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

[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.
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.

So what do you suggest? Tibet returns to its feudal roots. Sure there are Chinese Han over there opening shops factories and brothels for years. This has never been a secret https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Tibet

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

So what do you suggest? Tibet returns to its feudal roots. Sure there are Chinese Han over there opening shops factories and brothels for years. This has never been a secret https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Tibet

I am suggesting that an invasion that kills or drives a lot of the natives out of their home country then replacing them with citizens of the invading country is not good for the natives, even if you personally happen to like the government that the invaders put in place better than the government that the natives had.

 

[bilby]

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.

China and North Korea already have nukes.

Japan doesn't want them, for obvious historical reasons.

South Korea doesn't want them for strategic reasons - the use of nukes by SK against targets in NK would be like using a hand grenade in a fist fight - nukes are for use a long way from home, and the Korean Peninsula is small, with much of the population in the South - including their capital city - being within artillery range of the north. Only a madman would use nukes in a conflict between the two Koreas.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

- - - Updated - - -



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.

You're the one projecting your ideology into things.

South Korea provides a good enemy for North Korea because North Korea has attacked them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

China and North Korea already have nukes.

Japan doesn't want them, for obvious historical reasons.

South Korea doesn't want them for strategic reasons - the use of nukes by SK against targets in NK would be like using a hand grenade in a fist fight - nukes are for use a long way from home, and the Korean Peninsula is small, with much of the population in the South - including their capital city - being within artillery range of the north. Only a madman would use nukes in a conflict between the two Koreas.

Japan and South Korea do not want them because they can trust us to back them up. No US backup and they'll be building nukes on a crash priority basis.

 

[bilby]

China and North Korea already have nukes.

Japan doesn't want them, for obvious historical reasons.

South Korea doesn't want them for strategic reasons - the use of nukes by SK against targets in NK would be like using a hand grenade in a fist fight - nukes are for use a long way from home, and the Korean Peninsula is small, with much of the population in the South - including their capital city - being within artillery range of the north. Only a madman would use nukes in a conflict between the two Koreas.

Japan and South Korea do not want them because they can trust us to back them up. No US backup and they'll be building nukes on a crash priority basis.

The Japanese are as likely to build nukes as the Israelis are to build death camps with gas chambers.

And for EXACTLY the same reason.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So what do you suggest? Tibet returns to its feudal roots. Sure there are Chinese Han over there opening shops factories and brothels for years. This has never been a secret https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Tibet

I am suggesting that an invasion that kills or drives a lot of the natives out of their home country then replacing them with citizens of the invading country is not good for the natives, even if you personally happen to like the government that the invaders put in place better than the government that the natives had.

Why do modern Tibetans want to leave if their standards of living are going up and they get free healthcare and education. However the government has forcibly in many cases relocated people to other locations in new townships Bear in mind the costs are paid for.

The question is, was Tibet better off before and the answer is, it was not They were largely illiterate serfs who could be bought and sold

 

[dystopian]

Japan doesn't want them, for obvious historical reasons.

Japan doesn't want the bomb; but it definitely *does* want to be able to build them in a short-time span in case they ever need to. Japan is one of a handful of countries that could easily produce nuclear weapons in the span of just a few months, an ability they've had for decades. More importantly, it has stockpiled massive ammounts of weaponsgrade plutonium; enough to build thousands of nukes. While the reasons for this massive stockpile aren't strictly a matter of political intent; there *is* a political reason why they haven't reduced these stockpiles: namely it serves as a deterrent in and of itself to China. Japan's 'bomb in the basement' is seen by many hawkish Japanese politicians and experts as a showing of Japan's sleeping strength. And this actually appears to work; since China is definitely concerned about Japan's nuclear potential.

South Korea, incidentally, *does* appear to want the bomb. Surveys show about two thirds of South-Koreans supported a S-Korean nuclear program, and it is seriously discussed in political circles from time to time. It seems like the only reason they don't have such a program right now is because of the worry that if they do develop their own nukes, the US will pull back.

 

[skepticalbip]

I am suggesting that an invasion that kills or drives a lot of the natives out of their home country then replacing them with citizens of the invading country is not good for the natives, even if you personally happen to like the government that the invaders put in place better than the government that the natives had.

Why do modern Tibetans want to leave if their standards of living are going up and they get free healthcare and education. However the government has forcibly in many cases relocated people to other locations in new townships Bear in mind the costs are paid for.

The question is, was Tibet better off before and the answer is, it was not They were largely illiterate serfs who could be bought and sold

That is the same question you asked earlier only reworded. My same answer still applies. You may want to reread that answer for comprehension.

 

[skepticalbip]

Japan doesn't want them, for obvious historical reasons.

..............
It seems like the only reason they don't have such a program right now is because of the worry that if they do develop their own nukes, the US will pull back.

That is pretty close to what I understand. My understanding is that the US strongly discourages South Korea from developing a nuclear program because of the US's position of trying to discourage nuclear proliferation. As a trade off, we have promised to act as their security force.

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

Japan and South Korea do not want them because they can trust us to back them up. No US backup and they'll be building nukes on a crash priority basis.

The Japanese are as likely to build nukes as the Israelis are to build death camps with gas chambers.

And for EXACTLY the same reason.

So without U.S. backing you think that Japan wouldn't suddenly find itself with a need for a nuclear deterrent?

Remember, we're talking about no U.S. interference. Japan would be on its own until it could forge a military alliance with its neighbors--SK and Taiwan, and maybe even Australia.

It's nice to think that the world is "over" war. It isn't. And the differences between China and those already mentioned are very real.

As for trade being an impediment to war, don't forget that even during the Cold War the U.S. and the Soviets traded to some degree--yet at any time literally hundreds of millions of people could have been notified they had about half an hour to live. Further, all the way leading up to WW2, Germany traded with Poland, and WW1 is still the best example of the mistake of thinking that we've progressed beyond massive armed conflict.

The pulling out of U.S. military forces worldwide with a guarantee of non-interference would cause massive destabilization. I remember reading articles about "The End of History" when the Soviet Union collapsed. Now that the bad guys were gone, the world could enter into a peaceful period yaddayaddayadda. But the world is still just as dangerous and certainly more unpredictable.

Whatever spaces the U.S. fills now would cease to be filled, which would cause a vacuum. And that vacuum would be filled--and it wouldn't be peaceful.