What country would you like to have replace America as the worlds sole superpower?

Question

This is a serious question and I want you to think about it before you answer.

By the way, I want realistic answers. Dont name a country that just could not possibly take on this role....... I love you Great Britain and you would do agreat job as a superpower again but because of your size you could not fullfill this role. You have a great military and culture and decent economy but because of your size/population i dont think you could do it. A superpower has to be big.

Answer 1

Can I choose "none of the above"? A single-pole world is dangerous. I think the world would be more stable with several power centers. With a single country calling itself a superpower, there is too much potential for reckless action and the incentive to work with international organizations is lower. We're better off with multiple (maybe 3 or more?) superpowers or, even better, none.

Answer 2

Let's see, the UK nearly ran out of ammunition invading the Falkland islands, although, by getting themselves into serious debt lasting 50 years to pay for mercenaries, they beat a bigger and far superior army/intellect in the second world war.
Canada is big and uncouth like the Americans, but does not appear to harbour the same control aspirations.
China has a huge population and like ants could probably dominate the world just by opening the borders,but the government would have no control over them.
India probably has no great aspirations in that way, and in any case is to busy opening call centres to take work away from the UK.
Australia can't even dominate it's own island yet, so that would be some time in the future.
This leaves us looking for something other than a geographical power.
Communism is absolutely wonderful in theory, but does not work in practise.
Religion, well, too many splits..IE Christian/Muslim...same story...cut each others throats.
Maybe....Scientologist....their plan is to "clear" brainwash everyone they come into contact with...maybe they could do it my increasing duplication..............but then again, the founder Ron L.Hubbard was American, so we are back to the original scenario.

Answer 3

I think you could do a lot worse than have the USA as the world's only superpower.

However, any good theater needs a good foil, and right now there isn't one. That's what makes the world so dangerous now. Back in the good old Cold War days the constant brinksmanship between the US and the USSR actually kept a check on the world's danger level.

At the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent collapse of communism in Europe, some people voiced a concern that the world would become more dangerous with the Cold War ending. Looks like they were right. Sometimes, stalemate is a good thing.

Answer 4

I do not believe ANY country should be a sole superpower (or think it is - Germany back in the early 20th century thinking they can beat everybody).

I want the superpower to be the UN, where everybody has a say and we don't have one country playing world police, not paying attention to everybody elses objections and then starting wars (the US is not the only on to do this in history, just the most recent).

There is no doubt in my mind that China WILL become a superpower, but not just militarily, financially - and that is FAR more dangerous

I also do not believe the world NEEDS a sole superpower - too risky as well because then they stick their heads into other country's business when it suits them but not always when it suits the citizens of the country (Why Iraq and not Sudan?)

Answer 5

How do you know we are still the world's sole superpower ? We've been selling our technology to China for years. Look at how many countries have nuclear weapons--are we really a sole superpower ?
India is coming right along already as well.

No one will "replace" us but there will be plenty to compete with us in the decades ahead. They either will buy our technology or develop their own.

So, I have no favorite country. Luxembourg ? Anyone ? Anyone ?

Answer 6

Well if it would have to be big, Canada. If it had to be non-North-American, then Brazil.
They're probably the most socially libertarian of all the other big countries outside North America. I'd have said Australia, but only criminals can own weapons in Australia now =(

Add to that how their Portuguese sounds gorgeous and the people there are mostly very sweet, aside from loving to dance till the wee hours.

Answer 7

hard question....

the only real contenders being the usa, china, india and russia. this is due to size of the countries and there economies.

i think the mostly likely would be china, as they already have massive military capabilities, and they have probably got the fastest growing economy on the planet.

however... i would like a country like brazil, as although they presently have massive crime problems, i think they are rich in culture and natural beauty.
and the majority of the amazon is there..... where a high proportion of the oxygen we breve is produced.
and its a huge enough country, by landmass anyway, if not economy

Answer 8

The world does not need a superpower. All nations can make it on their own. The best would be an independent UN that everyone would respect of and depend on.

Answer 9

The United States of America. ;)

Answer 10

I don't like the idea of one or two superpowers at all.

China is well on its way to becoming a second superpower. Its army is quite powerful, and its economy is growning fast. I certainly would not welcome it replacing the U.S. as a superpower or even challenging it for the title.