Is America still going to be the sole superpower under Trump?

One of the reasons I voted for Hillary was because I thought that if we cozied up to Putin too much, we’d let Eastern Europe fall to non-freedom, and thus we’d be tossing away most of what we fought for from 1945-1991 against evil Commnuism. Putin has made statements bemoaning the fall of the Evil Empire, recolonizing Crimea and other places like Abkazia, South Ossetia, and the fake Republics in Eastern Ukraine. He’s also helping Iran get nukes, which is something the West doesn’t want.

Now that Tillerson will be the SoS, or at the very least, Trump is intent on playing nice with Russia, will America be the sole superpower in the world? Or even a superpower at all? Or will the 4-8 years of Trump be more like the mid '70s, when US power was being strongly challenged but not vanquished?

Russia has no desire for Iran to get nukes.

Wait, we’re the sole superpower?

who else is able to project such military and economic power, as well as soft power, around the globe today? We can do tons of stuff in Asia, but no one from the Eastern Hemisphere can do anything in Latin America, and I would never wanna see Russia do so as it once did as the Bolshevik USSR.

Additionally, to add to the thread, if Putin can affect an American election, that does kind of boost Russia’s prestige and image of global power.

China is on the bring of becoming a superpower that can rival us. That would have happened no matter who got elected in the US.

China is still growing at 7% a year. If they can keep that up for 10 years, then that is a doubling of their economy to about 22 trillion by the middle of the next decade. They are rapidly catching up to the west.

I don’t know a lot about international politics, but I’m sure China will be extending their influence in Africa & Asia.

However I don’t know if China has as much desire to influence other nations as the USSR did, or if there will be China vs US spheres of influence, or if nations will be forced to pick sides like they did in the cold war.


Yes. I don’t see Russia catching up to us economically or militarily in the next four (or even eight) years.

OTOH, I think your concerns about an imperialist Russia reclaiming some of it’s lost ground is a real one. That’s not an endorsement of us going to war with them over Ukraine or anything like that, but I also would’t be happy to see them reconquer places like Ukraine.

Regardless of who one, it was inevitable that we’re headed into a multipolar (oligopolar?) world, where the US, Russia, China, and maybe Western Europe (if the EU doesn’t collapse entirely) each has a sphere of influence. The US doesn’t get that yet, and is still antagonistic to our near neighbors in Latin America. China gets it though, and I’d making friends there, at our door step. This will likely become an issue at some point.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I certainly hope he doesn’t get any other superpowers under him…

The US will be a shrinking power for the foreseeable future. The aging of the population means that more money will be needed to spend on retiree’s Social Security and medical care. This will continue to squeeze the military budget.
There will be no other superpower to join the US. Russia is a poor, and aging power. If oil prices stay low they will have a hard time buying enough weapons to project power.
China is still a poor country and their demographics mean that they will get old before they get rich.
The result is a multipolar world with Russia trying to dominate Eastern Europe. Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia will vie for Middle Eastern supremacy. China, Japan, and South Korea will compete for most influential country in Asia.

I’d say for the near future, the US will remain the only world superpower. Its economic might is still more than 1.5 times that of the nearest other single nation (China). Militarily, its forces are still dominant on the world stage- both in quantity (the US is 5th in total people under arms), and in quality- US training and equipment are world-class. In addition, the US has a larger and more powerful navy than the next several nations combined, as well as unparalleled logistical capacity and experience to keep those well trained and equipped troops well supplied, wherever in the world they may be.

Nobody else comes close militarily, and the Chinese still have a ways to go economically. Culturally, US entertainment products and influence dominate the world. Hearing stories about Somalian goatherds knowing about “Baywatch”, or seeing the Coca-Cola logo in things in the most far-flung and remote reaches of the world underscores this.

Long story short, we’re still the only superpower by a long chalk. However, this may not always be so, and in today’s multipolar world, we’d do well to rely on soft power instead of the alternatives.

So it’s better when the United States manipulates Latin American countries, instead of the Soviet Union doing so?

Not that the Soviet Union ever interfered in Latin America quite the same extent as America did. I don’t think there was a single change of government in Latin America, not even in Cuba, that happened because of Soviet influence: the Soviets gave Castro plenty of aid after 1961, but their Cuban proxy had opposed him before he came to power, as they did much later in Nicaragua.

Anyway, I didn’t vote for Trump, but the first paragraph in your post is exactly why I didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton either.

As you point out, since all the other potential major powers (Russia, China, South Korea, all European countries, and for that matter even Brazil- Brazil’s population will be older than ours by 2050) are aging too, most of them much faster than America, I’m not sure why our ‘aging population’ is a problem. Political power is a relative thing: if everyone is aging, the country which is aging the slowest is in the best position.

The only countries which aren’t faced with a large elderly population in the near future are the ones which are too poor to have fully gone through the demographic transition yet (India, most of Africa, and a few Muslim countries), and that’s the same reason they aren’t going to major powers any time soon.

The 7% thing is wrong, even if you believe the CCP’s numbers (which basically no one does). Even THEY admit they have fallen below that and probably will continue below that for a while. And, of course, much of that was artificially manufactured by their housing boom (ghost cities and large prestige projects)…which have pretty much come to an end now.

China isn’t even close to rivaling the US and won’t be any time in the near future, if ever. It’s one of those things that seem to be taken for granted on this board but it has no basis in actual fact. Their economy MIGHT one day surpass the US in pure GDP terms…much like the EU’s overall GDP is higher than the US. But that doesn’t make the EU a superpower in the sense the US is. And even here China is only a maybe for this…they MIGHT surpass the US raw GDP sometime in the next few decades. Then again, after the last couple of years of economic melt down they might not, too.

Certainly. And they have gone about it in their typical heavy handed way, which has caused just about every one of their neighbors to seek stronger ties with the US and each other as a counter balance to China (the one example I can think of that plays into China’s hands right now is the Philippines, and there are other reasons they are turning away from the US and towards China). But, sure…they have and will continue to extend their influence, and have done a lot of good in Africa. Do you seriously think that this puts them on par with the US and it’s foreign alliances and influence though??

Of course China wants to have that power…they have spend literally hundreds of billions to TRY and build up their soft power and influence. They are attempting to build a movie manufacturing industry to rival Hollywood for just this intent…and using the fact that only a handfull of foreign films allowed in to leverage this into as many large franchises as possible.

The trouble is that when you get past the fluffy exterior and seemingly open hand you find the same old CCP underneath…and that’s going to be the real limiting factor for China’s growth and influence in the end. Because under the hood are folks making decisions who will happily send an entire religious sect off to be executed for parts, crush any sort of emerging democracy in Hong Kong (despite formally having signed treaties that they wouldn’t), allow their air and water ways to be so polluted that they are literally off the scale by western standards (and, again, despite having laws on the books prohibiting such things), attempt to swipe whole areas where they don’t have a reasonable claim (East and South China Sea regions), and…well, the list literally goes on and on. And those things that the CCP does, has done and will continue to do are the anchor that are dragging China down in the end.
Anyway, as for the OP:

I doubt a single President, even one so incompetent as Trump seems to be can make such a major shift in even 2 terms (and I hope to hell he’s only a one term disaster). The inertia of our government and it’s various departments aren’t going to be shifted massively in such a short time. If Trump ‘is intent on playing nice with Russia’…well, what does that even mean? Is he going to turn over the Ukraine to Russia? :dubious: Break up NATO or allow Russia to invade NATO members? :dubious: Fight with the Russians in Syria? :dubious:

Is he going to massively cut funding to the military? :dubious: So, what, really, will be the effect of a Trump policy that is more engaging with the Russians? It MIGHT hurt our foreign policy stance with our allies. Can’t imagine it would hurt it more than Bush II did, and we survived that cluster fuck.

I think, for the foreseeable future, the US will remain the sole hyperpower in the world. Certainly Russia isn’t poised to re-emerge as another world superpower any time soon. China has issues and I seriously doubt they will become an ecomonic, military and political superpower any time soon (if ever). The US will decline some under Trump, I have no doubt…but it won’t be that radical of a shift and no one else is even close to overtaking us at this point. A few years ago I’d have said the EU would emerge as a power that could rival and even surpass the US in terms of economic, military (if they bothered to build that up) and political power…but these days I’m not even sure if the EU will hang together at all, and if they do they certainly won’t take the next step to a tighter (political) union.

Change “Soviet Union” to “anyone else” and that’s been the U.S. government’s stance since 1823.


The definition of superpower to me is not the most powerful country, but one that can project its power around the world. I agree that the US will be the most powerful country in the world for the foreseeable future but it costs alot of money to project that power around the world. Currently there is no place on earth that the US could not effectively attack in a matter of days. When the military budget gets cut that will no longer be the case.

First off, why do you think that the military budget is going to be cut? Trump seems to want to increase it (despite his tweet about Lockheed Martin and the F-35).

Secondly, the US populace would never stand for the sort of budget cuts that would be needed to get us to a point where we’re the second-most-capable-country when it comes to power projection. We are so far ahead of everyone else in this realm, it’s almost comical.

If you were to rank the world’s aircraft carriers from “most capable of projecting power ashore” to least, the USA would be #1 through #10. France would be #11. I don’t even know who would be #12. Maybe Russia (and their carrier is losing significant pieces of its air wing right before our eyes)?

No other country in the world has anything even close to the B-2 bomber.

Our Marines are the envy of every other amphibious force in the world.

I can’t really decide who I’d call the second-most-capable power-projection country in the world today. Maybe the UK, given the Falklands campaign? France? Maybe Russia, given what they’ve been able to do in Syria lately? <— those would at least be the competition.

The math for keeping it the same just does not add up. Trump may want to increase it but politicians don’t always do what they want. Every year healthcare takes more and more of the government budget. There are three ways to get more money for healthcare, defense, non-defense, and social security. Social Security is too popular, non-defense does not have enough to cut enough, and defense is all that is left. The only alternative to cutting defense is raising taxes. Republicans won’t raise taxes and Democrats don’t want more defense spending so there is no constituency for raising taxes for Defense budget.
Our military will continue to be the best in the world but we will be the strongest regional power on earth but not a true superpower.

Two questions for you (that I’d love a numerical answer to):

What % of the budget do you think currently goes into each of the four categories you named:
[li]healthcare[/li][li]defense[/li][li]non-defense[/li][li]social security[/li][/ul]

Second question: What % of growth do you imagine there will be in the government’s “healthcare” budget over the next four or eight years?