[bconngemini]

I see America as not only being exceptional above other nations, but the leader of the world in virtually every arena. I think that in a 1000 years people will be studying and admiring American Empire just like we do today with the Roman Empire.

Are we the modern Roman Empire?

[Paradigm]

I've often contemplated the similarities between the two, but I'd have to say that even at this point we more closely resemble the later years of the Roman Republic than we do the Roman Empire. My hope is that we can be vigilant enough to prevent another Caesar from seizing power.

[Nattering Nabob]

If America winds up in any way comprable to Rome it will be because America was the most influential nation at a time in history when improvements in travel and communications multiplied our influence.

When Rome influenced the world nations were far flung (relatively) and to change a culture you had to send an army across continents and make that change by use of force.

Today America only has to make television programs,export McDonalds, and voila...everyone speaks english and wears jeans.

Also, Rome was extremely powerful for hundreds of years and America is hardly 200 years old.

If America is leading European poodles on a leash 500 years from now then they might be comparable to the Romans.


As it is I see America more like the Huns who rose quickly, influenced the world, and went back into oblivion quickly.


But there is another angle to consider. The world is about 100 years away from serious space colonization. The most influential nation at that time may well shape humanity for thousands of years to come.

[Igor Antunov]

American empire is barely 100 years old, and it is a very different kind. No open imperialism, just the hidden kind, and it is a fragile empire much like any other built on far flung alliances and diplomacy backed up by force. A sudden and significant shift here or there and it all comes crashing down.

The romans could rape, pillage, genocide entire nations with impunity much of the time, America cannot. The modern age is different. The world is too small. There are too many significant players capable of ruining themselves and everybody else in the process.

But there is another angle to consider. The world is about 100 years away from serious space colonization. The most influential nation at that time may well shape humanity for thousands of years to come.

The age of colonialism lasted for hundreds of years on a limited world, an age of space colonialism would last even longer, no single initial player would decide the direction significantly, considering space is limitless.

Britain could build a fleet to rule the worlds oceans, no human nation could build a fleet big enough to rule the infinite depths of space in this age or the next.

[amanamuse]

My hope is that we can be vigilant enough to prevent another Caesar from seizing power.

It's quite a stretch to assume that we haven't already allowed such an entity to seize power. Both of our presidential candidates from 2004 were from the same secret society. Lobbyist have quite a bit of power in the government. Wealth is being increasingly concentrated and transfered, means of production controlled, media skewed and twisted and slanted and spun.

What do you think we're actually doing here?

A Caesar is more effective if the populous continues to think that they're getting something new and different. Don't kid yourself. We're charting a new course here, but it's possible that the differences are only semantics.

The Matrix has you.

[soron]

I see America as not only being exceptional above other nations, but the leader of the world in virtually every arena.

A leader by definition requires people who follow, and in that regard for America the air has become thin under the Neocons.

Where do you lead - weapons ? To some extend, yes, especially in regards of military spending. But even the US military is using European weapon designs, like the Stryker APC which is a swiss license based on the Piranha, your Abrams 120mm tank gun which is a licensed Rheinmetal development first featured by the Leopard 2 tank, the White house in Washington is protcted by an active Radar SAM system which is a Norwegian design.

Space ? The first missile launch you did was a US design, and it exploded on the ramp, just as Wernher von Braun predicted it would. Without German know-how, you would have lost the race for the moon because the US - as opposed to the Russians - didn't have a brillant rocket scientist of their own.
And even today your Space shuttle (truely unique so far) is propelled by a German design. The shuttle's main engine was actually designed by MBB for the European "Ariane X" project which later was shitcanned - so MBB sold the whole package including a prototype to Rockwell where they couldn't figure out how to solve the problem of overheating.

Economy ? Right. Catch some news lately ? And even before that the US exports were lower than Germany's (let alone the whole EU's). How many cars does the US sell abroad ?

Movies ? The Indian "Bollywood" productions is a far bigger Industry that the US's.

Music ? That might be one of the few areas left where you're heavyweigth, although there's no "leadership" since many trends also origin from Europe or South America.

The ONLY role the US is unparalleled so far is projection of military power. And THAT ability has been misused by the Neocons for gun boat diplomacy to such an extend that NATO is in a crisis because the members don't like to follow US lead anymore.

[Harmattan]

Before I comment further, let me mention I would not use the verb "admire" regarding the Roman Empire given that it mainly prospered through conflicts and slavery.


Now, I don't think USA will be considered as important as Rome. First of all because it has been dominant for only forty years or so : sure, it will remain important for quite a long time but this time is mostly over.

Second of all, Rome really shaped the world while USA only influenced it. In conquered lands, Rome bring roads, new architecture and brick-made houses, pottery, writing and global administration to most of the countries they invaded ! What did America bring to the world ?
* About every major innovation in the XXth century result from international cooperation. What is left ?
* Some musical styles and movies but, again, there are important contributions from foreigners and, most important, from black people at a time where black people were not considered as Americans by the wasp.
* Influences in the way of life ? Now, this may be important. The USA may have play a major role in some countries on this aspect but I don't have enough knowledges on this topic.
* Propagation of the English language as a lingua franca ? USA is expected to switch to Mexican during this century and the English's pronunciation is far too complicated for Asians.
* Architecture ? Your most emblematic buildings will be dust before the end of this century.


So, the XXth century USA will surely be studied in the future but I seriously doubt it could ever be considered as important as Rome. However, it is quite unique because part of its cultural influence have been set up through pacific ways (movies and songs), although one shouldn't ignore the US army played a big role in this culture's propagation.

[amanamuse]

Economy ? Right. Catch some news lately ? And even before that the US exports were lower than Germany's (let alone the whole EU's). How many cars does the US sell abroad

You're missing a HUGE component of the mechanics of the supply/demand+import/export balance. Can you guess what it is?

I'll give you a hint. Think about who buys things and where those people live. Queue the Jeopardy theme...who buys things and where do they live???

[Donna]

Are we the modern Roman Empire?

Maybe. Then again, the same can be said about the British and Spanish empires - and if current trends continue as they are, the shift of power and influence will go towards Asia or more likely, the non-existence of a single-power hegemon.

[MB.]

No. The Roman Empire in no way resembles the American nation. Firstly, the Roman state began as a republic and became a dictatorship. The American state has always existed as a republic. The Roman economic system through its history was based almost entirely on agricultural slave labor, whereas the American economic system was founded on agricultural slavery but in the 19th century became primarily wage-industrial. The Roman state never exercised political dominion over the entire planet, nor could it have militarily, financially, or culturally had it wanted to. Though the American state has never exert total hegemony over the globe- with regards to the strength of its finance, armies, and culture- it has come closer to achieving such hegemony (probably peaking in 1991) than anyother nation before or since.

bconngemini's post states that the Roman empire is "admired"- I would like to ask him on what grounds that admiration exists?

[Harmattan]

@MB
The US has never been even close to achieve a military hegemony. Actually, it didn't even manage to success in Vietnam, Iraq and some others.

At most, they may be able to achieve for a few years a maritime hegemony but even this is highly questionable on a pure military side. Let's not talk about resources dependency and geopolitics implications.

This leaves us with the nuclear option. USA can destroy the whole world with a few buttons but they would be totally destroyed a few minutes later. So ? They could use it to threaten about every country in the world but it could quickly lead to nuclear proliferation, a very dangerous threat.

At least, Roman Empire had a military hegemony on a reasonable portion of the world. USA has alliances and, usually (cf Georgia), military power to back up a few of them at once.

[MB.]

The US has never been even close to achieve a military hegemony. Actually, it didn't even manage to success in Vietnam, Iraq and some others.

For the US to achieve a military solution in Vietnam it would have been required to invade and occupy North Vietnam- which it did not do for fear of engendering Chinese involvement which would have led to WW3. As you can imagine, the American republic was not enthusiastic about that notion. The war in Iraq was an unmitigated military success. The government of Saddam was toppled within a matter of days. The occupation has been very successful so far, costing the Americans a paltry two thousand deaths- for a country of 300 million this is not a significant price to pay. At that rate of loss the Americans can stay in Iraq indefinitely- however doing so might bankrupt their country.

At most, they may be able to achieve a maritime hegemony

The United States Navy since WW2 has been and continues to be the most powerful and technologically advanced amongst all those nations on the planet. American naval hegemony is unchallenged and absolute, allowing them strike any target anywhere on the planet at speeds and with freedom of maneuver which would have baffled the British during their own maritime hegemony during the long 19th century.

but even this is highly questionable on a pure military side. Let's not talk about resources dependency and geopolitics implications.

I don't follow. The American navy and army are completely self sufficient.

This leaves us with the nuclear option. USA can destroy the whole world with a few buttons

Not at all- the destruction of the entire world would require vast quantities of energy, the likes of which will probably never be available to nation-states.

but they would be totally destroyed a few minutes later. So ? They could use it to threaten about every country in the world but it could quickly lead to nuclear proliferation.

The American nuclear arsenal is not only the largest on the planet but also the most robust and sophisticated. Only the former USSR posed any sort of threat to American thermonuclear dominance, and since the fall of the Soviet Union that threat has been significantly diminished. Even during the height of the cold war, if a thermonuclear war had been instigated, the Americans could very comfortably have obliterated every retaliatory resource of any nation opposing them- though there would obviously have been repercussions for such actions. However, while the NATO allies would have suffered many millions of casualties in a very short period of time, whatever nation-state enemies they faced would have suffered virtual annihilation.

At least, Roman Empire had a military hegemony on a reasonable portion of the world. USA has alliances and, usually (cf Georgia), military power to back up a few of them at once.

The Roman empire's military hegemony extended only to the limits of its borders:



America's military sphere, since WW2, remains the entire planet.

*

*this image is obsolete and does not include the new Africa command.

[Igor Antunov]

I'll make it simple. America's military predominance means absolutely nothing in terms of world conquest or complete domination of earth, since russia can end any such antics within 15 minutes.

/end thread

Rome had no such constraints.

[soron]

I'll give you a hint. Think about who buys things and where those people live. Queue the Jeopardy theme...who buys things and where do they live???

Give Asians or Africans the same credit lines Americans used to have and watch that alleged pole position vanish. The last 20 years the US economy was driven by unlimited deficit spending, both on a national and an individual level.
You think this is going to continue ? I do not.

The US has been overtaken by the EU as largest single market, and only by expanding the criteria from US to NAFTA the US can still keep at least a partial claim on being the largest market. And that is going to change again as China and India are catching up FAST. Also the EU is still growing, whereas American growth is pretty much limited to some more searching for WMDs in resource rich countries.

American naval hegemony is unchallenged and absolute, allowing them strike any target anywhere on the planet at speeds and with freedom of maneuver which would have baffled the British during their own maritime hegemony during the long 19th century.

True enough BUT that is only the case because the countries who could challenge the US have no desire to do so, mostly the EU. American naval hegemony is at least to some extend based on her allies goodwill in accepting that hegemony as something beneficial.
If the US is continuing down the road laid out in the Wolfowitz doctrine and the PC version of it called Bush doctrine which calls for fighting ALL potential rivals (including the Europeans) that might change.
If you think the US wouldn't move against Europe, think again. Just some recent examples:
-In 2002 the Bush administration tried to put a spin on the German elections by pumping funds into the opposition's campaign.
-Before the US invasion of Iraq, Saddam was shifting his business to European partners. And he sold crude for Euros, not dollars.
-Prior to the Irish referendum about the EU constitution, the US sent John R. Bolton to Ireland where he was actively campaigning against an Irish "yes".

[MB.]

I'll make it simple. America's military predominance means absolutely nothing in terms of world conquest or complete domination of earth, since russia can end any such antics within 15 minutes.

Igor Antunovic I think its quite absurd to suggest that the Roman state possessed greater freedom of military expression than the United States does today. Firstly, what period of Roman history are you describing? During its infancy the Roman state faced many threats- notably that from Greece and Carthage. Roman military advances during the Imperial period, especially in the northern and north-eastern frontier were repeatedly brought to a halt. You will also recall that the Roman state was eventually occupied and culturally integrated into the germanic Kingdoms during the volkswandering.

Now imagine if the Romans had attempted to launch attacks halfway around the world- as the Americans have been doing with ease for over a century now- the Romans would have faced adversaries not only more military powerful then themselves, but the very effort and expense of conducting such campaigns would have been completely beyond their means.

Lastly, if the American republic for some reason decided to obliterate its potential military rivals (Russia and China, say) it could do so quite easily with losses which would not seriously diminish its ability to project power (though the cultural and economic long term ramifications of such a war would certainly produce an America- and a world for that matter- far different from that which experience today). Nevertheless, the "threat from Russia" you seem to imagine is enough to prevent American expansionism, is wholly illusionary.

If you think the US wouldn't move against Europe, think again

[The Immortal Goon]

These kind of comparisons are interesting, and often lead us to consider new things, but you can only go so far with it. America is not Rome in any meaningful or profound sense of the idea.

This being said, there are analogies that can be made; they were both comparitive "super powers" and they both (along with the UK) held a (relative) period of peace in their hands, and they were reflections of a culture before and alongside of them. The Romans were constantly comparing themselves to Greece and trying to live up to Greek ideals (while flatly announcing to everyone that they had despite their continued attempts to do so) and the Yankee has largely done the same with western Europe in general.

But really, aside from similarities like that - which could probably be even made with the Mongols if you wanted - it's pretty hard to pull something really great from the comparison.

Perhaps a warning about what can happen to a republic if one's not vigilant, I suppose, but the Roman and American republics are pretty fucking different at the end of the day.

[soron]

Nice map. What does it tell me ? That the US moved against EU interests although we're allied ? That's not exactly news as the US has always acted in utter self-interest ... the only difference is that our interest used to be the same during the Cold War but that is no longer the case.
Or are you suggesting that NATO members don't engage by military means? Take a good look at Cyprus, it involves greece and Turkey, both NATO members.

All of the examples I named are political moves the US made against EU interest, or the interest of single EU members.
Even that map is proof of this: How often does the rightwing US media keep talking down on the Europeans for not spending more money on their military. BUT for heaven's sake ONLY within the NATO.
Guess who's actively trying to torpedo every development on a purely European basis, such as the Western European Union ?
Where's that American trust in their allies on that map ? Apparently it's not there because the US actively combats any European defense initiative that doesn't let the US have any say in it. And the last 8 years made pretty damn clear that the US won't take European advice. So remind me again why we should grant the US any extraordinary powers over our military ?

[Harmattan]

MB, I have to say on disagree on most of your interpretations. However, it appears our differences are mainly related to the fact you systematically consider raw military power (and, sometimes, raw destruction power) while I consider the real military power, meaning its effectiveness to match the set up goals, limited by democratic constraints.


On Vietnam, whatever would have been possible, this is a loss : the goal was to prevent South-Vietnam to turn communist and they mostly failed since China appropriated many territories from South Vietnam, especially the ones including resources.

On Iraq, the goal was not only to overthrow Saddam but to set up a friendly government which could be used to transform the region. Obviously, there is no guarantee Iraq will become a democratic country, nor that it won't fall into the mullah's hands, nor that it will help USA against terrorism and Iran. And it is very unlikely it will be an ally from USA. I call that a loss.

On navy, I certainly agree it is a powerful and effective fleet, this is why I mentioned that field. However, unless you are highly knowledgeable on this domain, perhaps you should not be so affirmative. The fact is ships can easily be destroyed while submarines can easily hide, this a concern for every modern navy. I don't think it is unreasonable to say numerous countries could be a serious nuisance, when not a fatal one, for US navy in case of an open-out conflict, or become one in a very few years. Besides, be aware since we're talking about a potential hegemony, it means there would not be one enemy to fight but many of them. Finally, I mentioned resources dependency because the navy may be autonomous but the USA are not.

On nuclear power, I think you are totally wrong. First of all, when I said USA could destroy the world, I was obviously not speaking about Earth but civilization. Now, you mentioned USA has the biggest nuclear power. Who cares ? Russia, France, UK, China, India, Pakistan and Israel can eradicate about every people living in USA in a few minutes. This means those countries are as much powerful than USA when we're talking about nuclear option. Now, this assumption neglected the deployment problem, let's say it makes India and Pakistan only half powerful as USA.

Regarding the map, as others mentioned, it only means USA have foreign bases here and there, nothing more, this is certainly not close to hegemony.

[MB.]

Or are you suggesting that NATO members don't engage by military means?

I was suggesting that an alliance as powerful as NATO is likely to survive for a long time unless it loses a war.

So remind me again why we should grant the US any extraordinary powers over our military ?

If the NATO alliance ceases to be in the interest of its members, surely those members will leave...

Harmattan, regarding Vietnam you stated that:

Actually, it didn't even manage to success in Vietnam

America certainly lost the Vietnam war- however, as I stated, to achieve success would have required the US fighting WW3. The US probably could have won WW3 in 1960-70 but it would have been very violent very costly for all the powers engaged.

On Iraq, the goal was not only to overthrow Saddam but to set up a friendly government which could be used to transform the region.

And that latter goal has been achieved. Right now Iraq is certainly an American ally. Your definition of Loss and Victory are absurd. I reiterate my point: the war in Iraq has cost America almost nothing in terms of material losses (obviously financial loss is a different issue), and in return the US basically annexed a state the size of (and evidently as militant as) Texas.

it means there would not be one enemy to fight but many of them.

At the current moment, and likely for the next couple of decades, I would propose that the US navy could decimate the navies of any two regional powers combined. That would make the US navy today at least as powerful as that of the British during at the end of the Edwardian period.

On nuclear power, I think you are totally wrong. First of all, when I said USA could destroy the world, I was obviously not speaking about Earth but civilization. Now, you mentioned USA has the biggest nuclear power. Who cares ? Russia, France, UK, China, India, Pakistan and Israel can eradicate about every people living in USA in a few minutes. This means those countries are as much powerful than USA when we're talking about nuclear option. Now, this assumption neglected the deployment problem, let's say it makes India and Pakistan only half powerful as USA.

I suggest you actually research thermonuclear weapons.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/nuclear.htm

This is a good place to start with regard to United States nuclear capacity.

re: nuclear weapons blow up civilization:

http://thehistoryforum.com/forum/viewto ... 284#428284

[Thunderhawk]

Do you guys see our country as a modern day Rome?

No.
A better comparison would be the European colonial powers. Some of the possesions have been lost, the Philippines are independant and Cuba revolted away, but other territory is still held. Their economic power is based on within their core nation, through their empire and spans beyond, much like the European colonial empires. The USA even follows European colonial empire forms by comparing itself to Rome and its ideals.

The largest geopolitical difference I see off hand is that unlike the past colonial empires, the Americans dont claim or force submissive allies into their empire and then demand military and/or financial assistence (though NATO did come close for a while).

Unlike what others have said, Id say that American influence throughout the world is increasing. But the world as a whole is also growing, and is so far faster then American influence.