Quote:
Originally Posted by FullTank
zraver a very good classification.
The superpower title above seems a bit lenient though.
Imo these things are relative to other powers. Comparing the power of zimbabwe because it might be able to defeat the roman empire of old doesnt serve any purpose.
Atleast these 3 needs to be added to your list to call a country superpower.
1)95%+ educated population - quality of citizens
2)25+ SLBM's of 8k+ range - retaliatory power
3)Ability to fight conventional war for long duration(12 months+) against any other superpower(maybe even hyperpower?) without external help. - staying power
|
I think your ideas about adding more classification is without merit. India and China might not have 95% literacy but all the same because of thier sheer population size they have huge brain trusts. India has what is probably the best engineering university in the world, China graduates huge numbers of engineers even after reducing thier numbers to only reflect those who would meet western qualifications. One problem in power rankings is avoiding unfair litmus tests that do not actually and/or accurately reflect real power.
Evey nation listed as Superpower or emerging superpower has more military, cultural, and economic power than any nation in history prior to 1945. Super powers or emerging superpowers cannot fight each other certainly not for a year. No nation can sustain 12 months of high intensity warfare with modern arms prices. Modern superpowers battle for influence and wage war with soft power and by proxy. Just because more players have joined the game, the rules about direct confrontation have not changed.
abhishek,
I will correct my list to reflect a 1 trillion dollar economy.