www.ditl.org

Captain Seafort wrote:The US Empire has only been around for 60-70 years. In historical terms, you're no more than a flash in the pan.

However, they are also the only country in history that is effectively an Hyperpower, with such a level of cultural projection across the world. Even the British Empire at its peak didn't control the planet as effectively the U.S. do.

Sure, they don't control perfectly, but it was a lot easier to openly defy the Brits than to openly defy the U.S..

That's a side effect of modern technology (media technology and transportation), not because American has suddenly become Explosively powerful.

Reliant121 wrote:That's a side effect of modern technology (media technology and transportation), not because American has suddenly become Explosively powerful.

Irrelevant to the question as to what is the origin of such power projection. The point is the U.S. will leave a huge mark in history, even if they die quickly as an international power. (which they probably will, but not as soon as some people seem incline to believe. My guess is within 110 years )

Reliant121 wrote:That's a side effect of modern technology (media technology and transportation), not because American has suddenly become Explosively powerful.

Actually, I'd say the two are very closely related. America is explosively powerful because of modern technology.

It would depend on your definition of power. In a cultural influence sense, I think you're absolutely right. American culture appears to have leaked everywhere where you wouldn't expect it, such as Saudi Arabia and he Peoples Republic of China. However, as a political power, while it is no doubt very powerful I don't feel that its the overarching super power people seem to believe it to be. Russia and China regularly stick their fingers up to the USA, as do in many ways smaller Euronations like Germany and France. The US also doesn't really control half the known world. It like's to think it does, but I don't see anywhere near as much influence as is sometimes projected.

Reliant121 wrote:It would depend on your definition of power. In a cultural influence sense, I think you're absolutely right. American culture appears to have leaked everywhere where you wouldn't expect it, such as Saudi Arabia and he Peoples Republic of China. However, as a political power, while it is no doubt very powerful I don't feel that its the overarching super power people seem to believe it to be. Russia and China regularly stick their fingers up to the USA, as do in many ways smaller Euronations like Germany and France. The US also doesn't really control half the known world. It like's to think it does, but I don't see anywhere near as much influence as is sometimes projected.

There is a big difference between the "right" to stick up your finger to the #1 power of the Earth and actually actively being antagonist to it. Who are actively antagonist to the U.S.? People who have to act in the shadows.

France, Germany, Russia, the U.S., they all openly defied and undermined the Empire's power at one point or the other.

Who oppose the United States now? People who are formless and weak, or people who have to use underhanded means to counter the American's influence. The U.S. can kill anyone it knows the location on the planet within 36 hours. It's light-years ahead of the depth of influence and control ever did, because of the high-technology involved.

Thats not true, if it takes more then a day to take someone out then we're having a bad day.

Deepcrush wrote:Thats not true, if it takes more then a day to take someone out then we're having a bad day.

I wasn't 100% sure of then number. If you can specify on the matter, I would be very happy.

The point is, the USA can strike anywhere, at any time. They will have to deal with the consequences, but they still will kill whomever they want to.

The Brits just never even got remotely close to that kind of force projection in the world. But it's not for lack of will. Just lack of technology.

Specify how?

I need .75 seconds to kill a person with a blade or my hands. Someone with a gun needs more or less that time but distance is less of an issue. A guided warhead such as a Tomahawk distance is even less of an issue. From there all you need is a location.

Deepcrush wrote:I need .75 seconds to kill a person with a blade or my hands.

Getting slow, old man?

Being able to kill someone or send weapons anywhere isn't the key to being a super or hyper power. Control is. A super power actually needs to dominate multiple areas of the globe IMO to really have dominance. culturally the US does. Militarily, while the US has the ability, if It was truly a hyperpower it should have conquered most of Asia or Europe.

Not that the Brits where any better. In our day we controlled the world through brute force, but our culture never really expanded. In fact it was changed because we dominated elsewhere.

Reliant121 wrote:Being able to kill someone or send weapons anywhere isn't the key to being a super or hyper power. Control is. A super power actually needs to dominate multiple areas of the globe IMO to really have dominance. culturally the US does. Militarily, while the US has the ability, if It was truly a hyperpower it should have conquered most of Asia or Europe.

No, because the United States doesn't extend its power base through "conquering" territory, save for a few very select territories like Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Phillipines, Guananamo Bay. The U.S. gain its power by proxy, and it has been doing a jolly good job at keeping everything secure, geopolitically. You might have people on the street screaming against the U.S., up until very recently, many of the world's government are still stuffing their use up the U.S.'s ass for the chance of having a trade agreement with the U.S. that would allow them to sell their product on this ultramarket.

The U.S. control the world through economically arm-twisting governements around the world, and supporting the factions that favors them, or at least oppose their ennemies. They are in power to economically armtwist who they want because of their supreme sea and air power.

They don't "need" to conquer and annex territory the way the Brit Empire did to benefit from imperialism behavior. Ultimately, conquering and controlling oversea terrority is what bankrupted most Empires when something went wrong along the administrative structure (and something ALWAYS go wrong eventually).

The U.S., up until recently, did no go and annex land. They simply act as patron to client-states, much like the early Roman Empire before it inherited its oversea territories from Carthagos.

To be fair, we didn't really "conquer" Puerto Rico, Cuba and the Philippines; we won them from a nation that had already conquered them.

Tsukiyumi wrote:To be fair, we didn't really "conquer" Puerto Rico, Cuba and the Philippines; we won them from a nation that had already conquered them.

That's splitting hair

Given that conquering typically references and armed subjugation and none of the territories had been conquered any time recently I don't think it is.