most dominant nation/nations by 2100

[pikmin]

yes but i mean turning saltwater/seawater to fresh drinking water wont be big for some years.The only plant that does is in saudia arabia.Also in the next war either everybody dies or we get mutated to something freaky.

[viking thunder]

tibet

[Rednaxela]

yes but i mean turning saltwater/seawater to fresh drinking water wont be big for some years.The only plant that does is in saudia arabia.Also in the next war either everybody dies or we get mutated to something freaky.

No we have a few plants already here in Aus. And they will be putting in more in the not to distant future.

Also recycling of sewage will also be more prevelent if the ludites can deal with drinking their own shit.

The quicker the world runs out of fossil fuel the sooner the west doesnt have to suck up to the middle east and they can all go and blow themselves up.

I think all the technology exists to replace fossil fuel with the oil companys buying it all and shelving it until needed,
so they will still make plenty of $$$$$$$$

[w3a2]

middle east and they can all go and blow themselves

[pikmin]

yes but those plants dont make enough to support themselves do they?

[jondough47]

I think that economically, the US won't be it. Military wise, I place my eggs in the US's basket (Being military myself, I have to), Population is, hands down, China. It is a toss up for what you consider the "Strongest." Overall, I would say... US all the way!!!

[vtmarik]

It really depends on if the US gives control of the military to the military (with some civilian oversight, just to make sure that the military doesn't go nuts and try and take down the civilian government).

I don't think the President should be Commander-In-Chief just because that's what Washington was before he was president. The Commander-In-Chief should be a member of the cabinet, but not a president. We can see what happens when the President controls the military just by turning on CNN (when they're not yakking about Angelina's Baby or how Anna Nicole didn't go to her son's memorial).

[pikmin]

if anyone of us is right well probaly be blown to shit then whoever isn't will win.

[BigBallinStalin]

.

[72o]

Interesting thought. I think the world will be radically different than we know it today. Borders will have been erased or redrawn to include/exclude certain populations and resources. By 2100 most of the fossil fuel reserves will be nearing complete exhaustion, if it doesn't happen much earlier. The next most valuable resource will be water. Cities like LA and Vegas will be barren wastelands as the populations move towards water. Des Moines, St. Louis and Memphis will be huge cities.

It will be interesting to see what will have happened with our energy sources by then. If it's not figured out soon, we will be in a pretty bad situation in 90 years.

[muy_thaiguy]

The most powerful country in 2100?
Jamaica.

[BigBallinStalin]

.

[jefjef]

The USA. No doubt.

We have so many natural resources.

We are the breadbasket of the world. (China can't hardly feed itself)

Technology.

Attitude.

location. Location. Location.



On a side note: Our navy atm is larger in tonnage than the next 17 navies combined.

[army of nobunaga]

Ive been to all of these places and lived in all but one on your poll.

To be a world power, rather THE world power, you have to have 1) national vision and unity 2) infrastructure 3)nice balance in population to resources


If Japan keeps on the population downward spiral, I choose them.

If Germany can continue to do what if has done the last 15 years, I choose them.



Canada? lol
India and China will have the same problem they have had the last 2000 years.
The US has become more divided every year. No longer a nation of vision and unity
EU is not a country, will never be a country. Will always be divided.


I wish we could all look at this in 100 years so I could "tell you so" =D

[72o]

Interesting thought. I think the world will be radically different than we know it today. Borders will have been erased or redrawn to include/exclude certain populations and resources. By 2100 most of the fossil fuel reserves will be nearing complete exhaustion, if it doesn't happen much earlier. The next most valuable resource will be water. Cities like LA and Vegas will be barren wastelands as the populations move towards water. Des Moines, St. Louis and Memphis will be huge cities.

It will be interesting to see what will have happened with our energy sources by then. If it's not figured out soon, we will be in a pretty bad situation in 90 years.

Right, but when a certain resource comes to the point where it becomes too expensive to extract and ship, then the world economies will shift to something else, as seen in history (maybe, good god, 1700s?) with the shift from wood to coal for industrial and as well as residential purposes.

There's plenty of other methods of producing without the need of oil. The world just needs the shock that shifts it from oil to the next big thing or things (like nuclear energy, wind, solar, water).

Regarding fresh supplies of water, you do have a good point. That's pretty hard to replace the underground source, and methods like desalinization aren't cheap at all and still don't fix the problem of polluted water.

Renewable energy has the potential to offset some of our fossil fuel energy demands, but not eliminate it. Unfortunately, we won't embrace renewables until the fossil fuels are basically gone, where we will be pretty much screwed.

Desalinization uses horrendous amounts of energy. Not a viable option in all but the most arid climates. Easier to just move to water.

This shortage of resources will likely result in a much more dangerous society in 90 years.

[jrh_cardinal]

USA, barely

Canada, well, what's in Canada that makes it even top 5 right now? I don't see Canada as a World Superpower now, or ever.
USA, going down, down, down, and that started happening long before the current credit crisis/economy problems, but it's the best of these 5
China, will become leader of Communism/anti-USA, USSR has already proved that one doesn't work over the long run
India, the masses are just too poor. Look at the US, what has made it great? People can come from any background and still be leaders politically/econ./etc., in India it's basically the elite class, then everyone else
EU- may honestly not be around in 2011, the only European nation that would get through that successfully would be England, who geniusly kept their own currency

[khazalid]

European economics is clearly not your forte! As it stands, the only European country in deeper financial doo-doo than the UK is Greece

[jefjef]

European economics is clearly not your forte! As it stands, the only European country in deeper financial doo-doo than the UK is Greece

Well the US would always prop up UK if need be and if able. Not the rest of em though.

[PLAYER57832]

China and India (more China) are both good bets. However, there are other options. Could be a south American union, for example. A lot can happen in 90 years. I mean, who, in 1920, would have envisioned Israel as it is today, except a few dreamers?

Even Canada might spring up. They do have vast untapped natural resources, plus and educated population, and seem to be more intelligent than many countries about using them.

[BigBallinStalin]

.

[army of nobunaga]

food/water/metal to population ratio + social infrastructure = your world powers of the future.

You guys picking already overpopulated countrys that jsut hit their personal industrial revolution like 10 years ago, are missing the mark.

Germany and japan ftw. I pick japan because somehow their population does not spike and they seem to be able to get every resource they need. Germany is jsut doing their thing... anyone that has visited either one of these country will know what I mean.

Didnt a state or province or whatever they are in canada have a vote to become its own country not long ago? The "social infrastructure" thing I mentioned also includes nationalistic vision.

[BigBallinStalin]

.

[sensfan]

Oh sh*t, a 90 year prediction? Gimme a break.

Most evidence points in China's direction, but who knows because the USA will most likely still be very powerful.

The EU is pathetic; it's a bunch of squabbling and bickering states with no unified military or even goals to accomplish in the international scene. Just inside deals with itself while keeping Muslim countries out. GREAT AGENDA, GUYS! May another economic meltdown like Greece happen to you.

China will be destroyed by 2100, or the United Nations will be. I see a World War Three coming up.

[BigBallinStalin]

.

[MrPanzerGeneral]

I, for one, am extremely dissappointed Australasia wasn't voteable on.
After Bogan becomes dictator of Oz, (there wasn't room in NZ for both of us) & I, become The Benevolent Leader of The Principalities Of New Zealand, and we both call upon our beloved Dutch, Nordic, Asian, & Southern Confed' type members. The world is ours. I fear that we might actually be able to agree with the annex of the Sudetenland , the re-occupying of the Rhurr, the walk into Austria, and the kow-towing of the Poles & the push against the Russki to the west . For christs sake, anybody worth anything would agree to anybody invading France (apparently it was done with the best of intensions - the cou-rouge of the progeney of France exploded exponentially after they knew some real fighters would become involved : )
Good luck to all. The U>S>A & Australia. The US STILL the ONLY world super - power 90 odd years from now.