[jumpingjesusholycow]

(Original post by Stalin)
Britain was a superpower before oil became the most important resource on the Earth, so why should there be no superpowers when it runs out?

The human species wasn't as reliant on a single energy source to fuel our existence. Unless you expect every city dweller to become immediate farmers, I highly doubt there'll be much room for global profiteering.

[Aj12]

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
When the oil runs out, there will be no super powers.

Given the amount of research being done into alternate fuels. Hydrogen, algae, biofuels ect. I really doubt this.

[jumpingjesusholycow]

(Original post by Aj12)
Given the amount of research being done into alternate fuels. Hydrogen, algae, biofuels ect. I really doubt this.

There is absolutely nothing that will replace the edifice built on fossil fuels. We haven't even begun to implement the energy infrastructure needed to sustain even half of our lifestyle relying on alternative energies. We rely on fossil fuels to exist. It's every facet of our being, from the ships we use to get Strawberries grown in China to the lorries used to get food into our supermarkets. The idea that 'algae' and a non existent hydrogen economy is going to be the saviour of over 7 Billion people that currently use our oil economy as a means of existence is absolutely laughable.

I will at this point make light of our rate of population growth:

[Stalin]

(Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
The human species wasn't as reliant on a single energy source to fuel our existence. Unless you expect every city dweller to become immediate farmers, I highly doubt there'll be much room for global profiteering.

Indeed, but other energy sources will replace oil - how will that make the international political system bipolar?

[jumpingjesusholycow]

(Original post by Stalin)
Indeed, but other energy sources will replace oil - how will that make the international political system bipolar?

See above your post. I just answered the same question which was also posed by Aj12.

[fellowjoe]

None, its just a matter of which one will be overtaken.

But Japan will be the last on earth to crumble.

[Hernán Cortés]

I personally believe that the EU will move closer together and eventually will be one. If that happens then the EU will be the biggest power on the world stage culturally, economically and maybe militarily.

Although China's economy is massive I don't believe it is a superpower, or will really become one. Being a superpower is more than just having a massive economy and strong military. When you look at the USA you'll see that not only did/do they have a huge economy they also have a lot of influence. Coca Cola, McDonalds, Ford, NASA, Hollywood, Apple, Microsoft, KFC, Boeing... The list goes on. China simply cannot compete on this front and never will. The Chinese and other Far East countries are just not innovative enough. They really struggle with thinking outside the box and are afraid of upsetting the hierarchy.

It will be interesting to see whether Brazil and other South/Central American states move together in the coming decade or so.

[Super Cicero]

(Original post by Hernán Cortés)
I personally believe that the EU will move closer together and eventually will be one. If that happens then the EU will be the biggest power on the world stage culturally, economically and maybe militarily.

While the EU is currently the world's largest economic entity, it is in decline. Europe's GDP as a % of the world's total has been getting relatively smaller and smaller over the past few decades, and given the current state of the Eurozone economy, this trend looks likely to accelerate rather than stop. The world's cultural superpower? Hmm not likely - I don't really see European films overtaking Hollywood anytime soon.

As for Europe being militarily the world's strongest power - this is not going to happen unless the US goes all isolationist (which is unlikely to happen). The US Navy is larger than the world's next 13 largest navies combined. The US has bases and allies in every corner of the world. Britain too once had such naval dominance, and bases (and colonies) all around the globe, but it voluntarily gave most of them up following WW2. The only way to knock the US off its perch of being the world's unquestionably dominant military superpower is to get someone elected president who believes in an isolationist foreign policy.

[Stalin]

(Original post by Super Cicero)
While the EU is currently the world's largest economic entity, it is in decline. Europe's GDP as a % of the world's total has been getting relatively smaller and smaller over the past few decades, and given the current state of the Eurozone economy, this trend looks likely to accelerate rather than stop. The world's cultural superpower? Hmm not likely - I don't really see European films overtaking Hollywood anytime soon.

As for Europe being militarily the world's strongest power - this is not going to happen unless the US goes all isolationist (which is unlikely to happen). The US Navy is larger than the world's next 13 largest navies combined. The US has bases and allies in every corner of the world. Britain too once had such naval dominance, and bases (and colonies) all around the globe, but it voluntarily gave most of them up following WW2. The only way to knock the US off its perch of being the world's unquestionably dominant military superpower is to get someone elected president who believes in an isolationist foreign policy.

I think voluntarily is the wrong word. It would imply that Britain could have kept its colonies, bases and influence, which was simply not the case.

[Super Cicero]

(Original post by Stalin)
I think voluntarily is the wrong word. It would imply that Britain could have kept its colonies, bases and influence, which was simply not the case.

You're right - it would not have been possible for Britain to retain most of its empire - especially troublesome places like Palestine, and above all India, without being prepared to fight massive wars (which the British would inevitably lose) against insurgents as the French did in Indochina and Algeria, and Portugal did in Angola and Mozambique.

However, the point I was trying to make was that Britain did make a decision to leave behind the age of "Rule Britannia" in favour of building "Jerusalem" in Britain itself - i.e. abandon all efforts to remain a world superpower in favour of focusing on domestic issues. If Churchill had been re-elected in 1945 then things might have been a bit different - after all his main theme in that election was the imperial rallying cry "Advance Britannia". If it had wanted to, parts of the empire could have been kept by Britain. Britain could have kept, in order of likelihood:

- Malta. In 1956, 77% of people in Malta in a 1956 referendum voted to be integrated into the United Kingdom, with a devolved parliament similar to Scotland's today.
- Belize.
- Guyana
- Jamaica and other Caribbean islands.
- The Gambia
- Sri Lanka
- Singapore (difficult due to Japanese conquest in WW2, but if Singapore can be successfully defended during the war, its likely it would stay under British rule).

[Kimyoung]

I'm Chinese and i really wanna say that China is developing really quickly, it's changing every year, every month and even every day. I believe it wont take to long for my country to become a superpower, even now, it is dominating in some fields, just watch Olympics and you'll agree.

[bvlpro]

I think that the United States still a superpower

Which country can replace the US ?

[smithymatty]

"Everything is connected to everything else" - Lenin

[Aek-94]

(Original post by Kimyoung)
I'm Chinese and i really wanna say that China is developing really quickly, it's changing every year, every month and even every day. I believe it wont take to long for my country to become a superpower, even now, it is dominating in some fields, just watch Olympics and you'll agree.

Although it's undeniable that China is developing fast into a fully industrialised nation, it has some big problems it will have to deal with before it could become a true economic and political superpower. One of these being the massive real estate bubble which looks like it could pop within the near future.

This video shows you the scale of the problem they are facing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPILhiTJv7E

[Zenomorph]

China's housing bubble is nothing, bubbles happen all round the world including the West on a regular basis, and it didn't stop their development.

[The_Great_One]

If youre talking about money I'd say Qatar.

[Spaz Man]

America should remain on top for at least another 30 years before China really challenges them for that top spot. As long as they develop that blue-water navy and keep up an economic growth rate of 5%+ that is. They're long-term meticulous development of infastructure suggests that inflation won't be a problem at least.

[liamb109]

China, India and Brazil. US will slowly become less powerful, lose their hegemony over South America in favour of Brazil or possibly, the collection of socialist countries as leftists win all over South America, and as they lose their hegemony over Asia with rising influence of China and even India. A federal EU could possibly do well, as well. They have the highest combined GDP in the world.

[Zenomorph]

India ?

Noooo, to be a world leader you must a track record of achievement and success, India has never had that.

Besides the Indian base level, well - some would call a basket case.

[Vertigo2012]

Even with the US in decline and an ascendant China I can't see any one nation dominating the world stage like America did.

I see a uni-polar situation as being much more likely, with several dominating regional powers as opposed to a single gobal one.