Is the United States of America still a Superpower?

[ConcernedCanuk]

.
.
.

I really wonder.

There is no argument in my mind that the USA has the baddest War-Machine out there

But what does a "Superpower" consist of?

INFLUENCE.

And the USA is losing a whole bunch of that since Junior took the throne.

Raw power won't do it IMO.

USA is too dependent on other countries -

Imagine - Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Canada and Venezuela cut off oil to the USA.

USA's War-Machine grinds to a halt.

OOPS!

Mind you, with the present Administration, they would gobble up the reserve oil to bomb all us "terrorists"

Back to the question.

Is the USA still a superpower?

[baby_mouse]

1. Nukes dont need petrol. NT

[ConcernedCanuk]

6. Nukes alone do not make a "Superpower" IMO - USA is not the only country with a sizable arsenal.

.
.
.

But the USA is the only country flexing it's "might" all around the globe,

So far . . .

[baby_mouse]

27. I suppose it depends on your definition of superpower, then.

I don't really know if there's a clear consensus on what it means.

[baldguy]

2. America is a third world country mired in ignorance & superstition.

Yet it has great wealth which has been siphoned off by the Military-Corporate Complex that runs the place. THATs the superpower.

[jlake]

3. A rapidly dimming one while others are steadily advancing.

[Mojambo]

Certainly not. n/t

[fascisthunter]

4. no at as much as we used to be before right wingers took over (nt)

[Warpy]

5. Only if you look at the stockpile of nukes

Otherwise, we are slipping very quickly into a third world oligarchy, supplying raw materials to the newly emerged first world countries, our population sick and in debt, wages depressed and wealth concentrated into the hands of an oligarchy.

[leftofcool]

8. well said!

[Thepricebreaker]

7. LOL of course.. how can you make such a statement?

[ConcernedCanuk]

10. It is a question, not a statement. - That little thing at the end is a Question Mark.

.
.
.

Is the United States of America still a Superpower?

?

That denotes a question FYI

[sarcasmo]

11. Your kidding, right? We have turned into a third world country under this Administration.

[Canuckistanian]

9. The best explanation I've heard is that America has lost it's "prestige"

Which is to say that America is NO LONGER the "respected authority" in MANY areas, such as geopolitics, scientific research, diplomacy and relief programs.

I read it somewhere in an article.

Unfortunately, this is what it's come to.

[ConcernedCanuk]

23. Please - It's "USAmerica" - America includes Canada, Mexico, Paraguay, Latin and South America.

.
.
.

It's the USA that has lost it's prestige, trust, and so on around the Globe.

And the "West" - well that's the USA in the world's eye - it doesn't seem to include the rest of us.

And if you think I'm bashing the USA

You are correct.

[Canuckistanian]

30. Sorry. I stand corrected.

But 200 years of calling residents of the United States of America "Americans" is a hard habit to break.

[bilgewaterbill]

12. In a word - Yes.

[ConcernedCanuk]

24. bilgewater

.
.
.

"bilge water" is a derogatory term often used colloquially to refer to something bad, ruined, or fouled.

Good nic.

And the rationale for your response was enlightening.

[bilgewaterbill]

28. You should stick to Canuckin'.

Bilgewater is also a colloquiallism for cheap, lousy beer, something that you should be very familiar with. But since you research on terminology is obviously as deep as your research on the US's influence on the world, your faux-intellectual condescension is not unexpected. Good day, eh?

[rockymountaindem]

13. Absolutely n.t.

[ileus]

14. cut off oil to the USA and we'll actually start pumping our own.

[GOPBasher]

15. You think we have enough for what we consume?

It's not even remotely close. Drill the shit out of ANWR and the coastlines, and you'll still get nowhere close to the 20+ million barrels per day we consume. At their peaks, which wouldn't come for at least ten years, they will add, at most, a few million barrels per day. That would probably be enough to make up for what our other wells are losing, so our consumption would roughly remain flat. We pump about 8 million bpd. It's never going to be much more than that, no matter what we drill.

We need to kick the habit. 20 million barrels per day is way too much.

[GOPBasher]

16. In some ways; in other ways, no. n/t

[undeterred]

17. Only to itself.

[NuttyFluffers]

18. still largest naval fleet, one of the largest markets & bank/insurance systems etc, so yes

it may all be falling down by bits and pieces around us, but the truth of REALITY AS IT IS RIGHT NOW the only real answer is yes -- whether we like that answer or not.

all countries are "Too dependent on other countries" so that's not a real issue of discussion.

and yes, if *all* the OPEC and oil producing countries stopped sending oil to USA we'd be in a heap of trouble. but so would they, because complete oil boycott opens casus belli on every single one of those nations -- a nation will always do what it has to do to survive, and survival is always good cause to get into a war. Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela would collapse in mere days; we're just really that too big of a superpower for them to refuse us on that level. will we be able to successfully hold them -- of course not, that's ridiculous. but we can still fuck them up bad enough that it would not be worth the effort to truly consider being a part of an international oil embargo against just us.

the reason the OPEC embargo worked was because it was against everyone and was the first salvo of the cartel to remind major 1st world nations not to play with them. but neo-colonialism went immediately to work against such possibilities from the inception of the colonial liberation movements and worked on Nigeria, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, etc. yeah, we got blowback from that, but we also got plenty of good years, even decades, of cheap oil out of it.

it's evil, but that's how intl. politics is most of the time. you either beat down your "enemy," or make them your "friend" while you reach for a bigger stick. and since the USA has the biggest, or one of the biggest, sticks in many national factors the only sane conclusion is yes, we are still a superpower.

... now who are the elite who truly control our nation is another question entirely. as is whether or not our spheres of influence are growing or shrinking. but we have most definitely not dropped into a lower "world level" as it were.

[ConcernedCanuk]

22. "Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela would collapse in mere days" ??? How could one even think that?

.
.
.

With China's thirst for energy, it is questionable if we would be hurt at all in the long run. And there are other countries than the USA that could use this oil, albeit not at the present price.

And even after 5 years of the USA dropping bombs on a defenseless country, Iraq hasn't collapsed yet. Canada is not defenseless.

I think that the USA's forays in Afghanistan and Iraq have exposed a weakness to the World.

USA can destroy stuff, and wipe out many people;

but they can't "occupy" worth a shit.

The more the World sees the USA flounder in the ME.

The more the USA loses "power" around the globe.

Those are my Canuk thoughts

[NuttyFluffers]

29. occupation is not necessary, the mere threat is.

go read up on the military stats of the various nations versus the USA. we have the largest aircraft carrier fleet, with 11 (IIRC); the next largest aircraft carrier fleet is held by France -- at 1.

Iraq has fallen, it doesn't have a functioning gov't or a functioning military -- the two prime factors determining resistance on the international scene. what it also has is internecine strife and a functional insurgency -- that's what is stopping 'full open and public exploitation and occupation' by america. even so this war result has habitually pumped out oil, even if at a trickle, to us; and currently we've reached the "milestone" where we've reached pre-Saddam levels of oil production. and all that oil is being given to oil companies on the free, if not dirt cheap, so even our "failed occupation" (you have to remember, in some evil viewpoints this is not really failure) is producing enough oil rewards to make certain groups VERY VERY HAPPY. you, and me, are not one of these groups -- but we also probably don't matter to the Great Game, either.

like i said before we can easily make our neighborly oil suppliers collapse. it's not even a question. it's also completely unethical, but after a while ethics ends up being kicked aside in the international arena.

and, did you ever really stop to think that leaving China 'very thirsty' is exactly what many in this USA Oil Cartel want? we still have relatively cheap oil in america; more expensive than it used to be, but still the cheapest oil of the 1st world nations. China is currently very thirsty; it's actually affecting their political growth strategy significantly. it really is not by accident. Venezuela and others might make for an interesting game if they sell to China, but the sheer fact that they have to maneuver and strategize around the gaze of the USA should easily answer the question of whether the USA is still a superpower.

we still have a frightful level of sphere of influence, in just about every single national sector that matters. the notion that we are no longer a superpower is spurious wishful thinking. we may have lost great face in the diplomatic arena, but the sheer fact that other nations are scrambling to build new alliances and coalitions in response to our current 7 year insanity -- unlike ones that were already finalized during the heights of colonialism or Cold War -- should be a major tip off that we are still a big elephant (read: superpower) in the room.

[Juche]

19. In some ways

We have the biggest military on earth, but we can't conquer a 3rd world nation that was under international sanctions for 12 years. We couldn't conquer vietnam either and the USSR couldn't conquer Afghanistan. So military might is overrated when you factor in guerilla warfare.

Economically we are in debt to China by a trillion or more. And our economy is floundering.

We are a quasi-superpower. Right now Venezuela is organizing banks in latin america to counteract the influence of US led banks like the IMF or world Bank. Other countries are growing in science.

In 20 years no we won't be a superpower anymore. By then the EU and China will be superpowers just as strong if not stronger.

[Kip Humphrey]

20. More a STUPIDPOWER than a SUPERPOWER!

[drmeow]

21. It depends on what makes a country a superpower

The USSR was a superpower - what made them a superpower? Is China becoming a superpower? If yes, what makes them so?

What is a superpower/what defines influence? - Is it military might? economic might? other countries being afraid of you? being a bully? gobbling up the world's resources? having a military presence that circles the globe? arrogance and hubris? being an empire? trying and largely succeeding in forcing one agenda (for good or bad) to be the top priority worldwide? being the world's biggest arms dealer? forcing conformity to one economic system/ideology? forcing conformity to one governmental system/ideology?

I think we still have a tremendous amount of influence although people are less likely to go along willingly and more likely to go along out of fear or need. As long as we have as much of a military presence around the globe as we currently have, and as many nukes as we still have, and enough economies are dependent on us, we remain a superpower - albeit no longer a benevolent one (not that we ever really were a benevolent superpower). We may not still be the only superpower (and if we are still the only one, its not going to be for long) and I think that if the US economy truly experiences a major depression, we will probably lose our superpower status since we have systematically destroyed our ability to be independent.

I think not being dependent on the rest of the world is a big part of what makes a superpower - able to produce your own food, goods, and services. We act as though we are not dependent on the rest of the world but that's not true anymore. For the time being enough countries are still dependent on us for us to remain a superpower - especially since other countries are afraid of us. Once that balance shifts we will no longer be a superpower.

[robcon]

25. The U.S. is the only superpower.

Technology. Economy. Military.

[DFW]

26. The nest line I heard recently was in a Denzel Washington film

"Inside Man"

the line was "Respect is the ultimate currency"

Remember when Bush thought, in 2004, that he had a lot of political capital to spend?

What he squandered was our country's respect. At the end of Bill Clinton's presidency,
Europeans would come up to me (if they knew where I was from) and ask, only half jokingly,
you can't elect Bill Clinton for a third term? Can we have him when you're done?

We may still have a lot of clout, but without respect behind it, it becomes the kind of
clout wielded by waning powers: feared as a danger, not respected as an ally and protector.
Dangers are avoided and nullified as soon as those threatened can do so. Allies and
protectors are revered and appreciated.

We are still a "power." What the Cheneybush years did to us was to transform the nature
of our power--political, military and economic--from a power other nations sought as a friend
into one thought of as a threat. The next president will have a lot of damage control to
undertake if we are to regain the status of a "superpower," if, indeed, that can be done.
Superpowers are not always benevolent or efficient (Soviet Union), and they can creep up
and gain that status without playing by our rules (China in ten-fifteen years). Our time
as the dominant military, economic and cultural center of the world may not be over, but
it is drawing to a close, barring a miracle. My pessimistic view is that no miracle is left
out there that can completely undo the damage done by Cheneybush. I would love to be proved
wrong.

As a footnote--if somehow the next president is named McCain, I'd start taking courses in
Mandarin. Ni Hao maa?