Why is USA so ridiculous powerful?

[civvver]

Well I'll just chime in with my 2 cents here. Obviously there are tons of reasons why the US succeeded in being one of the wealthiest and most powerful nations in the world so it's not going to boil down to one thing. Stuff like natural resources and being isolated from the old world by two oceans and a strong constitution all play into it.

But my main reasons are two:
1. Individual economic and religious freedom, as being a young nation we have never had a monarchy or singular ruler like an emperor
2. Space, land for common people to claim as their own and settle

Both of these combined made the nation attractive for farmers and inventors and entrepreneurs to come here and thrive.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Exactly. That's kinda my point. And that's also why pointing to the year a particular piece of military equipment was developed doesn't mean much when talking about how viable it is on a modern battlefield.

Didn't the US Army use the Colt 1911 pistol for, like, 100 years?

 

[Kyriakos]

Either way one sees it, the first Iraq war was the US stabbing its ally Iraq in the back, after leading it to believe it can invade Kuwait without any US issue.
Moreover, prior to the first Iraq war, Iraq was a reasonably modernized nation with decent infrastructure, while now it is reduced to hell on earth.



^reminds me of a Pink Floyd album cover.

 

[Commodore]

. One of the glossy magazines back then - Time or Newsweek - had a full-color, 2-page diagram of the layered, fixed defenses the Iraqis were constructing, with tanks dug in up to their turrets and so on, and I thought "well, if they do that, we should be good." 'Fixed defenses are monuments to the stupidity of man' is one of my favorite movie quotes (I think that's one of those famous 'historical' quotes that actually came from the movie and not the real person, but it's still a great quote.

Fixed defenses have their uses, even in this era of highly mobile warfare. It's highly situational though and the Iraqis certainly made a huge strategic blunder by relying too heavily upon them.

 

[Commodore]

Didn't the US Army use the Colt 1911 pistol for, like, 100 years?

Not quite a 100 but pretty close. The M2 Browning machine gun is approaching a 100 years of service and the B-52 will be about 100 when we finally start phasing them out.

The M16 entered service in 1964 and doesn't look like it's going to be replaced anytime soon with anything other than more modern variants of Eugene Stoner's original design.

The US really commits to weapon designs and only fully replaces them when absolutely necessary.

 

[red_elk]

A bunch of countries still use T-34, so
Better than nothing.

 

[Commodore]

A bunch of countries still use T-34, so
Better than nothing.

Slap some modern systems and armor on it and it should do alright in a pinch.

I think I read that Russia still has some T-34s in active service, but are only used for training and ceremonies.

 

[red_elk]

Slap some modern systems and armor on it and it should do alright in a pinch.

I think I read that Russia still has some T-34s in active service, but are only used for training and ceremonies.

Vietnam, Cuba, a bunch of African countries, according to wiki. In Russia no, only used in exhibitions and movies.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Either way one sees it, the first Iraq war was the US stabbing its ally Iraq in the back, after leading it to believe it can invade Kuwait without any US issue.
Moreover, prior to the first Iraq war, Iraq was a reasonably modernized nation with decent infrastructure, while now it is reduced to hell on earth.



^reminds me of a Pink Floyd album cover.

friendly reminder the US (and almost any other western country) always abandons their allies when it's convenient. remember the kurds. remember how we abandoned them every_single_time they needed our help, even though they have been one of the major forces in, say, fighting islamic terrorism.

 

[Tristan_C]

Incredible, it took you like three days to ignore the content of my post and come up with this brilliant retort. No wonder pretty much everyone on here ignores you, lmao

Sorry, I didn't realize there was a time limit, and I wasn't allowed to leave the site until I had validated everything you said.

 

[Zardnaar]

Not quite a 100 but pretty close. The M2 Browning machine gun is approaching a 100 years of service and the B-52 will be about 100 when we finally start phasing them out.

The M16 entered service in 1964 and doesn't look like it's going to be replaced anytime soon with anything other than more modern variants of Eugene Stoner's original design.

The US really commits to weapon designs and only fully replaces them when absolutely necessary.

That's because they can't invent anything better at a price point that makes sense.

It's like cars once you get to a certain point you get diminishing returns in terms of making them faster for dollars spent.

 

[gay_Aleks]

I'm sorry, but I don't know if it's really relevant to the discussion as to which piece of weaponry is deadlier, or how long it has been used; much less so, whether France or the U.S invented the first place. This doesn't get us anywhere closer to answering the question at hand, which is, "why is the U.S.A so 'ridiculously powerful'?". Getting hung up on technology is somewhat immaterial, when it comes to ascertaining such questions, I believe. While it is true that the U.S possesses awesome power, this is generally a product of the massively increased industry and means of production; it then makes any sane and reasonable person to turn around, and begin examining the ground, not talk about how impressively a weapon can butcher someone or whatever.

 

[Patine]

I look forward to your claims that it was the French, rather than Eddison, that invented electric power?

There was an unresolved lawsuit in the day, over that between Thomas Edison and Serbian inventor Nichola Tesla (after whom Elon Musk's company is named in honour of) - part of a number of inventions Tesla claimed (apparently with credible evadible) were stolen and pladgerized by him. But no, it certainly wasn't the French.

 

[Patine]

The graph you posted is not adjusted for inflation as it is in current prices.

Here is the graph you posted:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?locations=US-GB-XC

Here is the same thing but adjusted for: inflation: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.KD?locations=US-GB-XC

Here is for real GDP per capita: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?locations=US-GB-XC

And nominal GDP per capita: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=US-GB-XC

Real GDP per capita is likely the most important one here since it say how productive the economy actually is and how much Money is going around. PPP simply tell how expensive stuff are but as I said Before it is hard to make a fair comparison since stuff can cost very differently in various places and you also have taxes to consider.

For example while USA score higher than Denmark at PPP https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.KD?locations=DK-US it scores lower at GDP: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?locations=DK-US

I suspect the tax rate have a big influence on PPP, for example VAT in Denmark is alot higher than average VAT in USA according to this: https://taxfoundation.org/bernie-sanders-scandinavian-countries-taxes/​

Also, gross U.S. wealth disparity, the absolute worst in the First World right now, and actually almost comparable to India or Mexico, means that, despite total GDP being the highest in the world, and GDP per capita by mathematical mean division being one of the top, and mathematically-derived PPP being top-notch, the wealth disparity, with no much money locked into the upper 1% or so of the population's hands, and with trickledown being the complete myth and lie it is, the vast majority of Americans live, in terms of living standards, realistically-available opportunities in life, real purchasing power, etc. as though they effectively lived, for all intents and purposes, in a country with a significantly lower GDP and GDP per capita.

 

[Zardnaar]

Also, gross U.S. wealth disparity, the absolute worst in the First World right now, and actually almost comparable to India or Mexico, means that, despite total GDP being the highest in the world, and GDP per capita by mathematical mean division being one of the top, and mathematically-derived PPP being top-notch, the wealth disparity, with no much money locked into the upper 1% or so of the population's hands, and with trickledown being the complete myth and lie it is, the vast majority of Americans live, in terms of living standards, realistically-available opportunities in life, real purchasing power, etc. as though they effectively lived, for all intents and purposes, in a country with a significantly lower GDP and GDP per capita.

Probably be more like top 20-30%.

Young 18/19 year old workmate from Alabama said he was better off here.

Converted to US currency he was getting 50% more. Prices were higher on consumer goods.

Wealth disparity is more my personal belief what's going to cause problems. And how much social mobility you have.

Not perfect here but education is free/cheap so you've got a shot at least. Still better to be rich vs poor.

 

[Patine]

friendly reminder the US (and almost any other western country) always abandons their allies when it's convenient. remember the kurds. remember how we abandoned them every_single_time they needed our help, even though they have been one of the major forces in, say, fighting islamic terrorism.

Well, so do have the Soviets/Russians, so I guess that makes it fair and right, somehow. Only tails wagging the dog allies (Cuba for the Soviets, and Israel and Saudi Arabia for the main Western powers) and indispensable and must by, at all costs and through all inconveniences, to the end, again, somehow. It all adds up to these military masterminds who must be trusted, but whose wisdom is "classified."

 

[amadeus]

There are some other comments I wanted to reply to, but haven’t gotten around to it yet. These posts aren’t being ignored.

Either way one sees it, the first Iraq war was the US stabbing its ally Iraq in the back, after leading it to believe it can invade Kuwait without any US issue.
Moreover, prior to the first Iraq war, Iraq was a reasonably modernized nation with decent infrastructure, while now it is reduced to hell on earth.

The U.S. relationship with Iraq at the time can’t be simplified to “ally” because, for one, they weren’t. Iraq under Hussein took the stance that they were to be the leader of the pan-Arab nation, and that stance was neither pro-West or pro-East.

In real terms, Iraq was much more closely aligned to the USSR than the U.S.; U.S. support for Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran under the Shah would complicate Iraqi goals for dominating the region. After Syria and South Yemen, Iraq was probably the most Soviet-friendly state in the immediate area.

The overthrow of the Shah and Iraq’s subsequent invasion of Iran presented a dilemma to U.S. foreign policy: a Khomeini victory would threaten to destabilize the moderate Muslim states and a Hussein victory would put too much control of the world’s oil reserves in Iraqi hands. So as Kissinger put it (paraphrasing) “it’s a shame they both can’t lose.”

Another consideration is that totally rejecting Iraq would also push them further towards the Soviet Union, another unpleasant outcome for the U.S. So, what do you do? Give them enough help just to not lose.

 

[Patine]

There are some other comments I wanted to reply to, but haven’t gotten around to it yet. These posts aren’t being ignored.


The U.S. relationship with Iraq at the time can’t be simplified to “ally” because, for one, they weren’t. Iraq under Hussein took the stance that they were to be the leader of the pan-Arab nation, and that stance was neither pro-West or pro-East.

In real terms, Iraq was much more closely aligned to the USSR than the U.S.; U.S. support for Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran under the Shah would complicate Iraqi goals for dominating the region. After Syria and South Yemen, Iraq was probably the most Soviet-friendly state in the immediate area.

The overthrow of the Shah and Iraq’s subsequent invasion of Iran presented a dilemma to U.S. foreign policy: a Khomeini victory would threaten to destabilize the moderate Muslim states and a Hussein victory would put too much control of the world’s oil reserves in Iraqi hands. So as Kissinger put it (paraphrasing) “it’s a shame they both can’t lose.”

Another consideration is that totally rejecting Iraq would also push them further towards the Soviet Union, another unpleasant outcome for the U.S. So, what do you do? Give them enough help just to not lose.

My solution is for the U.S. and other Western nations to not give a penny, a bullet, or a drop of blood more to Middle Eastern military conflicts. No good ever emerges from wading into that quagmire (even though the reason it's a quagmire - and, in fact, the reason "Islamism," and it's modern version, even exist, is because of Western nations (and Soviets) punching the hornets' nests here in the first place).

 

[Berzerker]

Iraq invaded Iran at the west's behest to stunt the revolution

 

[red_elk]

Well, so do have the Soviets/Russians, so I guess that makes it fair and right, somehow.

The only case which can be qualified as abandoning allies is probably ceasing support of Najibullah government in Afghanistan when USSR collapsed. Can't remember any other cases.