Will India become a hyperpower, i.e. a country as strong or stronger than the US?

Originally posted by danwild6
India on the other hand started its free market reform over a decade after China. And while possessing a viable high technology sector as well as developing other industries such as aerospace the economic boom hasn't had the widespread economic effects that have been seen in China.

So at the earliest India achieves superpower status 2050-2060 at the earliest.

I whole heartily agree with both danwild as well as Arthur C. Clarke because the world's biggest airport won't be fully completed until 2050. With their ten year lag and all, do expect India to indeed take a bit longer in implementing the latest technology. Furthermore, please do keep in mind that we are dealing with a continent becoming increasingly burdened with an insidious amount of pollution as it is the most populated of them all. While the idea of such a surprise is not unwelcomed, ever since Bombay changed its name to Mumbai ergo a direct parallel with Dubai, it is India's destiny to be brilliantly relevant once again. An interesting place to be sure, the 5000 year old civilization cannot help but go about creating something awe-inspring to as a gift to the rest of the world. Technology after all, always did change everything as the British can greatly attest.

Long live the British East India Company!

Italy, Spain and France will never become superpowers, even if fully invested in a military industry.

France???? HA HA HA The only war they ever won was when they fought themselves, so how could they lose? The best army they ever had was the Foreign Legion, made up mostly of soldiers from other countries.

Having nukes does not a superpower make. One has to have a viable economy, and other countries will always take it's money to where it is treated best. To remain an economic powerhouse, it has to be a country where it's citizens have individual liberty and freedom. America is the only country currently like that, and France, Russia et-al would have to change their entire system of government, which is very unlikely.
They prefer Socialism/Marxism/Communism which never works, and so would be unlikely candidates for superpower status.

No... Americas poverty line is lower than 12%. more like 9%. Even if you take your figures as accurate, consider this:
60% of those with "poverty" status own their own home; have at least one car and TV; have jobs etc. Compare that with poverty in China.

There are over 70 million members of the CCP in china. Count the family members of these and you could have 50% of the population being a affiliate of the communist part of china.

REPLY: How many of those truly believe in the CCP, and how many are posers who simply like the perks of being members?

No more Palestinian/Israeli problem since Gaza and West Bank would be a part of it. India and Pakistan once again reunited with the british partition undone. Peace keepers sent to Sudan to stop the fighting in Darfur. Taiwan reunited with China. Japan on friendly terms with China and North Korea. North and South Korea reunited. All oil traded in this union's currency. Future candidates to include Venezuela, Bolivia, and Argentina.

REPLY: Most all of that would never happen because it would mean too many tyrants and dictators would have to give up their control. A pipe dream.

IMO the only way India could ever emerge as a world power is if they used all their nukes to blow all other countries below the poverty line to their small level of welath.

REPLY: But what would be left of them after those other countries turned India into a vast expanse of green glass?

Many think of America as the great evil, for wanting to expand the idea of democracy and individual liberty and freedom. Why is that??? Because truly democratic countries don't go to war with each other.

"We as a nation are spending too much money on the war on terror..."

REPLY: No.... because our largest expense is all of the Marxist/Socialist social programs we have.

Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsNotSmarter

Originally posted by planeman
I think that US power will decline

This will NEVER happen. Economically, the US is outperforming the rest of the world. In the first quarter of 2006 alone, the American economy has grown by 5.6%. Industrial production is growing. Unemployment is 5.1%.

This is a common misconception.

The U.S. economy is at the worst point it's ever been. We're 9 trillion dollars in debt and the private bankers who own the federal reserve (and who we owe the debt to) are soon going to engineer another depression.

Do a google search on rothschild, colonial scrip, and the 1913 federal reserve banking act. It might open your eyes to the true state of the American economy.

I don't believe that India or China can surpass the US as the world's superpower. What I believe is that local nations will continue to exist, multinational global corporations like Walmart and the Big Energy Companies will become the real superpowers. Nations not conforming to corporate rule and trade practices will be denied advanced technology and become marginalized like the the old European Nations. We already live in econo-fascist state where insurance and financial companies determine where you can live and if you can drive. The first nation/corporate combination to truly commercialize space travel will dominate humanity for the foreseeable future. Once the first off world robotic manufacturing plants come on line they will be able to build anything the world needs. Some assembly will still take place on Earth but because of the oxygen and gravity free enviroment of space, new super materials will replace most raw materials such as steel and aluminum. Solar energy in space is much cheaper per watt/hour than it is on earth. It will cheaper to transport from orbit than it will be to ship from overseas. It's all downhill from orbit. The idea of military superpowers by the end of this century will seem as archaic as the abacus. The real question will be can we shape corporations into wiser entities than political governments.

Originally posted by zappafan1
Italy, Spain and France will never become superpowers, even if fully invested in a military industry.

They won't as individual nations, yet as part of the EU, they have power, and when the EU is fully consolidated, it will be a fully fledged superpower.
EU is already an economic powerhouse, with more population than US, and a larger GDP than the US.

France???? HA HA HA The only war they ever won was when they fought themselves, so how could they lose? The best army they ever had was the Foreign Legion, made up mostly of soldiers from other countries.

France won with Napoleon more than 1 battle, and had the Grand Armee...
WW1 was not lost either, and they did lose in Vietnam...but so did the US.

Having nukes does not a superpower make. One has to have a viable economy, and other countries will always take it's money to where it is treated best. To remain an economic powerhouse, it has to be a country where it's citizens have individual liberty and freedom. America is the only country currently like that, and France, Russia et-al would have to change their entire system of government, which is very unlikely.

Individual liberties and freedom where born in Europe, EU has a viable economy. America is not the only place currently like that, and Russia has nothing to do with Europe the way it handles it's country.

They prefer Socialism/Marxism/Communism which never works, and so would be unlikely candidates for superpower status.

USSR was a socialist country, yet they were Superpower for quite some time, China is a communist/capitalist country, and they are a likely candidate for a future superpower.
Beware the Communist Boogeyman is old history...

Many think of America as the great evil, for wanting to expand the idea of democracy and individual liberty and freedom. Why is that??? Because truly democratic countries don't go to war with each other.

Maybe people would stop thinking that if the US asked the only authority to decide, the UN, when to go and "liberate" a country they deem "evil".
Truly democratic countries negotiate, not invade.

No.... because our largest expense is all of the Marxist/Socialist social programs we have.

Any proof to that? Military spending seems to be the biggest expense. Besides, that "marxist" social programs are needed to any countries development, without them, your poverty line would be way bigger than what you state it is

[quote]by ShakyaHeir:
Do a google search on rothschild, colonial scrip, and the 1913 federal reserve banking act. It might open your eyes to the true state of the American economy.

REPLY: Excuse me.... the national debt is only 2.3% of GDP. Very manageable, and also just happens to be the 50 year average.

I agree that the 13th Amendment was a bad thing. Two presidents abolished it, but I fear we will not see it abolished again.

Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: Excuse me.... the national debt is only 2.3% of GDP. Very manageable, and also just happens to be the 50 year average.

Excused yet wrong, national debt is by no means the 2% of the GDP

Debt as a percentage of GDP turned up again as the Bush administration began running deficits and now stands at an estimated 65.7 percent of GDP. The 2006 budget forecast predicts that the national debt will be 70 percent of GDP in 2010

Is 65.7 very manageable? 2.3% is not the 50 year average, 1946 debt was 121.7% of GDP. It was 33% in 1980 then 60% during Bush Sr. and Reagan...average that, and please tell me it gives you 2.3%
US hovers close to it's debt ceiling

~lurk~......~lurk~...


Just a few pointers..

1) Thorium.. source of plutonium.

2) Fast breeder reactors.. eventually produce equal amounts of fuel as consumed..

3) India..has more than half the world's Thorium reserves..

4) Has been researching on using Thorium as a nuclear fuel for a decade or more now.. a dozen FBR(fast breeder reactors) planned; one creating fuel for the other and so on.. the first one almost up and running..

5)Maybe India has a very good reasons for not putting all its reactors under international supervision.. maybe these reasons have nothing to do with nuclear weapons.. Maybe a thorium monopoly:resource AND technology-wise is being sought..

6) Maybe the US isn't soo daft in aggressively trying to get India access to the NSG..maybe thorium is the key..

strategies within strategies..the future is bright.. who's game?

I would link sources to the above info but then it would lose the mystic' touch

ok, now back into the mist..

~~lurk~~...~~lurk~~

my my, what conjencture

The point about India not having enough Natural resources, that is true only for OIL. Now i know Oil is probably the mos important resource right now but it cannot hold true for the future, cause we know not what the future developments are likely to happen.

Plus DD's point about thorium has to be kept in mind here.

Also as has been seen throughout history, every power has eventually declined. So it is also true for the US. Its influence in the world must decline one day. I know its hard for certain people to accept, but it will happen. When and how remains to be seen.

As to who will take its place, hard to say, but India & China are both top contenders IMHO.

P.S. Egypt was not a Superpower. A regional power yes. The first Super Powers were the Greeks under Alexander and the the Mongols.

India and China are contenders, but do not forget a future EU is plausible as well.
China GDP growth is huge, and is updating itself in every aspect, from infraestructure, to telecoms, to the military.

India, though in the right path, still needs reforms that will allow further development, as well as a lot of investment in infraestructure.

Some facts...just to compare this contenders regarding investment, which is important for growth:

India's low spending on power, construction, transportation, telecommunications and real estate, at $31 billion or 6% of GDP, compared to China's spending of $260 billion or 20% of its GDP in 2002 has prevented India from sustaining a growth rate of around 8%.

The EU on the other side, spends $154 billion and spends it on the following:

A wide range of activities are funded in the 25 Member States, for example in agriculture, fisheries, infrastructure (construction of roads, bridges and railways), education and training, culture, employment and social policy, environmental policy, health and consumer protection, research, to mention a few.

I think I'll put my bets on EU, though China is my second best option, to attain superpower status.
Though one question...what are the parameters of a superpower?
Because if economic might is one of them, the EU could already be called one...

I said this before

Whats so good about being a superpower? . I saw as hell hope that china never becomes a superpower involving her in all matters of the world community. Peace and economic development should come first. Then helping other third world countries to develop

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili

I think I'll put my bets on EU, though China is my second best option, to attain superpower status.
Though one question...what are the parameters of a superpower?
Because if economic might is one of them, the EU could already be called one...

I'm confused. How can one consider the EU as a whole entity. The governance is fractured at best, and there a multiple strategic ideologies all going in different directions. The EU is good as an entity on paper and yes there is a sense of integration in terms of moves that span years but there is no immediate consensus, fast-track decision making, common-will etc etc..

Originally posted by chinawhite
I said this before

Whats so good about being a superpower?

. I saw as hell hope that china never becomes a superpower involving her in all matters of the world community. Peace and economic development should come first.

You are stigmatised by the current status of the US superpowerdom..

Daedalus
EU is moving to greater levels of integration all the time, next level will be unified foreign policy and most likely the use of single foreign affairs minister.

Economically EU is more integrated than many countries, EU will either develop to Federation or dissolve into a tradepact, if former it will be a superpower if later it won't, we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
I'm confused. How can one consider the EU as a whole entity. The governance is fractured at best, and there a multiple strategic ideologies all going in different directions. The EU is good as an entity on paper and yes there is a sense of integration in terms of moves that span years but there is no immediate consensus, fast-track decision making, common-will etc etc..

Well, it's not that hard. At first, EU was primarily an economic union, meant not to bring political weight, but to bring economic strength to the region in overall, which has accomplished, and new members have all reported growth since joining.

It has a single market, and a single currency, a central European Bank, as well as joined fronts in agricultural and fisheries policies. The three pillars of the European Union are enforced throught member states, yet much is still to be done.

Fractured governance? Well, as far as I know, EU is meant to unite countries on common goals, but not to be a single country. Ideologies are bound to go in different directions, as in any place in the world, no single country, or zone, share completely equal ideologies.

Yet it can be seen as an entity, for members share defense, commerce and political interests, though, as said, ideologies may differ, in the end, the common goal is integration and cooperation.

It has it's own space program, has begun steps for it's own GPS system, not to say the Euro is now seen as a strong currency, and has gained ground on the dollar. Also military integration programs, such as the Eurofighter, or Eurocopter demonstrate it's increasing military cooperation. Last time I checked, I think France will be building a carrier with UK cooperation.

So the will is there as well, countries want to join in, such as Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey. Other candidates are Croatia, and Macedonia.

You must also remember that EU was established in 1992, and still has a long way to go for what it is intended to be, yet it's closer to achieve goals, than for example, China or India.

As I said before, all three or them are candidates for power, nevertheless I see more goals achieved in EU, which include reducing US dependency, militarily and economically speaking, and though slow, they also have steady growth.

China and India have quite large growth percentages, yet they both have still a long way to catch up to EU, not to say the US.

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Well, it's not that hard. At first, EU was primarily an economic union, meant not to bring political weight, but to bring economic strength to the region in overall, which has accomplished, and new members have all reported growth since joining.
It has a single market, and a single currency, a central European Bank, as well as joined fronts in agricultural and fisheries policies. The three pillars of the European Union are enforced throught member states, yet much is still to be done.

But that doesn't answer what I was asking..

Fractured governance? Well, as far as I know, EU is meant to unite countries on common goals, but not to be a single country. Ideologies are bound to go in different directions, as in any place in the world, no single country, or zone, share completely equal ideologies.
Yet it can be seen as an entity, for members share defense, commerce and political interests, though, as said, ideologies may differ, in the end, the common goal is integration and cooperation.

Not really. You're skewing the parlimentary process in a democracy with the different and independant goals & objectives EU member states have. There is no consensus on whether to align with US foreign policy or disassociate from it;No consensus on whether to embrace Russia or to stay wary of it etc. etc..
You see the word 'co-operation' itself indicates a 'pact/treaty-status' rather than unquestionable nationalism.

It has it's own space program, has begun steps for it's own GPS system, not to say the Euro is now seen as a strong currency, and has gained ground on the dollar. Also military integration programs, such as the Eurofighter, or Eurocopter demonstrate it's increasing military cooperation. Last time I checked, I think France will be building a carrier with UK cooperation.

France is NOT in the Eurofighter program. India is a major participant in GALELIO and GLONASS(Russian GPS) as well.
The Euro is strong because it was always inherently strong. You get a common currency in SAARC and/or ASEAN; you'll end up with a similar inherent currency value.Note that these analogies are going to go into execution as well in the next few decades.
Thats great for France and the UK(the carrier bit). But India's built loads of military hardware in conjunction with Russia and more is planned in the future.
Joint military programs indicate a common present-day/near future strategic goals at best.

So the will is there as well, countries want to join in, such as Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey. Other candidates are Croatia, and Macedonia.

Sure. Again the analogies to SAARC, the SCO, and ASEAN are obvious.

You must also remember that EU was established in 1992, and still has a long way to go for what it is intended to be, yet it's closer to achieve goals, than for example, China or India.

The EU is what is was before the EU. It has inherent capability. The region wasn't a 3rd world, un-industrilised, poverty stricken etc. etc.. before the EU came about.
So comparing goals is well again skewed.
China and India have grown leaps and bounds from where they were 10 years ago, and they continue to grow at that rate. They also have what I claimed the EU lacks in terms of integration, nationalism etc. etc..
As I said before, all three or them are candidates for power, nevertheless I see more goals achieved in EU, which include reducing US dependency, militarily and economically speaking, and though slow, they also have steady growth.

China and India have quite large growth percentages, yet they both have still a long way to catch up to EU, not to say the US.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Not really. You're skewing the parlimentary process in a democracy with the different and independant goals & objectives EU member states have. There is no consensus on whether to align with US foreign policy or disassociate from it;No consensus on whether to embrace Russia or to stay wary of it etc. etc..
You see the word 'co-operation' itself indicates a 'pact/treaty-status' rather than unquestionable nationalism.

EU policy on US is trade competition, and it is applied throught all the member countries. EU does not align with the US foreign policy, most continental countries do not support it, and those who do are reducing personnel, or completely withdrawn, such as Spain. The only country that fully supports US foreign policy, is UK.

Russia will not be embraced by EU simply because many of the countries which recently joined the EU were once behind the Iron Wall, and dislike profoundly the Russians. Also, Russia's centralization, and the beginning of censorship again, as well as some of it's policies, such as weapons sales to questionable countries are not appreciated by the EU, no reason for EU to embrace Russia, as I said.
But what EU will seemingly do, is keep Russia as an economic partner.

Unquestionable nationalism doesn't exist either in China, India, or EU, I do not see why should it be a factor important to be a superpower, proof is there are loads of people who might be deemed "not" nationalistic in the US, as well as a dispute between nationalistic radicals, and liberals. This has no effect in the US status of "superpower". NK is supposedly wholy nationalistic, yet it's one of the poorest countries in the world.

France is NOT in the Eurofighter program. India is a major participant in GALELIO and GLONASS(Russian GPS) as well.
The Euro is strong because it was always inherently strong. You get a common currency in SAARC and/or ASEAN; you'll end up with a similar inherent currency value.Note that these analogies are going to go into execution as well in the next few decades.
Thats great for France and the UK(the carrier bit). But India's built loads of military hardware in conjunction with Russia and more is planned in the future.
Joint military programs indicate a common present-day/near future strategic goals at best.

I did NOT mention France as part of the Eurofigher program, yet France was part of the ECA, and the F/EFA, predecessors of Eurofighter. India, yes participates in Galileo program, yet China is a bigger participant than India, and puts a fifth of the budget for it, India’s contribution being lower, and the rest being EU funding.

I agree with the Joint military programs isssue, yet EU has a longer history of military cooperation than India and Russia have.

SAARC by no means can be possibly compared to EU, firstly because with the exception of India, all it’s members are poor. China and US are just observer nations, so they are not included. ASEAN’s total GDP is smaller than Germany’s, so it’s not credible that if a currency was developed in ASEAN, it would have a similar currency value. Again, India is in ASEAN, but only as an observer nation, so I’m talking of the present members. Same situation with SCO, with plans for an economic free zone , but no major monetary implementations, and no plans I could find, to implement a single currency among members.

The EU is what is was before the EU. It has inherent capability. The region wasn't a 3rd world, un-industrilised, poverty stricken etc. etc.. before the EU came about.
So comparing goals is well again skewed.
China and India have grown leaps and bounds from where they were 10 years ago, and they continue to grow at that rate. They also have what I claimed the EU lacks in terms of integration, nationalism etc. etc..

The EU has been in the works since 1951, and barely established in 1992.. It will accomplish much more than it already has, and it’s growth potential is big. China and India have enjoyed growth for the last 10 years, yet they are still years behind EU and US, economically and militarily. China is a country integrated by force, which is to be proven by time, maybe people in 10 years won’t like to be forced into things.

Also not to forget that EU has no internal strife, unlike India, which recently suffered a terrorist attack, and has a separatist faction in Kashmir.
Also, the instability in the region, primarily Pakistan, with which the latest conflict was in 1999 , instability the EU doesn’t have in it’s region.

Originally posted by warthog911

Originally posted by Huangjiaweishi
India is not the Aids capital of the world. Only .9% of the population in India has Aids compared to over 37% of the population that has Aids in Botswana.

That is prevalence rate you are talking.India has the largest pop of AIDS est 5.5+million according to a recent UN AIDS survey surpassing south africa.

huangjiaweishi you still haven't responded to my post.Do you accept defeat? and a country whose future would be riddled with Aids cannot be even a superpower.I guess by the end of this centuary 75% of pop would be infected with HIV virus.

[edit on 2-8-2006 by warthog911]

[edit on 2-8-2006 by warthog911]

by ShakyaHeir:

The U.S. economy is at the worst point it's ever been. We're 9 trillion dollars in debt and the private bankers who own the federal reserve (and who we owe the debt to) are soon going to engineer another depression.

REPLY: This has been brought up before and proven false. The current national debt is only 2.3% of GDP, which just happens to be the 50 year average. No-one "engineers" a depression just for the heck of it.

Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: This has been brought up before and proven false. The current national debt is only 2.3% of GDP, which just happens to be the 50 year average. No-one "engineers" a depression just for the heck of it.

Nope...current national debt is NOT only 2.3% of GDP, as stated above:

Debt as a percentage of GDP turned up again as the Bush administration began running deficits and now stands at an estimated 65.7 percent of GDP. The 2006 budget forecast predicts that the national debt will be 70 percent of GDP in 2010

Try making the 50 year average...it doesn't result in 2.3%