Is the United States the only superpower?

[So]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: swatX

Originally posted by: Ready

Originally posted by: logic1485
According to Wikipedia (I can't find any sources ATM moment, stating otherwise) the current superpowers are (in no particular order) :

the USA

Brazil

China

the EU

India

Japan

Russia

Originally posted by: swatX

Originally posted by: jfall
China

india can kick china's arse too ya know.

I woudn't be too sure of that (I'm Indian myself) but I would also like to believe that 😉

I don't see how Brazil is a superpower when GB beat their ass in a war not that long ago

Indian AF Su-30 >> UASF F-16 . Pure dogfight w/ no radar.

Since when is an Su-30 an Indian jet?

And since when were we going to re-fight the korean war and have dogfights matter again?

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: swatX

Originally posted by: Ready

Originally posted by: logic1485
According to Wikipedia (I can't find any sources ATM moment, stating otherwise) the current superpowers are (in no particular order) :

the USA

Brazil

China

the EU

India

Japan

Russia

Originally posted by: swatX

Originally posted by: jfall
China

india can kick china's arse too ya know.

I woudn't be too sure of that (I'm Indian myself) but I would also like to believe that 😉

I don't see how Brazil is a superpower when GB beat their ass in a war not that long ago

Indian AF Su-30 >> UASF F-16 . Pure dogfight w/ no radar.

Since when is an Su-30 an Indian jet?

And since when were we going to re-fight the korean war and have dogfights matter again?

Also, since when is an F-16 the latest US fighter jet?

 

[zoiks]

If the US was a superpower then all you guys here would be considered superpeople.


Wait...I take that back.

 

[Shlong]

Yes, but one day we won't be... I'll probably be long gone by then.

 

[thirdlegstump]

Problem with China is isolation. There are still regions where people have never heard of airplanes and would absolutely flip out and kill the whole town if they ever saw one.

The United States of God Almighty America IS the center of the WORLD. English is THE international language of choice. Get that into your thick skulls people because this isn't going to change in the next 50 or so years.

 

[Judgement]

United States' aircraft carriers alone could take over some random island, declare it a nation, and still easily be a greater world power than 95% of the other countries on this planet.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
Problem with China is isolation. There are still regions where people have never heard of airplanes and would absolutely flip out and kill the whole town if they ever saw one.

The United States of God Almighty America IS the center of the WORLD. English is THE international language of choice. Get that into your thick skulls people because this isn't going to change in the next 50 or so years.

not only did america invent english, but also language!

 

[KingofCamelot]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
English is THE international language of choice. Get that into your thick skulls people because this isn't going to change in the next 50 or so years.

'Cause its not like Britain speaks English or something. And its not like England has been around a lot longer and was quite the colonial power in its day. I'm sure that has nothing to do with English being popular. Oh yea, IRC, English is not the dominant language on the internet.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Imdmn04
Americans have been brainwashed to belive that democray is the end all and be all solution as the best government form, yet completely neglecting the context of the situation in each individual country.

Say what you will, but I DARE you to make a rational argument as to why totalitarianism is EVER better than democracy.

When you need the largest amount of change at the fastest possible rate. Some recent examples:

USSR, 1919-1941, from a backwards agri-state, into a power capable of defeating the German Blitz and one of the world's foremost industrial powerhouses.
Nazi Germany, 1919-1939, from 33% unemployment rate and uncontrollable Mark inflation into a power capable of rivaling Britain and France combined.


Democracy is slowed down by bureacratics, because the more people that are involved in the decision making process, the slower the decision making process is. Under a visionary, autocratic leader, sweeping changes are possible. Whether its good or bad is up for historians to determine.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: KingofCamelot
English is not the dominant language on the internet.

That is right, HTML is.

 

[dexvx]

Carriers are all cool in conventional warfare, but in a nuclear fight, they are floating targets.

A squadron of some long-range, land based fighters (MiG-31) with tactical nukes, and you can say bye-bye to any carrier task force. IMO, the only thing that determines who wins in a war with capable military powers (Iraq/Iran not included for obvious reasons), is how much weapons grade nuclear fuel you have, how many warheads you have, and how many ways you can deploy them.

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: dexvx
Carriers are all cool in conventional warfare, but in a nuclear fight, they are floating targets.

A squadron of some long-range, land based fighters (MiG-31) with tactical nukes, and you can say bye-bye to any carrier task force. IMO, the only thing that determines who wins in a war with capable military powers (Iraq/Iran not included for obvious reasons), is how much weapons grade nuclear fuel you have, how many warheads you have, and how many ways you can deploy them.

I was ignoring nuclear warfare, because if that was to happen, it really wouldn't be much of a war would it? It would be more like an instant decimation of life as every modern civilization knows it.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: dexvx
Carriers are all cool in conventional warfare, but in a nuclear fight, they are floating targets.

A squadron of some long-range, land based fighters (MiG-31) with tactical nukes, and you can say bye-bye to any carrier task force. IMO, the only thing that determines who wins in a war with capable military powers (Iraq/Iran not included for obvious reasons), is how much weapons grade nuclear fuel you have, how many warheads you have, and how many ways you can deploy them.

Stick with wargames and don't discuss modern warfare, please. Here's some homework for you, to put your post in perspective:

1.) Name the last conflict that was fought with nuclear weapons. (Ah, yes, WWII -- but could we have launched that attack at the time without conventional arms?)

2.) MiG-31 is an interceptor, not a strike aircraft.

3.) Ever hear of the SPY-1B? Might want to look it up.

 

[brigden]

It's amazing to think that the US is the world's only hyperpower, yet look at the mess they've made in Iraq.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: brigden
It's amazing to think that the US is the world's only hyperpower, yet look at the mess they've made in Iraq.

Canadian paratroopers rape anybody lately?

Take any response to that to P&N, where it and your post belong.

 

[misterj]

north korea lol

i started worrying when we lost ibm.

btw, none of us really know how many weapons other countries are hiding. who knows, vatican city might come out blasting.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: dexvx
Carriers are all cool in conventional warfare, but in a nuclear fight, they are floating targets.

A squadron of some long-range, land based fighters (MiG-31) with tactical nukes, and you can say bye-bye to any carrier task force. IMO, the only thing that determines who wins in a war with capable military powers (Iraq/Iran not included for obvious reasons), is how much weapons grade nuclear fuel you have, how many warheads you have, and how many ways you can deploy them.

I was ignoring nuclear warfare, because if that was to happen, it really wouldn't be much of a war would it? It would be more like an instant decimation of life as every modern civilization knows it.

Tactical nukes wouldn't lead to the decimation of life. These are low yield weapons meant for the battlefield. You wouldn't won't to be around the area where one was setoff but it won't be widespread damage. You're thinking strategic nukes.

Plus, a carrier group would never allow an enemy plane to get close enough to launch a weapon.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Imdmn04
Americans have been brainwashed to belive that democray is the end all and be all solution as the best government form, yet completely neglecting the context of the situation in each individual country.

Say what you will, but I DARE you to make a rational argument as to why totalitarianism is EVER better than democracy.

When you need the largest amount of change at the fastest possible rate. Some recent examples:

USSR, 1919-1941, from a backwards agri-state, into a power capable of defeating the German Blitz and one of the world's foremost industrial powerhouses.
Nazi Germany, 1919-1939, from 33% unemployment rate and uncontrollable Mark inflation into a power capable of rivaling Britain and France combined.


Democracy is slowed down by bureacratics, because the more people that are involved in the decision making process, the slower the decision making process is. Under a visionary, autocratic leader, sweeping changes are possible. Whether its good or bad is up for historians to determine.

Again, you've decided that freedom is perfectly acceptable to sacrifice in these circumstances to gain the perception of rapid economic improvement, yet central government is not key for improving the economy of a nation. Indeed, Russia was already in the process of industrializing beofre the bolshevik revolution, and was in fact set far back by civil war. The U.S., on the other hand, in 1860, was roughly 'third world' in relative terms of the time, but we leapt to #1 in the following 40 years. Surely cutting a decade (at best) off development time is not worth the horrors of a totalitarian government. Also, the russians held off the german blitz by having more bodies than the germans had bullets, and were significantly helped by the US...not directly, but through lend lease projects, and Anglo-American air raids keeping German war time production (which would have otherwise increased dramatically over the course of the war) flat until 1944.

 

[Shawn]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh

Originally posted by: KingofCamelot
English is not the dominant language on the internet.

That is right, HTML is.

Well HTML is written in English.