Is America the Greatest Superpower in History?

[Batavian]

Yes.

If only for the simple fact that following the immediate end of WWII the United States was probably the only nation in human history that literally could have conquered the rest of the world if it so wished.

No other Nation-State or Empire in all of human history has ever had the kind of domineering position of authority that the United States enjoyed at the end of 1945.

Caelius nailed it. No other country can claim this. Therefore, the US has been the greatest superpower in history.

[Comrade the Colonel]

Rome was in its world, Europe and arabia, a much stronger empire than USA. Globably, I woudl say Britain was more influent than USA is today at its peak.

how do you figure that?

[Boyar Son]

Rome was in its world, Europe and arabia, a much stronger empire than USA. Globably, I woudl say Britain was more influent than USA is today at its peak.

the globe copied ´western´not british. meanwhile i could go anywhere on the inhabited planet and find much that had something to do with american culture.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

what is up with the fast food empire anyways. i had no idea people enjoyed mcdonalds that much

[bushbush]

what is up with the fast food empire anyways. i had no idea people enjoyed mcdonalds that much

same wut's up with all the chinese resturants all over the world?

it's just ppl love trying different things in my view.

[Comrade the Colonel]

what is up with the fast food empire anyways. i had no idea people enjoyed mcdonalds that much

dollar menu?

[Emilio Aguinaldo]

U.S now, China later, Surplus of American slaves shortly after....

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

dollar menu?

i don't think they have that internationally. this is what the menu is like in indonesia.

McDonald's sells fried chicken, which is by far more popular than the hamburgers. McRice is also offered, a small mound of steamed, plain rice. McSoup is a chicken flavored soup with bits of reconstituted croutons and vegetables. A bun containing a beef patty covered with satay sauce (spicy ground peanut sauce) is sold as Mc Sate. At one point, McDonald's also began offering a "McSpaghetti" to their menus.

mcdonalds there is like kfc. ive eaten at one before. the chicken even tastes the same, but i think the big mac is more well made there than in america.

EDIT: ok now i see why they could expand to so many countries... i knew foreigners wouldn't become addicted to american fast food.

Japanese Menu:

Regular Menu Items

• Teriyaki McBurger - Ground pork sandwich with mayonnaise, lettuce, and teriyaki sauce.
• Ebi-Chiki Set - 2 shrimp nuggets and 3 chicken nuggets.
• Ebi Filet-O - Shrimp burger with special sauce and lettuce.
• Shaka Shaka Chicken: Fried chicken patty served in a paper pouch. Comes with seasonings that is shaken in the bag.
• French Fries can be purchased in barbecue, seaweed, and Italian basil flavors.

Seasonal Menu Items

• Chicken Katsu Burger - Breaded chicken sandwich flavored with soy sauce and ginger.
• Gratin Korokke Burger - Sandwich with Korokke (breaded mashed potatoes) filled with Gratin, shrimp and macaroni, shredded cabbage, and katsu sauce. Served during winter. Served with or without cheese.
• Green Tea-flavored milkshakes
• Salsa Burger - Breaded chicken sandwich with salsa.
• Tamago Double Mac - Hamburger with 3 beef patties, pepper sauce, bacon, and a poached egg. Served with or without cheese.
• Teri Tama Burger - Teriyaki McBurger with egg, served during spring.
• Tsukimi Burger (lit. moon-viewing burger) Hamburger with 1 beef patty, mayonnaise-ketchup mixed sauce, bacon and a poached egg, served before and during Tsukimi season. The egg represents the moon. Served with or without cheese.
• Ume Nuggets - Chicken McNuggets with sour ume (Eng: plum) sauce for dipping.

They're very good at marketing making food that's appealing to foreign markets.

[redxavier]

says who? We haven't been fighting a war since 2003, we have been "nation building"/ occupation duty dealing with insurgencies. Besides we can fight on many fronts at the same time, when you control the air and the sea, you can stop enemy movements. Russia and china might seem like big bad threats, but their airforces and navies are a joke and not up to snuff.
...
You can cry about the wars in iraq and afghanistan all you want, but the US does not have to fight an insurgency war if it does not want to.

This is precisely what I'm getting at. To excerise power and influence over a region you need boots on the ground, you need to control keypoints and you need to constantly resupply your men, equipment and, especially in the modern era, the machinery. Simply bombing cities or smashing armies to bits achieves nothing except destroy the ability of the enemy to fight back along similar lines. Resistance will still come to intervention/influence, as can be seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, the wars that you deny and then admit. How can you excersise power over a people from 25000 in the air with your finger on a button?

And no, the costs associated with keeping America's 21st century military at war prevent the US from engaging on multiple fronts.

[Augustus Lucifer]

It really depends on what we're talking about here. Purely military force projection and global dominance, or are we seeking to incorporate societal, political, cultural, economical, et al into the mix. In terms of military strength, you then have to consider whether we're considering it respective to countries of a related era, or are we comparing the power of 'superpowers' across time.

If we're talking about power in a given era of unspecified length, then the Mongol Empire during the reign of Kubilai Khan was the world's greatest time respective superpower. If we're talking about force projection and longevity then the Roman Empire from Augustinian times to its fragmentation is the clear victor. If we're talking about force projection, expansionist policies, and scope then the British Empire after the defeat of Napoleon is the clear victor in that it arguably occupied the greatest land and sea empire which it was able to defend for some time. If we're talking about status as a 'superpower' and longevity than the Chinese Empire from Late Han to Late Tang and subsequently during the Ming and Qing is without a doubt the greatest superpower(and in fact China during the Late Tang to the fall of the Song would win out in many respects).

So where does America come in? It is the first superpower to be able to truly lay claim to having global force projection. This is of course due in part to technological advancement, but in the information age technological advancement is spread rapidly, yet the United States Navy remains the greatest military corps in the modern world. American troops can be shipped to all corners of the globe, provisioned from tactical bases located in countless countries, and supplied with state of the art technology to persecute wars at home and abroad. When you factor out the inherent edge modern powers have over those of a bygone era, then I'd say without a doubt that America is the greatest superpower in history so far.

But can we in the pursuit of historical acumen afford to factor out such pivotal notions as technological advancement and respective power? Probably not. Whatever way you approach the issue though you will always have to make concessions or caveats to justify your assessment of who the "greatest of all time" is. That's why academia doesn't generally concern itself with such broad and impossible questions. Suffice it to say that for their times, all of the aforementioned empires could lay claim to the title of greatest, and that is about all we can conclude from a question of this nature.

[Pious Agnost]

Caelius nailed it. No other country can claim this. Therefore, the US has been the greatest superpower in history.

Erm... He seems to have blatantly (Conveniently?) forgotten the Soviet Union when he wrote that

[Draksen]

Im thinking same as 19th century Britain?

Im thinking same as 18th century France

[DAVIDE]

It's not about discounting or belittling older empires because of their limited technological level compared to the present. It's just stating the fact that due to technological advances that exist today and did not exist 2000 years ago, the phenomenon known as the "superpower" did exist. In fact not until very recently. You should gauge Rome by what it was in its own time. Not as something that only exists in our time, nor against powerful countries today, who's power may also rest on different foundations.

The fact modern Mongolia has technology to reach Saturn, dont place Mongolia into the "superpowered nations" status

I hope you understand what I mean. What I'm trying to say is that the definition of superpower requires certain technological advances to have been made for it to be possible to apply to a country. That's it. Why is it any insult or underestimation of the power of Rome to deny their status as superpower? In their time, there were no, NONE, ZERO, superpowers in the world and they wouldn't appear before over 1500 years. Taking "superpower" into a historical evaluation of Roman power is completely irrelevant (I won't repeat why). And in fact is mostly only done in sensationalist History Channel documentaries and other popular history-articles and documentaries.

technology's not a relevant factor, to consider a nation as "superpower", because i can make you the example of Japan or Germany etc

When empires have influence and control over different planets, this will also be because of technology and because of the lack of this techonlogy in previous centuries, old empires will not be deemed to have been such "powers" (whatever they may choose to call it).

I dont see the american "influence" on "afghani or iraqi people". French rejected all the american bases in 1950. Where's the US influence in there? trust me, american influence towards other countries is something extremely "fickle", as the dust in my closet

didn't we have a thread awhile ago on this and the DNA test showed they aren't. I think they are testing if they are related to europeans.

Modern europeans has nothing in common with ancient europens (pre and classical era).

as u can see here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...72#post5522772

wait, all the troubles against the Persians? the barbarians? These enemies along were already pushing the romans to the limits, let along sending more troops to conquer China and India...really impossible task, until the modern age, with the emergence of TRULY global empires like Britain and today the USA.

Ctesiphon has been captured 14980 times by Roman. And Persian cataphracts did scare Romans just on Carrhae. About european barbarians, Galli has been conquered, Iberi, Britanni, Daci etc too.. must be clear, i m talking about WRE not ERE

Please stop arguing that Rome was a superpower close to, equal to, or better then the United States because of your Romaphillia and your strong distaste for anything American. It is clear by the very definition of the word "Superpower" that the only two contenders can be the Soviet Union or the U.S, and it's clear which is the stronger power. I can't believe more people said no, then yes...when the answer is obviously clear. Oh well, Europeans hate Americans, what can you do?

America's so superpower, they couldnt beat 3rd Reich in 1vs1, without the USSR intervention. Us just marched on Wehrmacht ruins. So just basing on this (1944 definition of S.Power), USSR should be more "superpowered" than USA, considering USSR won the ww2. Dont u think?

[Chukada1]

America's so superpower, they couldnt beat 3rd Reich in 1vs1, without the USSR intervention. Us just marched on Wehrmacht ruins. So just basing on this (1944 definition of S.Power), USSR should be more "superpowered" than USA, considering USSR won the ww2. Dont u think?

USSR did not have any decent blue water capabilities, so no. I don't think they're better,

[Randarkmaan]

The fact modern Mongolia has technology to reach Saturn, dont place Mongolia into the "superpowered nations" status

Don't think Mongolia has that technology. You also need the power to use that technology.

technology's not a relevant factor, to consider a nation as "superpower", because i can make you the example of Japan or Germany etc

It is. I've already explained this a ton of times. Japan and Germany are at the same (or higher) technological standing, but they are simply not as powerful as the US. Superpowers are supposed to be capable of global force projection and have economic power and influence as well as cultural and/or political influence around the world. Not possible without the modern technology linking the world together. That is not to say that every country in possession of such technology is a superpower. It's just that such technoogy is necessary for the strongest powers to be counted as superpowers.

I dont see the american "influence" on "afghani or iraqi people". French rejected all the american bases in 1950. Where's the US influence in there? trust me, american influence towards other countries is something extremely "fickle", as the dust in my closet

American soldiers occupy Iraq and Afghanistan and the regimes there are basically American puppets. There are McDonald's restaurants in France, French people listen to American music and watch American movies.

America's so superpower, they couldnt beat 3rd Reich in 1vs1, without the USSR intervention. Us just marched on Wehrmacht ruins. So just basing on this (1944 definition of S.Power), USSR should be more "superpowered" than USA, considering USSR won the ww2. Dont u think?

Why would they try to beat the nazis 1 on 1? America joined the war later when it was attacked by the Axis powers (Japan, leading to German declaration of war) logically it joined with the countries already at war with the axis powers. USSR is the other superpower, yes. the British Empire from around the middle of the 19th century to the end of WWII is possibly the third. That's all the superpowers throughout history.

You may whine as much as you want but it will never make the Roman Empire a superpower. It's pointless arguing with you since you simply do not understand. And you're an ignorant biased Roman fanboy.

[DAVIDE]

Don't think Mongolia has that technology. You also need the power to use that technology.

meh if they have it, u classify them as superpower for tech reasons. And is the "power" term you are using, related to total amount of soldiers/vehicles someone got? North Korea can enter into this group imho

It is. I've already explained this a ton of times. Japan and Germany are at the same (or higher) technological standing, but they are simply not as powerful as the US. Superpowers are supposed to be capable of global force projection and have economic power and influence as well as cultural and/or political influence around the world. Not possible without the modern technology linking the world together. That is not to say that every country in possession of such technology is a superpower. It's just that such technoogy is necessary for the strongest powers to be counted as superpowers.

I dont see this huge difference, between US and a country as Germany. If Germany starts to spend as much as u spend in military purposes, the gap become 0. the "military" superiority of america you're claiming here, it's simply the amount of money do they spend for. Sincerely, specifically talking, i dont believe Abrams tanks serie's superior to Leonard2 one (just to cite one)

American soldiers occupy Iraq and Afghanistan and the regimes there are basically American puppets. There are McDonald's restaurants in France, French people listen to American music and watch American movies.

There are french restaurants in America/everywhere too. France exports music and movies too. So where's the deal? is France a superpower too?

Why would they try to beat the nazis 1 on 1? America joined the war later when it was attacked by the Axis powers (Japan, leading to German declaration of war) logically it joined with the countries already at war with the axis powers. USSR is the other superpower, yes. the British Empire from around the middle of the 19th century to the end of WWII is possibly the third. That's all the superpowers throughout history

USSR was in a worst military/geopolitical situation than USA before America's entrance in war. And USSR beated alone 3rd Reich. NAturally USSR in 1939/40/41 wasnt yet a superpower. First time america faced axis' army in Ww2 (in africa), US has been totally annihilated by Wehrmacht in there

You may whine as much as you want but it will never make the Roman Empire a superpower. It's pointless arguing with you since you simply do not understand. And you're an ignorant biased Roman fanboy.

. you are forgettin America's using tons of ancient roman know-hows actually.. starting from institutions

[Edward lV]

Im thinking same as 18th century France

Lol... no.

[Mithradates]

then it didn't dominate the world. You can't just use excuse like "waste of resources" lmao. the Roman known world was like what, 35% of world population? That's not even majority of the world and the rest were collustered around China and India, which headed two other worlds just as big and civilized, if not bigger and more civilized. If Roman cna't even REACH those areas, how could it be called a GLOBAL superpower?

Okay, I surrender!
Your "global" card as a prerequisite to consider something as a REAL superpower is unbeatable.

Still I think asking for "history" and in the same time excluding 95% of it because of semantics is just...

[Gumpfendorfer]

Yes.

If only for the simple fact that following the immediate end of WWII the United States was probably the only nation in human history that literally could have conquered the rest of the world if it so wished.

What could have stopped the United States from proceeding with conquest on a global scale if it had so chosen?

A little boys fantasy. There is the simple fact that the USA did not have the resources, nor manpower to conquer and occupy the entire planet. In that time period they were even unable to stop Mao from taking over China. Aircraft carriers those days were of little use in Eastern Siberia or deep down in Congo to name two places. And they still aren't.

Nuking half the planet is not really conquering is it, annihilating is the correct term.

Empires tend to crumble under the weight of being an empire which makes these types of threads kind of silly. Yup, its the superpower, but so what, it's powers are nonetheless limited. Like all the other empires in history.

What did the US do instead? It rebuilt the international order with a power bloc that gravitated around it through organizations like GATT (later the WTO), the UN, and others that still remain in place today.

It did so out of their own interest, not out of idealism. Nothing wrong with the end result though. Without those institutions the mess would be a lot bigger.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

how did america project power to afghanistan anyways? did they just march from pakistan into afghanistan? where did the navy come in?