If the United States has proven since WWII that it cannot defeat a third world nation, then how is it a superpower?
Mercedes Sweazy, B.S Media Arts and Science, Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis (2019)
Now I’m an American so take what I say here with a grain of salt.
The United States CAN defeat a third world nation, or even several of them at the same time (depending on the nation’s involved).
It’s never been a question of if, it’s been a question of should.
In the Korean War, from what I’ve learned, the United States really backed off when we pushed the opposition to the Chinese border.
Guess who was waiting for us? China. Guess who told us that if we crossed the border to pursue the North Koreans, they would join the conflict? China. Guess who is and was a superpower who we did not want to fuck with? China.
So we backed off, told off the commander who tried pushing his luck, and eventually a cease fire was written up. Technically the war never ended.
But we knew that if we pushed our luck, we wouldn’t be fighting a third world nation, guerilla tactics-using with relatively small local population. We’d be fighting China. I can point to almost what…10,000 years of why that’s a bad idea?
So why haven’t we “beaten” third world nations yet?
Because other Superpowers are involved.
Russia in Syria.
Russia in Cuba.
China in Korea.
(Pretty sure, correct me on this one) China and Russia in Vietnam.
If it’s not an “enemy” it’s an “ally”.
UK, Canada, etc in Iraq and Afghanistan.
God knows how many more in fact, I’m only 2% the war buff my grandfather is.
But the point is we could, but we won’t.
We won’t, because there is someone to stop us, even when we want to.
We could nuke the whole world and walk away victorious.
But what would that make us?
What would be the price of victory?
How would it affect the soul of humanity that still resides here on this soil?!
I’m not going to lie.
There are Americans who are outright frustrated by our progress on the world war table.
Americans who have personally told me in debates that it is in American interest, to use THE BOMB.
But there is someone else, an American, an Ally, or an Enemy superpower…
Who puts their hand on our shoulder and tells Us to put the toys down and walk away.
So we do (should).
John Geare, studied at Dickinson College
No such thing has been proven because, since World War II, the US has not been at war with any third world nation; not by itself, anyway.
THIRD WORLD NATIONS AND THE COLD WAR: So, what is a “third world” nation? Or rather, what was?
The “third world” moniker is a phrase originally coined by Alfred Sauvy, a French scholar who introduced the phrase in a 1952 opinion piece he wrote for L'Observateur, a popular French magazine which was similar in content and style to the American Time Magazine. In those days, the international conflicts and tensions of the time were called the “Cold War,” a term which was introduced by none other than George Orwell (of 1984 fame) in his October 1945 essay published by the British newspaper,&nb荣华彩票下载sp;Tribune.
“第三世界”这个绰号最初是由法国学者阿尔弗雷德·索维创造的，他在1952年为《观察家》杂志写了一篇评论文章，文中介绍了这个词。《观察家》是一本很受欢迎的法国杂志，在内容和风格上与美国《时代》杂志相似。在那些日子里，当时的国际冲突和紧张局势被称为“冷战”，这个术语是由乔治·奥威尔(George Orwell, 1984年成名)在他1945年10月发表在英国报纸《论坛报》上的文章中提出的。
Keying on Orwell’s notion of a cold war, Sauvy defined “third world nations” as those countries who were neither aligned with the democratic west, nor the communist bloc.
From the querent’s point of view, the facial nominees for third world enemies of the U.S. presumably include North Korea and Vietnam, neither of whom were defeated by the U.S. (and its allies). The problem is that both nations were aligned with the Soviet Union and/or China, so they did not fit the definition of third world countries. Of course there is the additional problem that neither action was engaged by the U.S. alone; in the case of Korea, the action was sanctioned by the UN; in the case of Vietnam, allies fought alongside the U.S.
SUPERPOWER? By most measures (e.g. military power, economies, population size and influence on global politics and trade) the United States, Russia and China probably qualify. And they are so qualified because their policies and actions are significant factors in the formation of policies, alliances and political activities of everyone else.
TO THE QUESTION: The United States has not “defeated” any third world nation (no matter how that term is defined) because the U.S. has not been at war with any “third world nation.” If you don’t fight, you don’t win, and you don’t lose
John Freiler, Political pundit
Since WWII, the US cannot defeat a third world nation? No sane third world nation believes that. Now, cannot defeat every third world nation, sure. Some nations are viewed as not worth the bother. More on this in a moment.
“Then how is it a superpower?” This shows that you don't understand what a superpower nation is. A nation, just regular, can mostly control issues within its borders and the nation's that share a border with it will often consider what's going on with the regular nation as they decide how they will conduct their affairs. An internationally powerful nation, or a regional power will have nations that don't share a border but are in the region or political bloc worrying about how the powerful nation will view their actions. A global superpower has nations all over the world concerned about how the superpower is feeling about them and any action they may take.
The US is certainly still in the superpower club and seems to be it's only occupant at this time.
But what about getting defeated by a third world power? For the best answer to this, I reccomend you read “Empires of Trust” (I'll put link in when I'm at a PC). It shows how much of Rome's history and the US's overlaps, and not in the way you're probably thinking. In short, if it's just destruction, the US can pretty much deal out any nation. Fortunately for the world, we're not interested in just destroying random nations. If any nation were foolish enough to convince us that their destruction was warranted, they would not be long for this world.
But we're actually a nation of people who want to live our lives and be left alone to do our thing. But other nations actually keep coming to us and asking us to interfere.
Despite my Pro-Russian slant, I shall be frank.
The US is a military superpower, where no other nation can compete. Sure, it tends to suck in defining war objectives politically, and winning hearts of minds culturally, it can fuck shit up. But why “can’t the US defeat a third world superpower”
It’s not that the US can’t. It’s that the US wouldn’t.
Russia, could fuck Georgia up. It fucked Georgia enough to teach it a lesson, but that’s all.
Mind you, the US, could Destroy Iraq, Afghanistan. It could wipe out all able bodied men, exterminate population centres of folks, and put a Puppet government. It could! But they wouldn’t.
Patrick McCabe, former US Army (Retired) & Combat Veteran (RTO Vietnam)
Let’s first take a look at what a superpower is… Basically it’s a country that project diplomatic, economic and military power internationally. It isn’t a country that can defeat a third world nation. Since WWII and until recently, there were really but two. The United States and the USSR . The USSR dissolved, crumbled and reformed as Russia, who has gained back some of but not all it's former power. Chain is now a superpower as is the EU. So basically there are four superpowers today.
Now let’s to go onto the “..cannot defeat a third world nation..” There is no long-term military engagement which the United States has been involved in since WWII in which it could not militarily defeat its foe. None.
Politics and purpose has been the deciding factor in each limited military action since WWII, actions which include Korea, Vietnam, and the various hostilities in the Mideast.
Today the United States in all reality is the preeminent military power in the world with the capability to defeat any nation… any. That capability comes not only from its military shall we say firepower; but its ability to project that power internationally for sustained periods of time and with massive and lethal force. There is no other nation (today) that can sustain a long-term all-out war on a foreign front.
Marketing. The United States manufactures weapons of war. Airplanes, ground transport vehicles, bombs, etc. How do you show your potential customers how well your product works unless you demonstrate? Pick a third world nation and go to war. .
There are a class of people in the United States that in order to get medical attention or an education, they must enlist in the military. We've taught them that fighting for the Red White and Blue is an honor and so to enlist is to serve one's country in exchange for...
Stephen Shoemate, Retired from large-current power supply repair
The United States is THE superpower, make no mistake about that. The fact that spineless politicians send our military all over the world to perform tasks without hurting the enemy's feelings seems to escape the notice of our citizens. The other side is never hampered by the same considerations. Never, since WWII, has our military been told to wage all-out conventional warfare, much less using nuclear weapons. There are always so many restrictions imposed on our fighting forces, that it's surprising they are allowed to even shoot back when attacked. Third world, or developed countries, tell our services to go non-nuclear, but otherwise full bore war, until the enemy unconditionally surrenders, and they will accomplish that mission. Until then, as long as our people go to battle with a hand tied behind their backs, they will find victory impossible, or nearly so. Sending 'embedded reporters' with our forces, so the enemy leaders can watch our troops in action, live, has got to be the pinnacle of stupidity. Our leaders have been shooting our soldiers in the feet for too long.