superpowers, good or bad?

[Angrboda]

As Chuck suggested, a superpower can have the effect of stabilizing a region, whereas if the powers in a region are evenly matched, it can destabilize the region. This is possibly a general effect of the distribution of resources, power, and opportunity. World War I was a classic example in which the mutual dependency of European nations on each other collapsed when one of the links broke. I'd say, generally, that localization of power and resources is beneficial in several ways. It consolidates power to increase the range of goals achievable, increases economies of scale, and promotes cooperation. It's this latter effect, that the uneven distribution of power and resources encourages cooperation, whereas an even distribution promotes competition, which underlies the phenomena Chuck described. This is true whether the states in question are intra-national, such as in the U.S. following the Articles of Confederation, or inter-national, such as the states in Africa, or the pseudo-states formed by cultural groups, as in Africa. (The U.S. Civil War is another example.) When resources are unequally distributed, parties can profit from cooperation, such as trade and mutual defense; when resources are equally distributed, the incentives for cooperation are weakened, and the incentives for exploitation, war, and other violations is increased.

"If you cannot be strong, and yet cannot be weak, this will result in your defeat.''
The Spring and Autumn Annals


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLHh9E5ilZ4