>Your earlier comment claimed the method for becoming a superpower was to "participate in the most wars and murder the most people." The number of casualties or infrastructure damage relative to the rest of the world shouldn't matter

Please re-read what I actually said. You've blatantly misquoted me. A keyword which you conveniently ignored is wins.

>You're hedging your bets with the weasel terms "large scale" and "longest lasting"

Is scalability not a prerequisite to becoming a global scale superpower?

>the point is that the US didn't achieve superpower status through success at mass murder

Are you honestly implying the US' success at mass murder is unrelated to their becoming a superpower?