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

[Evan_Drake]

So long as America is happy to spend as much as the next seven or eight countries combined, it’s sole superpowerness will not be challenged.

Perhaps that money comes at a cost that means less is spent on healthcare or infrastucture, but:

a/ that’s the price of admiralty

b/ Americans are more than willing to pay that, or double * to be safe

c/ such vast spending from tax ensures economic growth, and itself provides income and healthcare from high wages to millions, civilian and military.
The United States spent $581 billion on the military in 2014, according to IISS, while the eight next-highest spenders combined spent about $531.9 billion.

Polifact jan 2016

List of countries by military expenditures

*Not the first time an empire was brought low by military spending.

[jayjay]

Trump’s going to drive us into the ground, so I doubt we’ll even be a superpower anymore by the time he leaves office. It’s all going to go into his and his billionaire buddies’ bank accounts.

[DerekMichaels00]

@Hector_St_Clare

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.

you clearly missed the amount of Communist subversion the USSR tried to do all throughout Latin America, in Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia and Brazil throughout the latter part of the Cold War.

[Kobal2]

By Cold War standards, the US isn’t a superpower anymore. By modern standards, the US is not the sole superpower right now. So the OP’s premise fails twice

[XT]

@Kobal2

By Cold War standards, the US isn’t a superpower anymore. By modern standards, the US is not the sole superpower right now. So the OP’s premise fails twice

Could you elaborate a bit on this? It might seem cut and dried to you that your assertions are self-evident (to you at least), but I’m not seeing either premise to be honest.

[Kobal2]

@akennett

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

Yup. Good old Monroe Doctrine :

a) nobody gets to interfere with the Western Hemisphere
b) Except us
c) Haw haw haw.

[Boozahol_Squid_P.I]

@Kobal2

By Cold War standards, the US isn’t a superpower anymore. By modern standards, the US is not the sole superpower right now. So the OP’s premise fails twice

Isn’t the ability to project force throughout the world (instead of just regionally) essentially the definition that separates a superpower from a major power? If that’s the case, how does the US not qualify, and who else does?

[puddleglum]

@HurricaneDitka

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:
[ul]
[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?

25% healthcare, 25% social security, 16% defense, 34% everything else.
I think growth in healthcare budget will be 5-7% a year for the next 4 - 8 years. This would require an extra 150 billion dollars most of which will come from defense.

[HurricaneDitka]

@puddleglum

25% healthcare, 25% social security, 16% defense, 34% everything else.
I think growth in healthcare budget will be 5-7% a year for the next 4 - 8 years. This would require an extra 150 billion dollars most of which will come from defense.

Thanks. Given these numbers, do you still think “non-defense does not have enough to cut enough”?

[puddleglum]

@HurricaneDitka

Thanks. Given these numbers, do you still think “non-defense does not have enough to cut enough”?

Yes, about 6% is interest on the debt which can not be cut and will grow, 8% is unemployment which is very popular, 4% veterans benefits which are very popular and will grow. The rest is all the other parts of government, welfare, education, transportation, law enforcement, and farm subsidies. None of those is big enough to make up for the money healthcare needs.

[astorian]

Better question: what does it actually MEAN to be a “superpower,” and how useful is it?

That is, the USA is certainly the world’s mightiest nation from a military standpoint. But what does that really buy us?

The “good” news is, we’re the only nation that can send 200,000 armed men ANYWHERE in the world quickly.

The bad news is, 200,000 armed men frequently aren’t enough to conquer and occupy a far off land.

So, to steal a line from Ward Bond in “The Searchers,” we’re too many and not enough.

[Evan_Drake]

Well, it means the USA can completely smash any small country that doesn’t offer complete submission. Not a big country, nor one with nuclear weapons.
As for men, it doesn’t matter if no occupation is desired, just send enough missiles and the people will do the rest to themselves.

Partial submission is not enough, Gaddaffi had renounced terrorists, no longer sought nuclear weapons and was conforming to all demands. Don Obama even gave him the judas kiss in front of their mutual associate Silvio Berlusconi, and a year later Gaddafi was lying dead with a knife up his anus. He thought he was forgiven.
It doesn’t mean the superpower *will *smash every tiny country, just that they can, and that brings the rest into line. Anyway it worked, because Libya is no longer a threat to the continental United States.