What if the US goes totally isolationist?

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
PainRack
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7581
Joined: 2002-07-07 03:03am
Location: Singapura

Post by PainRack »

MKSheppard wrote: Or more cold-bloodedly, we could just let the entire world collapse in on
itself, and let everyone and their single-source economic systems based
on a few commodities simply die off, while we're only merely wounded.
So.......... you advocate weakening American power to............. do what?

That's right, what? You do know that your actions have only slided more political power to other countries, which will hurt US interests sooner or later, even domestically, weakening the US but ultimately won't harm your enemies?

Europe is already stagnant. Japan is stagnant. China is rising, and if it incoporates Taiwan, without US intervention, it won't be damaged badly and may even acquire technical and economic benefits. Russia may be hurt..... if the US defines isolation as also not giving finanicial aid, which I find to be a keystone of many "isolationists"(ergo, those who argue that America is helping the world, and if its pulls out............). It will be solved, by Russia being forced to sell off more and more of her technical secrets and arms to sustain herself, as well as prosituting her resources to China and other rich oligarchies elsewhere.

The political vacumn left by the US military support, which in several cases mean supporting the government in power(Phillipines, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait) may be exploited by others, who may harm US interests.
I dont think most people understand that the military interventions the US pulls every few years are insignificant compared to the economic manipulation that is the true source of its power.

As Wong pointed out, US military intervention is not the source of world stability, and it's also not the source of US supremecy. The US could become militarily isolationist and fairly little would change, so long as it continued to serve its own interests, usually at the expense of others, through controlling stakes in institutions such as the IMF and World Bank, and through the power of green room negotiations, the real power, in the WTO. And through simple economic intimidation, nobody can afford to get on the bad side of the US economically.
Its not the military intervention. Its the military shield. To put it simply, the American shield acts as a serious damper on people who would attempt to try gunboat diplomacy, because any act that would hurt US interests risks US intervention. As such, it projects stability and confidence into the region, allowing for smooth economic investment.
Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner
tharkûn
Tireless defender of wealthy businessmen
Posts: 2806
Joined: 2002-07-08 10:03pm

Post by tharkûn »

Why would this happen? Has the US been continually suppressing and preventing violent revolutions in Islamic countries through military intervention? If so, where and when?
The US annually drops 2 billion into Egypt, pulling that out will utterly destroy the current leadership and the next strongest power bloc are the Islamicists.

Part of the reason the Arab states don't advocate a more aggressive role against Israel is that the US has bribed them not to (quite blatently in the case of Jordan and Egypt) and the US has given Israel enough military aid to utterly outclass anything in the area. Pulling out that aid will make the Islamicists see an oppurtunity as well as have the radical Israelis calling for a pre-emptive strike before the relative balance of power decays.
Again, how does US interference in the Middle East, Korea, and Europe prevent this right now? Is it not possible that there are other dynamics at play, and more complex global political machinations at work?
Sure there are other dynamics, like the fear tha Chinese adventurism will result in economic hardship. However the mere possibility of US intervention means that oppurtunity cost for military expansionism is unbeleviably high. Saddam only went into Kuwait when he thought the US wouldn't intervene. The US presence is a massive term in the cost/benifit analysis for military adventurism.

Nations only go off on wars of conquest when they think they can either win against all comers or they think that those who can defeat them won't come (or at least be brought to a quick peace). Hitler rose in Europe only because the US and USSR didn't stand opposed to him. Mussolini only took Abyssinia because nobody else in the world gave a damn. The US isn't the sole reason why dictators don't go the Saddam Hussein route, but it does act as a giant breaking mechanism.
Very funny, Scotty. Now beam down my clothes.
Post Reply