America's status as a superpower

[Middle-aged Europe]

How would you describe the current state of the U.S.?

[King]

We are fine. To butthurt ideologues and people who like to believe they were put on this Earth to witness some dramatic historical event so that life has meaning, there is a belief that the United States is in any danger or, just as ludicris, has been in any danger since the Industrial Revolution began (see people who thought the US had seen its day in the 70s).

We are a cornerstone nation with a stable composition. There are no states/territories of the U.S. being unfairly treated nor are there parts that, due to cultural barriers, seriously demand their own independence like the colonies and satellites of Rome, Britian or the USSR--which is what really kills empires and not whether they were too liberal or conservative, in debt, or tax and spending.

[Yelnoc]

A superpower is a nation powerful enough to extend its influence across all oceans and continents.  China is getting there, but, AFAIK, they still don't have the projection power to put aircraft carriers in the Caribbean.  Economically it's a multi-polar world but when you add in America's military and scientific advantages we're still on the top of the heap.  How long that will last is an open question.

[Sbane]

US is still the sole superpower, I think. But if China keeps growing like it does, it isn't out of question the US will lose that position in 10-20 years. We have to keep in mind that they have 4 times the population of the USA. That would likely be a multipolar world though, rather than a world dominated by just two powers.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It isn't as though it's an objective label or anything. And even if you ceased to be so (somehow), then it might not be the worst thing to happen. Most people in Britain were better off in all respects after the end of Empire; it was really only a tiny (and ultimately parasitic) class that was hurt. Same is true of the other old Colonial powers.

[Beet]

Option #1. It's obvious when you look at military spending.

[Middle-aged Europe]

We are fine. To butthurt ideologues and people who like to believe they were put on this Earth to witness some dramatic historical event so that life has meaning, there is a belief that the United States is in any danger or, just as ludicris, has been in any danger since the Industrial Revolution began (see people who thought the US had seen its day in the 70s).

Whether the United States is "in danger" wasn't really the issue. The question is whether it's a great power rather than a superpower. In other words, are there really any superpowers left or it is already a multi-polar world of several major players?

We are a cornerstone nation with a stable composition. There are no states/territories of the U.S. being unfairly treated nor are there parts that, due to cultural barriers, seriously demand their own independence like the colonies and satellites of Rome, Britian or the USSR--which is what really kills empires and not whether they were too liberal or conservative, in debt, or tax and spending.

I would argue that the USSR's loss of their satellite states was more of an effect of losing superpower status rather than the actual cause. Since the US doesn't really have any colonies or satellites (except Afghanistan ) this is an symptom of losing superpower status which wouldn't be observed here anyway.

Option #1. It's obvious when you look at military spending.

Then again, its "excessive" military spending could be what's running America into the ground at the moment. Sure, you could cut the military spending but would America still be a superpower then? Both courses of action have essentially the same effect.



I kind of agree of Darth Yelnoc, sbane, and Sibboleth btw. In all likelihood, the United States is currently in the process of losing its status as sole superpower. Maybe it has been since 1991, if you happen to work under the assumption that the Cold War and the existence of the Soviet Union was a requirement for the United States' own superpower status in the first place. However, things have certainly begun to accelerate (or at least become more apparent) since the dawn of the 21st century.

It's also true that is kind of hard to determine when someone stops being a superpower and starts being a "mere" great power, especially since the line between the two categories is somewhat fluid. In the form I presented this poll I was surely assuming that it could be determined by the level of "superiority" towards the next most powerful nations.

How superior is the United States when there is talk about a downgrade from AAA status,
when China holds more than one trillion dollars in U.S. treasuries, and when it is competing with France over military leadership in the Libya conflict?

Of course, nothing of this means that the United States will cease to exist or become something of a Third-world country soon. I was directing my original question to the possibility that the United States is "merely" a great power in a multi-polar world.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Depends how we're going to define a "superpower". In a classical, military definition, U.S. is a sole superpower and I can't see it changing in next years. Economically speaking, however, world is already multipolar. China and EU (don't be so hurry in declaring EU's death, just as I'm no way hurry in declaring U.S. demise) are economic superpowers already.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Depends how we're going to define a "superpower". In a classical, military definition, U.S. is a sole superpower and I can't see it changing in next years. Economically speaking, however, world is already multipolar. China and EU (don't be so hurry in declaring EU's death, just as I'm no way hurry in declaring U.S. demise) are economic superpowers already.

The EU's own problems is the reason why I refrained from including "One of two superpowers, along with the EU" as a poll option btw.

[KEmperor]

http://watchingamerica.com/News/115097/america-will-still-be-the-only-superpower-for-the-next-20-years/

[King]

We are fine. To butthurt ideologues and people who like to believe they were put on this Earth to witness some dramatic historical event so that life has meaning, there is a belief that the United States is in any danger or, just as ludicris, has been in any danger since the Industrial Revolution began (see people who thought the US had seen its day in the 70s).

Whether the United States is "in danger" wasn't really the issue. The question is whether it's a great power rather than a superpower. In other words, are there really any superpowers left or it is already a multi-polar world of several major players?

We are a cornerstone nation with a stable composition. There are no states/territories of the U.S. being unfairly treated nor are there parts that, due to cultural barriers, seriously demand their own independence like the colonies and satellites of Rome, Britian or the USSR--which is what really kills empires and not whether they were too liberal or conservative, in debt, or tax and spending.

I would argue that the USSR's loss of their satellite states was more of an effect of losing superpower status rather than the actual cause. Since the US doesn't really have any colonies or satellites (except Afghanistan ) this is an symptom of losing superpower status which wouldn't be observed here anyway.

I was on my mobile so I didn't see the poll and just gave a general response to the "America losing superpower status" topic.

[Marston]

No other Nation has the ability to project power around the entire globe like the U.S.

China and Russia has immense problems of their own that they'll need to deal with if they want to become anything more than a regional powers. It'll be a while before we're seriously challenged for supremacy.

[xavier110]

...just as ludicris...

[dead0man]

No other Nation has the ability to project power around the entire globe like the U.S.

China and Russia has immense problems of their own that they'll need to deal with if they want to become anything more than a regional powers. It'll be a while before we're seriously challenged for supremacy.

This.  The PRC has serious internal issues people like to forget about in these kinds of discussions.  Issues that make our debt crisis seem quaint.

[Torie]

Truncated, since we won't be able to "project" it as much in the future. Which might be a good thing - or not.

[anvi]

It seems to me that "superpower" status is less defined by how many nuclear warheads a nation sports or how far a nation can "project" its military power these days than by how much money one wields.  That's why China and the U.S. are the big two now.  I for one think that some restriction of U.S. military power is not necessarily a bad thing, but at the same time that receding American political influence with other nations is not.  For all of China's obviously pragmatically successful and even laudable successes over the last thirty-some years, their political leadership structures are still quite nefarious. 

[bullmoose88]

It seems to me that "superpower" status is less defined by how many nuclear warheads a nation sports or how far a nation can "project" its military power these days than by how much money one wields.  That's why China and the U.S. are the big two now.  I for one think that some restriction of U.S. military power is not necessarily a bad thing, but at the same time that receding American political influence with other nations is not.  For all of China's obviously pragmatically successful and even laudable successes over the last thirty-some years, their political leadership structures are still quite nefarious. 

So for all the "gains" in American hard power...we've lost a considerable amount of soft power eh?

Not sure if I'm comfortable with shrinking the military...or denying the best toys as it were...but certainly bringing the troops home and fixing the over stretch problem would help on a lot of fronts.

[anvi]

So for all the "gains" in American hard power...we've lost a considerable amount of soft power eh?

Not sure if I'm comfortable with shrinking the military...or denying the best toys as it were...but certainly bringing the troops home and fixing the over stretch problem would help on a lot of fronts.

On the first point, yes, I think so.  On the second, I agree; pulling back military supplies is not a good idea, but being much more reticent to send armies places, in my view, is.

[opebo]

The only one but a very rapidly failing one (like all other values in america, even our power as a nation state is being flushed down the golden toilet bowl of the rich).

[greenforest32]

I welcome our new atheist Chinese overlords.

[Foucaulf]

A superpower is a nation powerful enough to extend its influence across all oceans and continents [...] it's a multi-polar world but when you add in America's military and scientific advantages we're still on the top of the heap.  How long that will last is an open question.

China will never dare to extend its influence that far, and Europe will never be able to extend its influence that far again. An "economic great power" doesn't mean much in today's globalized economy. Obviously some nations have more GDP than others, but the nature of capitalism means the ultimate authorities are the businessman and the consumer. No nation today can exercise mercantilism like the British did.

The Americans hold three trump cards: military, research and culture. The essence of our so-called "information economy" is in the hands of the Americans, and their government has the power to end it, but it never will.

While we focus on the political farce of the United States, we do not pay attention to political developments in those other superpowers. Look closely and one sees European leaders at each others' throats; the Chinese adopting the Americans' idea of the grand election to resolve their bitter factionalism; and the global South still mired in corruption and the encroachment of the developed world. American leaders mistreat its people, but their ability to join together and protect themselves is astonishing.

[Insula Dei]

China and the US are the world's major powers in 2011 . There are a number of 'minor' superpowers / regional powers, some of which might become more influential. The EU has potential to be not entirely inconsequential but is held down by being 'an economical giant, a political dwarf and a military worm'.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I honestly don't think China will be that much of a threat.  Every time in China's history that they have become powerful, they have fallen to internal strife.  Just as every time before, the coastal areas of China that are thriving and subsidizing the interior poor regions, are going to get sick of it.  The interior will demand more subsidies while the coastal regions resist... and it will bring them down... at least far enough not to be a threat.  Then another Mao type comes along and "reunites" them by making everybody sufficiently poor and the process restarts.

A billion people or not... they have none of the massive advantages that the U.S. has.. like having long, peaceful coastlines on the world's two largest oceans.

[opebo]

I honestly don't think China will be that much of a threat.  Every time in China's history that they have become powerful, they have fallen to internal strife.  Just as every time before, the coastal areas of China that are thriving and subsidizing the interior poor regions, are going to get sick of it.  The interior will demand more subsidies while the coastal regions resist... and it will bring them down...

You have that backwards, Snowguy - the coastal areas are sucking the interior dry through exploitation.

[Beet]

China is in a huge bubble. 50% of GDP and most of 'GDP growth' is 'investment', aka mostly luxury real estate developments that have occupancy rates in the teens, pools, tennis courts, swimming pools and libraries empty except for staff, and millions of people living in slums. The inflation rate is waaay understated. Currently the cost of housing in eastern Chinese cities are about the same, in many cases higher, than in the US, whereas incomes are only a tiny fraction of US incomes. The cost of other major big ticket items including cars are equal or more expensive than in the US. The only reason there haven't been demonstrations and riots is that the government has been very effective at preventing organized opposition.