Opposites attract...well fight anyway

So Russia was not technically in front of USA after ww2 ever?
And than they fall behind America! Where is the 45 years of USSA being world power?

Hard to say, when the USSR put Yuri Gagarin into space it certainly gave the West a fright.

Although there seems to be an argument that the USSR was never as powerful as believed, it was given a huge amount of respect by the West, as it was believed to be a counterbalance to the USA.

Now, while the USA has enjoyed almost 20 years of hegemony, it appears that India and China, the industrialising nations, will challenge this position.

Heidi XX said:

So Russia was not technically in front of USA after ww2 ever?
And than they fall behind America! Where is the 45 years of USSA being world power?

Click to expand...

eh what, I'm not too sure what you are trying to say but I'll like to respond anyway.

If I remember correctly there was a period in which the Russians had a technological military lead on the tactical level by having tactical nuclear weapons while the west only had strategic nuclear weapons (which where more advanced then their Russian counterparts).

The USSR had to direct a HUGE amount of their resources to catch up on the USA in the weapon race while the USA only directed a relatively small amount of their resources to stay in front. Trying to compete with the biggest world power doesn't implicate that the USSR wheren't a world power themselves as well.

u06ams7 said:

Although there seems to be an argument that the USSR was never as powerful as believed

Click to expand...

And this. The West, Americans particulary, where constantly afraid that the Russians where closing in on them mostly quantity wise, which later on appeared to be massively overestimating the Soviet output.

Charles Albert said:

eh what, I'm not too sure what you are trying to say but I'll like to respond anyway.

If I remember correctly there was a period in which the Russians had a technological military lead on the tactical level by having tactical nuclear weapons while the west only had strategic nuclear weapons (which where more advanced then their Russian counterparts).

The USSR had to direct a HUGE amount of their resources to catch up on the USA in the weapon race while the USA only directed a relatively small amount of their resources to stay in front. Trying to compete with the biggest world power doesn't implicate that the USSR wheren't a world power themselves as well.

Click to expand...

Another member mentioned that USSA was in power for 45 years,i was just trying to work out something.

Ok,USA and Russia were both super powers but Russia could not keep up with the USA and fell way behind. Leaving the USA to be super powers on there own.
Now i understand.

Heidi XX said:

Another member mentioned that USSA was in power for 45 years,i was just trying to work out something.

Ok,USA and Russia were both super powers but Russia could not keep up with the USA and fell way behind. Leaving the USA to be super powers on there own.
Now i understand.

Click to expand...

And in 15-20 years it's gonna happen again only on a much larger scale.

Heidi XX said:

Huh! American sports academy?How does this fit into the thread name?

Click to expand...

I googled USSA and that's what I found.

Let me expand, if I may, on an earlier post (#14) where I introduced the primary theories of the relationship of power to international relations and the cycles of war.

In the Power Transition model, the theory I am convinced best describes circumstances since the formation of modern nations in the late 18th century, a secondary “great power” will emerge to challenge the dominate nation. Whether war results depends upon a number of circumstances most simply described by the author of this theory:

“An even distribution of political, economic, and military capabilities between contending groups of states is likely to increase the probability of war; peace is preserved best when there is an imbalance of national capabilities between disadvantaged and advantaged nations; the aggressor will come from a small group of dissatisfied strong countries; and it is the weaker, rather than the stronger, power that is most likely to be the aggressor.” – A.F.K. Organski, World Politics (1958)

U06ams7 (post #22) described a most interesting variable to the circumstances in describing the West’s impression that the USSR had relative parity with the US. Although this in no doubt influenced some of the responses of the US (the Cuban Missle Crisis, for one), it was the US, not the USSR, that always believed the world was on the brink of war. But despite the Western belief that for decades there were two superpowers, the Soviets knew they were never as strong as the dominant nation – and acted accordingly (Khrushchev would have been an extraordinary poker player!).

And as Charles Albert pointed out (post #23), the expenditure of that challenge cost them dearly, certainly destroying their chances to challenge again for decades, if ever. And although they have been a great power since 1860, they may already be well on the way to becoming a third rate nation on the periphery of international power relationships.

The next challenger to the dominate position, under this argument, would probably be a nation growing in power in relation to the dominate nation. That, as already pointed out, would likely be China or even India. Whether this will result in violent confrontation has a lot to do with how fast the challenger approaches the power level of the dominate nation. (A.F.K. Organski & Jacek Kugler, The War Ledger, University of Chicago Press, 1980)

As in all things of history: time will tell.

I'm inclined to suggest that any state which has sufficient nuclear firepower to annihilate life on earth is a super-power. Enter Russia and the US.

Lord Ragnar said:

I'm inclined to suggest that any state which has sufficient nuclear firepower to annihilate life on earth is a super-power. Enter Russia and the US.

Click to expand...

There is, of course, a problem with that view of things. For one, your list of "super-powers" would have to include Britain, France, China, India, Israel, and Pakistan. (Admittedly, because of the secrecy surrounding nuclear weapons programs, it is not known for certain if Israel & Pakistan have enough nuclear weapons to kill every one on the planet - but they'd get close.)

If nuclear capability is the sole measure of power, the next most powerful states would be those with nuclear weapons, just not enough to annihilate everyone: South Africa and North Korea.

Following them would be about two dozen other countries with nuclear weapons programs, but not weapons capability yet (as far as we know) including Libya, Algeria and Iran.

You see, the real definition of power in the modern era is far more complex and, as Japan has demonstrated since WWII, relies heavily on economic potential rather than just military might.

raconteur said:

There is, of course, a problem with that view of things.

Click to expand...

Mine, of course, was not a serious analysis of international relations. I was merely highlighting the fact that individual states now have inestimably greater destructive power at their disposal than at any other point in history. Of course, economic, political, ideological and social components have always and will continue to be determining factors in the international balance of power.

raconteur said:

There is, of course, a problem with that view of things. For one, your list of "super-powers" would have to include Britain, France, China, India, Israel, and Pakistan. (Admittedly, because of the secrecy surrounding nuclear weapons programs, it is not known for certain if Israel & Pakistan have enough nuclear weapons to kill every one on the planet - but they'd get close.)

If nuclear capability is the sole measure of power, the next most powerful states would be those with nuclear weapons, just not enough to annihilate everyone: South Africa and North Korea.

Following them would be about two dozen other countries with nuclear weapons programs, but not weapons capability yet (as far as we know) including Libya, Algeria and Iran.

You see, the real definition of power in the modern era is far more complex and, as Japan has demonstrated since WWII, relies heavily on economic potential rather than just military might.

Click to expand...

While agreeing with the core principal of Ragnar's concept I beg to differ with raconteur's views while somewhat agreeing with them.
Currently America is the only superpower in the world, however if we go by Ragnar's theory then there are some contenders for the title of superpower-
U.S.A, Russia, India, China, Britain, France (possibly Israel). The buck stops there.
However if one tries to add more muscle to the title of a superpower then there will be only 4 countries in the fray-
U.S.A, Russia, China and India for now we'll be considering the other crucial aspects that a even slightly prolonged war shall be demanding. Abilities of conventional warfare, manpower, capability to maintain effective air-power, minimal navy requirements and most importantly a nation that can still have it's economy intact along with the nation itself in case of a prolonged nuclear war.
Though despite all this, 3 of the countries are not quite superpowers yet though as I always say 15-20 years will radically change everything.

Royal Avenger said:

While agreeing with the core principal of Ragnar's concept I beg to differ with raconteur's views while somewhat agreeing with them.

Click to expand...

Very even handed.

Heidi XX said:

So Russia was not technically in front of USA after ww2 ever?
And than they fall behind America! Where is the 45 years of USSA being world power?

Click to expand...

Uh...Heidi i'm confused.. what/who is USSA?

Lord Ragnar said:

Very even handed.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

I believe Imperial China had the Russian Empire as it's main rival, especially during the late Qing Dynasty, where it lost Outer Manchuria, then heavy Russian influence penetrated into Tuva and Outer Mongolia.