How would the world change if the US turned isolationist?

[klinc]

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.

Well we did that. They placed sanctions on us for fuel imports we turned coal into fuel by building SASOL.

They placed sanctions on us with arms imports we created ARMSCOR and in no time we were not only self sufficient...we were exporting top of the range weapons to the very countries who imposed those sanctions against us. The more the world tried to isolate us the more selfsufficient we became. Our scientists, medical doctors and engineers were some of the best in the world and leading at the forefront of technology.

It all comes down on the nations will to survive

 

[Whiskey16]

werepossum, there is so much wrong with your post, but I'll address it on by point later.

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 have plenty more to post on this, first I'd like to quickly knock out these long held and absolutely false presentations for nationalistic jingoism:

1. The USA has never been isolationist. From aggressive expansion into its western territories and Mexico, to coercive despotism into Central America well into the 1980s, imperialistic warfare into the Caribbean and the Philippines, on to aggressive warfare to suppress democracies and impose and retain puppet dictatorships throughout the world all to maximise the USA sphere of influence and control.
2. The 'world policemem' meme is a self serving Orwellian doublespeak that has the purpose to negate the above acts of self serving aggression and project indebtedness the world owes to the USA for such selfless actions. How dare one critique and react to the help of the police?

Let's toss out the typically rightist and nationalistic propaganda and be pragmatic and honest.

To the OP, it's not all or nothing but it'll be a matter of sufficient balance in international relations and respect by the USA to others that has yet to be achieved.

 

[Whiskey16]

Well we did that. They placed sanctions on us for fuel imports we turned coal into fuel by building SASOL.

They placed sanctions on us with arms imports we created ARMSCOR and in no time we were not only self sufficient...we were exporting top of the range weapons to the very countries who imposed those sanctions against us. The more the world tried to isolate us the more selfsufficient we became. Our scientists, medical doctors and engineers were some of the best in the world and leading at the forefront of technology.

It all comes down on the nations will to survive

I had suspected the timing of this member's posts and content appearing immediately after a likely alt-account of his was banned.

This South African apartheid era cheerleading matches perfectly with the notoriously closed 'ethnic cleansing' thread of a month ago, by that same member, the now banned cave dweller.

The bolded above is a nearly verbatim text from that banned member's OP in his closed thread:

Originally Posted by cave dweller:

They sanctioned us with fuel imports we turned coal into fuel by building SASOL.
..
We build Denel and made some of the best weapons. We had of the best surgeons with Barnard doing the worlds first heart transplant.

 

[JEDIYoda]

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.

Plus they would have developed the nuclear option without our help.....

 

[JEDIYoda]

I had suspected the timing of this member's posts and content appearing immediately after a likely alt-account of his was banned.

This South African apartheid era cheerleading matches perfectly with the notoriously closed 'ethnic cleansing thread thread of a month ago, by that same member, the now banned cave dweller.

The bolded above is a nearly verbatim text from that banned member's OP in his closed thread:

report him....

 

[zanejohnson]

it could never happen.. our people high up in the polititcal game, play the world economy game too (drug trade)

those same people have a hand in big pharma.. who is at direct competition of the black market...

yeah in short.. we're in too deep to ever get out now.

 

[nextJin]

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.


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.

Not sure if serious

 

[Karl Agathon]

Plus they would have developed the nuclear option without our help.....

Of that, I have no doubt! :thumbsup:

 

[zanejohnson]

just wanted to throw this out there...

people are forgetting about america's number one export... americana culture..

that would have a PROFOUND effect.

 

[dawheat]

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.

1. Not totally against this but it's a little too strict. What about attacks against a US Embassy abroad, or attacks against Americans abroad (whether it be businesses or tourists, etc). What about attacks on critical sources of good for your economy (oil obviously comes to mind the easiest). Not having forces stationed around the world makes our options much more limited.

Related to the above, you need to make sure you don't remove your military's ability to project force. Having no bases overseas where your ships and planes can easily refuel/rearm, where your troops can be fed and hospitalized - all this makes logistics near impossible on a global scale. So now you've accepted the fact your ability to defend past your borders is severely cut (you're basically China militarily - where you're the big dog locally and irrelevant globally).

So say you have a state sponsored attack on the US from say Afghanistan again in the future or Iran shuts down the Persian Gulf - how exactly do you retaliate when all your planes are based in the US and you have no infrastructure closer?

2. Related to the above, if you don't have bilateral agreements, then in the case above where the US is attacked, what if European countries told us to take a hike and not fly through their airspace. Do we then violate their soverign territory to retaliate against Afghanistan? How do our planes get back home?

Frankly the US has been spoiled in our ability to strike anywhere - it gives us an awfully big stick in world relations that we take for granted today. Without these treaties, you're dependent on the allowance of other countries. If the EU says no overflights, then we'd have to wait an awfully long time to sail a carrier battle group to the area and hope it's not too far from the coast, and then figure out how about 30-40 strike aircraft total can win you the war.

 

[Matt1970]

Oh good, Wikipedia updates these.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments

Japan – 50,937
Italy – 10,922
Germany – 47,761
Kuwait - Approximately 15,000
Bahrain – 2,713
United Kingdom – 9,317

That's over 100,000 troops we are paying for and a lot of that money goes right into the economies where they are stationed.

 

[chucky2]

Man...just imagine if we had those troops home sitting on the illegal invasion line. One can only dream I guess...

 

[klinc]

I had suspected the timing of this member's posts and content appearing immediately after a likely alt-account of his was banned.

This South African apartheid era cheerleading matches perfectly with the notoriously closed 'ethnic cleansing' thread of a month ago, by that same member, the now banned cave dweller.

The bolded above is a nearly verbatim text from that banned member's OP in his closed thread:

Oh you are referring to a fellow country man of mine? I do not see what Apartheid have got to do with this nor the rambles of others. The post is asking about Isolation and I stated what happened to our country when we went through it. Do you want me to make up something else or not share actual experiences where this has happen? Isolation comes down to a nations ability to look after itself as well as its own industry.

Are you going to accuse me of being every South African on here? I have notice only about 3 or 4 on here and yes we are a minority here between 200000 Americans but sharing or agreeing in certain aspects do not make us one but only countryman who prefer capitalism rather than the Marxist communist.

If you are going to throw or try to bring up accusations and racial accusations every time I might agree on some points of a country man then maybe I should reconsider using this site. Every site one go as soon they hear your from xxx country then you are a racist and the typical stereo type gets applied. Sorry to disappoint you but rather get to know a person before you attack him.

So think whatever you want its your problem not mine. I am here to socialize and to read a great variety of views containing certain things. Nothing else

 

[klinc]

report him....

For what? Being South African? Be my guest

 

[Incorruptible]

If we had a non-interventionist foreign policy we would be a lot safer. Our foreign policy tends to cause a lot of blowback. In these wars we invade countries when they pose no threat to us and then by invading and killing the people they start to resent and hate us. More of the citizens are willing to take up arms against us and want to target the US with terrorist attacks. So what was once a country with favorable views of the US now hates the US and more people are willing to carry terrorist attacks against the US and kill American troops in their country.

bin laden even stated that the US having troops in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries was one of the reasons for 9/11.

The politicians think they can "help" these countries but all it does is create blow-back.

The US needs to take a serious look at the foreign policy, Bring all the troops home and cut spending on the empire building and offense and focus on defending the US.

 

[Brovane]

I watched a video exploring the same type of question several months ago on Netflix. The World without the US.

http://www.theworldwithoutus.com/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1223900/

Anyway good flick and if you have Netflix it is worth your time to check it out.

 

[raildogg]

The US is isolationist. We call ourselves the best nation on the world, we consider ourselves the police of the world, we think what we say matters, etc. That is not working together. Having a huge military presence around the world is not what I call being inclusive. It means that we will kill a bunch of people to protect our interests.

 

[zanejohnson]

The US is isolationist. We call ourselves the best nation on the world, we consider ourselves the police of the world, we think what we say matters, etc. That is not working together. Having a huge military presence around the world is not what I call being inclusive. It means that we will kill a bunch of people to protect our interests.

THIS right here.


and the people, do NOT REFLECT THIS MINDSET..

that is the problem.

 

[Sonikku]

With no foreign imports, American businesses would prop up like crazy, thus creating new wealth and keeping it from moving off shore. The world would also go bat shit crazy without America to lead the way and get themselves into a World War 3 that can only be salvaged with superior American leadership and intervention.

That's how it always goes down.