If the US left its global role

[Realitytrembles]

What would be the consequences, and how do you think the world would develop thereafter?

The hypothetical:

Over the next 5-10 years, American public opinion turns against a vigorous global role for the US. People tire of the constant stream of news about NK/Iran/Russia/China/terrorism and say a collective "f it."

Eventually, politicians who desire a global role for the US must make a decision: retire, or change their positions.

The parameters

The US remains a NATO power and will honor Article 5, but withdraws all troops from Europe

The US remains in the UN, but cuts its financial contribution in half, and abstains from most Security Council votes unless they directly impact the 50 states/territories.

The US tells Israel " You're on your own. We won't help or hinder you in any way."

The US leaves the WTO and all existing free trade agreements with 2 exceptions: NAFTA ( which is heavily renegotiated) and a bilateral agreement with the UK. A 40% tariff on all other imports is enacted.

The US continues to vigorously develop its own energy sources ( green and otherwise) to achieve full energy independence, and leaves the Middle East entirely to its fate.

In the Eastern Pacific, the US tells SK/Japan/Phillipines/etc " We're no longer interested in the burden of defending you. Look to your own defense." The extent of US influence in the Pacific is a line from Hawaii to Midway to Alaska.

By the end of this, no US troops are to be found outside the 50 states/territories other than the US Navy.

The US maintains its current level of military spending, but now solely focused on the defense of North America.

So, how would subsequent events go?


@Skroe , I know this is anathema to you, but you have said before that if US public opinion turned against a global role for America and decided on our own "East of Suez" moment, it would of course happen that politicians would either go along or be out of a job.

[rogueMatthias]

The US isn't going to be leaving its global role.

It's not some high moral role, looking out for other countries wellfare - The majority of its "global role" is just selling weapons to anyone who has money, supporting anyone that's buying from themselves, and then either fucking over or backing up any governments/groups to make sure whoever benefits them the most financially is in charge. They don't even need to waste troops lives now for it, they can just air-stike and drone-strike anyone into oblivion.

Whilst business is good, things will never change.

[Independent voter]

Europe would step up. If they didn't all hell would break loose eventually.

I don't see China stepping up.

[Huntermyth]

The US isn't going to be leaving its global role.

It's not some high moral role, looking out for other countries well fare - The majority of its "global role" is just selling weapons to anyone who has money, supporting anyone that's buying from themselves, and then either fucking over or backing up any governments/groups to make sure whoever benefits them the most financially is in charge. They don't even need to waste troops lives now for it, they can just air-stike and drone-strike anyone into oblivion.

Whilst business is good, things will never change.

/thread. well played sir.

[oxymoronic]

/thread. well played sir.

funny i was thinking how wrong he was. but its easy to label USA in such a way. to the simple man with no education or life experience it appears that way.

[slime]

funny i was thinking how wrong he was. but its easy to label USA in such a way. to the simple man with no education or life experience it appears that way.

Because you somehow forgot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMmTkKz60W8

[Deleted]

The world won't suddenly stop spinning

[Theodarzna]

Americans don't have a choice, the Deep State would never allow it and would turn against any attempt by the electorate to end constant warfare.

[Daedius]

The "Global Role/Police" is an excuse to work towards their own interests.

[arandomuser]

It would all be rainbow and sunshine there would be no terrorism everyone would be happy and live happily ever after /sarcasm

I personally believe the US leadership role has made the world SAFER look how things use to be before we became the m uch hated "world police" a dictator could do a genocide anytime he wanted without any consequences like they use to do frequently. If we didnt intervene in serbia is millions more of people would of died, hell if we intervened in syria earlier maybe the hundreds of thousands of people facing starvation due to the food shortage wouldnt of joined terrorist groups because of assads unwillingness to help them. just how i personally think

[jellmoo]

The US isn't self-sufficient. Losing those trade agreements would hurt their economy.

On a global level, we'd see Russia take on additional military clout. The EU could as well, but would have to focus on common core issues better. Countries that depend on US aid would suffer greatly, unless another patron stepped up to take over the role.

The end result would be a weakened US, and a potential race between the EU and Russia to fill the gap. China would be the wildcard.

[Zmaniac17]

What would be the consequences, and how do you think the world would develop thereafter?

The hypothetical:

Over the next 5-10 years, American public opinion turns against a vigorous global role for the US. People tire of the constant stream of news about NK/Iran/Russia/China/terrorism and say a collective "f it."

Eventually, politicians who desire a global role for the US must make a decision: retire, or change their positions.

The parameters

The US remains a NATO power and will honor Article 5, but withdraws all troops from Europe

The US remains in the UN, but cuts its financial contribution in half, and abstains from most Security Council votes unless they directly impact the 50 states/territories.

The US tells Israel " You're on your own. We won't help or hinder you in any way."

The US leaves the WTO and all existing free trade agreements with 2 exceptions: NAFTA ( which is heavily renegotiated) and a bilateral agreement with the UK. A 40% tariff on all other imports is enacted.

The US continues to vigorously develop its own energy sources ( green and otherwise) to achieve full energy independence, and leaves the Middle East entirely to its fate.

In the Eastern Pacific, the US tells SK/Japan/Phillipines/etc " We're no longer interested in the burden of defending you. Look to your own defense." The extent of US influence in the Pacific is a line from Hawaii to Midway to Alaska.

By the end of this, no US troops are to be found outside the 50 states/territories other than the US Navy.

The US maintains its current level of military spending, but now solely focused on the defense of North America.

So, how would subsequent events go?


@Skroe , I know this is anathema to you, but you have said before that if US public opinion turned against a global role for America and decided on our own "East of Suez" moment, it would of course happen that politicians would either go along or be out of a job.

It could happen in a limited fashion but those same citizens who demanded a retreat from global affairs also demand jobs and prosperity. You can't have it both ways. Historically speaking the country that is the richest and has the largest military also has the international reserve currency. Over time elections will swing towards globalism as more people see their ways of life being threatened. I'm not sure any country has ever backed down without a fight or a catastrophe and ceded leadership to someone else. But there is always a first.

[I Push Buttons]

The "Global Role/Police" is an excuse to work towards their own interests.

I mean our interests benefit other countries...

Or are you telling me Europe is worse off for spending the last half century under our protection while they prospered?

Or China is worse off for having opened up to the west and trade with us?

Or that the entire world hasn't benefited from the free market that we protect?

And you can't even go "Muh middle east!" Yeah, its a shit hole now... But its always been a shit hole... And its less so now, even with all the chaos... Or are you telling me ISIL/AQ and their ilk killing a few tens of thousands of people over the last 14 years is worse than Saddam literally committing genocide against hundreds of thousands of people (Kurds), causing wars that result in a million deaths (Iraq-Iran), and 'disappearing' untold hundreds of thousands of Iraqis over the decades of Ba'ath rule...?

[PACOX]

It would create a power vacuum to be top dog, lots of diplomatic tension at the very least, and many smaller conflicts down the pyramid of power. With Putin around, he would certainly try to annex the old USSR. SE Asia might fuck over Japan due to old bad blood that the US pretty made the region accept (remember Japan was very nasty and is still ways culturally nasty to its neighbors), West Europe would have to hunker down together to make sure Russia doesn't come poking, China would attempt to emulate the US's model of foregin bases and influence around regional powers (so bases along Europe, the Pacific, South America) to some degree.

Oh and Nk would put on a fireworks show.

- - - Updated - - -

The US isn't self-sufficient. Losing those trade agreements would hurt their economy.

On a global level, we'd see Russia take on additional military clout. The EU could as well, but would have to focus on common core issues better. Countries that depend on US aid would suffer greatly, unless another patron stepped up to take over the role.

The end result would be a weakened US, and a potential race between the EU and Russia to fill the gap. China would be the wildcard.

The US could easily be self-sufficient but it would mean giving up a lot of power its held for years.

[oxymoronic]

I'm not sure any country has ever backed down without a fight or a catastrophe and ceded leadership to someone else. But there is always a first.

in time USA will have too. not really worth ending the world as we know it and china's growth if true, will eventually eclipse USA.

[nanook12]

If the U.S. left it's global role, then the world would probably become a better place.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Then the U.S economy would be seriously damaged.

[Kaleredar]

Russia would gladly try and fill that role. Probably would start reclaiming those eastern European countries by having a few soldiers go on vacation there.

[Ehrenpanzer]

If the U.S. left it's global role, then the world would probably become a better place.

And then we'd all ride magical unicorns to your palace in the sky..... geez some people are delusional

[Jaransan]

I believe this is unlikely purely because the united states global presence is mostly TO ITS OWN BENEFIT. Many of the out of country bases and things are there explicitly to curtail threats to the united states before they can physically reach its shores.

I might be wrong but I don't actually believe you could just pull all soldiers and gear from everywhere they are currently without also ending up functionally LESS defended than you are currently.