> Chris Doss lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org, Tue, 06 Jan 2004 07:19:57 -0500
>
>> Brian:
>>
>>> And I'm still unclear on why this "hyperpower" business is supposed
>>> to mean. For one thing, how did the U.S. become a "hyperpower" when
>>> it was previously a "superpower?" And exactly how has this status
>>> changed war? Apart from some relatively minor technological tweaks,
>>> there doesn't seem to be much difference at all (I mean, beyond the
>>> collapse of the Saddam regime within a month and a half). I see no
>>> need to work up this neologism of "hyperpowers" unless one is a Jean
>>> Baudrillard fan. If war isn't awful enough to get people motivated,
>>> then dressing it up with cutesy words ain't going to help much.
>>
>> ---
>> I agree. The idea that the US is a godlike "hyperpower" is part of
>> the collective delusion that got the Bushies into the whole Iraq
>> mess. The US is good at bombing defenseless countries but that's
>> about it.
>
> The idea is that the US used to be one superpower whose greatest
> geopolitical ambitions were checked by another superpower and vice
> versa. With the Soviet Union no more, there is no superpower that can
> check the US. France is no substitute for the USSR. Hence the US's
> transformation into a "hyperpower," a term that was reportedly coined
> by former French Foreign Minister Hubert Védrine.
>
> It was the Gulf War that signaled the beginning of change from two
> superpowers to one hyperpower:
It still sounds like an empty word to me. Chris raises a good point when he faults the term for conjuring up false images of power. For me, it's not as if the United States' power has suddenly _increased_, or that we've developed some new terror weapon. It's just that the main opposition doesn't exist anymore.
Look at it this way. Let's say Chris Doss and I were the two biggest weightlifters in the world, and we're pretty evenly matched, so people call us super-weightlifters. Then, one day, I die, leaving Chris without any real competition Has Chris suddenly become stronger? Has he magically become a "hyper-weightlifter?" No.
Frankly, it strikes me as a neologism devised to add some razzamatazz to discussions. For some reason, referring to the U.S. as the lone superpower just isn't sexy enough. It doesn't inspire. It doesn't terrorize. It's the same stuff we've heard before. But say that the U.S. is a _hyperpower_, well, now that's _something_. People get all in a tizzy: "Hyperpower? What's that? Something new? Something bad?" But there's never a real definition. "Well, um, a hyperpower is a superpower that... uh, well, not only has enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life on the globe, and a big military, but... it has the Internet too, maybe?"
Okay, if we suddenly develop a weapon that could extinguish the Sun, or fold time and space into a singular point, then _maybe_ I'll accept this "hyperpower" business.