What are some characteristics of a superpower? How should a superpower act internationally? How should a superpower act domestically?

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 02 Oct 2016 00:21:07 -0400

This question is not meant to solicit an opinion of any of the presidential candidates. Rather, how do you see America's role in global affairs?

Response by SFC George Smith made Oct 2 at 2016 12:27 AM

SFC George Smith — Sun, 02 Oct 2016 00:27:53 -0400

Project a presence of Honesty and Truth...
A willing to Protect and defend Allies and Neighbors Lend assistance when and where the Strength to fend off and destroy any an all assaults from outside and with in... The ability to stand up to and defeat any aggressor seeking to destroy the Nation and have the Military might and weaponry to do so...
Something we have Lost since january 2009...

Response by Sgt Wayne Wood made Oct 2 at 2016 10:58 AM

Sgt Wayne Wood — Sun, 02 Oct 2016 10:58:46 -0400

Three items. 1) strong economy that can withstand world-wide market fluctuations. 2) influence. The support of other state-entities. 3) force projection anywhere, anytime... for when the carrot doesn't work

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Oct 3 at 2016 2:48 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Mon, 03 Oct 2016 14:48:40 -0400

Great Britain had long led global diplomacy, however following WWII, they were economically destitute, their military might drained. They had obligations to maintain international access to the Suez Canal as well as a couple other far flung outposts. They couldn't afford to keep even one division at home to defend the island. It was then that a British diplomat approached the Americans and pleaded with them to assume global leadership. It was felt that only America had the resources to contain Communism and prevent another rogue nation like Germany from rising again. America accepted the challenge. Is it time to let it go? Is global leadership still needed? Isn't that the job of the U.N.? Sadly, no to all. The U.N. is a committee and we know how ineffective those are. The veto power of the permanent members of the Security Council insures that no effective action will ever be taken to stop any conflict. The assignment of committee chairmanships to nations where civilized behavior is an anathema insures that those committees will never be effective (such as having an chairman of a council concerned with women's right from a nation where women's rights are non-existent). So if not the U.S., then whom?