Re your concerns about US global domination

Come on now, enough with the hyperbole. The US has been a superpower for 60 years, the beginning of which was marked with rebuilding Europe and Japan insead of enjoying the spoils of war, then turned to creating international organizations like NATO and the UN as a response to Soviet expansion, and then worked to clean up hotspots like Yugoslavia, Kuwait, and Bosnia.

I can't say I approve every US action in that span of time (particularly in South America and Southeast Asia), but the basis of comparison is the Europeans. This is a group of people who, when they had the power to, raped and pillaged the rest of the planet for 500 years, before just about destroying themselves in two wars. Now suddenly they're the moral compass for the rest of the planet?

>>4

I disagree with your suggestion that the U.S. is the only superpower. How do you define superpower?

Do you mean that they could militarily dominate or nearly dominate the world, like the Macedonians under Alexander, the Mongolians under Genghis, the British under Edward and Victoria, or the French under Napoleon? (all of whom were singular superpowers by the way).

Because if that is how you define superpower then I vehemently disagree. China could destroy the U.S. on its own (and they'd take the whole world with them, no doubt), so the U.S. has no option for military hegemony.

So... yeah, I'd like to hear how you define superpower in such a way that this period in history is so unique that it is the only time there was a single superpower. Here's the challenge though; how you can construct such a definition without invalidating the claims to super-power-dom of widely acknowledged superpowers, like... all the countries I named above?