>Right. The one who participates in and wins the most wars or murders the most people becomes the superpower.
If merely winning the most wars and murdering the most people automatically made one a superpower, then the United States would not have become a superpower, because they did not win the most wars, nor did they murder the most people, at the end of World War 2, when they gained superpower status.
You're trying so hard to be cynical here that you're abandoning rationality. I'm no fan of American military hegemony, or superpowers in general, but you make the US sound like a Mongol Khanate which is just absurd. The world is more complex than "whomever stands on the biggest pile of heads wins."
>States would not have become a superpower, because they did not win the most wars, nor did they murder the most people, at the end of World War 2, when they gained superpower status.
The US suffered less casualties than all the other major powers (USSR, China, Germany, Poland, Japan, France, Italy, UK) in WW2 and their infrastructure was not destroyed. So kill/death ratio and net destruction are quite indicative of the outcome.
Which country would you guess has committed the most large scale invasions and longest lasting wars since world war 2?
>you make the US sound like a Mongol Khanate which is just absurd
That is indeed an absurd strawman. Did the Mongols not achieve their super power status because of how successful they were at mass murder?
>The US suffered less casualties than all the other major powers (USSR, China, Germany, Poland, Japan, France, Italy, UK) in WW2 and their infrastructure was not destroyed. So kill/death ratio and net destruction are quite indicative of the outcome.
You're moving the goalposts now. Your earlier comment claimed the method for becoming a superpower was to "participate in the most wars and murder the most people." The number of casualties or infrastructure damage relative to the rest of the world shouldn't matter, as that implies a degree of complexity in the nature of superpowers that your prior rationale doesn't allow for.
>Which country would you guess has committed the most large scale invasions and longest lasting wars since world war 2?
You obviously want me to say the US, and you're hedging your bets with the weasel terms "large scale" and "longest lasting" and I really don't care enough about this to go look it up, so fine... the US. But since the US was already a superpower after World War 2, that's not really germane to the US's rise to superpower status.
>Did the Mongols not achieve their super power status because of how successful they were at mass murder?
Maybe, but the point is that the US didn't achieve superpower status through success at mass murder, and that they're not like the Mongols.
>Your earlier comment claimed the method for becoming a superpower was to "participate in the most wars and murder the most people." The number of casualties or infrastructure damage relative to the rest of the world shouldn't matter
Please re-read what I actually said. You've blatantly misquoted me. A keyword which you conveniently ignored is wins.
>You're hedging your bets with the weasel terms "large scale" and "longest lasting"
Is scalability not a prerequisite to becoming a global scale superpower?
>the point is that the US didn't achieve superpower status through success at mass murder
Are you honestly implying the US' success at mass murder is unrelated to their becoming a superpower?
