NationStates Jolt Archive

USAmericans, and only USAmericans, have real love of refering to their nation as the world's last superpower. I want to call them on that.

Firstly define superpower. I would say that it would simply mean 'better-power' or significantly better than any other world power in some categorical way.

Secondly, why? Back it up. Show me the stats. Is USA significantly better than every other nation in the world in all (or most) ways to a degree that warrants them being placed into a superior category of 'powers'. I would say no. Economically, no. Militarily, no. Politically, no. Socially, no. Aesthetically, no. Apart from their absurd amount of nukes, thats it.

Admittedly USA is somewhat better in some regards to others (Military force projection, dollar strength...), but other countries are also better than the US in others. Basically my point is that America is just another country now. Maybe they used to be a super-power, but not anymore.

I believe the definition of a superpower is a country that can kick the crap out of anything but another superpower. It doesn't have anything to do with 'aesthetics', or anything like that. Going on that definition, yes we kick ass. Are we the last superpower? No. Russia's still got some fight left, and China's certainly a contender. Does being a superpower make America better than any other country? No. It's just a title, and one we won't hold indefinately.

And what's with your poll options?

Considering that the US' GDP is almost as large as the entire EU, I'd say economic superpower is still applicable.

As far as military goes...well, the US has supercarriers. Enough said.

I fucked the options :mad: Ok, I'll just zip over to moderation...

Considering that the US' GDP is almost as large as the entire EU, I'd say economic superpower is still applicable.

As far as military goes...well, the US has supercarriers. Enough said.

Hmmm 8 trillion dollars foreign debt and rising by over 500 bl per year? Doesn't sound so "super" to me. Also a big carrier means doodly-squat for land warfare unless an enemy is kind enough to not bother with AA capabilities or anti-shipping weapons.

Hmmm 8 trillion dollars foreign debt and rising by over 500 bl per year? Doesn't sound so "super" to me. Also a big carrier means doodly-squat for land warfare unless an enemy is kind enough to not bother with AA capabilities or anti-shipping weapons.

1. I refer you to the almighty Wiki, and the GDP figures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29)there.

2. Time and time again, Anti-Aircraft weapons have not been able to stop a determined air campaign. Oh, and land based SSMs don't matter much when the enemy can strike those very installations from beyond their range.

Ok, sure, USA could crush most countries (If you mean totally destroy, not conquer), but many countries could also crush it. Not just countries, organisations. Thanks to your civil liberties, USA has a very VERY weak spot exceptionally vulnerable to terrorism and terrorist-tactics. Even guerilla tactics in war are effective because of the regard for human life your troops are supposed to maintain. That and not only USA has nukes. I don't think that USA impressive military prowess is quite impressive enough to class them as a superpower alone. thatr, or, if it did, there would be many 'superpowers'.

Militarily, no, no other nation could conquer the US. Unless nuclear weapons are used. Then everyone loses.

Economically, it's similar to the concept of MAD. With all the trade and globalization, the world's economy is all interconnected. Yes, the PRC could heavily damage the US economy. But their economy would also be crippled. That's really why large scale war is now extinct.

Militarily, no, no other nation could conquer the US. Unless nuclear weapons are used. Then everyone loses.

Economically, it's similar to the concept of MAD. With all the trade and globalization, the world's economy is all interconnected. Yes, the PRC could heavily damage the US economy. But their economy would also be crippled. That's really why large scale war is now extinct.
at the rate we're going, even a small scale war will be more damaging than beneficial (barring civil wars and the like)

And yes, the US is an economic superpower. Our GDP is the largest in the world, going by both standard GDP and GDP PPP. GDP per cap is number 8. GDP PPP Per cap is third. Hell, the state of california outperforms all but seven nations in GDP.

Militarily, we are the most advanced in technology, as well as well trained. Few nations could compete with us, and those that could simply do not have the numbers to do so effectively.

Are we the last superpower? no. Are we currently a superpower? yes.

Militarily, the US is the equal or better of anybody in the world, short of an alliance of the EU and Russia. Or perhaps Russia, China, and a few other countries. But at any rate, superpower is largely defined by military capability. Nobody else has the kind of strike capacity that the US does-- both in nuclear missiles as well as long-range bombers and carrier groups.

Economically, the US has more purchasing power than most other countries, though since it largely relies on China and Saudi Arabia and other countries for resources and manufacturing, it's a bit hogtied.

Militarily, no, no other nation could conquer the US. Unless nuclear weapons are used. Then everyone loses.

Economically, it's similar to the concept of MAD. With all the trade and globalization, the world's economy is all interconnected. Yes, the PRC could heavily damage the US economy. But their economy would also be crippled. That's really why large scale war is now extinct.
Exactly, now we have nukes and an interconnected economy, no one with nukes or in the world economy is any better or worse than anyone else (categorically). USA is just 1st world now, like the rest of us. It is the richest and militarily strongest nation of the first world, but not in a league of it's own. I would say USA is not a superpower for that reason (or all other major first world nations are, either way refuting the notion that USA exclusively is the worlds last superpower).

Ok, if USA is a superpower, what other countries belong to that group? Surely not all first world nations, let me nominate a few(based on nukes, military, or econmy):
China
India
Japan
Russia
UK

But what about first world Nations like New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Most of Europe... These guys are all tied in with the above countries, and niether party could survive without general mutual co-operation. Therefore, all first-world countries are super-powers, or no first-world couintries are superpowers. Now I know for a fact that Australia isn't a 'superpower', therefore, according to my assessment, there are no superpowers.

Looking at China, I'd say that America was by no means the last superpower.

Looking at China, I'd say that America was by no means the last superpower.
Understated yet true. Look at China.

A superpower is a country which has convinced most of the World to follow its lead.

America is loosing that control.

Oh, and land based SSMs don't matter much when the enemy can strike those very installations from beyond their range.
Yeah, that's great, but a fishing boat with a couple of Exocets on can sink just about anything. Even a carrier.

Wow... a lot of Americans on this thread are being very modest.

America is indeed the world's sole hyperpower, meaning that there is not a force in this world that could oppose America. This is regrettable (concentration of power is never a good thing) but unavoidable.

America is indeed the world's sole hyperpower, meaning that there is not a force in this world that could oppose America. This is regrettable (concentration of power is never a good thing) but unavoidable.
Hyperpower?
Then why s the world's sole "hyperpower" struggling to find some guy supposedly living in the afghani mountains, hooked up to a kidney machine?

We could nuke the whole continent, but you'd probably moan about that too.

Considering that the US' GDP is almost as large as the entire EU, I'd say economic superpower is still applicable.

As far as military goes...well, the US has supercarriers. Enough said.

We have a dozen of them. :D

A superpower is a country which has convinced most of the World to follow its lead.

America is loosing that control.

No, a superpower is one that is incredibly economically powerful and has a military to back it up.

Oh America, How I love thee, not only for thine capitalistic way, but for thine awsome bubble gum chewing and ass kicking capabilites.

Wow... a lot of Americans on this thread are being very modest.

America is indeed the world's sole hyperpower, meaning that there is not a force in this world that could oppose America. This is regrettable (concentration of power is never a good thing) but unavoidable.
India and China can oppose America, as well as the EU if we'll all club together. It's more a matter of what the US'd have to do to piss India/China/The whole of the EU off more than whether we could.

We could nuke the whole continent, but you'd probably moan about that too.
And since he's probably hiding in one of his nuke-proof bunkers, it's not really of that much use, either.

Yeah, that's great, but a fishing boat with a couple of Exocets on can sink just about anything. Even a carrier.

We aren't Great Britain and this ain't the Falklands war buddy.

A fishing boat would be lucky to get within range. And if it did, it would have to get past the Missile defense. And they are GOOD at what they do, and then there is the carrier itself-it would take several GOOD hits to sink it.

I'm Not an American but i still think the superpower has to die one day. No super power lasts forever. All the Romans, Britons, Russians, Nazis thought they were going to stay in power forever but did it happen? I don't think so.

India and China can oppose America, as well as the EU if well all club together. It's more a matter of what the US'd have to do to piss India/China/The whole of the EU off more than whether we could.
If it takes over 15 nations to defeat one, that one nation is a superpower. Even then, it would be tough to defeat us. I say, American is not the last superpower, there will probably be another, but it is currently the sole superpower.

And since he's probably hiding in one of his nuke-proof bunkers, it's not really of that much use, either.

Hehe, Battlefield tactical RNEP (Robust nuclear earth penetrators) were something Bush has been pushing. Sounds like a good test.

We aren't Great Britain and this ain't the Falklands war buddy.
Great Britain's boats are just as good as the US', and Exocets are still rather powerful.
A fishing boat would be lucky to get within range.
Yes, well it's a fishing boat... of course it would get into range... that's the point.
And if it did, it would have to get past the Missile defense. And they are GOOD at what they do, and then there is the carrier itself-it would take several GOOD hits to sink it.
Yes well exocets are GOOD (why the hell does that need capitalising, anyway?) at what they do also.

Remember that with a couple of good strikes, you can blow up a battleship with one. And an Aircraft Carrier is going to fill up with water faster than a battleship, due to it's larger empty space.

If it takes over 15 nations to defeat one, that one nation is a superpower.
Britain and Sweden could probably go it alone. France and Finland, as well as Germany would pretty much seal the deal.
I say, American is not the last superpower, there will probably be another, but it is currently the sole superpower.
Does China somehow not count as a superpower?

Hehe, Battlefield tactical RNEP (Robust nuclear earth penetrators) were something Bush has been pushing. Sounds like a good test.
Nuclear missiles are not going to win Bush any favours, even if they're only small-scale nuclear weapons...

Hmmm 8 trillion dollars foreign debt and rising by over 500 bl per year? Doesn't sound so "super" to me. Also a big carrier means doodly-squat for land warfare unless an enemy is kind enough to not bother with AA capabilities or anti-shipping weapons.
the stealth f-35 "lightningII" negates the majority the AA. also the Ageis missile boats do a pretty good job at fending off missle attacks, the f-18 and f-14 can take care of the rest. as for the debt without american spending the world ecenomy wouldnt be the same

Great Britain's boats are just as good as the US', and Exocets are still rather powerful.

Yes, well it's a fishing boat... of course it would get into range... that's the point.

Yes well exocets are GOOD (why the hell does that need capitalising, anyway?) at what they do also.

Remember that with a couple of good strikes, you can blow up a battleship with one. And an Aircraft Carrier is going to fill up with water faster than a battleship, due to it's larger empty space.
Standard US Naval rules don't allow civilian boats to come within close range of a US naval unit. That fishing boat would get blown out of the water faster than you can say, "Holy Shinikes."

Britain and Sweden could probably go it alone. France and Finland, as well as Germany would pretty much seal the deal.

Does China somehow not count as a superpower?
No, they couldn't. The US would have ownage over them.

China, its close to being a superpower but not yet. America could wipe the floor with them any time. American forces are much better trained and supplied than Chinese forces, not to mention technogically advanced. Here's what I think: What ever the US government says they have, they have something that's ten years ahead of it.

And since he's probably hiding in one of his nuke-proof bunkers, it's not really of that much use, either.
we've got stuff big nough to level just about anything.

If it takes over 15 nations to defeat one, that one nation is a superpower. Even then, it would be tough to defeat us. I say, American is not the last superpower, there will probably be another, but it is currently the sole superpower.

I don't Europe could get past the USN subs that would flood the Atlantic should things heat up. There are still a lot of subs rusting away in drydock that could be re-started and crewed. Europe (Except for the brits) Still uses diesel/electric subs for the most part. They can't hang with Nuke subs......

Rant off.

I don't Europe could get past the USN subs that would flood the Atlantic should things heat up. There are still a lot of subs rusting away in drydock that could be re-started and crewed. Europe (Except for the brits) Still uses diesel/electric subs for the most part. They can't hang with Nuke subs......

Rant off.
especially with the new Virginia class subs

SSN Texas !!!!!!!!!!

No, they couldn't. The US would have ownage over them.

China, its close to being a superpower but not yet. America could wipe the floor with them any time. American forces are much better trained and supplied than Chinese forces, not to mention technogically advanced. Here's what I think: What ever the US government says they have, they have something that's ten years ahead of it.

China's only real conquest is to reclaim taiwan. They'd have to cross the straights, and that would be LETHAL and dangerous for them. Taiwanese and American Anti-shipping weapons would have a heyday, and the subs would see some action for the first time in a while.

especially with the new Virginia class subs

SSN Texas !!!!!!!!!!

Dude you have an awesome screenname :fluffle: (I live there)

Are the Virginia class subs replacing the 688I/Los Angeles Class hunter subs?

Dude you have an awesome screenname :fluffle: (I live there)

Are the Virginia class subs replacing the 688I/Los Angeles Class hunter subs?
i believe that the will fill the role of shallow water ops since they can cary and launch entire navy seal teams. they are designed to fight said diesle/electric boats

btw i live in east tx by dallas

Standard US Naval rules don't allow civilian boats to come within close range of a US naval unit. That fishing boat would get blown out of the water faster than you can say, "Holy Shinikes."
The US would have to warn those boats at some point and then it turns into the "I only speak Soomaali game" and then the "And now I have launched 8 Exocets at your Carrier, so tata for now game".

the stealth f-35 "lightningII" negates the majority the AA.
Ah they finally named it did they? Well at least it isn't as naff as reaper or spitfire II, but it's saying something about your lack of imagination when you can't be bothered to think up a name for your multi billion dollar fighter project so just call it what you tried to call the last one.

Ah they finally named it did they? Well at least it isn't as naff as reaper or spitfire II, but it's saying something about your lack of imagination when you can't be bothered to think up a name for your multi billion dollar fighter project so just call it what you tried to call the last one.
it has had a name since its inception, the joint strike fighter if u want to be technical.

it will kick anything but an f-22's a$$

American forces are much better trained and supplied than Chinese forces, not to mention technogically advanced.
The Volunteer sections of the PLA are actually pretty well trained, and as far as I hear from Brits who've been in Iraq, the US Army's training leaves a lot to be desired.

Also, a Type 95 > An M4.
Here's what I think: What ever the US government says they have, they have something that's ten years ahead of it.
I feel the same way about the Chinese, but replace "ten" with "twenty".

it will kick anything but an f-22's a$$
Even a Tornado?

What defines a 'Superpower'?

If The USA and USSR were considered to be the two world superpowers, and the USA the one left over after the Cold War, then I suppose what defines Superpower is not only overwhelming military and economic superiority, but the use and application of that superiority to influence other powers on a global scale.

With the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia's ability to project their military and economic influence fell apart, and Eastern Europe slowly rejoined with Western Europe (in a manner of speaking.)

By that defenition, America is still a Superpower. Their currency is still the 'standard' throughout the world, they are still the pre-eminent military power, and this combined military/economic strength is used to influence the world to maintain American ideology and American interests.

Currently, there aren't any nations with quite the degree of power which would allow them to project that kind of influence worldwide. The possible exception to this, is the growing power of China, and a possibly resurgent Russia. Neither of these nations are projecting military force, but their economies are on the rise, and the potential for 'influencing' things on a global scale is there.

America won't stay a 'superpower' forever. There's an economic cost to projecting that power, and I believe it's only a matter of time until the isolationist side of America will kick back in once the cost of that global military projection is tallied up.

The Volunteer sections of the PLA are actually pretty well trained, and as far as I hear from Brits who've been in Iraq, the US Army's training leaves a lot to be desired.

Also, a Type 95 > An M4.

I feel the same way about the Chinese, but replace "ten" with "twenty".
China isn't as powerful as us, yet... Also, a war between us and China might cause quite a stir in the oppressed Chinese population.

at the rate we're going, even a small scale war will be more damaging than beneficial (barring civil wars and the like)

And yes, the US is an economic superpower. Our GDP is the largest in the world, going by both standard GDP and GDP PPP. GDP per cap is number 8. GDP PPP Per cap is third. Hell, the state of california outperforms all but seven nations in GDP.

Militarily, we are the most advanced in technology, as well as well trained. Few nations could compete with us, and those that could simply do not have the numbers to do so effectively.
Are we the last superpower? no. Are we currently a superpower? yes.


*Points to Iraq and Vietnam* No nations, but urban warfare kicks organised warfare's ass.

I would say so, simply because there are more and more nations starting to flex their muscles on the world stage and all of them have the possibility to become very powerful. Chances are, the world will become controlled by regions rather than individual states, with nations allying or forming regional blocs to project their influence on others.

We can already see this happening with the global economy; the US may be the largest and most dynamic economy, but the reason why it is so strong is because of its international trade and attractive investment climate. Remember, the US attracts more FDI than it invests around the world and imports more than it exports so our economic health is almost 100% interdependent on the health of the world economy.

I dont see how it is a superpower. Their economy is only still going because of China and as far as military, they cant even defeat Iraq for Christ sakes. Thats a place without an Airforce or Navy or even and Army and they still get their ass kicked everyday. What would happen if they had to fight a place like China or N.Korea? I guessing they would be made to look stupid.

USAmericans, and only USAmericans, have real love of refering to their nation as the world's last superpower. I want to call them on that.

Firstly define superpower. I would say that it would simply mean 'better-power' or significantly better than any other world power in some categorical way.

Secondly, why? Back it up. Show me the stats. Is USA significantly better than every other nation in the world in all (or most) ways to a degree that warrants them being placed into a superior category of 'powers'. I would say no. Economically, no. Militarily, no. Politically, no. Socially, no. Aesthetically, no. Apart from their absurd amount of nukes, thats it.

Admittedly USA is somewhat better in some regards to others (Military force projection, dollar strength...), but other countries are also better than the US in others. Basically my point is that America is just another country now. Maybe they used to be a super-power, but not anymore.
You made the allegations, YOU back them up! :D

I dont see how it is a superpower. Their economy is only still going because of China and as far as military, they cant even defeat Iraq for Christ sakes. Thats a place without an Airforce or Navy or even and Army and they still get their ass kicked everyday. What would happen if they had to fight a place like China or N.Korea? I guessing they would be made to look stupid.

What? Can't defeat Iraq? Well for one we're not trying to "defeat" Iraq, Iraqi's are not the enemy. However while on that subject, we defeated the main Iraqi army under Saddam in only a few days, I think that's a sound spanking. If you disagree I know a few Marines who could argue the point for me.

As for China fueling our econemy...well i've heard the illegal immigrant argument but this is new, go ahead and provide some difinitive proof of that and I'll be right there with you...

While I hate to start ragging on other countries (and being that I don't know your country of origin) I highly doubt your nation could do any better in a military conflict, being that the United States is the worlds greatest military power. We already beat North Korea once, we can do it again.

As for China...no one wants a war with China.

China isn't as powerful as us, yet...
Their population is about 3 times your size. That alone gives them a massive advantage.
Also, a war between us and China might cause quite a stir in the oppressed Chinese population.
Or possibly it might cause a stir in the oppressed US population.

FullMetalJacket']What? Can't defeat Iraq? Well for one we're not trying to "defeat" Iraq, Iraqi's are not the enemy.
You are trying to defeat an insurgency however thats made up of nothing more than some dipshits with homemade bombs, and out of date soviet small arms. And you cant seem to do that, not even close.
As for China fueling our econemy...well i've heard the illegal immigrant argument but this is new, go ahead and provide some difinitive proof of that and I'll be right there with you...
well for one the US owes them what is basically the whole state of California in debt.

. We already beat North Korea once, we can do it again.
what? while your still in Iraq? yeah, Id like to see that.
As for China...no one wants a war with China.
but why? The US is a superpower right? they could win right?

the u.s.a is the remaining superpower because it could destroy the economey by withdrawing its support. why does the u.s.a suck at urban warfare because they have moral standerds which in some cases does not let them carpet bomb the place. also the e.u is to pacifistic to actully do anything.

I dont see how it is a superpower. Their economy is only still going because of China and as far as military, they cant even defeat Iraq for Christ sakes. Thats a place without an Airforce or Navy or even and Army and they still get their ass kicked everyday. What would happen if they had to fight a place like China or N.Korea? I guessing they would be made to look stupid.

Every economy is only growing because of its trade; China's one of our largest trade partners so it makes perfect sense that they would fuel our economy just like we fuel theirs or any others we trade with.

Also, the US is figthing a guerilla war in Iraq; it's not the same as a conventional war and can't be used to determine the effectiveness of the military because insurgencies can't be defeated unless the insurgents lose their reason to keep fighting.

the u.s.a is the remaining superpower because it could destroy the economey by withdrawing its support.
And its own economy would go down the shitter at that point.
why does the u.s.a suck at urban warfare because they have moral standerds which in some cases does not let them carpet bomb the place.
Have you ever heard about what happened at Monte Casino?

The US bombed it, and the Fallschmirjäger moved in. The Kiwis got butchered. Imagine that on a city-wide scale.

The US sucks at urban warfare because its soldiers aren't well-trained enough at it.
The EU is too pacifistic to actully do anything.
Britain disagrees.

I would have thought it was obvious that America is the world's only superpower. Britain, France, Germany, Japan and Russia are all major powers but they do not reach the same level of power as the United States. That does not of course provide any evidence for America being "better" than these countries.

In the future, I can see China and the United States both being superpowers. The EU, if there was greater unification and it behaved more like a federation, would have superpower-potential as its economy, if not its military, eclipses America's.

If China and America remain friendly, we'll likely see the first Anglo-Sino Alliance and assimilation of cultures someday.

You are trying to defeat an insurgency however thats made up of nothing more than some dipshits with homemade bombs, and out of date soviet small arms. And you cant seem to do that, not even close.

well for one the US owes them what is basically the whole state of California in debt.

what? while your still in Iraq? yeah, Id like to see that.

but why? The US is a superpower right? they could win right?

See luckily if the North went South the US wouldn't be the only power fighting there, so I'm guessing we'd do just fine. I know that contradicts the statement I made earlier, but we'd still be forking over most of the military muscle. I didn't know we owed China so much debt, that's disturbing, do you have a link to some place that can show statistics for that? The US is a super power, and if we went into a conventional war with China (No nukes) it would be a long, drawn out, horribly bloody conflict. However I have no doubt that the US armed forces would prevail. And saving the first for last, the insurgency is more resourceful than most think. The problem is they are just that, a rag ass militia who never attack in large groups. In a regular conventional war those guys wouldn't last 2 minutes against a Marine Batt. but that's not the case. These out of date soviet weapons, such as the Ak-47, the PKM, and the RPG-7 are some of the most reliable and deadliest weapons on earth. Not to armor for sure, but against a flesh and blood soldier...besides a 7.62x39mm round will kill you just as dead (or even better) as a NATO 5.56 round.

India and China can oppose America, as well as the EU if we'll all club together. It's more a matter of what the US'd have to do to piss India/China/The whole of the EU off more than whether we could.

Please come back to us where the sky is blue.

India, and China are not anything close to being superpowers. They are all POWERS, yes. One may be better in the US in one thing or another. However, not a single one could invade the US, destroy the US economy, or has formed a "second pole" against the US, as badly as they might like to.

Also, the EU is NOT even a power. It is an economic union, with no government of any consequence, no Constituion, and no military.
Never mind that the various European militaries are almost entirely reliant on the USA's airlift capability.

*Points to Iraq and Vietnam* No nations, but urban warfare kicks organised warfare's ass.

Almost right: The US won every engagement in Viet Nam. It has also won every engagement in Iraq.

The press, however, kicks organised warfare's ass.

Britain and Sweden could probably go it alone. France and Finland, as well as Germany would pretty much seal the deal.

Does China somehow not count as a superpower?

The combined German and French fleets would be hard pressed to beat the US COAST GUARD.
Then they have to fight the 12 American fleets. Good luck on that one.

Indeed, you could take the entire combined fleets of all the EU counties, quadruple them, and they still would be very hard pressed against even TWO US Navy fleets. :rolleyes:

China? You tell me: can one be a superpower while being an aid recipient nation for "developing countries"?

Wait a minute, I'm gonna need some kind of proof for that. Are you sure we won every engagement? I mean, there wasn't even a real "winner" to that war.

And its own economy would go down the shitter at that point.

Have you ever heard about what happened at Monte Casino?

The US bombed it, and the Fallschmirjäger moved in. The Kiwis got butchered. Imagine that on a city-wide scale.

The US sucks at urban warfare because its soldiers aren't well-trained enough at it.

Britain disagrees.

Not well trained eh? How's that?

Wait a minute, I'm gonna need some kind of proof for that. Are you sure we won every engagement? I mean, there wasn't even a real "winner" to that war.

It's been quoted time and again in both the media and in speeches, on the History Channel, etc. Khe San, Tet, Hue... can you name a single instance where the North Vietnamese WON? I can't. At least, not until the US withdrew.

Wait a minute, I'm gonna need some kind of proof for that. Are you sure we won every engagement? I mean, there wasn't even a real "winner" to that war.

Winner...well you could go by engagements as Markreich said, or just look at the overall body count. In both those senses, yes we "won" that war.

Wasn't that win more by "default?"

And I'm not claiming to know or anything, I'm asking the rest of you. I'm not well versed in the Vietnam war.

Wasn't that win more by "default?"

And I'm not claiming to know or anything, I'm asking the rest of you. I'm not well versed in the Vietnam war.

Well the important factor was we brought N.vietnam to the table for a ceasefire...while the effectiviness of the ceasefire are debateable being that they ignored it after we left anyway, we at least have that. To establish who "won" the vietnam conflict largely depends on what you're looking for, personally, in a victory.

*Points to Iraq and Vietnam* No nations, but urban warfare kicks organised warfare's ass.

Yep from 90 per cent military loses and 10 per cent civillian to 90 per cent civillian and 10 per cent military.

Almost right: The US won every engagement in Viet Nam. It has also won every engagement in Iraq.

Dunno how you can call over-use of napalm and random fire into a forest victory.

Size of economy, growth of economy, level of development of economy, military capability, military power projection and global influence are all keys to measuring a superpower.

The US economy is gigantic, the US economy is very well developed and growing at a good pace for a developed economy, it has tremendous military power, and has an unsurpassed ability to project that power to anywhere on the face of the earth and continues to be one of the premier nations at projecting global influence. It also is vital in ensuring the continuation of the modern global system, and the stability of that system. The US dollar is still the primary means of global exchange, and American culture is pervasive. The US remains the final superpower.

USAmericans, and only USAmericans, have real love of refering to their nation as the world's last superpower. I want to call them on that.

Firstly define superpower. I would say that it would simply mean 'better-power' or significantly better than any other world power in some categorical way.

Secondly, why? Back it up. Show me the stats. Is USA significantly better than every other nation in the world in all (or most) ways to a degree that warrants them being placed into a superior category of 'powers'. I would say no. Economically, no. Militarily, no. Politically, no. Socially, no. Aesthetically, no. Apart from their absurd amount of nukes, thats it.

Admittedly USA is somewhat better in some regards to others (Military force projection, dollar strength...), but other countries are also better than the US in others. Basically my point is that America is just another country now. Maybe they used to be a super-power, but not anymore.

Yes, we are the last superpower. Currently, we're the only superpower, but in the future, I believe that wew ill see a slow demise of "superpowers" as the world enters an increasingly globalized atmosphere where everything is not as defined and clean-cut as it was in the Cold War or is now. I have provided the dictionary.com definition, but the term "superpower" is more of a colloquial phrase that does not have an exact definition. However, it generally refers to a nation that possesses such military and economic power that it wields an enormous influence over international affairs. And, the US certainly does that. US influence is undeniable. The US economy is currently the most stable and powerful in the world. China is growing, but it still has not reached the global influence and economic clout that the US possesses. The United States military is the most powerful in the world, in terms of technology, equipment, and training. Politically, socially, and aesthetically are all subjective and are not relevant.

su·per·pow·er Audio pronunciation of "superpower" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spr-pour)
n.

A powerful and influential nation, especially a nuclear power that dominates its allies or client states in an international power bloc.


Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

superpower

n : a state powerful enough to influence events throughout the world [syn: world power, major power, great power, power]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Size of economy, growth of economy, level of development of economy, military capability, military power projection and global influence are all keys to measuring a superpower.

The US economy is gigantic, the US economy is very well developed and growing at a good pace for a developed economy, it has tremendous military power, and has an unsurpassed ability to project that power to anywhere on the face of the earth and continues to be one of the premier nations at projecting global influence. It also is vital in ensuring the continuation of the modern global system, and the stability of that system. The US dollar is still the primary means of global exchange, and American culture is pervasive. The US remains the final superpower.

Precisely. Very well said.

Almost right: The US won every engagement in Viet Nam. It has also won every engagement in Iraq.

The press, however, kicks organised warfare's ass.

"If the Tiger does not stop fighting the Elephant, the Elephant will die of exhaustion."
-Ho Chi Minh

Let's deduce things logically:
su·per·pow·er Audio pronunciation of "superpower" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spr-pour)
n.

A powerful and influential nation, especially a nuclear power that dominates its allies or client states in an international power bloc.

America as of this state is a nuclear power that slightly dominates its allies economically and militaristically, so by all means it is still a superpower. However, it is most likely that America is in fact the last superpower? Why? It has nothing to do with America alone, it's simply the fact of the trends in globalisation. For example, if China can maintain its growth without an form of economic lashback, research deeper into technological research, then it would by then not be a superpower (even if its economy outstrips America's) since its too tied to the world at large.

Summarisation? China would not be able ot gain dominance in opinion and stature like America did during its height (America during the late 1990's), meaning it would not be a superpower (not to mention India's most likely development). This also comes to another point, the globalisation of the world. Everything is mixing and coming together, meaning countries are unable to completely maintain their identity without some form of isolation, meaning it will fall behind the world.

So America is the World's last Superpower, in my opinion, but its not because America was special, but because the World will no longer allow another.

Dunno how you can call over-use of napalm and random fire into a forest victory.

The same way you call making punji-stick traps in a hole smeared with dung defeat.

BTW, please cite the exact usage of Napalm in 'Nam and how it was excessive. I'm VERY eager to hear your synopsis.

"If the Tiger does not stop fighting the Elephant, the Elephant will die of exhaustion."
-Ho Chi Minh

Let's deduce things logically:
su·per·pow·er Audio pronunciation of "superpower" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spr-pour)
n.

A powerful and influential nation, especially a nuclear power that dominates its allies or client states in an international power bloc.

America as of this state is a nuclear power that slightly dominates its allies economically and militaristically, so by all means it is still a superpower. However, it is most likely that America is in fact the last superpower? Why? It has nothing to do with America alone, it's simply the fact of the trends in globalisation. For example, if China can maintain its growth without an form of economic lashback, research deeper into technological research, then it would by then not be a superpower (even if its economy outstrips America's) since its too tied to the world at large.

Summarisation? China would not be able ot gain dominance in opinion and stature like America did during its height (America during the late 1990's), meaning it would not be a superpower (not to mention India's most likely development). This also comes to another point, the globalisation of the world. Everything is mixing and coming together, meaning countries are unable to completely maintain their identity without some form of isolation, meaning it will fall behind the world.

So America is the World's last Superpower, in my opinion, but its not because America was special, but because the World will no longer allow another.

A fair assessment. It will be interesting to see if China goes through a Revolutionary period as well in the near future -- last year there were 80,000 peasant uprising in the country (source: TIME magazine) and it is getting worse. Never mind the pollution.

China? You tell me: can one be a superpower while being an aid recipient nation for "developing countries"?
The mark of a superpower is force projection, and area in which China is terrible.

The mark of a superpower is force projection, and area in which China is terrible.

DING!! #1 Answer!!!

A fair assessment. It will be interesting to see if China goes through a Revolutionary period as well in the near future -- last year there were 80,000 peasant uprising in the country (source: TIME magazine) and it is getting worse. Never mind the pollution.

Strong economic growth is going to undermine the regime even faster by expanding access to information; they might have been able to control 25 or 50 million Internet users but as that number climbs (now 113 million) it's going to become nigh-impossible for them to keep their people under control.

Also, the growing role of the private sector will mean more private unions that will undermine the Communist party and the increase in young, post-Cultural Revolution professionals will weaken the party's control of academia and the heights of business. And as history reminds us, it's the development of a strong middle class that leads to democracy, civil rights, and open access to information.

the u.s.a is the remaining superpower because it could destroy the economey by withdrawing its support. why does the u.s.a suck at urban warfare because they have moral standerds which in some cases does not let them carpet bomb the place. also the e.u is to pacifistic to actully do anything.
if we played by the insurgents rules it would already be over but MOST US soldiers hold themselves to certain moral standards

if we played by the insurgents rules it would already be over but MOST US soldiers hold themselves to certain moral standards

That's why they're not as good at Urban Warfare.

The US hasn't had a serious opponent since WW2. I don't think picking on poor Third World nations earns you the right of being called a "superpower", let alone the only one.

It went through almost 10 years of hell in the jungles of Vietnam and finally lost. Something similar is happening in Iraq, where the invasion completely destabilized the country and insurgents don't stop popping up.

Economic superpower? Trillions in the red, and the euro and pound sterling are still quite stronger than the dollar.

That's why they're not as good at Urban Warfare.
Actually the US Military is great at Urban Warfare, the perception of many people is that they aren't based off of how an insurgency can keep going for so long and several other factors.

The US hasn't had a serious opponent since WW2. I don't think picking on poor Third World nations earns you the right of being called a "superpower", let alone the only one.
It's not the enemies you make, but military and economic might, two factors in which the US is unrivaled. Beyond that, the Soviet Union was one hell of a challenge.


Economic superpower? Trillions in the red, and the euro and pound sterling are still quite stronger than the dollar.

Value of an individual unit of currency is irrelevant. The Japanese Yen is a highly respected currency, yet a single yen is worth a fraction of a penny. The Pound Sterling has always been more valuable as an individual unit than the dollar. That certainly doesn't make it a better currency. Economic power has more to do with growth and productive capacity of the economy itself, not the government's spending habits.

Value of an individual unit of currency is irrelevant. The Japanese Yen is a highly respected currency, yet a single yen is worth a fraction of a penny. The Pound Sterling has always been more valuable as an individual unit than the dollar. That certainly doesn't make it a better currency. Economic power has more to do with growth and productive capacity of the economy itself, not the government's spending habits.

The value of a currency has very little to do with economic strength; the Euro, for example, is worth nearly 50% more than it was in 2000 despite the fact that the EU's economy and budget situation is worse than it was at that time. Supply and demand motivate the value of a currency; right now, the US is putting more dollars in to the world economy relative to the growth in demand for them and that is pushing the dollar down to stimulate demand for it to balance supply.

It's not the enemies you make, but military and economic might, two factors in which the US is unrivaled. Beyond that, the Soviet Union was one hell of a challenge.
I commented on the enemies they fought, where both military and economic power are really put to test. Results so far haven't been anywhere near "superpower" level. If they're having all this trouble with poor nations, I can't imagine how will it be when a real power barges in.

The Soviet Union opposed the United States for nearly 50 years, but there was no actual confrontation, so no military involved, just constant build-ups. It was all theoretical military might.

I commented on the enemies they fought, where both military and economic power are really put to test. Results so far haven't been anywhere near "superpower" level. If they're having all this trouble with poor nations, I can't imagine how will it be when a real power barges in.

The Soviet Union opposed the United States for nearly 50 years, but there was no actual confrontation, so no military involved, just constant build-ups. It was all theoretical military might.
The US Military's problem is not that it isn't strong enough to deal with small insurgencies, instead it's how the military is designed. The military is designed around the concept of a Great Power War, much as the First and Second World Wars, when large countries go at it.

Militaries designed around such paradigms are ill suited to asymmetric warfare. And, of course, militaries designed to handle small insurgencies are more akin to heavily armed police services, rather than a highly mobile tank force.

If you'll politely notice, the United States destroyed the Iraqi Army in 1991. The Iraqi Army at that time was the fourth largest in the world, supplied with new materials and weapons by the Soviet Union and filled with thousands of veteran men and officers from the Iran-Iraq War. It wasn't the army of a weak nation by any means.

If you'll politely notice, the United States destroyed the Iraqi Army in 1991. The Iraqi Army at that time was the fourth largest in the world, supplied with new materials and weapons by the Soviet Union and filled with thousands of veteran men and officers from the Iran-Iraq War. It wasn't the army of a weak nation by any means.

I wouldn't call T-72's "new" material,alright maybe they weren't so old but compared to the Abrams...The Gulf War proved that superior fire power cuts right through superior numbers. I don't think anyones contesting the US's ability to effectivly annihalate(sp?) lesser equiped armies in large scale conflicts.

Well first off, I'm glad this thread hasn't turned into a round of cussing matches between everyone and that people here seem to at least attempt to back up thier opinions.

I believe that the U.S. is still the only superpower.
China and India are still developing and might become very powerful eventually, but they aren't now.

Russia, in my opinion, cannot be considered a superpower. They are crumbling internally and like someone said earlier, cannot project their military power.
And what's with all of the "what if the EU goes to war with the US?" that's not gonna happen anytime soon.

And whoever said that US soldiers arent as well trained as others, I dissagree. How we determine who has the best training is going to be a very hard thing to do, considering most of us havent had military training in several different nations, but I think the fact that our military was able to defeat Sadaam's army twice now shows something.

I really wanted to check two boxes here, but yes, I believe the US will be the last superpower. After it loses that spot, the world's power will be distributed amongst too many sources (companies, NGOs, etc.) to produce another superpower.

If you'll politely notice, the United States destroyed the Iraqi Army in 1991. The Iraqi Army at that time was the fourth largest in the world, supplied with new materials and weapons by the Soviet Union and filled with thousands of veteran men and officers from the Iran-Iraq War. It wasn't the army of a weak nation by any means.

Minor edits: The US & ALLIES destoryed the Iraqi Army in 1991, and Saddam had many, many US munitions he'd acquired while we were funding his war with Iran.

Otherwise, yep. :)

The US Military's problem is not that it isn't strong enough to deal with small insurgencies, instead it's how the military is designed. The military is designed around the concept of a Great Power War, much as the First and Second World Wars, when large countries go at it.

Militaries designed around such paradigms are ill suited to asymmetric warfare. And, of course, militaries designed to handle small insurgencies are more akin to heavily armed police services, rather than a highly mobile tank force.

True but small, mobile, highly trained units only really came into their own under the Kennedy Administration, and that's not so long ago.
That the US has 5 highly trained elite forces (SEALs, Rangers, Green Berets, Delta Force & PJs... did I miss any?) is a testament to good judgement -- especially during the shaky period of 1973-1983.

True but small, mobile, highly trained units only really came into their own under the Kennedy Administration, and that's not so long ago.
That the US has 5 highly trained elite forces (SEALs, Rangers, Green Berets, Delta Force & PJs... did I miss any?) is a testament to good judgement -- especially during the shaky period of 1973-1983.
to further comment the US military is currently being restructured in order to allow for greater mobility and flexibility. it is for this reason that several projects that would be great in large scale war have been cancled to allocate funding to projects that benifit individual soldiers and their ability to fight successfully in small groups

to further comment the US military is currently being restructured in order to allow for greater mobility and flexibility. it is for this reason that several projects that would be great in large scale war have been cancled to allocate funding to projects that benifit individual soldiers and their ability to fight successfully in small groups

True, but I still believe that the US shouldn't have cut the submarine fleet 66% since 1991, nor cancelled the new artillery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM2001_Crusader).

it all depends on your definition of superpower. if you mean a country with a military, economy, and cultural influence that are much greater than any other country in the world...then yes, the United States is the last superpower. if you mean something else, then superpower is probably not the word you were looking for