America has about 50% left of its nuclear stockpile - Russia has considerably more, but that's only speculation, because of those that remain, an unknown number has deteriorated beyond use. Furthermore, although the United States does have the capacity to wipe out the world as you say, it doesn't have the liberty or the freedom to do so. Elimination of the world, or in fact, larger portions of it, or in fact even SMALL portions of it would economically damage the United States beyond repair. For this, I quote Amy F. Woolf's U.S. Nuclear Weapons: Changes in Policy and Force Structure. She goes into great detail, but I'd suggest reading up on the Targeting subsection.

---

@SpacePony: Dictionary defintions are all well and truly great, but real-life implications always seem to interced in splitting the world into simple definitions.



Correct to an extent. You had the largest industrial base, and it is still impressively large. Yet, that does not make the United States self-sufficient by any means. Marshall Plan was instituted so the United States could have trading partners. The prospect of the US and a communist Europe was something that the United States leadership could not afford to face. Furthermore, if the United States indeed has such a strong economy as you said, if indeed it is the most powerful nation in the world (economically) - then why does it import more than it exports? Why do European products get placed on the US market, but not vice versa? Look at some of the agreements between the two nations to understand that trade is very much one sided. Read Apres L 'Empire by Emmanuell Todd - he highlights a few points, such as the American reliance on foreign investment - in fact, over 865 billion dollars are poured into the US every single year in order to fuel its continued survival. Compare this to other ancient superpowers, such as Rome - where wealth flowed from the centre of the empire outwards. The trend only shifted when the Rome began its slow decline and the Byzantine Empire began its ascent. (Niall Ferguson, Colossus: The Price of America's Empire) You could argue here that US then was large, and is merely in its decline. The only problem with such a line of thought would be that the US had always been a great importer of things - that is in fact, how your economy is sustained. America is cheap because its good are produced overseas. Now imagine say shift from import to internally-made goods - a 20% increase in all living costs (quite feasible given the current price differences between American goods in Europe and American goods in America). To those of you who cant imagine what this means - most economists tend to panic when we talk about annual increase in living costs (that's not net increase we're talking about - so offset for inflation) of more than say 7%.



I'm not denying that the US has had the capacity and the capability to influence international events - but while it has influenced others, it has also been influenced. China's strength made it rethink its Asian commitments in the 1960/70s. Russian encroachment on Europe in the early 2000 also made it rethink its obligations to Russia, resulting in the semi-famous Delong Telegram. Even small countries - Iran , North Korea, ilicit responses from the United States.

If the US were truly a superpower, it would not have the need to react to such circumstances, it would merely shrug them off. The problem is that although Korea and Iran are not a direct threat to the United States, they are direct threat to US strategic allies in respective regions, and hence the US has an obligation to assist those nations. True superpowers dont need friends in the long run - British Empire, Roman Empire.

The US needs the rest of the world to survive at this point - its policies towards the rest of the world are outdated, Cold-War typecast - of villians and heroes. The Bush Doctrine set out three main principles: unilateralism, spread of democracy, and pre-emption. My question is - what on Earth is there to pre-empt? How can you pre-empt a terroist move? The answer is that there is in fact nothing to pre-empt. The 9/11 attacks were horrible and completely unjustified - but that's what terrorist are good at. The broader picture is however that absolutely nothing fundamental changed in the world composition. 9/11 was a terrorist attack of a larger magnitude than has been seen before - but it still follows a pattern that was evident before. Terrorist have always attacked the United States, and always will - but this recent War on Terror is nothing more than an attempt by the United States to place itself at the forefront of international relations, because of its increasing decline of importance. The point is - during the Cold War, the US balanced out the USSR - that was its glorious point of international relations. Cold War ends, and the US is left without a clear role in the world. The truth of the matter is that in USSR's place arose a vast number of smaller powerful states - basically the rest of the world. The US cannot possibly fight the rest of the world for supremacy - not only because it cannot win, but because it cannot identify a single enemy. Hence the War on Terror. Perpetuated by media in particular, it seeks to highlight the importance of security issues, and tries to place the United States as the global leader in this fight. As excuses go, its fairly good - the War on Terror will never end, because no one can even tell you when it began - hence it keeps the US in an inflated position as a global leader.

The end of it all: The US isn't a superpower, nor it really ever was - it does not act with the same impudence and true freedom that characterized such superpowers as the history of this world has seen.

---

Now just to clarify - a lot of thought has gone into this writing, because in fact, this is a part of my doctoral thesis. This has been bashed left and right by academics in two nations, one of which is in fact the United States. Although I am nominally biased in my point of view, I do seek to see other's point of view as well. This post wasn't meant to be inflamattory in any way, and please don't take it as such - it's just meant to prod at something that most people would dismiss.

I leave you with a last cute quote by Emmanuell Todd:

"A nation that seeks to become the leader of the world cannot count on free reign and power - in fact, it is more likely to be influenced than to influence others. The reason for this is simple - any nation that leads the world NEEDS the world to understand that it is leading."

well i just stopped reading after the first 3 pages. if anything causes the USA to fall apart it will be the moral decline of our culture. have you considered how the world would react to an isolationist america?

some debate points so far...

oil: an isolationist america would spend money on its home grown technologies building renewable infrastructure within a decade. oil fields that have been dormant for 50 years would be rekindled and used to supply the population until the new techs reach mass market. military systems will begin R&D into renewable and high effeciency systems and roll out new assets within 15yrs. meanwhile the rest of the world focuses on who is going to use who's oil.

technology: again we would look interally again to fill jobs, research, and refine advancements that have been outsourced. our vast numbers of highly edumacated people will force social advancement.

imigration: an isolationist USA would close its borders to imagration. millions of people from all over the world will have to live in their own country. the social freebies of the US are no longer available. sorry to everyone in china, india, and central america that pay for their internet access with money sent from uncle sam.

guns: its our law. i can have a gun. as many as i want in fact. having one is a responsibility. when people are not responsible with them people get hurt. so learn to shoot. if your country doesn't allow you to have one, maybe you should consider imigrating to the USA.

space: isolationist americans wouldnt dare allow other nations access to our space assets. so you will have to go to russia for any heavy lifting. good luck.

finance: the emerging markets that are gaining strength using EUROs will evaporate when americans switch investments back to american soil. so long euro. only the pound will be left to help you out and just how well will that do when we close our pocket books to anything not on our soil.

i know this is extream but its obvious that only a few are seeing the big picture. the USA wont dispear because too much of the world relies on what we have. and we rely on what the world can offer so we can make more money to give back to the world. if this cycle fails then america switches back to isolationism in a way that hasnt been seen for 100yrs. people want america. if they admit it or not.

on a side note: people that even think for a second that "america deserved 9/11" are total lunitics. thousands of innocent people living their lives deserve to be murdered? those that seriously beleive that need to be institionalized because they are the ones setting up bombs for little children to find on the streets. and to all the librals and moderates, use your heads for a second. re-read 1984 and think about what is happening around you before you push canadates that want to reform our nation into a lukewarm pool of bial.

-end rant-

Because we have a lot of money and we want a lot of goods. I don't see importing/exporting as the best way to measure an economy.



I would disagree. Friendships are beneficial, and help immensely in the long run.

Basically, you're measuring our superpower status based on trade between nations and your personal opinions of the war on terror?

I suppose if you change the definition of a word. At least it gives a discussion point.

"are militray is the best in the world..."
- When you compare it to what? Throughout all of our post Cold War conflicts, we've only messed with the little guys who would obviously be defeated. However, this might be argued with our current war that you so bravely defend –are you sure we won? If so, please enlighten me, what when and how did we win? Because all I hear on the news is that more and more U.S. soldiers keep on dying and families at home just wonder “for what?” Soldiers in Iraq can’t wait to get the heck out of there, Iraquis themselves say that they can’t wait for the U.S. to leave; matter of fact, I’ve seen countless reports and interviews of Iraquis saying that they wish Saddam was back because he now seems like the lesser of two evils. This war, for me, was a complete defeat for the U.S., you say we crushed them, I beg to differ. We’ll talk again in 5-10 years when all the veterans are back home and you start hearing countless reports of families splitting, home abuse, veterans in jails, veterans homeless, veterans with mental problems, murders, suicides, deaths, and so on and so on. You’d be able to trace all that back to today… I dare you to tell me then that we truly won anything.
- Back to the topic at hand, if you are talking about our superiority in traditional warfare? Then of course I’ll agree that we do have the most powerful army, however, people don't really play by the conventional rules anymore.

"All thos countrys would lose big time if they fired nuks..."
- What do you mean by that? EVERYONE loses if ANYONE fires a nuke. To elaborate, hypothetically, let us imagine that there is a nuclear exchange between (from your list) France and Russia; do you really think that the resulting nuclear fallout and nuclear winter will respect and refrain from spreading beyond the national boundaries of the aggressors? Think about that for a second.
- This intertwines with my previous comment; no one really plays by the rules anymore and that is why it really doesn't matter that we have the "best" conventional army around. As you should know, it only takes ONE guy with a backpack, whom the Star Wars-class satellites someone else mentioned are UNABLE to shoot down, to take out the better part of a major city. Of course, the destructive capacity of such a small nuke would be "negligible" on a continental scale. However, what most people don't really take into consideration is, as I mentioned above, the horrible potential of the resulting fallout that will impact a far larger area and, in the long run, will bring about all sorts of irreparable damages to the population (you and me) who at the end are the heart and soul of a nation. Now that, sir, is the warfare of today, against which no army stands.
- This brings us full circle to my original reply, humanity needs to change and “business as usual” is dead. Imagine a group of 20 guys with nuclear backpacks, you place one in each major city and voila, you now have the power to cripple the most powerful nation in the world. The U.S. is asking for this when they continue with their xenophobia, why can’t we just embrace one another? I understand the ignorant hatred of other nations and cultures, they do not have the luxury of free access to information that we have so they, in a sense, are “innocent” because they haven’t been “enlightened” yet. However, we have, I believe it is our responsibility as citizens of the world to infect them and let the 21st century revolutionize their ideals.
- Just as we have the potential to completely wipe ourselves out of this world, we also have the potential to usher in the golden age of humanity.

"Also DuderSeb you act like we are spending all are money on the military, we spent more during the cold war..."
- Please point to where I stated that we spend ALL the money in the military. I said we spend a lot, I saw the numbers one time (too long ago to be accurate anymore) but I'm pretty certain we still put a very large chunk of our entire economical worth into the military or military-related purposes.
- By the way, the Cold War had a lot to do with the military. You say we spent more back then, well sir; that was all military spending.
- Case in point, our current deficit thanks to the war is of about a trillion dollars. Please, let your imagination run wild and allocate this money into medical research or space exploration, or heck, BOTH! Tell me if the resulting scenario in your head looks worse than were we stand today.
"I dont think alot of people would have enough money to spend on the posibilty of a cure. Sorry but life is not always fair..."
- (READ ABOVE.) To illustrate:
- This ties in directly with my aforementioned comment. Of course "people" by themselves do NOT have the economic prowess to invest in such ventures, but you know who does? The government. Imagine that we were to divert the hideous amounts of money and mental power that are placed to the military into humanitarian causes here and aboard. Now we are talking not only about the potential for cures, but the “enlightenment” I mentioned earlier.


Do some basic risk management and think outside of your self-centered box. Tell me which option looks better.

- Seb

Yes, I'm sure we overthrew the Iraqi government.



Yes, you've seen people hand-picked for their hatred of us and interviewed by the media.



. . . which is why we must do everything possible to ensure the wrong people never, ever get a chance to get nukes.



If it weren't for the war, I'm sure we'd find something else, like our health care system, to blame it on. I'm not confident other presidents would spend less than Bush: They'd just spend it on something else.



Cool, nice new hospital! Say, who is that guy with a backpack? Is that a wire? *screen turns white, movie ends*

"The end of it all: The US isn't a superpower, nor it really ever was - it does not act with the same impudence and true freedom that characterized such superpowers as the history of this world has seen."

In the sense that the US is not a super power in the traditional sense your very much correct. The idea of Empire has changed radically even during this century... no longer is it using your military to exert direct control on a nation. Instead you used a combo of military and economic power to keep less powerful countries in your sphere of influence. This allows greater control as you have many Allys who owe you a lot rather than vassal states who you have to actually directly control. The idea of traditional Superpowers or Empires died at the beginning of last century, but it just trashed around for years in the process.

The danger in the process is that as the US begins an economic decline many people who live here (not all) may not want to give up the luxuries and status we achieved by being in charge of 25% or so of the global resources at any given time. What we see in the US policy is a throw back to the Age of Empire. As we lose control of resources we seem to have every indication of wanting to try to exert direct control over those resources again using force if we need to. This would not be a huge issues if it were just France or England we are dealing with but the US military power is something else entirely. We have access to unprecedented conventional and nuclear power. We are dangerous in a way that the declining USSR was not. Even at their hight they did not have as much power and influence as we do now.

And with the US there is an additional factor that is something that has confounded my German and Chinese friends for a long time... our foreign relations are not always dictated my rational thought. Often it is dictated by idealism. There are many people in the US who believe we have things to offer other cultures that can be of benefit to them. We are after all the nation of the Enlightnment... we are the big experiment. No other nation has taken those ideas as far or as high. And we have a very difficult time understanding why any other country wouldn't want free press or a democratic system like that of the US. The truth is some of them don't. But we just continue to go on pushing no matter how reluctant another nation may be and regardless of if our ideals are even viable in that nation. I see this as our primary hope in preventing the US from lashing out too hard but I fear too many people in the USA are not paying enough attention and we will end up doing astounding damage as we slide into our decline mostly because of apathy.

Have to go to work so can't talk too much more. Maybe later.

A trade deficit is the first sign of a weak economy - when your nation begins to rely on overseas investments/goods to float itself, it's the first sign that something should be done. Remember Clinton's "Its the economy stupid"? Well... The man was right!
US goods are getting pushed over to the side by increasingly well made goods from Asian nations - fact of life. Look at such end-high-tech as processors for example - half of them are diffused in Malaysia, even if they are assembled in Germany.

The same applies for the EU - however - the EU has one distinct advantage that it has internal export/import markets - which makes a big difference to the composition of EU trade. They are more likely to trade with one another, and only engage in such international trade as is clearly seen to benefit them. Imperialistic tariff nostalgia? Most certainly!



It is extreme indeed, but not without its just cause. I do agree with you that the world needs the United States, but the opposite is also true. You seem to believe that internally the United States could survive on its own - which I am afraid to admit is a bit wrong. No nation in the world anymore can possibly hope to survive on its own - look at North Korea for example. Extremist, yes, but none the less a good show of what happens to those nations that isolate themselves from the world. It doesn't matter how clever you are, or how rich you are, or how strong you are - you cannot hope to take on the rest of the world. While you are sitting happily inside your own borders, the rest of the world would advance faster than you would - and sooner or later someone would say "Hey, look at those savages over there who don't talk to anyone... lets just take their land." Something like that happened to Iraq, anyway.



US is set to spend 698 billion dollars on its military in 2009.
Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation (CAC): US Defense Spending 2001-2009

Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation (CAC): US Defense Spending 2001-2009

Compare this to the second largest spender in the world - China - 58 billion
International Herald Tribune (IHT): China increases military spending



So if someone were to overthrow the United States government because of its human rights abuse in Guantanmo bay, its disregard for established international relations, and other such accusations as can be tacked onto here - would that in fact make anyone win?

No, I think focusing on the downfall of a government is the wrong way to go about it. I personally believe that only when the United States takes responsibility for re-establishing domestic security in Iraq - and only when it SUCCEEDS in doing so, then can you call it a win. At the moment, the US is like a man who got in, got laid, got the woman pregnant, and is now thinking of running away. It really is as simple as that.



Other than you and your allies of course, because you are the right people? Because your foreign policy isnt at times fueled by a crusader-like propaganda and ideology? Open your eyes my friend - the United States is ideological (thought not as corrupt) as most of the small countries hoarding nukes at the moment.



That sounds pretty good for my thesis - would you mind if I borrowed it and did some more research on it?

I just noticed they actually adjusted the graph on the Centre for Arms Control website - notice that US's spending on the Afghanistan/Iraq war is three times greater than the entire military budget of China. Just something for all of you to nibble on.

I heard the weak dollar is what really is causing the high increase in the gasoline however I just found this article:

WWW Link

I hate seeing a people starve but at least I know our gas problems aren't only because of the weak dollar.

This tends to be a tad situational: The goods that the Chinese produce we could likely produce ourselves, while the oil in the Middle East is something we're too dependent on.

I think the USA, if we really needed to, could obtain most of the resources we need without trade. It would hurt our economy pretty badly, and it's not something I'd desire, but I think it is theoretically within the realm of possibility.



We don't use the terms "import" or "export," but we still buy and sell goods, services, and raw materials inside our nation, which is essentially the same thing, except with a lot less overhead.



Well, China hasn't fought a major war in years, as far as I know, and aren't really engaged in that much military activity recently. Since they aren't really actively fighting that much, they really don't need that much spending for their military. A low state of readiness is much cheaper to maintain than a high state of readiness.



Whoever overthrew our government and replaced it with a new government would win, yes. Although a complete overthrow of the US government, including creating a new constitution, is an extremely difficult task. You'd have to wipe or contain nearly all 300 million of us.



Yes, that would be an additional win on top of what we already have. We do not have only a single objective in Iraq, and just because some objectives have been met doesn't mean all objectives have been met.



Now you're putting words into my mouth. I'm not saying that the "right" people shouldn't be working on getting rid of their own stockpiles. Yes, I would much rather people leave the "nuke club" than join.

neat topic... but sorry if somthing already mentioned this (don't have the time to read all of the posts)... in answer to this question: "Wi;; America always be a superpower."

I'd have to say yes in some qaurters and no in others. It really depends on the definition of superpower, since there are several types of superpowers... like military superpowers, economic superpowers, diplomatic superpowers, and so on... Also it would mean that since we're a superpower, however influences effect the world as a whole. Also the word "superpower" is an outdated Cold War term used to describe the nuclears powers which were the U.S. and the U.S.S.R....

So its kind of impossible in not being a superpower for some "united nations"... for instance... Europe United... it is considered a "superpower," with strong political and growing economic powers.

The U.S. is also in the same department... but we're also a Military superpower as well... commiting protectorates on cauntries in the past and today (and by the term protectorates I mean written agreements of protection... not the Roman version)... like even Japan and most of Europe. ... Its actually kinda funny... while we're spending military funds... the nations under protectorate laws, only have to invest the minimum amount on the military... thus spending more on the economy and other such infrastructures.

And although people are saying that china is becoming a superpower... I'd have to say, thanks inpart to the fact that we're living in the information age, that title of Superpower will probably not leave the U.S., until say like a hundred years later.

And even then... we will still be a major political Superpower... perhaps indefinantly... the only scenerio were it will not be true, is if this cauntry goes into anarchy, civil war, and than isolationism... (and thanks inpart to the information age, tools like the internet... this will never be the case). You can see these examples through out history... so I don't really have to go indepth on them.

Fortunatly however it may be a benefit to the U.S. to lose this title for many reasons... mainly the burden of responsibilities placed upon us since WWII. When we lose this title (which is unlikly), we will have the anonymity, necessary to gain further influence and power in the background.

and getting back to China, its already an economic superpower... as for a political superpower... it hasn't made any leeway into the world political realm, that the U.S. did in World War II and the Cold War... so it will have a long while. That is unless if thier economy becomes an intrigal part in every global nation's economy, where their say would be very influential. Thus becoming a political superpower if they want to go into this global realm.

Also we shouldn't forget about Europe, whose Euro and influence are increasly becoming stronger and stronger... more so than even China, at least politically. So thus in this department, they are already a political superpower, fast on thier way and already are an economic rival to the U.S. and China.

*whoops* posted twice... man... hate when it happens... well just to add another tid-bit

U.S. being an economic superpower... is most likly on the decline as is... but it will probably never disappear. Unfortunatly we hardly ever Export things that are on an industrial scale... even most business headquarters... that are U.S. in origin, are fleeing the cauntry as well speak... so we will probably lose as a economic superpower.
And becuase of this cauntries that we had considerable influence over, are becoming less and less dependent on us...

But its debatable if this dependency, economically wise will effect our political superpower status (you'd be niave if you say it does)... it will probably only minimally (or moderatly depending on the cauntry) effect the U.S. as a political superpower. the E.U. though may subvert political influence though...

so my answer is yes and no, on the question: "Will America always be a super power."

Pardon sir, but I fail to see the American victory in your statement. I'm sure I must have been living under a rock because I completely missed the parade where all the soldiers came back home to the arms of their loved ones as the international community applauded the U.S. for its bravery in ridding the world of evil and tyranny that was sure to bring the downfall to modern civilization.
You are not offering a proper rebuttal to my argument. As a matter of fact, you make it stronger because many analysts now agree that the U.S.' overthrowing of the Iraqi government looks more and more like a step-back than a, as you call it, "victory".



Please, do cite some credible sources to prove and validate this argument.



How about this: we must do everything possible to ensure that these "wrong people" are educated to the destructive potential of a nuke and how easy it is for that to back-fire (via fallout) on their country and loved ones, while indoctrinating them to the beautiful potential that our species has for creating a future very much comparable to what is promised in their religious texts, and assure them that said scenario is easily attainable when we all contribute and do our part in (and I hate to sound like some pseudo-hippie, but I must) "taking that step up to enlightenment" in embracing ourselves and our world.
Look throughout history, arms races and a build-up of the war machine leads only to catastrophe. However, the good thing is that we are pretty much the first generation who has the power and ability to look back and say "well the last time someone took the flock down that road only a few came back, and they were severely crippled. We shouldn't go there."



I really do not understand what you are trying to convey here. Please elaborate.



(READ THIRD ANSWER FROM THE TOP)
Additionally, according to all you have been writing, I would guess that your way of preventing this is by assaulting and overtaking any country who hints they can do this to us, correct? If that is so, it makes no sense to me. I can't help but to compare it to throwing rocks at pesky buzzing beehives in hopes that they stop buzzing. A couple of bees might find you and try to sting you to get you to stop, but since you can easily deal with a couple of bees, you'd just flick them away and continue blissfully throwing rocks. However, eventually and inevitably, you will find yourself with the whole hive coming after you -God help you then.

Yeah, thats called preantive strike. Sometimes you need to smack the child before he does something bad, just not to hard or the other parents think you are abusive.

Okay, maybe I'm wrong - but do we know anything about how the people are chosen? Do we know if these people are representative of the nation as a whole? A few people selected to present their views is a pretty small statistical sample. Without knowing anything about how they are selected, we cannot be certain whether or not they are truly reflective of the entire Iraqi nation.



Do you have a point, or do you just like to write prose?

The question is about whether we accomplished our objectives, not about whether some analysts think it was a good idea. Some objectives have been accomplished, and some haven't. You haven't addressed my rebuttal at all: How am I not addressing your argument?



Excellent. Except that I'm sure the large majority of them already know that. It's a small minority of extremists you have to convince, not just the general public.