italy with her allies has managed to block the entrance of this countries to UN Security Council. It proposed semi-permanet seats or permanent seats on a reagional basis with rotation,like another from EU which could be to Germany, Italy or even Spain or even more EU members on a rotational basis, others seats to other parts of the world. If the G4 proposition would go thru many important countries no only economically,but also geostrategically speaking would remain outside the real decisions. And don't forget who is the 4th net contributor to UN budget-Italy. Also in foreign relations, the position of Italy is geostrategically much more important these days than that of Germany. Cold War is over,in that time Germany was at the center, now the problem is in Meadle East and Arab countries in general, ao Italy is much more well connected, its like an aircraft base in the middle of the Mediterranean .Japan could be important in future, but today altough its is the 4th spender in defence and as large armed forces, they only serve to self-defence and peace missions. And what was the first real war Germany was allowed to intervene in the post WWII- Kosovo in 1999.It had a smal contigent in 1991 in the Gulf War, but nothing like Italy.Japan cannot enter agressive wars, Germany could only after 1990,when Italy could after 1970. Italy entered a real and difficult war cenario in 1982 in Lebanon and altough at the beggining the allies mistrusted Italy,in the end its participation was fulcral even to safeguard the life of french and USA citizens. In 1991 it sent a substantial contingent to Operation Desert Storm mainly consiting of F-104 and Tornado Bombers, which made their very countribut too. In 1999 in Kosovo was the same, even more with the AM-X Ghibli. In Iraq, (agree with the war or not) Italy has the third largest contingent, many italians have died and even a secret service official was killed in a position of honour, defending the life of a civilian. Italians are not cowards as the anglo-saxons tend to generalize. In military technologies Italy has it indigenous industries, the major of which is Finmeccanicca, a huge conglomerate. It builds its own tanks like the Ariete, Tanks destroyers, like Centauro, Dardo AFV's and many more. It builds missiles and is part of MBDA consortium, the second largets of the world after Raytheon corporation in missile technologies. Italy has a small aircraft carrier and its building another one bigger, with the most powerfull conventional(non nuclear) angine of the world. As I know Germany and Japan doesn't own aircraft carriers, nor big destroyers like the 2 ones Italy is building with France, and the 10 frigates of ultimate generation its building with France too. In terms of Nuclear capabilities, German and Japan sometimes talk of owning its own deterrent force, but the only missiles Germany is supposed to have owned was in WWII. Itally planned a nuclear destroyer in the 60's,nuclear submarines which would have been equiped with Polaris missiles, but it was forced by the USA, Nato and other preesures of its own to abanon them. But it lauche one of the first satellites of the world, has an important space agency-ASI, its the thir more important member of ESA, the VEGA project its almost all from Italy, and in the 70's it tested sucessfully ballistic missiles- ALFA, made by italian industry, but the signed the Non Proliferation Protocol,but in the early 80's the idea emerged again and it Italy was to have its own Force de Frappe, if you don't believe ask Mr. Lelio Lagorio, defence minister at the time. It builds since the 60's good conventional submarines,the last in cooperation with Germany. Italy has the third most important Navy of EU and the 6th of the world, Germany only equalls that of Holland. It builds fighter aircrafts too. It entered the Tornado and EFA Typhoon programm, with a minor quote but is part of the consortium. Since the 50's it produces advanced jet trainers from Aermacchi sold all over the world with much sucess, helicopters, it has build the firs attack heli in EU, the A129 Mangusta, now its one of the major player in that industry, owning AgustaWestland. It also haves Alenia, Telespazio, Avio, Selex, Fincantieri, Otobreda, Iveco Defence Unit.The Fiat G91 was another sucess, winning a NATO contest for a light attack and strike aircraft, Germany bought and manufactured under license many of them. The AM-X was mainly Italian, altough Brazil had a 30% quota on it. So you put Brazil as a potential Major Power and Italy, wich deserves a place for a long, you don't even consider it for the future. Even if Brazil growns economically, in military, international relevance, its nothing compared to Italy. Doesn't have nothing indigeneous in terms of military-industrial, while Italy has lots of things. Brazil, India and China have aircraft carriers for instance, but they are old crapp bought from real Major Powers. Even in the F-35 JSF Italy is a 2nd level partner, being the USA the main contractor and the only first level partner the UK. Its is a partner also in the Dassault Neuron UCAV.ACamposPinho 03:48, 6 May 2006

[edit] Dates

It would be helpful if someone could write beside each 'great power' the general period when they were or are considered great powers. Eg: USA (XXXX - present). Also in the Great powers of modern history section, it would be good if you could write what time period is considered modern history.

Modern History is usually considered the time from the fall of the Roman Empire through the present.Casey14 00:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

You're joking - I hope. I thought it grew out of and followed the Renaissance - the rise of humanism, later Descartes, the era of European exploration, the Reformation, the rise of science, etc, that ended Medieval modes of thinking. 1 Dec 05. (Australian working class man).

Sorry, I must of been having a brainfart, because the start of modern history is the Renaissance. Not any fall of the Roman Empire. Casey14 01:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Casey - sorry - accept that "early" modern era immediatly followed the medieval - since "early modern" is now used for the "Renaissance". Personally I like to think of the Renaissance/Reformation as a transitory period between the two - but you were right - though I think it looks as if you see my point of view too. Robert 1 Jan 06

The Great Power page has some minor mistakes like date of rise of Spain is Spain unification,right, but it was in 1492 not 1469, other thing I think is wrong is the downfall of Portugal, you can consider 1580/81,but you can consider the period from 1640 (reconquest of independence to Napoleonic Wars and Brazil independence as another period in which the country was a great power, and any historian will confirm it, in this period the country was so or more important than before. Another example is Japan, you cannot consider it a power from 1905-Present. You can consider it a Great Power between 1905 and 1945 and then from a date like late 70's or early 80's to present a Major Power, because if you consider it was always a Great/Mjor Power so you should do the same to Germany too. In the period 1945-50 Japan was occupied by USA forces, you should know it and was not even a sovereign country, from the 50's thru the 70's it went thru a major economic growth, but I think the 70's/80's is the best place to put Japan as a Major/Great Power again, but even today its more a economic power than a great power in all the senses that definition carries.ACamposPinho 03:49, 6 May 2006

[edit] Poland-Lithuania and Denmark Not Fake

How does someone view this as fake. It held substantial power in Central Europe before the Swedish Empire, Prussia, and Austria rose to power. The same goes to Denmark.Casey14 00:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Some unkown user needs to stop taking these off the list.Casey14

[edit] Regional Powers taken off

Until regional powers such as: Nigeria, Mexico, Norway, South Africa, Brazil, Israel, and others reach great power status or even on disputed, they won't be on the list, because they only hold regional power.Casey14 22:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] India as a Minor Power

During the Rennaissance in Europe, India was ruled by the Mughal Emperors and Sivaji to the South, both powerful empires. Post-independence, India has fought 3 successful wars with Pakistan, a war with China and a border-skirmish with Pakistan in 1999. It possesses Nuclear Weapons and is the 2nd largest Military Force in terms of numbers in the world. Added to that, it's PPP is 4th in the world, India should be classed perhaps slightly less powerful than China at this stage.203.214.59.210 04:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

India has yet to earn its stripes. They were trashed by the Chinese. Beating up the Paks in the 1970s hardly counts more than being secondary regional power (behind China). China shocked America in Korean war in the 1950s! A few years ago they had trouble dealing with incursions across the border by proxies for Pakistan (1999 -2000). I entered the Moghul in the place of India because at their height they were the real thing. Yes they have nukes but great power is about projecting your power/influence effecively. Robert 7-Jan-06

They were 'thrashed' by the Chinese in 1962, ages ago, and the Kargil War in 1999 was a clear victory although India was firstly taken by surprise by Islamic guerillas. After the Kargil War the Indian Stock Market shot up by 1500 points. Apart from that, as mentioned above, it is the 2nd largest military force in the world.203.214.59.210 04:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Added to that, India would now control most of Pakistan if Indira Gandhi didn't return land in the 1971 war. If you disagree with anything, see the articles on the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 or the 1999 Kargil Conflict. They clear up India's military dominance in the region.

Dominating Pakistan does not a great power make.

[edit] Germany and Japan

Why are France and the UK still on the list as a "Great Power" and Germany and Japan just until 1945? Both of them are important economic powers today.

I changed the start date for Japan from 1868 to 1898, which was when they got rid of the unequal treaty consequentially to their victory in the Sino-Japanese War. Also I've added stuf about 1919.Harrypotter 21:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

In modern IR UK and France are "powers" by a variety of criteria (UN security council permanent seat, nukes, ability to project power outside their region, etc" - Germany and Japan are the best examples of non military based power post 1945. Their economic strength enables chequebook diplomacy, thus demonstrating power is not solely derived from military might (hard vs soft power, etc) 160.5.247.213 21:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC) (Pickle_UK not logged in)

[edit] Great Powers post WWII

Given the disparity between the post WWII power of the superpowers and the rest is it meaningful to speak of "Great Powers" post WWII? 8-Jan-06

UK, France - great powers post 1956? In a time of super-powers and "hyperpower" there is no such thing - as their ability to act independently - as shown by the Suez - is severely circumscribed - or to put it another way - the UK is very much the follower in Iraq. As for EU - well it may bepossible one day, but at the present it looks anything but powerful, as Iran has shown with the "EU 3". 210.49.196.39 00:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I very much agree. The dates here are meant to reflect the dates of prominence of modern great powers—anyone who thinks Britain is as prominent today in world affairs as it was in (say) 1850 is missing more than a few hotels in his Monopoly set. Albrecht 16:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Britain, France, and Germany are all still great powers. There have always been fix or six great powers in the world at one time. Currently those three, China, Japan, the US, and Russia compose the great powers. Just because those three are not as powerful as they once were, does not mean they wern't great powers. They can control world policy. Casey14 00:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to interfere, but who added EU as a emerging power?? The EU is so fragmented. It is so hard to develop a consensus between France, Britain and Germany. --Spartian 07:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Should we add it? Something like 1576-1658, 1683-1704?

who keeps on changing russia to present

Russia is still a world power. Russia can influence the world. Russia's power is huge. Just because the economy is shaky, does not make it not a world power. Like my post under powers pots WWI, Russia is a great power.

Just like after the 30 Years War: Sweden, Austria, England, France, Spain, the Ottomans the Netherlands and posssibly Denmark and Portugal were world powers. After Congress of Vienna: Austria, Prussia, Russia, France, Britain, and The Ottoman Empire were world powers, as Spain might have been clinging upon the status, but would lose it. Aftter World War One: France, Brtiain, Russia, Japan, the US, Italy, and arguably Germany were world powers. and we can go on and on, there are more than just two or three powers at a time, there are five, six, or seven.Casey14 00:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

china is not a world power its military is very primitive

China could easily control the world. China may be an industrializing nation, but its military is the largest on the earth. Casey14 18:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

armies need to be advanced not only big and the pupulation hates the goverment so they will probaly desert

who thought that france was a world power when it was occuipied is hilarious i changed it

after world war 1 germany was not powerful

can someone erase china

Can someone erase India then if they are going to erase china? Since India's economy and military lags behind China's. Also its weird that the "primitive" military of China spends the second most on military in the world...maybe they are not so primitive. O btw China has the 4th largest economy in the world and the 2nd largest by PPP. Only a fool wouldn't china on there.

Just a note, it would be good if everyone signed their posts. Thanks. Secondly, China's definitely deserves to be on this page. It is categorized as a Major power and Potential Superpower. However, exaggeration tends to get the better of us, China cannot easily control the world, secondly China's military is not primitive but is technologically backward, this cannot be denied. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A plan of action for this page

This page, as power (international) should not be considered a page detailing great powers and the role of great powers in society. It has been agreed on other pages that deal with such a topic (Superpower, Major power, Potential Superpowers) that the power hierarchy is as follows:

• Hyperpower
• Superpower, a state that has overwhelming control on international politics and meets all of the criteria for a superpower.
• Major power or perhaps Global power, a state that meets most or all of the criteria but not to the extent of a Superpower (note that some Major powers and Potential Superpowers, namely India, China and the European Union).
• Great power, a state that has considerable control on foreign affairs and representation on the world stage. Yet not to the extent of a Major power.
• Regional power, a state that exerts considerable influence on its region, yet does not exert this influence on the world stage.
• Middle power, a state that has little influence on other nations but does have limited representation in other nations.

This means we must:

1. Create a new page called Great power
2. Categorize countries in these groups on this page.
3. Remove all the great power stuff from this page and work out a proper definiton for international political power.

I'll wait a while for your views, before taking a course of action. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I broadly agree with you but I disagree with your view of the ambit of the term 'Great Power'. My view is that the term Great Power applies to those countries pre WW2 which were the most powerful of their day (UK, France, Germany possibly US) - each of these were roughly equivalent in power. It is only post WW2 that the concept of the Superpower has arisen, since then the concept of Great Power has not been applied.

I would therefore agree that there should be a Great Power page, but dealing with it as a historical concept. The ranking should be Hyperpower - Superpower - Major Power - Regional Power - Middle Power - The Rest of the World.

Xdamr 11:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That was my understanding too, but the fact that this page was dealing with current Great Powers made me think that perhaps it was different. I'll set to work when I have the time. Great Powers are Pre-WW superpower-type powers. Any disagreements to that definition? Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Done apart from creating the Great power page. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Who erased China?

I don't know. By the way, I've improved Regional power greatly. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remember, this is a Great Power page, not superpower

I just wanted to remind everyone this was a great power page, because someone might start saying India or China or even Portugal/Denmark/the Netherlands arn't or wern't great powers. However, they meet all great power criteria. Also, when making the dates, for example Spain, which lost superpower status at the War of Spanish Succession, but didn't lose great power status till The Spanish-American War. Casey14 23:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if this was my mistake, but I treated this page as power (international) or International Power as it is called in the template in the See Also section (which I created under that impression). So I thought that this could be a summary of all the power categories. I think it's necessary to seperate this content and create a Great power page with seperate content. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

how comer china has to periods and germany is one huge thing for exnaple after WW1 it was not powerful and after WW2 for a while it was also not that powerful

Because China that is listed is now in Taiwan, while the new China is the People's Republic of China.

[edit] Portugal

I'm not particularly informed on Portuguese history, but I noticed its great power status ended during the Spanish annexation. While that did end its status as a global power, couldn't it be argued that Portugal contined Great Power status into the 1600's? Portugal was also a major player in Imperialism, though I doubt its armies or economy compared to the other great powers. I'm not taking a position, just inquiring. 12.220.94.199 02:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Power v. Power in International Relations

I think that we could possibly do with some clarification of the appropriate subject matter for this page. Power, in the context of international relations, encompasses many different gradations; from the hyperpower to the major power to the middle power, and all the other varieties in between. Presently there are individual articles for all these types of power, all of them - including that of the Great power. Given this, is it really appropriate to deal with Great powers here rather than on the dedicated page? This article is after all titled Power in international relations - there is no mention of Great powers in the title.

I would suggest that we move the Great power content to the dedicated article and replace it with a discussion about the various types of international power, in the abstract, leaving in-depth discussion to the individual pages of each type of power.

Xdamr 13:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Trying to develop of list of Great Powers and Superpowers and Potential Superpowers and Major Powers etc is the problem here. The page has no criteria on which these are determined, leading to endless bickering and revert-warring over who exactly is a power, of what rank, and when. It's all nonsense: political scientists have no fixed criteria for what countries qualify as great powers or regional powers. Superpowers are only known as such when the international system is bipolar (cold war) or unipolar (today). This article would be much better served to stick to the multiple definitions of power in international relations, and explaining the various gradations of power. Lists are going to be pointless--we can all see that their entire practical result is fruitless bickering.—thames 02:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Very much agree. All the list has produced is a flurry of counterproductive activity by people who really have no grip on the concepts involved, but who see dates and automatically want more for their own countries and less for the other guys. Case in point: England; to speak of "great powers" in 1169 is just ludicrous. Out with the list; examples of Powers can be given in the article text if they are warranted by the narrative. Albrecht 04:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you guys aren't fully aware of the work that has gone into these articles, note the plural. There has not been a debate within our articles on who is a major power, superpower etc. in these articles for a very very very long time. There is criteria and that is presented on the Superpower page. So although I agree the concept sections need to be expanded, I fully diagree with the rest. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I echo Nobleeagle here; this article is part of a greater whole of articles on international power. Each interlinks and is to a degree dependent on each other.

By and large there really is no longer any trouble on the other pages as to who belongs where. I certainly will conceed that the Great powers, being a historical concept, give scope for more debate. However I don't think that this negates my proposal, that we should move the Great power discussion onto the Great power page. We can then have these fights on the Great power page and confine this page to a discussion of its ostensible subject matter, 'Power in international relations', making this page something of a portal to the rest of the series. This is something that would be structurally and conceptually neater, I think.

Xdamr 12:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Work that serves no purpose does not provide its own justification. The list is amateurish, stylistically atrocious, incorrect in places, and adds nothing to the article but conflict. I have tried at times to straighten it out only to see the nonsense, inevitably, creep back in. We wouldn't be suggesting its removal if it didn't cause serious problems.

Also, you seem to have a strange conception of "very very very long time." Have a peek at the section above. Browse every single entry on this talk page if it'll convince you. Then, take a look at the edit summaries in History and compare the number of edits that added content to the article with the ones that merely tweaked dates on the list. Go back as far as you like. The lists are hopeless. Albrecht 15:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you that the present list of Great powers leaves much to be desired, nor that it is a honeypot for national self-aggrandisement. The international power articles in general seem to attract more than their fair share of cranks. But I take it we agree that the great power content is best moved to the Great power page?

ps. Not to put words into Nobleeagle's mouth (I hope) but I think that he was saying that the lists of Major powers on the Major power page Superpowers on the Superpower page etc had not been fought over for quite some time.

Xdamr 15:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, whatever helps. Albrecht 15:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The Major Power article is absurd. "Major Power" is not a political science term, and not a term used by historians. "Great Power" is a term used by political scientists and historians. All of that content should be moved to the Great Power article, and Major Power should be turned into a redirect. In the meantime, I'm going to move the Great Power material from this article over to Great Power.—thames 20:16, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, who exactly came up with this "power hierarchy" concept? I'm a PhD student in international relations and I've never seen this concept in any text. This smacks of original research.—thames 20:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point, I'd encourage you to bring it up on the Major power page.

Xdamr 23:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually don't know who came up with the "Major Power" term. It has been there since I started editing these articles as an anon. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superpower Criteria IS Sourced

I finally found where it originated from: here.

[edit] Power in international relations template

{{International power}} has been updated so that it looks better, if you have any problems with viewing the template can you just tell me and I'll try and fix it. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current Powers

I've pasted this section in from the Great Power page, it seems more appropriate here than on that page, dealing as it does with other gradations of power than that of the Great power.

Xdamr 17:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of ALL super powers,

I dunno, I'm pretty sure we've had super powers WAY before WW II and later. Because if the US is a super power today by having the largest cultural influenece, strongest millitary, greatest economy, and etc. Than wouldn't you say civilistations like ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, the Spanish Empire, and the British Empire were all once super powers too? They all once had the strongest millitary, economy, and cultural influence in their heydays, but now we see them as nothing more than second powers or some (like Rome) are dissoluted. I'm just saying, super powers can't just be something modern when you look at older civilisations in all the same situation.

Samusfan80 17:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The term superpower was coined in the 1930s and is not used by academics and scholars to describe nations which were powers before that time. You may edit Historical powers or Great power for such countries. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 23:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, only add a nation to the Great power listing if the country was described as such post 1814 - when that term was itself first coined. If you are looking to add Rome, Greece, Ancient Egypt, and similar then Historical powers is almost certainly the page for you.

Xdamr^talk 23:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

This article (and, I suspect, most other associated articles), has an absolute dearth of references. It all reeks of original research disguised as common sense. If I really wanted to start splitting hairs, I think I could add {{fact}} tags to the end of every sentences. And for every reference an American can find to show that America is the world's sole hyperpower, I'm sure a European can find a reference to dispute America's power monopoly. I'm afraid there's a foundational problem surrounding this issue, specifically: a lack of hindsight. We're living in the present and so it's hard to say who truly holds power until it changes hands in a historically dramatic fashion. I'm sure the oft-mentioned Romans thought of themselves as a hyperpower in their own time, but would we describe them as such? And truly, has there ever been a case where millions of people living in one region exerted true power over millions of people in a distant region? No, all that has occured has been the innovation of radically different standards of warfare during and since WW2. As these standards proliferate over the next few generations (as standards managed to proliferate in the past, first with bronze, then iron, despite the efforts of the innovating culture to maintain their initial monopoly), national boundaries will continue to be redrawn, and power will continue to shift through various numbers and groups of hands.

What all this means today, to this article: the endless talk about the definition of great powers and superpowers and hyperpowers is senseless. Social power is always concentrated unequally. The areas between the Persian, Roman, Maurya, Hunnic, and Han empires have been perpetually exploited throughout history in the national defense of whatever peoples happened to occupy the aforementioned imperial territory. Is this the kind of power we're talking about here? Xaxafrad 03:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)