I heard someone saying this on tv this morning, and it didn’t sound quite right to me. Does the world actually depend on the United States for security, or would the world prefer it if the United States went home and stayed home and minded their own business?
You can probably discount the parts of the world we are actively against and the parts who depend on Russia and the parts that depend on China, so I would vote “False”.
There is no particular country that actually needs American military protection any more, no, not even SK or Taiwan.
The value of the U.S. global military hegemony to world-peace-in-general is another question. If we weren’t the hegemon, how do we know somebody else wouldn’t bid for the spot? And if it’s more than one somebody-else at the same time, we know where that leads.
Meh. I can’t help wondering what the sea lanes would be like without the United States Navy around. South Korea, Japan, the Philipines, Taiwan, and even Viet Nam think the United States is a necessary counterweight to China, which has lately been getting pretty grabby in the South China Sea and thereabouts. The Euros had to depend on the United States for political leadership and military muscle during the latest Balkans crisis, and I have to wonder how many other such brush wars would pop up without the United States bolstering Europe’s defense capabilities. Pretty much the entire world counted on the United States to take care of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, though later we really screwed the pooch with our own invasion of Iraq. So, yeah, I think the world probably would be a good deal more unstable without the United States. If it hadn’t been for the damn neo-cons in Bush Jr.'s administration …
The U.S. is the metaphorical 800 pound gorilla that keeps most countries from getting too uppity militarily.
The US seriously considers and often involves itself whenever one country starts to become belligerent to its neighbor. It’s commonly accepted that a major difference between the US and Europe, in terms of national budgeting, is that the US has a military to patrol the world and others keep theirs more for the sake of it.
Now I don’t know that that rest of the world necessarily depends on us for this, but I think it’s definitely shaped the modern world to a significant degree.
America is at least as much a threat to the security of the world as it is an aid.
Ah, well… Leave it to Der Trihs to say something that has a grain of truth and to phrase it in the most absolute possible terms… You aren’t 100% wrong…but, with all due respect, I think you’re about 90% wrong…
Yes, the Cold War put the world at a significant, measurable risk of total nuclear war, and thus U.S. intransigence toward Soviet Communism was a threat to world security.
But… The U.S. has also done a lot to reduce the risk of war in many places in the world. I’d say the U.S., on balance, has made the world a better, safer, more peaceful place.
I suppose if the U.S. had magically ceased to exist in 1945, the world would be relatively “secure” today, under total Communist domination. The citizens of Yugoslavia were certainly more secure in 1950 or 1960 than they were in 1990…
Uh no. We have alliances that promote the security of some members of the international community. Anyone outside of that sphere is either unaffected or made very insecure because of US aggression. We only intervene in conflicts to promote our financial and tactical advantages. We don’t care about military aggression if there isn’t an angle against us.
This. The world’s economy depends on the US keeping transportation lanes open and safe. On land, on the sea, and in the air. (out of the US, most countries are covering land themselves).
Obviously it is not a question that can be answered with scientific precision, since no one knows what the world would be like if the United States did not project its military power all over the globe. The people of Japan and South Korea would certainly be happier if American troops stationed on their soil packed up their bags and left. The Iraqis are glad to see us go. Peoples of other Arab countries probably aren’t too happy about American bases on their soil or Navy ships drifting just off shore. Taiwan is probably the one country most happy to have a sizable American military presence nearby, as they have good reason to fear Chinese aggression.
You forgot Isreal, but it’s a good summary otherwise. I’d also add that countries in South and Central America have basically been prevented from any independent attempts at government for a long long time by the D.O.O. (Department of Offense).
The people of South Korea and Japan would definitely favor us leaving, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’d be safer with us gone. I do think that Japan and SK are insulated from more aggressive actions from North Korea and China because of our presence. I don’t believe they are insulated from outright war, even without bases in the Pacific I do not believe war would break out on the Korean peninsula or China would decide it was time to get revenge for the 1930s/1940s, but especially North Korea would probably be more out of line and engaged in more acts of (essential) piracy against Japanese and Korean flagged ships and things of that nature.
Basically to answer the OP, I think in some situations the U.S. presence keeps wars from happening. In other situations U.S. presence has caused instability and wars. Just as the world is many different countries, there is no singular answer to this question.
The two countries that probably still owe the most on a day-to-day basis to the United States military are Taiwan and South Korea. If the U.S. had a non-interventionist policy in Asia I imagine Taiwan would have ceased to be sometime in the late 1970s. South Korea would have definitely been attacked again if we had left the peninsula in the 50s and adopted a policy of non-intervention.
Now, if we adopted such a policy tomorrow I do not believe Taiwan or South Korea would be put at immediate risk of invasion. But I believe that is mostly because the historical U.S. presence basically lead to a situation where outright war is no longer seen as a desired resolution to those problems. North Korea since their great famine has dwindled considerably in power, and China now seems content to pursue a gradual political merge with Taiwan, only really acting aggressive when certain unfavorable political leaders win elections in Taiwan. I predict Taiwan eventually enters into an agreement of sorts with mainland China, sometime in the next 50 years.
Is it? What are you using as a baseline comparison for this (stunning) assertion? How about if we take things in 50 year time frames and compare how the world is, security wise today to, say, the previous 50 years. Or the 50 years before that. Or the 50 years before that. We’ll look at how stable the world is, politically and from a security perspective and focus on, say, the risk of invasion or hostile take over by a foreign power, since that’s what you are always going on about.
So, is the world more secure in the last 50 years or the previous 50 years? How about in the last 50 years or the 50 years before that? How about the 50 years before that? My cursory view of history seems to indicate that the world as a whole hasn’t been this secure over a 50 year period since…well, I can’t think of a more secure time actually. Please, feel free to give some examples and what your thoughts are on backing up your assertion there, if you don’t mind.
-XT
Hmm…
Do businesses rely on the mafia for security when they pay them for protection? I’m sure there are benefits but I doubt it’s the state of things they’d prefer or most people would think of as good.
The mafia is mostly a bad thing but in certain scenarios they did have some basis in providing a genuine service. In America when Italians first came over in some places the police basically didn’t care when an Italian owned store got robbed or its owner beat up/murdered. The cops were WASPs or Irish and hated Italians and had no desire whatsoever to, well, police their neighborhoods. (And obviously they tried to keep Italians from joining the police force as well.) So local gangs (eventually becoming more organized in the ancient Italian custom) would genuinely provide a service that in certain cases wasn’t being adequately provided by the government. An Italian gang that was paid to protect a grocery store would make it known you don’t rob that store by beating (viciously) or killing someone who did rob the store (or an unlucky innocent–the truth is the example is more important than it being the right guy.)
But again, by the 1920s Italians were a lot better off in terms of being integrated (at least compared to the late 19th century), police forces were slowly getting more professional and etc. By that time the mafia was almost entirely a negative for anyone affected by them.
Yeah…sort of like people relying on police, fire and rescue and those doctor guys when they have an issue. Silly people! And who would want to rely on the government for anything, right? Protection racket all of it, no doubt. ‘I’m sure there are benefits, but I doubt it’s the state of things they’d prefer or most people would think of as good’, ehe?
-XT
Well if you’re trying to say that America is to the world as public servants are to American citizens I’m gonna have to scoff, and scoff sharply.
Sep 2011 Poll shows 57 percent of Japanese support US bases in Japan:
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/asia/japan/2011/09/06/315751/Japanese-support.htm
The local people of Okinawa want the bases gone but it seems that Japanese population as a whole support US bases being in Japan.