Is America the Greatest Superpower in History?

[Hippolord]

I have a feeling that will simply be another anti-america thread.

I Voted yes, half to piss off the anti-americans and half because there are few countries which have ever come so close to taking over the world. (Yes Britain is one of them)

[Old_Scratch]

Also, technically, there have only been 3 superpowers in history. The USSR, the British Empire, and the USA.

[Randarkmaan]

When will people see this? Rome was not a super power, though it was certainly a great power, and one of the most significant throughout history to boot. What people fail to realize is that the notion of a "super power" is a modern phenomenon, one which entails global power (economic, military, cultural and political) and the ability to project it on a global scale. This by itself has only been possible in modern times because of the increased global communication and trade (econmic and cultural globalization) that has taken place from the late 19th century because of technological advances in communications and transportation.

[Sevasti]

I'm talking about actual power, not British thinking that they still matter because at one point they governed over thirteen colonies in North America.

Well I wasn't talking about British influence in particular either, I was thinking in bigger perspectives.

I argue from the basis that the might of superpowers should take their influence in consideration since that is a part of power. If you don't acknowledge that I can accept it but then, discussing which superpower was the greatest in history seems kind of pointless since new technology trumps old.

[MaximiIian]

Well is it? America could basically steamroll 90+% of all countries in the world in a conventional war. It's ability to project force anywhere in the globe in unheard of. Huge influence economically. Military bases worldwide in foreign independent nations.

In history? Nah, I'd peg that as Britain.
But the US is a close second, though. And currently the only superpower.

[War lord]

A war in which nukes are involved cannot be won by either side, it can only be lost by humanity.

Actuly the side with the most nukes wins.

But the US is a close second, though. And currently the only superpower.

Well in a land war China would win by sheer force of numbers.

[Poach]

Simply due to the suffix "in history" I voted no. Obviously if we built a time machine and sent the US Armed Forces back to fight the USSR or the British Empire at their height they'd steamroll the two of them even combined, but that takes things horribly out of context.

Actuly the side with the most nukes wins.

No. If I have enough nukes to decimate every square inch of your country it doesn't really matter if you have enough to decimate mine 50 times over, does it?

[MaximiIian]

Actuly the side with the most nukes wins.

Only if they know where they all are.

Well in a land war China would win by sheer force of numbers.

Not necessarily. Strategy does not work like that.

[Edward lV]

Im getting the impression here some people think America finished off the British empire to take the front stage. No.
If anyone it was the Nazis who ruined the empire. We sacrficed the Empire to stop them Nazis taking over Europe, surly that is great in its own right? Infact, it happened twice. WW1 weakened the Empire and WW2 crushed it. The suez was the final blow to british imperialism.

[Stavroforos]

Im getting the impression here some people think America finished off the British empire to take the front stage. No.
If anyone it was the Nazis who ruined the empire. We sacrficed the Empire to stop them Nazis taking over Europe, surly that is great in its own right? Infact, it happened twice. WW1 weakened the Empire and WW2 crushed it. The suez was the final blow to british imperialism.

So you gave up India to stop Hitler's zombie corpse?

[War lord]

Im getting the impression here some people think America finished off the British empire to take the front stage. No.
If anyone it was the Nazis who ruined the empire. We sacrficed the Empire to stop them Nazis taking over Europe, surly that is great in its own right? Infact, it happened twice. WW1 weakened the Empire and WW2 crushed it. The suez was the final blow to british imperialism.

Bullcrap the Empire fell apart because of rebelion broght on by expliting the natives.

[Markas]

Bullcrap the Empire fell apart because of rebelion broght on by expliting the natives.

Rubbish. Prove it. The Empire collapsed because we were given huge loans and bankrupt after the second world war fighting two evil empires.

[Randarkmaan]

Well in a land war China would win by sheer force of numbers.

Well, strictly speaking you can't have anything as a pure land war anymore. And theoretically the US economy and arms industry could be capable of effectively arming a greater number of combatants than China could, so theoretically the US could win by sheer weight of numbers. If they chose to.

[MaximiIian]

Im getting the impression here some people think America finished off the British empire to take the front stage. No.
If anyone it was the Nazis who ruined the empire. We sacrficed the Empire to stop them Nazis taking over Europe, surly that is great in its own right? Infact, it happened twice. WW1 weakened the Empire and WW2 crushed it. The suez was the final blow to british imperialism.

Well that's part of it. It's more the Empire becoming generally expensive to maintain, so they let it go gradually over the course of 20 years. You are right, though, that the Suez Crisis was a big blow to British self-directed foreign policy in the Cold War period.

[Town Watch]

I'm talking about actual power, not British thinking that they still matter because at one point they governed over thirteen colonies in North America.

well, you could google this or something, but measured in total area, the British Empire was the largest empire ever in human history. Population was also pretty huge for the time. And the British Empire at its largest was was in 1922 I guess.

Also despite the fact that the Roman Empire was "smallish" in total area, quite a big portion of the world's population at that time were in fact Roman subjects. In wiki there's a figure of 35.3% of world population in 2nd century AD as Roman subjects. Spanish Empire and various forms of Russia including under the Mongol rule are also very strong contenders.

So I guess this isn't as clear cut as we thought it would

Furthermore, it doesn't always matter who's got the most nukes, Soviet Union did have more nukes than USA at times during the Cold War. What matters is method of carrying those nukes to their targets. Soviet ICBM technology for the most part was quite inferior to US missiles. Also miniaturization (smaller warheads with still enough punch, also multiple warheads per missile) and computing tended to be better on the American side.

[War lord]

Well that's part of it. It's more the Empire becoming generally expensive to maintain, so they let it go gradually over the course of 20 years. You are right, though, that the Suez Crisis was a big blow to British self-directed foreign policy in the Cold War period.

The huge distence between the parts of the empire didn't help hold things together ether.

[Mithradates]

Rome was the greatest.

[Horsa]

Only an American would say yes to this poll...

Here is a good list of nations that were far more powerful than you in history:
Persian Empire
Alexanders Empire
Roman Empire
Huns
Mongolia
British Empire
And many, many more in our future...

EDIT: And don't forget the Papal States who pretty much controlled almost all of the European nations to do what ever they wanted.

[War lord]

Rome was the greatest.

Back up please.

[Stavroforos]

Only an American would say yes to this poll...

Here is a good list of nations that were far more powerful than you in history:
Persian Empire
Alexanders Empire
Roman Empire
Huns
Mongolia
British Empire
And many, many more in our future...

lol. The Huns were more powerful than the US? Okay.