How would the world change if the US turned isolationist?

Gunslinger08

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
13,234
2
81
I'm interested in what you think would happen in a few scenarios:

1. The US withdrew all soldiers from all foreign bases and made it known that military force would only be used for direct attacks against the CONUS + Hawaii/Alaska/Puerto Rico.

2. The US also withdrew from the UN/NATO and no longer voted/pushed for sanctions of any type.

3. The US disallowed imports of all foreign goods and disallowed off shoring. Essentially, US companies could only operate within the US.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
I'm interested in what you think would happen in a few scenarios:

1. The US withdrew all soldiers from all foreign bases and made it known that military force would only be used for direct attacks against the CONUS + Hawaii/Alaska/Puerto Rico.

2. The US also withdrew from the UN/NATO and no longer voted/pushed for sanctions of any type.

3. The US disallowed imports of all foreign goods and disallowed off shoring. Essentially, US companies could only operate within the US.

Kiss Taiwan, Israel, and possibly South Korea goodbye. At minimum. We'd also be subjected to crippling poverty as prices for normally cheap goods from abroad skyrocket. The only country I know of that lives by utter economic isolation (if you can call it living) is North Korea.
 
Last edited:
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
The US should go for 1 and 2 since then they would be obeying the Constitution and a non-interventionist foreign policy. There is nothing "isolationist" about that and the correct term is non-interventionist

#3 Is completely wrong and would have repercussions for the US, it would put the US into a trade war and other countries would retaliate against the US
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
If you remove #3 the thread would have a vastly better debate. With #3 grouped in there this is a trollish post of no relevance.
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
Kiss Taiwan, Israel, and possibly South Korea goodbye. At minimum. We'd also be subjected to crippling poverty as prices for normally cheap goods from abroad skyrocket. The only country I know of that lives by utter economic isolation (if you can call it living) is North Korea.

Taiwan maybe, Israel no and South Korea no.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
If you remove #3 the thread would have a vastly better debate. With #3 grouped in there this is a trollish post of no relevance.

Agree about #3, It probably isnt even feasible for the US and the first two points offer a lot of valuable discussion and debate.
 

Black Octagon

Golden Member
Dec 10, 2012
1,410
2
81
If 1) happened in isolation of the others, the country's international reputation would finally be on track to improving after decades of self-inflicted damage
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Taiwan maybe, Israel no and South Korea no.

Really. Maybe? Do you think China and North Korea are restrained from aggression because of their own good sense and wisdom, or the US Military presence in southeast Asia?
 

Gunslinger08

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
13,234
2
81
If you remove #3 the thread would have a vastly better debate. With #3 grouped in there this is a trollish post of no relevance.

Feel free to ignore #3. They're separate scenarios. I knew 1 & 2 would be more popular. 3 is just because I see a lot of this sentiment ("buy American and don't send jobs to India"). I'm just interested in having people actually think through various scenarios that are suggested pretty frequently.
 

nextJin

Golden Member
Apr 16, 2009
1,848
0
0
Really. Maybe? Do you think China and North Korea are restrained from aggression because of their own good sense and wisdom, or the US Military presence in southeast Asia?

Maybe because of China in the "distant" future. South Korea no, not going to happen. China does not want the North to do anything and the South is more than capable of defending itself.

The North would have to contend with China, Japan, India, etc. The only reason they were as successful as they were in the 50's was because of Communism vs everyone else.

EDIT: No one of significance allies itself with the North at the Military/War level.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
1: China takes over what amounts to the old WWII Japanese Empire and becomes a serious military threat.

2: Rest of the world declares sanctions and regulations without our input, possibly to our disadvantage. UN would still be significant, just less significant.

3: The US would go into an economic depression that makes the 1920s/30s look like a fucking Golden Age.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Maybe because of China in the "distant" future. South Korea no, not going to happen. China does not want the North to do anything and the South is more than capable of defending itself.

More than capable? The North has one of the the largest standing militaries in the world. Seoul is less than 40 miles from the border with the North, and SK takes advantage of significant technological military imports from the US. And if I'm not mistaken, the US has a perpetual military presence in SK. To completely withdraw would make SK vulnerable. Very vulnerable.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,020
16,158
136
I'll chime in with a different take. China would fill the vacuum but it wouldn't do so with military power, it would do it with its economic power.

Based on my limited knowledge of Chinese history, the Chinese are not the conquering type.

Basically most things would stay the same.
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
3
0
I think in many ways better (not all), definitely cheaper for the US--but probably not a huge lot would change. Other nations (UK, France) would step in to fill much of the void, thereby shouldering the cost that is currently shouldered by the US.

I do think overall the US spends too much time playing world soldier. It's like after dicking around in WWII and not helping its allies (as it should have done as soon as WWII started) it has swung the other way.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
I'll chime in with a different take. China would fill the vacuum but it wouldn't do so with military power, it would do it with its economic power.

Based on my limited knowledge of Chinese history, the Chinese are not the conquering type.

Basically most things would stay the same.

Yeah, because they totally left Tibet alone. The Chinese wouldn't be Alexander, they'd be slower and more Conservative, leveraging economics in addition to military advantages, but they'd hardly stay within their own borders.

I can see China turning Asia (aside from India and Russia) into its own version of the USSR with conquered territories and client states.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
I think in many ways better (not all), definitely cheaper for the US--but probably not a huge lot would change. Other nations (UK, France) would step in to fill much of the void, thereby shouldering the cost that is currently shouldered by the US.

I do think overall the US spends too much time playing world soldier. It's like after dicking around in WWII and not helping its allies (as it should have done as soon as WWII started) it has swung the other way.

With what? Without the US military the rest of Europe, with respect, has nothing militarily. Sure they can successfully intervene in 3rd world shit-holes against a bunch of illiterate thugs (Mali and such), but could even the combined militaries of Western Europe wage any kind of sustained war against China? I doubt it. They were running out of ordnance in fucking Libya, which is as one-sided as conflicts get.

Remember our economy isn't the only one in trouble. Western Europe would have to massively increase military spending and operate under collective command to even come close to the force projection capabilities of the US. It would likely take them decades to "fill the void" even with concerted effort.
 

Karl Agathon

Golden Member
Sep 30, 2010
1,081
0
0
Taiwan maybe, Israel no and South Korea no.

The US could withdrawl all help to Israel tomorrow, and that still wouldn't make Israels nuclear arsonal magically disappear. Their Samson Option plan would still remain in full effect, perhaps even more so.
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,152
5,110
136
More than capable? The North has one of the the largest standing militaries in the world. Seoul is less than 40 miles from the border with the North, and SK takes advantage of significant technological military imports from the US. And if I'm not mistaken, the US has a perpetual military presence in SK. To completely withdraw would make SK vulnerable. Very vulnerable.

South Korea would decimate North Korea.
North Korea has greater numerical force ON PAPER but the capability of what they have is based antiquated equipment and doctrine. I doubt they could even use 20% of their paper capability effectively past.
they are so closely monitored that by the time they were in a position to mount an offensive operation of any significance (in this imaginary world you propose) that South Korea would have wreak havoc.
In the absence of the United States I would imagine that South Korea would form tight alliances with neighboring countries such as the Japan (who would be fortifying their military like crazy in the absence of the US.)
with US gone, South Korea can easily compensate.
Hell...china might align with the South Koreans simply because South Korea can actually pay for shit. (AKA -China would put EXTREME political pressure on the North Koreans to chill out once they discover that South Korea is no longer attached to the US by the hip.

China's invasion of Taiwan would be costly and they really would lose a lot more than they would have gained. the Chinese are not stupid. Taiwan is more valuable with its industry and economy intact.

Any notion that Israel is at risk in the absence of the US is ridiculous.
there is no regional power with the ability to go toe to toe with the Israelis and even cooperation between countries would likely lose out.
Israel's neighbors like to buy the fancy toys but they can't use them properly.
Once again, there is no benefit to messing with Israel.
Most of Israels neighbors are having a tough enough time keep their internal affairs in order than jumping on "Death to Israel".
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I'll chime in with a different take. China would fill the vacuum but it wouldn't do so with military power, it would do it with its economic power.

Based on my limited knowledge of Chinese history, the Chinese are not the conquering type.

Basically most things would stay the same.
I think China would be only too happy to fill the void with economic AND military power. However, the biggest that would happen is that Europe and free Asian nations would greatly step up military spending.

I think in many ways better (not all), definitely cheaper for the US--but probably not a huge lot would change. Other nations (UK, France) would step in to fill much of the void, thereby shouldering the cost that is currently shouldered by the US.

I do think overall the US spends too much time playing world soldier. It's like after dicking around in WWII and not helping its allies (as it should have done as soon as WWII started) it has swung the other way.
Agreed. We discovered the problems with isolationism; it leaves evil free to take the rest of the world one bite at a time, so as to be unstoppable when it does get around to us. Now we're discovering the problems with being the world's policeman, namely that it's very expensive and it breeds resentment.

I'd love to see the USA become more isolationist, starting with removing our troops from all foreign bases except those with ongoing conflicts (South Korea comes to mind; they are legally still at war with North Korea) and using that money to develop American-made rapid heavy transport and forcible entry capabilities. I'd also like to see America move from defending whomever needs defending to making explicit and totally bilateral defense treaties with individual nations; we agree to defend you and you agree to defend us, including maintaining proportional armed forces and spending proportionally on the military. Other than that, if a nation thinks it needs a US base for its own protection, let it sign a bilateral defense treaty and pay our associated costs. I think we'd find that most of our bases are there not for defense, but for the money they bring in. I'd also like to see us put out a new Monroe Doctrine if you will, declaring that Afghanistan is our last nation building exercise. Henceforth, if you attack us we will simply isolate you by destroying your ports, energy infrastructure, and military capability, making it difficult for you to maintain and project force to threaten us again.

I'd also like to see the US move out of the UN and start another such organization open only to truly free democratic republics, similar to NATO. That will not happen though because we have a big organizational advantage in the UN with our permanent veto power. I do think that our share of the UN expenses needs to be drastically reduced, and I think that if the UN wants us to do the heavy lifting defending a member nation then it can damned well hire us. (Granted, to a degree that actually happened in the first Gulf War to liberate Kuwait, but I believe that's the exception.)

With respect to #3, I'd like to see America with protectionist tariffs once again and instead of "free trade" where we agree to tie one arm behind our back, sign only symmetrical trade agreements based on mutual restrictions. Where labor costs cannot be equalized, a system of tariffs would equalize costs, and trade imbalances would be addressed via tariffs as well. If our exports to you significantly exceed our imports from you then you may unilaterally reduce your tariffs; if our imports from you significantly exceed our exports to you then we will unilaterally increase our tariffs, with the aim being to balance trade. I think if we completely cut off trade then we all lose, but as it standards today we're losing, and generally intentionally out of some misguided sense of fairness.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,020
16,158
136
Yeah, because they totally left Tibet alone. The Chinese wouldn't be Alexander, they'd be slower and more Conservative, leveraging economics in addition to military advantages, but they'd hardly stay within their own borders.

I can see China turning Asia (aside from India and Russia) into its own version of the USSR with conquered territories and client states.

They have a 5000 year old history that's still going strong, the Chinese people just want to be left alone and they have zero reason to want more land.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
Feel free to ignore #3. They're separate scenarios. I knew 1 & 2 would be more popular. 3 is just because I see a lot of this sentiment ("buy American and don't send jobs to India"). I'm just interested in having people actually think through various scenarios that are suggested pretty frequently.

This also shows you have no clue as to US companies selling large industrial equipment to buyers abroad. If US couldn't sell abroad there's not enough demand in the states to keep these factories operating/workers employed.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
They have a 5000 year old history that's still going strong, the Chinese people just want to be left alone and they have zero reason to want more land.

And if the Chinese people actually determined their government's decisions, you'd have a point. As it is the Chinese government could go to war over anything and nothing short of a mass, violent uprising will avoid being steamrolled by tanks.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,020
16,158
136
And if the Chinese people actually determined their government's decisions, you'd have a point. As it is the Chinese government could go to war over anything and nothing short of a mass, violent uprising will avoid being steamrolled by tanks.

Government is nothing without its people.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
Government is nothing without its people.

I'm just saying the Chinese bureau of wannabe-autocrats has a very good track record on effectively and violently suppressing peaceful protests. I imagine any sort of violent revolution would be simply annihilated along with whatever cities or villages were involved.