It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S.A. is the first and only Hyperpower

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Categories of powers
Political analysis often personifies nation states as powers, discussing superpowers, great powers, second-order powers and "European powers", for example, with convenient simplicity as manifestations of Realpolitik.

States have always had variable levels of powers and a number of terms -have been developed to describe this continuum.

-A hyperpower is the dominating state in a unipolar world (some consider the United States to be such a state today)

-A superpower is a state that is greatly more powerful than almost all other countries, especially in a bipolar world (for example, the US and USSR during the Cold War)

-A great power is a state that is one of the leading powers in the world, especially in a multi-polar world (for example, France, Austria, Prussia and Russia during the 19th century)

-A regional power that dominates other states in its region. Examples of regional powers today would be India in South Asia and Australia in the Pacific Ocean.

-A middle power is a state that cannot dominate other states, but does have some international influence (for example, Canada today). The term is, however, often used interchangeably with regional power.

Here is the meaning of a Hyperpower by Wiki:


A hyperpower is a powerful country that is vastly stronger than any potential rival. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has been the world's only superpower. Many thus call it a hyperpower in order to indicate a differing world order from the politics of the great powers of the 19th and early 20th centuries and the superpowers that suceeded them during the Cold War.

The term ‘hyperpower’ was popularised by French foreign minister Hubert Védrine in the 1990s in an effort to explain what had replaced the dominance by superpowers and great powers of international relations. As of 2004, the United States has a military strength comparable to the combined military strengths of the next seventeen nations. In cultural and economic spheres it is also dominant. Thus some observers have termed this a hyperpower era in which other powers are having to learn how to deal with the United States, while the United States has to learn how to wield its power responsibly. Others, such as Samuel P. Huntington, disagree with this account, seeing ours as a multipolar world, with many dormant and developing World powers, as well as a greater influence on World politics from regional powers.

Some people believe that whilst the United States has an enormous military advantage over its rivals and any possible contender for superpower status, it is only a matter of time before states such as the People's Republic of China, India, or Brazil, or international organisations such as the European Union, equal or even surpass the United States economically, or militarily, or both.

In a world with multiple superpowers, of course, the United States would no longer be a hyperpower.


Sources: en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

I knew the US was a great force before I read this, but this is just overkill... The main reason why the US is a hyperpower is because of its economical strength, with money comes power. If other countries had just as much money, Im sure they too would have great military strength.

[edit on 25-3-2005 by beyondSciFi]




posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 07:45 PM
link   
i remind you of our current deficit. Money is not the only issue, but it plays a big part.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   
OK, so somebody has time on their hands. All this just to say the US is the most powerful nation on the planet? Didn't we already know this?



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   
American arrogance trying to label itself as an invincible 'hyperpower'



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I just found it interesting that they made a new term by which to consider the U.S.A.


[edit on 25-3-2005 by beyondSciFi]



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Your not a HYPERPOWER unless you HAVE THE MOST SUCESSFUL BOYBAND IN HISTORY!

SERIOUSLY, LAST ALBUM THEY MADE "THE BEATLES" GET SQUASHED.

(No offense beatle fans.)



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Ah...poor Canada, I lament your lowest of low 'middle power' designation.

Like a 2 out of 10, rated by Greenspan...

*sips a Molcoors*



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 01:34 AM
link   
I dont really think we need the word "HyperPower", thats a bit extreme.

What would China be considered as? I'm thinking regional power ???

and while money is a big part, there's still several other factors, another big one is simple.....location, location, location.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
I dont really think we need the word "HyperPower", thats a bit extreme.


Actually when you think about it, Hyperpower, is the perfect term to describe the USA now. The USA is much more powerful militarily then any other nation, in fact, it is as strong as the next seventeen countries combined. It also has the strongest economy in the world, by a great amount. Simply put, the USA should be labeled as a hyperpower due to these factors and because there are no countries that can even rival the power of the USA now or anytime in the near future.


Originally posted by Murcielago
What would China be considered as? I'm thinking regional power ???


Well, considering that N. Korea, Japan, India and Russia are close to China, im not sure if that would China would be a regional power, but maybe to its closer, smaller neighboring countries.


Originally posted by Murcielago
and while money is a big part, there's still several other factors, another big one is simple.....location, location, location.


What exactly do you mean by location? After all, location has stopped being a problem in terms of military back around W.W.II with the true expansion of aircraft into war machines. With aircraft you could go bomb any place on the planet, not to mention drop troops and supplies. Location now is only important for natural resources and framing land. These factors are very significant only if that region is especial rich in them (for example the Arab Emissaries with oil). Although these factors impact the economy of the country, most of the money comes from services provided by that nation (this applies mostly to first and second world nations). In conclusion location is not much of a factor for a military or economical standpoint, unless the region is very rich in resources (at this current time, pre-W.W.II however location was one of the most important factors out there).

P.S. Murc, you always make great posts, and I have to think before I can give an appropriate response.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   
it seems you hav'nt accounted for world wars somthing that involves the rest of the world on this scale would create a shift in polical powers so dont be so sure america will stay on top look at the romans look at Great Britain



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 01:05 PM
link   
I've heard this one used a bunch, with truth. Despite our current drop in status, we remain the single most powerful nation around. It means less now than it did then, when we only had the ability to destroy the Earth twice. The growth of nuclear power has put a kind of level on the Earth. Mutally Assured Destruction (MAD) renders a lot of our abilities useless, like those of being able to eliminate existance. But, we are number 1. Woo.

The title of Hyperpower is perfectly apt. We are on a level so far above all others, even though a lot of it can't and shouldn't be used for obvious reasons.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by drfunk
American arrogance trying to label itself as an invincible 'hyperpower'


Actually, America had nothing to do with the advent of this label.

This quote is from the originally linked article.


The term ‘hyperpower’ was popularised by French foreign minister Hubert Védrine in the 1990s in an effort to explain what had replaced the dominance by superpowers and great powers of international relations. As of 2004, the United States has a military strength comparable to the combined military strengths of the next seventeen nations.


Those darn french making trouble agian



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
It means less now than it did then, when we only had the ability to destroy the Earth twice. The growth of nuclear power has put a kind of level on the Earth. Mutally Assured Destruction (MAD) renders a lot of our abilities useless, like those of being able to eliminate existance.


We never had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the earth, that would take trillions upon trillions upon trillions of nuclear weapons to destroy the world in a single bang. We did have enough nuclear weapons to nuke the entire surface of the earth, but that would not kill every living thing. Life in the oceans would continue. Thats why raw military power is measured in the convetional sense, i.e. bombs, planes, troops, ships etc...



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   
When we use the term mutually assured destruction it only implies the death of the human species, not all of life, or even the earth.

Once again human arrogance has us believing we can actually destroy the planet? LMFAO!

Oh lord how I long for the days when we simply thougth we were God's choosen.

To stay on topic I think the term hyper power is simply used to convey the excessiveness of the current American goal. Which, whether you believe it or not, is to control the globe.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Sorry if I wasn't clear. When I said the entire earth, i meant the human civilization upon it. To destroy the actual EARTH we need only wait. I guess the caps messed things up a bit, sorry. (existance, again, is us. COCKROACHES IN DA HIZZOUZE!)



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   
All empires fall, all superpowers fail, nothing lasts long under the sun. The US is a superpower today, in 25 years china and India will have larger economies.

at some point US debts must be paid back, as of today that is roughly 7 trillion on the books, 11 trillion carried off the books. We are making China wealthy, we will be making India Wealthy as well. We are looking at our own demise, caused by unsatiable thirst to spend money we dont have.

The US has seen its best days, and began a slow decline in the late 70's,when wages began to decline, and have been ever since. A nation is only as strong as the currency that supports it, the dollar is sliding and will continue to slide into the foreseeable future.

I figure another 20 years, and then the damage is irreperable.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by toolmaker
A nation is only as strong as the currency that supports it, the dollar is sliding and will continue to slide into the foreseeable future.


I dont see it like that, I have stocks and the value of the doller was only about 3% lower then normal at its lowest point. The dollor is regaining its vaule now. I think the future of the USA will still be pretty good.


[edit on 26-3-2005 by beyondSciFi]



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 06:30 PM
link   
America has the most powerful millitary. Yet they cant seem to stop the war in Iraq



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   
The war has been declared officially over, then only acts of violence in Iraq now are terrorist attacks and from criminals.



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by beyondSciFi

Originally posted by toolmaker
A nation is only as strong as the currency that supports it, the dollar is sliding and will continue to slide into the foreseeable future.


I dont see it like that, I have stocks and the value of the doller was only about 3% lower then normal at its lowest point. The dollor is regaining its vaule now. I think the future of the USA will still be pretty good.


[edit on 26-3-2005 by beyondSciFi]


You are obviously not being honest with yourself or others...

I too own stock...in currencies and gold though.

And in that dept. The world has been steadily declining...

Hell even when I lived in Britain (five years ago) the pound was worth 1.85 US currency ..........oh but we have the worlds strongest currency though...hahaha...

Whatever !Quit listening to the news and do some homework.......our currencies value has been declining for years.....

fact of the matter....end of story....whether you like it or not..........



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join