Replacing America: Who would You choose?

[CommunitarianKevin]

So? Japan is a very different country these days.

Since the US wrote their constitution...

[FLOMBIE]

They were involved in the German constitution (which is not really a constitution) as well. It is a very nice piece of paper. Both countries have changed fundamentally, so I wouldn't see a potential thread there.

Edited April 15, 2012 by FLOMBIE

[Space Commander Travis]

i'm being, as usual, tongue in cheek.

[Simbi Laveau]

The next super power is in the east.

China is a major economic hub now.They have an economic district that rivals wall street.

Japan is far too crippled to be a super power,and they are still bound by certain rules of the Geneva convention.

I doubt it could be Japan,despite the nikkei average and the yen being strong.

Their governemnt is also probably even more corrupt than the USA.As is chinas,but half the members of the diet,and up in jail.

India hasn't got the economic clout.

Id say its China.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Simbi Laveau

[FLOMBIE]

That's true indeed. And their politics are way to jumpy. They from a new government almost every year.

@747400

Alright, mate. It's the sunday morning, I guess.

[lightly]

I posted a topic earlier and as a part of it mentioned my belief that America was the most powerful/greatest nation in history. Quite a few took issue with that idea. So I began to wonder, if America is as inept and evil as many seem to believe then who exactly would be best to take on the role of a superpower who's morality would suit your own? If one nation had to be dominant which nation would you prefer to see guiding the world forward into a new millenium? Compare this new leader with America and explain why you think it would be better for mankind.

I've underlined what seems to be an assumption that the U.S. , in it's totality , is guiding the world.

I disagree with that basic premise, as i see the U.S. itself as being dragged through the "mud" by a partnership of economic forces/People within and without the U.S. that have no interest in guiding the world "forward", but are only interested in wealth and power for themselves. I have no problem calling those forces/people "evil' , and the U.S. "inept", in it's ability to free us from their control. The U.S. as some shining beacon of goodness and freedom is a fallacious concept. Especially lately? Could some other country do a better job of being "dominate"? .. Doubtful.

I suppose i should add that i'm as patriotic as a person can be, that's why i'm concerned and sickened about the current state of affairs.

[ninjadude]

who exactly would be best to take on the role of a superpower who's morality would suit your own? If one nation had to be dominant which nation would you prefer to see guiding the world forward into a new millenium?

Your initial premises are suspect. There is no requirement that the world have a "superpower", that it's morality have anything to do with mine, that one nation be dominant, or guide the world forward. The world would get along just fine without any of these things. In fact, it would be preferred.

[Mr Right Wing]

I posted a topic earlier and as a part of it mentioned my belief that America was the most powerful/greatest nation in history. Quite a few took issue with that idea. So I began to wonder, if America is as inept and evil as many seem to believe then who exactly would be best to take on the role of a superpower who's morality would suit your own? If one nation had to be dominant which nation would you prefer to see guiding the world forward into a new millenium? Compare this new leader with America and explain why you think it would be better for mankind.

If Americas political system and ideology are better than everyone elses then why does it require war for it to be spread around the planet? Surely the rest of the world would be falling over themselves to adopt it? (Snigggers).

We need the next Superpower to have an ideology where the people come first not consumerism. I say we put the Dalai Lama in charge of the planet.

Edited April 15, 2012 by Mr Right Wing

[Bavarian Raven]

i say give it to germany they're quiet a peaceful nation now-adays and usually good at running things

and it would be quiet an irony too

[+and-then]

I've underlined what seems to be an assumption that the U.S. , in it's totality , is guiding the world.

I disagree with that basic premise, as i see the U.S. itself as being dragged through the "mud" by a partnership of economic forces/People within and without the U.S. that have no interest in guiding the world "forward", but are only interested in wealth and power for themselves. I have no problem calling those forces/people "evil' , and the U.S. "inept", in it's ability to free us from their control. The U.S. as some shining beacon of goodness and freedom is a fallacious concept. Especially lately? Could some other country do a better job of being "dominate"? .. Doubtful.

I suppose i should add that i'm as patriotic as a person can be, that's why i'm concerned and sickened about the current state of affairs.

Well, as much as any nation can be said to be guiding, I guess we are. The whole world is in the tank just now but it would be unfair to lay all that at America's doorstep. As far as the idea that no country should dominate, I don't like taxes either but that doesn't mean they aren't a reality that will never go away. The power vacuum will always be filled by the strongest.

Mr Right Wing I don't recall saying that our ideology or political system was superior to anyone else's. But the US is perennially the destination of choice for the majority of the world's migrants.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPROSPECTS/Resources/334934-1199807908806/Top10.pdf

The question is a valid one. I realize that the US is failing it's potential in the world, but we are hardly the worst country to have at the top. Imagine Russia or China or any Arab nation with the economic and military power of the US. The world would look quite a different place. And since you,Mr Right Wing, are a petty oddball of a person who would go about nuking millions of people over bruised pride, your opinion of my country matters not a whit to me.

So far the only two countries I've heard put forward that I'd be willing to accept leadership from are Canada and Australia. The Canadians are like the ever so polite and smart uncle I had growing up and the Ozzies are like crazy ass cousins who know how to party but more important - know how to fight, and they have your back.

[+DieChecker]

The Fraggles. They have a natural ability to convert natural resources to wealth in a way that minimizes damage to the environment. Their culture of dancing and happiness, will promote good foreign relations, and reduce the need for nuclear arms worldwide.

Dude. No way. Have you seen how they use and abuse the Doozers like 3rd class citizens.

Well if you were to go by human development and living standards Norway is at the top followed by Australia.

Source

Agree. I'd vote for Norway as #1 nation to aim to be. But, I don't think they will actually be a superpower.

This is a pointless question, as America will continue to be the dominant military, economic and cultural power for the foreseeable future. But to answer the question, I would say Britain. I appreciate their efforts to Westernize and modernize some local cultures, sometimes forcefully.

Naw. I think Britain is heading down the spiral just a little slower than the rest of Europe. What really does Britain have to offer? Any material resources? Any special industry?

The problem since 1990 or so has been that America has continued to be Overwhelmingly Powerful, while the USSR, which acted as the balance to it, broke up and tried to embrace Capitalism (and in so doing, I think, thoroughly proved Marx's theories that Capitalism works for the benefit of the few but by no means all). Which has left America looking for something to do with this Military Might.

I'm think the US tried to use Japan for a while as the balance, but that did not work. And so now I think we have China and the EU as the balancing arms.

They were involved in the German constitution (which is not really a constitution) as well. It is a very nice piece of paper. Both countries have changed fundamentally, so I wouldn't see a potential thread there.

i say give it to germany they're quiet a peaceful nation now-adays and usually good at running things

and it would be quiet an irony too

I agree. Germany is my #2 choice. They have the right ethics and mix of socialism/capitalism in their government, IMHO.

I posted a topic earlier and as a part of it mentioned my belief that America was the most powerful/greatest nation in history. Quite a few took issue with that idea. So I began to wonder, if America is as inept and evil as many seem to believe then who exactly would be best to take on the role of a superpower who's morality would suit your own? If one nation had to be dominant which nation would you prefer to see guiding the world forward into a new millenium? Compare this new leader with America and explain why you think it would be better for mankind.

I'm going to agree that I think Norway would be the idea to aim at, even though they try hard to prevent immigration. Second would be Germany, as they seem to have the socialism level that seems to work best with Western ideology.

I do think that the US will be the leading nation for years and years to come, maybe centuries. We've got a lot more coal, a lot more fuel oil and a lot more of other important resources inside the US then other nations have. When fuel starts to run out, the US will be the next Saudi Arabia, able to charge whatever the market will bear for oil. What are people going to do, do without plastics, soaps, shampoos, rubber, gasoline, and other organic fuels? The US is using up the rest of the worlds resources while sitting on our own and saving it for the future.

We also have the worlds more expensive and technological military. When the next generation of planes, tanks and ships come to fruition, we're going to be far ahead of the abilities of even China, Europe and Russia.

So in an economic and military sense we're going to be the top nation for quite some time.

[Tiggs]

What really does Britain have to offer? Any material resources? Any special industry?

Our main export is actors to play the bad guys in Hollywood films, mostly. That and our wicked sense of humor, mixed with a dash of decorum and fair play

Russia has already returned to it's prior super power status. It's just pretty quiet about it.

The next superpowers will be China and then India - at some point, their sheer population numbers make it inevitable.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Tiggs

[Space Commander Travis]

I do think that the US will be the leading nation for years and years to come, maybe centuries. We've got a lot more coal, a lot more fuel oil and a lot more of other important resources inside the US then other nations have. When fuel starts to run out, the US will be the next Saudi Arabia, able to charge whatever the market will bear for oil. What are people going to do, do without plastics, soaps, shampoos, rubber, gasoline, and other organic fuels? The US is using up the rest of the worlds resources while sitting on our own and saving it for the future.

We also have the worlds more expensive and technological military. When the next generation of planes, tanks and ships come to fruition, we're going to be far ahead of the abilities of even China, Europe and Russia.

So in an economic and military sense we're going to be the top nation for quite some time.

But doesn't the overwhelming superiority of the U.S. rely very heavily on Capitalism? And we know that that has broken down already, at least in the way that any of the genuine economic thinkers would recognise it, and it's now just a worldwide mafia of mega-corporations that are more powerful than any one nation, perhaps even including the U.S. Really, the economic dominance of the U.S. is based on a very, very shaky foundation.

And really, having the world's more expensive and technological military is the problem. These are useless against anyone who doesn't rely on Technology, e.g. most of the people the U.S. has decided to make War on over the last decade. Having the world's more expensive and technological military is not only no use in the war against "Terrorists", the cost of it is a decided liability.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Well if you were to go by human development and living standards Norway is at the top followed by Australia.

Source

I wouldn't trust those crazy Swedes

[+and-then]

But doesn't the overwhelming superiority of the U.S. rely very heavily on Capitalism? And we know that that has broken down already, at least in the way that any of the genuine economic thinkers would recognise it, and it's now just a worldwide mafia of mega-corporations that are more powerful than any one nation, perhaps even including the U.S. Really, the economic dominance of the U.S. is based on a very, very shaky foundation.

And really, having the world's more expensive and technological military is the problem. These are useless against anyone who doesn't rely on Technology, e.g. most of the people the U.S. has decided to make War on over the last decade. Having the world's more expensive and technological military is not only no use in the war against "Terrorists", the cost of it is a decided liability.

Trying to make war on an ideology is the first problem. The second is trying to fight war's without casualties or angering different communities in the world. War should never be waged except for survival but when it is waged it should be decisive and as fast as possible. I think a perfect example of this kind of war is going to be seen in the Middle East quite soon.

And nice try but the US didn't just casually decide to go Roman on those idiots in Afghanistan or Iraq. The WORLD community was on board at the outset of those hostilities saying it seemed like a reasonable thing to do. It went on far too long due to mission creep but in the beginning was justified. If we enter a war with Iran I think we should go Roman on them and then just leave the ruins for them to clean up and to hell with what the rest of the world thinks. Break their government by breaking their infrastructure. Incinerate the IRGC and turn off the lights as we are leaving.

The international community with a very few exceptions, most of those not in Europe, are a bunch of appeasers and it seems they would be just as content as slaves as they are as free people.

[Space Commander Travis]

And nice try but the US didn't just casually decide to go Roman on those idiots in Afghanistan or Iraq. The WORLD community was on board at the outset of those hostilities saying it seemed like a reasonable thing to do.

Tony Blair, you mean?

[DKO]

I wouldn't trust those crazy Swedes

Haha better go with the country second on the list.

[+and-then]

Tony Blair, you mean?

I realize that Blair is as unpopular as Bush but he was hardly alone. The UN seemed convinced enough as a group to vote for resolution 1441.

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iraqchron

I also realize that the blame America first last and always groups will never be satisfied with any action we take. And that's okay, the world moves on.

[Corp]

Andorra is the naturally choice.

[Myles]

Canada is a good choice.

But the more likely are China, Russia and Brazil.

[Myles]

Canada is a good choice.

But the more likely are China, Russia and Brazil.

[+DieChecker]

But doesn't the overwhelming superiority of the U.S. rely very heavily on Capitalism? And we know that that has broken down already, at least in the way that any of the genuine economic thinkers would recognise it, and it's now just a worldwide mafia of mega-corporations that are more powerful than any one nation, perhaps even including the U.S. Really, the economic dominance of the U.S. is based on a very, very shaky foundation.

And really, having the world's more expensive and technological military is the problem. These are useless against anyone who doesn't rely on Technology, e.g. most of the people the U.S. has decided to make War on over the last decade. Having the world's more expensive and technological military is not only no use in the war against "Terrorists", the cost of it is a decided liability.

I think the superiority of the US did at one time revolve around capitalism, but I think that the US has such a lead now that even if it went to a socialist state-owned-utilities/land/housing that it would continue on inertia for a long, long time.

I'd not say capitalism is broken, just in a slump. And part of the slump is the very socialist activities that are being praised. If capitalism was allowed to run the US, we'd not have a National Debt, or much in the way of Entitlements. If it did not turn a profit, we'd not have it. But, what caused the current slump? Debt and government involved housing markets.

The greater our techological military edge the less people we loose in war. Are you actually in favor of killing people instead of improving technology? I think that whatever the costs, we're better off with a virtually unbeatable military, then with moderate spending and a military that is satisfied with a 1 in 10 death per soldier in the warzone. I'd rather spend ten times the other guy and have no one killed. Soon we'll not have soldiers fighting at all, as everything will be operatable by robot remotely controlled from the other side of the world.

[Myles]

I think the superiority of the US did at one time revolve around capitalism, but I think that the US has such a lead now that even if it went to a socialist state-owned-utilities/land/housing that it would continue on inertia for a long, long time.

I'd not say capitalism is broken, just in a slump. And part of the slump is the very socialist activities that are being praised. If capitalism was allowed to run the US, we'd not have a National Debt, or much in the way of Entitlements. If it did not turn a profit, we'd not have it. But, what caused the current slump? Debt and government involved housing markets.

The greater our techological military edge the less people we loose in war. Are you actually in favor of killing people instead of improving technology? I think that whatever the costs, we're better off with a virtually unbeatable military, then with moderate spending and a military that is satisfied with a 1 in 10 death per soldier in the warzone. I'd rather spend ten times the other guy and have no one killed. Soon we'll not have soldiers fighting at all, as everything will be operatable by robot remotely controlled from the other side of the world.

I think a downside to that will be more of an effort to hit the mainland.

[lightly]

If you think we are in debt now.... what do you think remote controlled robot warfare would cost!?!?!?!?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ... come to think of it... that's the soundest argument that it might happen.

Luckily, economic reality will prevent the possibility.

[DingoLingo]

It's Australia's turn to be a superpower dangnabbit!

Australia as a superpower? mate.. I think we are a bit to laid back to be a super power..

mind you.. we could teach the rest of the world proper football.. good bear.. and how to barbie a snag..