If America decides to end it's military presence throughout the world?

[tupac chopra]

Lots of war. That's what would happen.

Europe would sit by as China destroyed Japan and helped North Korea make good on its promise to invade and occupy SK.

What would Putin do without having to worry about American military involvement? I don't know, but well over a thousand years of history tells us that Europe could war among itself in some horrific manner and likely export the problem to other areas of the world.

:

So it's a kind of permanent pre emptive strike?
A "pre-emptive strike" with no trial no due process just the suspicion that other people are bad?

 

[dystopian]

In Europe, there would be a hell of a lot of bars that would have to close for lack of business in Germany.

There's less than 40,000 US troops in Germany. I don't know how you define 'a hell of a lot', but even if those soldiers are prodigious drinkers, 40,000 people doesn't really support 'a hell of a lot' of bars by European 'hell of a lot of bars' standards.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Lots of war. That's what would happen.

Europe would sit by as China destroyed Japan and helped North Korea make good on its promise to invade and occupy SK.

What would Putin do without having to worry about American military involvement? I don't know, but well over a thousand years of history tells us that Europe could war among itself in some horrific manner and likely export the problem to other areas of the world.

The effect on the U.S. would be bad for its economy. Power projection is a key strength to protecting your overseas assets and if the U.S. could no longer project power then the other nations of the world have to protect themselves in some substantial manner.

It would provide opportunities into which other nations would rush take advantage of, and those poised to take advantage are China, India, and Russia, and some of the Western European powers of course. And I'm sure they'd all divvy it up equally and peacefully.

The reality is that in the Middle East the US has started a lot of wars and due to the vacuum left by the deposing of various dictators, radicals have filled the void.
China is depending of world trade and will ultimately lose trillions of dollars if it started attacking other countries

 

[bilby]

I am unconvinced that a Chinese takeover of Taiwan would be the disaster some people seem to assume.

China took over Hong Kong, and it doesn't seem to be a huge disaster, despite not necessarily being what the people of Hong Kong might have preferred.

It's certainly questionable whether it's worth going to war to prevent.

 

[dystopian]

I am unconvinced that a Chinese takeover of Taiwan would be the disaster some people seem to assume.

China took over Hong Kong, and it doesn't seem to be a huge disaster, despite not necessarily being what the people of Hong Kong might have preferred.

It's certainly questionable whether it's worth going to war to prevent.

These are completely different things you're trying to compare. The Hong Kong handover was the result of a diplomatic agreement, and a natural consequence of the 99-year lease. Nobody was surprised and nobody's plans for the future were suddenly disrupted. Furthermore, Hong Kong has never had an outright hostile relationship with/toward mainland China.

Taiwan is completely different. Taiwan still refers to itself as the Republic of China. It will never accept becoming part of mainland China while the Communist Party of China rules. On top of that, there is an increasingly influential 'independence' movement in Taiwan, promoting the notion of Taiwan as fully seperate from China. There is simply no way for the PRC to gain control of Taiwan without war.

 

[skepticalbip]

I am unconvinced that a Chinese takeover of Taiwan would be the disaster some people seem to assume.

China took over Hong Kong, and it doesn't seem to be a huge disaster, despite not necessarily being what the people of Hong Kong might have preferred.

It's certainly questionable whether it's worth going to war to prevent.

Whether defense of Taiwan would be worth it or not, Taiwan spends a significant percentage of its national budget on its military defense ($10.5 billion in 2008) mainly over concerns of the mainland's intentions. They have had incidents in the Taiwan Strait of the mainland shelling some Taiwanese islands. I don't see Taiwan willingly being absorbed into China anytime in the near future. Certainly Taiwan going to war with China to defend itself would be suicide but then war has hardly ever made sense. People have fought to the death knowing that they will lose.

OTOH, there was never any real serious conflict between Hong Kong and China or any claim by Hong Kong that they were not Chinese property leased to the UK.

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

Lots of war. That's what would happen.

Europe would sit by as China destroyed Japan and helped North Korea make good on its promise to invade and occupy SK.

What would Putin do without having to worry about American military involvement? I don't know, but well over a thousand years of history tells us that Europe could war among itself in some horrific manner and likely export the problem to other areas of the world.

The effect on the U.S. would be bad for its economy. Power projection is a key strength to protecting your overseas assets and if the U.S. could no longer project power then the other nations of the world have to protect themselves in some substantial manner.

It would provide opportunities into which other nations would rush take advantage of, and those poised to take advantage are China, India, and Russia, and some of the Western European powers of course. And I'm sure they'd all divvy it up equally and peacefully.

The reality is that in the Middle East the US has started a lot of wars and due to the vacuum left by the deposing of various dictators, radicals have filled the void.
China is depending of world trade and will ultimately lose trillions of dollars if it started attacking other countries

That wasn't the question of the hypothetical. The question asked what would happen if the U.S. withdrew its military forces from the rest of the world. Of course that asks us to make some assumptions, one of the major ones being that the U.S. would not bother/could be counted on not to intervene in any other conflicts that would inevitably pop up.

What you hypothesize about China is exactly what was said in Europe before WWI kicked off, i.e. "War is too costly and no one would benefit from it, so obviously things will be handled diplomatically from here on out."

Getting into all the possible scenarios is outside the scope of the thread (it would take up an entire series of books), but taking a look at modern China and its stance towards Taiwan (it's now called the Republic of China but "Taiwan" works better for shorthand), what do you think would happen? What about Japan? South Korea? Right now, it is very fair to say that U.S. military might prevents China and its satellite, North Korea, from invading at least Taiwan and SK. The lack of U.S. support would force a strong military alliance between Japan and SK and Japan and Taiwan. It would force Japan to build a military they believed would be capable of defending its nation. Would China wait until Japan re-militarized to that point?

As for Europe, Putin is currently the biggest belligerent there. Without the threat of conflict with the U.S., would he continue to pussyfoot around in Ukraine? Would Poland tolerate an all out incursion by Russia into Ukraine--would the rest of Europe? What about the former Soviet bloc nations?

Every month or so, someone on here posts this same idea, usually with the implication that the world would flower into some peaceful post-U.S. tyranny planet where everyone could finally work together now that America is out of the way. But the notion is silly. For all of America's fuck-ups, of which there are many, it does provide stability for both allies and enemies. And to think that the sudden loss of that stability wouldn't have massive consequences is foolhardy.

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

Lots of war. That's what would happen.

Europe would sit by as China destroyed Japan and helped North Korea make good on its promise to invade and occupy SK.

What would Putin do without having to worry about American military involvement? I don't know, but well over a thousand years of history tells us that Europe could war among itself in some horrific manner and likely export the problem to other areas of the world.

:

So it's a kind of permanent pre emptive strike?
A "pre-emptive strike" with no trial no due process just the suspicion that other people are bad?

I've already addressed this in the post immediately above this one, but what I have to say to your question is this: the question asks us to draw inferences from what the state of the world is now with the U.S. being its police force, to what what it would be like should the U.S. military no longer be a factor in world affairs. When you're asked to make wild assumptions, then legalistic thinking is automatically out the window.

 

[funinspace]

The reality is that in the Middle East the US has started a lot of wars and due to the vacuum left by the deposing of various dictators, radicals have filled the void.
China is depending of world trade and will ultimately lose trillions of dollars if it started attacking other countries

That wasn't the question of the hypothetical. The question asked what would happen if the U.S. withdrew its military forces from the rest of the world. Of course that asks us to make some assumptions, one of the major ones being that the U.S. would not bother/could be counted on not to intervene in any other conflicts that would inevitably pop up.

What you hypothesize about China is exactly what was said in Europe before WWI kicked off, i.e. "War is too costly and no one would benefit from it, so obviously things will be handled diplomatically from here on out."

Getting into all the possible scenarios is outside the scope of the thread (it would take up an entire series of books), but taking a look at modern China and its stance towards Taiwan (it's now called the Republic of China but "Taiwan" works better for shorthand), what do you think would happen? What about Japan? South Korea? Right now, it is very fair to say that U.S. military might prevents China and its satellite, North Korea, from invading at least Taiwan and SK. The lack of U.S. support would force a strong military alliance between Japan and SK and Japan and Taiwan. It would force Japan to build a military they believed would be capable of defending its nation. Would China wait until Japan re-militarized to that point?

As for Europe, Putin is currently the biggest belligerent there. Without the threat of conflict with the U.S., would he continue to pussyfoot around in Ukraine? Would Poland tolerate an all out incursion by Russia into Ukraine--would the rest of Europe? What about the former Soviet bloc nations?

Every month or so, someone on here posts this same idea, usually with the implication that the world would flower into some peaceful post-U.S. tyranny planet where everyone could finally work together now that America is out of the way. But the notion is silly. For all of America's fuck-ups, of which there are many, it does provide stability for both allies and enemies. And to think that the sudden loss of that stability wouldn't have massive consequences is foolhardy.

Yep, I would expect that east Asia would see a new arms race, especially in SK and Japan. I wouldn’t necessarily expect an all out attack on SK or Taiwan, but who knows. I would expect that some of the European nations would choose to increase military spending. African dynamics might shift some, but the reality for the average person probably wouldn’t change much. At the same time, the US would save a shitload of money that could go elsewhere.

Maybe if the US backed off in the 1980’s the ME might have found a way to not become unhinged, but I doubt it. The carving up of the ME after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire was a mess, and set up the area for future instability. Never mind the emergence of a new Jewish state a few decades later, adding to the turmoil. Anyway, the ME certainly wouldn’t calm down these days with a US withdrawal any time soon.

We went from a bi-polar world, to a sort of mono-polar world. If the US went full isolationist, the world would see a multi-polar world again, and probably would eventually see more regional wars than it would otherwise. Saying where, would be like predicting the Spanish Inquisition...

 

[whichphilosophy]

The reality is that in the Middle East the US has started a lot of wars and due to the vacuum left by the deposing of various dictators, radicals have filled the void.
China is depending of world trade and will ultimately lose trillions of dollars if it started attacking other countries

That wasn't the question of the hypothetical. The question asked what would happen if the U.S. withdrew its military forces from the rest of the world. Of course that asks us to make some assumptions, one of the major ones being that the U.S. would not bother/could be counted on not to intervene in any other conflicts that would inevitably pop up.

What you hypothesize about China is exactly what was said in Europe before WWI kicked off, i.e. "War is too costly and no one would benefit from it, so obviously things will be handled diplomatically from here on out."

Getting into all the possible scenarios is outside the scope of the thread (it would take up an entire series of books), but taking a look at modern China and its stance towards Taiwan (it's now called the Republic of China but "Taiwan" works better for shorthand), what do you think would happen? What about Japan? South Korea? Right now, it is very fair to say that U.S. military might prevents China and its satellite, North Korea, from invading at least Taiwan and SK. The lack of U.S. support would force a strong military alliance between Japan and SK and Japan and Taiwan. It would force Japan to build a military they believed would be capable of defending its nation. Would China wait until Japan re-militarized to that point?

As for Europe, Putin is currently the biggest belligerent there. Without the threat of conflict with the U.S., would he continue to pussyfoot around in Ukraine? Would Poland tolerate an all out incursion by Russia into Ukraine--would the rest of Europe? What about the former Soviet bloc nations?

Every month or so, someone on here posts this same idea, usually with the implication that the world would flower into some peaceful post-U.S. tyranny planet where everyone could finally work together now that America is out of the way. But the notion is silly. For all of America's fuck-ups, of which there are many, it does provide stability for both allies and enemies. And to think that the sudden loss of that stability wouldn't have massive consequences is foolhardy.

The Chinese do what they do best to avoid war and that is they trade. Taiwan is one of the biggest investors in Mainland China. Many have bought homes and established businesses there.
Even the Chinese joke that the Taiwanese are taking over China. Why does China want to attack other nations when they are all buying its products?

The US didn't exactly stabilize the Middle East but its actions bolstered extremists.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I am unconvinced that a Chinese takeover of Taiwan would be the disaster some people seem to assume.

China took over Hong Kong, and it doesn't seem to be a huge disaster, despite not necessarily being what the people of Hong Kong might have preferred.

It's certainly questionable whether it's worth going to war to prevent.

Whether defense of Taiwan would be worth it or not, Taiwan spends a significant percentage of its national budget on its military defense ($10.5 billion in 2008) mainly over concerns of the mainland's intentions. They have had incidents in the Taiwan Strait of the mainland shelling some Taiwanese islands. I don't see Taiwan willingly being absorbed into China anytime in the near future. Certainly Taiwan going to war with China to defend itself would be suicide but then war has hardly ever made sense. People have fought to the death knowing that they will lose.

OTOH, there was never any real serious conflict between Hong Kong and China or any claim by Hong Kong that they were not Chinese property leased to the UK.

. I understand the majority want to keep Taiwan independent.

 

[skepticalbip]

That wasn't the question of the hypothetical. The question asked what would happen if the U.S. withdrew its military forces from the rest of the world. Of course that asks us to make some assumptions, one of the major ones being that the U.S. would not bother/could be counted on not to intervene in any other conflicts that would inevitably pop up.

What you hypothesize about China is exactly what was said in Europe before WWI kicked off, i.e. "War is too costly and no one would benefit from it, so obviously things will be handled diplomatically from here on out."

Getting into all the possible scenarios is outside the scope of the thread (it would take up an entire series of books), but taking a look at modern China and its stance towards Taiwan (it's now called the Republic of China but "Taiwan" works better for shorthand), what do you think would happen? What about Japan? South Korea? Right now, it is very fair to say that U.S. military might prevents China and its satellite, North Korea, from invading at least Taiwan and SK. The lack of U.S. support would force a strong military alliance between Japan and SK and Japan and Taiwan. It would force Japan to build a military they believed would be capable of defending its nation. Would China wait until Japan re-militarized to that point?

As for Europe, Putin is currently the biggest belligerent there. Without the threat of conflict with the U.S., would he continue to pussyfoot around in Ukraine? Would Poland tolerate an all out incursion by Russia into Ukraine--would the rest of Europe? What about the former Soviet bloc nations?

Every month or so, someone on here posts this same idea, usually with the implication that the world would flower into some peaceful post-U.S. tyranny planet where everyone could finally work together now that America is out of the way. But the notion is silly. For all of America's fuck-ups, of which there are many, it does provide stability for both allies and enemies. And to think that the sudden loss of that stability wouldn't have massive consequences is foolhardy.

The Chinese do what they do best to avoid war and that is they trade. Taiwan is one of the biggest investors in Mainland China. Many have bought homes and established businesses there.
Even the Chinese joke that the Taiwanese are taking over China. Why does China want to attack other nations when they are all buying its products?

The US didn't exactly stabilize the Middle East but its actions bolstered extremists.

Do you just make this stuff up?

Tibetans would disagree with you. There was shelling of Taiwanese islands and the ongoing claim that Taiwan is Chinese property. And then there is the ongoing tensions with India (left over from the 1962 Chinese incursion into India??). The Mongolia China problem. The recent "show of naval force" by circling Japan with its fleet. And now expansion into the territorial waters of the Philippines.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Best case scenario: the US becomes just a regular developed country, albeit one with very few friends and far less influence/power.

Why would it have few friends?

When you go breaking your agreements with all your friends you're not going to have many left.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Seems to me that if we ended all of our foreign military presence, and allocated those costs to supporting the production of actual consumable/saleable goods, we could run roughshod over the world economy and accomplish more dominion than we'll ever get by spending all that money blowing stuff up.

Till the bad guys showed up and took those goods from us.

- - - Updated - - -

I think there would be a lot of turmoil in East Asia. Kim Jung Un would likely make a move on the South without the threat of US retaliation. Taiwan, which has never been recognized by mainland China as being independent, would be in deep shit. Tensions between Japan and China would become pretty severe.

All three nations would be scrambling to build nukes pronto. Somebody's bombs would likely get used.

 

[arkirk]

Till the bad guys showed up and took those goods from us.

- - - Updated - - -

I think there would be a lot of turmoil in East Asia. Kim Jung Un would likely make a move on the South without the threat of US retaliation. Taiwan, which has never been recognized by mainland China as being independent, would be in deep shit. Tensions between Japan and China would become pretty severe.

All three nations would be scrambling to build nukes pronto. Somebody's bombs would likely get used.

Military and covert infiltrating black ops aimed at regime change has the effect of strengthening the grip of dictators. Taiwan was once Formosa. The indigenous people of Formosa were squashed by the so called Nationalist Chinese who simply expropriated their homeland as they fled from the Communists. Chiang was a dictator and he frequently presided of mass executions of communists before being driven to that island. You know this is true. Now whether or not we are protecting them is also questionable. There is a growing trade between the mainland and Taiwan. You assumptions are probably off by at least a mile.

You are projecting your hatred onto people who have not a clue what the fuck you are talking about. U.S. presence in South Korea is perhaps one of the main factors maintaining Un's hold on his people. External threats are the tools of petty dictators. You believe in threats. Your belief and indeed our national leaders beliefs create a self fulfilling prophecy...there will be an evil dictator in North Korea. We need to be winding this down, not up. Your rhetoric is counterproductive.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The Chinese do what they do best to avoid war and that is they trade. Taiwan is one of the biggest investors in Mainland China. Many have bought homes and established businesses there.
Even the Chinese joke that the Taiwanese are taking over China. Why does China want to attack other nations when they are all buying its products?

The US didn't exactly stabilize the Middle East but its actions bolstered extremists.

Do you just make this stuff up?

Tibetans would disagree with you. There was shelling of Taiwanese islands and the ongoing claim that Taiwan is Chinese property. And then there is the ongoing tensions with India (left over from the 1987 Chinese incursion into India??). The Mongolia China problem. The recent "show of naval force" by circling Japan with its fleet. And now expansion into the territorial waters of the Philippines.

The life expectancy rate in Tibet is only 67 but that is a lot better than 35.5 in 1951. The shelling of Taiwanese territory stopped in 1979. If you go back just 31 years you can say we are fighting Germany.
http://www.kerry-brown.co.uk/files/website-8.pdf
China is India's biggest trading partner. True there were skirmishes in the 1980s. I believe the goal for 2015 was around 100 billion.

China and the Philippines have a dispute over the Spratly islands. Here the US presence could be useful for the Philippines while territorial disputes continue. This is okay providing the Americans decide not to provoke anyone.

However based on its track record, the US is about as much useful for creating peace as an arsonist is at preventing fires.

 

[arkirk]

Do you just make this stuff up?

Tibetans would disagree with you. There was shelling of Taiwanese islands and the ongoing claim that Taiwan is Chinese property. And then there is the ongoing tensions with India (left over from the 1987 Chinese incursion into India??). The Mongolia China problem. The recent "show of naval force" by circling Japan with its fleet. And now expansion into the territorial waters of the Philippines.

The life expectancy rate in Tibet is only 67 but that is a lot better than 35.5 in 1951. The shelling of Taiwanese territory stopped in 1979. If you go back just 31 years you can say we are fighting Germany.

China is India's biggest trading partner. True there were skirmishes in the 1980s. I believe the goal for 2015 was around 100 billion.

China and the Philippines have a dispute over the Spratly islands. Here the US presence could be useful for the Philippines while territorial disputes continue. This is okay providing the Americans decide not to provoke anyone.

However based on its track record, the US is about as much useful for creating peace as an arsonist is at preventing fires.

A lot of thinking on this thread and others reflects a condition of anachronistic thinking....being frozen at some time in the distant past, with enemies now long dead and new populations unaware even of their own history. Today's Chinese government is not the one they taught me about in elementary school in the 50's. It is also not the one described as being wrapped up in a fatal "great leap forward." We fail to understand that time is marching on and people learn over time to cope with problems they once thought impossible in the past. There is increasing trade between Taiwan and the mainland. It is a different era. There will come a time when we stop being so damned military. We just seem like a nation locked in a time warp.

 

[skepticalbip]

Do you just make this stuff up?

Tibetans would disagree with you. There was shelling of Taiwanese islands and the ongoing claim that Taiwan is Chinese property. And then there is the ongoing tensions with India (left over from the 1987 Chinese incursion into India??). The Mongolia China problem. The recent "show of naval force" by circling Japan with its fleet. And now expansion into the territorial waters of the Philippines.

The life expectancy rate in Tibet is only 67 but that is a lot better than 35.5 in 1951. The shelling of Taiwanese territory stopped in 1979. If you go back just 31 years you can say we are fighting Germany.
http://www.kerry-brown.co.uk/files/website-8.pdf
China is India's biggest trading partner. True there were skirmishes in the 1980s. I believe the goal for 2015 was around 100 billion.

China and the Philippines have a dispute over the Spratly islands. Here the US presence could be useful for the Philippines while territorial disputes continue. This is okay providing the Americans decide not to provoke anyone.

However based on its track record, the US is about as much useful for creating peace as an arsonist is at preventing fires.

WTF?

Why in the hell would you think that trade doesn't mean that there can't be military intentions? According to your thinking there was no desire on the part of Germany or Japan before they started their massive expansion - they were both trading with the countries they invaded. And although the life expectancy of the current residents of Tibet are higher that doesn't mean that the original natives are better off. Many of the natives were killed or fled the country when it was taken over. Now an undisclosed (by the Chinese) percentage of Tibetans are Chinese immigrants.

 

[Deepak]

The life expectancy rate in Tibet is only 67 but that is a lot better than 35.5 in 1951. The shelling of Taiwanese territory stopped in 1979. If you go back just 31 years you can say we are fighting Germany.

China is India's biggest trading partner. True there were skirmishes in the 1980s. I believe the goal for 2015 was around 100 billion.

China and the Philippines have a dispute over the Spratly islands. Here the US presence could be useful for the Philippines while territorial disputes continue. This is okay providing the Americans decide not to provoke anyone.

However based on its track record, the US is about as much useful for creating peace as an arsonist is at preventing fires.

A lot of thinking on this thread and others reflects a condition of anachronistic thinking....being frozen at some time in the distant past, with enemies now long dead and new populations unaware even of their own history. Today's Chinese government is not the one they taught me about in elementary school in the 50's. It is also not the one described as being wrapped up in a fatal "great leap forward." We fail to understand that time is marching on and people learn over time to cope with problems they once thought impossible in the past. There is increasing trade between Taiwan and the mainland. It is a different era. There will come a time when we stop being so damned military. We just seem like a nation locked in a time warp.

Who indeed is in a timewarp?

Obama is overseeing a move from Okinawa to Guam for US troops. Moreover the US has been operating under a One-China policy under the auspices of the 1992 Consensus since, well, there was a consensus.

That doesn't mean we can unilaterally renege on a defense agreement with Taiwan because you no longer think it's necessary.

And as far as the Korean issue - US withdrawal from the region won't remove the 'external threat'. That 'threat' is South Korea not the US. Anyone looking at the situation objectively understands that the NK model isn't to maintain power through popular appeal. The regime's starvation and subjugation of their own people is the medium by which they maintain power.

Also for the record referring to Kim Jong Un as 'Un' is akin to calling Obama '-rak'. Kim is preferable shorthand, or Jong Un if you're friends with the guy.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The life expectancy rate in Tibet is only 67 but that is a lot better than 35.5 in 1951. The shelling of Taiwanese territory stopped in 1979. If you go back just 31 years you can say we are fighting Germany.

China is India's biggest trading partner. True there were skirmishes in the 1980s. I believe the goal for 2015 was around 100 billion.

China and the Philippines have a dispute over the Spratly islands. Here the US presence could be useful for the Philippines while territorial disputes continue. This is okay providing the Americans decide not to provoke anyone.

However based on its track record, the US is about as much useful for creating peace as an arsonist is at preventing fires.

A lot of thinking on this thread and others reflects a condition of anachronistic thinking....being frozen at some time in the distant past, with enemies now long dead and new populations unaware even of their own history. Today's Chinese government is not the one they taught me about in elementary school in the 50's. It is also not the one described as being wrapped up in a fatal "great leap forward." We fail to understand that time is marching on and people learn over time to cope with problems they once thought impossible in the past. There is increasing trade between Taiwan and the mainland. It is a different era. There will come a time when we stop being so damned military. We just seem like a nation locked in a time warp.

China is a mixed economy where the government says it is practicing communism with Chinese characteristics.

The formula therefore is

Communism + Chinese characteristics = capitalism