Superpowers - USA #1 forever?

College Confidential Community
61

<p>Eric Meng, enough with your pro-American, anti-Chinese rhetoric already. You must be Taiwanese.</p>

<p>I don't want to debate about the Korean War. Of course, Americans will insist that it was a draw, but that's not how most people in Asia view it. MacArthur not only intended on taking over the entire Korean Peninsula, he wanted to push into China as well. Obviously, he fell short of his ambitions, and basically embarassed himself and the United States. </p>

<p>The point is, American military is not all powerful as some here think. It can't even control Iraq, much less solve the Iran and NK problems. The nuclear bomb only serves as an equalizer, because let's face it, the missile defense system is not sound scientifically. It is simple physics that it is far easier to hit a large immobile target, than it is to block a volley of fast moving missiles from hitting that target. And also, countries like Russia and China are also capable of producing atmospherical chemical weapons that do not even need to be detonated over American soil to poison the atmosphere and screw over everybody. This is why you would never see America trying to muscle Russia or China, but only the more primitive countries like Iraq and Afganistan. Who is next? Republic of Congo? Mozambique?</p>

62

<p>"The point is, American military is not all powerful as some here think."</p>

<p>silly statement. the american military is the most powerful armed forces in the history of the world - and technologically, the gap between us and the next closests is as large as it has ever been.</p>

<p>the facts are the US could wage war and beat anyone in the world - most probably with little loss. example - iraq. we conquered the country in under a month, while trying to not kill civilions. with wreckless abandonment, we most likely could have flattened the country in a day or 2. However, as history has proven time and time again, waging and winning battles does not equal successful occupation and we so clearly see right now.</p>

<p>now some would argue "but n korea has nuclear missiles." its highly unlikely that NK has the capability of striking the US with a missile - we're too far away, and they have limited missile technology. Also, at least the military channel would have you believe we are pretty close to being able to shoot down missiles - which means we probably have a pretty decent system set up.</p>

63

<p>What's the purpose of having a military if you can't even achieve your goals?</p>

<p>Obviously, America or any nation for that matter has little to gain from wiping out whole populations. </p>

<p>And there is an upper limit to military capacity, U.S., Russia, China, France and the U.K. all have enough nuclear arsenal to blow up the Earth and wipe off the whole human race, with U.S. and Russia capable of doing that numerous times, so I would say the current military capacity of any nation on Earth is capped off at the destruction of Earth, so those countries are all tied in terms of absolute military might. The United States has an advantage in exerting power underneath this upper limit of course, but no real advantage when operating at this limit. This means, it could never go to full scale war with any of those countries, without risking mutual destruction, so the U.S. military is quite worthless in that respect.</p>

<p>So only way for the U.S. to declare absolute military superiority over those nations right now is to find a way to immunize itself from nuclear attacks and atmospheric chemical attacks. I do not see that happening any time soon.</p>

64

<p>As far as the missile defense system, and why it is not sound, do you play soccer? And you know how even the best goalies have a hard time blocking out penalty shots? Well, it is the same situation, except for the goal is much much bigger, and there isn't just one ball, but hundreds of balls coming at the goal at the same time (many of them being decoys of course), and only a tiny fraction needs to land for the strike to be effective.</p>

65

<p>Jags, if a war were to be fought conventionally, I'd say China would hang with the US. If a war were to be fought unconventionally, I'd say all 5 nuclear powers with advanced rocket and missile technologies (China, England, France, Israel and Russia) are unbeatable.</p>

66

<p>"Eric Meng, enough with your pro-American, anti-Chinese rhetoric already. You must be Taiwanese."</p>

<p>When did I ever make an anti-Chinese statement? I challenge you to find one.</p>

67

<p>WWII was really the end of territorial, imperialistic, warfare. In a simplified way of explaining it, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and other recent wars are cultural wars. Invading Iraq by force was only the beginning, the real war is trying to make the middle east region less conflicted. America is the only superpower with enough economic might to even attempt such feats. Come on, while there's a war on the other side, most Americans are still able to relax at home, where plasma TV's are all the rage now. A cultural war is simply not easy to go about.</p>

<p>Just look at Russia's attempt at changing Chechnya. Even with America's precision guided missiles and other highly accurate technology, there still are civilian casualties. Imagine if other countries attempted the same feat. Compared to America's job in Iraq, other countries attempts would look like a slaughter. Other than that, I doubt I need to explain why US military is also number in terms of sheer force. Yes, America may seem like a "paper tiger" to some, but other military's will pale in comparison.</p>

<p>As for the numerous military scenarios presented here, most of them are generally irrelevant. China wouldn't bother to attack others with "atmospherical chemical weapons." China's fundamental ideology is very anti-militaristic,try counting the amount of abstentions they have on the security council. It likens itself to a "benevolent" state ideology that is deeply rooted in Chinese history. Some may argue that China has been rapidly increasing its military spending, however the spending is still meager relative to its GDP. Given China's philosophy and its current military standing, it is highly unlikely China would ever even attempt the attack subjecttochange mentions.</p>

<p>China having the "capability" of attacking America is irrelevant because they would never do it. An attack would cause China's economy to first plunge, then go in reverse towards extreme poverty, again. China lends billions of dollars to America, not suprisingly America is China's number one customer. Just imagine what would happen if China were to attack America. America muscles China ALL THE TIME, most of it is very indirect, and not obvious.</p>

<p>North Korea wouldn't attack anyone either, not Japan, nor America. Most of the westernized countries have massive stakes in Japan and United States. What I mean by massive is billions of dollars that if lost, could spell disaster for each and every country that has a stake in Japan or United States. At this point, the citizens of democratic states that are economically tied with Japan and United states, will have lost billions of dollars, and will be quick to suppress North Korea permanently. Nuclear missiles are for the most part used as a bargaining chip.</p>

<p>In short, America's military is powerful by force and technology, and the cultural wars it engages in are simply extremely difficult to win. Using the "who would be who in a battle" is irrelevant today because the countries are too economically tied. </p>

<p>It's all about economic warfare and cultural warfare these days. Analysis of America's superiority should not stem from America's physical force, such arguments are too far from reality.</p>

<p>America will be number one for a very long time. To give a purely speculative number, i'd give it 40+ years for China's GDP to surpass America, and another 10-30 years for their military technology to surpass America. Everyone refers to the CIA's report on when China and India will surpass our GDP, but in truth, it's difficult to say. They still have innumerable problems that are likely to cause problems for their growth in the near future. If they continue the free market and democratic reforms, then they will decrease the time needed to surpass America in terms of overall might. I still believe that America's #1 status depends on its economic force, secondary to its military force because the strength of the military depends on its economic force. Relative to other countries, it will depend the on their economic/social reform.</p>

68

<p>"It's all about economic warfare and cultural warfare these days."</p>

<p>I agree, and from this perspective, America, Europe and Japan are still the core, and the rest of the world is still the periphery.</p>

69

<p>I smell Wallerstein's World System theory. :D Am I right meng?</p>

70

<p>alexandre,</p>

<p>conventional war - the US owns every other country in the world. the US is by far the only country that can claim complete air and sea supremacy over every other country in the world. </p>

<p>right now, China does not have an air craft carrier. To actually wage a substantial war against a country like America, you need an air craft carrier - multiple. china doesn't have 1. and even if it had one, it requires a carrier fleet to defend it. China doesn't have a carrier fleet. The US on the other hand, has multiple carriers, with multiple fleets.</p>

<p>besides that, our planes are decades more advanced than what most of the other countries in the world have - especially one like china.</p>

<p>i don't really consider nuclear war a viable topic to argue about as its simply a "we blow each other up" type of debate that wouldn't go anywhere.</p>

<p>on a side note, i remember when i was in high school going to anapolis on a field trip. we had a tour of the ships and everything an a navy guy giving the tour. upon the q&a part i asked "so umm, how much ass could we kick?" to which i got the response, "in short...a lot." i always thought that was funny ehhe.</p>

71

<p>johnnzen: Yep.</p>

72

<p>I generally agree with Johnnzen's post, that post WWII, imperialism is more along cultural and economic lines than anything else. </p>

<p>But even in that respect, I don't think America will be the sole super power for much longer. The reason is even more simple this time, because compared to Europe and Asia, Americans have no culture. We see many of the sophisticates of America admiring of European culture, and we see a resurgence in the influence of Asian culture globally as it comes out of its dark ages during the 20th century. </p>

<p>The pop culture of America is nowhere near as influential globally as it was say 10 years ago. Britney spears is not comparable to Madonna, who is not comparable to the Beatles. It will decline further in the future years, simply because the modern culture of America is not exactly a breeding ground for artists and whatnot.</p>

73

<p>Jags, the point is, countries that possess an effective nuclear deterent (India and Pakistan do not apply) will never be at threat of attack, even from the US. </p>

<p>Conventionally, I beg to differ. China would put up a fight. The US may be able to win, but the human cost would be astronomical. It is not about getting to China with great force,it is about invading China and destroying enough of its infrastructure without Cina retaliating in kind. Even England, France or Russia would put up a very tough fight. None of those countries are open to attack conventionally simply because the cost in terms of human life would be extreme (hundreds of thousands).</p>

74

<p>History is my weak point. I'm good at concepts but terrible with dates, so here's my take on American superpower - it won't last forever. Historically, countries tend to dominate the political, economic, and cultural waters for about one hundred years. The sixteenth century was Portugal's, the seventeenth century was Spain's, the eighteenth was France's and England's, and England continued to dominate the nineteenth century. America really came to power in the years during and after WWII, so I'm guessing we Americans have got about 50 years left. :)</p>

75

<p>"because compared to Europe and Asia, Americans have no culture."</p>

<p>This is simply not true, whether you are talking about high or pop culture.</p>

<p>"The pop culture of America is nowhere near as influential globally as it was say 10 years ago. Britney spears is not comparable to Madonna, who is not comparable to the Beatles. It will decline further in the future years, simply because the modern culture of America is not exactly a breeding ground for artists and whatnot."</p>

<p>The Beatles were a British band.</p>

76

<p>Subjecttochange sounds like a self-hating son of Chinese immigrants. This is quite comical.</p>

<p>I find it HILARIOUS that he decides to regress to the old "Americans have no culture" shpiel. Surrender noted.</p>

77

<p>Okay, I have not read this whole thing, actually, only the title, so sorry if someone said this but: </p>

<p>The US will fall from its superpower status, look at history it happened with the Spanish and the French. We try to overtake as much as possible and force our ways on others. Eventually we will get too overzealous, and we will be defeated... </p>

<p>haha just wanted to get that out.</p>

78

<p>"They [China] still have innumerable problems that are likely to cause problems for their growth in the near future."</p>

<p>Yes, everyone talks a/b China's incredible economic growth, but there is one slight problem. China, as anyone who follows the markets knows, has not allowed its currency to fluctuate compared to the US dollar - their currency is actually worth quite a bit more than the current exchange rate, but in order to keep continual growth, the Chinese govt wishes to keep the buying power of the dollar strong so America will continue to import in massive quantities. However, it would seem that pressure has already been put on China and eventually, Congress will impose tariffs to force the proper inflation of the Chinese yuan. </p>

<p>When that happens, the massive growth that China has been experiencing will not come to a halt, but it will slow. This is merely one of the economic "bugs" China has that will have to be dealt with. It's certainly not "smooth sailing from here on out" for China.</p>

<p>"The pop culture of America is nowhere near as influential globally as it was say 10 years ago."</p>

<p>What are you talking about? American movies/music/trends - culture in general - is very influential in other parts of the world. </p>

<p>"It will decline further in the future years, simply because the modern culture of America is not exactly a breeding ground for artists and whatnot."</p>

<p>I might suggest looking up the statistics for the greatest selling artists of today and over the past several years. You'd be surprised just how many American artists/actors have international appeal.</p>

79

<p>Um, no. In absolute terms, Hollywood/American pop has more audience simply because of the garbage that it churns out every year, but in relative terms, I would say French cinema/Korean pop/Japanese pop are all very influential as well. </p>

<p>America has little to no culture, this is an established fact. How many years of history does America have? a fraction of that of Asia and Europe.</p>

80

<p>History is irrelevant.Ancient civilizations like that of Egypt has 7000 years of history and looks at it now!</p>