For once, other nations would have to take care of their own defence needs and the United States could stop being the world’s policeman! If a nation feels threatened, they’d just have to mobilise their own population for their own defence, and if they yell for help, perhaps then we could help in some way, (but not with hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops.) We shouldn’t have to be the army for nations who won’t maintain armies of their own.
European nations would learn once again to take care of themselves, and if they saw the need for stronger defences, they’d first have to make every effort to make the most of their own resources before we’d consent (as a nation) to commit our own resources to nations (who may not actually want us there in the first place.)
The above may show how Americans view the rest of the world, but it’s full of inaccuracies:
‘For once, other nations would have to take care of their own defence needs’ - Europe has been fighting wars for over two thousand years.
The US is not ‘the world’s policemen’. If it were it would free Tibet from Chinese occupation, restore democracy in Burma and sort out the Ethiopia-Eritrea disaster.
Who exactly is going to threaten the UK (or any other European country)?
Which nations don’t maintain armies?
Awww, look! It’s a dog is a bee costume! How cuuuuutee!
Costa Rica doesn’t. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Costa_Rica There may be others.
It may be full of inaccuracies, but I still can’t see keeping our forces in other countries just to prop up “our friends”. Europe may have been fighting wars for over 2,000 years, but they sure haven’t kept them confined to Europe thank you very much.
Well, I think the trip wire I mentioned is more for South Korea AND North Korea than it is for the US…i.e. its there to bolster SK and to act as a warning to NK. However, to answer your question honestly, I have to say…I’m not sure. I THINK the US would honor such a commitment if NK attacked SK directly, yes. Of course, we’d then need to ship in everything from…well, I’m not sure. If we pulled out of SK I’d assume a complete pullout of Japan would be logical as well. We don’t have much in that region anymore afaik from a ground pounding perspective. Granted what we have in SK isn’t much either but it would form a nucleus I suppose, a cadre to build a response around. And if we go from the perspective of the OP and a complete draw down of US forces (I know you don’t go for it…neither do I but work with me here :)) then it MIGHT be enough to get the NK’s thinking this would be their last chance.
Of course if I’m being honest I DO think we should pull out of SK as well as Europe…but then I’m an isolationist at heart so…
No, I agree…I don’t think its central either. I was trying to paint in broad strokes myself on what I think WOULD or at least COULD happen as part of a completely US draw down. I do think Korea would be a hot spot if the US drew down completely despite your valid comments about the NK/China relationship.
I disagree. I think the NK’s are getting pretty desparate atm and unless China could either offer them something juicy OR threaten them directly I think that KJI and his merry men would rightfully see this as their last best chance…and throw the dice. YMMV and you are probably much more qualified to speak to this than I, but thats how I see it.
Do you believe that China would directly threaten NK with invasion (and more importantly that NK would believe China) if NK directly attacked SK? If not, do you believe that China would or could offer NK something substantial enough in their current desparate straights that would divert them from taking the chance…if THEY felt that it was their last chance and they also felt they were up against the wall with SK continueing to pull away? I’m just curious as to your answer here btw because I’m unsure myself.
-XT
Quite simply the military balance of the world would change dramatically.
I don’t think it’s a doomsday scenario by any means.
Could Europe have dealt with Iraq in 1991? Yes, Iraq was a smaller country, with technologically inferior weapons.
What European armies could not do is quickly move a huge military force into the region, they do not have the force projection abilities of the United States. And they would not be able to hit Saddam with the overwhelming force with which he was hit. It would be a bloody war, and it would call into question how dedicated is Europe going to be to get involved in stuff like this whenever it pops up?
The United States maintains about 1,000 out of 1250 aircraft carrier based planes in the world. To assume that the EU is going to be able to slide into the role of providing that much international force projection in a moment’s notice is beyond ludicrous.
Could the EU do it? I believe so, they have the people, the technology, and the economy. But, it would change life throughout many of the EU countries, many countries in the EU that currently do not maintain large military budgets would have to start forking over tons of money to a combined military effort. Countries like France and the UK would probably have to fork over even more money to military matters now, eventhough they already have large defense budgets, simply because they’re the big players and the effort can’t work without more from them.
This all makes some important assumptions though. I’m assuming the EU would want to replace the role of the U.S. They may be content to ignore certain areas of the world that have been primarily dealt with by the U.S. for some time (Latin America, for example, and most importantly Egypt and Israel.)
I honestly think this would c reate a more chaotic world. A multipolar world is vastly more chaotic and prone to large scale war than a unipolar world. Without the United States on the street, a lot of countries would probably start taking independent action that they otherwise wouldn’t even consider.
The effects this would have on the world, internationally is hard to imagine.
I think there would be a time of chaos as some countries (I’m looking at the Middle East) made some power grabs in wake of the new power vacuum. Eventually a few larger powers (Europe, China, India) would start filling the vacuum. However that would create a world with 3 large and powerful geopolitical units that would probably all develop hegemonistic designs.
With Europe we’re making the large assumption the European states would have the desire to work together to this degree, I’m not sure that it exists.
A couple of comments:
-
the OP kind of echoes Kagan’s book Paradise & Peace, in which he postulates that US military and diplomatic pressure have caused Europe to enter an age of post-modern warmaking. That is to say, Europe will not increase its defence spending because it sees its union as rendering that unnecessary.
-
Tamerlane says:
China has a littoral not a blue water navy, and this is always raised in topics about Taiwan: how would it launch an seaborne invasion force? Between cruise missiles and paratroopers, would it need to? A blue water navy is only necessary to fend off a US carrier group. Questions raised about China’s huge defence spend have recently caused Japan to be outspokenly nervous. Taiwan should be, too.
-
Libya would probably resume its nuclear weapons programme.
-
Israel would be fine, provided that the US kept selling its weapons to Israel.
5.Sentient Meat says:
There is a grim and disturbing book by a Dutch journalist named Linda Polman called We Did Nothing about the overall uselessness of UN peacekeeping operations by soldiers of third world countries. Certainly this article does nothing to instil in me confidence in UN peacekeeping by corrupt, immoral and inept soldiers - here is a quick quote to put it into perspective:
If the U.S. demilitarized, what you’d see is a general increase of military spending throughout the world, and a rapid expansion of the number of players in the nuclear club. Because absent a huge U.S. military to protect you, the best way to ensure your defense is to have nuclear weapons.
You’d see a nuclear Taiwan, nuclear Japan, and a Mid-east with several more nuclear powers within five years. And to protect those nuclear forces, countries with deep water ports would start deploying ballistic submarines.
In the meantime, you’d see an increase in the number of flash points around the world, and an increase in the number of border skirmishes, leading to an increase in the number of outright wars.
Anyone who thinks a demillitarized America would lead to a better world is nuts.
And no, the U.N. could not take America’s place. The other U.N. countries simply don’t have the force projection capability. For example, Canada is totally dependent on U.S. heavy airlift to move its soldiers and equipment around in any serious numbers. And the U.N. is made up of countries with too many varying interests to make an effective world policeman.
Over all I agree with you Sam (it generally goes along with what I wrote earlier in the thread) but as a nitpick I don’t think we’d see a nuclear Japan. The aversion to nuclear weapons in Japan runs pretty deep. What I see is closer ties between Japan and China developing instead and a distancing between US/Japanese relationships instead. Certainly Japan is nervous atm about China’s continued militarization (especially the modernization) but if the US opted out I don’t think Japan would suddenly go nuclear (nor do I think they would attempt to build up their current defense force substantially)…instead I think they would be forced to treat with China from a position of weakness. They would (eventually) fall more and more into China’s sphere of influence, since China would become overnight the one and only real regional power able to project significantly beyond their borders (at least within the region).
Just MHO of course.
-XT
Japan has the largest submarine fleet in East Asia by far (source: a discussion with the former commander of the Australian Submarine Squadron). It is openly concerned by China. And there is a plethora of (civilian use) nuclear reactors in Japan. I’ve lived in Osaka and know that the anti-nuclear weapon sentiment is strong. But if they were left to defend themselves I wouldn’t be surprised to see Japan buying nuclear-tipped Trident missiles from the British.
I agree with this.
The only possible “world policeman” I could see to take over the U.S.'s role would be a combined EU with a strong military. That is something that is many years off. China maybe but even then, I consider that so far out there I’m not sure I accept it as a true possibility. EU member states at least have a good bit of force projection and have actually engaged in world policeman style activities.
There wouldn’t be a world policeman in the wake of a demilitarized USA, some people seem to think the UN would be able to fill the role of world policeman. That isn’t true unless the UN both changes how it manages troops and its political structure.
I agree. If the US pulled its military out of East Asia, I think you’d see countries like Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam coming to “understandings” with China. China would not directly threaten any of these countries and they would not interfere with or protest China’s foreign or domestic policies.
Taiwan wouldn’t build nuclear weapons. Mainland China has long declared that any Taiwanese nuclear program would result in an immediate attack against Taiwan. If the US was reducing its military committment to the region, provoking an attack is the last thing Taiwan would want to do.
Sorry about that. I hadn’t realized we were on the second page. My last post was referring to xtisme’s post.
I just have to point out how little sense that makes. Every police officer knows they need the support of the people they’re supposed to be protecting if they’re going to have any chance of accomplishing anything. There’s no way that one country or a small group of countries could be more objective than the entire UN.