Should the US remain the most powerful country in the world?

Question

I am interested in hearing serious opinions about America's dominant strength that exists in the world today? Should America stay at the top, or be pushed aside by entities such as China, India, Russia, and/or the EU? I'm not interested in people bashing America or denouncing the war in Iraq- I am interested in hearing if people, especially if Americans believe that the US should stay in control? If power does move towards Asia and overall power becomes more distributed, don't you think a worldwide struggle will ensue to see who'll be next top dog? And can a world with several powerful nations work together harmoniously anyway? What other nation should supercede the US if one does?

Answer 1

America is not only the most powerful nation in the world, but the proportion of power between us and other nations is so disproportionate that there is no historical equivalent to America.

America, as the most powerful nation in the world, is quite unique in terms of the manner in which it conducts itself, however. Despite media populism and anti American political platitudes and talking points from Europe, America may look like an Empire, but in the most important ways it doesn't act like one. Empires forcefully conquer sovereign nations for the purpose of permanent Territorial expansion and the establishment of permanent political hegemony over foreign populations. The most aggressive aspect of American foreign policy, nation building, has played a relatively small role in our overall foreign policy and is usually done with reluctance. Furthermore, it is not done malevolently as a part of some grand Napoleonic vision of world conquest, but rather in response to a call for humanitarian intervention to alleviate pain brought on people by a despotic regime, or because a nation poses a direct or indirect threat to America; even Iraq was in response to Saddam Hussein willfully staying in material breach of seventeen UN Security Council resolutions.

Surprisingly, people who try to make a case against American policy in the world usually do so without placing America's actions in any historical, geo-political, or world wide context. National chauvinism, as well as resentment for not just what America does, but also what America is, is primarily responsible for people maintaining such a one sided view against the U.S. When it comes to America being some empire that should be replaced, the truth is that if America is an empire it's the benign one; so benign that the U.S. government provides to international society, many of the services that governments are charged with the task of providing its own internal society within its state. It is America that provides the single largest market of consumers that keeps the global economy healthy, it’s the U.S. that provides the dollar, as well as loans, that keeps the global economy healthy; it is the U.S. Navy that patrols the world’s sea lanes making trade, an undeniable cornerstone of the global economy, safe and easy to conduct. It is the U.S. Armed Forces stationed at bases in Europe and East Asia that provide reassurances and deterrence. They reassure European governments that there won’t be a regional power struggle for control of their continent that may leave some countries seeking nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are the geo political equivalent of elevator shoes; they make a smaller weaker, country that is less capable in every index of power equal with a larger, stronger country. Germany may seek nuclear weapons because of its position between Russia and France, two nuclear powers. Greece, much weaker than Turkey, may seek nuclear weapons to deter its rival without a U.S. presence in the region. In East Asia, we deter North Korea from attacking South Korea or Japan by threatening to retaliate against them. However, it is our nuclear agreements with Japan and South Korea that reassures North Korea that their neighbors won’t need to become nuclear powers, and therefore the North doesn’t have to worry about nuclear proliferation in its region. We deter China from attacking Taiwan, but reassure China that Taiwan won’t need nuclear weapons because we’ll defend it from China, thereby leaving China free from the fear of a nuclear armed Taiwan, and also that Taiwan won’t declare its independence from China. All these things stave off potentially another world war, and equally as bad; nuclear proliferation. Our effort gets no credit however, because in order for this to succeed, all that must be done is to have a presence. Woody Allen once observed that 90% of his life was just showing up; add another ten percent and you’ve got what America does to stave off ww3 with a nuclear holocaust to top it off. Therefore this effort is completely unnoticed, and while many Europeans say they resent America’s presence in their region, the European governments continue to request our presence.

In reality, America’s role in the world will not come to an end because of another nation, but will come to an end when the U.S. tax payer is fed up with it. If Americans become disinterested in other societies and feel that they are not worth fighting for anymore, then having a huge military capacity will be useless. If other nations were to make concrete efforts to establish themselves as a real political, economic, and military counter balance to America, which no one currently does, then the world would look a lot different and the U.S. tax payer might not put up with it. If the cost of domestic spending becomes so high that social programs, in concert with an assertive foreign policy, puts such a grievous burden on the U.S. tax payer that Americans are forced to decide between B-2 bombers or prescription medications, they may opt for the pain pills instead of the spirit of America. We can do what we do in the world because the cost of it isn’t all that much, but it is this way because people don’t oppose us. There is a huge difference between their political rhetoric and their actions. Even Russia is not trying to regain its old military power, but focusing on becoming richer at home. China, for all the worlds talk about it, isn’t developing a military for expansion, but for the retaking of Taiwan; this says that while the world may criticize us, they know that at the end of the day they’re far better off with us than without us.

Europe will never become a superpower, because they have a principled aversion to war that stems from their belief that it is a politically irrational, morally unacceptable element of statecraft and should only be used to stave off an invasion. Of the 71% of Europeans who said they would support the EU becoming a superpower, only 36% said they would support it if it meant increasing the military budget. Nobody can hold power if they don’t at least posses the ability to make a credible threat of deterrence by having the resources to repulse and repel an rival. Regardless of their belief about economic incentives being more useful than military force, eventually you come to a place where someone challenges you with force and if you’re not able to adequately meet that challenge with force back, then you’re doomed; indeed all empires fall because they were challenged with force and couldn’t adequately meet the challenge back.

Logic dictates that American tax payers should support our global role, but Americans, like everyone else in the world, are not always logical.

Answer 2

You are assuming that the United States is the most powerful country in the world. Militarily, maybe, economically no, Domestically no, Politically sure why not.

Military we are still really powerful but there are some countries that are on the rise and might in the near future pass us with regards to how many soldiers on the ground, technology the US is probably still and will be for awhile the top dog. But with pure numbers, the rate it is going there are some countries already that have more soldiers than the US.

Economically we are in trouble, so many countries could pull the loans that we have though them and the US would be in the red in no time. Outside countries own a lot of the stock in the major companies that work in the US. There are some cities that when it comes down to ownership people from other countries have the majority. Is that a bad thing no, it means that the world is becoming a more global economy which is a good thing.

Politically we are still about the people somewhat so yeah we have a foothold over some other countries because of that. Voting still means something even if it is just the state level.

Domestically we are in trouble, we have homeless, people without health insurance, the sick, the poor, the uneducated. Other countries are light years ahead of us domestically. Look at the countries that everyone goes to college for free, and all the health bills are paid by the government.

I don't think that the world needs the "big dog" anymore, it is becoming more integrated and globally intertwined that the Empires of old aren't as important as the countries that can stand on their own two feet.

In the past there was a belief in the power of 5, that no one group could take a huge step ahead because if you had two others on your side, that means that two are against you. Voting was easy because it was never a tie. 5 superpowers was good, you get too few and you see what happens with fighting and people looking up to take that spot, you have too many and you see a nice divide and more fighting.

Answer 3

Even now, the United States is LESS influential in the MidEast, Asia, Africa, South America; and will loose further grounds in the near future.

China and Russia will increase their spheres of influential in those regions. Africa has already turned to China while Russia is perceived as a moderating voice in MidEast affairs and the world in general.

I see another Cold War in the making pitting Russia-China against the US; Europe as usual is non-commital, appears to be neutral but their future is more aligned with America (than the East).

Because the US did not capitalise positively when they emerged victorious from the first Cold War when the USSR disintegrated, it has little choice but to remain Top Dog. "Should" is immaterial.

Subsequent US Presidents quickly identified new Axis-of-Evil, after USSR crumbled, creating and challenging enemies on a global scale to confront and flexing muscles instead of pursuing diplomacy.

Personally I want the US to remain Numero Uno because it cares enough to act unlike other superpowers, or Europe - most of them are self serving.

[if this sounds like kissing American a s s.... so be it!!]

Answer 4

US is the most powerful military and economic powerful country in the world and will remain so for some time. However, the trend is such that it may not be in another century if it's citizen continue to feel remaining the most powerful country as an entitlement, if it's adminstration continue to bully other countries around the world and squander its good will earned after WW2.

Having said that, the counties you named would no doubt become stronger and stand up to US' bully. However, none would overtake US any time soon. Besides, each of these countries have their domestic problem so huge that outsider can easily over-estimate their 'power'.

Answer 5

We are the most powerful by military standards. Other economies are well ahead of us and will become the dominant countries in the world. America has too much debt National debt, budget deficit, trade deficit, and most especially personal debt. Personal debt reflects the mindset of the people. Chinese save money something on the order of 25%. To increase our spending we basically take on more debt, when our spending increases it is contributed to the GDP as buying goods and services. Thus artificially we have increased economy. We have a serious contraction in manufacturing and a lack of skilled labor. I believe the only way we will have military problems with China is over Taiwan and this may be an excuse to intervene. There is no basis for military issues with the EU. Nor Russia in specific. The future will be one of basically who can outproduce the rest of the world. I believe this will likely be china/india because they have high populations and are still wanting to have alot of children. The west (EU, Canada, Japan, US is on its way) is having population control because of affluence and aggressive education. The USA was built on cheap labor and with the current issues with Mexicans we may be cut off from this. Whereas China and India both have as many workers and they could need to build everything. The reason the world is not already at peace is because of resources and their consumption. The goal of any nation is to gather and consume resources. When there are insufficient resources for all contention develops. This is easily illustrated from anthropology. Small tribes existing in high resource density areas are largely ignorant about conflict and war. One in particular (I cant recall the name) doesnt even have words for war etc.

Answer 6

America, like Rome of ancient times has some massive problems. Bush in his own way has hurried up the process of the destruction of America, and thus making it so we couldn't find a solution for our woes. Our manufacturing and product development here in our country is basically a thing of the past. Bush thinks we can still stand out by developing new products for the rest of the world to manufacture. This is not a workable replacement for manufacturing and is a silly notion for anyone to think it would work. Our fate is doomed unless we can bring back what we have lost. That is unlikely because of our standard of living that we expect. Up until daddy Bush, the United States had laws about selling any American technology outside the US. Daddy Bush stopped that and left the door open for our technology to be sold or stolen by anyone and here we are today with nothing to offer the world. Our status as number one will be short lived.
This was all done in the effort to hurry up the process of a One World Government. In this form of government, the rich will be in control of virtually everything you touch or see and government will take a role of policing the masses.

Answer 7

Military wise USA is the most powerful but history has shown that you can not achieve any long term success by being the bully and killing innocent people!
Look at just about any product in USA and it is made in China!
Made in USA has become a rare find! how sad! We are totally dependent on the plastic Chinese goods!
We are hated through out the world and most countries wish us ill and would love to see us go down!
We use to be #1 before that man with the pea size brain took over the oval office!

Answer 8

If there were a world vote, I think America would lose the vote. It's not how powerful a nation is, it's how much insite their government has if dominance is going to benefit the world as a whole.

Of course every country wants to be the dominant power. Then they can wag the tail. The tail never wags the dog.

Answer 9

China - I don't want a communist nation being the world's superpower.
Russia - Putin's having way too much fun with Gazprom and natural resources. Not to mention the weird deaths going on, and the curious elections going on.
India - They aren't involved enough in the world to be a superpower.
EU - They aren't unified enough to be a superpower.

I'd like to keep it with America, since no one else comes close to 'filling the bill.' Multiple superpowerful nations can work together; but when they don't it can be disastrous.

Answer 10

Whether or not America should be the most powerful country in the world the reality is, it can't remain the most powerful. All of the most powerful nations, Rome, Macedonia, Ottoman Empire, Egypt just to name a few, apexed and waned. If history teaches us anything it's that America will too, it's inevitable.

Answer 11

US is first and will always be. Nations will never work together harmoniously. There is no other nation that should supercede the US.