What's a web browser?

[Recursion]

It's close, but it isn't a super power. Brazil will overtake us before China.

As for Britain, they were. A long time ago.

Yes, they are.

[October]

Yes, they are.

No, since the end of the Cold War and the dismantlement of the USSR, the U.S. has been the world's sole super power. China is a potential super power.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_superpowers


Also, the U.S. is still the world's largest economy, despite the financial crisis. That's one of the reasons why it's such a big deal and effects the global economy.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/us.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy..._United_States

[Recursion]

No, since the end of the Cold War and the dismantlement of the USSR, the U.S. has been the world's sole super power. China is a potential super power.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_superpowers


Also, the U.S. is still the world's largest economy, despite the financial crisis. That's one of the reasons why it's such a big deal and effects the global economy.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/us.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy..._United_States

God damn, +REP to you

[GommeInc]

No, since the end of the Cold War and the dismantlement of the USSR, the U.S. has been the world's sole super power. China is a potential super power.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_superpowers


Also, the U.S. is still the world's largest economy, despite the financial crisis. That's one of the reasons why it's such a big deal and effects the global economy.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/us.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy..._United_States

Hmm, you're using some sort of political super power as the definition, when everyone else is using economic, military and overall "power" as their definition of "super power". China is a super power, the US leech off of super powers to raise themselves in a political, economic super power environment, yet if you remove China from the equation the leech that is the US would shrivel up and die. It's a huge discussion about globalisation we're heading into The US are merely the economic and political hub where the world's economy is centralised (dollar gold standard etc.), but economically China is a super power too as they have a huge economy, one of the world's largest and considering they're not the world standard for global economics, they're doing pretty damn well. The US are only considered "the" super power because they hold a superficial title branded by global powers so they can standardise everything for the sake of better integrating the world.

The US is still the largest economic power, but some may say that's luck seeing as they were put into that position.

Also, using Wikipedia as a source is bad The case for bias and limited resources makes it difficult to use it a primary source of information, and the CIA's world factbook is based on stereotypes - have you read their factbook on the UK? In the past they believed that Britons don't like staring people in the face and do not like to be touched. I think there was a mention of tea in there.

EDIT: The grammar in the potential super power page for Wikipedia is dreadful. It suggest that only one nation can be a super power, yet reading the article it suggests "potential" super powers to be "a state that is speculated to be, or to be in the process of becoming, a superpower at some point in the 21st century." So assuming the Wikipedia is contradicting itself, then yes you can have more than one super power, as to speculate more than one country become a super power in a certain amount of time suggests that more than one supoer power can exist at any point in time. Especially when it uses the word "becoming" to suggest again that more than one super power can exist at any one point in time....

This is why I disagree with Wikipedia articles, they contradict themselves and move away from the point they are trying to convey.

Also, the first Wikipedia article you linked to "Super power" suggests that there are other super powrs other than the US, and there is much debate as to what influences the US have over the globe to best secure their own interests - China is an example of that, China hate it when the US interfere and many other countries in the world will disagree that the US has any direct polical powers over them (China, India etc.) and the US has been in a lot of trouble over this before. If anything, the title of super power is superficial, which many academics will tell you (Steger, 2009) and a few others.

In short, the words "super power" is subject to debate, and though China doesn't hold some superficial title granted to them by the globe, they hold a lot of powers. Some say it is a super power right now, just not officially

[October]

Hmm, you're using some sort of political super power as the definition, when everyone else is using economic, military and overall "power" as their definition of "super power". China is a super power, the US leech off of super powers to raise themselves in a political, economic super power environment, yet if you remove China from the equation the leech that is the US would shrivel up and die. It's a huge discussion about globalisation we're heading into The US are merely the economic and political hub where the world's economy is centralised (dollar gold standard etc.), but economically China is a super power too as they have a huge economy, one of the world's largest and considering they're not the world standard for global economics, they're doing pretty damn well. The US are only considered "the" super power because they hold a superficial title branded by global powers so they can standardise everything for the sake of better integrating the world.

The US is still the largest economic power, but some may say that's luck seeing as they were put into that position.

Also, using Wikipedia as a source is bad The case for bias and limited resources makes it difficult to use it a primary source of information, and the CIA's world factbook is based on stereotypes - have you read their factbook on the UK? In the past they believed that Britons don't like staring people in the face and do not like to be touched. I think there was a mention of tea in there.

EDIT: The grammar in the potential super power page for Wikipedia is dreadful. It suggest that only one nation can be a super power, yet reading the article it suggests "potential" super powers to be "a state that is speculated to be, or to be in the process of becoming, a superpower at some point in the 21st century." So assuming the Wikipedia is contradicting itself, then yes you can have more than one super power, as to speculate more than one country become a super power in a certain amount of time suggests that more than one supoer power can exist at any point in time. Especially when it uses the word "becoming" to suggest again that more than one super power can exist at any one point in time....

This is why I disagree with Wikipedia articles, they contradict themselves and move away from the point they are trying to convey.

Also, the first Wikipedia article you linked to "Super power" suggests that there are other super powrs other than the US, and there is much debate as to what influences the US have over the globe to best secure their own interests - China is an example of that, China hate it when the US interfere and many other countries in the world will disagree that the US has any direct polical powers over them (China, India etc.) and the US has been in a lot of trouble over this before. If anything, the title of super power is superficial, which many academics will tell you (Steger, 2009) and a few others.

In short, the words "super power" is subject to debate, and though China doesn't hold some superficial title granted to them by the globe, they hold a lot of powers. Some say it is a super power right now, just not officially

It doesn't say that anywhere in the Factbook. As for Wikipedia, oh well. I'm not going to argue my point anymore cause it won't get no where, but the U.S. is dominant in almost every field and influences every other country. Not sure where you got the idea I was considering political powers.

[GommeInc]

It doesn't say that anywhere in the Factbook. As for Wikipedia, oh well. I'm not going to argue my point anymore cause it won't get no where, but the U.S. is dominant in almost every field and influences every other country. Not sure where you got the idea I was considering political powers.

I guess you did say the US was the main super power 'for now' in your original post, we're pretty much arguing semantics about what a super power is and could go on for hours