Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/13/2010 7:05:14 AM EDT
If the US pulled every single one of our troops out of every foreign country, closed down all the bases, and kept all of our naval vessels in our waters patrolling our territories...how would the world be different and how would our country be different?

I'm not looking for opinions on the wisdom of a move like this...just curious how the hive would speculate on the effect of this on the world and our nation.

I also know that it's not going to happen...just looking for thoughts/opinions

Hax
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 7:12:43 AM EDT

1) China would invade Taiwan.
2) Pakistan's ISI would re-install the Taliban in Afghanistan. Al-Qaida would return along with training camps.
3) South American drug cartels would increase the volume of drug trafficking.
etc.
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 7:16:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By C-4:

1) China would invade Taiwan.
2) Pakistan's ISI would re-install the Taliban in Afghanistan. Al-Qaida would return along with training camps.
3) South American drug cartels would increase the volume of drug trafficking.
etc.

Not to mention Iran probably attacking Israel.
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 7:17:51 AM EDT

A five alarm slayfest.

There are three or large conflicts that I can think of off the top of my head, kept in check only by the instant involvement of the US.
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 7:32:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Screechjet1:

A five alarm slayfest.

There are three or large conflicts that I can think of off the top of my head, kept in check only by the instant consistentinvolvement of the US.



Fixed for you. However, if we did that the world would fall to @#$^, but I bet our problems here at home "might" start to get a little better.... then again, probably not....
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 7:45:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By C-4:

1) China would invade Taiwan.
2) Pakistan's ISI would re-install the Taliban in Afghanistan. Al-Qaida would return along with training camps.
3) South American drug cartels would increase the volume of drug trafficking.
etc.


4) North Korea would shell Seoul into rubble.
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 7:52:45 AM EDT
North America (US southern border and northward) would stay pretty stable. AUS adn EU would be stable for a while until after Eastern Europe completely destablaized and immigrants and raiders started in on the EU and the Asian sphere decided to take a crack at AUS. South America would all probably go Commie. Mexico would have to be a priority and and sooner or later shit would start along the border but with the full might of the US armed forces we would be able to double our size and get all their resources.

just my $0.02
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 7:53:38 AM EDT
We are the only thing keeping the savages in check
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 7:55:14 AM EDT
A lot of stuff would happen, most of it would probably make little difference to us here. The Persian Gulf states might begin looking for new patrons, but maybe not. The US guaranteed the Saudis for forty years before we ever put troops in the Gulf on a permanent basis. We wouldn't need any permanently stationed forces in the region, just the ability and willingness to get them there if the time came. China would extend its influence into Central Asia, filling the vacuum left by retreating Americans. Taiwan's independence would end, probably with minimal bloodshed.

The world didn't end when Britain retreated, and won't end when the US does.
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 7:56:03 AM EDT
Is that you Ron Paul?
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 8:06:03 AM EDT

Probably about 25-30 more nuclear armed states.
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 8:09:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By hoodonit00:
Is that you Ron Paul?


Yawn. Nope.
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 8:10:05 AM EDT
Originally Posted By hoodonit00:
Is that you Ron Paul?


Funny you mention Ron Paul. I was having this conversation with a good friend of mine last night, and he is a fan of Ron Paul.

I just found the question interesting, and was curious what the hive would think.

I'd love to hear Dave A and others weigh in...I don't always agree with their opinions, but do enjoy reading them.

Hax

Link Posted: 9/13/2010 8:25:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Screechjet1:

Probably about 25-30 more nuclear armed states.


I took the hypothetical literally - that we would bring the boys back home, without necessarily withdrawing from all of our committments. I don't think that merely withdrawing forces, in and of itself, would necessarily have that great of an effect. If the US were to couple that with a change in policy and force structure that would make clear that continental defense was henceforth the military's sole mission, that would lead to much more of a free-for-all. 30 more nuclear armed states seems high, though, even for that scenario. Who would go nuclear? South Korea? Brazil? Saudi Arabia?
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 8:28:17 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Cypselus:
Originally Posted By hoodonit00:
Is that you Ron Paul?


Yawn. Nope.

Yea Ron Paul makes me yawn to.

Link Posted: 9/13/2010 8:29:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SirHacksalot:
Originally Posted By hoodonit00:
Is that you Ron Paul?


Funny you mention Ron Paul. I was having this conversation with a good friend of mine last night, and he is a fan of Ron Paul.

I just found the question interesting, and was curious what the hive would think.

I'd love to hear Dave A and others weigh in...I don't always agree with their opinions, but do enjoy reading them.

Hax


From what I hear, I don't think Dave A will be responding. At least not right away.

Link Posted: 9/13/2010 8:32:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mac130:
We are the only thing keeping the savages in check



I cant give specifics, but what he said. Someone would step in to fill the void in some cases, probably china. But in more than one case the free world takes it in the ass, and our economy would not be far behind.

I like Ron Paul, I think he is a man of principle, but in most areas of foreign policy he is wrong, dangerously so.

Link Posted: 9/13/2010 8:33:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By hoodonit00:
Originally Posted By SirHacksalot:
Originally Posted By hoodonit00:
Is that you Ron Paul?


Funny you mention Ron Paul. I was having this conversation with a good friend of mine last night, and he is a fan of Ron Paul.

I just found the question interesting, and was curious what the hive would think.

I'd love to hear Dave A and others weigh in...I don't always agree with their opinions, but do enjoy reading them.

Hax


From what I hear, I don't think Dave A will be responding. At least not right away.




Yo quero taco bell

Link Posted: 9/13/2010 8:42:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Cypselus:
Originally Posted By Screechjet1:

Probably about 25-30 more nuclear armed states.


I took the hypothetical literally - that we would bring the boys back home, without necessarily withdrawing from all of our committments. I don't think that merely withdrawing forces, in and of itself, would necessarily have that great of an effect. If the US were to couple that with a change in policy and force structure that would make clear that continental defense was henceforth the military's sole mission, that would lead to much more of a free-for-all. 30 more nuclear armed states seems high, though, even for that scenario. Who would go nuclear? South Korea? Brazil? Saudi Arabia?
Pretty much anyone currently relying on US military force projection for stability. They would need a force multiplier and quickly. Japan would build nukes almost immediately, South Korea would talk to them about getting some or at least getting inside their nuclear umbrella. The Saudi's would probably get some as well, Israel would start pointing nukes any one who looked at them funny. Pakistan would probably start a one-stop shopping center for any Arab state looking to buy warheads; Iran might do the same as well.
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 8:42:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Cypselus:
Originally Posted By Screechjet1:

Probably about 25-30 more nuclear armed states.


I took the hypothetical literally - that we would bring the boys back home, without necessarily withdrawing from all of our committments. I don't think that merely withdrawing forces, in and of itself, would necessarily have that great of an effect. If the US were to couple that with a change in policy and force structure that would make clear that continental defense was henceforth the military's sole mission, that would lead to much more of a free-for-all. 30 more nuclear armed states seems high, though, even for that scenario. Who would go nuclear? South Korea? Brazil? Saudi Arabia?


I'd say anyone with either an existing or emergent nuclear energy capability with any defense issues. Blathering about a nuclear-free world is fine and dandy until you're the one that will be responsible for your defense. I'd look at any state with a nuclear power program and a IRBM or space capability. Its a long list. Plenty of comparatively poor states like Egypt or Vietnam, and rich ones, like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, and plenty of in-betweens like Brazil and Algeria would have a potential interest in a nuclear deterrent. While in the short run, there might be some stability, the long run means that likely use and non-state proliferation risks would exponentially increase.
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 8:49:26 AM EDT
Would we still be selling weapons to countries or would we limit it (F-15s to Saudi, JSF to Isreal) to true allies? I would limit it to true/worthy allies (I consider Isreal worthy, I don't consider Saudi worthy, btw).
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 8:54:54 AM EDT
Why are we responsible to Police the world? And why do we pay OUR money from OUR citizens nations yet still do it? Maybe they should pay us?
Link Posted: 9/13/2010 9:07:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SIG-shooter:
Why are we responsible to Police the world? And why do we pay OUR money from OUR citizens nations yet still do it? Maybe they should pay us?



Because our economy and our way of life depends on stability in certain parts of the world. We dont do it just out of the goodness of our hearts although I do think that is a small component of it. We do it mostly for a selfish reason, because otherwise our economy would crash. Can you imagine $500 a barrel oil? The tree huggers couldnt put enough electric weenie mobiles on the road to make a dent in that.

Link Posted: 9/13/2010 9:11:26 AM EDT
We should pull troos out of the Balkans & Germany /Belgium/Western Europe/UK but maintain missle defense in places like Poland and Turkey and Albainia & on various Pacific Island terrotories...
Top Top