Ordnungsmacht means, essentially, “regulatory power“—a Superpower, in other words.  (Rather than visions of Marvel Comics, think of a successful and ambitious country.)
 

A Sampling of “Superpower” Definitions

A Superpower is:

• World English Dictionary: An extremely powerful state.
• Oxford Dictionary: A very powerful and influential nation.
• Dictionary.com: An extremely powerful nation, especially one capable of influencing international events and the acts and policies of less powerful nations.
• Hubert Védrine (French Minister): (actually speaking of “Hyperpower”) A country who greatly exceeds any other in its political environment along several axes.
• Merriam Webster: An extremely powerful nation; specifically, one of a very few dominant states in an era when the world is divided politically into these states and their satellites.

• “Answers:” In order: United States, China, Russia, India, UK, and France who all lead Military and Political ranks, but the US is undisputed leader.
• Professor Paul Dukes: A country able to conduct a global strategy that includes the possibility of destroying the world; it commands vast economic potential and influence and presents a universal ideology.
• Alice Lyman Miller (Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School): A country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and in more than one region of the globe at a time; the basic components of superpower stature may be measured along 4 axes of power: military, economic, political, and cultural (or what political scientist Joseph Nye has termed “soft power”).
• Wikipedia: A superpower is a state with a dominant position in international relations characterised by unparalleled ability to exert influence or project power on a global scale through means of military and economic strength as well as diplomatic and soft power influence; traditionally Superpowers are pre-eminent among Great Powers with the term first applied to the British Empire, the USA and the Soviet Union.  However, following World War II and the Suez Crisis in 1956, the British Empire’s status as a Superpower diminished; for the duration of the Cold War the US and the Soviet Union came to be generally regarded as Superpowers, dominating world affairs, but after the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, only the US remained a Superpower.  [A Superpower’s ability is unparalleled?  Yet there were 3, then 2, and after that, 1?]
• Kim Richard Nossal (Queen’s University): A political community that occupies a continental-sized landmass, has a sizeable population (relative to other major powers), a superordinate economic capacity (including ample indigenous supplies of food and natural resources), enjoys a high degree of non-dependence on international intercourse; and, most importantly, has a well-developed nuclear capacity (with second strike capability).

For myself, I prefer this definition:

• Samuel P Huntington: A country with pre-eminence in every domain of power—economic, military, diplomatic, ideological, technological, and cultural—with the reach and capabilities to promote its interests in virtually every part of the world.

If You Aren’t a Superpower, What Can You Aspire to?

A Great Power is recognised as exerting influence on a global scale.  Great Powers characteristically possess military and economic strength, as well as diplomatic and soft power influence, which may cause Small Powers to consider the Great Powers’ opinions before taking actions of their own.  The term was first used to represent the more important powers in Europe during the post-Napoleonic era.  The Great Powers constituted the “Concert of Europe” and jointly enforced postwar treaties.  The division between Small Powers and Great Powers was later fomalised.  Since then, international balance of power has shifted a number of times, most dramatically during World Wars I and II.  While some nations are widely held to be Great Powers, others’ inclusion sparks controversy.  (There’s no definitive list.)  Alternate terms used instead of Great Power are World Power or Major Power, though these terms are less precise because they’re also often used interchangeably with Superpower.

Wikipedia TALK on Great Powers:

• Germany, India, and Japan (and possibly Brazil) are Great Powers rather than Superpowers because they’re economic powers only (with modest cultural and military influence).
• The UK and France are almost Superpowers but aren’t; that probably makes them Great Powers (though some place them in the Middle Powers).
• Spain and Italy are Middle Powers though some think that as a G8 member, Italy should be a Great Power; however, others strongly disagree.
• Some think to be a Great Power you must have a nuclear deterrent and be a permanent member of the UN Security Council, limiting Great Power status to China, France, Russia, UK, US.
• Germany, Japan, Brazil, and India aren’t permanent members of the UN Security Council, but many consider them to be Great Powers.
• Some think that there’s NO Superpower at the present time.
• Some think India, Brazil, the EU, China, and/or Russia (and perhaps even the US if you think it’s no longer a Superpower now) may become Superpowers during the 21st century due to enlarging markets, growing military strengths, economic potentials, and influences in international affairs, placing them in a Potential Superpowers category.

For many analysts, the G20 is a more representative and important body than the G8, in no small measure because the G20 membership comprises some of the largest and fastest-growing economies from the southern hemisphere, including the BRICs countries of Brazil, Russia, India and China), which together account for a significant proportion of the world economy and whose rise has been a key element in the shifting geopolitical landscape in recent years.  The BRICs’ corporations and markets led the global economic reversal, contributing to a new multi-lateralism (important given the apparent decline of US unilateralism).  Yet, though they constitute an embryonic bloc, they’re unlikely to become any more cohesive or unanimous given historical and structural differences, distinctive societal values and norms, and economic and diplomatic competitiveness.  The large and deep societal imbalances in some of the BRICs, especially China (124 male births to 100 female) and India (108 to 100) have long-term implications for human development, regional development. and security.

Tensions are apparent in the BRIC Summits which cover a broad canvas reflective of their diversity of interests and institutions.  Conversely, BRICs have deepened their collaboration by developing a range of inter-governmental networks spanning finance ministers and central bank governors, cooperatives, development banks, judicial and statistical officials, along with business forums and think tanks.  This sounds like a good beginning and they may very well increase their powers regionally and globally.  But as a group, they’re unlikely to reach the top very soon.
 

Who Can Build Enough Coalitions, Consensus, and Consultations to Become (or to Remain) a Superpower?

United States

 
The United States has an elected government, which is legitimate, and there’s a separation of legislative, judicial, and executive powers.  Plus, it spends more on Military than the next 4 or 5 nations combined.  English is a commonly-used language for business.
 

Paul Burton, director at IHS Jane’s Aerospace, Defense and Security, said: “With military budgets among many of the major NATO nations due to continue to contract over the next 12 months, the centre of gravity of defence expenditure is expected to continue to shift south and east in 2014, following the trend of global economic expansion.”
 

The US and China Compared

 
In 2011, the average annual household income in China, converted into US dollars, was $10,220, compared with $84,300 in the US (the median US income is $47,300).  China has about 4 times the population of the US.  The US has twice the military expenditures and twice the internet user rate.  Life expectancy is higher in the US and there are 25% more billionaires (in total).  One of the few similarities is average household assets: in both China and the US, the average family’s assets are about 8 times its average income.  Another similarity?  A historic credit boom, unregulated lenders promising high, “risk-free” returns, and surging property prices that make it all go—is this the US in 2004, or China in 2014?  Chinese local governments and developers have gone on a borrowing binge the past 5 years to build new infrastructure and new cities, including ghost ones.  In other words, China is getting rich now by building the things it needs to be rich, and putting it all on the credit card.  The result, as the ratings agency Fitch points out, has been a bigger credit increase relative to GDP than just about anywhere on Earth or anytime in history.  Total credit shot up from around 120% of GDP in 2008 to 190% today (2014)—most of it from so-called “shadow banks” that aren’t regulated.  In comparison, US credit went up only 40 percentage points of GDP in the 5 years before their housing bubble popped.

In some countries, the percentage of survey respondents who believe that China has already surpassed or will surpass the US is significantly greater than 50%, including Spain (71%), France (70%), Canada and Australia (67%), and the UK and Germany (66%).  Two-thirds of Chinese survey respondents consider their home country as being on top.

One encouraging statistic is that younger people in both nations are more likely to express favourable sentiment toward the other.
 

China

 
At almost 10 million square kilometres, China is the 3rd largest country (after Russia and Canada).  Its 2.25 million troops form the world’s largest armed force (though not the most advanced one).  China’s reputation as a major military power is crowned by possession of nuclear weapons capable of all ranges and delivery modes.  Its new high-speed manoeuvring warhead is a “great concern” to the US because it appears designed for use with both nuclear and conventional Chinese military forces.  The recently tested hypersonic glide vehicle is basically a ballistic missile-launched system that gets the payload fast and high, pitches over, dives to hypersonic speed, and basically just glides to the target at speeds of up to Mach 10 or nearly 8,000 miles per hour.  Hypersonic vehicles of any kind—whether gliding or cruising—are extremely difficult to defend against because time is compressed across initial detection, tracking, and then fire control.  Ultra high speeds make the manoeuvring missiles difficult to counter with missile defence interceptors.  Chinese military commentators say the vehicle is planned for use in potential attacks against aircraft carriers at sea.  Unless the US military develops directed energy weapons, including lasers and pulsed rail guns, they don’t have a counter to China’s hypersonic missile threat.  And US intelligence agencies claim China has around 200 to 300 warheads, but outside analysts say it’s more like 600-1,000.  Who can be believed?

What would China be like as a Superpower?  China is ruled by the Chinese Communist Party, so there’s no separation of powers, no checks and balances, and no independent press.  Its military power is puny compared with that of the US, but that is slowly changing.  While America has 11 aircraft carriers, China only has one, based on, of all things, a Ukrainian hull.  And China’s global political influence is still extremely limited.

China’s economic power may already be over half that of the US’s (which it’s projected to overtake around 2018), but economic power is far more closely linked with GDP per capita than raw GDP figures.  China is a very large country, but it’s also a very poor one, and it’s clear (to me) that at this time they have little or no economic power.  They export a lot of finished products, and import a lot of raw materials, but the power this gives them is very sharply limited by their inability to choose to do anything else.  Could China, for example, decide to stop importing raw materials from Australia to “teach them a lesson”?  I’d say no; they’re absolutely dependent on those imports.  Could Australia stop exporting to China?  Probably, although it might be painful, but the impact would be highly limited.  It’s worth noting that China’s ongoing territorial disputes in the South China seas seem to be completely focused on displays of military power; there’s no hint that it’s used its economic domination of the South Korean economy to force South Korea to show support for China’s demands.  China doesn’t HAVE economic domination there.  In terms of technology and living standards, China lags far behind the US.  For example, only 44% of the Chinese population had improved sanitation in 2002 and there were an estimated 95,600 deaths due to diarrhoea that year.  Improved water and sanitation stood at 100% in the US and there were zero deaths from diarrhoea that year. )
 

China’s military is intentionally organised to bureaucratically enforce risk-averse behaviour, because an army that spends too much time training is an army that is not engaging in enough political indoctrination.  This means that 30-40% of an officer’s career (or roughly 15 hours per 40-hour work week) is squandered studying CCP propaganda, singing patriotic songs, and conducting small group discussions on Marxist-Leninist theory.

Even at its present low level of development, China is the main trading partner of a multitude of countries around the world.   Cultural power will also be important to the Chinese.  Theirs is a long and remarkable civilisation, having enjoyed a place in the sun not once but several times.  During the Tang dynasty, for instance, from the 7th to the 10th century, and the Song dynasty from the 10th to the 13th century, China made major advances in a host of fields from biology and hydraulic engineering to architecture, medicine, mathematics and cartography.  The Chinese are enormously proud of their historical achievements.  They believe theirs is the greatest civilisation that has ever been.  They have a strong sense of their own superiority rooted in history and a hierarchical view of the world with China at the top.  (Of course, not every country completely agrees with China’s assessment.)

Chinese economic development has depended on an endless supply of cheap labour.  Over time this will change from being an advantage to being a burden, as people demand better conditions and bigger rewards (this has already begun to happen).

China vows no letup to state control of the internet; it won’t ease state control over domestic online activity and brooks no foreign criticism of its rules.  A very public spat with Internet giant Google in 2010 led to the company shutting down its main Chinese search engine.  China has called the Internet “a crystallisation of human wisdom,” and says its usage in the most populous nation on earth is “transforming the pattern of economic development.”

The impact of China on fragile African states with coveted energy and minerals has been profound.  Support for state leaders from Equatorial Guinea, Sao Tome, Angola and the Sudan has come from Chinese energy and mining companies, leaving little competitive space for local civil society or even the private sector.  Thus the African continent is increasingly divided into state regimes heavily supported by China and state regimes that aren’t.

How strong are China’s appetites?  It’s already the world’s largest consumer of steel, copper, coal, and cement and the world’s 2nd largest consumer of oil (after the US).  It’s been importing oil since 1993; China’s proven oil reserves are estimated deplete by 2018, yet by 2025 its energy requirements will quadruple.  China is dependent on Middle East oil: 80% of its imported crude comes from 10 countries (60% from only 5).  Its oil sources (Middle East and Africa) are overly reliant on sea transportation through the Malacca Strait connecting the Indian Ocean with the South China Sea.  The contested Spratly Islands are thought to be oil rich; bonus: they’re strategically located for guarding the Malacca Strait.  In the past, they’ve been considered Chinese maritime territory.

Anti-ship cruise missiles and China’s DF-21D ballistic missiles should allow China to expand its “counter-intervention” capability further into the Philippine and South China Seas than previously—indeed, many of their capabilities were specifically designed to deter or prevent US military intervention in the region.  With a range in excess of 4,000 nautical miles (4,600 miles), their submarine-launched ballistic missiles will allow them to strike Hawaii, Alaska, and maybe even western portions of the continental US from their East Asian waters.  China says it intends to settle its several maritime disputes through diplomatic means but appears willing to use force if necessary.

China’s also developed an array of space weapons designed to destroy satellites used to verify arms control treaties, provide military communications, and warn of enemy attacks.  It’s also built the world’s largest army of cyber warriors, and the planet’s 2nd largest fleet of drones to exploit areas where the US and its allies are under-defended.  These capabilities, plus the inexperience of their military, make it more likely that China could one day be tempted to start a war.  But NO wars come with built-in escalation controls.
 

Russia

Russia’s Old MiG-29 and New Sukhoi T-50

Spending increases are highest in Russia, whose military budget will rise by more than 44% over the next 3 years as it, too. modernises its forces—spending £48 billion ($78 billion) on defence this year—despite a slowdown in economic growth.  In 2013, the defence budget continued to increase while spending on health and social care were reduced.

President Vladimir Putin’s confrontations with the US on nuclear issues are in pursuit of regaining Superpower status for Russia.  Indeed, it’s been argued that Russia’s foreign policy toward border countries is designed with that ultimate goal.  Russia uses its energy to win friends and influence among its former Soviet satellites.  Nothing has really changed much—it’s back to the same game.  Russians have more freedom and prosperity than they did in the USSR, but unemployment has risen, industrial output has plunged, the population is shrinking, there are high levels of poverty, and somewhat poor public health.  None of these seem to be a huge public concern today, but may be a drag on future prospects.  Putin has said: “We don’t aspire to be called some kind of Superpower, that would be a claim to world or regional hegemony.”

Popular consensus among political scientists and other commentators, is that Russia is simply an emerging power, as opposed to a Potential Superpower.
 

India

A US Intelligence report from 2012 says that India will become a Superpower by 2030: “India’s rate of economic growth is likely to rise while China’s slows.”  The World Bank suggests that China and India will be “emerging economy growth poles” by 2025 and adds that the total size of the Chinese working-age population will peak in 2016 but decline in later years, however, it’ll be different in India: India’s young population, coupled with the 2nd-largest number of English-speakers in the world, could give India the advantage over China.  But a country needs to achieve Great Power status first, before developing Superpower status and currently, it could be disputed whether Brazil and India are even Great Powers.

India’s project of developing a conventional submarine, the Scorpene, under a transfer-of-technology programme has fared rather poorly.  The project is behind schedule and significantly over-budget.  An accompanying deal for Exocet anti-ship missiles has already had issues of its own: even before the missiles became operational on the submarine, the warranty period expired.  Now the first Scorpene won’t be delivered until September 2016.  The plan had been to have a dozen new subs in service by 2020, but at best there’ll only be 4 completed by then.  India believes it needs at least 18 non-nuclear subs in service to deal with Pakistan and China.  The Scorpenes are 1,700 tons, have crews of 32, six 533 millimetre torpedo tubes, and carry 18 torpedoes and/or missiles.  The first 3 Scorpenes will be obsolete by the time they’re even produced.  But Chinese subs aren’t even as effective as India’s due to less-advanced technology and less-well-trained crews.  By 2020, India should have about 10 subs of all types (including the nuclear-powered model under construction)—but China will have more than 60, at least 12 of which will be nuclear.
 

Brazil

Brazil, often called an economic Superpower, is the 7th largest economy in the world.  Many experts and journalists compare Brazil with the other potential Superpowers of the BRIC group.  Brazil is thought to have a head start on India and China, because it’s been “positively” developing for over 100 years; between 1960 and 1980, Brazil doubled its per capita income and today has a good chance of emerging as the world’s first economic Superpower without nuclear weapons.  Its lack of declared enemies and the fact it hasn’t engaged in any large scale conflicts since the end of the Second World War also means Brazil needn’t maintain a large and aggressive military force like the other Great Powers.  However, the development of nuclear technology may become important to Brazil—which has the potential to have a China-like booming economy, growing self-confidence, and an ability to make “its own way.”  A nuclear presence could help.  It operates the only aircraft carrier outside the US Navy in the Western Hemisphere, is building up its forces, and is pursuing a programme to build a a nuclear-powered attack submarine.

The Union of South American Nations (Unasur) has one of the lowest defence spends in the world as a percentage of GDP, currently about 1%.  Brazil, the most populous country on the continent, headed the list, accounting for 43% of South America’s spending total; Colombia was 2nd, with 17%, and Venezuela 3rd, accounting for 10.7%.  (In 2012 the US spent 4.2% GDP on its military.  Brazil spent 1.5%, South Sudan 9.4%, Oman 8.6%, Saudi Arabia 8.0%, and Israel 5.7%.)  Brazil’s armed forces are the largest in Latin America, with 327,710 active-duty troops and officers. With no serious external or internal threats, the armed forces are searching for a new role.

The much higher rate of crime in Brazil compared to all other Potential Superpowers, its stubbornly high levels of income and education inequality, social polarisation, and the future of the much-less-developed northern regions of the country are concerns.  Brazil’s costs in terms of taxes, bureaucracy, interest rates, and labour laws remain the highest among G20 economies.  This discourages investment.
 

The European Union

The European practice of offering the prospect of membership in the world’s richest market is a very powerful incentive for countries to reform themselves and comply with EU standards.  Europe has successfully assimilated many countries on its periphery.  But Europe’s problems include an ageing population and unassimilated minorities.

The EU has a large population, a large economy (the largest in the world), and low inflation rates.  The unpopularity and perceived failure of US foreign policy in recent years and certain EU member states’ high quality of life (especially when measured in terms such as hours worked per week, health care, and social services) are points in their favour.  Some political scientists believe that the EU has already achieved Superpower status based on the size and global reach of its economy and on its global political influence.  The nature of power has changed since the Cold War-driven definition of Superpower was developed and some now feel that military power is no longer essential to Great Power status.  Control of the means of production has become more important than control of the means of destruction.  European technologies more and more set global standards.  Furthermore, European countries give the most development assistance to others.

The major factor constraining the EU’s rise to Superpower status is its lack of statehood in the international system (they aren’t a country in any meaningful sense), lack of structure, lack of any internal drive to project power worldwide (as some of its member states are able to do), and continued preference for the sovereign nation-state amongst some Europeans.  To counterbalance this, it has been suggested that EU leaders develop a common EU defense and also hold one collective seat at the UN Security Council and G8, though there doesn’t seem to be the slightest chance of that happening; at the moment France and the UK both have seats.  The UK certainly has no interest in trading its seat for a share of a joint EU seat (they would rightly think that the EU would only infrequently advance UK interests), and France jealously guards its own seat as one of the few tangible signs of its Great Power status.
 

A Superpower Blend?  One That Offers It All: Regime Protection, Economic Reform, Relationship-Building?  In a Word: “Unlikely”

America may not be able to afford its excessive consumption, nor Europe its expansion, nor China its environmental and social burdens.  Russia is an energy-giant, India has aspirations, Japan is a technological juggernaut.  Many states have strong anti-imperial mindsets.  We’ve become more a world of alignments than alliances.  Some countries gain economic assistance from one power, military aid from another, and trade ties with a third.  In addition to playing Great Powers off one another, countries like Venezuela, Iran, Kazakhstan, Libya, and Malaysia build ties among themselves, partnering directly with one another to extract oil reserves, share intelligence, combat terrorism, reduce poverty, implement capital controls, and build modern infrastructure.  Airlines connect Arabs, South Americans, and East Asians directly to one another.

Double standards and legal isolationism have undone America’s exemplary record of promoting human rights, and unsanctioned pre-emptive war has undermined the authority of the UN Security Council.  When Superpower interests collide, the UN has proven to be as catastrophically irrelevant as the League of Nations.  The UN isn’t viewed as an overarching governance mechanism but as a forum, a stage on which to posture and to block others.  It’s a place for consultation and joint declarations, but not the place where decisions are actually made.  The UN has had many major humanitarian successes, from peacekeeping to providing food and medical aid around the world; it’s created a democracy fund, increased its peacekeeping forces, and established a human rights council, but its standards for these will only matter where no Great or Super Powers bother to intervene.

There’s so little conflict, it’s hard to really tease out whether it’s because everyone does what the US wants (because no one can challenge them), or if everyone just sort of wants the same things now.  Even China doesn’t really challenge the US, whatever people speculate the future may hold.  Is that because they’re too weak compared to the US (and thus they don’t even try to fight US power), or because they’re too strong compared to the US (and thus the US doesn’t even try to exercise power)?

As stealthy, globalised escalations continue among the Great Powers, undeterred by global governance norms, the potential for conflict grows: resource competition in the Caspian and South China seas, terrorism with nuclear weapons, an attack in the Gulf of Aden or the Straits of Malacca are prime examples.   The uncertain alignments of lesser but still substantial powers such as Russia, Japan, and India could cause escalations—or America’s foreign lenders could undermine some Grand Strategy, sparking economic turmoil, political acrimony, and military tension.  War brings profit to the military-industrial complex and is supported by the large patriotic camps.  But not a BIG war.  The further down the road one looks, the more global problems revolve around energy resources and fresh water rather than calculations of military power imbalances and territorial rivalry.  That may be a blessing of sorts—particularly as the benefit of space travel begins to approach its collective cost (the subject of a future post).
 

Sources:

 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19995218 “A Point Of View: What kind of superpower could China be?” from BBC News Magazine 19 October 2012.
http://www.thestar.com.my/story.aspx/?file=%2f2012%2f2%2f3%2fworldupdates%2f2012-02-03T113508Z_1_TRE8120LF_RTROPTT_0_UK-INDIA-DEFENCE&sec=Worldupdates “Analysis – India’s military build up may be too little too late?” by Frank Jack Daniel, Arup Roychoudhury, and Sanjib Kumar,The Star Online, 3 February 2012.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Armed_Forces Brazilian Armed Forces from Wikipedia.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10615466/China-and-Russia-help-global-defence-spending-rise-for-first-time-in-five-years.html “China and Russia help global defence spending rise for first time in five years” by Ben Farmer and Raf Sanchez, The Telegraph, 3 February 2014.
http://www.casaasia.es/pdf/9200595422AM1127202862621.pdf “China: The 21st Century Superpower?” by Rosita Dellios, Lecture, Casa Asia, Barcelona, 13 September 2005.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jun/07/china-us-how-superpowers-compare-datablog#_ “China v the US: how the superpowers compare” by Ami Sedghi, The Guardian News Datablog, 7 June 2013.
http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/chinas-deceptively-weak-and-dangerous-military/?allpages=yes “China’s Deceptively Weak (and Dangerous) Military’ by Ian Easton, The Diplomat, 31 January 2014.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2013/07/31/defense-spending-in-new-europe-is-collapsing/ “Defense Spending In 'New Europe’ Is Collapsing” by Mark Adomanis, Forbes, 31 July 2013.
http://www.ccs.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/China_Monitor_JUNE_2010.pdf “The Emerging Politics of the Emerging Powers: The BRICs and the Global South” from The China Monitor, Centre for Chinese Studies, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, June 2010.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/5c95d45f86a5 “F’d: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane” by David Axe, Medium, 10 February 2014.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_power Great power from Wikipedia.
http://freebeacon.com/high-speed-threat/ “High Speed Threat” by Bill Gertz, the Washington Free Beacon, 31 January 2014.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_super_powers_are_there_in_the_world?#slide=4 “How many super powers are there in the world?” from Wiki Answers.
http://forum.globalsecurity.org/showthread.php?47078-Indian-Navy-s-submarine-crisis….…. “Indian Navy’s Submarine Crisis” by Brandle, Global Security Forum, October 2011.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/9170730/Indias-army-chief-describes-alarming-state-of-military-in-leaked-letter.html “India’s army chief describes 'alarming’ state of military in leaked letter” via AFP. The Telegraph, 28 March 2012.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/mirage-2000s-withdrawn-as-indias-mrca-fighter-competition-changes-01989/ “India’s M-MRCA Fighter Competition: 'Sorry, HAL, We Can’t Do That'” by Daily staff, Defense Industry Daily, 14 January 2014.
http://dilemma-x.net/2012/04/19/indias-nuclear-capable-ballistic-missile-test-is-a-success-indias-aggressive-military-build-up/ “India’s nuclear capable ballistic missile test is a success. India’s aggressive military build-up, is it about Africa?” from Dilemma X, 19 April 2012.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/is-chinas-historic-credit-bubble-about-to-pop/283174/ “Is China’s Historic Credit Bubble About to Pop?” by Matthew O’Brien, The Atlantic, 10 January 2014.
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/227488 “Many Believe China Will Soon Overtake the US as World’s Leading Superpower” by Catherine Clifford,
Entrepreneur, 18 July 2013.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS “Military Expenditure (% of GDP)” from The World Bank, 2013.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_Superpowers Potential Superpowers from Wikipedia.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/9edbae7da1ee “Russia’s Stealth Fighter Could Outfly, Outshoot American Jets” by David Axe, War Is Boring, 30 August 2013.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/scorpene-sub-delayed-by-one-more-year/article4942060.ece “Scorpene sub delayed by one more year” by S Anandan, The Hindu, 23 July 2013.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower Superpower from Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Great_power/Archive_8 Talk:Great power/Archive 8 from Wikipedia.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/three-superpowers-why-the-us-europe-and-china-need-a-g-3-a-582376.html “ Three Superpowers: Why the US, Europe and China Need a 'G-3’” by Parag Khanna, Spiegel Online International, 6 October 2008.
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/05/14/unasur-defence-spending-one-of-the-lowest-in-the-world-average-0.91-of-gdp “Unasur defence spending one of the lowest in the world: average 0.91% of GDP” from Merco Press, 14 May 2012.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_T._R._Fox William T R Fox from Wikipedia.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm “World Wide Military Expenditures” from Global Security, 2011.
 

The Distillery

Immaturity can last a lifetime.

— Robert Half
 

Puzzle