An isolationist America: Would it be good or bad?

[Thalian]

Imagine that the United States agreed to stay out of all foreign conflicts and to not declare war unless attacked (like in 1930-1939 until Japan attacked).

NATO would be given over to the European Union. South Korea would have no protection against North Korea and Japan would have no protection against China. Israel would no longer be given millions of dollars a day. Iran would have less opposition to their nuclear program.

There might be plenty of other possible side effects and I would like to hear them.


So. Would an isolationist America be good or bad for the world?

[This name sucks]

South korea and japan would still flatten north korea if they ever pulled some shit.

Get over yourself if you really think the US is the only thing preventing total nuclear war.

[Thalian]

South korea and japan would still flatten north korea if they ever pulled some shit.

Get over yourself if you really think the US is the only thing preventing total nuclear war.

Who said nuclear war? North Korea doesn't have working nukes. Even if they did... France and the UK would nuke them into submission if North Korea nuked anyone.

[Deletedaccount1]

South korea and japan would still flatten north korea if they ever pulled some shit.

Get over yourself if you really think the US is the only thing preventing total nuclear war.

Too bad NK has thousands of artillery and non-nuclear devices aimed right over the border at Seoul. So much for nuclear powers.

OT: I would support this theoretically but it is almost impossible. There is no real reason to leave NATO and Jews have too much influence over the government to stop funding Israel. I did 2 tours in Japan, I think they have a very capable defense force so I think they would be fine.

[OzoAndIndi]

For us it might be good to just "sit this one out" a while and get our own mess together. (Heck it would be extra good if all countries somehow actually did that for a time. Not that that would ever come true.) Although if allies ended up needing help and were requesting it, it might be hard to ignore a friend.

[Ave07]

Would be nice as we can save money and not risk our soldiers life for us to go in alone.

[Herecius]

We are a global society. Isolationism doesn't work anymore.

Of course, isolationism is not the same thing as simply deciding to not send our troops overseas as much. These are two very different things.

[LocNess]

I would prefer Isolationism, however at this point we have gone to far to draw back 100% without some parts of the world going to shit. I would be fearful for South Korea mostly. I wouldn't mind drastically reducing our military, but at this point we do need some presence.

[Palmz]

Good for us living in the US, bad for everyone else.

[Vongimi]

Too many places have developed with the intention of the US defending them, it would be madness.

[glo]

Yes, lets separate from SK and Israel. What country wouldn't want to lose the 2nd (Israel) and 4th~ (SK) strongest military forces in the world as allies?! Sounds like a genius idea.

[ScrappyMuffy]

I'm not exactly pro military industrial complex, but I do think America's hegemony has brought an amount of peace that probably wouldn't otherwise exist. It's a touchy subject though, as I wouldn't want to give us too much credit for "bringing the peace" as there are PLENTY of problems we have also caused, as well as others around the world who are equally responsible for creating this relatively stable era we live in.

I'm also of the opinion (for now) that an equally powerful China would be healthy for the world, giving us a competing but not necessarily opposing power to cause balance. Our mutual dependence makes a 'Cold War' situation with China either unlikely or impossible, and I think we've seen over the past several years that even a world superpower like America who has good intentions (compared to the USSR at least) can still cause a mess when left with nobody to oppose it.

So I think that the U.S. needs the balance of Chinese power, but pulling out completely would cause a number of problems:

- Isreal would be wiped off the map. I'm not in support of Isreal's tactics for defending itself, but the reality is that it's neighbors have wanted it destroyed since day 1. It would go down fighting, and it would not be pretty.

- Iran would likely become the dominant player in the middle east, and complete a nuclear program (which would prompt others to do the same). It's already one of the more powerful countries in that area, but is kept in check by a US-backed Saudi Arabia.

- China would take Taiwan. They still consider it part of mainland China, regardless of what happened after WW2.

- China would exert MUCH more powerful influence over S. Korea and probably Japan. Maybe even Indonesia, Singapore, and Australia. Most of our Navy is currently stationed in this part of the world for exactly this reason.

- Europe (and Japan) would be left militarily helpless. Most of these countries have little more than a national guard, as that's all they've really needed with American bases scattered throughout. Though there also aren't any present military threats to Europe, leaving one of the wealthier parts of the world without any protection isn't a great idea. Russia would be likely to take advantage and play a much larger role in their development.

- China would move in to large parts of Africa, as they are already (slowly) starting to do.

- Brazil would become the major player in South America, more than just economically.

I'm trying to think of more, but that's about it for the moment. I do know that I'm not nearly as worried about what would happen to South Korea as a lot of people in this thread seem to be. I think China would dictate what happened between them and NK, and a braindead monkey would recognize which is the more productive state. My guess would even be that with America out of the picture, China may help NK adopt more Capitalist policies and meld back into one Korea with the south, because trading partners are infinitely more valuable than warring states. NK wouldn't have the reservations about "Chinese capitalism" that it does about "American capitalism" thanks to the name alone, and much of what keeps this conflict going is North Korea's hatred of America . . . not South Korea.

I have two degrees in History so I'd like to at least think I know what I'm talking about. I'm happy to have seen this thread though, as it seems a bit less inflammatory and more intellectually curious than the normal political crap I see on these forums a lot.

[This name sucks]

stuff

I seriously doubt Russia would pull any more shit than they already have. All the former soviet states would fight guerilla wars in the worst case scenario of occupation again.

Israel should have never became a country to begin with. It was doomed from the start. But Israel constantly provoking the surrounding countries who would love to wipe it off the map should be the tipping point where they are abandoned and let them fight it out. It might break this stalemate in the middle east that leaves it in a constant state of turmoil and war.

[Kulanae]

South korea and japan would still flatten north korea if they ever pulled some shit.

Get over yourself if you really think the US is the only thing preventing total nuclear war.

How? The JDF is tiny and NK has a huge standing army.

[Kaleredar]

How? The JDF is tiny and NK has a huge standing army.

Gundams of course.


Anyway... a massive military drawback from foreign nations is exactly what the United States needs. If other countries are so intent on having someone play world police, they can take a crack at it themselves. North Korea would have the entire world angry at it if it attacked South Korea or Japan, and China wouldn't back them up. Israel is the only concern... though reining in their frantic, "US-backed" aggressive claims would probably do them wonders for their relationships with other middle eastern countries.

In addition to decreasing military expenditures overseas, a massive decrease in imports would also do the United States a great deal of good. Making things in the United States once more would create a massive boost for... well, pretty much the entirety of the United States.

[Deleted]

Imagine that the United States agreed to stay out of all foreign conflicts and to not declare war unless attacked (like in 1930-1939 until Japan attacked).

So. Would an isolationist America be good or bad for the world?

Probably a better place. Sure Korea and other places within the sphere of influences of the dictatorships who was label Communist will have a bad time. But revolution is hard especially when there is no right wing (us supported) dictatorship to rally agents.

(first) Vietnam war still happen and the French is frowned out a bit quicker without US support. But do not go communist because they was able to free themselves same go for most of the old colonial country... some will be dictatorship some democracy depending on the leader of the liberation.

Britannia and French might survive a bit longer as colonial power as US will not active tyre to stop them then they invade Egypt. Israel who do not have the US backing will quickly do peace to its neighbors as in "equal partners". it helped by Iran continued to be a democracy.

USSR will last a bit longer because the arms race will not be that fast, and more of west countrys will have its own nuclear weapons because they are no US nuclear guarantee.

USSR will get the terrorist pain then they invade Afghanistan and tyre to occupancy parts/influences parts of the middle east insert there own pet dictator.

Almost all conflicts after ww2 (besides liberation from colonial rule) have its part of the cold war chess game.

[N-7]

Russia and China will probably step in to fill the power vacuum.

[Deleted]

Let's set something straight. South Korea could absolutely flatten North Korea, regardless of American intervention. Let's see the facts:

South Korea only spends 2.7% of it's GDP on military spending, coming in at a total of 31.7 billion dollars.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_expenditures

North Korea spends 25% of it's GDP on it's military, coming in at 10 billion dollars
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People's_Army

Let's translate:
If South Korea decided to spend 25% of it's GDP on it's military, that's ~388 billion dollars. (PPP)
That's roughly 39 times more than North Korea. South Korea already spends around 10 times less of it's GDP on its military than the North, and yet it's 3 times bigger, budget-wise. You have been brain-washed by the media into thinking that the South would be completely at the North's mercy when left alone. You are uninformed and wrong.

Can you see what I'm getting at now?

[Kalis]

- Europe...would be left militarily helpless. Most of these countries have little more than a national guard, as that's all they've really needed with American bases scattered throughout. Though there also aren't any present military threats to Europe, leaving one of the wealthier parts of the world without any protection isn't a great idea. Russia would be likely to take advantage and play a much larger role in their development.

Europe would be fine, the combined military of UK, France and Germany would be sufficient for the defence - with the first two nuclear powers - let alone adding in the other countries to the mix.

US military bases in Europe are primarily remnants of the Cold War era, and are now fairly obsolete - so much so, that the US is looking to pull out of Germany.

Europe couldn't maintain a major aggressive war outside of its borders, but that may not be such a bad thing.

[Deleted]

Also, America is not as big as it thinks it is. Get over yourself. A lot of the issues being brought up here are nonsense. Even though ScrappyMuffy apparently has two degrees in history, he doesn't know what the fuck he's on about. Methanar has hit the nail on the head with his first post.