American Dominance is Being Challenged....

This article from the Economist is interesting, but as I point out in my comments below, the author doesn't really scratch the surface of the material facts.

Here is the article from The Economist:

The new game
American dominance is being challenged

Oct 17th 2015 | From the print edition

There are a number of things being overlooked by the author. 

First, China as it exists today in untenable.  It is far more likely to collapse from within than any of the 'superpowers' or BRIC countries.  Its one child policy has left it with an aging workforce and not enough younger workers to fill the jobs necessary to sustain their economy (circa 2008 it took an additional 25 million new jobs a year to sustain their economy - I'm not sure the number today).  The chances of the yuan becoming the world currency is practically nil, at least until the Chinese government allows it to float, which is very unlikely under a communist regime. China does not have enough of its own natural resources and must import a massive amount of raw materials from other countries, largely from South America and the African Continent.  This makes them as dependent on those countries as those countries are on China.  

Which leads to my second point, the USA rules the seas - all of the seas - and no other single country can come close.  For example:

• Of the 19 active air craft carriers the U.S. has 10 of them, China and Russia 1 each.  
• Destroyers: U.S.: 62, China 25, Russia 12.  
• Were the U.S. does lag behind is subs.  The U.S. has 71 missile & attack subs to China's 69 and Russia's 49.  
• All in the U.S. has approximately 3+ Million tons of naval power, China 1 million and Russia 900,000.  

Additionally, the U.S. currently has 2 subs to be commissioned in 2016, 2 more currently under construction, and 20 more announced (7 already named).  There are an 44 more vessels in various stages.  All in that's 68 new vessels added to our fleet (not sure how many are scheduled to be decommissioned).  Regardless, my point is we are not, by nature of the number of vessels, going to lose control of the seas anytime soon.  However, another 8 years of foreign policy [or. lack thereof] like the last 8 years may have the U.S. simply cede control of the seas.

While I agree with the author that we are certainly not leading in the fight against ISIS and the Assad regime, I will acknowledge there is a possibility that the Obama regime may have dumbed into a scenario where Russia will get bogged down in the Middle East.  That is not something their economy can withstand long term unless oil prices jump dramatically.  If the U.S. manages their Middle Eastern policy correctly in the coming years, this could have one of two results.  First and most desirable would be for it to drive Putin from power – highly unlikely given his control over state-run media; or second he could be driven to do something extremely foolish in the region which would result in the world coalescing against Russia and beating them back from their expansionary plans via strict economic sanctions. Of course, there is a third option, which is Putin may simply go off the deep end and pull the world into WWIII.  

I would note that the U.S. did not lead the world in nuclear arms talks with the Iranians, the Obama regime lead the rise of Iran to be a legitimate nuclear armed country in less than a decade.  No one, save this author apparently, believes that Iran will abide to any agreement with the U.S.