NationStates Jolt Archive

As it stand the US is the Strongest super power in the world. As I see it we have no other near us. Is this a good or bad thing? It seems to me that without a "enemy" or anybody trying to take a ranking as number 1 are we free to do whatever we want? I just bring this up b/c talking to my father about the Soviet Union and the race they had with the US, did that keep everyone inblance? If the soviets were here now-a-days and they did not agree with the US going to Iraq would we have gone in for as long as we have? I'm not trying to say that we were scared of them but we respected them and they respected us. So there was a check and blance. Now that there is no one to keep the US in blance, we are really free to do w/e we want, which is not right. So should there be another super power to keep us incheck. Just wondering. :confused:

The last time we had two superpowers it almost lead to nuclear war and left one country in ruin (the cold war)

I would like to narrow the gap between the US and the rest of the world however.

I don't know if I would agree with your premise, as China is not that far behind you and is gaining fast.

Another superpower? No.

A better superpower? Yes.

Mind you, I have no problem with the current one with some modification. But I doubt if I'll see the required modification in the near future. Still, shows potential.

Funny you should mention that since stopping the rise of another super power is the whole drive of the Bush Administration. For details please go to Rumsfeld's little think tank PNAC.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Read:

REBUILDING
AMERICA’S
DEFENSES
Strategy, Forces and Resources
For a New Century

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf


It's about 90 pages long and in it you'll find that they will increase the size of the armed forces by 100 to 300 percent, and establish land bases through out the Middle East and Asia, Iraq is just a start. Though the Republicans haven't come out and said it publicly they intend for the US to be the world's police force for the next hundred years. All of this in a effort to stop the rise of a new super power.

It's easy to see what they are targeting is the rise of an Islamic Super Power, this possibility has US Conservatives very scared, and they started to get scared back in the mid 90s.

I think this scenario also has the European powers scared as well if you look at their enabling behavior toward the Bush efforts. Though France and Germany may publicly protest American actions, those protests don't come with strikes or trade sanctions.

I ask you, has any French labor union staged a strike targeting the UK for its participation in the Iraqi War? The French Port workers could bring UK land trade to a grinding halt overnight. The answer is no.

I don't know if I would agree with your premise, as China is not that far behind you and is gaining fast.
And China has been making their presence known a bit more forcefully lately as well. Don't forget India. Any country with three times our population and with the educational system they have has to be considered in the running for superpower status as well. I don't have a link, but I read a blog piece a couple of weeks ago that discussed the blog writer's discussion with a mid-level Indian diplomat. The short story is that the Indian government doesn't take the US into primary consideration in its long term planning--they're most worried about China right now.

we already have Superman and he has heat vision and can fly....how many other super powers do we need?

Yes we do. The world has no option right now. Like Bush said, your either with us or against us. Today, countries can either support the U.S. agenda, develop Nuclear weapons, or disappear.

As to the identity, I really hope it's Europe. The European nations alone are not strong enough to take on the U.S. However, together a Europe united under Confederation is a match militarily, and probably superior economically to the U.S. For any Europeans in nations where the EU constitution is on referendum, vote for ratification!

China, India, the EU, the more the merrier! I say more superpowers and maybe one of 'em will get it right. Isn't competition what it's all about after all? Doesn'y competition help make things better instead of worse? All I know is only having one superpower in the world (and I live in it!) is a dangerous thing.

PNAC seems to be advocating what will happen if no other superpowers rise. An Anmerican Hegemony will form, and none can stop it. By that time, any dissenters can be crushed like bugs, any resistances will be as nothing. Martial Law could be permanantly in effect. GW could declare himself Emperor of Earth. And all those morons who support him will praise him and the propoganda will be worse than anyhting Hitler could have immagined. If such becomes the case, moving to Canada will be futile for Liberals. Looks like the Libs just gotta move to Mars. I'll be there to front that move should it become necessary.

*Is* the US the only superpower ? Yes, it has a large advanced military and the worlds biggest supply of nuclear weapons.. but does that mean it couldn't lose from a band of terrorists carrying small canisters with deadly chemical weapons into the country ? Or from a country with chemical missiles capable of reaching the USA ? Only when attacking others without wishing to make too many casualties does the advanced military technology become relevant - and even then victory isn't guaranteed. Remember Vietnam ?

Furthermore, military might is not the only way to dominate the world. The USA does not have economic supremacy, nor is it the main base of power for one of the major religions. The USA's culture however is pretty dominant, judging from my tv-schedule. Soap opera's and Jerry Springer may prove to be the USA's most potent weapon...

Considering how many major wars the Westphalian Balance of Power system spawned, the inevitable ressurection of the multi-polar system is going to be quite dangerous for everyone.

Have a look at this: The Lonely Superpower (http://homepages.stmartin.edu/Fac_Staff/rlangill/PLS%20300/The%20Lonely%20Superpower.htm) by Samuel P. Huntington. (I don't entierly agree, but it's good reading on the subject.)

Considering how many major wars the Westphalian Balance of Power system spawned, the inevitable ressurection of the multi-polar system is going to be quite dangerous for everyone.

Have a look at this: The Lonely Superpower (http://homepages.stmartin.edu/Fac_Staff/rlangill/PLS%20300/The%20Lonely%20Superpower.htm) by Samuel P. Huntington. (I don't entierly agree, but it's good reading on the subject.)

An interesting and thought provoking link.

Thanks.

It's all a bit like the Roman Empire really isn't it? Amerka stands alone with it's "allies" nothing more than grateful historic nations still paying their dues 60 years after Amerka bailed them out of the creek and loaned them paddles. I say let Amerka run the world for a bit. Inevitably the empire will get too heavy for itself to be maintained and it will come crashing down over the years, just like every other Empire has.

It'll all come good in the end. In the meantime, I'm sure we'll look back on this current period of American fear, arrogance and bloodymindedness with a degree of fondness in time. :)

Considering how many major wars the Westphalian Balance of Power system spawned, the inevitable ressurection of the multi-polar system is going to be quite dangerous for everyone.

Have a look at this: The Lonely Superpower (http://homepages.stmartin.edu/Fac_Staff/rlangill/PLS%20300/The%20Lonely%20Superpower.htm) by Samuel P. Huntington. (I don't entierly agree, but it's good reading on the subject.)
An interesting read, but it fails to address meaningfully a world with no superpowers. Whether benevolently or malisciously, depending on ones pespective, the US maintains the status quo. The status quo that enables a relatively peaceful world and while not the final authority is no less an authority in almost any issue and discourages major rivalries amoung regional powers. What do you think the "multi-polar world" espoused so vehimantly in the article would be? I don't think it would be particularly good for anyone and would be disasterous for much of the world. One only needs to study thre early to mid 1900's to see this.

Secondly, the article makes a point at times to quote officials of various nations and entities who see the US as a threat to themselves. It doesn't however quote anyone or offer much conjecture of the threats that these organisations and nations would pose to each other in the absense of a superpower or the nearly inevitable, in my opinion, wars and conflicts that would arise.

not sure if there should be even one superpower, yet alone two or more.

the idea of cooperation and integration of smaller nations (eg EU) seems better to me - less risk of unilateral action biased solely in the 'superpower's' interests that way.

not sure if there should be even one superpower, yet alone two or more.

the idea of cooperation and integration of smaller nations (eg EU) seems better to me - less risk of unilateral action biased solely in the 'superpower's' interests that way.
Wouldn't these unions act unilaterally in pusuit of collective interests?

The world doesn't need another super power. It needs to be the super power. Until the world is unified into one state, there needs to be change. The benefits of a global state will be pretty big- duty free access to all resources, no need for nukes or other WMDs, none of the diplomatic standoffs that exist now and get in the way of progress (I'm sure that space exploration would be a lot more advanced if all nations worked together on it with no need for second thoughts), and finally, an end to war between different countries.

Wouldn't these unions act unilaterally in pusuit of collective interests?
ah u see im assuming that the conflicing nature/interests of a set of small countries will allow for more debate and less quickfire action, as could be seen in a superpower with a unified government. Specifically, a superpower may act on instinct or impulse to an event, while a union of nations would have to sit down, debate and decide upon the best course of action to deal with this.



edit: but yes, if all member nations' interests were the same, then there would be no difference between a union and superpower. however this is very rarely the case - even with supremely important world events such as the Iraq war, the EU was divided.

The world doesn't need another super power. It needs to be the super power. Until the world is unified into one state, there needs to be change. The benefits of a global state will be pretty big- duty free access to all resources, no need for nukes or other WMDs, none of the diplomatic standoffs that exist now and get in the way of progress (I'm sure that space exploration would be a lot more advanced if all nations worked together on it with no need for second thoughts), and finally, an end to war between different countries.

Are you serious? With all their similarities and common history, North and South Korea can't even get along. What makes you think that you will be able to unite all the different cultures and religions, each with its own divergent interests, under one government? Although, on second thought, maybe that would be a good idea. We could get all the civilized countries in the world on the same page and agreeing on everything. We could call it the United Nations. It would be great! I can't see how it wouldn't work!

You people are funny.

ah u see im assuming that the conflicing nature/interests of a set of small countries will allow for more debate and less quickfire action, as could be seen in a superpower with a unified government. Specifically, a superpower may act on instinct or impulse to an event, while a union of nations would have to sit down, debate and decide upon the best course of action to deal with this.



edit: but yes, if all member nations' interests were the same, then there would be no difference between a union and superpower. however this is very rarely the case - even with supremely important world events such as the Iraq war, the EU was divided.
But any interest held in common would be subject to unilateral action. Anything in the interest of some and not others would lead to dissent and conflict within the union. Why do you assume that being slow to react is desirable?

Superpowers are vital for world security......look at history....during the roman period there were long period of peace at least in the known world....yes the occasional war but compared to life before when greece and persian were warring for centuries quite peaceful....then you have to go all the way to the british empire till a similar level of peace was achieved....in both cases the decline of the empire caused oportuniries for others to steal power....the various geermanic tribes and 'barbarian' tribes in the east in romes case....The germanic and austrian empires in the British empire case..... Superpowers are always good for peace but there is always a lifespan...american will fall as have powers in the past and when they do this time the war to replace them may be the last anyone lives through.....

Long live america because without it I can't see anyone still living....

I dont like a lot of the things america stands for but rather them than china's communism....or the euro superstate.

The last time we had two superpowers it almost lead to nuclear war and left one country in ruin (the cold war).....



I belive communism left one country in ruins. But u are right about the nuclear war thing. However I do not belive that the Commies or us would of been that stupid to use a nuclear warhead. (again a good book to read to see what would happen if that were to accore "Alas Babylon"). Its more likely that one of the little nations from the Soviet Union would steal nuclear materials and do a dirty bomb on any nation they seems fit. This is do to all the materials it had and the lack of security.



China is not close to the US. They'er still half communist and capitlist, and if i'm not mistaken "a house divided on it self shall not stand" or something like that.




We really do stand alone and alot of the world does depend on us. At least back then the Soviets would help there fellow commrads (other communist countrys) cuba and others. Right now if America messes up and the economy goes through another depression then, a world suffers a blow. Which has seen in the past.


I jus think there is no blances. Even back then when the soviets did somethings we didn't like we took care of it and vis versa and there were balance. Now we want to go invade a country, the UN saids no, we say fuck them and do it anyways. Our reasoning is that the UK is behind us. :rolleyes:
And why can't we who has the power to stop it? yes we lose respect in the world, but with a close minded president like ours, do we care do. B/c its a fight of terro for feerdom.

There are already a few SuperPower countries.

There are already a few SuperPower countries.


sure but none anywhere near close to the US. so if u want to call it the US is a SUPER DUPER POWER :p

But any interest held in common would be subject to unilateral action. Anything in the interest of some and not others would lead to dissent and conflict within the union. Why do you assume that being slow to react is desirable?
by virtue of forcing this debate i would think that, although indeed slowing response, a more considered and desirable outcome/action is ensured. this is not so for a single superpower nation, who, as i said, can easily act (too) hastily and on impulse.
forcing consideration and debate within a union leads to a better outcome.
though, as you said (and i conceded), if there is unanimity within the union then this can lead to both unilateral and impulse action similar to that of a superpower.

Not if the other option for a superpower is China, that would just be scary.

Not if the other option for a superpower is China, that would just be scary.
We live in a scary world, and China is already a superpower.

As it stand the US is the Strongest super power in the world. As I see it we have no other near us. Is this a good or bad thing? It seems to me that without a "enemy" or anybody trying to take a ranking as number 1 are we free to do whatever we want? I just bring this up b/c talking to my father about the Soviet Union and the race they had with the US, did that keep everyone inblance? If the soviets were here now-a-days and they did not agree with the US going to Iraq would we have gone in for as long as we have? I'm not trying to say that we were scared of them but we respected them and they respected us. So there was a check and blance. Now that there is no one to keep the US in blance, we are really free to do w/e we want, which is not right. So should there be another super power to keep us incheck. Just wondering. :confused:


In a word: Yes.

In more than one: Yes, ambition counters ambition.

An interesting read, but it fails to address meaningfully a world with no superpowers. Whether benevolently or malisciously, depending on ones pespective, the US maintains the status quo. The status quo that enables a relatively peaceful world and while not the final authority is no less an authority in almost any issue and discourages major rivalries amoung regional powers. What do you think the "multi-polar world" espoused so vehimantly in the article would be? I don't think it would be particularly good for anyone and would be disasterous for much of the world. One only needs to study thre early to mid 1900's to see this.

Secondly, the article makes a point at times to quote officials of various nations and entities who see the US as a threat to themselves. It doesn't however quote anyone or offer much conjecture of the threats that these organisations and nations would pose to each other in the absense of a superpower or the nearly inevitable, in my opinion, wars and conflicts that would arise.

Pretty much agreed. But I think the growth of China and the EU combined with a decline in US power make a multi-polar world inevitable. And, like I said before, it's going to be dangerous.

We live in a scary world, and China is already a superpower.

It's well on the way to being one, but it isn't quite there yet. Give them 25 years or so before they are really a superpower.

By that time the EU should have their act together better than they do now. The potential in India has already been mentioned. And it is possibile that Japan can find itself a way out of its current mess. There is a fair chance that the world will strongly ressemble Europe under the Westphalian system with 3-5 super/major powers by 2030 or so.

No. We shouldn't have any full stop. A sizable amount of comparably powerful regimes willing to cooperate would be the best situation.