Do you agree that world was more secure when the US was not a super power alone?

Jump to Last Post 1-26 of 26 discussions (44 posts)
  1. Mash 99 profile image40
    Mash 99posted 10 years ago

    Do you agree that world was more secure when the US was not a super power alone?

  2. skgrao profile image68
    skgraoposted 10 years ago

    Yes it would have been better if US maintained its SUPER POWER.

    1. Mash 99 profile image40
      Mash 99posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      don't you accept that USA has attacked many countries since the elimination of USSR?

    2. profile image0
      Old Empresarioposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Better for the US maybe. And we still are the only military superpower on earth. That's why we're going broke.

  3. Reality Bytes profile image76
    Reality Bytesposted 10 years ago

    What I see:

    The elimination of the conflicting superpowers preparing for each other has left a void.  There is a myriad of military, intelligence, security forces that are still in place with no direction.  Without the threat of another nation, these entities have begun devouring themselves.  Instead of outward threats, the focus is internal.  They are allocating their resources in preparation to engage in conflicts with their own people.  Their own citizens and any other non-military citizen worldwide that would dare to actively resist this onslaught of security measures.

    Their focus is creating that one superpower, the one world government, the ultimate expression of tyranny.  First, they have to prepare the majority to believe that the minority is a threat.  Then they have to pass the proper laws, so when the hammer falls, IT IS ALL LEGAL!

    Without naming historical cliches, this has happened before.  History does indeed repeat itself.  The PEOPLE of the united states are less secure than they have ever been in their short history.  The only difference is that now, the threat comes from themselves, from the military complex they have and continue to fund.  The threat is from their own government and the same can be said for most people of the world!

    1. Mash 99 profile image40
      Mash 99posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      are you in favor of 2 super powers instead of only one?

    2. ssaffery profile image79
      ssafferyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      This comment here pretty much wraps it all up and puts everything into perspective.

    3. Reality Bytes profile image76
      Reality Bytesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      There will always be an opponent, as long as there is a military industry.  They will create fear in the people.  They have to justify their existence after-all!

      Even if the enemy needs to be those that open their eggs from the wrong end.

  4. profile image79
    wba108@yahoo.composted 10 years ago

    No, when the Soviet Union was competing with America as the world power, we came dangerously close to large scale nuclear and conventional war on several occasions.

    1. Mash 99 profile image40
      Mash 99posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      don't you think that the Soviet Union was a counter force which prevented the USA on many occasion to attack the other countries.

  5. brblog profile image82
    brblogposted 10 years ago

    Not really, in the 50’s American’s perceived a great threat and nuclear inhalation was just around the corner (some people actually built their own bomb shelters). Later, in the 60’s and 70’s we just go use to it all. On the world stage, there were proxy wars being fought all the time – Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan; plus plenty of internal revolutions and coups orchestrated by the super powers (in Asia, Africa and the Middle East). Also, don’t forget about events like the Cuban missile crisis. Yes, you could argue that certain dangerous elements were kept in check during the cold war but I don’t think the world was more secure – just a different set of dangers.

    1. brblog profile image82
      brblogposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Sorry, pardon my spell check - should say "annihilation" . . .

  6. sweetie1 profile image49
    sweetie1posted 10 years ago

    Sorry but i dont agree to this because at that time it was arms race at its peak. With both super powers making more and more atomic and nuclear weapons and encouraging their puppet regimes to make bombs, it was definitely not a secure world.

  7. fpherj48 profile image60
    fpherj48posted 10 years ago

    Truth?   The first and last time any of us were ever SECURE, in the true sense of the word, was  'in-utero."

    1. chuckd7138 profile image73
      chuckd7138posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Truer words have never been spoken.

    2. DS Duby profile image84
      DS Dubyposted 10 years agoin reply to this


    3. profile image0
      CJ Sledgehammerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The womb is one of the most dangerous places to be statistically. One out of 3 women kill their babies "in-utero". 50,000,000 murdered in the past 39 years. Safe and secure...not on your life.

  8. kimberlie33 profile image60
    kimberlie33posted 10 years ago

    Not really. I think the world has always been a pretty messy place. Think about the wars in England before the US take over. England was always messing with smaller countries around them and taking power. I think it's just shifted and the US has a lot of "allies" that they are willing to "protect". And, of course, we spend a lot of time sticking our noses in other countries businesses and coming out with oil and goods. Just like England did back in the days before us.

    To that point though, I do think the world is not only worse off, in that we still see a lot of war and countries dominating other countries, but I think its better too. People aren't dying from the common cold, we're not seeing plagues happen, and we've been able to eliminate some deadly viruses and diseases or at least protect ourselves and our children against them where before the US these diseases were rampant. We have technology to help us get through our day-to-day routines. I guess it's all how you look at it though.

    But off my tangent now, no, I don't think the world was more secure. I think those times had their own set of problems.

  9. Doc Snow profile image89
    Doc Snowposted 10 years ago

    I don't think so.  It is probably true that there has generally been more open conflict since the fall of the Soviet Union, but it is also true that the world is more economically and politically dynamic now, which I expect will generally lead to better outcomes for more people.  Plus, we seem to be less in danger of nuclear holocaust now--not a small thing.

    We seem to be moving toward a more multi-lateral world, where there are many more medium-level powers; as Latin America and Asia continue to outgrow the developed world, they will accrue more political and military power as well.  This tendency could potentially lead to a relatively stable power equilibrium.

    Of course, climate change is a big joker; its effects could well be profoundly destabilizing for many nations (including China) over the coming decades.

  10. ramkimeena profile image56
    ramkimeenaposted 10 years ago

    No. When USA was  not  the superpower, World War I and World War II took place causing millions of people  to perish. When USA was not  the superpower alone  (USSR was  also the superpower), China attacked  India and captured 32000 square kilometres of its territory and is still holding it. China fought the Korean War and wrested North Korea.  USSR invaded Afghanistan, Hungary and Czechosovakia. Joseph Stalin  killed hundred million people. Mao killed hundred  million Chinese. But after the collapse of USSR when USA was and is the only superpower, the security of the world has improved  a lot. Can China  attack India once again  and capture its territory?

    1. profile image0
      Matthew Kirkposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      China couldn't attack india again successfully but that is not because of the US, it is because india has its own riches now!

  11. profile image0
    msorenssonposted 10 years ago

    It is not the holding of formidable weapons that create security...
    Like wealth, they can change hands in any moment..

    Let us look instead at building compassion from what Gandhi did.

  12. profile image0
    Old Empresarioposted 10 years ago

    No, but the world was never "secure". The US government is not any more or less evil than any other government on earth. It just happens that the US has the most powerful military right now. The US empire is something unique in the world because it almost never uses direct brute government force or brute commercial force. As a nation of lawyers, we have more litigious and underhanded methods. We get other nations to beat up on themselves by giving aid to their governments. Then we are allowed to take resources without direct violence on our part. But that's the third world I'm talking about. War with the great powers of Asia and Europe are impossible due to the economic relationships. Businesses based in the US do business over there. Businesses over there have a substantial footprint here. If you take governments out of the equation, there are no nation-states anymore. Corporations have no nationality other than other corporations.

  13. pinappu profile image82
    pinappuposted 10 years ago

    I think the world is more secure now. It is not because of the "Super Power" things though. There are no super or lesser powers. Individual human beings try to capture power and secure as many benefits for himself. That's why they have created states. USA is nothing but a group of ambitious men and women trying to capture as many power as possible in the form of business.

    The world is more secure today for globalization. Globalization enables power hungry people to gather more power without fighting a war or killing thousands of innocents. The power of the people who are directing Google, Microsoft or Apple are huge today, though they have not a single military. This is the future of the world. There will be no army within 100 years.

  14. conradofontanilla profile image65
    conradofontanillaposted 10 years ago

    In WWII upon the defeat of Germany, Italy and Japan, called Axis powers, the remaining superpowers were United States, Great Britain and Russia. They were aligned by the common enemy, aligned temporarily for five years, 1945 to 1950, until the Cold War broke out in a shooting war. Since then there had been no world peace even when the Cold War had ended. read more

  15. davidkaluge profile image63
    davidkalugeposted 10 years ago

    Well it is said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is need to have a balance of power(s) and not a situation were a nation will seem to direct the affairs of others and attack at will without minding what other nations have to say. However, I must admit that must of the USA attacks have been justified except for Iraq war. Therefore, it means that USA is trying her best but for fear of abuse it is better to have world powers not just one or two world powers.

  16. profile image0
    Matthew Kirkposted 10 years ago

    Britain was an unchecked superpower for some time and meddled in everything as the US does now, in both cases they are their own worst enemies.

    Look at all empires, when all threats have been eliminated they eat themselves. The people or Rome needed a new threat after Carthage was destroyed, so their senators invented threats and made problems for themselves.

    The US may well be in decline right now with China and India the new emerging powers.

    The US does also have widespread support from other strong nations in Europe and elsewhere, so maybe there is a difference in the modern world... for now.

  17. swb78 profile image60
    swb78posted 10 years ago

    I don`t think it makes any difference today. First, America is not much of a super power anymore. America is broke, divided, and immoral for the most part. The real issue in this world is Islam. Everywhere in the world today where there is violence, death, war, human abuse, and abuse on women, Islam is involved in one way or another.If that offends--I`m sorry--its not my intent to be vicious or offensive, its just a fact that no one seems to want to face up to for some odd reason. People almost get angry when you say anything about Islam, yet, you see these fanatics on every front page in the world [???]. Is it some kind of witch craft of spell that they have on people that blinds them to the obvious? (Laughing). Who knows--all I know is its really weird what this religion gets away with and yet Christians are hated. The Bible says in the end times right would become wrong and wrong would become right--I guess that is my answer.

    1. James-wolve profile image75
      James-wolveposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Sorry to intrude but do you know that the West  is borrowing Islamic finance as a cure for the global financial meltdown and In USA ,schools are starting to split up boys and girls.They are practicing Islam laws they  hate so much  without  knowing.

    2. swb78 profile image60
      swb78posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      James, I`m not sure why you feel your opinion is an intrusion; so, I will answer by saying--yes, I am aware of these facts. Islam is the worlds great problem in this modern day.

  18. profile image0
    Garifaliaposted 10 years ago

    I'm not sure about that. What I am definitely sure about than although it was at the expense of others, the west (especially my country) was a haven.

  19. maharg1956 profile image59
    maharg1956posted 10 years ago

    Excellent question and one, in my view, that can never be answered definitively. Many people have provided answers that contain different perspectives and I think there is a degree of truth in each of them.

    I think that what WAS the case is that the 2 'super powers, together with Britain perhaps were able exercise more influence and control over their 'satellite' countries than is the case today.

    In this 21st century, the smaller states and countries now have more power, authority and autonomy and are less likely to be influenced by Russia, America, Britain or the major european countries and I think it is this lack of control that creates an illusion of instability.

    For sure, I think that as far as the nuclear aspect and the threat of a third world war is concerned, the world was, perhaps, more stable until the end of the 20th century, due to the stalemate situation that existed, in terms of the use of nuclear weapons.

    Now, however, the world faces a more serious threat and that is terrorism, which presents a more difficult situation than the old nuclear situation and it is one which, I think, America and Britain wastes a lot of time and money on. Terrorism is a threat which is as old as mankind itself and which can never be eradicated, as long as there are fanatics, of whatever persuasion, to perpetuate it.

    As for Islam . . . .  we have seen several great empires, from the Egyptians, through to the Romans and then the British and it would seem that we are now entering a phase where the Asian continent will be the next truly great world base and Islam will also be at the centre of world events in the future.

    I suppose that, in reality, a unites states of Europe, should have formed the heart of the next 'empire' and should have been the major financial, military and political force in the world. However, the failings of the european financial system, together with too much individual national identity appears to have scuppered that possibility.

    I am sure that, had Britain ben a more major player in political affairs of Europe, then Europe would, indeed, have been a united super power. As it is, Britain is far too self focused to ever be a truly integrated part of Europe and the French, Italians and Germans have too strong a desire to keep us at arms length.

    The result is that a Europe in which Italy and France are 2 of the 3 major influences is always doomed to failure.

    So, the baton, it would appear, passes to China, Japan, India etc.

  20. James-wolve profile image75
    James-wolveposted 10 years ago

    Well,The world was never secure before or with USA now.Crazy selfish people set up  two world wars during 50 years.Now some secret agendas are preparing to set up an other world war:All against Islam.

  21. RavenBiker profile image59
    RavenBikerposted 10 years ago

    Yes, in a way.  In 20/20 hindsight, a superpower can share the power with another superpower as in "balance of Power" but a lone superpower cannot absorb the entire responsiblity of being a superpower.  Every major superpower of yesteryear has tried and failed eventually subcoming to their capital debt. With that said, I believe the American forgein policy underwriters failed to understand this.  Having no "competition" leads to competing against oneself----like a cancer.

  22. profile image0
    lesliebyarsposted 10 years ago

    The world's security has nothing to do with 1,2 or 3 super powers in my opinion. Their is always danger in the world.

  23. swordsbane profile image60
    swordsbaneposted 10 years ago

    I believe the world was the most secure it has ever between the time World War 2 ended and the Soviet Union collapsed.  However, I do not believe that it is due to the world having more than one superpower.  When WW2 ended, the nuclear bomb had been invented, and from then on, no one wanted to risk the horror of a nuclear exchange so mostly, everyone behaved.  Nuclear weapons were only in the hands of people who had the most to lose if one was used.  When the Soviet Union collapsed, all that changed.  Other nations were getting nuclear weapons, and Russia wasn't able to guarantee no one would be able to get their nuclear material.  Since then, we have gotten more used to the idea of one or two nuclear weapons being used without a response being in kind, and we've gotten more complacent with warfare on TV.  Islam has more traction on the International scene and religious fanatics are more powerful than they used to be.  The world is a more dangerous place now, and will probably continue to grow more dangerous until we have a major war (No... iraq and Afghanistan don't count as MAJOR wars in this sense) or a dramatic shift in international politics takes place.

  24. extranotes profile image62
    extranotesposted 10 years ago

    Have you been keeping up with the UN's involvement in world affairs?
    To say that the UN is ineffective would be a gross understatement.   The US is the one "super power" that can actually make a difference in keeping the world more secure in the present day's threat from nuclear terrorists (Iran, North Korea, Pakistan).  Prior to the US becoming a super power (per-WW1), the rest of the world was primarily involved in conquering neighboring countries... and acquiring as much land as possible with the eventual aim of world conquest (RomanEmpire, Ottoman Empire, Nazi Germany to name a very few).  With the advent of becoming a super power, the US has reduced this threat and provided greater security to stabilize the world.

    1. swb78 profile image60
      swb78posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You make some sound arguments; however, I believe you describe America as it once was, instead of what she is today. Can America be that great hope once again? Can America be the importer of human freedom and individual liberty she once was?

    2. Mash 99 profile image40
      Mash 99posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      how come you declared Pakistan a nuclear terrorist. Pakistan made itself a nuclear power only to defend from the aggression of India.

    3. extranotes profile image62
      extranotesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Good question swb78... But it's a question for the future.  It's tough enough to address the present day situation (based on rampant information and subjective experiences to form our opinions).  One example: communism failed and democracy continues.

    4. James-wolve profile image75
      James-wolveposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      America was never importer of human freedom and individual liberty .What is the type of  fredom they brought to Iraq?d you cal a chaos freedom?Wher r th flowers tht th Marines wer  promised t receiv as soon as they landed?Y cant USA interfer in syria

    5. extranotes profile image62
      extranotesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Not a convincing argument Mash 99... given the latest info by the UK news Guardian: … e-pakistan
      Also:–200 … n_standoff

  25. profile image53
    graceinusposted 10 years ago

    No. But I also don't believe that any single nation in the past 60 years can really claim to be the lone super power. Due to the fact that if the U.S. attempted to use their full might, then other would too. Then everbody will loose.

  26. profile image0
    CJ Sledgehammerposted 10 years ago

    Let me just say that the people of the United States and the rest of the world were more secure when the U.S. did not have a standing army and began to feed the insatiable appetite of the military/industrial complex.

    As long as there are those who profit from war...war will remain profitable and seem necessary to an unsuspecting, ignorant populace.


This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)