Much as I love hearing about how great Canada is, let’s not leave the Aussies out.
During the not-infrequent “Should the U.S. have nuked Japan during WW2” threads, I ponder an Eastern D-Day invasion made up of American, British, Canadian and Australian armies. They might have made it, at huge cost.
The U.S.'s rise as an atomic power shows how systems of freedom can beat totalitarianism at crucial moments. Nuclear physicists, many of them Jewish, were on the verge of forming modern atomic theory just Germany was routinely disenfranchising, killing and exiling Jews.
The only flags planted by human hands on the moon belong to us. Part of the answer lies in the fact that we think anything is possible. Mindset and the attitude of hell yes we can do this has as much as anything to do with it.
I respectfully disagree. The tree may not have given fruit until the 20th century, but it was 450 years in the making.
However, I also was not saying that slavery was the only cause, or even a main cause; just a contributary cause. Self-sufficiency, friendly borders, 2 oceans of protection, capitalism and self determination, and many of the other reasons mention in this thread are all pieces of the puzzle that have built the US into the superpower it is.
Sam earlier you talked about capitalism and the difference of 1-2% in growth rate compounded. I agree wholeheartedly, and I think that for several hundred years, including time prior to the formation of the United States, slavery helped the nation achieve that 1-2%.
I question how big a role slavery played in the rise of the American economy. It was undoubtedly a major factor in American agriculture strength…however, it didn’t play a role in the industrialized portion, which is where the US got its might from. The only thing I can think of is it freed other immigrants from the chore of having to work the fields and enabled them to be used in northern industrial centers.
I’m afraid that I find this implausible, both regarding “untamed” and regarding “better agriculture.”
Certainly, the very earliest Europeans did find deserted farmland where various European diseases had wiped out several farming Indian groups. However, once the whites had landed and taken over those early fields, the white diseases preceded them across the continent (at least as far as the Mississippi and the Missouri) and the later white pioneers found land long since gone fallow where they did not find virgin forest (of which they found a lot).
The Iroquois system of planting the “three sisters” together was an innovative method of providing calories to the population while not depleting the soil, but it was very labor intensive and never provided enough extra food to allow the Iroquois confederacy to expand outside what is now New York.
Similarly, while the Natchez and Cherokee were certainly agrarian, I have never seen anyone claim that their production was superior to any other groups. The Great Lakes nations were fairly thinly spread because they never developed a high-production agriculture. The Mound Builders and, later, the Mandans, were able to establish a large population fed through agriculture, but they (like the Iroquois and Natchez) never produced so much surplus as to generate a city-based society comparable to any number of “old world” societies.
Moving into Meso-America, we find two successive cultures (Maya, then Aztec) that were able to create cities, but they do not appear to have had agriculture that was actually superior to that of Europe. What they had was a nearly year-round growing season which is not really the same thing. (I am not that well versed on Inca society or agriculture, but they certainly had little to do with the development of the U.S.)
Given my understanding, I’m curious as to the contentions I have challenged–as well as the historians who support them.
Actually, most of Australia is inhabitable: it just isn’t inhabited.
I think its primarily a question of isolation. Australia is a damn long way from anything (as a native of Perth, the world’s most isolated city, I really appreciated this whenever I had to fly anywhere). Its hard to have an influence in world affairs when you’re sitting way south.
Couple of simple things, mainly, Size/resources and peace:
The US is basically a continent, with a rich base of natural resources and agricultural fertility etc. Australia, for all its size, has much less resources, and other countries with similar per capita resources to the US are much smaller.
The other possible contenders were all ravaged by major wars on their territories, usually multiple times. There has been no war in the US in a century and a half, and even that only ravaged one region of it, one that had little industry to start with.
A starting point, yes, as this is a mighty complex question. Immigrants are a part of the picture (and a very important part, IMHO, but I’m biased, because without immigrants I’d be unemployed).
The screwed-up state of the Soviet Union is also part of the picture, and yes, the end of the Cold War did leave a geopolitical power vacuum which the U.S. has been trying mighty hard to fill in some areas (although I think it’s quite ironic that right now we’re probably sharing intelligence information on Afghanistan with the Russians - I only pray that we learn something from their mistakes there, but that’s a rant for another day).
Both of these skirt the idea, however, that part of America’s great strength is that we have historically been more accepting than most countries of ideas and people that are outside the mainstream of thought.
Our educational system is much less uniform and often more unstructured than those of most industrialized countries, which is sometimes a bad thing, but can also be a very good thing, as it leaves room for the development of creativity and “outside-the-box” thinking. That sure as heck isn’t the case for the Russians. (Not to say that Russians aren’t creative, but having spent some tie living there, I would argue that it’s more in spite of the educational system than because of it.)
Any other thoughts about how the educational system in the U.S. contributes to our country’s greatness? (And yes, education attracts immigrants, too, in a symbiotic relationship.)
Um, I’d disagree with you and say Australia has both of these. We sometimes joke that Western Australia should secede from the rest of the country, since we have so many of the natural resources…WA could make a killing in exporting them to the east!
And Dave, another Sandgroper here! I will admit that you are right, Australia’s centre CAN be inhabited, but I wouldn’t want to live there, would you? I’m guessing a lot of people wouldn’t. Its too hot and dry and too far from the beach. Whereas central USA isn’t as bad (although its still bloody far from the coast!).
Holy Manifest Destiny Batman!!! When did the United States annex Canada and Mexico?!?!
As to the OP, I honestly think the Key to being a superpower is more military in nature than ecconomic (except when it comes to funding that military which the Soviets could not).
The ability to go anywhere at any moment with your Navy Air and land forces gives the United States a huge amount of clout. Most Nations can not keep operations going in several theatres at once as the United States can.
But the real clincher is not just number of troops number of dollars or the ability to “Kick Ass”. Britain in the 19th century was not considered a Super power despite its economic, and military power. It was a world power but not a super power. Why? No Nukes!
So if a=Large stashes of Nukes (ability to destroy many targets many times over)
and b=Military capability and ability to mobilize quickly
and c=Economic strength to maintain
Nah, we just hide in our houses and shopping malls
And there are people living underground in Coober Pedy, an opal-mining town. Not exactly in mines, but in tunnels and such, like hobbits. Its a lot cooler than being above ground, apparently.
A couple things I am surprised are never mentioned in this thread are:
1/5th of all the fresh water in the world via the Great Lakes. Canada has this access as well, but, like they said it’s too fucking cold up there.
The fact that whether or not there was a northwest passage was irrelevant to us for trading with both Asia as well as Europe, also that we controlled all the land in between and rail travel was developed shortly after we formed as a nation. Long coasts with incredible ports that are generally protected from the elements via wide harbors, such as New York, New Orleans, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle.
2a) Incredible access inland via the great lakes and the Mississippi river.
An intense unspoken kinship with our parent country England, despite the couple of fights we had with them early on. England being the superpower during our formative years, and very wealthy and a great source of trade.
As for the rest of it Immigrants, Slavery, Genocide, being too remote to mount a good offensive, but not remote enough to limit us from trade. Those have all been mentioned so there is no need for me to say anything.
Others addressed the limiting factors for those nations, I don’t know much about them, I just know a bit about the US. I can speculate on why the US is successful, not why others are not. Though from maps I’ve seen of Russia and Australia, they don’t have a whole lot of water deep enough that goes far inland enough to bring goods by ship inland. Climate is also important. Also Russia’s size may be bad for it, because it’s SO big and it’s got this big desert and arctic wasteland smack dab in the center of it, whereas the US is pretty fertile except for the southwest, which is pretty good ranch country.
kingpengvin, I said the US “basically” a continent, not “is” a continent.
tsubaki, I wasn’t only referring to mineral deposits, but to niceties like fresh water, river transportation, timber, and arable land. As nice a place as Oz is, it is short on all of those things for its size, right? That certainly has constrained its population growth and industrial development, which would seem to be necessary precursors for becoming a superpower.
