Do we need the current Superpower ...........

[Bazile]

.... would the world be a safer without it ? Would we in the west be happy if it was not there?

[Gromit]

In an ideal world, the United Nations would be the one and only Superpower, however, while some countries have the power to veto, it can never work as such. There will always be one or a group of countries which are more successful than the others, that is just the way the world works. At the moment we have the US as the sole Superpower and on the whole I don't think they are behaving very responsibly. When there were two superpowers, there was at least a bit of restraint because one superpower had to assess how the other would react to it's actions. It will be intersting to see how China develops in the next 10 years.

[jno]

I think the real question about feeling safe has more to do with who has nuclear weapons. The world in the 19th century was a patchwork of countries competing with one another, with the British Empire ahead but not miles ahead; there were lots of wars but generally only soldiers died and nobody faced the threat of total annihilation. 'Balance of Powers' is a fine thing, and what was often aimed at in the past, but we don't have that at present and so we are all subject to American whims. And so it also depends on what Americans are in power; some are less interested than others in throwing their waight around internationally.

[-Zorro-]

My superpower is the ability to walk through walls

[kwicky]

Following on from the Iraq debacle the Russians and French are certainly against the emergence of just 1 superpower, the USA, being able to act as the world's policeman. We will probably see in future seeing other nations emerging especially with Russian's new found wealth in Oil and Gas and China's becoming shortly the 2nd major financial power. Tony Blair has stated he would prefer just 1 superpower, the USA.

[Toureman]

I would not be happy with the Chinese as the superpower, much prefer a friendly USA