Is America the Greatest Superpower in History?

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

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.

Oh and if you picked the 3rd option, list who is.

[Edward lV]

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.

Im thinking same as 19th century Britain?

[Boyar Son]

Im thinking same as 19th century Britain?

oooohhhh LMFAO. no WAY was britain that powerful. steamroll right? few weeks of campaigning and wars over? not then, not now.

[Edward lV]

oooohhhh LMFAO. no WAY was britain that powerful. steamroll right? few weeks of campaigning and wars over? not then, not now.

Same could be said for america. How long have we been in Afgahnistan now? 6 years?
The shortest ever war was fought by the empire, and dont you forget it.

[Caelius]

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.

It's economy constituted nearly 70% of the global GDP, it had an overwhelming military advantage through sheer weight of numbers, training, equipment, and organization, and most importantly was the only nation which at that point possessed the most powerful weapons systems (A-Bombs).

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.

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

Its doubtful that such a brief snapshot of time where international power is so heavily concentrated will ever occur again either.

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.

[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.

[Major.Stupidity]

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.

It's economy constituted nearly 70% of the global GDP, it had an overwhelming military advantage through sheer weight of numbers, training, equipment, and organization, and most importantly was the only nation which at that point possessed the most powerful weapons systems (A-Bombs).

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.

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

Its doubtful that such a brief snapshot of time where international power is so heavily concentrated will ever occur again either.

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.

Erm, you do realize that the army was quickly demobilized following the end of WW2, and its ranks drastically thinned, that and its initial performance in the Korean War pretty much makes your premise impossible, right?

[DimondLight]

Same could be said for america. How long have we been in Afgahnistan now? 6 years?

Irrelevant.

The shortest ever war was fought by the empire, and dont you forget it.

Not that it was even a war, or even an impressive battle.

[Machiavelli25]

This discussion still going on? Please. America is far too constricted by its own people and businesses to be considered greater than Rome, Britain/commonwealth, Mongol empire.

[Boyar Son]

Same could be said for america. How long have we been in Afgahnistan now? 6 years?
The shortest ever war was fought by the empire, and dont you forget it.

how long did it take for Iraq to fall, both times?


thought so.

wake up people, its not like europe is gonna admit USA#1. they´d rather join together in a confederation of countries and be cooperative then do that. (acknowledging still that its because USA holds so much power over them individually).

[Draksen]

Im thinking same as 19th century Britain?

Im thinking same as 18th century France

[Edward lV]

Im thinking same as 18th century France

Lol... no.

[Markas]

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.

Key word is conventional war, which requires going up against armies with conventional weapons. As all the most powerful nations have nukes, it somwhat would rely upon them to 'play fair'. As for the poll I voted no as it is far too soon to tell. Sans nukes then I would vote yes.

[Salem1]

Key word is conventional war, which requires going up against armies with conventional weapons. As all the most powerful nations have nukes, it somwhat would rely upon them to 'play fair'. As for the poll I voted no as it is far too soon to tell. Sans nukes then I would vote yes.

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

[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.

[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.

[DAVIDE]

voted No. It's the greatest of modern times for sure.. but in the whole history i've seen something better

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

voted No. It's the greatest of modern times for sure.. but in the whole history i've seen something better

list please

[Barry Goldwater]

Today? Yes.

In history? No. Britain topped us

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

In history? No. Britain topped us

i don't think so. america certainly found a way to gain independence forcibly from britain. what country ever gained their independence forcibly from america.

however, i'm not sure that they would be able to sustain territory for long in an all out guerilla war which is why i didn't say yes to the poll. i am impressed that they were able to steamroll iraq in the gulf war though.