No more world leaders ?

[warlocked]

The USA it seems is no longer the world leader, China despite all the hype tends to be resented around most of the world and is thus unlikely to be a leader itself. It seems that most countries strongly resent outside intervention in South America and Africa. From my own opinion the world is beyond the use of having superpowers and leaders.

Do you feel that

1. america is or is not a superpower / leader
2. The world is beyond needing or for that matter wanting superpowers or leaders

[Tradewind]

I actually think that as we move towards more Globalization the idea of a superpower is becoming outdated. Doesn't mean the US still isn't one...their economic tentacles have solidly penetrated almost everywhere on the globe in one way shape or form.

[Sunseeker]

I actually think that as we move towards more Globalization the idea of a superpower is becoming outdated. Doesn't mean the US still isn't one...their economic tentacles have solidly penetrated almost everywhere on the globe in one way shape or form.

Are you sure you're not talking about Japan?

[Tradewind]

Are you sure you're not talking about Japan?

First rule of public speaking is to consider your audience :P

[Endus]

The entire concept of "superpower" has only really existed since WWII. And then, only because most of the prior world powers had been ground to dust by the war machines during WWII, on both sides. The US, by dint of being an ocean away, and the USSR, by dint of being freaking huge and inhospitable to ground invasion, took the least damage to infrastructure (as a percentage of manufacturing capacity; lives and materiel lost isn't nearly as big a factor in this respect), and that's why the Cold War was between those two. Because there were so few powers, they became superpowers, and each was the only check there was on the other.

That really, really is not a good model for the world. Anything we can do to move away from that is a good thing.

[Elegiac]

This is not a simple question, but I will try to make my answer as concise as possible.

There are three major types of international power structure:

- Unipolar: One world power/leader/superpower.
- Bipolar: Two world powers/leaders/superpowers.
- Multipolar: Three or more great powers.

We've seen a shift between these three modes in the past half century. During the Cold War, the world was in a bipolar state. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world entered the "Pax Americana", where the US was the world's sole great power. What is happening at the moment is a shift from the unipolar system to the multipolar system; unipolar systems tend to be inherently unstable because a single power cannot sustain itself at that position over the long term. Instead, we're going to see a retraction of American power and a rise of new spheres of interest belonging to China, India, Russia, Europe, etc.

And on the contrary, I feel that world powers are just as necessary today as they were pre-1914. Someone has to keep conflicts from escalating within their sphere of interest, as well as provide a counterpoint in order to discourage expansion and aggression by the other powers. If anything, post-1918 has been a massive demonstration of the failure of the Wilsonian model of "collective security".

[Deleted]

China doesn't want to be a leader.

[OzoAndIndi]

The world shouldn't have one country that's "the world leader" really... I cringe at the assumption some make that the US should act like some kind of world police. If we've had some ideals that some others have aspired to or we were able to reach out a hand to another that needed it, great. But really... I wish we could keep out of a lot of stuff, it should not be up to us to fix the problems of others, to be the scapegoat for their issues or things they disagree with, or even have some other countries expecting that the US is supposed to get involved if there is a problem. What are we, a planet's version of security guards?

As countries I think we're more like a few different factions (plus some problematic loners) that have a few collective big dogs within their team.

[Grummgug]

The world leader is ALWAYS hated and resented, from pure jealousy alone. It doesn't matter what country leads, or what mistakes they make, this will always be true. There is always a Sword of Damocles.

In my view, America is no longer the world leader the day a foreign power establishes a military presence / base within its borders.

- - - Updated - - -

The world shouldn't have one country that's "the world leader" really...

Its not a question of should or should not. A world leader naturally arises.

[apepi]

America is still pretty big. If a country can come into another country, kill some of their people and just simply leave, you got to be pretty strong. And on china, they can barely deal with their own people, let alone the world.

[warlocked]

Hey, Don't knock china, they have 1/7 of the world's population. The USA on the other hand is typically considered imperialist in south america, neglectful in Africa, Meddling in the middle east, irrelevant in the far east, and is generally looked down upon by European countries. I by no means feel that the USA has not had an impact on culture around the globe, I do feel however that no longer does the globe want a civilization to copy. Globalization seemingly causes this due to easy analysis of QoL conditions in many countries

[Fugus]

From what I have seen, the world leaders are no longer countries but are owners of international companies the the countries pander to.

You know the golden rule, he who has the gold, makes the rules.

So we now have the US sliding (some say already slid) into a bad spot with other countries having their leaders trying to slide down with us to join us as the same group that paid for our fall is paying for them to do the same..

[soulcrusher]

In my view, America is no longer the world leader the day a foreign power establishes a military presence / base within its borders.

or is governed/directed by a foreign power? chuck hagel appointment farce and current foreign policy direction spring to mind.

[lettuce]

The USA is still a super power, it's just a little less powerful than before. Debt is slowly taking its toll. China is getting there.

[Kalyyn]

I mean, the US conducted 2 simultaneous wars on the opposite side of the planet for a solid decade and came out of it with very few casualties.

Add that to the fact that we toppled the governments of those nations within a few short weeks, one of which had one of the largest armies on Earth (Iraq's Republican Guard). People are quick to criticize our success against the subsequent insurrection, but they always ignore two things: 1, it is literally impossible to end a religious rebellion without completely exterminating the population, and 2, we were literally conducting this policing action from the opposite side of the planet. Meanwhile, we still had the bulk of our forces spread out through the rest of the planet, because we didn't need anywhere close to our entire army to do this.

If that's not a global superpower, I don't know what is.

[Deleted]

The entire concept of "superpower" has only really existed since WWII. And then, only because most of the prior world powers had been ground to dust by the war machines during WWII, on both sides. The US, by dint of being an ocean away, and the USSR, by dint of being freaking huge and inhospitable to ground invasion, took the least damage to infrastructure (as a percentage of manufacturing capacity; lives and materiel lost isn't nearly as big a factor in this respect), and that's why the Cold War was between those two. Because there were so few powers, they became superpowers, and each was the only check there was on the other.

Yes, someone that understands how the US and USSR came into power. The total lack of competition breed these two nation into their vast power.

And the real question is: is actually healthy to have a superpower? Does the feeling of being the supreme power and leader not corrupt you over time? How many third world countries were not corrupted by the US or USSR because of ideology, and in the end leaving nothing but a complete mess and often leaving the country in a far worse state than before the intervention of these superpowers. And even thought the US "won" the cold war, it seems they can't stop finding enemies and spending american tax money and lives on it.

I personally hope we don't see the rise of another superpower, because it haven't shown itself to benefit more than it destroys, but just healthy competition between nations (I know this is a pipedream but one can hope)

[Alski]

Add that to the fact that we toppled the governments of those nations within a few short weeks, one of which had one of the largest armies on Earth (Iraq's Republican Guard).

Last time i bothered to check this they didn't even make the top 20 list for active or reserve military.

[Kalyyn]

Yes, someone that understands how the US and USSR came into power. The total lack of competition breed these two nation into their vast power.

I guess we really need to define what sort of super power we're talking about. You have Military, Economic, and Cultural powers. As far as Military and Culture, America still exists alone and uncontested as the sole superpower. If we look at economic power, though, the European Union is providing some pretty stiff competition. China and India are also making a strong showing, though not nearly on the same level.

- - - Updated - - -

Last time i bothered to check this they didn't even make the top 20 list for active or reserve military.

During the first gulf war, they had the 5th largest active military in the world. Granted, we did kill most of them that time. And had Bush Senior not been a shameless coward, Iraq would have fallen then and there, and we could have avoided the entire Gulf War 2 mess...

Here we go:

By 1990 (according to Keith Shimko) the Iraqi army fielded nearly one million men, 5,700 tanks, 3,700 artillery pieces and 950 combat aircraft.

And we pounded it into dust in an absolutely brilliant air campaign. Sadly, Bush didn't have the balls to let the tanks roll into Baghdad, because he was trying to pander for votes.

And then he lost the election anyway.

[Deleted]

I guess we really need to define what sort of super power we're talking about. You have Military, Economic, and Cultural powers. As far as Military and Culture, America still exists alone and uncontested as the sole superpower. If we look at economic power, though, the European Union is providing some pretty stiff competition. China and India are also making a strong showing, though not nearly on the same level.

Oh yes the US do still have huge military power. Culturel i don't know, I remember seeing Beverly hills and stuff there would come to europe 5-8 years later, now the difference is almost gone and the europeans have established far more luxury goods that get popular and cultural (disregard Apple, they are evil!).

Economical europe finally have built themselves up after the massive destruction of two world wars and a lot of civil unrest (hell even my country have gone from largely a agroculture and low end industry to a far more advanced industry and a agrocultural forerunner, in the last 20-25 years). The US made huge money on europes state of build up and the USSR being a closed nation with almost no export. The east has also risen in power and is beginning to take over the industry that the west can't profit from anymore. So the US certainly have lost a lot of their economical power since they have far more competition than in the 50's towards the end of the cold war, and to be honest, I think it is a good change.

So yeah the US aren't sitting on all three of those aspects of power, and is rather fast losing their place as a superpower. It is the combination of all three that make a nation a true superpower, military power can only win so many battles before it backfires and you make enemies out of everybody.

[Palmz]

What's with China being considered next up in line as a superpower? They were an agricultural nation just a couple decades ago. They have money because nations like the US ship factories oversea's for cheap labor. If push came to shove, the US could just move their factories out and China would go back to dominating agriculture. China isn't close to being a super power.