Superpower status, is it worth it?

[The Beatles]

While I overall agree with your post, I feel I need to point out two things.

1. Nuke says that "Is superpower status worth it?" You are basically saying "We need a big army because we are a world superpower." Which avoids the point entirely. A better answer might be "The USA's superpower status is a historical/geographical legacy that cannot be avoided, and is actually worthwhile because it tends to prevent certain styles of government/imperialism."


2. Your assessment of world powers falls short of the mark in some aspects. For instance, you can hardly call Great Britain insular; and after it had stopped expanding, it chugged along just fine until shortly before the Great War, when all European powers started re-colonizing (cf. Rhodes).

There have been three great "superpowers" in the history of the world; political entities with a global might, reach and influence. These were/are the Roman Empire, the British Empire, and the United States. The first one was purely imperialistic, violently conquering for profit and gain, introducing civilization, but pillaging property and culture, and forcing its own culture on conquered areas. In many cases, this was not a bad thing, but in some, it was. Its downfall however could hardly be explained as simply as you did, or Mr. Gibbon would have been out of a job...
The second power was more of a modern state, in many ways. First of all, Britain introduced trade and prosperity to the areas in its Empire, frequently retaining only the most nominal political control, in exchange for economic control. It also lead to industrialization (as Britain was the first industrialized country) -- which ironically directly culminated in its downfall much later. There were relatively very few uprisings against British rule until the great nationalistic movements of the late XIX. and XX. centuries. In many cases, Britain also did not fight too much to retain control, realizing from America's example that a colony not directly under her rule could actually be more profitable for her via trade than if she had to pay for its upkeep. So what led to the British Empire's downfall? That is too recent an event to have gotten too much attention in the history-books, but anyways I will attempt to summarize what I have gathered. First of all, the Great War, which due to the crude methods and scale with which it was fought, slaughtered the flower of a generation and left little resources to pay for and rule the Empire. This was the turning-point into the modern age, at least partly. The second point which completed modernization was the Second World War, epitomized by Churchill's words about secondary-school students, something along the lines of "They have defended their country; they have earned the right to rule it." (paraphrase) Britain was in no shape after these devastating wars to continue her Empire, and due to nationalism, her Empire didn't want to continue either. So gradually most areas declared independence, went through a period of turmoil; then realized that trade with Britain and British citizenship was a good idea after all, and re-joined the Commonwealth... It wasn't a simple matter as you seem to portray.
The world events from 1914 onward showed that the United States was the next global power, and she showed her mettle in both world wars and in the subsequent Cold War. Her involvement in world events has defended and protected causes which posterity has shown to be just, and she is a worthy successor to the British Empire, if not in precisely the same role.
Modernization has made the thought of empires in name unbearable to the average citizen, although they are here just as solidly in an economic sense. So in the modern age, we must separate military dominance and economic dominance. The USA currently leads the world in both. Many people speculate that Indochina will overtake her in an economic sense. That remains to be seen. If it is so, all the weapons in the world will not help the citizens of the USA in keeping up with living standards elsewhere. But that is very far in the future if it will happen at all.
In a military sense, however, the USA's dominance certainly must be preserved for the peace of mind of many small countries around the globe, yes, in my opinion.

Oh and Freen, Spain was never a global power. Nor was China. But basically I've tried to counter your statement that "they fell because they stopped expanding their army and thus lost control of their economy, which was based on foreign investments". In the modern age, cash flow has largely become separated from military might. In a way, Talleyrand was the precursor of that.


[edit] To Urran's post below: Boy, you sure have been reading this topic attentively.

[Urran Voh]

Is that Beatles?!

[Gen. Volkov]

Er.. Beatles pretty much hit everything on the head.

One thing, the kind of thinking you are expressing Nuke is the reason we lost in Vietnam. Everyone is always predicting the end of the dogfight, but it never dissapears. A strike package is bombers and fighters. There is absolutely no reason they have to be long range bombers. As I've said repeatedly, aerial refueling and aircraft carriers make it so you can use any plane to launch and strike and have fighter cover. I don't know what makes you so fixated on a nuclear war, it would completely devastate both countries, and they would quite simply not be used until they were the last option.

The Bear is long obsolete anyway. The only reason it saw the service lifetime it did was because the Soviets had nothing to replace it until very near the end. If you insist that carriers cannot approach our shores, because subs would stop them, (bogus for a whole lot of reasons, but I'll accept it for the sake of argument), and that aerial refueling would not be possible, (again bogus, but for the sake of argument) then we would be facing the Backfire and a Soviet version of the B-1 which they stole the plans for when Carter canceled it. Both of these planes are very good at would they do, and shooting them down would be no turkey shoot. We'd need much more than just a platform to fire missiles, it would have to be fast, fairly manuverable, a good radar, and have the ability to defend itself from any fighters that might try to interfere.

And finally, subs are not the be all, end all of combat warships. Especially not ours which are not adapted for the type of fight you are refering too. A deisel sub would do the job about 3 times better. And launching a missile is very noisy. Noisier even than launching a torpedo. And putting a sub in a stationary postion for fixed defense takes away about half it's advantages. And besides, defenses can always be penetrated if the enemy is smart enough, and I guarantee the Chinese are. You simply can't account for every possibility. The best defense is a good offense, or an offensive defense. A pre-emptive strike in military terms. To put it in a football (American) analogy, the best defenses are big active ones that go after the opposing offense, and sack the QB, which guarantees that no play will be made. Whereas a defense that is playing prevent will nearly always get it's rear handed to it. This is shown time and again in every war, and every football game.

[ScarTheCursed]

China was an empire at the roman time. They equaled the romans in might.
Also the US also kinda ditched Taiwan at first. Read your history book Taiwan was declared a "fake" China by the UN and America supported it.

Urran: Yes thats beatles

[Gen. Volkov]

They did not equal the Romans in any way shape or form. The Chinese had an empire at that time, but the geographical extent wasn't as big the Romans, and they had no subject peoples that they had conquered. In addition, their army wasn't particularly impressive. In short, the Romans would have pwned their candy asses.

And Taiwan was first a place with a Nationalistic government in exile after Mao's takeover, and then when it tried to become independent and democratic, it was not recognized by the Chinese, and they tried to move in to take it, but the US and the UN stymied them.

[Kiss]

Beatles.....

1 This is an important part of whether it is worth it to be a superpower, because this is an arguement about whether we need to have a large army as a superpower or not. If it turns out that we do, that could be a major factor in deciding if the return from being a superpower is enough or not.


2 Are you kidding me? Spain was not a major world power? Look at the map of land in the 1500's. 1492 saw the marriage of Fredrick and Isabella, uniting the Hapsburg line. Charlie the 5th was the holy roman emperor. Thats all they talk about over there... 1492. Good god.They were a massive power, until rapid inflation (because their ships brought in so much bullion from the new world) destroyed their economy. They were the major colonizing force in the americas. they owned jut about everything.
And China was a major world power, but I would agree with scar the cursed that they were not as powerful as rome. I gave the example because China made an actual policy of isolation that led to their downfall.

Japan was another power that depended greatly on expansion, as it had no natural resources of its own. It started out with so late, however, that it never really became a major player.

Now, as for your assessment of great britain, I disagree entirely. One reason they fell was almost simultaneous confrontation by other powers, such as russia, and the revolt of their colonies. Great Britain reached its peak around 1812, when it was expanding and fighting. It fell in the 1800's, as the increase in its production fell (the 2nd derivative) in relation to other world powers. Although it doubled the size of its navy in that century, it fell behind in industrial production, even going so far as to import talent from germany (which was expanding its weapons production very rapidly, mostly under the power of the industrial krupp family). Britain's innovation and power was already falling behind in the 19th century, leading up to the destruction of ww1, whereas other countries were becoming ever more powerful and modern. Britain's navy and artillery was not nearly as modern as those possessed by other growing nations, and when delusions of its superpower status were popped, (south africa) the economy fell as well, although you are right that it had less foreign investments than spain for example.

Th US has foreign investments everywhere. Iraq. Oil. Saddam. I don't have to say it, you know what I think happened there. India is an example of an economy that is growing so much faster than ours and becoming so sophisticated that I would not be surprised if, in a few years and in conjunction with china, they were capable of making a bid for mastery.

[Gen. Volkov]

I've always supported India as the next superpower, because they have a freer market than China, and for several other reasons, but their economy currently is not growing alot faster than ours. And sophistication there is not widespread, just certain hotspots like Bombay. Most of the country remains dirt-poor farmers. I see it taking many years before any country is ready to make a bid for mastery against the US.

And the fall of Britain is alot more complicated than what you said, and some of it is just plain untrue. Such as the Navy and the artillery. While it's true that using field guns was out-moded by the time of WW1, their artillery was still very effective. And the Navy was the best in the world right up until WW2. They lead the world in most areas of industry right up until WW1. It was primarily the devastation of that war that brought it all tumbling down. But it was WW2 that really stripped Britain of it's empire. And Spain was a world power, but not a superpower in the same league as Britain, Rome, the United States, or the former Soviet Union. Everyone seems to have forgotten about them. The Soviets were definitely in the same league as the rest of them. Just not quite as powerful as the US. And of course our economy always far outstripped theirs, and everyone elses. Still does in fact.

And Scar said China was equal to Rome, I said it was not.

[Kiss]

I am sorry, both of the things you said came from the same problem. I meant that the indian economy's growth is growing faster than our own. The second derivative. I refered to the first. So it will be growing faster than ours. But its now now.

Britain's fall was more complicated than I said. BUT... Their artillery was nowhere near as effective as the guns being produced by the foremost in weapons manufacture at the time, Krupp Holdings, based in Germany. While they bought some weapons out of germany, they did not have access during war, and they bought less than germany did. The strength of germany's artillery is the only reason they held out for so long. The only innovative thing to come out of england at the time was an early form of the machine gun, while krupp was turning out huge supplies of the latest in gunning technology. It is unquestionable that the krupps were far and above the best of the world's manufacturers, definitely beating out the english operated Vckers. Vickers actually leased a patent for shells from krupp, resulting in the uncomfortable fact that krupp was being paid per shell lobbed at German troops.
I will concede also that their navy was far superior in size to anything at the time, but they were still not equipping themselves with the best of the steel artillery, as other nations were beginning to do. This was a precursor of things to come.

Britain did lead in industrial production. Again, I meant that the growth of their production was slowing as the growth of other production was speeding up. That doesn't mean their production was less, it means their rate of change of production was less. Thats the same problem as above, in reference to india, and I'm sorry I didn't state it clearly. I have an AP Calc test tomorrow, for gods sake! I should be getting this right!

oh yeah, you're right. Well, I suppose at one time the romans surpassed the chinese, and at another they equaled them. After all, china is the older of the empires. So it depends on how you look at it.

[The Beatles]

Why'd you call yourself Kiss, Freen?

Anyways I must disagree with you on some points.

1. If you are stating that it is possible to be a world superpower without significant military might; i.e. with spending less on the military than we currently do, then say so. And I think few of the posters in this topic would agree with you.
Also, the question of being a superpower is hardly voluntary, as I'm sure you will agree. One can't just abdicate, without giving up a lot of social progress that is taken for granted: i.e. medical supremacy, industrial convenience, etc.

2. The empire you claimed fell in the 1800s and reached its peak in 1812 was at its zenith in 1919, actually. You probably forget the recolonization movement of the late 1800s (Rhodes) and the territorial spoils of WWI.

3. Next the matter of global powers. Admittedly this is a subjective definition, but will you and Volkov please quit touting Spain and the USSR? The USSR would be speaking German now if it was not for America. The USSR has never saved the bacon of so many countries as the USA did during the World Wars and the Cold War. As for Spain: don't cite the Holy Roman Empire, which was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire, as the saying goes. Spain held large areas of land, it was an Empire, but it was no global power. First of all, unindustrialized Spain did not have the resources to rule all her subjects, did not rule the waves (that was reserved for Britannia), and was relatively short-lived for a power. Just because she was the first to colonize many areas (rather brutally and forcefully, compared to the British and German colonies, but not compared to the Dutch) does not mean she was a true power. An analysis of her brief peak (ca. 100 years) will show this clearly.
But even if it were, it does not support your point that these empires fell due to laziness to keep up control.

4. The fall of the British Empire: I said as much for their fall, that it started due to exhaustion from the World Wars. Not Russia, though, but Germany mostly. As for economic collapse after you say "illusions" about her superpower status were dropped, I think that's an oversimplification. Before the World Wars, she was doing roaringly. After the World Wars, the USA bailed her out with the Marshall Plan and she did well until the 70s, then a resurgence under Thatcher. But all that's recent history, not what we're discussing. Because since the beginning of this century, the USA has been the next global superpower (and again, the USSR just doesn't compete).


The three empires I mentioned were [successful] bastions of civilized/free world during their reign. I do not think that China, Spain or the USSR have any competition in that matter.

[Kiss]

This is not Freen. Seriously. He pointed me here, but I am not he. Anyway, I like Kiss.

1. If you are stating that it is possible to be a world superpower without significant military might; i.e. with spending less on the military than we currently do, then say so. And I think few of the posters in this topic would agree with you.
Also, the question of being a superpower is hardly voluntary, as I'm sure you will agree. One can't just abdicate, without giving up a lot of social progress that is taken for granted: i.e. medical supremacy, industrial convenience, etc.

I am not agreeing with that at all! I am saying to retain our current economy, we need to keep expanding. I am not saying we can't slowly ease into a more sustainable economy, but we can't just go straight back!

2. The empire you claimed fell in the 1800s and reached its peak in 1812 was at its zenith in 1919, actually. You probably forget the recolonization movement of the late 1800s (Rhodes) and the territorial spoils of WWI.

It didn't fall... it was becoming weaker in relation to other powers. In other words, it wasn't still perfect until ww1, like you said.

3. Next the matter of global powers. Admittedly this is a subjective definition, but will you and Volkov please quit touting Spain and the USSR? The USSR would be speaking German now if it was not for America. The USSR has never saved the bacon of so many countries as the USA did during the World Wars and the Cold War. As for Spain: don't cite the Holy Roman Empire, which was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire, as the saying goes. Spain held large areas of land, it was an Empire, but it was no global power. First of all, unindustrialized Spain did not have the resources to rule all her subjects, did not rule the waves (that was reserved for Britannia), and was relatively short-lived for a power. Just because she was the first to colonize many areas (rather brutally and forcefully, compared to the British and German colonies, but not compared to the Dutch) does not mean she was a true power. An analysis of her brief peak (ca. 100 years) will show this clearly.
But even if it were, it does not support your point that these empires fell due to laziness to keep up control.

I never said anything about the USSR, and spain was merely an example that an economy based on expansion that cannot retain that expansion is bound to fall. Spain was a global power, for a brief period of time. In europe things were changing very quickly, and 100 years was not that bad a period of time.

4. The fall of the British Empire: I said as much for their fall, that it started due to exhaustion from the World Wars. Not Russia, though, but Germany mostly. As for economic collapse after you say "illusions" about her superpower status were dropped, I think that's an oversimplification. Before the World Wars, she was doing roaringly. After the World Wars, the USA bailed her out with the Marshall Plan and she did well until the 70s, then a resurgence under Thatcher. But all that's recent history, not what we're discussing. Because since the beginning of this century, the USA has been the next global superpower (and again, the USSR just doesn't compete).

If she was doing "roaringly," then so is our economy. The market sees it as great, but we all know it is based on something that, if nothing is changed, is going to fall very quickly. And I thought we were talking about superpower status here. I don't see Thatcher as bringing britain into a superpower.

The point still remains that any country that is based on foreign investment to the extent that we are cannot afford to be lax in the exercise of its power.

[The Beatles]

OK, you're not Freen. It must have been something you said that confused me.

The point still remains that any country that is based on foreign investment to the extent that we are cannot afford to be lax in the exercise of its power.

Well, that point at any rate is different than the one we started out debating, so I won't challenge you on it. It is an interesting point in its own right. It does relate to the main topic, anyways.

And I think we're mostly in agreement on the other points. (I never claimed Thatcher did anything superpower-like for the UK, that was just a minor economic point.) Volkov mentioned the USSR, not you. And Spain was a global power, but what of it? It was not in the same league as the other three at all.

The point on whether superpower status is worth it is distinct, as I said earlier and Kiss says too, from whether military spending is extravagant or not, for there are two kinds of supermacy: military and economic. So the question is a bit vague from the outset. But we can reply that
A. A large military is not necessarily a sign of large agression, but is a healthy part of an industrialized society (see my first post in the topic).
B. Superpower status is a legacy of history and geography, and would be difficult to relinquish voluntarily.
C. Even if the USA wants to withdraw from superpower status, it can't suddenly make an economic U-turn, so in the short term it needs to keep expanding. (Kiss)

[Nuclear Raunch]

Er.. Beatles pretty much hit everything on the head.

One thing, the kind of thinking you are expressing Nuke is the reason we lost in Vietnam. Everyone is always predicting the end of the dogfight, but it never dissapears. A strike package is bombers and fighters. There is absolutely no reason they have to be long range bombers. As I've said repeatedly, aerial refueling and aircraft carriers make it so you can use any plane to launch and strike and have fighter cover. I don't know what makes you so fixated on a nuclear war, it would completely devastate both countries, and they would quite simply not be used until they were the last option.

The Bear is long obsolete anyway. The only reason it saw the service lifetime it did was because the Soviets had nothing to replace it until very near the end. If you insist that carriers cannot approach our shores, because subs would stop them, (bogus for a whole lot of reasons, but I'll accept it for the sake of argument), and that aerial refueling would not be possible, (again bogus, but for the sake of argument) then we would be facing the Backfire and a Soviet version of the B-1 which they stole the plans for when Carter canceled it. Both of these planes are very good at would they do, and shooting them down would be no turkey shoot. We'd need much more than just a platform to fire missiles, it would have to be fast, fairly manuverable, a good radar, and have the ability to defend itself from any fighters that might try to interfere.

And finally, subs are not the be all, end all of combat warships. Especially not ours which are not adapted for the type of fight you are refering too. A deisel sub would do the job about 3 times better. And launching a missile is very noisy. Noisier even than launching a torpedo. And putting a sub in a stationary postion for fixed defense takes away about half it's advantages. And besides, defenses can always be penetrated if the enemy is smart enough, and I guarantee the Chinese are. You simply can't account for every possibility. The best defense is a good offense, or an offensive defense. A pre-emptive strike in military terms. To put it in a football (American) analogy, the best defenses are big active ones that go after the opposing offense, and sack the QB, which guarantees that no play will be made. Whereas a defense that is playing prevent will nearly always get it's rear handed to it. This is shown time and again in every war, and every football game.

Fine let's be specific, what types of fighters do ou suppose China will send for air cover, and from where do you suppose they will come? Remember China does not have any carriers, so it's all gotta be landbased aircraft. I'll leave the feasability of a strike alone until we have specific planes from a specific route.

The reason I bring up nuclear war so much is because I know we will use them if we're losing, and I would suspect China would do the same. We've used em before, the army was strongly pulling for using them again in Vietnam, and many Americans feel they should be used against our enemies.

OK, let's say a sub launches missiles at a fictitious carrier group and gets caught, big deal. Any commander in the world would gladly trade 1 sub for the chance at launching 150 missiles at a carrier group. That is a cheap price to pay for that kind of devastation.

Pre-emptive strikes are complete BS. Just think about it, if some guy sucker punches anyone who ever disagrees with him, how would you react to that guy? Would you help him in any way? Would you sucker punch him the next time you feel the urge to disagree with him?

[Kiss]

" 'The point still remains that any country that is based on foreign investment to the extent that we are cannot afford to be lax in the exercise of its power.'

Well, that point at any rate is different than the one we started out debating, so I won't challenge you on it. It is an interesting point in its own right. It does relate to the main topic, anyways."

I guess the question then becomes, does a country require resources outside its own to be a superpower? and that would depend on its geography. I don't think the US requires it though. we could get along just fine without imports, if we made some changes.

[Freenhult]

Beatles: Yes...I am still here. And I think that the Superpower status is worth it.

But...I agree with Kiss that any super power that has many investments out of the country needs to keep expanding its economy and resourses to keep up with its demands. Any country that was ever a superpower met its demise or at least a major set back when it just decided to sit and micro-manage all there territiories and investments. Like we are doing now a bit. If we are to avoid that fate for a little while longer, we need to find a way to expand. No exactly in terms of land, but profits, resources and commerce. If we decide to not work with China or India in the future. They will sipmly pass us by economically and we will fall behind. Even though they are yrs. behind us now...it doesn't mean that we should slack off a bit. Because we are a superpower, we are under much more scrutany than say Russia or India. Even if we have to go into debt to advance ourselfs...then thats cool. We just need to make sure that the rewards are worth it. Atleast we have slowed down our "expansion" but it appears to have been too much. I would predict that the US will attempt re-establish this former level, or atleast a level lower than what we had. But yeah...what you guys have generally said is pretty good.

Nuke: A first strike is going to be the best option in any war. If China was going to attack us first, it doesn't make much sense for them to do it in a way that lets us prepare. Maybe they use nukes...but probably not. A first-strike is not a "sucker punch" as you called it. More like a suprise attack. It is not the most honourable choice, but it is often quite effective. If I am going to get into a fight...one that has a very high price attached to it. I wouldn't fight fair. Most certainly if it could cost me my life. You reverse the position against you and make it favorable. Right?

[Gen. Volkov]

China does not have carriers now. This is true, but that does not mean she could not build them or buy them in fairly short order. As for specifics, the fighters could be pretty much anything made by Western powers or the soviets in the last 10 to 15 years. Most likely we are talking about Su-27's and MiG-29's, but the Mirage series has been exported heavily, and the Eurofighter is also going to see some farily massive exportation. Heck, it could even be other American planes. We simply don't know. However, the most likely ones will be Su-27's and MiG-29's. Which in capable hands like those of the chinese are a challenge to the F-15. the route would be the shortest one, right over the pole, probably from bases in Manchuria.

And I do not think we will use nukes. They are just too horrible. Especially modern ones. Hiroshima was bad enough, modern ones are thousands of times as powerful. And yes, nukes were pushed by MacArthur in Korea and the General's in Vietnam, and the their use was never authorized. Pushing for there use and actually deciding to use them are two very different things.

And the sub in question would get a max of MAYBE 12 missiles. Even then they'd be suberbly lucky to get them off before they were found and killed. I don't know where you got this 150 number from. And there's no guarantee they will get through. Like I said, a carrier battle group is the most heavily defended group of ships in the history of warfare. It would take several missiles to take out the carrier. Sub's are not as expensive as carriers, but no one is going to lose one for possibly no return at all. That's why in the cold war they were targeted to take out other subs, not the carriers. Well that and the fact that the Boomer's carried 50 nuclear missiles apiece. More in some russian models.

A pre-emptive strike is not a sucker-punch. It's attacking before the other guy attacks you. If both sides know a war is gonna happen, it's better to be the one on the offensive than trying to defend. Or would you rather give the other side time to prepare his defenses and face a Normandy type battle?

And the US has bailed out many people, but it's debatable whether the US could have won WW2 without the USSR. And the USSR was a superpower, in any definition that I can think of. The US had the edge, I'll never deny that, but there definitely was a real and serious threat that the USSR represented. The USSR was not free, and had a totally different setup for it's economy, but it was a real competitor.