Talk:Superpower/Archive 6

message: Since we almost have enough users and many people will probably join once I begin advertising. You can still put your name up their of course, but you can't vote here until your name is up there. I'll move on to the next step: Propose a name for the project, the name should be representative of the scope you have in mind. For example, WikiProject Power in international relations would probably refer to few more than the articles in the  template at the bottom of each of these pages... Nobleeagle  (Talk) 07:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Propose a new name by using  my name . If you support an already proposed name, list it under that particular name using the following  Support COMMENTS # ~~~ . We'll keep it open until all that have put their names down have voted...in the event of the tie, cut out any outliers and get the people that voted for that to vote for something else...I wish we had 7 participants so there couldn't be a tie in the end, but if that happens then I'll think about it. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 07:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We seem to be unanimous, I'll create the project when I have time next week. From then on, we can have general and important discussions over there. As well as be able to coordinate the article-improvement-effort. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 07:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the delay, I've got a lot to do at the moment, bear with me...I can't give any time guarantees. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 07:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking I might go on partial wikibreak for a while. Check my contribs, I only check my watchlist but haven't made any decent contributions for quite some time. So anyone that wants to work on it while I don't have time can visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Power in international relations. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 07:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Step 2: Scope and Name

message: I've added the neutrality tag as the whole article is so biased towards God-blessed america it sounds almost like a parody. The best example being Superpower#The_United_States, which may as well be entitled "why america is better than anyone else". Please remove the tag only when neutrality is restored - Jak (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right there is some POV there but please also consider that this is a controversial issue. Regards, Signaturebrendel 03:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but you should come here and discuss this with the editors. This is a highly sensitive issue and we have a strict rule on tagging the page that involves concencus. So I'm taking your tag off. Now, please quote some sentences and examples and maybe we can all work on changing the POV areas you describe. Trip: The Light Fantastic 01:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: For some interesting facts and opinion on changes and stagnancy in India, see Pankaj Mishra's 6 July 2006 op-ed in The New York Times, "The Myth of the New India". 
:It's a disputed subject, one can find many many articles in favour of India, while one can also find many many articles against India. It's really hard to hit NPOV in this series of articles. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 00:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and even if we did, the nature of world politics means it will already have changed by the time we do. We just try to offer both sides of the issues and let the reader decide themselves. Put some of the points into the India article, definitely. Trip: The Light Fantastic 01:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  India's growth 

message: ::"India is generally preferred as an emerging superpower by the United States,"
::What does this mean? That the U.S. would rather see India become a superpower than China? --67.68.23.85 15:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what its intended to say, yes. It is a somewhat controversial view based on the thory that because India has similar domcratic values and no as authoritarian a government as China it is seens a more favorable by the US. Personally, it sounds plausable to me, but I doubt that China will cause the US economic harm and beleive that most economist in the US feel quite similar. China would not profit from America, its main customer in which it has so heavily invested, suffering a recession and excessive job loses. Regards, Signaturebrendel 02:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: India is super Power in Poverty and Hungry also. vkvora 18:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: India preferred by the U.S.

message: In order to get beyond the politically charged notions of what being a superpower really means, it would be nice to have some logical, almost scientifically and technologically methodological criteria against which to determine whether or not a certain country possesses 'technological fluency' in a key set of technologies so as to allow for valid attribution of the superpower term.  
In particular, would it be possible to analytically determine a countries technological capabilities in a technology by technology assessment that reflects wikipedia's categorisation of what technology actually is?  I suppose that something of a few analytical examples that show how it is that technologies from different areas have been used to implement a political 'will' would enable one to better understand how it is that social, technological, philosophical and cultural effects enable a  superpower to implement its 'will' in a particular type of way.  Perhaps general themes that recur in a variety of examples would also appear.  To give greater meaning to this, consider the example of the nuclear arms race between the US and the USSR, this resulted in strategic improvements in both nuclear weapons systems and the ability to deliver them.  An analogous example would be the creation of tank and anti-tank weaponry.  In both cases there is a strong competitive element spurring technical progress.  In both cases the production of one sides 'superior' military weaponry prompted the other side to surpass that weaponry (UNTIL, some technological/politcal/other saturation point is reached).  
This would enable a more thorough assessment of the capabilities of a superpower on a more objective basis (if this can be done at all!).  
Apologies for any 'fuzziness' in argument.  The important point about how society is organised (cultural/social effects) would indicate to me something about whether or not a society is capable of generating/maintaining a particular form of technology (so, a society where all the intellectuals are dead would probably not satisfy this requirement, neither would one where most of the population is too poor/stupid to comprehend how to implement technology due to the intelligentsia unwillingnees/social ineptitude in regards to making that technology usable).  
--NukeMason 00:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're looking at technology wrong though, the reason why it isn't a factor is because it's tied into Economic factors. Any nation with a strong economy can afford better education and research and advance through technological factors, if managed properly. And besides, technology isn't even required in being a superpower, in my view, anyways. Any nation that plays its political, economic and military cards right can accrue a sphere of influence and international power and become a superpower. It's just that little bit easier to advance in certain factors with the help of technology, ie; technology can streamline the economy and improve the military. Technology's more of an upgrade to the factors, rather than a factor outright, if you know what I mean. I hope that makes sense to you! Trip: The Light Fantastic 00:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objective Analysis Of Superpower Status 

message: Before you start whining, we needed a picture up there to draw readers into the article and further ilustrate out point. So I nicked it off our friends over at the French version of the superpower page; synchronise the two language versions a bit. So blame them not me. I kinda like it. Trip: The Light Fantastic 01:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though I do not beleive in Hard Power, but rather Soft, economic, power in being the primary charcetristic of a superpower, I do like the picture. If you think about all NATO countires are guranteed to win in traditional war fare, no country would take on any of the NATO countries as messing w/ one NATO countiry means messing with all of them (one for all, all for one-NATO), So... from a military perspective... As I said, I do, however like the picture. Signaturebrendel 02:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture's good, well done. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 00:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also really like the Euro pic. Signaturebrendel 16:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too kind. I didn't really like the other one, and I don't think it illustrated anything very well. Trip: The Light Fantastic 01:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: B-2 bomber

message: There's an issue with the Space Race here. Please remember that the Criteria are causes for the USSR/USA becoming superpowers like a strong economy etc;, not the effects. The effects are mainly power wielding ie; Afghanistan and confrontation between superpower interests in certain battlegrounds ie; space race, proxy wars etc etc Trip: The Light Fantastic 01:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I Agree the space race was the result of both powers having being the two only nations with superpower status. Of course so was the arms race-which is somehow connected to the size of military-a criteria for being a superpower. Nonetheless yes the space race was the result of the global distribution of power then and now with NASA and ESA dominating the field today (US & EU w/ Russia-the only current superpowers IMHO) Regards, Signaturebrendel 02:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent points. Was going more for a symbol of power, but I see your points and concede. On the other hand, can't forget Japan's JAXA and the Chinese space program, which are both viable space programs. Heck, China's only the third country to put a human in space on their own. --Bobblehead 02:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: China is also an emerging superpower. You do have a point-its a symbol of power, which makes the result of being powerful. As you states China and Japan, two very powerful nations also have space programs and of course the two IMO superpowers, the EU and US have their space programs. BTW: The ESA has also put people in space, of course today's Russia collaborates with ESA. Regards, Signaturebrendel 03:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cause and Effect

message: Right, I did a bit of work and its a tad better. The shortcut is WP:PIIR, be sure to list yourself as a participant. I'll work on it more some other time. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 07:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject 

message: Why is The Russian Federation not on the Emerging Supepowers list?
The Russian economy is doing allot better.
Russia has the most nuclear weapons.
Russia has the most armoured units.
Dudtz 8/10/06 7:29 PM EST
:This has been discussed many, many times before - you'll find the main reasons why not in the archives.  (You'll also find some further discussion re. Russia here)
:Xdamrtalk 00:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right... Nobleeagle  (Talk) 07:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian Federation