Hacker News Reader

...as evidenced by their numerous successes whenever they have intervened in outside theaters for the past 50 years... ?

you did not finish your sentence. Please allow me to correct. ---- But it is #1 in military might. So, its the greatest in military might.

I would assume "greatest" should be measure by more than one dimension. I think we can agree that Muhammad Ali was the greatest boxer in the world, if he would have been slow or small despite having a killer punch one can argue he would not have been the greatest.

It's a shame they had to funnel the apostrophe budget to the military, though.

Mightiest is not necessarily greatest.

History would suggest otherwise.

Really? The Mongols were fearsomely mighty, yet their empire lasted less than a hundred years and their culture spread nowhere. The USSR was a military superpower, yet it only lasted one human's lifetime, and it absolutely sucked to live there. Alexander the Great was stupendously powerful in a military sense, 'conquering the known world', yet his realms collapsed upon his death at only 33.