Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 June 12

= June 12 =

Future world superpowers
For a work set in the future, would these be realistic ideas for global superpowers?

In order from most powerful to least powerful:

Western Republic (Commonly called just "the Republic")
 * Consists of the United States, Canada, Europe, and Japan.
 * The Republic is the only democratic superpower; the others are a Communist dictatorship, a military dictatorship, and a theocratic dictatorship, respectively.
 * History:
 * Canada and the United States joined the European Union, then renamed to just the Union, because of their common historical ties to Europe as well as the threat from the rising Collective in Central and South America.
 * Japan, being allied to the United States (and, since WWII, effectively a Western country despite being in Asia) joined the Union as well.
 * Over time, the Union's power over its constituent countries increased, until eventually the various countries were merely vestigial administrative regions.

Asian Empire ("the Empire")
 * Consists of Asia (except Japan and the Middle East), Oceania, and Africa (except Egypt).
 * Chinese and Russian dislike of America caused the Empire to be against the Republic.
 * History:
 * China provided military support to the Russian Communist Party, allowing them to take control.
 * The New Soviet Socialist People's Democratic Republic of Russia (NSSPDRR) allied with China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Laos.
 * Together, the Communist alliance, using China's nuclear weapons, captured all remaining democratic countries in Asia (except Japan).

Amazonian Collective ("the Collective")
 * Consists of Mexico, Central America, South America, and the Caribbean.
 * Mexico's continuing anger over losing Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California caused the Collective to ally with the Empire against the Republic.
 * History:
 * Cuba and Venezuela formed a protective military alliance against the United States.
 * Mexico, angered by American border control and the desire to recapture the territory it lost to America, joined the alliance.
 * This new alliance conquered the rest of Central and South America starting from the north and working southward.

Holy Islamic Caliphate of Arabia ("Arabia")
 * Consists of the Middle East and Egypt.
 * A "pariah state", Arabia is weaker than the others but carries out suicide nuclear bombings against them.
 * History:
 * Iran developed nuclear weapons, which it used to defeat Israel, reverting the area to the Palestinian Islamic Republic.
 * Iran and Saudi Arabia formed an alliance, together putting enough pressure on Iraq to force out the Americans.
 * Most of the other Middle Eastern countries then allied with Iran and Saudi Arabia.
 * The few remaining holdouts were conquered by Iran's nuclear weapons.

--75.25.103.109 (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well for one thing, I think it is unlikely that Iran would be able to defeat Israel by itself, unless the United States drastically changed its foreign policy in the Middle East. And even without the USA, Israel has a huge and modern military, is widely believed to be in possession of a number of nuclear warheads, and would unquestionably have no qualms about making a preemptive nuclear strike if they were to obtain credible information that Iran was planning ~to nuke them. Furthermore, in my own uneducated opinion, I think Israel is far more likely to have advanced ballistic missiles and an advance missile defense system than Iran. J.delanoy gabs adds  14:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I think you vastly underestimate the response that the USA in particular, and likely the other currently declared nuclear powers, in the event that anyone used nuclear weapons aggressively without having a really, really good excuse. J.delanoy gabs adds  14:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's also very unlikely for Saudi Arabia and Iran to make that sort of alliance. Their relationship is, well, not great (we even have an article, Iran – Saudi Arabia relations). They have some things in common, but they are mostly incompatibly different (monarchy vs. republic, an usually puritan form of Sunnism vs. Shi'ism), and on the matters of Israel, the US, Iraq, and more local concerns like territorial disputes in the Persian Gulf, they do not really cooperate. Iran might like to get rid of the Americans, but the Saudis, in the sense of the actual Saudi dynasty, would be completely helpless without the US. It is also extremely unlikely that Saudi Arabia would declare itself a caliphate. See Caliphate for some reasons...now if the Saudi dynasty was overthrown and one of the more extremist religious groups took over they could conceivably re-establish a caliphate, but then there is no way there would ever be an alliance with Iran, assuming Iran remained a majority Shi'ite republic, and the existence of a Shi'ite republic would essentially nullify any legitimate claim for a new caliphate...so I don't think that scenario would work at all. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear 75.25.103.109 -- Your scenario isn't any more unrealistic than many others which have been presented in past commercially-published science-fiction stories and novels, and for the purpose of writing your story, you should probably go with whatever serves your storytelling goals best, but if you're asking whether this is very probable to occur in the future, the answer is almost certainly "no"... AnonMoos (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A caliphate will never happen, saudis and iranians hate each other's guts.--178.167.206.65 (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How far in the future is this supposed to be? 50 years? 100? 200?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You are missing a description of the current diplomatic situation. The histories you describe would have triggered a world war, without doubt. It doesn't sound like you are describing a world that is still at war, so what ended the war? --Tango (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

An Arab Caliphate probably wouldn't include Iran (which isn't an Arab country), and it would most probably include Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, and possibly other semi-Arab countries in Africa (which in your scenario are allied with China etc. - I think Iran would fit better with China, Russia, and the likes, which could also help it in defeating Israel). Rimush (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are intending to use this scenario in a work of fiction, you will need to be clear what you mean in each case by "used nuclear weapons". The theory of nuclear weapons is that they will never be used (launched), that they are "the ultimate deterrent" that avoids "mutual assured destruction".  So to say Iran "used nuclear weapons to defeat Israel" either means that they demonstrated a capability to hit Tel Aviv from Kermanshah and the Israelis caved in, or that they actually launched nuclear missiles.  If you mean the latter, then you need to deal with the massive destruction that would have taken place.  Israel is such a small place that it would effectively have been destroyed and Palestine alongside it, and the same for the other "uses" you contemplate.  Plus each of your "uses", even if ultimately successful, would likely provoke a counter-strike, so that Iran, China etc would be damaged as well as their conquered states.   Sussexonian (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Israel isn't that small. A medium-sized nuke might destroy a whole city, but it won't destroy a whole country (unless it's a city-state!) - the Tsar Bomba could destroy much of Israel, but there is little chance of Iran having a bomb that big in the foreseeable future. I think it is generally assumed that countries wouldn't play tit-for-tat with nukes (with the possible exception of tactical nuclear weapons) - if you get into a nuclear exchange you launch the whole lot at once. However, that assumption is based on the superpowers attacking each other. If someone like Iran or North Korea used a nuke, I would expect other countries to retaliate using non-nuclear means. If, say, Iran nukes Israel and then the US nukes Iran in exchange, China or Russia might nuke the US, and mutual destruction would result. Since the US doesn't want to risk that, it wouldn't use nukes. (China and Russia don't want that either, so they probably wouldn't retaliate against the US, but it would severely weaken diplomatic relations and wouldn't be worth the risk.) --Tango (talk) 02:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that you would not have to blanket the entire surface area to functionally destroy the nation-state. It is pretty small and most of its population is clustered in a few areas, even just a few cities. Punching out the center of a built-up infrastructure, killing off 90% of the government and commercial infrastructure, and so on, would have devastating effects and it would probably be hard to consider there still being an entity called "Israel" in anything other than a name. But I do agree that the idea that Iran would just nuke Israel seems a bit far-fetched in any kind of realpolitik world. Historically they don't even have that bad of relations with Israel; it's only in recent years that they have spent much time even talking about Israel. They are clearly interested in playing regional power politics more than anything else. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is Oceania part of the Empire?--99.251.239.89 (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Presumably the OP is including it in "all remaining democratic countries in Asia" and it was invaded using China's nuclear weapons. Counting Oceania as part of Asia is non-standard, of course. --Tango (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, since no one else has mentioned it, the inclusion of Japan in the Western Republic doesn't make sense. Much easier to assume China takes everything East and South of its current borders. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

One other thing is that countries don't really conquer each other like in the Middle Ages anymore. Rimush (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Germans did quite a lot of conquering during WWII. And Russia arguably conquered the rest of the USSR. --Tango (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * And the late 20th century has quite a few "invasions" wherein one country ousts the government of another and installs a more favorable one. I'd call that "conquering". --Mr.98 (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Not to mention in this century. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I find it rather implausible that Russia and China would be in the same superpower. There is a lot of animosity between the two countries, and in future oil declines, I would think that China would pull some shenanigans to get oil from Russia, which is still pretty underdeveloped in terms of actual oil reserves.  Googlemeister (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd go with the following:
 * The Western Alliance: a military alliance between two countries: the European Union (including Mediterranian Africa) and a combined US/Canada. In constant economic conflict with the other powers.
 * The Chinese Empire: China is the core of this, with much of Southeast Asia either being client states or outright occupied.
 * Greater India: India conquers and absorbs Pakistan as the end result of the Kashmir conflict. Bangladesh is a client state.
 * The Russian Empire: Russia, plus some of the former Soviet republics. The border with the Chinese Empire is a source of constant conflict.
 * The countries of South and Central America have a mutual-defence arrangement, but they're not cohesive enough to be called a major power. They're strong enough to keep from being conquered, but beyond that, they don't have a collective foreign policy.
 * Japan and Australia/New Zealand are independent powers loosely allied with the Western Alliance.
 * Sub-Saharan Africa is plagued by proxy wars fought by all the major powers; the South Pacific is the location of military tensions between Greater India and the Chinese Empire.
 * Depending on how far in the future you're setting this, either the oil has run out and the Middle East has become a region of internal conflicts that most of the world ignores, or the major powers are playing hardball politics to get a larger share of the oil.
 * --Carnildo (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)