Should the United States found an alliance of stratocratic, militarist nations?

[Nakura Chambers]

An idea I have been toying with is the United States leading a global alliance of nations with comparable values. For instance, we would invite countries like Israel, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland and potentially others. This alliance of free states would work together to promote economic cooperation, as well as cultural and political exchanges among it's member states. Our main goal, however, would be to promote our values and combat global security issues cooperatively. Think of it as a modern day version of the Baltic Entente or the Anti-Comintern Pact.

Would would you think of such a proposal|?

[LilSaihah]

Err.... Isn't this NATO?

[Nakura Chambers]

Err.... Isn't this NATO?

NATO is a regional collective security organization, not an international alliance dedicated to promoting freedom and stratocracy.

[Roveredo]

Switzerland...?

I mean, they may build stuff and shit, but they are not a regional military power or anything.

[belfpala]

How about... no. Any longterm plan for humanity that relies on military hegemony is not a good idea.

[Nakura Chambers]

Switzerland...?

I mean, they may build stuff and shit, but they are not a regional military power or anything.

They are a very respectable nation that shares our values, unlike most of Europe. Though they tend to keep to themselves, so they aren't the most likely partner.

[Deleted]

I don't see the point. So called western values are spreading well-enough as is.

[Theinquisition]

Naaa, I think we would just end up doing the heavy lifting anyway.

[CosmicGuitars]

No Canada?

[Theinquisition]

No Canada?

Yeah it is kinda funny that you would include the UAE, but not Canada.

[apepi]

No, see World War 1.

[maxehhh]

So you want something like BRICS? Let's face it, the only way United States has to stay a superpower is by either invading a country (as always) or make an alliance with Russia or China, and that's not gonna happen.

And i'm just going to sit here, drinking a beer watching people kill each other =P

[The Casualty]

Naaa, I think we would just end up doing the heavy lifting anyway.

I agree. All it would end up doing is furthering our obligations overseas. Making promises on paper gets really tricky when other people actually try to hold you to them.

[Theinquisition]

So you want something like BRICS? Let's face it, the only way United States has to stay a superpower is by either invading a country (as always) or make an alliance with Russia or China, and that's not gonna happen.

And i'm just going to sit here, drinking a beer watching people kill each other =P

Ahhhh, an Argentinian pontificating, how sweet.

Because you guys never exercise imperialistic goals *cough Falkland islands cough*

[Underverse]

Stratocracy? Hell no.

[Kalyyn]

America, England, Israel, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Canada, and Finland would be ideal, I think.

[mvaliz]

Ummmm... don't we have something like this already called "The United Nations"?

Why do you want to create a new one? Are you John McCain or something wanting a "League of Nations" crap or something? :P

- - - Updated - - -

Stratocracy? Hell no.

I was wondering what the hell that word meant... looked it up:

A stratocracy (from στρατός, stratos, "army" and κράτος, kratos, "dominion", "power") is a form of government headed by military chiefs.[1] It is not the same as a military dictatorship or military junta where the military's political power is not enforced or even supported by other laws. Rather, stratocracy is a form of military government in which the state and the military are traditionally or constitutionally the same entity, and government positions are always occupied by military leaders. Citizens with mandatory and/or voluntary military service, or who have been honorably discharged, have the right to elect and/or govern. The military's political power is supported by law and the society. A stratocracy therefore does not have to be autocratic by nature in order to preserve its right to rule.

Military ruled government? HELLS NO, thank you!

Last Military leader we had changed the Pledge of Allegiance to insert the words "Under God" in it. We don't need that kind of thinking again...

I've seen Starship Troopers. That's not the kind of gov I want or do we need.

[Verain]

Tried taking it seriously. Didn't see 5 Eyes, France, Germany. Uhhhhh.... I wouldn't want to do this without our goddamned allies at least, no....

Edit: And Japan is literally as far from a stratocracy as I think is possible? Not that most of those are close at all.

[Kaleredar]

The United States would end up supplying the vast majority of military might to any such "Alliance..." Just reasserting the Notion that the USA has to be the World Police, except other countries that are part of this alliance would now be able to "lobby them" and other countries with no stake in the matter to intervene on their behalf with more authority.

[Nakura Chambers]

Ummmm... don't we have something like this already called "The United Nations"?

Why do you want to create a new one? Are you John McCain or something wanting a "League of Nations" crap or something? :P

- - - Updated - - -



I was wondering what the hell that word meant... looked it up:



Military ruled government? HELLS NO, thank you!

Last Military leader we had changed the Pledge of Allegiance to insert the words "Under God" in it. We don't need that kind of thinking again...

I've seen Starship Troopers. That's not the kind of gov I want or do we need.

I envisage something in between Singapore and Heinlein's Starship Troopers.

Also, the movie is supposed to be a comedy and is pretty terrible. If you want to know what Heinlein actually thought, I would recommend reading the book, as the movie is a total misrepresentation of his views.