Myth and reality about the USA being "top dog"

[PowerWizard]

We all heard about the myth of the so-called "superpower" of the USA. Despite being a myth, it is a recurring "argument" in many debates, so I took the time and tried to sum up my thoughts on this (i posted this on another forum as well). The Backroom rules state that this forum is not for uncontroversial topics, but I hope this won't turn into a flame war (it has a great potential to it), so I would welcome the help of moderators to delete disruptive and provocative posts.

DISCLAIMER: This is not a discussion about how "bad" or "good" the USA is, it is rather a discussion of its role and future in international affairs. So I'd advise to refrain from such black-and-white arguments. The world has become a better and safer place by the efforts of this country in some ways, and has become worse and unsteadier in other ways; it remained the same by yet other efforts. The question here is: "Can the USA be regarded as a go-alone global power?"

Let's clear up some definitions first, such as 'power' and 'dominance'. I am going to use Joseph Nye's distinction of hard power and soft power. Hard power is the main, but not the exclusive indicator of a country's international impact and it includes military and economic power. Soft power includes non-traditional forces such as cultural colonization and the influence of ideologie(s). I'd like to restrain my first post to the hard power aspects of this debate.

The USA is still a top dog, but it is certainly not the only "top dog" in the kennel of global powers, including the European Union, China, Russia and maybe other countries as well. Moreover it is not the leader of this kennel, never was and unlikely to become one in the 21st century. It is certainly not an underdog and will remain in a strong position throughout the century, but its military and economic power is insufficient to upkeep its current rate of global exploitation. With the end of the cold war, and the interlocking ties of globalization, the structure of international affairs are starting become more and more multilateral. The attempted unilateralism of the Bush regime failed as it only alienated the allies of the USA and increased hostility towards the US military expansion. This country is militarily inefficient and economically dependent, and if it continues the current course of "global war on terror", that will only eat up her main resources.


Military power - inefficient and unsustainable

Let's start by reviewing the recent US military history. The military "victories" of the USA are hardly convincing. World War II was not won by American soldiers, but by Russian ones; Operation Overlord (which was too late anyway to prevent the Holocaust) met a reservist German coast-guard and incomplete defences. The cold war was not "won" by the USA. When the USA had the chance in 1956 to intervene and liberate Eastern Europe from totalitarian dictatorship, it was reluctant to do so. The cold war was ended by the inherent problems of the Soviet political and economical system that inevitably lead to its collapse - the process was of course speeded up by the reforms of Gorbachev and the independence of the Eastern European bloc. Let's also mention the Vietnam War, that is still the major fiasco of US military history, which lasted more than a decade without any apparent success for the US side. The Gulf War in 1991 was also unsuccessful as it failed to overhtrow the regime of Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the failure in Somalia in 1993.

The September 11 attacks showed the weakness of the US administrations to grant internal safety for their citizens. The course of "global war on terrorism" began, but this concept is vague - to say the least. Nothing shows weakness more than this weird worldwide "war", in which the USA is squandering the last of her power resources. The myth of a worldwide terrorism is long gone, it only shows the social tensions deriving in the modernization of developing states. The overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in the same year meant the control of the capital, Kabul and its surroundings in 80 kms. The war is still ongoing, and the USA constantly requires help and reinforcements from its allies. Again, this is hardly the evidence of a supreme global military power. Its latest "success", the Iraqi war was described as "mysterious" by John Keegan, British military historian and journalist. Defeating an already fallen regime, that shows no or minimal resistance can be hardly called as success. Both causes of war turned out to be false: there were no weapons of mass destruction found and reports showed that terrorist activity was not reduced but increased with the Iraqi war.

The same could be said about the planned (or unplanned) operation against North Korea: attacking an already fallen, half-fallen regime to demonstrate power and push the world to a state of war from which the USA can only profit. Why is the USA reluctant to take down its major enemies: Venezuela, Iran or others? Because in order to demonstrate its military might, the USA needs to maintain the image of the "fireman" in international affairs. That's why the USA was reluctant to intervene and stop the Russian invasion of South Ossetia, or to solve the ongoing and serious Israeli-Palestine crisis. A long drawn out war is hardly in the interests of this country.

It is almost needless to point out the obvious fact, that the global "empire" the USA built in the 20th century (especially the global military network) far overstretched itself. US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost US$904 billion in direct budgetary outlays. The US$687 billion spent on Iraq exceeds alone the costs of any other US war except World War II. A CSBA study says that, even if the US reduced its troop deployment by half, the Iraq conflict could cost US taxpayers up to an additional US$817 billion over the next decade. This would result in a total of US$1.72 trillion spent on Iraq and Afghanistan from 2001 to 2018. This is an unsustainable process. The USA can't maintain more military outposts, moreover it needs to cut back its military spending. Which means it needs to rely more and more on her allies to maintain its global presence.

Economic power - dependent and unsustainable

The USA is not self-sufficient economically. Its external debt in international trade is growing from year to year. Gross U.S. liabilities to foreigners are $16.3 trillion as of the end of 2006 (over 100% of GDP). The U.S. Net International Investment Position (NIIP) deteriorated to a negative $2.5 trillion at the end of 2006, or about minus 19% of GDP. National debt. The borrowing cap debt ceiling as of 2005 stood at $8.18 trillion. In March 2006, Congress raised that ceiling an additional $0.79 trillion to $8.97 trillion, which is approximately 68% of GDP. As of October 2008, the "The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" raised the current debt ceiling to US$ 11.3 trillion. Private debt reached a critical level too, see the subprime mortgage crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis). The US public and private debt has reached unstoppable levels. The balance of import/export is starting to become problematic too. As you can see on this chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ProportionUSexportsimports1960-2004.gif), the proportion of imports compared to exports is growing since 1996.

The US economy can be described as a black hole that attracts the most various goods of the world, consumes them in an incontinent manner, but its production rate is not in keeping with this tempo. The US economy needs the continual influx of foreign capital and products in order to upkeep the standard of living. Its economy is clearly declining and tending towards improductivity since the 2008 economic crisis.

[Furunculus]

even when you use a metric like mine that scores power based only on rank, and not weighted for score, you still fine that america comes out significantly ahead of every body, and over 50% higher than anybody except china:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1960599&postcount=2

if you weighted my metric for score rather than rank you would find america ahead by at least double, and that counts as superpower status in my eyes.

there was a brief period in the nineties when america could be termed a hyper-power, but the rise of china in particular has reduced that.

and for those overly excitable types who constantly predict the eclipse of america by china i give you this:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjir/6.1.03_miller.html

[Strike For The South]

Putting the United States in the looking glass of former world powers is not really applicable. The United States simply can't murder whomever it pleases capture a few key cities and roads and deem the place conquered. Nor would I want us to.

As for the recent military history. I think you not only severely shortchange the US military but also equate inconsequential events (Desert Storm, Somalia, even Vietnam) with Americas power.

You also point to Americas reluctance to go into certain places. America is not 19th century Blighty we can't do what we please nor would the populace support such an endeavor.

The economy is in bad shape right now however having a large debt is by no means writing on the wall and the world economy rise and falls with America. A more tight knit global economy is exactly what America needs.

Also who will overtake us? The EU, China and Russia all have demographic time bombs.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The USA is not self-sufficient economically.

Name a country that is.


The US economy can be described as a black hole that attracts the most various goods of the world, consumes them in an incontinent manner, but its production rate is not in keeping with this tempo.

So what happens to the other countries when we stop buying so much?

Good article on China, Furunculus.

[Meneldil]

Hum, if we are to agree with you, then we also have to admit that there was no superpower at any point throughout history.

[Major Robert Dump]

I thought a nations status as a super power was based on it's prestige score. As long as the USA is ahead by 2050 then they are teh win.

[Marshal Murat]

Military power - inefficient and unsustainable
While the US military isn't as powerful as it could be, it can defeat any conventional force in combat. While China and Russia are threats, they can't project power as effectively as the United States is able to do. We were able in a matter of weeks to move forces and bring to bear in Afghanistan an armed task-force of not only US but NATO troops that had maintained peace and driven out the Taliban. Were it not for circumstances that are our own fault and unforeseeable at the time, Afghanistan would still be stable. But one can't disagree that we were able to bring a sledgehammer down across the globe with negligible impact on our economy.
While the military may be unsustainable in some aspects, we do have some of the most advanced technology and military equipment on the globe. We don't get cool stuff for free, so of course it will cost alot of money. We could sustain our military if we needed to do so, but the Armed Forces isn't at the top of this administrations agenda.


The cold war was ended by the inherent problems of the Soviet political and economical system that inevitably lead to its collapse - the process was of course sped up by the reforms of Gorbachev and the independence of the Eastern European bloc.
The fall of the Soviet Union wasn't pre-ordained. The Soviet Union could've done alot of things different, and had they been able to, they could've created a Soviet Union that might've survived. However, due to America's ability to project power, we prevented the Soviet Union from disbanding it's forces or working on infrastructure problems that it was having.


The Gulf War in 1991 was also unsuccessful as it failed to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein.
While the coalition of forces created by the United States didn't overthrow Saddam Hussein, it did liberate Kuwait from Iraqi control. The mandate given to the United States didn't order the US to overthrow Saddam Hussein (AFAIK), so we succeeded in liberating Kuwait, and gave Saddam a chance to change his tune.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

While the coalition of forces created by the United States didn't overthrow Saddam Hussein, it did liberate Kuwait from Iraqi control. The mandate given to the United States didn't order the US to overthrow Saddam Hussein (AFAIK), so we succeeded in liberating Kuwait, and gave Saddam a chance to change his tune.

Exactly. The goal was never to invade Iraq and take Saddam down. If we had wanted to do that it would have been extremely easy to depose him, as we eventually did, especially since Saddam's conventional forces were already in shambles.

[Furunculus]

good god yes, towards he close of the kuwait war the british had persuaded the marsh arabs to rise against saddam because he was 'going' to be deposed.

instead we letfhim in place, and he in turn drained the marshes and launched reprisals against the marsh arabs. a low point indeed.

but iraq was there for the taking, there was no inability to take iraq.

[Samurai Waki]

So, do you think the Russians or Chinese would have it any easier than the US/NATO in dealing with a Situation like Afghanistan or Iraq. Heck, the Soviet Union used to be a Super Power and it couldn't deal with Afghanistan, and they shared a border. The fact that we've managed to stay in a relatively dominate position within a land locked country tens of thousands of miles from the homeland, which is shared by at least two relatively powerful US hostile neighbors, and not too many overly friendly ones anymore, using far less troops than the Soviets, and not using overly brutal tactics, yet somehow managing to stay there for nearly the same amount of time, and probably longer than them how do not suppose the US is not a superpower? Actually, if I was a country like China or Russia, and no nukes were to be exchanged, I'd be incredibly nervous to face an America in a total war type situation.

[Fragony]

Friendly big dog, but why not look at what it could do if it wanted to, and who could do anything about it.

[Samurai Waki]

Friendly big dog, but why not look at what it could do if it wanted to, and who could do anything about it.

:laugh4: I really meant it more as comparison to what other nations can field (and I mentioned NATOs significant role) so I'm not really trying to yank on anyone's chain.

[Fragony]

:laugh4: I really meant it more as comparison to what other nations can field (and I mentioned NATOs significant role) so I'm not really trying to yank on anyone's chain.

Me neither, was replying to OP. Let's be realistic, the USA has the power to overpower, in the nineteenth century power was defined by just that, and while Europe graciously moved on towards what it itself concieves to be it's own achievement nothing really changed.

[Jolt]

Military power - inefficient and unsustainable

It can defeat any other nation in a one-on-one conventional warfare. It can be sustained for as long as the tax payers want it.


Economic power - dependent and unsustainable

dependent? As was well said before, is there any economy (Heck! Was there any economy ever completely self-sustainable in history?).

[Furunculus]

so the end result is every reply disagreeing with the OP, how surprising. :laugh4:

[PowerWizard]

It can defeat any other nation in a one-on-one conventional warfare. It can be sustained for as long as the tax payers want it.

Really? Can it take down Russia? Can it take down the EU? Can it take down China? Or Iran for that matter? Why isn't it intervening in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, despite the abundance of UN resolutions that would authorize her to do so?


dependent? As was well said before, is there any economy (Heck! Was there any economy ever completely self-sustainable in history?).

Yes, EU is tending towards self-suffeciency. In fact, it is one of the main aim of the European Union. Russia is also much more self-sufficient than the USA for that matter.


even when you use a metric like mine that scores power based only on rank, and not weighted for score, you still fine that america comes out significantly ahead of every body, and over 50% higher than anybody except china:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1960599&postcount=2

if you weighted my metric for score rather than rank you would find america ahead by at least double, and that counts as superpower status in my eyes.

there was a brief period in the nineties when america could be termed a hyper-power, but the rise of china in particular has reduced that.

and for those overly excitable types who constantly predict the eclipse of america by china i give you this:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjir/6.1.03_miller.html

You are good juggling with numbers, but you fail to see the bigger picture here: the trends. This may be a snapshot of what the situation currently is, and even then it doesn't tell too much, since you take some factors into account, which are very subjective, like "Diplomatic Influence". There's no objective way to count out numbers like that. But the bigger flaw in your calculus is that you reckon European nations as separate powers. They are not anymore. Ever heard of the European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_union)? According to the latest breaking news it is indeed a political and economic union. And nations like France and Germany are in great accordance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-German_relations)within the European Union. The aggregated power of European nations outweigh the power of the USA.



Also who will overtake us? The EU, China and Russia all have demographic time bombs.

The USA has much bigger social problems than the EU atm.



So, do you think the Russians or Chinese would have it any easier than the US/NATO in dealing with a Situation like Afghanistan or Iraq. Heck, the Soviet Union used to be a Super Power and it couldn't deal with Afghanistan, and they shared a border. The fact that we've managed to stay in a relatively dominate position within a land locked country tens of thousands of miles from the homeland, which is shared by at least two relatively powerful US hostile neighbors, and not too many overly friendly ones anymore, using far less troops than the Soviets, and not using overly brutal tactics, yet somehow managing to stay there for nearly the same amount of time, and probably longer than them how do not suppose the US is not a superpower? Actually, if I was a country like China or Russia, and no nukes were to be exchanged, I'd be incredibly nervous to face an America in a total war type situation.

Hmm, the situation during the Soviet regime in Afghanistan was much more complex than you describe it. The current US regime is facing similar problems and it couldn't be said that US forces are more in command of the area than the Soviets were. Read up on the subject. ;)

Again, I am willing to see how the USA would deal with Russia or China in a "total war situation". They couldn't even handle the South Ossetian war, lending a hand to a small nation under invasion, how do you expect that they would do handle a full-scale assault? No, sorry, the current US empire is just not the same as Victorian Great Britain was. It is not the supreme global superpower. It can't take down any country in the world. It is one of the major powers, but not a go-alone power.

I see the massive resistance to my OP, but I understand that since most of you are probably US citizens, so you are biased. I am biased too, as I am an European citizen. But this doesn't mean we couldn't bring up reasonable arguments.

PS I saw that no one countered my point about the overstretching empire and the US military budget. Why is this weird silence?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I see the massive resistance to my OP, but I understand that since most of you are probably US citizens, so you are biased. I am biased too, as I am an European citizen. But this doesn't mean we couldn't bring up reasonable arguments.


Where do you think Jolt, Meneldil, and Fragony are from?

What do you think has been unreasonable about the arguments presented? You accepted that no nation was self sufficient when that was pointed out, so surely you found that argument to be reasonable?

To me it seems like you are defining superpower deliberately to exclude the US. Not many people here have a real attachment to being called a superpower, in fact I think you'll find many of them wish we would get involved less.

[PowerWizard]

Where do you think Jolt, Meneldil, and Fragony are from?

I said most.


What do you think has been unreasonable about the arguments presented? You accepted that no nation was self sufficient when that was pointed out, so surely you found that argument to be reasonable?

No I did not accept it in that way.


To me it seems like you are defining superpower deliberately to exclude the US. Not many people here have a real attachment to being called a superpower, in fact I think you'll find many of them wish we would get involved less.

It seems to you, yet I didn't define it that way. Please read my posts again, this time more thoroughly. ;)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I said most.

Do you think their criticism is biased by a love for america?




No I did not accept it in that way.

You did tacitly, when you agreed that there weren't self sufficient countries and changed your argument to "usa is less self sufficient than other countries".




It seems to you, yet I didn't define it that way. Please read my posts again, this time more thoroughly. ;)


The question here is: "Can the USA be regarded as a go-alone global power?"

This is not the definition of a superpower. You said you know that you are biased against america, why is that?

[Sarmatian]

So, do you think the Russians or Chinese would have it any easier than the US/NATO in dealing with a Situation like Afghanistan or Iraq. Heck, the Soviet Union used to be a Super Power and it couldn't deal with Afghanistan, and they shared a border. The fact that we've managed to stay in a relatively dominate position within a land locked country tens of thousands of miles from the homeland, which is shared by at least two relatively powerful US hostile neighbors, and not too many overly friendly ones anymore, using far less troops than the Soviets, and not using overly brutal tactics, yet somehow managing to stay there for nearly the same amount of time, and probably longer than them how do not suppose the US is not a superpower? Actually, if I was a country like China or Russia, and no nukes were to be exchanged, I'd be incredibly nervous to face an America in a total war type situation.

Yep, but it shouldn't be forgotten that it was all done with sympathetic Russia. If Russia chose to oppose instead of to assist, the situation in Afghanistan could have been vastly different.

Don't forget that every conflict that either US or USSR had with a minor nation during the cold war, it usually involved the other super power assisting that minor nation. Neither Russia nor China support anyone in Afghanistan, in fact you could say that Russia supports the US.

[Major Robert Dump]

I didn't know EU was a country, Wizard, so it never occurred to me "why" we would or would not be able to take them down.

When asking questions like "why" haven't we intervened in situations like Israel, you seem to confuse ability with desire, or capabilities with national interest.

A nation doesn't have friends, it has interests. A war doesn't stop at clearly defined borders, its a powder keg that spreads and spreads. So while I'm not going to take the time to discuss every single instance of why or why not we act militarily -- and believe me, there are plenty of times I think we should have acted and others where I think we should not have -- I will say this about Palestine/Israel: We haven't intervened militarily because it's not in our national interest to do so.

You also have to understand that national interests change in time, not just with the elected government but also based on demographics, geopolitics and economic trends. It is not the job for the USA to save the world from all evil, we just act like it is when we need a reason to make a move for the sake of national interest.


Your OP reminds me of the polls we did in high school to see who was considered the hottest girl, or the toughest guy.

[seireikhaan]

Few points here-

Since we are talking about the "most powerful" nations, let us take a look.

China- Severe demographic problems lay ahead unless they reverse the one-child policy, or at least extend it to a two-child policy; increasingly, too many parents and grandparents are being supported by too few children. Further, its increasing modernization is making even more dependent on imports than the States, due to its inherently larger base for energy needs.

EU- First of all, it should be noted that the EU isn't actually a single entity like the US or Russia. :wink: (:ireland:)Second, when talking of self-dependence, Europe is not it. Europe imports much of its energy from Russia and/or Algeria. Yes, Europe is increasing its output from sources such as nuclear and wind, yet so is the United States. :shrug: And, again, it cannot be understated that the EU will always lack the cohesion of actual nations, due to being made of various nations that have long, proud histories which were often times spent battling one another. Not that the EU couldn't be made into a single, true union. However, until significant progress is made into developing a constitution that can be made satisfactory to every party, they will stay semi-divided.

Russia- Still developing, has lots of natural resources, yet is still too dependent on income from said sources. When energy prices popped, the Russian economy popped as well. While others may be dependent on imports, Russia is ironically dependent on exports; until the Russian economy is diversified enough to withstand volatility in energy prices, they are just as dependent on everyone else.

Now, am I saying that the US is a total hegemon? No. The US isn't going to go invade Crimea just because it can. However, the simple fact is that the world doesn't run quite like that anymore. One could point to military failures in Vietnam, and current struggles in Afghanistan, and say that the US military is a paper tiger. I would not quite say that; instead, that properly executed guerilla warfare, particularly in harsh environments(as opposed to Iraq, which has much flatter terrain, and has seemingly stabilized militarily), is nearly undefeatable sans resorting to extreme measures such as Nuclear bombing entire regions. Look at the Chinese civil war- the Guomingdang had every advantage; more cash, more advanced weapons, more weapons period, backing from western powers, and they still lost. Completely, they were kicked off the continent. Keep an eye on Afghanistan now- Petreaus' efforts in Iraq were monumentally more successful than his predecessors. If it wasn't a fluke, if Petraus actually does have the smarts to figure out ways to combat guerilla warfare on the enemy's own turf, it could well mark a turning point in history.

[PowerWizard]

Do you think their criticism is biased by a love for america?

You just said it.


You did tacitly, when you agreed that there weren't self sufficient countries and changed your argument to "usa is less self sufficient than other countries".

No, I didn't. Now let's skip this yes-no part, shall we? The more you are trying to force that, the more it shows your inability to counter my points in the OP.


This is not the definition of a superpower. You said you know that you are biased against america, why is that?

I didn't say I am biased against America. Now stop putting words in my mouth, thank you.

[Marshal Murat]

its[USA] role and future in international affairs.

The United States will no doubt have problems in the future, but so will other countries. The United States future is stable, despite periodic fluctuations. While it's easy to say that Russia/China/EU will overtake the United States in the future, we can't put pen to paper on that subject. Russia is entirely dependent on either arms sales or energy sales until it can reorganize it's industry so it won't depend on the two shaky pillars aforementioned. Russia, still, doesn't have a warm port, and can't really deploy troops outside it's borders without international help.
China is stable, right now. It depends entirely on exporting goods to other countries, and that can't continue forever. The population is exploding, even with the 1-child policy. The rivers are polluted, the air is dirty, and everyone is cramming themselves into cities. That can't be good. Then the populations of Western China and Tibet aren't too happy either, both of which are powder-kegs.
The European Union, while it has the combined might of German and French Industry, it isn't a shining paradise. The European nations, as I understand it, aren't all that keen to unite themselves under one supreme executive power. Were they able to join together and actually wield a united power, then we'd be talking about a major player in international affairs. That being said, it doesn't look like everyone's keen on following one leaders role. Besides, many of those nations are part of NATO, which allows them to spend money on other things (socialized healthcare, good education, mass transportation).
That isn't to say that the US is the epitome of social harmony, but we do have a large economy, strong military, and a relatively united and happy populace.


"Can the USA be regarded as a go-alone global power?"
In the light of the previous debates, it seems to me that the question has supposed that a nation can "go-alone" and do something. Inherently flawed in the context of the current century.
It's like asking whether vodka can be considered a vegetable. Vodka used to be a vegetable, but that was some time ago, but it's impractical and illogical to say that vodka is a vegetable today.

That being said, the United States can still "go-alone" on an issue, but why would we do something like that? (National Interests Argument) As stated, it's impossible to "go-alone" on an issue in this age of globalization.
The Example of North Korea: The United States could invade North Korea, but it's the height of hubris (and stupidity) for us to do so without using the resources of South Korea or Japan to defeat the North Koreans.

Money Argument
The United States isn't on a "war-footing". If we were on a "war-footing", then the resources of the United States could be wielded for full effectiveness and the aforementioned costs of sustaining the war in Iraq would be lower because fewer people would be buying gas or food, those resources going to the war effort. It's a testament to the United States that we can both spend 1.72 Trillion dollars on the War in Iraq and not bankrupt the USA (we just spent how much on a stimulus package?)

Ending Statement
{rant} I think the OP, and you Mr. PowerWizard, were looking only for our reaction. When we provide (in my view) a reasonable response to at least some of your points; you simply dismiss our views as biased. Your views are no doubt just as biased, for you're the one who provided the original question from a biased viewpoint. You're asking for our opinions, based on our beliefs, so don't act so surprised when we give you OUR BELIEFS, with inherent biases. Don't plant corn if you want wheat to grow.

[Sarmatian]

I am really amazed by the stupid ignorance of some of the replies, so someone can just go ahead and close this thread as it serves no purpose other than bashing me for trying to make a point.

That's a rather immature view to have. You've explained your position and various people responded by explaining why they think that position isn't correct. Great, no problem with, might have been a start of an interesting thread, but then instead of continuing the discussion you decided that all people who don't agree with you are biased, because they are predominantly from the US. Well, a lot of people here aren't from the US. I don't know if even the majority is from the US. It doesn't matter anyway, because assuming that someone is biased just because he/she is American/European/whatever is wrong.

You may wanna rethink some of your replies and views. This thread can still end up interesting...

[PowerWizard]

The European Union, while it has the combined might of German and French Industry, it isn't a shining paradise. The European nations, as I understand it, aren't all that keen to unite themselves under one supreme executive power. Were they able to join together and actually wield a united power, then we'd be talking about a major player in international affairs. That being said, it doesn't look like everyone's keen on following one leaders role. Besides, many of those nations are part of NATO, which allows them to spend money on other things (socialized healthcare, good education, mass transportation).

You are right in some of these observations, but I'd like to point out the obvious fact (that many posters seem to ignore), that the European Union is indeed a political and economic union. It does have a central government and parliament, and there are other institutions too to harmonize the interests of the natinon-states on the highest level. Tell me a federation that was up and running, united and ready to act in unison etc. in its early years. Hey, the USA was still crippled by civil war 70 years after its creation. At least we got over that period, AKA world wars. Europe is now united, it has one of the wealthiest economy in the world, it is more self-sufficient than the USA, it has an unique political system harmonizing and uniting the interests of nation-states, it can rally its own troops for defense, it can launch military operations and it is ready to become the leading global power in the 21st century (again in history).


The official statements of the External Service of the European Commission


The European Union in a changing world


The European Union's influence in world affairs is on the increase. The process of integration, the launch of the euro and the progressive development of a common foreign and security policy are all providing the EU with political and diplomatic status to match its undoubted economic and commercial clout.
The Union has a number of strategic foreign policy objectives. The first is to establish a stable Europe with a stronger voice in the world. The recent wars in Bosnia and Kosovo and the bloody fighting in Chechnya underline how important it is to secure peace, democracy and respect for human rights throughout Europe. Enlargement can help achieve that by creating an internal market of over 500 million consumers and ending the long divide in Europe.
As the world's biggest trading partner, the EU is also determined to secure its international competitiveness while at the same time promoting global commerce through further liberalisation of world trade rules - a process that it believes will be of particular benefit to developing countries.
Until recently, there were three main components to the Union's external activities: trade policy, development aid and the political dimension. These provided it with considerable instruments for a credible foreign policy in diplomatic, economic and commercial arenas. It now wants to reinforce these capabilities, if and when necessary, with the ability to use force where its vital interests are at stake and to be able to respond more effectively to crises. This does not mean fighting wars or creating a European army. It means greater cooperation between EU members in carrying out humanitarian and peacekeeping tasks. At the same time, the Union is becoming more involved in security issues, taking on greater responsibility for ensuring peace and stability in parts of the world close to its own spheres of influence.
Foreign policy is not just a question of trade, security and diplomacy. There are a host of other issues, many of which affect the daily lives of Europe's citizens, that help to condition the Union's approach to the wider world. These range from the need to fight the spread of AIDS and famine and to govern migration flows to the campaigns against drugs and terrorism. They all require closer transnational cooperation since the problems of today's world can only really be solved by working together.
Economic and political changes in the world require the European Union to adapt continuously its external policies and priorities. It has done so by broadening and deepening its contacts with partners, incorporating economic, trade and political dimensions into those relationships. It can now count on a diversity of interregional partnerships and cooperation agreements with countries on all five continents.


Make sure to check out these pages:
The European Union in a changing world (http://www.eudelbangladesh.org/en/eu_global_player/1.htm)
External relations: a global commitment (http://www.eudelbangladesh.org/en/eu_global_player/2.htm)
Trade: removing barriers, spreading growth (http://www.eudelbangladesh.org/en/eu_global_player/4.htm)
Promoting development, fighting poverty (http://www.eudelbangladesh.org/en/eu_global_player/5.htm)
Defence and security: keeping the peace (http://www.eudelbangladesh.org/en/eu_global_player/6.htm)

The bottom line is not just on the level of raw power however, but how international affairs are managed and solved. At this point of history, the USA along with Russia, China and Arab nations seem to belong to the old world of using raw power, military expansion, threats and disregarding the opinion of international community to achieve their selfish goals. The United States, resort to force more quickly and, compared with Europe, is less patient with diplomacy. Americans generally see the world divided between good and evil, between friends and enemies, while Europeans see a more complex picture. When confronting real or potential adversaries, Americans generally favor policies of coercion rather than persuasion, emphasizing punitive sanctions over inducements to better behavior, the stick over the carrot. Americans tend to seek finality in international affairs: They want problems solved, threats eliminated. And, of course, Americans increasingly tend toward unilateralism in international affairs. They are less inclined to act through international institutions such as the United Nations, less inclined to work cooperatively with other nations to pursue common goals, more skeptical about international law, and more willing to operate outside its strictures when they deem it necessary, or even merely useful.

Europeans approach problems with greater nuance and sophistication. They try to influence others through subtlety and indirection. They are more tolerant of failure, more patient when solutions don’t come quickly. They generally favor peaceful responses to problems, preferring negotiation, diplomacy, and persuasion to coercion. They are quicker to appeal to international law, international conventions, and international opinion to adjudicate disputes. They try to use commercial and economic ties to bind nations together. They often emphasize process over result, believing that ultimately process can become substance.

I think that's the main difference. Not a matter of quantity, but quality.


That isn't to say that the US is the epitome of social harmony, but we do have a large economy, strong military, and a relatively united and happy populace.

You may be right or wrong, there isn't really a way to determine "happiness". So I might just reply, that other nations' populace are happier and social tenses are milder, but that leaves us at the same point. ;)



In the light of the previous debates, it seems to me that the question has supposed that a nation can "go-alone" and do something. Inherently flawed in the context of the current century.
It's like asking whether vodka can be considered a vegetable. Vodka used to be a vegetable, but that was some time ago, but it's impractical and illogical to say that vodka is a vegetable today.

That being said, the United States can still "go-alone" on an issue, but why would we do something like that? (National Interests Argument) As stated, it's impossible to "go-alone" on an issue in this age of globalization.
The Example of North Korea: The United States could invade North Korea, but it's the height of hubris (and stupidity) for us to do so without using the resources of South Korea or Japan to defeat the North Koreans.


Right, Sir, you agree that indeed it is not a go-alone power. It means you agree with my statements in the first post. :2thumbsup:


Money Argument
The United States isn't on a "war-footing". If we were on a "war-footing", then the resources of the United States could be wielded for full effectiveness and the aforementioned costs of sustaining the war in Iraq would be lower because fewer people would be buying gas or food, those resources going to the war effort. It's a testament to the United States that we can both spend 1.72 Trillion dollars on the War in Iraq and not bankrupt the USA (we just spent how much on a stimulus package?)

Check out this page. Do it:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/challenges/overstretch/overindex.htm


Ending Statement
{rant} I think the OP, and you Mr. PowerWizard, were looking only for our reaction. When we provide (in my view) a reasonable response to at least some of your points; you simply dismiss our views as biased. Your views are no doubt just as biased, for you're the one who provided the original question from a biased viewpoint. You're asking for our opinions, based on our beliefs, so don't act so surprised when we give you OUR BELIEFS, with inherent biases. Don't plant corn if you want wheat to grow.


Yes, I was looking for reaction, who doesn't looking for reaction who starts a thread? Might as well just whisper the arguments to myself. BTW I didn't dismiss all arguments, see this post for evidence. I think you made some good points and your posts are well-constructed too (as well as other posters' like Strike for the South, Furunculus and maybe others). I was referring to the spammers / flamers who btw inevitably show up in similar threads. So no problem. :D

[Strike For The South]

The bottom line is not just on the level of raw power however, but how international affairs are managed and solved. At this point of history, the USA along with Russia, China and Arab nations seem to belong to the old world of using raw power, military expansion, threats and disregarding the opinion of international community to achieve their selfish goals. The United States, resort to force more quickly and, compared with Europe, is less patient with diplomacy. Americans generally see the world divided between good and evil, between friends and enemies, while Europeans see a more complex picture. When confronting real or potential adversaries, Americans generally favor policies of coercion rather than persuasion, emphasizing punitive sanctions over inducements to better behavior, the stick over the carrot. Americans tend to seek finality in international affairs: They want problems solved, threats eliminated. And, of course, Americans increasingly tend toward unilateralism in international affairs. They are less inclined to act through international institutions such as the United Nations, less inclined to work cooperatively with other nations to pursue common goals, more skeptical about international law, and more willing to operate outside its strictures when they deem it necessary, or even merely useful.

Europeans approach problems with greater nuance and sophistication. They try to influence others through subtlety and indirection. They are more tolerant of failure, more patient when solutions don’t come quickly. They generally favor peaceful responses to problems, preferring negotiation, diplomacy, and persuasion to coercion. They are quicker to appeal to international law, international conventions, and international opinion to adjudicate disputes. They try to use commercial and economic ties to bind nations together. They often emphasize process over result, believing that ultimately process can become substance.

I think that's the main difference. Not a matter of quantity, but quality.

Flame away.



The Bush presidency does not equal American diplomacy.

The fact that you think Europeans are more sophisticated pretty much tells me you are coming from a Euro-centric position. A western European one at that. I've seen those Polish diplomats and tact really isn't in there vocab. I will remind you that the UK was with us in Iraq with the same deadline and Germany and France gave us a deadline themselves.

We act alone because we can. So do other countries. We prefer allies but don't always need them. Every major diplomatic decision of the last 50 years has included The US, China, and/or Russia. Saying we simply get our way by bullying is wrong.

I would also like to know what demographic problems America has when compared to the EU?

[Fragony]

I am really amazed by the stupid ignorance of some of the replies, so someone can just go ahead and close this thread as it serves no purpose other than bashing me for trying to make a point.

No need for such aggression, we tend to disagree here in the backroom.

[Furunculus]

You are good juggling with numbers, but you fail to see the bigger picture here: the trends. This may be a snapshot of what the situation currently is, and even then it doesn't tell too much, since you take some factors into account, which are very subjective, like "Diplomatic Influence". There's no objective way to count out numbers like that. But the bigger flaw in your calculus is that you reckon European nations as separate powers. They are not anymore. Ever heard of the European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_union)? According to the latest breaking news it is indeed a political and economic union. And nations like France and Germany are in great accordance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-German_relations)within the European Union. The aggregated power of European nations outweigh the power of the USA.


I am from the geographic area of europe, in case you believed me to be a biased american.

While I agree that some metrics are hard to quantify, i once again point out that by scoring based only on rank and not on relative merit I seriously under-estimate america's power, and even then it comes out in from by a long margin.

The EU is only a superpower in economic and geographic terms.
The first simple truth is there is NO common foreign policy, and if there were then the UK would not be in it.
The second simple truth is that even aggregated the EU's military spending is less than half that of the US, and its effectiveness is half again that because of capability overlap and gap, once again if there does become some federal europe with a combined military structure then it is unlikely you will find the UK in it.

So no, the EU is not a superpower, nor too is it likely to be.



Security Council membership should be considered on four premises by order of importance leading to a cumulative total.

(1) military power - modified dependent on: the expeditionary emphasis of armed forces (0 to 10)
(2) diplomatic influence - modified dependent on: total number of speakers (1 to 5) (*)
(3) economic power - modified dependent on: how many rankings change when contrasted with PPP (**)
(4) geographic/demographic - modified dependant HDI: ranking (1 to 5) (***)
(5) total - modified dependant on: nukes (+5) new region representative (+5)

(1) - Military Expenditure + Manpower
1 = US - (20 + 9 + 10 = 39) = [39] ($583,283,000,000)
2 = UK - (18 + 1 + 8 = 27) = [27] ($79,872,000,000)
3 = France - (16 + 3 + 6 = 25) = [25] ($74,690,470,000)
4 = China - (10 + 10 + 2 = 22) = [22] ($59,000,000,000)
5 = Japan - (12 + 2 + 4 = 18) = [18] ($48,860,000,000)
6 = Germany - (14 + 4 + 0 = 18) = [18] ($45,930,000,000)
7 = Russia - (08 + 7 + 2 = 17) = [17] ($41,050,000,000)
8 = India - (06 + 8 + 2 = 16) = [16] ($26,500,000,000)
9 = Aust - (04 + 0 + 4 = 8) = [08] ($20,727,710,000)
10 = Brasil - (02 + 5 + 0 = 7) = [07] ($25,396,731,055)
11 = Indon - (00 + 6 + 0 = 6) = [06] ($04,740,000,000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures (0 to 20)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._active_troops (0 to 10)

(2) - Diplomatic Influence + Corruption Index (subjective)
1 = US - (20 + 5 + 7 = 32) = [32]
2 = China - (18 + 5 + 3 = 26) = [26]
3 = UK - (16 + 5 + 7 = 21) = [28]
4 = France - (14 + 3 + 6 = 23) = [23]
5 = Japan - (12 + 1 + 7 = 20) = [20]
6 = Russia - (10 + 2 + 2 = 14) = [14]
7 = Germany - (08 + 1 + 7 = 16) = [16]
8 = Aust - (06 + 5 + 8 = 19) = [19]
9 = India - (04 + 5 = 9) = [09]
10 = Brasil - (02 + 2 = 4) = [04]
11 = Indon - (00 + 2 = 2) = [02]
Diplomatic Influence (0 to 20)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ative_speakers (0 to 5)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index (0-10)

(3) - Economic Power GDP + PPP (millions)
1 = US - (20 + 10 + 3 = 33) = [33] ($13,244,550)
2 = Japan - (18 + 8 + 2 = 28) = [28] ($4,367,459)
3 = China - (14 + 9 + 5 = 28) = [28] ($2,630,113)
4 = Germany - (16 + 6 + 1 = 23) = [23] ($2,897,032)
5 = UK - (12 + 5 + 2 = 19) = [19] ($2,373,685)
6 = France - (10 + 4 + 2 = 16) = [16] ($2,231,631)
7 = India - (04 + 7 + 5 = 12) = [16] ($886,867)
8 = Brasil - (08 + 3 + 4 = 13) = [15] ($1,067,706)
9 = Russia - (06 + 2 + 4 = 10) = [12] ($979,048)
10 = Indon - (00 + 1 + 5 = 5) = [05] ($364,239)
11 = Aust - (02 + 0 + 2 = 4) = [04] ($754,816)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._GDP_(nominal) (0 to 20)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_by_GDP_(PPP) (0 to 10)

(4) - Demographic + Geographic
1 = US - (16 + 9 + 5 = 30) = [30] (301,950,000)
2 = China - (20 + 5 + 2 = 27) = [27] (1,321,000,000)
3 = Russia - (10 + 10 + 2 = 24) = [24] (141,400,000)
4 = India - (18 + 4 + 1 = 23) = [23] (1,129,000,000)
5 = Brasil - (12 + 7 + 2 = 21) = [21] (186,500,000)
6 = Japan - (08 + 3 + 5 = 16) = [16] (127,720,000)
7 = France - (04 + 6 + 5 = 15) = [15] (64,102,140)
8 = Indon - (14 + 0 + 1 = 15) = [15] (234,950,000)
9 = Aust - (00 + 8 + 5 = 13) = [13] (20,830,000)
10 = Germany - (06 + 1 + 5 = 14) =[12] (82,310,000)
11 = UK - (02 + 2 + 5 = 9) = [09] (60,609,153)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._by_population (0 to 20)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_Economic_Zone (table inc onshore territory) (0 to 10)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...elopment_Index (1 to 5)

(5) - Total -
1 = US - (134 + 5 + 0 = 132)..........=.........[139]
2 = China - (100 + 5 + 0 = 105)......=........ [108]
3 = UK - (86 + 5 + 0 = 88).............=........[088]
4 = France - (79 + 5 + 0 = 84)........=........[084]
5 = Japan - (75 + 0 + 0 = 75).........=.........[082]
6 = India - (64 + 5 + 5 = 74)..........=.........[077]
7 = Russia - (65 + 5 + 0 = 70)........=.........[072]
8 = Germany - (62 + 0 + 0 = 62).....=.........[062]
9 = Brasil - (50 + 0 + 5 = 55)..........=.........[055]
10 = Aust - (36 + 0 + 5 = 41).........=.........[041]
11 = Indon - (28 + 0 + 5 = 33)........=.........[033]
-------------------------------------------------------
Appendix -
(*)--------------|-(**)--------------|-(***)--------------
5 - 800m - plus -|- 5 - 2 ranks up----|- 5 - 0.90 plus
4 - 600m - 800m-|- 4 - 1 rank up-----|- 4 - 0.85 to 0.90
3 - 400m - 600m-|- 3 - 0 change-----|- 3 - 0.80 to 0.85
2 - 200m - 400m-|- 2 - 1 rank down--|- 2 - 0.75 to 0.80
1 - 000m - 200m-|- 1 - 2 ranks down-|- 1 - 0.00 to 0.75
--------------------------------------------------------

[Marshal Murat]

Right, Sir, you agree that indeed it is not a go-alone power. It means you agree with my statements in the first post.

I disagree that the question itself is even valid in this current day and age. I also went on to point out that the United States could act unilaterally, but it's stupid and the height of hubris to do so. If you will notice, I disagreed with the statement Inherently flawed in the context of the current century. Disposing of that statement, I also stated the United States can still "go-alone" on an issue, which is direct opposition to your above statement. Don't do that, it's not very nice.



You are right in some of these observations, but I'd like to point out the obvious fact (that many posters seem to ignore), that the European Union is indeed a political and economic union. It does have a central government and parliament, and there are other institutions too to harmonize the interests of the natinon-states on the highest level.
While the rest of the quote continues to promote the idea that the United States wasn't all that united until 1861 (really noise); it doesn't remove the fact that the European Union hasn't ratified the Lisbon Treaty, nor does it act as a united body except in the most broad issues. Europe isn't unified now, and it's up to the people of Europe to unify themselves in the future. Europe isn't one big, happy, joyous nation; both you and I know it. As such, I am issuing a call for Manic From Mars to interpose a Youtube Video from that SouthEast British conservative or some similar substitute.

In regards to your link, I did view it. It's nice to have an alternative to the Drudge Report, but the compliers lend themselves to highlighting only those articles that degrade the ability of the United States to conduct war or employ troops. As such, were the United States on war-footing, we could employ those resources capable of deploying troops as sufficient levels.

Now:While I did enjoy your little rant about how "Europeans see a more complex picture." Very touching discussion of Euro-centristic thinking and the relative brute barbarity of us poor Americanos. Next time y'all have a war, we won't bother (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend_Lease)! Especially all that money we paid y'all for the trouble (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan)

As to when "Americans tend to seek finality in international affairs" was a bad thing. I always assumed that policy-making and political or military action is taken up to "end bad things". I never knew that the "complexity" of Europeans granted you an ability to end bad things unlike how Americans end bad things. I'll just file the Belgian Congo and French Indochina under "Complexity" now.


They are less inclined to act through international institutions such as the United Nations
I'm only going to highlight that specific portion because it seems that us brute Americanos aren't willing to play ball. Without the force of America behind the United Nations, it wouldn't be able to stand on it's own two feet. The League of Nations, without America, was a shambles that allowed the USSR to invade Finland, Italy to invade Ethiopia, and Japan to invade Manchuria without any significant repercussions. Meanwhile, today, the UN has been unwilling to step in on conflicts in Africa, leading horrible human rights abuses that the UN has been unable to stop. SWAPO was allowed to mismanage Namibia under the UN. Rwanda had a genocide, under the UN's nose. Congo is having terrific troubles even with UN troops stationed there. The UN has not been able to "end problems", which is why the United States acted in Somalia.

Whether we were right or wrong is why we're having this debate; but without the US 10th Mountain, Muhammad Farah Addid took over rice shipments into Somalia and sold them off at his profit. That's not right, is it? So we moved in, tried to stop Addid before the death could continue.

[KarlXII]

Love the OP's basis of argument.

"Is the US a superpower? Let's focus entirely on why it's not and if you disagree with me you're ignorant and biased. Unlike me. I am Enlightened."


am really amazed by the stupid ignorance of some of the replies, so someone can just go ahead and close this thread as it serves no purpose other than bashing me for trying to make a point.

I think you're just mad that this thread didn't turn into a "Bash America" orgy that you probably wanted it to become. As already stated, don't ask for opinions if you don't like the opposition.

The United States' ability to project power relies on how long our citizens want the US to project that power. Vietnam isn't as much a defeat as it is the citizens using their freedoms to force the withdrawal of troops. Same as Iraq. We destroyed the Iraqi military, twice, in conventional warfare. Iran isn't much different. China would be long and protracted, as would Russia. The EU is facing oppoisiton from it's own members on the creation of the unified European military, or the entire EU all together.

The United States Navy's mission is just that, to project American power and interests on the world stage, a power no other nation can compare.

[Fragony]

Incredibly unfair yes. We killed hundreds of thousands in Indonesia after the allies were so kind to liberate us. Europeans are butchers always have been, there really isn't a country in Europe we haven't been at war with and these wars have always been incredibly brutal. What we did in our colonial backyard is just sick we have little right to speak.

edit, was directed at Marshal Murat. Never reallly liked Swedishfish.

[PowerWizard]

Love the OP's basis of argument.

"Is the US a superpower? Let's focus entirely on why it's not and if you disagree with me you're ignorant and biased. Unlike me. I am Enlightened."

I think you're just mad that this thread didn't turn into a "Bash America" orgy that you probably wanted it to become.

Again, please stop blaming me with intentions, when I don't have them. Is criticizing the US foreign policy "bashing" for you? Are you guys so obsessed with the USA? I see you failed to read the disclaimer in my first post, so I shall quote it for you.

"DISCLAIMER: This is not a discussion about how "bad" or "good" the USA is, it is rather a discussion of its role and future in international affairs. So I'd advise to refrain from such black-and-white arguments. The world has become a better and safer place by the efforts of this country in some ways, and has become worse and unsteadier in other ways; it remained the same by yet other efforts. The question here is: "Can the USA be regarded as a go-alone global power?""

I wonder if you didn't read even the second paragraph, what did you read?



The United States' ability to project power relies on how long our citizens want the US to project that power. Vietnam isn't as much a defeat as it is the citizens using their freedoms to force the withdrawal of troops. Same as Iraq. We destroyed the Iraqi military, twice, in conventional warfare. Iran isn't much different. China would be long and protracted, as would Russia. The EU is facing oppoisiton from it's own members on the creation of the unified European military, or the entire EU all together.

The United States Navy's mission is just that, to project American power and interests on the world stage, a power no other nation can compare.


So let's sum it up: Vietnam was a failure. Iraq wasn't a success, because the Iraqi army showed no resistance at all. Or is raping a dead body a success for you? Iran, China, Russia? Yes? What's with them? The USA won't dare to confront them, just like it failed to confront the Soviet Union in the cold war. Take down the weak, avoid the strong - that seems to be the US military policy.

[Marshal Murat]

Take down the weak, avoid the strong - that seems to be the US military policy.

And that's why the United States is a global superpower. That's why lions eat dinner.

[Fragony]

OP; Now who is obsessed with the USA. Sorry can't take you seriously nor will anyone. The first year is the hardest no.

[Samurai Waki]

OP; Now who is obsessed with the USA. Sorry can't take you seriously nor will anyone. The first year is the hardest no.

hahaha.

So, PowerWizard, what is the new policy on how countries project their influence?

I don't suppose it would involve whose the best at playing marbles?

[KarlXII]

Take down the weak, avoid the strong - that seems to be the standard foreign policy of nations. Don't argue with the Enlightened, ignorant man.

Fixed.

[KukriKhan]

C'mon Lads, let's not pick on the new guy.

@PowerWizard: don't let 'em get to you. You wrote a pretty insightful OP, and have adequately defended your thesis so far. The Backroom is a motley collection of about 150 regular readers and posters, many of whom have been visiting for years. The good side of that is that over time they've gotten to know where everybody stands on issues. The bad side is that newer posters get taken to task quickly, challenged on every minute detail of their contributions.

That minute examination of detail, whether it's about politics, religion, or pickup trucks, is what sets the group apart from many other politics discussion sites. And that minute examination is conducted by a broad assortment of nationalities and cultures. Swedes, Finns, Brits, Aussies, Americans, Germans, Dutchmen... all feel free to offer their unique perspectives. And remember: what they have most in common is that they are strategy game enthusiasts, accustomed to paying attention to detail, and projecting multiple possible outcomes.

It's why, though exasperating at times, overall I love the place, and the folks here.

TIP: calling someone, or someone's idea "stupid" or "ignorant" is the surest way to engender a negative response, even from someone who may otherwise agree with you. Not recommended.

Welcome to the Backroom ~:wave:

[KarlXII]

Last edited by PowerWizard; Yesterday

Indeed, you did add the disclaimer. Later.....

[KarlXII]

C'mon Lads, let's not pick on the new guy.

I don't think it's being a bully when the poster presents an opinion, recieves numerous opposing opinions, and then calls those opinions biased and ignorant. That's the part I take issue to. Somehow you're ignorant, or apparently US obssessed, if you have a different opinion than the Enlightened One over here.

[PowerWizard]

Indeed, you did add the disclaimer. Later.....

It was there from the first time, a mod can confirm this if you want. :)


C'mon Lads, let's not pick on the new guy.

@PowerWizard: don't let 'em get to you. You wrote a pretty insightful OP, and have adequately defended your thesis so far. The Backroom is a motley collection of about 150 regular readers and posters, many of whom have been visiting for years. The good side of that is that over time they've gotten to know where everybody stands on issues. The bad side is that newer posters get taken to task quickly, challenged on every minute detail of their contributions.

That minute examination of detail, whether it's about politics, religion, or pickup trucks, is what sets the group apart from many other politics discussion sites. And that minute examination is conducted by a broad assortment of nationalities and cultures. Swedes, Finns, Brits, Aussies, Americans, Germans, Dutchmen... all feel free to offer their unique perspectives. And remember: what they have most in common is that they are strategy game enthusiasts, accustomed to paying attention to detail, and projecting multiple possible outcomes.

It's why, though exasperating at times, overall I love the place, and the folks here.

TIP: calling someone, or someone's idea "stupid" or "ignorant" is the surest way to engender a negative response, even from someone who may otherwise agree with you. Not recommended.

Welcome to the Backroom ~:wave:


Thanks mate. Yes, this is my first attempt at my first "serious" thread here in the Backroom. Joined this room a few months ago, but was just lurking here. I was picked apart pretty quickly and thoroughly :laugh4:, but now after reading your post (and PMs of a friend) I'm okay with that. I left too much surface in my OP to shoot at me anyway - I should have been more detailed in my explanation. The topic itself was also not a wise choice, maybe it's a too big chunk to discuss and make points to. English is not my native language, so you guys are the "top dogs" on this battlefield too, on the battlefield of words. I should stress out however that it was not my intention to bash any country, let's just say I was trying to offer a thought-provoking point of view to start a discussion about global powers, an alternative PoV to the mainstream PoVs generally shared by forumers. Despite being bashed and picked apart, I learned my lesson, and I'm intending to come back here to the Backroom, because the audience seems to be more mature and smarter than the other forums I frequently visit. So I apologize for my previous remarks, I didn't intend to offend anyone, I was just worked up over the fact, that I killed a good deal of time to write an OP, and some people responded with short flicks. But I guess size doesn't matter and more established posters don't need to reply in lengthy paragraphs to prove their points. Hope we're cool. ~:cheers:

Peace y'all.

[Fragony]

We are not angry just a little dissapointed Welcome!

[Samurai Waki]

The Backroom isn't a forum of angry people who are out to get you, think of us more like Zombies, we're here to tear you apart, but once you've been infected the horde moves on.

[Marshal Murat]

Sigged

[Meneldil]

To put it bluntly,your definition of a superpower is weird, to say the least.

From what I've gathered:

- the US is not a superpower because it doesn't have a self-sufficient economy
- the US is not a superpower because it doesn't attack other strong countries
- the US is not a superpower because it has a huge debt
- the US is not a superpower because it faces social issues within its own population

Now, that fine and dandy, but I can't actually think of any superpower that wasn't plagued by at least one of these issues.

The Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the early Caliphate, the Mongol Empire, Ming China, post-Revolutionary France, 19th c British Empire, etc.

Now, either your definition of a superpower is wrong (and I do think it is) or you have to admit that superpower did not, do not and will not exist at any point during human history.

Now, what makes the US different from the others is that:

- A contry can no longer invade, conquer and annex another one because it is in its interests. The US, being a more or less stable and working democracy, accepted to respect international law and human rights (up to a certain degree).
- The wide availability of nuclear weapons made the use of sheer military power a somewhat outdated concept. The US has to use its soft power just as much as it has to use its hard power, unlike most previous superpowers.

[Veho Nex]

This was a great read. :D

[Furunculus]

welcome, a newcomer just became a seasoned veteran of the backroom in 24 short hours. :2thumbsup:

[Marshal Murat]

welcome, a newcomer just became a seasoned veteran of the backroom in 24 short hours.

Dat's just how we roll dawg.

[Papewaio]

It can defeat any other nation in a one-on-one conventional warfare. It can be sustained for as long as the tax payers want it.


Key being that the tax payers desire being the first thing to drop. Not economics or bodies, just plain lack of proper planning the notes to drum for war.

[Incongruous]

Incredibly unfair yes. We killed hundreds of thousands in Indonesia after the allies were so kind to liberate us. Europeans are butchers always have been, there really isn't a country in Europe we haven't been at war with and these wars have always been incredibly brutal. What we did in our colonial backyard is just sick we have little right to speak.

edit, was directed at Marshal Murat. Never reallly liked Swedishfish.

I disagree with the presumption that I, a British subject must be chained to the evils of my nations past and prevented from speaking out against what I percieve to be the brutality of the U.S Government.

It is a poor way to stifle dissenting views which may be uncomfortable, and not very helpful at that.

[KukriKhan]

...I disagree with the presumption that I, a British subject must be chained to the evils of my nations past and prevented from speaking out...

It is a poor way to stifle dissenting views which may be uncomfortable, and not very helpful at that.

Ironically, the very root of American-ism... if such a thing exists.

[KarlXII]

I disagree with the presumption that I, a British subject must be chained to the evils of my nations past and prevented from speaking out against what I percieve to be the brutality of the U.S Government.

It is a poor way to stifle dissenting views which may be uncomfortable, and not very helpful at that.

I guess you know how I feel when I'm questioned on why Americans love torturing innocent babies and killing Indians.....

[Samurai Waki]

I guess you know how I feel when I'm questioned on why Americans love torturing innocent babies and killing Indians.....

well realistically, I don't think there really are to many cultures out there that haven't done something quite horrifying. Right now its America's turn in the spot light to be reminded of how many innocents were killed in recent conflicts, in a couple of years it could be someone else.

I guess you have to be roundly beaten before you can become cynical.

[Incongruous]

I guess you know how I feel when I'm questioned on why Americans love torturing innocent babies and killing Indians.....

No, I am never questioned about anything my nation has done, only ever accused and its quite funny sometimes. I'll be having a discussion with someone from India about the blatant racism and poverty of the country and suddenly get hit in the face by the ghost of Amritsar. Hilarious really...

I never bring up the natives when talking to an American, or the Phillistines whne conversing with an Israeli... well that would be a bit odd anyway.

[rory_20_uk]

I think that America still is "Top Dog", and is a Superpower... although unless it is careful it is going to loose its predominance.

It is not omnipotent - but then no Superpower ever has been. To stay at the top you generally have a lot of power, but also are shrewed as to when you use it. Most superpowers get eclipsed when they loose focus.

For example, if the Romans (a Superpower of their day) had decided to conquer the Germanic Tribes they'd sooner or later have exhausted their Empire.

The British Empire lost focus in WW1 and WW2 - two wars we had no business fighting in. Let the continentals kill each other, and possibly strive to undermine the underdog - but don't get involved, just annexe any available colonies. Of course these were our "finest hour". It's easier to say that and say "that's when we were fiscally bankrupted and lostour place at the upper table - and it was our own fault!"

America's biggest asset was its ability to fight two wars in two different places - and for everyone to see that the possibility is there and is not used. Currently fighting two (or one and a half) wars weakens this perception.

Again, Britain at its height would have used the locals to kill each other and stay out of it. If the fight is too hard, move on before the wounds are too great.

Risk verses reward is also shifting towards the smaller powers. So the use of bluff and realpolitik is all the greater.

So, although America is still "Top Dog", this partly resolves around sitting there and being top dog. Scrapping with others will almost always weaken and not strengthen this.

~:smoking:

[Samurai Waki]

I never bring up the natives when talking to an American, or the Phillistines whne conversing with an Israeli... well that would be a bit odd anyway.

I'm quite a fan of Native American Culture, and have quite a few friends of that persuasion. I understand what has happened, as do they understand that I was powerless to do anything back then (I wasn't alive!) but I have done some work helping to bring the Salish-Kootenai out of their relative state of isolation, and to give natives who don't live on a reservation some of the rights that they both need, and deserve.

[Jolt]

Really? Can it take down Russia? Can it take down the EU? Can it take down China? Or Iran for that matter? Why isn't it intervening in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, despite the abundance of UN resolutions that would authorize her to do so?

It can probably take down Russia or any EU State (Quite possibly we altogether) or China. Depends on a lot of things. But it is most certainly capable of doing it. Why is it not intervening in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Heck, for a person who made a post accusing the USA of using hard powers too often, you are contradicting yourself by asking that question. It isn't intervening because it can't. For all we all know, they could erase both Israel and Palestine off the map if they wanted.




Yes, EU is tending towards self-suffeciency. In fact, it is one of the main aim of the European Union. Russia is also much more self-sufficient than the USA for that matter.

Basically you're confirming the fact that no nation is self-sustaining thus countering your own argument of "Non-Self
-Sufficient = Very Weak"


You just said it.

That is the most ridiculous claim I have ever seen anyone do in these forums. Because I don't agree with your views, I am labelled as loving America? That's stupid. If anything, I'm an Europeanist, but that doesn't make me blind to the truth that the USA is vastly superior to the EU militarily and superior economically.


You are right in some of these observations, but I'd like to point out the obvious fact (that many posters seem to ignore), that the European Union is indeed a political and economic union. It does have a central government and parliament, and there are other institutions too to harmonize the interests of the natinon-states on the highest level. Tell me a federation that was up and running, united and ready to act in unison etc. in its early years. Hey, the USA was still crippled by civil war 70 years after its creation. At least we got over that period, AKA world wars. Europe is now united, it has one of the wealthiest economy in the world, it is more self-sufficient than the USA, it has an unique political system harmonizing and uniting the interests of nation-states, it can rally its own troops for defense, it can launch military operations and it is ready to become the leading global power in the 21st century (again in history).

Problem is that Europe isn't united, and the interests of the different countries often don't converge, much to my disapointment.


The bottom line is not just on the level of raw power however, but how international affairs are managed and solved. At this point of history, the USA along with Russia, China and Arab nations seem to belong to the old world of using raw power, military expansion, threats and disregarding the opinion of international community to achieve their selfish goals. The United States, resort to force more quickly and, compared with Europe, is less patient with diplomacy. Americans generally see the world divided between good and evil, between friends and enemies, while Europeans see a more complex picture. When confronting real or potential adversaries, Americans generally favor policies of coercion rather than persuasion, emphasizing punitive sanctions over inducements to better behavior, the stick over the carrot. Americans tend to seek finality in international affairs: They want problems solved, threats eliminated. And, of course, Americans increasingly tend toward unilateralism in international affairs. They are less inclined to act through international institutions such as the United Nations, less inclined to work cooperatively with other nations to pursue common goals, more skeptical about international law, and more willing to operate outside its strictures when they deem it necessary, or even merely useful.

Europeans approach problems with greater nuance and sophistication. They try to influence others through subtlety and indirection. They are more tolerant of failure, more patient when solutions don’t come quickly. They generally favor peaceful responses to problems, preferring negotiation, diplomacy, and persuasion to coercion. They are quicker to appeal to international law, international conventions, and international opinion to adjudicate disputes. They try to use commercial and economic ties to bind nations together. They often emphasize process over result, believing that ultimately process can become substance.

As an International Relations student, let me say that that is quite a very good post regarding the different ways of conduct between the USA and the EU. Thing is, the USA uses hard power and disregards the International Comunity EXACTLY since it has a status of Superpower and Top Dog, knowing full well other powers won't do anything as a response to upset the USA interests greatly.


Love the OP's basis of argument.

"Is the US a superpower? Let's focus entirely on why it's not and if you disagree with me you're ignorant and biased. Unlike me. I am Enlightened."



I think you're just mad that this thread didn't turn into a "Bash America" orgy that you probably wanted it to become. As already stated, don't ask for opinions if you don't like the opposition.

The United States' ability to project power relies on how long our citizens want the US to project that power. Vietnam isn't as much a defeat as it is the citizens using their freedoms to force the withdrawal of troops. Same as Iraq. We destroyed the Iraqi military, twice, in conventional warfare. Iran isn't much different. China would be long and protracted, as would Russia. The EU is facing oppoisiton from it's own members on the creation of the unified European military, or the entire EU all together.

The United States Navy's mission is just that, to project American power and interests on the world stage, a power no other nation can compare.

SwedishFish is undoubtly my Backroom hero. :D

In any case Powerwizard, for a person who wrote a disclaimer, it appears you have no read your own disclaimer, as you used a "stupid ignorant" and "america lovers", which is quite clear your very own black & white argument. :s

[PowerWizard]

Thing is, the USA uses hard power and disregards the International Comunity EXACTLY since it has a status of Superpower and Top Dog, knowing full well other powers won't do anything as a response to upset the USA interests greatly.

You have a good point there. Although I wouldn't say that disregarding the international community would be the sine qua non of a global superpower. Much smaller states do that too regularly, f.e. Israel, North Korea, Venezuela.


Problem is that Europe isn't united, and the interests of the different countries often don't converge, much to my disapointment.

This is true with some restrictions. Europe isn't united... in certain issues like tax policy or what the role of the NATO should be etc. It is united politically (in terms of polity, it has a sui generis political system, different from the ones of the nation states), it has a common united economic space, it has a good deal of common policies and other common institutions. The interests of different countries don't converge... in certain issues like the Iraqi war, relationship with Russia etc. The interests however converge in a good deal of other issues, in which they managed to harmonize these interests and form a common policy. With that said, its suffice to say that a common foreign policy is continually being formed.


Basically you're confirming the fact that no nation is self-sustaining thus countering your own argument of "Non-Self
-Sufficient = Very Weak"

There are levels of dependency. USA has a public debt of 10.98 trillion USD which is 77 % of the GDP.
EU has a public debt of 7.24 trillion EUR which is 58.7% of the GDP.
Moreover the EU import/export rate is positive (it exported more than it imported), meanwhile the same rate of the USA is negative as I already showed that in the first post.


It can probably take down Russia or any EU State (Quite possibly we altogether) or China. Depends on a lot of things. But it is most certainly capable of doing it. Why is it not intervening in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Heck, for a person who made a post accusing the USA of using hard powers too often, you are contradicting yourself by asking that question. It isn't intervening because it can't. For all we all know, they could erase both Israel and Palestine off the map if they wanted.

I didn't "accuse" the USA of using hard powers too often, I stated it as a fact. And no one answered that question yet. I think it's a valid question, I'd like to hear an answer to that from the Backroomers.




In any case Powerwizard, for a person who wrote a disclaimer, it appears you have no read your own disclaimer, as you used a "stupid ignorant" and "america lovers", which is quite clear your very own black & white argument. :s

I see you didn't read my posts a few pages back. BTW I didn't say "stupid ignorant" to anyone, i was attacking the nature of some posts not the posters - quite a difference. In any way, that was a response to the harsh responses I got in the first few pages. I apologized, got my ass infracted, so can we now drop the personal remarks and move on to the actual debate, shall we? Pretty please?

----

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/8552512.html

^^I'd like to recommend that article by Robert Kagan in the new Policy Review issue. Quite an insightful writing, if you have the time, read it. Even he (leading US neocon analyst) acknowledges that the 21st century will be more eventful than the USA thought it would be. End of dreams, return of history - so much for Fukuyama.


The world has become normal again. The years immediately following the end of the Cold War offered a tantalizing glimpse at a new kind of international order, with nations growing together or disappearing altogether, ideological conflicts melting away, cultures intermingling through increasingly free commerce and communications. But that was a mirage, the hopeful anticipation of a liberal, democratic world that wanted to believe the end of the Cold War did not end just one strategic and ideological conflict but all strategic and ideological conflict. People and their leaders longed for “a world transformed.” 1 Today the nations of the West still cling to that vision. Evidence to the contrary — the turn toward autocracy in Russia or the growing military ambitions of China — is either dismissed as a temporary aberration or denied entirely.

The world has not been transformed, however. Nations remain as strong as ever, and so too the nationalist ambitions, the passions, and the competition among nations that have shaped history. The world is still “unipolar,” with the United States remaining the only superpower. But international competition among great powers has returned, with the United States, Russia, China, Europe, Japan, India, Iran, and others vying for regional predominance. Struggles for honor and status and influence in the world have once again become key features of the international scene. Ideologically, it is a time not of convergence but of divergence. The competition between liberalism and absolutism has reemerged, with the nations of the world increasingly lining up, as in the past, along ideological lines. Finally, there is the fault line between modernity and tradition, the violent struggle of Islamic fundamentalists against the modern powers and the secular cultures that, in their view, have penetrated and polluted their Islamic world.

[Sarmatian]

The article is bollox. It goes around and around to conclude how anything but American predominance is bad for the world and basically that Pax Americana is the way to go.

[Strike For The South]

The article is bollox. It goes around and around to conclude how anything but American predominance is bad for the world and basically that Pax Americana is the way to go.

I think so.

[Sarmatian]

I think so.

I probably would too, if I were an American, but that doesn't make it right.

[Strike For The South]

I probably would too, if I were an American, but that doesn't make it right.

American hegemony is much better than Chinese or Russian.

Not to mention I don't really care if it's right. I'm here to further American interests, not have night terrors about what's right.

[KarlXII]

SwedishFish is undoubtly my Backroom hero. :D


Easy there, I don't contribute here for fans and willy measuring.

(Though it helps)

Though I would like to apologize to PowerWizard for what, as I read it again, was an uncalled for and fairly nasty attack on his person and opinions. Welcome to the Hell! The Gas Chamber France Backroom!

[Incongruous]

The article is bollox. It goes around and around to conclude how anything but American predominance is bad for the world and basically that Pax Americana is the way to go.

Indeed, most American political scientists do talk bollox, Kagan perfects the art of talking bollox, you can prove this by the constant American mistake of equating the U.S to "liberal democracy" or even democracy. God that article drips with bollox, I don;t know how anyone could take this guy seriously...

[Brenus]

"Welcome to the Hell! The Gas Chamber France ": Are you suggesting that France is equal to Hell or Gas Chamber?:laugh4:
Hell. perhaps, for taste for wine and pretty girls...:2thumbsup:

[Furunculus]

American hegemony is much better than Chinese or Russian.


agreed, when churchill passed the flame i'm glad he did so to america, long may that situation maintain.

a chinese or russian dominated world would be a much uglier place.

[Incongruous]

agreed, when churchill passed the flame i'm glad he did so to america, long may that situation maintain.

a chinese or russian dominated world would be a much uglier place.

Churchill passed no flame, he had it extinguished by new realities and the U.S wish to see Britain seccumb to debt and thus relinquish its power in the Middle East and the world to ever more powerful American groups. The story of the U.S and Britain since WWII has been one of almost disgusting self delusion on the part of Parliament and people, we should not be so beholden to a nation like the U.S, which in reality sees us as a presumptous joke.

Britain lost WWII, while the U.S, Germany, Japan and France won it, its something which has dictated our nations role in the world ever since.

[Furunculus]

wow........... just wow!

[Louis VI the Fat]

We all heard about the myth of the so-called "superpower" of the USA.Welcome to Heaven!, a lesbian orgy party!, France, the Backroom.

I enjoyed reading your opening post. I do think, however, that you confound what is with what you'd like to be. If one dislikes something, one can not wish it away, or reason it away. The US is a superpower, the largest one, and it is not about to crumble any time soon.

Its power is limited though indeed. These limitations were mercilessly exposed by the failure of the neo-con project. They tried to capitalize on the realisation in the 90s that the US was the sole superpower, indeed a hyperpower. They failed, and, what's more, were entirely detrimental to the status of superpower of the US. To the point of being catastrophic. World history has seen few examples of a superpower being run to the ground by so few people, in so short a time, by so much overconfident incompetence.

Economically, militarily, morally, environmentally too, the past eight years have been disastrous. In each of these aspects, arrogant overconfidence, and aggressively pursued short-term interests managed to turn an American leading role into an unmitigated disaster. The sheer scale and depth of incompetence were breathtaking.


On the upside, America's foundations are strong. If running a superpower to the ground within a decade is not uniquely America, then certainly the power to re-invent and renew itself is. America isn't going anywhere. Nor, as the past decade has shown, does much of the world in the end want it to. Simmering below very vocal anti-American rhetoric - some profoundly felt, some out of frustration - was a much deeper current of people and politicians who did not want American power to crumble. On the contrary. In Asia, Europe and elsewhere.

The world has changed drastically the past decade. Amazingly so. The light has gone on in much of the world. The days when five percent of the world's population could expect to wield fifty percent of the world's power are behind us. Nevertheless, America is still the central building block of the world's most powerful assembly of nations, by far the most powerful member of the world's strongest ideology, and will remain so for quite some time to come.



The British Empire lost focus in WW1 and WW2 - two wars we had no business fighting in. Let the continentals kill each otherBut the British Empire did have a business in fighting. It couldn't exist otherwise. The vastly overstretched Empire could only be conquered and kept through Britain's deep entanglements with and countless wars in the rest of Europe.

[sarcastic mimicry]Besides, it is very ungrateful. Countless times France came to the rescue to save Britain and the Empire the past two centuries, sometimes to a complete no-show by the British themselves.* We should've let the northerners kill each other.**

Uh...I am happy that De Gaulle passed the flamed to America.**
[/sarcasm]


* True that.
** These serve to show the sillyness of the more extremely nationalistic and near autistic variants of British historical narratives trough mimicry.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As someone raised during the Cold War -- and Kukri can confirm that this REALLY influenced your thinking -- we learned the concept of "Superpower" a bit more simplistically and brutally. A Superpower was a "great power" with the ability to imolate a measurable portion of the surface of the globe. Don't know how "super" that was, but that was the thinking behind the term as I learned it.

[KukriKhan]

As someone raised during the Cold War -- and Kukri can confirm that this REALLY influenced your thinking -- we learned the concept of "Superpower" a bit more simplistically and brutally. A Superpower was a "great power" with the ability to imolate a measurable portion of the surface of the globe. Don't know how "super" that was, but that was the thinking behind the term as I learned it.

Ditto. "Super" didn't imply "superior", just big, lumbering, blunt, maybe brutal, and probably: final. Mutually-Assured Destruction.

It wasn't 'til the mid-80's when military guys began to speak openly of actually "winning" a nuclear exchange - or at least surviving and rebuilding faster than anyone else. Dangerous talk, in my opinion. Necessary for Planning guys to whisper, but not Policy Deciders or Executors.

-edit-
It occurs to me that those Policy Deciders (civilian and military) starting those "We could win" discussions, coupled with the late 80's observation that the Soviet Union was no longer a Union... may have opened the door to the neo-con fellas that Louis refers to.

[Louis VI the Fat]

the neo-con fellas that Louis refers to.See, for example, Project_for_the_New_American_Century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century). An excellent read.


The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. that lasted from early 1997 to 2006. It was co-founded as a non-profit educational organization by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership."[1] Fundamental to the PNAC were the view that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."[2] Critics claimed that it exerted strong influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and strongly affected the George Bush administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.[3][4]

[Vladimir]

Welcome to Heaven!, a lesbian orgy party!, France, the Backroom.
Uh...I am happy that De Gaulle passed the flamed to America.**

Do you mean the flaming? Please take them back. :cheerleader:

j/k I loves me lesbians. :kiss:


Ditto. "Super" didn't imply "superior", just big, lumbering, blunt, maybe brutal, and probably: final. Mutually-Assured Destruction.

It wasn't 'til the mid-80's when military guys began to speak openly of actually "winning" a nuclear exchange - or at least surviving and rebuilding faster than anyone else. Dangerous talk, in my opinion. Necessary for Planning guys to whisper, but not Policy Deciders or Executors.

-edit-
It occurs to me that those Policy Deciders (civilian and military) starting those "We could win" discussions, coupled with the late 80's observation that the Soviet Union was no longer a Union... may have opened the door to the neo-con fellas that Louis refers to.

We were behind the Soviets on that one. Soviet doctrine from the 60's incorporated limited nuclear war as part of its combined arms strategy. They were so naive that nuclear detonations were actually incorporated into engineering plans.

It's important to include all elements of national power, even the most dreadful, when constructing war plans. Sometimes merely having a plan is an element of power itself. The bunker buster nuke is a good example. Using it doesn't matter so much as having it.

Once an adversary has the will and ability to use a new weapon one must find a way to counter it, which consumes resources. Capability is a good soft power. Look at how the North Koreans use it, and we are HORRIBLE at it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Ditto. "Super" didn't imply "superior", just big, lumbering, blunt, maybe brutal, and probably: final. Mutually-Assured Destruction.

It wasn't 'til the mid-80's when military guys began to speak openly of actually "winning" a nuclear exchange - or at least surviving and rebuilding faster than anyone else. Dangerous talk, in my opinion. Necessary for Planning guys to whisper, but not Policy Deciders or Executors.

-edit-
It occurs to me that those Policy Deciders (civilian and military) starting those "We could win" discussions, coupled with the late 80's observation that the Soviet Union was no longer a Union... may have opened the door to the neo-con fellas that Louis refers to.

Actually, there was a stretch there where we could have "won" a nuclear war with the Soviets. During the late 1970's and into the early '80s, we became aware that the Soviet ICBM fleet had way too many liquid-fueled rockets of dubious reliability. Some sources suggest that a majority of them would have been unable to launch or would have failed during boost in addition to the ones that would have been wiped out by a first strike from close-in US sub launches that would have landed before the centralized USSR command and control system launched the counterstrike. Since we were able to track and hunt Soviet boomers, there was a good chance that we could have flattened the USSR at the cost of "only" a dozen cities and most of Europe (the USSR's solid-fueled theater nukes that covered all of Europe worked just fine thank you), plus some pretty cold summers for a few years.

Fortunately, only a few morons would have been willing to view that as "victory."

[Sarmatian]

American hegemony is much better than Chinese or Russian.


Should we get a second and a third opinion? From a Chinese and a Russian maybe?


agreed, when churchill passed the flame i'm glad he did so to america, long may that situation maintain.

a chinese or russian dominated world would be a much uglier place.

Well, that again depends. There's so much more to this world than US & allies. Actually, the majority of the world in terms of population and territory is outside. Don't forget that what you see depends very much on where you stand.

On the whole, I'd rather not see anyone's hegemony. I don't like the unipolar world and I'm glad we're moving towards multipolar one. The simple idea of it is repulsive to me. I don't accept that a minority decided what's best for the majority. I don't like the idea that 5% of the world's population decides what's good for the 95%. It looks too much like the old feudal states, the only difference that this is on a global scale. I don't like that kind of system or anything that looks remotely like it.

I can respect Strike's position. He isn't interested whether it's right or wrong. He's looking only at American interests, but I detest hypocrisy of quasi-experts like that Kagan who wrote the article. He indirectly admitted that US foreign policy actions may not have been morally right but then he dismissed that as unimportant because the point there isn't morality but American interests. After that, he tries to portray the struggle for influence in the world as moral, with liberal, enlightened side led by US against autocratic powers. That's very selective and biased look on things...

[Furunculus]

i agree that i'd rather have a multipolar world, but where there is a chance of a unipolar world that would be dominated from outside my 'family' i would rather see that someone from within my 'family' is the one dominating the the world.

my family being the anglosphere.
potential countries that have/may come to dominate a unipolar world include russia or china.
i am more likely to live in the world i want if it is a multipolar, but failing that i'll take anglosphere.

[PowerWizard]

i agree that i'd rather have a multipolar world, but where there is a chance of a unipolar world that would be dominated from outside my 'family' i would rather see that someone from within my 'family' is the one dominating the the world.

my family being the anglosphere.
potential countries that have/may come to dominate a unipolar world include russia or china.
i am more likely to live in the world i want if it is a multipolar, but failing that i'll take anglosphere.


Are these the only options? US/UK or Russia or China?

[Vladimir]

Everyone always forgets Sealand. :wall:

[Sheogorath]

Are these the only options? US/UK or Russia or China?

Would you prefer some up and coming state?
Iran? Brazil? India?

I don't think any of them have a much better reputation than the good ol' US of A.

[Sarmatian]

i agree that i'd rather have a multipolar world, but where there is a chance of a unipolar world that would be dominated from outside my 'family' i would rather see that someone from within my 'family' is the one dominating the the world.

my family being the anglosphere.
potential countries that have/may come to dominate a unipolar world include russia or china.
i am more likely to live in the world i want if it is a multipolar, but failing that i'll take anglosphere.

I don't see another power achieving the status US & Co had in the last couple of decades.


Are these the only options? US/UK or Russia or China?

That's a very good point, :idea2: I think we should seriously consider Serbia here. All in favour? I mean, we could at least talk about it...

[Furunculus]

Are these the only options? US/UK or Russia or China?

can you think of anyone else? *




* if you suggest the EU I will wee myself.

[PowerWizard]

can you think of anyone else? *




* if you suggest the EU I will wee myself.

If you are not counting on this option (EU as a global player), you have a lot to learn, my friend.

[seireikhaan]

If you are not counting on this option (EU as a global player), you have a lot to learn, my friend.
:ireland:

[Sarmatian]

If you are not counting on this option (EU as a global player), you have a lot to learn, my friend.

EU needs to become a player before it can become a global player.

EU at the moment is nothing but a collection of states bound by relatively common economic interest and to a lesser degree by ideology, inert and troubled by bureaucratic issues, still relying on Washington for protection and political muscle. When/if EU becomes federalized enough to have at least a common army and foreign policy, when decision making is simplified enough to actually become efficient and effective, then we could speak about EU.

At this rate, we have a long wait ahead, not to mention that some of the EU member states could actually oppose that path. The issue that EU is paralyzed because of Ireland should show you how fragile and ineffective EU really is...

[PowerWizard]

EU needs to become a player before it can become a global player.

EU at the moment is nothing but a collection of states bound by relatively common economic interest and to a lesser degree by ideology, inert and troubled by bureaucratic issues, still relying on Washington for protection and political muscle. When/if EU becomes federalized enough to have at least a common army and foreign policy, when decision making is simplified enough to actually become efficient and effective, then we could speak about EU.

At this rate, we have a long wait ahead, not to mention that some of the EU member states could actually oppose that path. The issue that EU is paralyzed because of Ireland should show you how fragile and ineffective EU really is...

True, Ireland is playing with the nerves of other European countries, but it also shows that further steps are needed to enhance the union. 0.5% of the populace can veto the decision of the 99.5%? Funny, but it shows there's room for improvement.

[seireikhaan]

Yes, that's what the eurosceptics usually say...
:ireland:

[PowerWizard]

:ireland:

Interesting point, hard to respond to.

[Jolt]

True, Ireland is playing with the nerves of other European countries, but it also shows that further steps are needed to enhance the union. 0.5% of the populace can veto the decision of the 99.5%? Funny, but it shows there's room for improvement.

Actually, I find the present method good enough. This isn't about larger states with more power and smaller states who can't say anything. Every state is equal and every state has an equal power. Heck, I'm Portuguese and I completely think every state HAS to be equal. Not should. Beyond that issue, I'm a fervent Europeist. Think of it as being Germany or the UK veto'ing the Treaty. It's the same.

[BigTex]

A multipolar war means more nations posturing for more power. I'll stick to a unipolar world, far less mass destructive war's that way.

The EU isnt even a nation, it lacks a single voice or even a unified military. It relies on the USA for most of it's national defense. With the way it is now it is more prone to collapse then to unify as some form of federal nation.

[Furunculus]

If you are not counting on this option (EU as a global player), you have a lot to learn, my friend.

On what?

The Danish rejected it.
The French rejected it.
Ireland rejected it.
The British would reject it.
Czech and Poland may yet fail to ratify it.

There is no real sign that europes peoples want to become the people of EUrope.

There is a very good chance that if further integration is pursued then members will peel away.
If the integration does go ahead then there is every chance that members will pull away.
If one of those members is the UK then we'll see how far a 'superpower' EUrope will get!

I want for the UK to have nothing to do with a common economic or foreign policy, and i am not atypical in the UK, and i do not think i am atypical in the EU.

While other nations may buckle under due to lack of confidence, that it is not a situation i see the UK facing.

[Incongruous]

wow........... just wow!

Why are you so wowed? What the heck did we gain from the War except crippling debt, bombed out cities, ingratitude and falling world status?

Yeah thought so, I think its time we grew up and shrugged off this post war fascination with America, they would probabaly appreciate it.

[rory_20_uk]

Seconded.

And we got rid of one unstable genocidal madman by siding with a more genocidal madman. Great... :wall:

Britain would have ceeded everything in any case, but probably at a slower, possibly more sensible rate, would have not been crippled by debt and as you point out with nice cities intact.

If America had adopted a more balanced approach to Japan the Pacific war could again have been avioded.

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

can you think of anyone else? *




* if you suggest the EU I will wee myself.*hands diaper*

The world moves towards multipolarity. Within this world system, the EU, indeed, is the instrument that ensures that the voices of Ireland, Portugal, Denmark will not go unheard. And even the voices of the UK and France.

Not by superstatism, or other sinister sounding -isms ascribed to the EU by its opponents, but by the empowerment of smaller democracies through voluntary association.

[Sheogorath]

*hands diaper*

The world moves towards multipolarity. Within this world system, the EU, indeed, is the instrument that ensures that the voices of Ireland, Portugal, Denmark will not go unheard. And even the voices of the UK and France.

Not by superstatism, or other sinister sounding -isms ascribed to the EU by its opponents, but by the empowerment of smaller democracies through voluntary association.

And, of course, they'll oppose the New Warsaw Pact (or possibly New Russian Empire, depending on how Putin wants to spin things) too, right? :gring:

[Incongruous]

*hands diaper*

The world moves towards multipolarity. Within this world system, the EU, indeed, is the instrument that ensures that the voices of Ireland, Portugal, Denmark will not go unheard. And even the voices of the UK and France.

Not by superstatism, or other sinister sounding -isms ascribed to the EU by its opponents, but by the empowerment of smaller democracies through voluntary association.

"voluntary", oh right that is what it is then!

[Furunculus]

*hands diaper*

The world moves towards multipolarity. Within this world system, the EU, indeed, is the instrument that ensures that the voices of Ireland, Portugal, Denmark will not go unheard. And even the voices of the UK and France.

Not by superstatism, or other sinister sounding -isms ascribed to the EU by its opponents, but by the empowerment of smaller democracies through voluntary association.

this is about superpowers, and it has already been explained why the EU isn't one, and won't be one.

[Sheogorath]

this is about superpowers, and it has already been explained why the EU isn't one, and won't be one.

But...but...Wikipedia says it has the biggest economy in the world! That makes it awesome, right?

[Furunculus]

ah young grasshopper, surely you know that ecomonic power is but one metric of overall might? :whip:

[Pannonian]

ah young grasshopper, surely you know that ecomonic power is but one metric of overall might? :whip:
In the modern world, it's the most important metric. Russia's hold on the EU isn't their military might, but our need for their energy supplies, ie. economy. If Russia decides to strut their military, the EU are more than capable of putting together a military or political alliance that can give any Russian ambitions a bloody nose. But if Russia manages to find an alternative buyer for their energy and shut out the EU, we're screwed.

[Furunculus]

even when you use a metric like mine that scores power based only on rank, and not weighted for score, you still fine that america comes out significantly ahead of every body, and over 50% higher than anybody except china:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1960599&postcount=2

if you weighted my metric for score rather than rank you would find america ahead by at least double, and that counts as superpower status in my eyes.

there was a brief period in the nineties when america could be termed a hyper-power, but the rise of china in particular has reduced that.

and for those overly excitable types who constantly predict the eclipse of america by china i give you this:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjir/6.1.03_miller.html

this is the article I wanted to link to regarding the problems china's faces in its race for pole-position:

http://whatmatters.mckinseydigital.com/globalization/when-china-is-no-1