| Revision as of 04:13, 24 June 2023 edit42Grunt (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users791 edits →Potential modern superpowers: The case for UK and France← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:50, 24 June 2023 edit undoGeogSage (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,153 edits →Potential modern superpowers: The case for UK and France: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
| ::I'm not sure if these sources are top tier, but I think a case can be made for including the UK as a "potential superpower". Many of these arguments extend to France based on my knowledge, but I don't have any sources yet on that. ] <sup> (]) </sup> 16:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC) | ::I'm not sure if these sources are top tier, but I think a case can be made for including the UK as a "potential superpower". Many of these arguments extend to France based on my knowledge, but I don't have any sources yet on that. ] <sup> (]) </sup> 16:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC) | ||
| *France and the UK were past superpowers back then. But now? There are no sources that states otherwise. If anything, Brexit has caused immense doubts on London's political and economic competence on the global stage. Economically, both France and the UK are stagnating. Although Paris is able to use the EU as a vehicle to artificially expand its power, this is more of an EU thing. Culturally? France is losing ground in Franceafrique as more of its former colonies in Africa are revolting against French influence. The UK still has its commonwealth, but again, we are seeing members such as Jamaica effectively trying to remove itself from the system. Militarily, both states saw significant decay in its power projection, although the UK was hit harder, Paris can still independently project power to a limited extent through its overseas territories. You just can't use 'cultural superpower' as an effective gauge for potential superpower status. Japan has far more cultural heft than the UK, and nobody considers Tokyo a superpower, especially after the economic crash in the 90s. Neither can you use the UNSC as a gauge as the UNSC was formed by the primary victors of WW2, not their power status. To be a potential superpower is to have shown increasing rise on several metrics not just one. That includes economics, cultural soft power, military hard power, industrial power, leader of alliance/partnership building, leadership in multilateral organisations, technology and innovation, cyber networks, diplomacy, ''etc'' and project them on a ''global stage''. The Brits ''like'' to champion 'global Britain', but their dealings with the EU have shown that London has grossly overestimated its own power and is dealt with a much weaker hand. They are still great powers, but there is nothing outside of nationalist rhetoric that suggests either of them as potential superpowers. France under Macron is ambitious, but France is ambitious only in the context of turning the ''EU'' as a superpower, ''not France''. So unless there are dozens of sources and hard data that support the idea that both France and the UK are aiming back to superpower status, then they should not have a place here. ] (]) 04:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC) | *France and the UK were past superpowers back then. But now? There are no sources that states otherwise. If anything, Brexit has caused immense doubts on London's political and economic competence on the global stage. Economically, both France and the UK are stagnating. Although Paris is able to use the EU as a vehicle to artificially expand its power, this is more of an EU thing. Culturally? France is losing ground in Franceafrique as more of its former colonies in Africa are revolting against French influence. The UK still has its commonwealth, but again, we are seeing members such as Jamaica effectively trying to remove itself from the system. Militarily, both states saw significant decay in its power projection, although the UK was hit harder, Paris can still independently project power to a limited extent through its overseas territories. You just can't use 'cultural superpower' as an effective gauge for potential superpower status. Japan has far more cultural heft than the UK, and nobody considers Tokyo a superpower, especially after the economic crash in the 90s. Neither can you use the UNSC as a gauge as the UNSC was formed by the primary victors of WW2, not their power status. To be a potential superpower is to have shown increasing rise on several metrics not just one. That includes economics, cultural soft power, military hard power, industrial power, leader of alliance/partnership building, leadership in multilateral organisations, technology and innovation, cyber networks, diplomacy, ''etc'' and project them on a ''global stage''. The Brits ''like'' to champion 'global Britain', but their dealings with the EU have shown that London has grossly overestimated its own power and is dealt with a much weaker hand. They are still great powers, but there is nothing outside of nationalist rhetoric that suggests either of them as potential superpowers. France under Macron is ambitious, but France is ambitious only in the context of turning the ''EU'' as a superpower, ''not France''. So unless there are dozens of sources and hard data that support the idea that both France and the UK are aiming back to superpower status, then they should not have a place here. ] (]) 04:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC) | ||
| *:I have listed three sources that mention the UK as a "soft-power super-power," "cultural superpower", and seconded only to the US in power. Russia has recently shown to be really lacking on economics, soft power, non-nuclear hard power, industrial power, industrial power, alliance building, etc. The UK has a larger economy, and is superior in many other metrics. It is hard to see how Russia qualifies as a "potential" power while others do not, when these other countries may be more powerful in multiple categories you have listed. Further, the UK Government uses the term "" or "". This ambition, coupled with the UK economy, military, soft power, political partnerships, etc. certainly seems to warrant categorization as a "potential" superpower according to "some" definitions. The sources exist, I've given five, I think "dozens" of sources is a bit of a ridiculous for such a small claim of "potential". ] <sup> (]) </sup> 04:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:50, 24 June 2023
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Superpower article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present. |
 |
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
|
American overseas military map graphic - Should be altered?
The graphic overstates the extend of American military hegemony. For instance, Brazil is colored - but there are only 27 military personnel stationed there, which is more of a diplomatic or training mission than a superpower projection.
I think the map should only highlight countries with at least 100, or 500, or 1000 stationed personnel.
I'm getting the numbers from this German media report which details personnel numbers across the world: https://kritisches-netzwerk.de/sites/default/files/us_department_of_defense_-_base_structure_report_fiscal_year_2015_baseline_-_as_of_30_sept_2014_-_a_summary_of_the_real_property_inventory_-_206_pages.pdf
I propose that Honduras, Brazil, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Bulgaria, Greece, Philippines, and Australia should not be colored on the map due to low personnel sizes based on the figures in the aforementioned report.
| WP:NOTFORUM |
|---|
ChinaChina is now more powerful than the United States. (86.140.123.49 (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC))
|
United Kingdom
| Ban evasion by User:HarveyCarter. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
In the table explaining how the United States and the Soviet Union met the criteria of being superpowers during the Cold War, the United Kingdom should be added, as it was also a superpower until the aftermath of the Suez Crisis in 1956. A6MKi-43 (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
|
Unilateral edition
Someone edited the part about emerging superpowers and decided to delete informations about Brazil and the image showing potential superpowers was substituted without any discussion about it. Personal feelings are not determinants in Misplaced Pages, at least it shouldn’t be.
China
| Ban evasion by User:HarveyCarter. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
China is already recognised as a superpower, so this should be mentioned in the lede. It has replaced the US in the Middle East. (31.49.209.74 (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC))
|
Spanish Empire
I would love it if somebody could clearly explain what's wrong if anything with the sources supporting the brief mention of the Spanish Empire as a historical superpower. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
It has been debated amongst historians [[User:Kimand299 |Kimand299]] (talk) 3:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Okay. I'm willing to bet that the status of many of the others is also debatable. What we're looking for, though, is a preponderance of reliable sources that say it is (then we include it), or reliable sources that say it isn't (then we exclude it). If there is equal weight for and against among the reliable sources, then we could move it to a second sentence saying that it is sometimes referred to as a superpower, but that this is disputed, or something like that. Have those historians given recorded talks/published books/articles/whatever so that the reliable sources can be reviewed? VernoWhitney (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Potential modern superpowers: The case for UK and France
There is some good faith debate and reverts, specifically from @42Grunt, on the what is or is not a "Superpower" or "potential superpower." I think that we could create a chart for world powers that could sort this out, but that is a job for another day or another editor. Anyway, a potential superpower must be a dominant force in world politics, culture, economics, and military, among other things. A good starting point is the United Nations Security Council five permanent members, The United States, Russia, China, the UK, and France. These countries all have veto power, and nuclear weapons. France and UK both have larger Economies then Russia. Both France and the UK have major contributions to world culture, and their links with other countries give them substantial influence. Their non-nuclear militaries are both significant, and possibly greater then Russia at this point. They both have a history of colonialism, and maintain some influence even today within their former colonies. The inclusion of Russia, China, and India makes perfect sense, even though India is not a permanent security council member. Through the same logic that these countries are "Potential superpowers," the UK and France both qualify. France and the UK both stand out from Russia, China, India, and the US as they are not in the top 10 largest countries by population, however both surpass Russia and are in the top 10 of GDP , with GPD per capita far in excess of Russia, China and India.
I would like to see an argument for why France and the UK should not be included as potential super powers, when they surpass criteria in at least one area for both Russia and India. I get that at this point India, Russia, France and UK are probably best classified as Great Powers, but they would all be the preeminent among Great Powers. The word "Potential" is very loose, and we should have SOME criteria for why we include some countries but not others.
Other things that could be included onto the list include NATO, but the EU is probably enough for Supranational union's to get the point across without muddying the term.
GeogSage 16:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Let's use reliable sources rather than discussions that would amount to original research WP:OR. Also note that the security council does not seem to be a good starting point as it was created from of the great powers (not even then superpower) that decided WWII. The influence (and power) of some has since declined while other powers have been emerging. But historical precedent (and veto power) makes it unlikely permanent membership will change for the foreseeable future. Arnoutf (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hello,
- This is an excellent point and one I should have started with. While I didn't look into France, a study by Henry Jackson Society, Towards “Global Britain”: Challenging the New Narratives of National Decline, uses the phrase "In some respects, it is so strong that it is approaching the status of a “cultural superpower.”" There is also a HuffPost publication discusses the UK as a "soft-power super-power" here. Also, the UK defense journal makes reference to the first study and discusses the UK as a "cultural superpower" here, which also shows claims that the UK is second only to the US in global power.
- I'm not sure if these sources are top tier, but I think a case can be made for including the UK as a "potential superpower". Many of these arguments extend to France based on my knowledge, but I don't have any sources yet on that. GeogSage 16:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- France and the UK were past superpowers back then. But now? There are no sources that states otherwise. If anything, Brexit has caused immense doubts on London's political and economic competence on the global stage. Economically, both France and the UK are stagnating. Although Paris is able to use the EU as a vehicle to artificially expand its power, this is more of an EU thing. Culturally? France is losing ground in Franceafrique as more of its former colonies in Africa are revolting against French influence. The UK still has its commonwealth, but again, we are seeing members such as Jamaica effectively trying to remove itself from the system. Militarily, both states saw significant decay in its power projection, although the UK was hit harder, Paris can still independently project power to a limited extent through its overseas territories. You just can't use 'cultural superpower' as an effective gauge for potential superpower status. Japan has far more cultural heft than the UK, and nobody considers Tokyo a superpower, especially after the economic crash in the 90s. Neither can you use the UNSC as a gauge as the UNSC was formed by the primary victors of WW2, not their power status. To be a potential superpower is to have shown increasing rise on several metrics not just one. That includes economics, cultural soft power, military hard power, industrial power, leader of alliance/partnership building, leadership in multilateral organisations, technology and innovation, cyber networks, diplomacy, etc and project them on a global stage. The Brits like to champion 'global Britain', but their dealings with the EU have shown that London has grossly overestimated its own power and is dealt with a much weaker hand. They are still great powers, but there is nothing outside of nationalist rhetoric that suggests either of them as potential superpowers. France under Macron is ambitious, but France is ambitious only in the context of turning the EU as a superpower, not France. So unless there are dozens of sources and hard data that support the idea that both France and the UK are aiming back to superpower status, then they should not have a place here. 42Grunt (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- I have listed three sources that mention the UK as a "soft-power super-power," "cultural superpower", and seconded only to the US in power. Russia has recently shown to be really lacking on economics, soft power, non-nuclear hard power, industrial power, industrial power, alliance building, etc. The UK has a larger economy, and is superior in many other metrics. It is hard to see how Russia qualifies as a "potential" power while others do not, when these other countries may be more powerful in multiple categories you have listed. Further, the UK Government uses the term "Science Superpower" or "artificial intelligence superpower". This ambition, coupled with the UK economy, military, soft power, political partnerships, etc. certainly seems to warrant categorization as a "potential" superpower according to "some" definitions. The sources exist, I've given five, I think "dozens" of sources is a bit of a ridiculous for such a small claim of "potential". GeogSage 04:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class International relations articles
- High-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- B-Class American politics articles
- Unknown-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class China-related articles
- Mid-importance China-related articles
- B-Class China-related articles of Mid-importance
- WikiProject China articles
- B-Class India articles
- Mid-importance India articles
- B-Class India articles of Mid-importance
- WikiProject India articles
- B-Class European Union articles
- Mid-importance European Union articles
- WikiProject European Union articles
- B-Class United Kingdom articles
- Mid-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles
- B-Class Soviet Union articles
- Mid-importance Soviet Union articles
- WikiProject Soviet Union articles
- B-Class Russia articles
- Mid-importance Russia articles
- Mid-importance B-Class Russia articles
- B-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- B-Class Russia (politics and law) articles
- Politics and law of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles