A power outside of North America

I am forever frustrated by how the United States seems to be the be-all end-all in warfare from the first world war onwards. Barring exceptional circumstance (i.e. global alliance), they simply cannot lose. At what point is this condition set in stone? At what point in history is it certain that a single power will dominate the North American continent and thus be unchallengeable by outsiders, and how can that be prevented or altered?

I am operating under the assumption that no matter what power takes control of North America from one ocean to the other will be indomitable. Is this accurate? If not for the idea of American Exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny, would the west have been developed in a timely manner?

In short, what would it take for an Asian, African, European, or even South American nation to be able to project power and hold global influence in the same manner as the United States does currently?
 
Potential Game-changers

1. France retains Missouri/Louisiana
2. Missouri becomes an independent nation
3. USA loses the Mexican War
4. Confederacy is formed peacefully or wins independence early

There may be others that would work

1.5. Britain substantially defeats USA in 1812-1815
 
1.5. Britain substantially defeats USA in 1812-1815

Correction: Britain substantially defeats the US in 1812-1815 (as OTL) and cares enough about a potential future threat to impose a treaty that either a) neutralises the threat or b) pisses off the US enough to spark another war a few years down the line that leads to such a neutralising treaty.
 
Thing is, is that the U.S doesn't actually dominate the world,so much as others allow it to. The US is able to project power in Asia, because Korea, Japan, Australia, and others allow the presence of US bases on their nations to occur. The US is able to project power in the Middle East because they have bases all over Europe and the Middle East itself, which are only allowed to exist thanks to their allies in those regions allowing them too. If those bases weren't there, the US would have a lot more difficulty being able to project power across the world.

Now, as to challenging the US on it's home turf, as in the North American region, that's a bit more difficult. I suppose Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean nations could be armed and developed to a point that the US wouldn't be able to really pick on them. If developed to such a point, the US would have to take them into account whenever doing something in North America, as it would no longer be the biggest kid in the playground, so much as just a somewhat bigger kid, who although they could win alone against the others, they'd be really hurt doing so to the point that it just wouldn't be worth it.

But, to actually have them pick on the US would be difficult. They'd need support from other nations so as to strangle the US. They'd need someone to distract the Atlantic Navy, so that could be a European or even African power, or maybe even a South American nation such as Brazil. They'd also need someone to deal with the Pacific Navy, which would be much harder, unless done by a South American Navy such as Brazil. Theoretically, Mexico could build up a large navy, but they'd be outbuilt by the US, who would in turn build up a larger navy, as this would lead to tensions rising. Brazil, a European, and maybe an Asian nation could get away with this, without attracting rabid US attention, but Mexico would be quickly on the defensive, if it looked like they were preparing for war on the US.

In order for some other nation to be able to project power in the same way the US does, they'd need to have a large resource and industrial base, that they can rely on without fear of being messed with. Theoretically, it doesn't have to be within in it's own territory, but that would be preferable. It'd also be preferable that they are able to prevent themselves from being starved by shipping interference. If given enough handwaves, I'd say that a United Western Europe, or at least a nation that dominates to such a point that they have a freehand there could do it, but they would need to have bases all over, which could be done by either building alliances, or most likely, by having a large colonial empire. It could theoretically even have bases in Latin America, by building alliances with the nations there, though the closer they are to the US, the harder this gets. At that point, the US would start overthrowing governments in order to have them avoid building an alliance with that nation; however, if that nation can avoid having it's government brought down by having a single politician overthrown, and replaced, then I'm not sure what else the US could do besides throwing up sanctions or even outright attacking.
 
the United States seems to be the be-all end-all in warfare from the first world war onwards. Barring exceptional circumstance (i.e. global alliance), they simply cannot lose.
I would doubt this is actually true, the most obvious example would be simply 70/80s full exchange I question if US would really avoid losing at least in the mind of most of the (surviving) civilian population?
 
Nuclear warfare poses its own challenges, and serves to mitigate the effects of geography substantially. Therefore, it is only marginally pertinent to the discussion.

Having allies across the globe certainly has a great effect. However, it cannot be enough on its own. If the USSR had allies scattered around the way the US does, it would still be hamstrung by the Bosphorus, the Danish Straits, and the Sea of Japan. Additionally, the United States has not the worry of overland invasion, and so can devote more resources abroad. A competitor in Europe would have to be exceptionally powerful in order to maintain dominance over its neighbors and still compete with the United States. And finally, the two-ocean aspect of the United States is also a substantial advantage.

However, my question was not on the theory of challenging the United States, but rather the particulars. Thanks to Grey Wolf and Seafort for their contributions, but even there, those seem to be ways to simply lower the level of power for all countries, not bring another up to the level enjoyed by the US. So how could this last one be accomplished? At what point in history could another true challenger arise, able to match the United States in global power projection and influence, and possessed of similar industrial capacity and economic power? Some speculate that China may fill this role soon, but for now let us discuss only the past.
 
Nuclear warfare poses its own challenges, and serves to mitigate the effects of geography substantially. Therefore, it is only marginally pertinent to the discussion.

Having allies across the globe certainly has a great effect. However, it cannot be enough on its own. If the USSR had allies scattered around the way the US does, it would still be hamstrung by the Bosphorus, the Danish Straits, and the Sea of Japan. Additionally, the United States has not the worry of overland invasion, and so can devote more resources abroad. A competitor in Europe would have to be exceptionally powerful in order to maintain dominance over its neighbors and still compete with the United States. And finally, the two-ocean aspect of the United States is also a substantial advantage.

However, my question was not on the theory of challenging the United States, but rather the particulars. Thanks to Grey Wolf and Seafort for their contributions, but even there, those seem to be ways to simply lower the level of power for all countries, not bring another up to the level enjoyed by the US. So how could this last one be accomplished? At what point in history could another true challenger arise, able to match the United States in global power projection and influence, and possessed of similar industrial capacity and economic power? Some speculate that China may fill this role soon, but for now let us discuss only the past.
A Russian Empire that rolls all sixes, as in it is able to live out it's full industrial potential, would be comparable to the U.S. Apparently, even in the mid 19th century , some famous author pointed out how it seems that Russia and America are likely to control the destinies of their respective hemispheres. An alternate China could also dill this role, but it would be harder and more complicated than just simply empowering Russia.
 
I am forever frustrated by how the United States seems to be the be-all end-all in warfare from the first world war onwards. Barring exceptional circumstance (i.e. global alliance), they simply cannot lose. At what point is this condition set in stone? At what point in history is it certain that a single power will dominate the North American continent and thus be unchallengeable by outsiders, and how can that be prevented or altered?

The American Civil War was the last chance. An alliance of the CSA, Britain, France, and the Mexican Empire could--if they had chosen--battered the US down and partitioned chunks off. Ideally, an earlier POD involving foreign intervention in the Mexican War would do something similar. But afterwards, the United States will grow its economy and become dominant that way (and if/when needed, put a lot into the military), or if pressed, militarise and become dominant in that way (albeit economically weaker).

I am operating under the assumption that no matter what power takes control of North America from one ocean to the other will be indomitable. Is this accurate? If not for the idea of American Exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny, would the west have been developed in a timely manner?

In short, what would it take for an Asian, African, European, or even South American nation to be able to project power and hold global influence in the same manner as the United States does currently?

An early enough POD is needed for any of those countries. Asia has China, Japan, and Korea (the latter needs Manchuria, while Japan needs Hokkaido and Sakhalin much earlier than OTL), all of which could have serious power and have a role like the US. Asia also has Russia, since Siberia has a lot of nice land and especially resources to power the Russian economy and war machine. Africa also needs early PODs (before the dominance of Europe became assured), but South Africa up to the Zambezi in the hands of a power like Portugal could be like an ideal version of Brazil which could be a great power and one undefeatable to foreign foes due to its remoteness. Europe only has Russia--anyone else is checked via great power alliances, and Britain being much stronger than OTL seems ASB (unless it keeps the 13 Colonies I guess). South America (and Latin America as a whole) needs a better colonial period (I don't believe surviving Inca or any other native empire would amount to much but a local version of Siam) to make better land transportation networks. Even then, I think Argentina is the best chance there. Basically have Spain settle the coast of Southern Brazil and not lose it to the Portuguese, and have an independent state consisting of modern Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, most of Chile and Bolivia, and the Brazilian states of Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, and Parana (and maybe parts of Mato Grosso do Sul and Sao Paulo). You have similar factors to the US--rich agricultural land for plantations, rich mountains full of minerals, a vast amount of agricultural land which can belong to anyone who stakes a claim on it, a country of several different regional cultures coming together for one purpose, etc. You even have some coal and oil (in Chile and Patagonia respectively) for industrialisation. It wouldn't be as strong as the US, but it would still be stronger than any European great power barring maybe the Russians/USSR.

Potential Game-changers

1. France retains Missouri/Louisiana
2. Missouri becomes an independent nation
3. USA loses the Mexican War
4. Confederacy is formed peacefully or wins independence early

There may be others that would work

1.5. Britain substantially defeats USA in 1812-1815

1. The US without the Trans-Mississippi area still has the bulk of the population and resources which built the US. It still has a lot of oil in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and the Gulf. It still has the pull factors to lure a lot of immigration. And now it has a key rival in the form of whatever state emerges in Louisiana, leading to a stronger and more active US militarily. So this US is still easily a great power which can decide wars.
2. What do you mean? If Louisiana is divided, then the US has even less to worry about in that area and can pit the two against each other to check that potential threat.
3. The US still has the Plains, much of the mountain states (borders can be adjusted with Mexico in other wars/purchases), and will certainly seek a route to the Pacific. This US is easily great power tier, and stronger than any other great power, with agricultural output to influence the world, Texas/Plains oil (in addition to other US oil, the main loss being California oil), the minerals of the Northern Rockies, etc.
4. Depends on their borders, but if they lack Missouri and Kentucky and New Mexico/Arizona, the US doesn't have too great of a loss. And once again, this gives the US a significant foe to build up an army against and gain crucial experience in that field which the US struggled with going into World War I.
5. The US which results from this will certainly struggle against the British in the future, and will ally with France (and perhaps later Germany and/or Russia) to achieve its goals. And there will come a time the British can't win in North America if they want to win in Europe.

OTL the US had a strong navy and weak army until the mid-20th century. Here we'll see a stronger army and the navy will also/instead include a substantial riverine fleet to fight Louisiana, the CSA, or British Canada.

Nuclear warfare poses its own challenges, and serves to mitigate the effects of geography substantially. Therefore, it is only marginally pertinent to the discussion.

Having allies across the globe certainly has a great effect. However, it cannot be enough on its own. If the USSR had allies scattered around the way the US does, it would still be hamstrung by the Bosphorus, the Danish Straits, and the Sea of Japan. Additionally, the United States has not the worry of overland invasion, and so can devote more resources abroad. A competitor in Europe would have to be exceptionally powerful in order to maintain dominance over its neighbors and still compete with the United States. And finally, the two-ocean aspect of the United States is also a substantial advantage.

However, my question was not on the theory of challenging the United States, but rather the particulars. Thanks to Grey Wolf and Seafort for their contributions, but even there, those seem to be ways to simply lower the level of power for all countries, not bring another up to the level enjoyed by the US. So how could this last one be accomplished? At what point in history could another true challenger arise, able to match the United States in global power projection and influence, and possessed of similar industrial capacity and economic power? Some speculate that China may fill this role soon, but for now let us discuss only the past.

A Russian Empire that rolls all sixes, as in it is able to live out it's full industrial potential, would be comparable to the U.S. Apparently, even in the mid 19th century , some famous author pointed out how it seems that Russia and America are likely to control the destinies of their respective hemispheres. An alternate China could also dill this role, but it would be harder and more complicated than just simply empowering Russia.

China certainly, especially controlling the borders of the Qing Empire at their maximum extant and with Korea as a close ally and even having forced Japan to bow to them (as occurred at several points in history). Russia as well--if the potato is widespread earlier (and not the "devil's apple") and if we add quinoa to the Columbian exchange (as it could have been), then we have two solid cold-weather crops which can make European Russia powerful, and at that point we only need to open Siberia and encourage settlement there.

The Russian Empire was a feared great power, and the USSR took on that mantle, and the biggest reason the United States has any advantage is that the geography of the US is more conducive toward developing a navy.
 
The United States has been able to maintain global superiority not through cooperation but more because that they are better choice than the other guys.
 
In short, what would it take for an Asian, African, European, or even South American nation to be able to project power and hold global influence in the same manner as the United States does currently?

Britain did it in the the 1900s, with remnants that lingered all the way to 1971. The postwar Soviet Union exerted a massive influence on a huge number of countries close to is borders, which went from Western Europe to Alaska and a lesser but still significant presence worldwide.

My bet would be a CP victory in WW1, which I believe would still take 3+ year to achieve. This would give the country with the worlds 2nd largest navy home bases in the Adriatic to complement allies and colonies to contest/dominate the Med/Mid East and the colonies in Africa would allow it to exert considerable influence in the Indian and South Atlantic oceans. This is a much better geopoilitical position to exert global power from than the Soviets had from the 50s.
 
Key word : project power. None of your examples support you at all.
It shows the initial error in the OP's assessment, AKA that the US cannot be defeated because it holds control of North America. It got defeated several times, proving that theory wrong. It could also be defeated pretty "easily" in North America proper, assuming one doesn't expect to win, just to defeat the US (nuke the hell out of it, losing 70+ % of your population counts as a loss even if the other guy is also wiped out).
 

longsword14

Banned
It shows the initial error in the OP's assessment, AKA that the US cannot be defeated because it holds control of North America. It got defeated several times, proving that theory wrong. It could also be defeated pretty "easily" in North America proper, assuming one doesn't expect to win, just to defeat the US (nuke the hell out of it, losing 70+ % of your population counts as a loss even if the other guy is also wiped out).
Meh. Go and reread the last line of the OP.
 
Huh. And here I thought Vietnam happened. Or Korea. Or Afghanistan. Clear cases where the US' military power couldn't manage a victory in the war.

It wasn't the military didn't win the war, it was the politicians. France conquered Vietnam and Japan conquered Korea and held/milked them for decades in spite of resistance, the US could do exactly the same if the will to ruthlessly suppress dissent existed, the US military could kill people and destroy their shit at will.
 
Meh. Go and reread the last line of the OP.
Yes, and that wasn't what I was correcting, but the first part. In any case, the OP would need to read a shit-ton of books about soft power, diplomacy, economy, finance, etc., because the US military is probably one of the LEAST influential tools at the disposal of the White House, despite the dreams of some. The media, internet, dollar, the extraterritorial juridictions, the alliance networks, the universities, Wall Street as a whole, all of these are much more influential than a military which hasn't really won a war outside whacking Saddam's military forces - people whose professionalism and initiative would be better compared to a old yoghurt's - and cannot solve the "small issue" of Mutually Assured Destruction, meaning it litterally cannot achieve a positive outcome against nuclear states.
It wasn't the military didn't win the war, it was the politicians. France conquered Vietnam and Japan conquered Korea and held/milked them for decades in spite of resistance, the US could do exactly the same if the will to ruthlessly suppress dissent existed, the US military could kill people and destroy their shit at will.
Still lost the war. You can have the most massive military ever, if the war is lost, it's lost.
 
Still lost the war. You can have the most massive military ever, if the war is lost, it's lost.

I agree, but the loss wasn't because the US lacked the physical combat power to do so. Power is defined as 'the ability' to act; the US had the ability to act, but chose to act in an ineffective way.
 
Top