Talk:Hyperpower

src: static01.nyt.com

Video Talk:Hyperpower

Xdamr

This group doesn't need yet another person in a reverting war. The statement of the British Empire being viewed as Hyperpower "YEARS AGO", does not mean that "It has since been used to describe the British Empire." 100 years ago and now are two completely different things. So that statement and links are outdated and no longer considered correct. A bias for the UK does not mean outdated info should be stated as fact.

70.157.60.141 06:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The quotes that you keep removing are from 2003 and 2005. Removing citations is vandalism. Please stop. --Sean Brunnock 11:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Maps Talk:Hyperpower

Bias

Brunnock, you can't keep saying "It has since been used to describe the British Empire." and ONLY give 2 references. That is like me changing Microsoft's Wiki to read "Microsoft is a big dumb dumb" and giving 2 articles written by any of the 6,000,000,000 people on earth. You can not place bias in a Wiki article, and reading back through all of your edits, that is what you are doing. Read the rules of Wikipedia. Until then, I am going to delete your unfounded statm--Sean Brunnock 10:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)ent and links.

70.157.60.141 01:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The 2 references that I gave are reliable sources. What bias are you talking about? Are you User:Sprotch? --Sean Brunnock 02:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not Sprotch. Anyone can see that you are bias over the completely unfounded statment. When someone deletes it, you quickly restore it. Why would you defend this statment so much if you didn't place it here? All of this is pointless, read the rules. You can not place a statment in this Wiki UNLESS FULLY SUPPORTED AND BACKED BY THE OTHER USERS. Fully supported would mean by having more then 2 links. You need text-book quotes to back up a claim like this. Not your own bias views. 70.157.60.141 02:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. The rule is to cite verifiable references. There are no "text-books" that I know of that even refer to the US as a hyperpower. As the article says, the term was invented by political commentators and 2 political commentators have used the term to describe the BE. You seem to be a little hysterical regarding the subject. Perhaps you should remove yourself from this discussion and let cooler heads prevail. --Sean Brunnock 10:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Your links have been deleted again. They are Past Tense, and are not vaild today. You seem to have a bias with them and that is not allowed. If you keep restoring unfounded, outdated, bias links, then I will report you to the mods. Look at EVERY Single person in this discussion area, no one wants these links listed. And everyone sees them as your bias. This is not your Wiki, it is for everyone. And Everyone here sees your changes are useless.

70.157.60.141 02:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

They're not links. They're citations that adhere to WP:CITE. Please read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes if you want to pursue the issue. --Sean Brunnock 11:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Brunnock, I not that you have not participated in the discussion on your and my discussion page. The concessus is that your links are not sources and do not adhere to any wikipedia standard. Please delete your statement. Please would you also read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. I hope that we will not need to use dispute resolution. Sprotch 00:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

src: www.purwheels.com

What this article is about

This article is about the term hyperpower as coined by Hubert Védrine. --Sean Brunnock 19:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, I wasn't clear enough. This article is not a political version of fantasy football. Please stop using this article to post your theories as to why America is doomed to fall and which "empires" will take its place. Thank you. --Sean Brunnock 01:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hyper power is such a f*cking awful term i really hope it doesnt catch on --Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.236.27 (talk) 20:34, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

src: cdn.vox-cdn.com

How to expand this article

I'm thinking that the best way to expand this article is to add two sections which point out hyperpower aspects of the British Empire and the US such as industry, spread of English language, Hollywood, etc. --Sean Brunnock 15:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The Ferguson article mentioned earlier has been misquoted and erroneously used to mention the British Empire in this article. Please would you read it carefully and note that Ferguson states that it was NOT a hyperpower. That is the whole point of his article. He describes this notion as a myth. Sprotch 19:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. He said it was a hyperpower, but not hegemonic: To be sure, the United Kingdom had a moment of "hyperpower" in the immediate aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, when, as one Prussian general noted, it was "mistress of the sea. ... Neither in this dominion nor in world trade has she now a single rival to fear." Yet the United Kingdom was never truly hegemonic in the century that followed. [1] --Sean Brunnock 20:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and what is a hyperpower if not hegemonic? Keep in mind that a moment OF hyperpower does not mean having been A Hyperpower. Your paragraph above is a misquote, again. It is a quote within a quote that is immediately criticised by Ferguson for several pages. Please would you (or someone else) read the WHOLE article. The whole point of the article is to demonstrate that there was no such thing as a British Hyperpower (although he never uses the term). Sprotch 12:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be better if you could quote something that supports your position. --Sean Brunnock 13:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The section "the British Myth" is too long to be quoted. Please would you read it. Sprotch 13:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article which states that the British Empire was not a hyperpower. The term 'hyperpower' is used twice. Once, to state that the British Empire had a moment of hyperpower and again in relation to America. If you want to prove to everyone that the British Empire was not a hyperpower, then you'll have to quote a verifiable source. --Sean Brunnock 13:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

re. Ferguson. I've put up my own view of the article on User_talk:Sprotch. The problem is that the Ferguson article is more a criticism of the concept of 'hegemony' (as defined in the article) rather than a proper analysis of UK/US power (power, as distinct from 'hegemony'). I'm not sure that it constitutes a useful source.

Xdamr^talk 12:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

So, is there any objection to pointing out hyperpower aspects of the US and the British Empire? I suggest this since a compare/contrast approach will force us to look at the general aspects of hyperpowers rather than write about irrelevant details (such as the number of nuclear warheads that a hyperpower must possess). --Sean Brunnock 13:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The term was never used to describe a nation that wasn't a superpower. It also suggests a hegemony. The British Empire of the 19th century was a hegemony but not a superpower and therefore not a hyperpower. --Awis 17:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was. If you read the archives, there are two references where the authors state the the BE was a hyperpower

Could folks please stop arguing about which hyperpower is or will be the biggest and concentrate on how to expand this article? --Sean Brunnock 20:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Brunnock, everyone but you agrees that there is no reference so far that the BE was a hyperpower. Could you try to find further reference? Sprotch 19:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That's Mr. Brunnock. There are 2 references. I think it would be better to discuss how to expand this article. --Sean Brunnock 20:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Those 2 articles are not references, as everyone but you has agreed. Sprotch 16:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Sean Brunnock 16:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

src: static.kremlin.ru

Redundant

Hyperpower is a redundant term. We already have superpower to describe this.

This is not redundant, many superpowers may exist at one time but only under special circumstances can a hyperpower happen. Antarticstargate

Of course it is redundant. Just because some conspirancy driven journalists used this word in a hand full of articles - beyond any relevancy - the yanks create an article about it. Absurd. 62.226.61.61 22:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The word is in use. That's the point. Whether a Hyperpower is just a Superpower on an ego trip or not is irrelevant.--70.245.141.118 02:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol, "superpower on an ego trip". This is easily controversial, but the point indeed is that various terms are being bandied about to describe the international political situation following the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, which indeed left a single superpower standing. But there's more to it than that; starting around 2006, US total defense spending surpassed the rest of the world combined, a definite historical first with the potential exceptions of brief periods in antiquity - which did not coincide with a global reach. There has yet to be a notable intellectual analysis of this period analogous to Fox's work from 1943. So "hyperpower" might not be the last word. In any case, Wikipedia should try to document the terms that are used in an notable fashion, as neutrally as possible. --Psm 19:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So what's next? Ultrapower? Megapower? Super-duperpower? Are we going to invent a new word everytime the balance of power shifts? Looks like "intellectuals" are suffering from recentism. 205.174.22.26 (talk) 06:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The word hyperpower seems a bit like yumpie (young upwardly-mobile professional). A March 26, 1984 Time Magazine article entitled "Here Comes the Yumpies"[2] attempted to popularize the term, while Newsweek declared 1984 "The Year of the Yuppie" (young urban professional). Eventually the word yuppie won out. Today, almost nobody remembers yumpie. Zyxwv99 (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

src: cdn.vox-cdn.com

Nine Inch Nails

there is also a Nine Inch Nails song names "Hyperpower!" on the Year Zero Album. I have no idea how to do this, but there should be a "for the Nine inch nails song, see year zero" link--70.245.141.118 02:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

src: i.ytimg.com

British Empire??

The French Empire, the Russian Empire, and eventually Germany and the United States would all pose legitimate threats to the British in terms of global hegemeny throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. The British Empire was clearly #1, but by no means should they be put on the same scale as post-Cold War USA. America has no close-to-equal, whatsoever. America spends roughly the same amount on its military as the rest of the world combined. Even so, this article seems useless. Hyperpower is rarely, if ever, used terminology. The largest threats America has are Russia and China. The USA's economy is about double the Chinese/Russian economies combined, and militarily, the USA could smash them to pieces (barring nuclear warfare). How is the British Empire on this list? The British were incredibly powerful, but they were not utterly unstoppable. -68.43.58.42 04:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ye but America currently relies too much on foreighn investment, and relies on Europe to help with its influence. Take both of those away the US comes tuberling down like a stack of cards. So unlike the British Empire who harldy relied on any other nation, US is too dependant on other nations. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.186.204 (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

America is not utterly unstoppable, which is the reason for controversy. "Barring nuclear warfare" is somewhat redundant; nuclear weapons are a part of a country's military power and need to be considered. The British Empire did not have nuclear retaliation to worry about, with the result that Britain was able to invade Russia without significant threat of repercussions; the United States cannot engage any other Great Power at all without the threat of annihilation. This is a different and largely incomparable dynamic. You can't simply compare the distributions of power; the nature of that power has changed permanently, and the United States no longer has the option of keeping strong enemies at arm's length. Not sure how that impacts the debate. Leushenko (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This argument has obviously been posted by someone who speaks before they think. The British Empire was the largest empire in history - fact.

• 36.1 million kilometres of land compared with America's 10.2 million in 1902/4.
• The British Empire's GDP was $918 billion in 1938 (and that's not including British India), over double the GDP of its nearest rival, the Nazi German Empire.
• The British Empire governed approximately 25% of the world's land surface and 531 million people in 1938 (about 23% of the world's population)
• And about military, don't mention the two-power standard with the Royal Navy just before World War I. The Royal Navy had nearly 1000 vessels in 1805 compared with the US Navy 300-400 in 2010.

I could list more reasons but I think its quite clear that the British Empire can be considered a hyperpower, if anything, it is more of a hyperpower than the United States. Stevo1000 (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually laughed when I read this person's [original] comment, the British Empire was far more powerful during the Pax Britannica than the USA is now. Simply the USA cannot act alone, it relies heavily on other nations for backing up its power. The USA could not invade another Great Power without facing [nuclear] annihilation whereas Britain would face far fewer repercussions, if any. The simple fact is that the world has changed and there can never be a country that can attain the hold over the world that Britain had during the Pax Britannica as long as the world is run on its current lines. Mspence835 (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

What does Wikipedia say under the British Empire that "Britain Enjoyed a Century of almost unchallenged dominance The almost comes into the equation from the Crimean, Zulu and Boer wars. However all of the arguable hyperpowers have fought nations during their period as a hyperpower. Britain dominated world politics from 1763 to 1950 and even still plays a key role now; dominated 40% of Total World GDP from 1750-1914 (modern day China are nowhere near that); Richest nation for 150-200 years; Dominated the waves and also had an army second to none which made it powerful. To anyone who says Britain wasn't a hyperpower. It was the most powerful nation in the world for 182 years (1763-1950) and have you evere read Britain's Imperial Century in which Britain dominated the world as a hyperpower for around 100 years from 1815-1914 with little to no challenge. More than any other potential hyperpower past or present can boast. To say Britain was never a Hyperpower is nothing more than an anti-British Empire nut who believes the US are the greatest when they rely far more on allies than the British did. The British were brought into war by other powers as an ally. The US brings other powers into wars as allies. There is a difference. - sam2295 -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam2295 (talk o contribs) 23:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

src: cdn.vox-cdn.com

who, what and when?

Can anybody give me a reference that it shows the Ottoman and the Portuguese Empires as "hyperpowers"? I can believe Hyperpower for the British and Spanish empires because at their height both of these empires had no rival on the international stage, but France? France was always rivaled (and eventually surpassed) by either Prussia (after 1871 Germany) in Europe and UK on the global stage...--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

src: www.purwheels.com

China emerging Hyperpower?

Its not even a superpower yet and there is no concensus that it will ever be a hyperpower. A Hyperpower means a superpower that has no other rival. No expert has ever consider this. Most would say China may challenge the US as a rival superpower, like the Soviet Union did, but not dominate as a so call Hyperpower. The source cited is a one liner about China being a hyperpower by Rob Reynold written in an article for Al-Jazeera called Obama's to-do list. The quoted line is too obscure and lacks any academic consensus to be use as a source to make this kind of statement. Either remove the staement or reword it. Something like "China is mentioned as an emerging Hyperpwer by Rob Reynolds in a article on Al-Jazeera" or " In the early 21st century, it can be used to describe China as an emerging hyperpower, although there is no wide academic consensus for this" etc. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.235.19 (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. A one liner shouldn't count, and this is the first time that I've seen China mentioned as an emerging hyperpower. Unless the author of the Al-Jazeera article uses Hyperpower and Superpower interchangably. Deavenger (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Amy Chua's Days of empire

Amy Chua has written quite a bit on China, more on the reasons why China cannot be called a hyperpower. May be a sentence or two on this reference? Also an article I have created Tianchao Daguo may be linked too? Arilang ^talk 08:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I read part of her book. But she seems to use the word superpower and hyperpower interchangbly, so I don't know if we should use it. I'll see what some other users think. Deavenger (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

@Deavenger, superpower or hyperpower, it is very clear that China is aiming to become one of them, if you read Tang Dynasty, Han Dynasty, Qing Dynasty, you will understand, because CHINA was a POWER for thousands of years, super or not. With 2000-3000 billions US$ in her purse, she certainly can buy a lot of power, to say the least. Arilang ^talk 03:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

2000 years ago is not today. Romans were a power a long time ago, do you think that since they were a hyperpower hundreds of years ago, they're a hyperpower today? Reading those pages will do nothing. All that says that years ago, china was a power, just like India, Great Britain, and the Spanish empire, and I'm sure they all want to be powers, super or hyper. Plus, wikipedia is not what we think. Because we think a country was a hyperpower thousands of years ago does not mean that they are a hyperpower today. Deavenger (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No one is claiming they are currently hyperpowers, if you read carefully the article claims that they are are however "potent examples" of previous hyperpowers. Mr George R. Allison (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)30

src: ae01.alicdn.com

China

I've added China to the list of hyperpowers, providing a source. I'm watching the page for a few days to make sure my edit isn't reverted. it better not be.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Certainly a country that led the world for 2000-2500 years technologicalwise and had something like twice the proportion of world GDP that the US has now is a hyperpower.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not a list of hyperpowers, it is a list of potent examples... Please review the guidelines on this type of opinion. Mr George R. Allison (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

List of potent examples? Maybe a country that is a hyperpower is a very potent example, eh? The last time I checked, a country that pretty much conquered the known world should be considered a hyperpower. In addition, you haven't provided citatiosn for British and Romans. Please provide them. Thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"While China may have been a hyperpower, opinion does not support the idea of it being a 'potent' example, please review guidelines on this. Use article talk page". I edit by policy, not "opinion". Also, the only editor working on this article is you and me, so there is no "opinion". In addition, I inserted the intro of this article a while back, but then I was reverted. Not a good idea.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is supported by Arilang1234 and several other IP editors.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I shall assume good faith then, you may add it in. But without the unsightly immediate references and lack of citations. (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Other editors' opinions: "Reverted to revision 278601822 by Teeninvestor; China actually had a source for it, and the portugal hyperpower didn't have a source either".Teeninvestor (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Very well then, we have reached a settlement? (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure but this article needs to be expanded. It's way too small.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

One thing, we can't go on saying that 2000 years ago, this country could have been considered a hyperpower, so therefore the country is a hyperpower today. There are no such thing as hyperpower todays as hyperpower means one without rivals. If it's ancient hyperpowers, then China could be added as long as there are reliable sources. However, hyperpowers today are a completely another thing. Also, please don't accuse each other of owning article, especially if there is a comment like this "I'm watching the page for a few days to make sure my edit isn't reverted. it better not be.". Deavenger (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Deavenger, The article lists "most potent examples of previous hyperpowers" I do not believe there was a claim any of them are currently hyperpowers. Mr George R. Allison (talk)

there aren't any "reliable sources" discussing "ancient hyperpowers". That's because the term is a neologism coined to discuss current affairs. If there aren't any such sources in spite of what I say, the article certainly isn't aware of them. this revision is a textbook example of how not to do it. Clearly somebody googled "hyperpower" and simply stashed the google hits in the references section, as naked urls, not even bothering to argue any sort of rationale why fwbusinesspress.com or allacademic.com or foreignaffairs.com or tripatlas.com should be considered quotable references. Please. Wikipedia isn't intended as the Internet archive. --dab (?) 08:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I now agree with you after your explanation, thanks for clearing this up. I shall assume good faith then. (talk) --Preceding undated comment added 12:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC).

I am wondering why Mr George R. Allison deleted all my previous edits ? --Zhonghuo (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Because the examples provided are enough for an example listing, it is not a definitive list. It is a list of easily recognisable entities to the majority of English language readers.G. R. Allison (talk) 07:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

src: si.wsj.net

Lack of citations

Has anyone actually looked up the sources provided? I checked the article a while ago and It had a lot more sources than it has now. And it definitely needs A LOT More citations.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Amy Chua has written about ancient hyperpowers. However, I don't think we should use what she considered potential hyperpower section. Deavenger (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe she does list the Roman and British empires as hyperpowers also. Mr George R. Allison (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Another thing. We're focusing too much on past hyperpowers. We need to focus on what a hyperpower is. Who came up with the term, what do they say are the criteria of hyperpower. Interaction between hyperpowers in the past, history of hyperpowers, etc. The article is supposed to mostly be about hyperpowers as a concept, with mentions to hyperpowers in modern day (if they exist) and in the past. But that's not to be the primary concern of the article. Deavenger (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

if this article cannot be based on quotable WP:RS, there is no point in keeping it. We don't need yet another article repeating the scope of great power, superpower, potential superpower, etc. just because we found another neologism. This is WP:DICT. All this article is telling us is "Peregrine Worsthorne used the term "hyper-power" on June 8, 1991. French Foreign Minister Hubert Védrine popularized the term "hyperpower" in his various criticisms of the United States beginning in 1998." Well? That would be perfect for a wikt:hyperpower entry, but I fail to see what this is doing on Wikipedia. This doesn't make for anything more than a possible footnote at superpower stating that "hyperpower" is a 1990s neologism that sees some use. --dab (?) 08:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

src: pbs.twimg.com

India? China? Persians!?

Whats going on here, if they were 'Hyperpowers'; British Empire and Rome were something else.. Godlypower? This article is full of nationalism.--hnnvansier (talk) 05:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You are such an uneducated moron! Achaemenid Persian Empire was by far the greatest hyperpower in history of mankind. --93.142.191.220 (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You are such an uneducated moron! Achaemenid Persian Empire was by far the greatest hyperpower in history of mankind. --93.142.191.220 (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well that's it settled then, based on you calling him a moron you must be correct and that negates any need for sources... well done. G. R. Allison (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously a brilliant insight to the mans mind, based on his equally brilliant dual contribution.NMN1488 (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This section of talk doesn't make any sense, and is off topic. And this is very random. Haha CloneSaber (talk) 02:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

src: cdn.vox-cdn.com

Why the British Empire Was Not a Hyperpower

Well kiddies, it's time for me to throw my towel in. Wait, did I say towel? I meant two cents. So, here's my argument for why the British Empire was not a hyperpower. Now, before all of you pounce on this "ignorant yank", I'd like to point something out: I can't understand half of the arguments on this page. Why? Because they have zero organization. As such, anybody that disagrees with me I invite to post in response, but once I begin discourse with that person I ask that nobody else interferes on either side. If somebody else would like to strike up a separate argument, I invite them to do so, but I ask that they make it perfectly clear that their argument is separate from the original person's, perhaps by adding a couple of lines between the two? And now, if you're still reading, here are my points;

Assumptions

• The term "the British Empire" refers to "the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom"
• The term "the British Empire" refers to said empire between the years 1497 and 1997 (as this article provides no date restrictions)
• The term "hyperpower" refers to "a state that dominates all other states in every sphere of activity"
• Wikipedia is a reliable source

Points

Citation

• The current citations which would describe the British Empire are insufficient.

1. The Fort Worth Business Press Source redirects to a page that is "under construction". While there may well have been some supporting data here before, it is no longer there, and is therefor inadmissible.
2. The All Academic Research Source does not state that the British Empire is a hyperpower, rather it says that America is a hyperpower, and that "...a comparison to its position has not been seen on the planet since the height of the British Empire...", which says that the only comparable state was the British Empire. While this may be taken to mean that the British Empire, it can alternately mean that the British Empire is comparable, but not on the same level.
3. The Foreign Affairs Source does not state that either America or the British Empire is/was a hyperpower, though it can be taken that America is viewed as a hyperpower (as the subject of the piece is America, and the title is History and the Hyperower). Once again, however, though a slight comparison (this time the comparison isn't even direct), what the article says is "...[c]asual talk of a Pax Americana -- harking back to the Pax Britannica...", which somebody interpreted (quite liberally) to mean that the British Empire was a hyperpower. Pretty big jump there.

Definition Analysis

• The British Empire does not meet the definition of hyperpower required by the article.

• Here are some countries which were not dominated by the British Empire in certain states of activity

• Spanish Empire [ British Empire#"First British Empire" (1583-1783) ]
• Kingdom of France [ British Empire#Global struggles with France ]
• First French Empire [ Napoleonic Wars ]
• Russian Empire [ The Great Game ]
• Dutch Republic [ Anglo-Dutch Wars ]
• German Empire [ World War I ]
• Austro-Hungarian Empire [ World War I ]
• Empire of Japan [ World War II ]
• The Third Reich [ World War II ]
• The United States of America [ World War II ] [ The Cold War ]
• The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics [ The Cold War ]
• The People's Republic of China [ The Cold War ]

Counter-Counter-Points

• The points already set in place by the opposition are false

• "36.1 million kilometres of land compared with America's 10.2 million in 1902/4."

• The Wikipedia article list of largest empires gives England 33.1 in 1946, and it can be assumed that the article looks at the highest points in a country's holdings. But that's not even my main counterargument. A hyperpower is not measured by the size of his shoe, so while this does show that (at its height) the British Empire was the biggest empire, there were many periods in the empire's history when it was not, in fact, the largest empire. Additionally, this does not prove that the British Empire was a hyperpower, since a hyperpower has to "dominate all other states in every sphere of activity", and even if we consider landmass to be a "sphere of activity", it is not "all other spheres of activity".

• "The British Empire's GDP was $918 billion in 1938 (and that's not including British India), over double the GDP of its nearest rival, the Nazi German Empire."

• Unfortunately for you, in 1820, the United Kingdom had $36,232 as its GDP, whereas Russia had $37,678, China had $228,600, and India had $111,417 In 1870, the British Empire had a GDP of $100,180, whereas China had one of $189,740. Additionally, in 1913 the USA had $517,383, whereas the British Empire had only $224,618. Similarly, in 1950 the United States had $1,455,916 and the USSR had $510,243, whereas the British Empire had only $347,850. Looking at the furthest date the Empire can be pulled to, in 1973, the United Kingdom had a GDP of $675,941, where as France's was at $683,965, Germany's at $944,755, the Soviet Union's at $1,513,070, the United States' at $3,536,622, Japan's $1,242,932, and India's at $739,414. All this according to list of regions by past GDP (PPP).

• "The British Empire governed approximately 25% of the world's land surface and 531 million people in 1938 (about 23% of the world's population)"

• It's like an e-penis, except for the fact that it's for a country... Anyway, read the counter-counter-point about the "36.1 million kilometres of land compared with America's 10.2 million in 1902/4." comment.

• "And about military, don't mention the two-power standard with the Royal Navy just before World War I. The Royal Navy had nearly 1000 vessels in 1805 compared with the US Navy 300-400 in 2010."

• Wow... That's a pretty silly comparison... The United States Navy has over 3,700 aircrafts, so if you want to compare navy size, let's compare navy size at comparative time periods. It's interesting that you chose 1815, because 1815 didn't mark an increase in the size of the Royal Navy, it marked Royal Navy dominance. But, as the Wikipedia about the Royal Navy states, previous to 1815 the British navy was repeatedly outmatched or exceeded in numbers. Then there was indeed a period in which the British Empire was unchallenged in Naval powers, but that came to an end in WWI, especially when the Germans began using submarines, and ever since then it's been on a shaky ground. And when I say on shaky ground, I mean that the Imperial Japanese Navy and United States navy could've defeated the Royal Navy. So yes, there was a period of time in which the British Empire was the hegemon of the seas, but that doesn't mean that the British Empire was a hyperpower all throughout (or even for the majority of its days), or a hyperpower at all.

----67.180.86.254 (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear danno 20:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the proof towards Britain being a Hyperpower is here: British Empire#Imperial Century. The Great game was never a real challenge to Britain as Russia was far weaker than Britain and held less influence over Afghanistan than Britain did and even then Russia proved itself far weaker than Britain through the Crimean War. It was just a small scare that Russia's imperialist aims could bring them close to the British India --Sam2295 (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, clearly no original research here. The British Empire was at its largest after 1918, and between this time and 1946 several British colonies became independant, notably modern-day Ireland and Eygpt You claim Wikipedia to be a realiable source but then dismiss info supplied by it in terms of the economy of the British Empire The fact that the British Empire held 25% approx is common knowledge easily backed up if you search it online, provided you ignore the usual idiots who don't know what their talking about (I once encountered someone who claimed the Mongolian Empire was bigger when this is not he case, at all) You Talk about how the Royal Navy at times was outnumbered, I know of one, the Battle of Trafalgar, heard of it? A battle in which the Royal Navy was greatly outmatched but still won the battle without a single ship lost. This shows that greater numbers does not guarantee victory, but it helps when you outnumber them by a huge margin. What are you talking about with US aircraft?! No one suggests Britain is still a hyperpower! "the Imperial Japanese Navy and United States navy could've defeated the Royal Navy" here is an opinion masquerading as a fact and you don't say when, sure today's Japanese Navy combined with today's US Navy could defeat today's Royal Navy but the same cannot be said during the late 19th Century. Now this is not an argument for or against the British Empire being a hyperpower (which it was by the way) it is merely a critique of your flawed arguments that I felt had to be done having read them. Plus I didn't like your intro due to a clear overuse of confidence that was not in the least bit well deserved.JBCarr99 (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

src: static.kremlin.ru

US is hyperpower no more

It is now recognised that the US was a Hyperpower until the Global financial crisis of 2008-2009. It is hyperpower no more.--tequendamia (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What an insightful comment, now all we need is a source to prove that really obvious claim... ah sometimes I lose the will for this. G.R. Allison (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoo! Yeah! Sarcasm! Both constructive and useful!

----?neophyte [Talk to me!] 01:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah looks like you also enjoy unsupported statements posted in an attempt to change the article on a misinformed whim! Welcome to the club! G.R. Allison (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the US was a hyperpower until 9/11, the reason for the US being plunged into a series of highly costly wars, as well as undermining the believed invulnerability of the US 069952497a (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It never was. Merely hubris statements. danno 20:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

src: cdn.vox-cdn.com

Ancient China

Ancient China exerted this type of power only in a very limited regional sphere, and furthermore it's not made clear what ancient China is being referred to -- there was no Chinese state during the Spring and Autumn Period, for instance, and by the time the Qin and Han dynasties were flourishing, the Roman Republic and subsequent Empire clearly refute the hypothesis that China had hyperpower status. Hyperpower status refers to global hegemony over all other states, and I don't see how that status could have been achieved even theoretically before the creation of the only genuinely global international state system, i.e. the modern system. At the very least it is not NPOV to merely repeat uncritically Chua's dubious thesis. --81.111.208.250 (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The article used to say "Tang China". I don't know why it was changed to "Ancient China". --Yair rand (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

src: uqvk92z67p11sbpjb3nr4qo1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com

Ancient Hyperpowers?

Ancient civilizations cannot be considered hyperpowers because they don't ever have control over the whole world. They may be all-powerful regionally, but each of the ancient civilizations mentioned in the article faced significant opposition. 069952497a (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

src: cdn.vox-cdn.com

Russian Empire

Were is it at??? --108.92.162.111 (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

src: i.ytimg.com

Dubious

As a political scientist who specialises in Int Relations, I have /never/ heard of this term before I saw this article. We need to make it far, far more explicit that this is a neologism, and an esoteric one at that - "a hyperpower is traditionally considered to be..." is absolute nonsense for a fringe term coined in '98. International relations scholars talk about degrees of hegemony, in lieu of applying snappy prefixes. 60.242.48.18 (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia