The U.S. Becomes Isolationist: What Happens?

Great Debates
41

There are these really big things called oceans which are far from the coast of any country. Expanding coastal patrols wouldn’t cut it. Someone still needs to develop long-distance deployment capability.

Furthermore, some countries can just about afford to patrol the waters nearby and that’s it. There are a lot of countries that really can’t afford to run extensive coast guard operations.

Why don’t you just admit that you have no idea what you are talking about?

Blah, Blah. Countries think up reasons all the time to behave stupidly. I’ve already given you a few examples of how countries ended up interfering with international trade.

42

Is there now or has there ever been in the entire history of the world a problem with pirates in the deep ocean? Every single piracy problem I can find that has ever existed was in coastal waters or enclosed seas like the Caribbean.

Pirates do not and never have been in the habit of intercepting cargo ships way off in deep waters, and if they suddenly developed the ability to do so there’s little the U.S. Navy could do about it, just as the U.S. Navy has struggled to do anything about piracy off the Somalian coast.

Seriously, where is this massive American anti-piracy effort?

43

Absolutely.

China values the open sea-lanes as much as anybody. They cannot interfere with Japan’s commerce without interfering with their own. Especially with the U.S.

North Korea is dangerous but impotent. They can start a war but they can’t survive a war, and all the top leaders know it.

Why would they threaten the freedom of the sea lanes?! They need them as much as China does!

All of which are screwed if they can’t export their oil by sea.

44

No, actually the US is. As to why China would want to impede Japan’s trade, well, they are rivals for one thing. For another, it’s not so much that China wants to impede trade, it’s that they want to influence Japan and force them to make concessions and move them more into their own sphere of influence. Or, to put it another way, why do you think China is pushing on Japan over some silly islands? Sure, it could be because there is oil there or some other resource, but that only underscores the issue…without the US and the US Navy, what would Japan do when China started to push them as they are already doing? What would South Korea do? What would Vietnam do? All of these countries are being overtly or subtly pushed by China, and the pressure increases as China becomes more powerful. Why do you think that is, if China doesn’t have designs on pushing out their power in their own region? And what about Africa? China is increasingly becoming more interested in the region. TODAY, it’s mainly peaceful, but without the US to check them, what them? And this is just one nation…there are other regional powers who would become more assertive if the US decided to opt out and let the rest of the world hang. For that matter, who would protect OUR interests if the OPs fantasy became reality?

45

Which makes open sea lanes even more important to the Chinese and Japanese alike.

46

Because they’re silly.

47

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Absolutely.
[/QUOTE]

That’s sad then.

They can’t do that TODAY. But that’s not the OP or what’s under discussion.

What would stop them from becoming more assertive if the US wasn’t there? They have sunk South Korean military vessels and shelled South Korean towns when the US IS THERE…what makes you think that the US being gone would make them behave better?

You are missing the point. China and India aren’t going to go hog wild if the US isn’t there and start sinking everything in sight. What they will do is assert their power and control over the regions in question. Want to use the sea lanes that China now claims as their own? No problem…but you need to make some trade concessions over here. Just sign on the dotted line. Sorry, China claims these islands where oil has been found as their territory? You have a problem with that? Bummer, since we have a fleet and you don’t.

Exactly. Ever heard of blackmail? You don’t think that anyone else has heard of it? And what, exactly, would you (as Japan) do if, say, Iran decided to close the straights because they claim it as their sovereign territory and want to impose a large tariff on any and all shipping that goes through it? Or if India decided to push out their territorial waters and do something similar? Or if Iran did that and China decided they weren’t going to have any of that bullshit and move their own fleet down to contest it? None of this (or myriad other scenarios) happen today because no one wants to fuck with the US Navy, so instead you get countries like China pushing and probing and testing. Take away the US and you’ll get a lot more…with a lot more potential for local or regional powers to push harder, and thus create a lot more possibility of conflicts that will disrupt trade, something that simply won’t occur to anyone today. I mean, could the Chinese navy REALLY take the Indian navy in their home waters? No idea, but it could happen. Could China REALLY take the Iranians in their home waters? Probably, but what would be the cost? What about an Iran naval force against Israel…or one or several of the European nations? Could happen if the US wasn’t there, depending on events. Today, the Iranians know flat out that they would have zero chance against the US Navy, so they don’t even try…but against, say the current British navy? Might be possible.

48

Not even close. China is by far Japan’s largest trading partner, more than the next two (the USA and South Korea) combined.

Oh, okay. No, wait, that isn’t one thing. It’s nothing. China and the UNITED STATES are rivals, if one believes the absolute terror in which Americans seem to view China, and yet your position is that he United States wants to use its navy to keep the trade lanes open. So why is that rivalry okay for trade, but other people’s rivalries are not?

Do what the USA’s neighbours do; accomodate that as best as they can. Sometimes this works out, and sometimes it doesn’t, like the Domincan Republic, Panama et al. can tell you, but the trade generally happens no matter what. I’m not sure how that has anything to do with the alleged role the U.S. Navy takes in facilitating international trade, though.

Nor far that matter do I quite understand what the problem is. Of course China will influence its neighbours. It’s a big, powerful country. The United States influences its neighbours. That’s the way it is. Why is being pushed around by China better? I mean, citing Vietnam as a country who stands to benefit from a strong America and a weak China, as you seem to have done, has to be one of the sickest jokes I’ve heard in years; how is Vietnam better off with the country that invaded them over the other country that invaded them?

49

[QUOTE=RickJay]
Not even close. China is by far Japan’s largest trading partner, more than the next two (the USA and South Korea) combined.
[/QUOTE]

I actually meant the converse…either way, a quick search shows I was wrong.

Why is China pushing Japan at this time then? Just for fun? Why is China pushing all of it’s other neighbors at this time? Again, because they are being playful and find it amusing?

They play the role of the proverbial 800 pound gorilla…no one wants to fuck with them. Take the gorilla out of the mix and you have the question…can we take these other guys? Maybe we can push them to make concessions? Maybe they can…but then again, maybe not. It creates a volatile environment, one we haven’t seen since perhaps before WWI. Again, everyone knows…KNOWS…that they absolutely can’t take the US. We are so far beyond the military capabilities of the other countries, especially when you consider the alliances we are in, that it’s not remotely possible. But the other powers? Is China more powerful militarily than India? Probably, but it’s a matter of fractions, not the orders of magnitude that the US is. Same with the other powers, including Japan.

50

Japan doesn’t need the US security umbrella, they take it because its cheaper to rely on the US than expand their own security forces and it politically convenient. If the US went isolationist they would quickly create a new constitution allowing them to have proper defense forces (not just self defense forces) and have nuclear weapons within months.

51

The conclusion seems to be that US isolation prompts general military escalation worldwide, as countries are forced to look to their own.

52

Yes, but regional alliances would take more prominence:
NATO would still exist as an alliance of european states, and I think its pretty likely that an alliance of ASEAN (south east asian) plus Japan and Korea (and maybe India) would develop in opposition to China.The Arab Gulf States would also probably develop a stronger shared military to counteract Israel and Iran.

More wars, or less, impossible to say. More small scale wars, but they might be less total deaths and destruction than the current large scale US wars.

53

And we would discover where all the various missing nuke materials ended up as people acquire nukes.

54

It’s politics. Why do they do billions in trade with Japan, just to surprise us all when they start a war?

Why does the U.S. push its neighbours around? Why does Russia? Hey, why are Canada and Denmark arguing over a ridiculously useless island in the Arctic wastes? Because countries do that. It’s on YOU to demonstrate a reason why we should think that this sort of endless international bitching - which has been going on between China and Japan for as long as there has been an Internet and never seems to stop the trade - requires the U.S. Navy to keep down. If China actually wanted to start a real, honest-to-God war, they’ll start one.

55

History will long remember the Dano-Canadian war of 2014. It’ll be known as the politest war in history!

56

Because the Island, if definitively ceded to one side, would significantly move the boundary between Canadian and Greenland waters, and there might be quite a bit of resources under those waters. It’s not just because “it’s what countries do” – there are actual material gains at stake.

[QUOTE=John Mace]
History will long remember the Dano-Canadian war of 2014. It’ll be known as the politest war in history!
[/QUOTE]

I understand that the island is frequently reconquered by the opposing military forces (who are never both there at the same time). The “reconquering” consists of tearing down the opposing flag, raising their own, and leaving some gifts for their adversaries to find when next they come.

57

[QUOTE=RickJay]
It’s politics. Why do they do billions in trade with Japan, just to surprise us all when they start a war?
[/QUOTE]

Again, I’m not saying that they are going to go hog wild as soon as the US turns isolationist. But they will become more assertive in pushing out their territorial waters…that’s pretty obvious since, again, they are doing it now. And they will be in a position to dictate terms or gain major concessions in this future since they will have a dominant military power in the region and it will be pretty much unchecked, at least in the short term. Long term of course Japan will have to spend more money on their military, especially their fleet to redress the balance. And, of course, when there is rough parity you have more of a potential for a fight to break out somewhere.

Every country tries to push in order to gain concessions or position, or just to assert their power and authority. That’s natural.

Russia as well. Why? Because all of those countries want to push forward their own claim on the territory of course, due to it’s position (especially in the future), possible resources (fishing rights, possibly oil or other natural resources, potential trade routes in the future, etc) and the possibility that in an ice free future it might be a major trade route. They don’t come to blows over it because Russia knows that the US isn’t going to put up with it…but in a US free universe what would Canada do if Russia decided to really assert their rights by moving what’s left of their fleet there? Canada doesn’t have the ability to do much about that right now.

It doesn’t stop trade today because, again, no one wants to mess with the US Navy. We are so totally dominant that it’s inconceivable for anyone to seriously challenge us at this time. Since everyone knows that, no one pushes beyond a certain point. Take us completely out of the equation, however, and you have serious questions as to who is dominant and what countries can and will try and get away with…and what might push a country into war.

If you are unconvinced by this seemingly (to me) obvious point I’m unsure how to ‘prove’ it to you. The US has been dominant for so long that it’s hard to conceive of what would happen if we simply stepped out, but surly you don’t think that this could or would happen without a ripple? That it would simply be business as usual, just with the US out of the way?

Sure, they could do that. It would be like me starting a fight with Mike Tyson though…even if I got in a few licks I’d get my ass kicked and more than my share of lumps. If Mike Tyson is the bouncer it’s going to take someone being stupid to fuck with him. But if there was no bouncer then the two drunk guys might start eying each other and thinking, ‘yeah, I could take him’…which is bad enough in a bar, but much, much worse when you are talking about countries.

58

The US is the largest influence right now in preventing South Sudan from falling into civil war. It may still happen but it probably would have already started if the US wasn’t involved.

59

“You (Japan) depend on this trade as much as we (China) do. But we can shut it off, and you can’t do shit about it, plus, we think we can hold out longer than you can. Give us money/materials/favorable conditions, or else. Let’s just see who can hold out longer.”

It’s been done numerous times throughout history. A country shooting itself in the foot is not a new phenomenon. There are no good reasons to think that China will decide not to do so in the future, in the absence of the US Navy.

60

Plus China has already shown itself ready and willing to forcefully absorb another country (Tibet).