How long will America be a super power?

Did you just make this article?

We are in decline now. We have been since 9/11/2001. I'd give the US another 20 years at the top.

However, I don't expect a catastrophic collapse like Rome or the USSR. I predict a worsening economy to 3rd-world levels, combined with a society-wide moral and social collapse, followed by the rise of a Hitler-figure. Americans are just too lazy for a revolution.

Nonsense. As long as the US has the capacity to produce huge amounts of food that will never happen. Large scale food production is the single most important factor in any nation rising to and maintaining the status of a so-called Super Power. Industrial and military factors are secondary to this. Even the USSR, who was at one time considered a Super Power, had that one fatal flaw in that they were not capable of the same large scale food production levels as the U.S. and were dependent on imports for a large portion of their food supply.

Recessions come and recessions go, that's just part of the normal ebb and flow of an active economy and hardly indicates the doom of American society.

For the U.S. to suddenly fall to the level of a third world country some extreme event would have to take place and there is nothing short of a crystal ball that can predict such a thing. Roman dominance fell as a result of just such an event; the revolution and invasion of the barbarians who sacked Rome and literally destroyed that civilization all across Europe.

Yes, but it makes for a good straw man, and a good start for a debate.

I especially like the part about being too lazy. That part I agree with. The rest, I respectfully disagree, and point to Mason's response for most of mine.

I will add that we do have the capability of becoming a third world power - if we let the eco and GW loons run the asylum.

I didn't mean that we're going to hit the point in 20 years, nor did I mean that the recession is an indicator of impending destruction. I simply meant that within the next twenty years, China or India will overtake us in terms of economic power. Both of these countries have the capacity to produce enourmous amounts of food, a large part of producing a superpower, as Mason astutely pointed out. However, governments and outside events are also key factors. If we continue to be bankrupted by the War on Iraq, our food produciton won't change the fact that we're broke. We are a debtor nation, and China's holding our strings.

We're trillions of dollars in debt and owe about as much to China. They could engineer an economic collapse easily (although why they would want to is not clear). And we all know that left untreated, severe economic downturns and expensve, unpopular wars result in revolutions and radicals both left and right taking power (Russia,1917, Germany, 1930's, etc.).

And I'm more worried about the Right and Christian Conservatives driving this country into the ground, as President Bush has proven. The Greenpeacers are too busy torching SUVs and eating Kashi to get anything done nowadays.

YOu watch too much of the MSM. Bush , for all his faults, has not pushed this nation an inch towards a conservative christian environment. Fortunately, unlike China and to a lesser extent India, our forefathers were wise enough to institute checks and balances that made sure that should even a Pat Robertson (or a Gus Hall) be elected president, they would have very limited power to enact their idea of utopia on this country.

You mention China and India, with good reason. The 2 largest nations on the planet. And also 2 of the oldest. And neither has amounted to any world power in their history, and are farther from it today than many believe. IN the case of China, the ruthless behavior of the totalitarian regime will stifle the drive to compete in the world food markets. Not by plan, but by too much planning. We saw it with the old USSR. They have a huge work force, but virtually no incentive for the average man, and so are aimlessly wandering around without a driving force to make it to the top.

India suffers from its ancient culture. Still mired in a caste system (which to their credit they have tried to erradicate). People look at the racism of the USA and cluck cluck about it, yet the inborn bigottry in India is much worse and more pronounced. And a lot more destructive. Either may one day stand side by side with the USA, but not with today's trends. It will take a massive upheavel in the very core of their society to get them over the last hump they must scale to become true world leaders.

The key difference between them and the USA is there. We were born a mere 250 years ago as a new nation "conceived in liberty". These cultures are mired in the past, and I for one am not hopeful they will overcome it easily or quickly.

China stands a good chance of overtaking the US as an economic power within the next hundred years. Militarily less so, but arms aren't everything - if China can continue to boost its middle class as it has been doing with its education programs, there's no reason it shouldn't have more middle class people than the US has citizens. When that starts to happen the sheer economic power of the country will eclipse the US and attract even more foreign investment.

India is a less obvious pick. Its government is corrupt and its constant squabbling with a bordering nuclear power isn't likely to result in the best application of resources. However, like China its educated base is growing rapidly and that alone should make it a major player, particularly when the reforms inevitably come. Bahu, if he's still around, can probably shed some more light on this anyway - I'm fairly sure he's Singaporean, but he's written a fair amount about India in the past.

In any case, if either can bring even a third of their population up to US levels they will be economically stronger. That's an achievable goal, particularly if they continue to focus on the hard sciences over the soft ones, as that's where real economic progress can be found quickly.



Of course not - it was already there. Bush was one of the first to make full use of it though. When voting isn't compulsory that's very important.

India is much younger than the US. It's only existed as a single country since the Brits moved out. Prior to British influence it was filled with principalities. That India has only lost a handful of its provinces over the decades is testament to its amazing unity, not a sign of its inferiority to the largely culturally homogenous early US (ie English-speaking whites, with the occasional foreigner in the mix, compared to hundreds of languages spoken by hundreds of peoples, each carefully turned against the other by British diplomacy).

Isn't it a bit unfair to say that China and India have never amounted to a world power? Our notion of "world power" is primarily defined by our preconceived notions of modern globalization. Remember, the entire reason America was founded was indirectly because a Spaniard got lost on his way to find a sea route to China and India (although not the modern countries of today), two of the richest areas of the world at that time.

In addition, culture is a poor determinant of superpower status. Jeez, we had slaves until 1865 and institutionalized racism was legally a-ok until about 40 years ago. We were becoming a world power as we massacred Indians on the Plains, raped Central America for the United Fruit Company, and lynched blacks for looking "the wrong way at white women". America's race problems are still very real, and have not gone away because the Obamessiah is getting the nomination.

It's not the fact that India has an ancient culture, it's the fact that they missed industrialization thanks to British Imperialism, and are thus, just catching up now. Their resources were one of the key factors in Britain becoming the world power in the 19th century. The imperialist totalitarianism they imposed (a common thread with China) on the Indian people kept the region subjugated for about 90 years (I'm not factoring in the Independence movement).

Totalitarians don't stifle economic output. They kill whoever they need to to increase it. Plus, it's a stretch to even consider China "planned" at this point. They are Stalinist Hypercapitalists. They let the proles and agrarians starve and suffer while being promised the fruits of socialism while they shower favor on the middle class and multinational corporations, who line the pockets of the Politburo members.

Wow, that was a long response. I'm at least glad I can have a civilized debate here.

Touche'!

But I disagree. I think if anything, we are more secular than most countries in the world, and definitely moreso than at any time in the past.



Untrue. Leauki had an excellent article on "Nation States". India is one. It was not "conceived" it was born of nationalism and necessity. It has none of the history of the US, yet it has a society that predates christianity. The current form of "government" is newer than the US', but that is not talking about the culture and society which is far older.

Not totally unfair. I define a world power as having influence outside its immediate borders. China and India never have. They have been world powers in the respect of how powerful they were in relation to other countries, but neither has tried to extend its influence outside of its immediate neighbors. Only if you count Genghis Khan (A mongol, not Chinese) could you say either has.