AHC: Country other than USA becomes a Hyperpower

1964: USA and USSR destroy each other and Europe in nuclear war. China survives relatively unscathed and goes on to conquer East Asia and by 2000 freely exerts power around most of the globe.

The Soviet Union didn't have the capability to destroy the USA or even hurt it significantly in terms of nuclear weapons until the early 80s/late 70s. The idea of mutual destruction was essentially a fiction until the Soviets improved their missile technology. Note that this doesn't exclude a few cities or military bases being destroyed, which could set the US back quite a bit. China would still exert more power.
 
The great dilemma of all 20th Century British wanks. To make the British Empire last, India has to be integrated into the political system, British MP in the House of Commons in large numbers. But even with a very rigged voting system, India is an important voting block on day 1 and with a generation or two, India number of MP is so large that MP from the British Isles matter little.


Hang on. Since when does being a 'Hyperpower' require you to be a single united nation, or have a cabinent representing every element of it...

Hyperpower, means a power that;

"A power that leads all other power in every sphere of endevour."


A hyperpower doesn't need to represent it population, it just needs to be world leader across the board. To that end, India can be treated like dirt but so long as it is working nomilly for the British, then the Brits can claim dominon on India and make India part of its Geopolitics. Indeed this even extends cross nation in some respects.

If we look at America or Russia they are both essentially federations, with local government and a federal government. While this has become the dominating system of these two powers it is not the only political system in place. Both China and India practice their own forms of 'federation'.

What the British Empire might represent is a 4th way of forming Hegamony, not by national borders, but commonwealth identity. So long as all the elements within the Empire are acting 'for Queen and country' it doesn't matter one jot whos in the local and colonial governments about the world.

In that sense a British Empire that never collaspes, that keeps its colonies allied to the crown with nominal soverignty (i.e. the right to local governance, but Britian retains the right to represent them at the intenational level (something that could fairly easly be sold to people under the guise of Britian vouching to protect their interests)) and you get what is know as a Confederation.

...Hence since there is no prerequsite for a hyperpower to be a single state per se and it might be possible for Britian to actually reform the Empire in the 20thC rather than desolve it, you could possibly get Britian becoming a defacto hyperpower because it simply encompases so much of the world under its 'Commonwealth'.

Indeed this 'Commonwealth' would not just be a sociopolitical one, but a geopolitical one. Rather than uniteing people of common cause, it unites nations under a common banner.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Hang on. Since when does being a 'Hyperpower' require you to be a single united nation, or have a cabinent representing every element of it...

Hyperpower, means a power that;

"A power that leads all other power in every sphere of endevour."


A hyperpower doesn't need to represent it population, it just needs to be world leader across the board. To that end, India can be treated like dirt but so long as it is working nomilly for the British, then the Brits can claim dominon on India and make India part of its Geopolitics. Indeed this even extends cross nation in some respects.

If we look at America or Russia they are both essentially federations, with local government and a federal government. While this has become the dominating system of these two powers it is not the only political system in place. Both China and India practice their own forms of 'federation'.

What the British Empire might represent is a 4th way of forming Hegamony, not by national borders, but commonwealth identity. So long as all the elements within the Empire are acting 'for Queen and country' it doesn't matter one jot whos in the local and colonial governments about the world.

In that sense a British Empire that never collaspes, that keeps its colonies allied to the crown with nominal soverignty (i.e. the right to local governance, but Britian retains the right to represent them at the intenational level (something that could fairly easly be sold to people under the guise of Britian vouching to protect their interests)) and you get what is know as a Confederation.

...Hence since there is no prerequsite for a hyperpower to be a single state per se and it might be possible for Britian to actually reform the Empire in the 20thC rather than desolve it, you could possibly get Britian becoming a defacto hyperpower because it simply encompases so much of the world under its 'Commonwealth'.

Indeed this 'Commonwealth' would not just be a sociopolitical one, but a geopolitical one. Rather than uniteing people of common cause, it unites nations under a common banner.

Because the England was too weak to keep an India that was unwilling to be a part of the British Empire. India's potential is the missing piece in the UK having the worlds most powerful army, but realistically, this Army would come at a price, which is India gets to vote for the House of Commons.

I understand your position, and it is close to the position of many important British leaders. And this attitude is the most important reason that Roman empire last for 1000+ years, and the Han identity has lasted over 2000 years and even survived such horrors as the Mongols. The British model is great for the people of England, but has the internal seeds of its own destruction. The English made as about a good a run of their method of government as was possible. The problem with keeping India by force is the scale of the population. An India of 350 million people can't controlled forever by a hundred thousand English men. Early on, India was not a country, but a region, where the English could have on ethnic group help the oppress another ethnic group, but as India national identity began to emerge, this option went away. By the 1950's for England to control India against India's will, England would have needed to maintain mass conscription of the scale of WW1 for the rest of history. India gained its independence because the UK had no other options that work.

By 1920, it is too late to save the Empire. By 1910 it is too late to save all the Empire. And IMO, by 1900, it is too late to save the empire.
 

J.D.Ward

Donor
One that no one else has mentioned, the First French Empire. After Austerlitz, can this become a stable hyperpower? Or does this require a completely different Napoleon I?

(Forget the ASB variations in which the Moscow Expedition is a glorious French victory!)
 
Top