But we're the world's first superpower, how do you know what a superpower "would do" if there were no prior examples?

O_o

I really need to brush up on my "internet", but wtf is that?

So this is not a war we've been involved in in Iraq?

The ruthlessness thing is just like if you are going to go over there and invest the monstrous amount of money and the lives, any superpower in history knows from there you take the damn oil. The US is too politically correct for this basic spoils of war approach, you take what you need and leave the rest. No, the US lets them boom and bankrupts itself.

Yeah, it's all ridiculous and LOL material. 1/1000th as ridiculous as the US incomptence in its foreign policy.

It's a surprised/shocked/wtf face at the claim that we're the world's first superpower.

I agree that we should take the damn oil. It sucks when you have politicians running the show, politicians who care more about their image in the newspapers then making good decisions. But again, that's a political issue, not necessarily a military one.

Cliff notes: **** all politicians.

It's a pretty subjective term, but yea I suppose you could consider old-school England, and others in that mold a superpower. For the sake of this discussion, I'm more referring to this century. USSR too maybe?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower

There was a little empire back in the day called Rome. Even France took over almost all of the civilized world in the early 19th century.

Ah, alright.

I was going much farther back. If you're talking about most recent times, I think only the USSR and USA would qualify.

The superpower thing is severely in decline. I'm gonna assign a 99.99% accuracy rating to that statement. Yet you break out the crap about my "MO" for a statement that nearly every analyst on earth would take as obvious?

How many examples would you like? Should I start from the beginning of recorded history, or from present backwards in time?

Lets see. The Egyptians were world conquerors........Alexander the Great would be another. Attila gave the Romans a hell of a run. Then there was The Roman Empire.

Britain ruled the worlds oceans, therefore the world. The superweapons of 1906 were the dreadnaught class battleships.

There are way too many to list, but to reason that the US was the first and only superpower is a little short sighted.

[QUOTE=MuresanForMVP;6367404]None of those wars were military losses. You're confusing military issues with political ones. The invasion of Iraq began on March 20th, and Baghdad fell on April 9th. That is ownage. We toppled the Taliban in about 2 months, which is ownage also. It's kind of stupid to judge the strength of a military based upon how it deals with an insurgency anyways. Your premise is ridiculous. Your reasoning kind of reminds me of this thread.


The whole "willpower/ruthlessness" aspect is equally ridiculous. I don't even know what that means, and I suspect you're pulling it out of your ass to sound cool."



No, no. I'm not saying US lost those wars or knocking those who fought. I am saying we didn't win them in any meaningful sense and so much of it was misguided and ineffectual -- or non-superpower-like.

Yea, I think it has to do with that, as well as other countries (namely China) are simply catching up. Who knows, maybe the US no longer being the world's only superpower will work out for the better?

Quote:
In the opinion of Kim Richard Nossal of McMaster University, "generally this term was used to signify a political community that occupied a continental-sized landmass, had a sizable population (relative at least to other major powers); a superordinate economic capacity, including ample indigenous supplies of food and natural resources; enjoyed a high degree of non-dependence on international intercourse; and, most importantly, had a well-developed nuclear capacity (eventually normally defined as second-strike capability)."[2]


This would indicate some reason to not place the USA in the superpower category anymore.

Look up a couple posts

My big point is being worried about the future of the USA, when in fact this superpower self-image is getting in the way. You can't fix it if (you think) it's not broke. And that is exactly what the US is doing, not fixing it. And at an ever increasing pace since we won the Cold War and became the only "superpower." My primary premise is that US has been refusing to fix itself while considering itself a superpower above any falling.

Somebody posted on here about third world country soon. I don't buy that at all. But would like to see justification for it, how it can happen and be avoided, etc. Examples given, etc. I'll check that other thread out Muresan linked. Never saw it before.

I sent a PM to get that other thread opened. It had the potential for a good discussion, but the mod locked it for no good reason.

"OK, wow. I thought this thread was just speculation about the market fallout, not a post full of ridiculous hyperbole, such as claims of the US's rampant illiteracy (lol). I'm locking this thread."

Just start a thread in ATF, and don't forget to criticize Wookie for being a left-wing slappy. That's how you get heard over there.

I think locking threads without a reaaly good explanation and justification is fascistic.

yeah, I looked at some of his other posts and we are definitely not on the same political or ideological plane.

Yeah your just referring to political limitations here in regards to these wars you mentioning. The US has the most dominant military capability of any country by a huge margin. Thats not like me bragging or anything because that would be stupid but its just a fact that the destructive potential of the US military far exceeds all others. Does it make us better than other countries? No Does it mean we have more control over international affairs than anyone else? You bet your ass it does

I'm not really sure what the premise is of this thread to be honest because its pretty obvious America is the leading superpower.

There was a program on PBS called "Carrier" It detailed the 6 month cruise of the USS Nimitz to the Persian Gulf. For all the time and resources that were involved in that operation, there was not 1 bomb dropped on a target. This was during a time of war operations, namely "The surge". For all the firepower and manpower assembled for that operation, not even looking at whatever cost was incurred, it was the wrong strategic use of a military asset.

My point would be that the Aircraft Carrier is a 1950's attack weapon that no longer provides a strategic purpose. It may look impressive, but does not function as a front line weapon system. That is what US weapons have become, too large a scale for actual usage. You can't nuke a hillside to kill a few insurgents.

Here's the premise: America operates under the illusion of being a superpower as it crumbles from the seems, thereby forever forestalling the addressing and solving of its massive problems (energy, immigration, debt, trade balance, zero leadership, infrastructure, medical, etc.). An attitude that amounts to: "Hell, we're the greatest country in the world and obviously a superpower. Only an idiot would think we can fall." When a more realistic assessment would be: "every 'superpower' ever has eventually fallen, usually from it's own weight."

Now, I'm not saying that premise is gospel. I'm saying that's the premise. Which entails that there is a lot more involved than who has the best tanks and laser-guided missiles, most modern weaponry, best nukes arsenal, etc.

Well in that case, virtually all weapons are too large scale for actual usage if you're using the example of insurgents hiding among civilian population. What you guys are saying is that our weapons are too large scale for insurgency warfare, which I can kind of agree with. Our goal isn't to completely lay waste to the all of Iraq after all. But on the other hand, insurgencies don't threaten our security in that we wont be conquered by a group of RPG Hunter-Killer teams. It's ridiculous to look at the use of our arsenal against a ragtag bunch in Iraq then proclaim that our weapons are too large scale for actual usage. I bet you'd be singing a much different tune if an actual full-scale war broke out against another power, and you could finally see what these weapons are capable of.

Pretty sure that this won't happen again for the foreseeable future. War changes.