Future wars (all out wars, like WW I and WW II) won't be fought conventionally. US is still the only superpower, but, the listed advantages are not all that beneficial currently. US will win because it leads in the non conventional weapons tech but not due to the geography. But I agree it was geography which brought it so far.
This logic holds because geography is presently immutable. Imagine a future with a hypothetical weapon that changes an area's geography (yes, it's a leap, but we need it to disentangle geography and weapons capabilities). Suddenly the United States is left with Sub-Saharan African deserts or Anatolian mountains. The economic productivity of the nation would plummet leading to a decreased ability to maintain a military advantage.
The thought experiment could be tamed a bit by substituting climate change as the geographical change agent.
Just two thoughts that might be related to that idea:
(1) I would argue that these changes are rarely absolute but always in a comparative context. For example if such a weapon would come into existence, it wouldn't exist very long in a proprietary form but other nations would reproduce it. But if we are talking about such substantial climate change, I would suspect that the negative consequences are going to impact many nations at the same time, i.e. an overall downward spiral would set in. Or just very specific regions (i.e. coastal lines).
(2) If we are talking about "just" specific regions, or "just" an American desert, the example of Israel demonstrates that with enough resources and willpower it is possible to survive even in an almost desert based environment. Sure, Israel gets quite a few subsidies and support by other nations, but never the less they put them to excellent use and demonstrated that it is possible to "run" a successful economy despite substantial natural challenges.
Interesting points. My argument was that geography plays as massive a role in geopolitics today as as ever - we just don't see it because it doesn't vary as much in our lifetimes as the more minor components, e.g. cultural factors. Sort of like how stock analysts tend to over-attribute company management for effects of macroeconomic forces.
Given the diversity in geographies and a bounded "sweet spot" for productivity (by presently known means) I would argue that a global event would not have uniform effects on all nations. For example, global warming would devastate the Chinese and Indian breadbaskets while opening up Siberia and Greenland to agriculture.
My usage of a weapon, which being technology would be replicated by others over time, was flawed. Oops =P.
Regarding Israel, I don't think the conclusion from geopolitics is that geography is a limiting factor in a nation's potential. Israel has exploited its human capital expertly. That said, given its present borders it will tend to be a client state of an outside power; its geopolitical situation is highly leveraged in that the loss of American military and economic backing would spell existential chaos for it. Singapore, Taiwan, Luxembourg, et al do very well by this model. But their sovereignty is, at the end of the day, subordinated to an outsider's. Further, not everyone in the world can follow this strategy (it would be too easy for one to start shooting and upset the illusion of stability).
"most of the topsoil" is relative on this context. In Canada and Scandinavia there is nearly no topsoil left compared to regions which haven't gone through repeated glaciations. However what is there is sufficient to grow food. Yes, I am a geologist.
What about northern Siberia? Is there more topsoil there than at similar latitudes in Canada and Scandinavia?
ADDED. I have a tentative answer to my own question: glaciers probably cannot push topsoil over mountains, which is probably why there is farming in Alberta, Canada, at latitudes where there is no farming in Quebec. (The Rockies take a big zap westward there.) Since there are lots of mountains running east-to-west in western Siberia, there are probably regions rich in topsoil north of those mountains, but not in eastern Siberia, and not in the high latitudes of European Russia.
Unless in the regions north of those west-east mountains, the presence of the mountains caused the glaciers to flow from south to north. hmm.
I'm not sure how accurate it is to say that the US is still a superpower. It's still clearly the preeminent great power, but without a Cold War to force everyone onto one side or another a lot of the force of US influence has been diluted. The situation looks more like a kinder gentler 19th century, with Pax Americana replacing Pax Britanica, and with the major powers competing for influence among the lesser states rather than naked or tacit land grabs.
China has been doing a lot of things lately, with its attempts to barter influence in South America and Africa, that look a lot like the actions of a historically normal great power to me, and if you've got great powers acting normally then there isn't an actual superpower around.
