The US De-Militarizes -- What Would Happen in Europe/the World?

Great Debates
21

Well heck, if we demilitarize the US we should at least start back in 1936. I’m sure a unified European military would then have arisen that would be more than able to prevent Saddam from taking over Kuwait.

If we demilitarize the US long enough before Gulf War I that the UN/EU military buildup is strong enough to take on Saddam then very likely nothing much like Gulf War I is going to happen anyway.

My main point is that in our world if Bush the First hadn’t pushed for it there would have been no Gulf War I. Kuwait would be an Iraqi province. Sure, there would have been sanctions that might have hurt Iraq. But probably some sort of agreement whereby Saddam could sell some of his “oil”, perhaps in exchange for neccesary “food” would have been allowed. In real life, France, Russia and China were all clamoring for sanctions against Saddam to end, the US was the only hardcase for the sanctions.

If the US stayed out of Gulf War I there would have been no Gulf War and they’d all be speaking Arabic in Kuwait.

22

Aren’t they speaking Arabic in Kuwait now?

23

Actually Thatcher was the a major force behind the push for war. At one stage when he was wavering when shown projected losses she famously said to him “Don’t go wobbly on me now George”.

24

I think the innocent women and children who have been victimized by UN troops in numerous countries might disagree about the efficacy of that training. I think Romeo Dallaire might differ on what happens when troops are answerable to a multilateral bureacracy.

25

D’oh!
:smiley:

26

Yes, but if Bush hadn’t cowboyed up after Thatcher slapped him around, she/Major certainly would never have invaded Kuwait alone.

I’m certainly not denigrating UK forces, or even French forces, its just that added together they aren’t even close to the numbers the US can field. And when you take into account logistics and transport the disparity becomes even greater.

27

Having the US de-militarize huh? Well, it would probably be all good for us in the short term. Imagine the money we’d save! It would also be a hoot to see the rest of the world, especially the Europeans scrambling around trying to figure out what the hell they were going to do next…and how the hell they would pay for it. Just seeing a nation like France deciding if they should drop their social programs in order to ramp up a credible and projectable military would be worth it IMHO. :stuck_out_tongue:

Of course, about 10 days after the US scrapped the last M1 and mothballed the last carrier China would be poised to take out Taiwan. North Korea would already be massed on the borders of South Korea. Trade from Asia would be a complete mess as other nations began eyeing each other…conquest or defense?

Then we have the Middle East. Lets see. Iran would probably get serious about Iraq…and Israel would probably go on a bombing spree in self defense. No big stick to back em up coming from the US they would almost HAVE to strike hard while they could. Internally I think several nations would probably fold right away in the ME.

Then there is Africa. Ouch. And I’m not so sure our vaunted Euro brothers and sisters would stay peaceful either. Nothing in history has lead me to believe that if they all decided to start ramping up their militaries again they would continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with the other nations in Europe. Maybe NATO would be able to hold them together…but maybe not. And there is always EASTERN Europe to wonder about… Then there is always Russia…would they be able to hold together? Would they be able to start thinking expansionist thoughts again?

At least things would be pretty peaceful here in the Western hemisphere. I don’t expect any problems from either Canada or Mexico…and as was noted earlier Central and South America have been relatively quite for a while now. Trade would be shot all to hell IMO, but we’d probably be lots better off than some others out there.

If the US demilitarized would we still provide troops to the UN? Perhaps we’d become isolationist as well as demilitarized (seems likely to me) and drop the whole sorry thing. NATO as well…we’d most likely drop out of that.

-XT

28

And you’ll note I acknowledged the detriment to efficacy. But the Kosovo action was UN based in its troop contingent anyway: the difference the US made was in its air power. Again, other countries have planes. Not as many, not as good, but enough to bomb Serbia into submission eventually despite command hierarchy difficulties, IMO.

This all being predicated on if the US offered nothing, of course. Deterring future despots and invasions would then IMO outweigh the mercenary grubbiness of offering to powerful parties what is now being sold anyway. I am as pragmatic as any in my international political worldview.

I actually advocated regime change for its own sake, but suggested the French line of waiting for Hans Blix to deliver evidence of a credible threat. Again, what we are discussing here is the option of unpunished aggression vs. a long difficult punishment for aggression vs. a quick, effective punishment for aggression by dangling Iraqi resources as a carrot. I’d prefer the middle option, but if the third was clearly the least worst option, I’d have no qualms, pragmatically.

No. The better option in 1991 was carried out (although regime change would have been better still, as it would be now elsewhere IMO). This thread explores alternatives.

Not at all. Pragmatically, I would have been happy for the UNSC to offer the US such blood money if no action would otherwise have been taken. (The difference in 2002 was that there was no time-sensitive humanitarian crisis in Iraq any more, nor any aggression which neede to specifically be deterred).

Well, if you’re therefore calling the US a military dictatorship, I can only disagree. You’ll note my very specific criteria for default miltary action. Indeed, default military action already exists under international law (the UN Charter) in the form of self defence in the face of attack or imminent threat thereof. That does not make the UN a military dictatorship, and neither would action in the case of verifiable genocide, such as the Finnish UN team’s findings at Racak.

29

As noted above, Taipei and Seoul would be sporting a very different array of flags under new management.

30

Very dubious. As it stands now, both countries (and particularily South Korea) have the means to defend themselves.

31

I’m inclined to agree. North Korea is capable of inflicting vast destruction, but not of beating South Korea. I’ve long been of the opinion that the U.S. ground forces there are unnecessary.

Similarily, I doubt China has the amphibious/naval strength to mount a sure-win invasion of Taiwan right now.

Long term China is a threat to Taiwan, to be sure, so I guess you could argue the U.S. is essential there ( though it has been claimed that Taiwan and China are more likely than not to merge peacefully in the future anyway, at least economically ). North Korea on the other hand looks to be weakening, not strengthening and really isn’t a good argument for the necessity of U.S. military strength.

  • Tamerlane
32

I really don’t know about this. I’ve heard arguments either way.

I agree with this. Unfortunately, simply because it’s not a sure-win doesn’t mean that China wouldn’t consider it. And even without an invasion - China has the ability to establish a blockade around Taiwan, I believe.

33

Methinks you might be confusing the US Army with the US military. The entire US military is diminishing its forward deployment, but it will still have a significant forward presence. For example, the USS George Washington will replace the Kitty Hawk as the forward-deployed aircraft carrier in Japan. This will include a number of naval air squadrons (five? I’m not sure how many). Plus, there will be a continuing presence in Iceland (for example, the 85th Air Group).

There are many others, but I haven’t got the patience to look them up. Suffice to say that 3 Army Brigades will **not ** be the only forward American military presence within the next 5 years.

34

Really?

Here’s some basic reading on the subject of a Taiwan-China war. The highlights include:[ul]
[li]The Taiwan Strait separates Taiwan from mainland China by approximately 90 miles.[/li][li]Taiwan’s current military is around 385,000 people. China’s current military is around 2.5 million people (the largest in the world). (Keep in mind that China’s military is at “reduced standing.”)[/li][li]China’s current tactics have been to build their own weapons systems, and buy the technology from elsewhere. However, China’s amphibious/naval strength includes Russian SU-27 and SU-30 fighter aircraft, four Kilo-class submarines and Sovremenny-class destroyers (all bought recently). [/li][li]China has more advanced military technology than Taiwan. And Germany and France have expressed an interest in selling more military technology to China.[/li][li]China has more than 500 ballistic missiles based in the region opposite Taiwan, a number that’s expected to increase by 75 per year. All those missiles are presumably intended to reach Taiwan in the event of a war.[/ul]So China has overwhelming numbers and better technology. And in case China wants to soften them up first, Taiwan is easily within bombing and missile range. And I seriously doubt that China doesn’t have the boats to cross a 90 mile strait. (In fact, the article I linked above guesses that China would probably blockade Taiwan to starve them into surrender.)[/li]
Any suggestion that Taiwan could hold off the Chinese for any appreciable time without foreign intervention is ludicrous.

35

So have I, but none of them that convince me that an extra 20,000 U.S. army troops make the difference between victory and defeat. North Korea can’t win a war of attrition - South Korea simply has vastly greater resources in every category. They can only win by blitzkrieg and if 600,000 ROK troops can’t contain them, I’m not thinking the U.S. army forces in place will either. Now, this is isn’t talking about the OP’s scenario at all, just a withdrawal of ground forces - I’m still assuming that U.S. naval/air assets would be available via nearby Japan.

I just tend to regard the army units in SK as having a poor cost/benefit ratio. But then I have the same opinion of the U.S. heavy forces in Europe - the threat they were meant to contain, mainly the GSFG, is gone. Despite all the plausible-sounding reasons put forward as to why they should remain, I’m of the opinion that the biggest factor is a half century of inertia.

Yes, really. Your BBC article, as such things tends to do, doesn’t tell the whole story. A 6:1 numerical advantage isn’t terribly useful if you can’t get them there. And as of yet, they can’t. Not 2.5 million, not 250,000. Just about any source will agree that currently, China just doesn’t have it in them to mount a conventional invasion ( though they’re working on it ). For example:

*If there is one common theme shared among PLA watchers, it is that the PLA does not have enough dedicated sealift capability to mount a large amphibious campaign against Taiwan.

…Even with the recent changes, it would be rather difficult for the PLA to succeed in a conventional military victory in a cross strait operation. In many ways, the PLA is still addressing and training at the fundamental level, and even some of the latest additions to its inventory are relatively low tech in comparison with other powers.*

From http://www.china-defense.com/pla/plaamphops/plaamphops01.html

A blockade is a different matter, but that would still be messy and almost certainly not quick.

That’s not to say China won’t eventually be able to launch an effective conventional attack - as I said long-term that’s definitely an issue. But today it isn’t likely.

Just call me Mr. Ludicrous :).

  • Tamerlane
36

They are there as a trip wire…not as a viable force. As you rightfully say their actual combat power is dwarfed by the ROK forces. Its meant to be that way. In the event of war they would trigger a US response. However, reading the OP, s/he is speculating that the US would ‘de-militarize’…i.e. we would no longer HAVE those forces in Japan (or anywhere else) nor the desire to use them. So…we wouldn’t come to South Koreas (or anyone elses) aid in the event of invasion. We COULDN’T come to anyones aid for that matter since we would have de-militarized (which I take to mean we would vastly reduce our military across the board, having basically a US defense force…perhaps simply the National Guard and Coast Guard).

Countries like North Korea would know that. As you say, year by year they are weakening. They know that as well as you do. So, considering they are desparate…do you still think they would just quietly die off?
As I’ve said in the myriad threads on China/Taiwan, I agree with your assessment. You need to get all that combat power to Taiwan to use it and its a formatable challenge to cross the straights in the teeth of a modern defense. However, take the US completely out of the equation and the CHINESE might think its feasable. Whether or not they are right they might try it…or, more likely they might SEEM to try it to put even more pressure on Taiwan in the hopes that without the US prop to back them up they would fold their hand and come over to the dark side…which isn’t really so dark as it used to be these days and might seem the lesser of two evils. Even if Taiwan could beat back a determined attack from China they would still get hurt doing so…and China could always launch another attack after a licking their wounds.

I still think that a complete de-militarization of the US would be a disaster for the world at this time. It would simple provide a huge power vaccume that regional powers would try and fill…some in calculation, some in desparation.

-XT

37

Not entirely. Gallipoli is a demonstration of how an overwhelmed force can still prevent a landing by a force that lacks the appropriate amphibious assault ability.

No one doubts that China can make life miserable for Taiwan’s population and goverment if they start shooting. But 90 miles of open sea is hard to cross with effective forces.

D-Day worked only because at the time of the invasion the Allies had effective control of both the sea and air. There is a little known incident during the work ups for the invasion where a convoy of troops training with amphib units were caught without destroyer protection by a force of German E-boats. I don’t remember exactly, but I think it was just one torpedo boat, and that incident killed more than 600 men.

The evacuation of Dunkirk, using the kind of improvised shipping that you seem to be considering, was successful in part because the Luftwaffe declined to make any concerted effort to destroy the troops on the beach, or the ships involved with the evacuation. There is no doubt that the Germans could have destroyed all the Allied forces trapped there, had they chosen to.

Now imagine trying to land in the face of the kind of opposition that Taiwan could project on its beaches. Bloodbath doesn’t begin to describe it.

Of course this is the same military that developed the ‘human wave’ attack. I don’t know that China would choose to press such an invasion, on the chance it might work. I am not prepared, however, to say they wouldn’t.

38

Yes, an utterly unnecessary one. Or do you think the United States of America is so faithless, so utterly bereft of honour, that they would fail to respond to the invasion of an ally? Whay do you hate America so, xtisme :stuck_out_tongue: ?

If it’s a human trip wire we want, howabout we just rotate some poor brigadier through every few months and have him sit in a beach chair at the edge of the DMZ? Cheaper than a division-plus ;).

Yeah, but as I said I was disregarding that :). I neither believe the U.S. will, nor should, completely de-militarize. I just happen to be down on the Korean deployment and don’t think that as a debate point that the defence of South Korea is central to an argument not to de-militarize.

I’d hate to predict what NK would do, because they are in fact one of the less predictable regimes out there. But while I wouldn’t put money on it, yeah I think there is a fair possibility they might just quietly die off. The world isn’t what it was a quarter century ago and NK could no longer have any reasonable expectation of receiving ANY support in such a venture.

China for example, who bailed out NK in the 1950’s, would hardly back such an attempt. I believe the trade value between China and South Korea dwarfs the China/NK trade by thirty fold or more and yet China is still NK’s biggest ( and most vital ) trade partner. China has everything to lose by a Korean war and plenty of economic clout to try to prevent it. And they are the only folks even within ideological spitting distance of NK these days.

  • Tamerlane
39

I doubt China would launch a frontal attack, anyway. I’d rather buy the scenario proposed by ** xtisme ** : threatening and exerting a strong pressure, along with promises of some special status to “convince” Taiwan to come back “home”.

Taiwan is currently a major source of income and investments for China. I doubt they would be willing to break too much many eggs to prepare their omelette.

40

He’s right. Of course, it’s a guarantee for SK to have your men sitting on the front lines.