Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

Is the United States a hyperpower?


  • Please log in to reply
131 replies to this topic

Poll: Is the United States a hyperpower? (43 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you think the USA is a hyperpower?

  1. Yes (12 votes [27.91%])

    Percentage of vote: 27.91%

  2. No (18 votes [41.86%])

    Percentage of vote: 41.86%

  3. Depends on what the qualifications of a hyperpower are.. (13 votes [30.23%])

    Percentage of vote: 30.23%

Do you think China will overtake the United States in importance throughout the world?

  1. Yes (25 votes [58.14%])

    Percentage of vote: 58.14%

  2. No (8 votes [18.60%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.60%

  3. Possibly (10 votes [23.26%])

    Percentage of vote: 23.26%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#121
PhoenixRu

PhoenixRu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,519 posts
  • LocationRussia

From strictly a matter of measuring stockpiles of weapons and their relative sophistication, I think the USA is still arguably a hyper-power.

 

From wikipedia. Hyperpower

 

A hyperpower is a state that dominates all other states in every sphere of activity (i.e. military, culture, economy) and is considered to be a step higher than a superpower. The term often refers to the United States of America due to its status as the world's only current superpower; however, its possible status above that remains a topic of dispute.

 

USA clearly not "dominates all other states in every sphere of activity". Take the Syrian war or Crimea as example: USA were infuriated by what rival powers has done, but were unable to stop them.

 

USA will become true hyperpower only when they subjugate both Russia and China and there will be no any other strong and independent competitors. I think this is highly unlikely and becoming less and less likely with time.


--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

 

"And the Russian land, let God keep it! Under heavens, there is no other land like this. And although Russian nobles are not righteous neither kind, let God arrange the Russian land and give us enough justice" - Afanasy Nikitin, medieval traveler of XV century.


#122
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,220 posts

From wikipedia. Hyperpower

 

Yes, so to fully qualify as a hyperpower, it would have to dominate in all spheres.  I was pointing out some spheres where it does clearly dominate.

 

 

 

USA clearly not "dominates all other states in every sphere of activity". Take the Syrian war or Crimea as example: USA were infuriated by what rival powers has done, but were unable to stop them.

 

Well, yes, another example of where the U.S. was "merely" a superpower.

 

 

USA will become true hyperpower only when they subjugate both Russia and China and there will be no any other strong and independent competitors. I think this is highly unlikely and becoming less and less likely with time.

 

 

 

Not really all that far off from my own conclusion re: China closing the gap and some areas where Russia  is posing a challenge. So, yes, you did add another area that I left out regarding Russia's influence.  Syria. Big whoop. I mean Syria?

 

  Who cares (except maybe Syrians and the Pentagon).


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#123
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 722 posts
  • LocationLondon

I think hyperpower status is off the table for the moment, for anyone. 

 

Unless the USA continues to price their own population out of education, while cracking down on immigrants, i dont think they'd let china get to unopposed "hyperpower" status in the next 100 years or so.

 

In the medium-long term Russia has yet to experience it's golden age which will come about when automation allows their relatively small population to take full advantage of their enormous land area and material resources for the first time in history. 

 

This will also allow a resurgence in US power as their relatively small population (compared to china and India) matters less and less with automation.

 

Also Canada could suddenly emerge as a global superpower under these conditions which would be pretty fun. 

 

Then there is space, if someone manages to grab Mars, and industrialise it, or just one nation is able to start exploiting asteroids etc. they could end up a hyper power from that.



#124
Unity

Unity

    Information Organism

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,443 posts

A hyperpower means it can interact in any corner of the globe unimpeded and increasingly that is becoming less possible particularly in the South China sea as China expands its navy.  I see China surpassing the US in terms of submarines in the 2020s and using that power to expand their own power base into Africa.  As they build more bases and particularly if they control the Suez Canal they will expand both their military and economic might.  They will definitely be the global leader by the 2070s or so, but I don't think they will be a hyperpower as they will be thwarted by Japan and India to some degree and not be able to project power to the Americas/Western Europe.  The future should be interesting to say the least. I just hope we don't face a major war this century.



#125
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,148 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda

In my eyes, a hyperpower is something that simply can't exist (yet). That's actual world domination to a cartoonish extent. That's not just the USA not having to worry about China and Russia— that's the USA annexing China and Russia. 

A GDP ten times larger than it currently is, with a military budget in the tens of trillions, NASA budget in the hundreds of billions, pumping out super geniuses from studentry-style colleges, with anti-nuclear defenses that are airtight— while the rest of the world remains exactly where it is. 

 

Maybe in the immediate post-war period, you could classify USA as a hyperpower. But you'd still run into problems.


Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#126
Erowind

Erowind

    Psychonaut, Aspiring Mathematician and Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 529 posts
  • LocationInside some convoluted formula I don't actually understand.
What is a studentry-styled college?

Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#127
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Nadsat Brat

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,148 posts
  • LocationAnur Margidda

Oh, that's my own term that I've somehow deluded myself into thinking was more common. A "studentry" (not referring to a school's student body) is more of a dystopian thing, where you're taken from birth and raised by teachers. Because schooling can only go so far when you still have to go back to your parents who will always try to infuse into you their own beliefs and ways (plus, they get four to five years to do so, those years being the absolute most important in any person's development). 

It's been proven that you can turn any "average" person into a prodigy if you raise them in the correct manner, and your ability to learn languages also forms most quickly between ages 0 and 5. So if you are willing to go full totalitarian, the best way to get a high intellect population is to take newborns and put them into these studentries and then begin teaching them from the moment they arrive. Because they do learn even at this stage. They learn things in the womb, but it's when they're born that it kicks into high gear. 

 

Naturally, you can see how that might be troublesome because you can effectively mold a whole generation's entire reality if you can raise them from birth. Indoctrination at schools or from entertainment or from church is scattershot and tends to focus on when a child can actually understand these things. But a studentry is infinitely more focused. The only reason why we don't have studentries in real life is because they're technically impossible to pull off. One, the outcry you'd get from mothers would be legendary. Two, you're still raising them with other humans. We'd need machines to make them effective. You'd also need machines to keep the anguished mothers in their place.


  • Erowind, BasilBerylium and rennerpetey like this
Nobody's gonna take my drone, I'm gonna fly miles far too high!
Nobody gonna beat my drone, it's gonna shoot into the sky!

#128
Erowind

Erowind

    Psychonaut, Aspiring Mathematician and Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 529 posts
  • LocationInside some convoluted formula I don't actually understand.
.

 

The idea reminds of Brave New World's schooling system. Studentries would be very effective from what you're describing, albeit extremely totalitarian.


Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#129
BasilBerylium

BasilBerylium

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • LocationArgentina

^ It reminds me of Spartan training, only that instead of creating supersoldiers they would create specialized(?) geniuses; or at least take brainwashing to a new level.

 

PD: you always have the most creative ideas Yuli


  • Unity likes this

#130
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,241 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

Oh, that's my own term that I've somehow deluded myself into thinking was more common. A "studentry" (not referring to a school's student body) is more of a dystopian thing, where you're taken from birth and raised by teachers. Because schooling can only go so far when you still have to go back to your parents who will always try to infuse into you their own beliefs and ways (plus, they get four to five years to do so, those years being the absolute most important in any person's development). 

It's been proven that you can turn any "average" person into a prodigy if you raise them in the correct manner, and your ability to learn languages also forms most quickly between ages 0 and 5. So if you are willing to go full totalitarian, the best way to get a high intellect population is to take newborns and put them into these studentries and then begin teaching them from the moment they arrive. Because they do learn even at this stage. They learn things in the womb, but it's when they're born that it kicks into high gear. 

 

Naturally, you can see how that might be troublesome because you can effectively mold a whole generation's entire reality if you can raise them from birth. Indoctrination at schools or from entertainment or from church is scattershot and tends to focus on when a child can actually understand these things. But a studentry is infinitely more focused. The only reason why we don't have studentries in real life is because they're technically impossible to pull off. One, the outcry you'd get from mothers would be legendary. Two, you're still raising them with other humans. We'd need machines to make them effective. You'd also need machines to keep the anguished mothers in their place.

OK, so this has given me an idea for something called the Crucible. Will make a thread on that.


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#131
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,512 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

Naturally, you can see how that might be troublesome because you can effectively mold a whole generation's entire reality if you can raise them from birth. Indoctrination at schools or from entertainment or from church is scattershot and tends to focus on when a child can actually understand these things. But a studentry is infinitely more focused. The only reason why we don't have studentries in real life is because they're technically impossible to pull off. One, the outcry you'd get from mothers would be legendary. Two, you're still raising them with other humans. We'd need machines to make them effective. You'd also need machines to keep the anguished mothers in their place.

 

Here's a solution both can compromise on - bring the educators, namely the machines, to the children's homes and have them reside there 24/7 and readily available to answer and guide their inquiring minds.


  • Unity likes this
What are you without the sum of your parts?

#132
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,220 posts

I just thought I would add to the list I started on the previous page of why I do not consider the United States to be a hyperpower.  It was only vaguely alluded to in my previous comments, and needs to be explicit.  That is in the field of nuclear weapons.  It matters little if the U.S. has "more sophisticated" nuclear weapons if Russia (or other nuclear powers) retain the ability to inflict unacceptable damage on the United States in the event of a nuclear war.  

 

I would think that is an obvious point, but needed to be said so that others don't think that I am naive on that subject.  


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users