Just watched this documentary “The World Without Us” that explored the ramifications of the USA withdrawing ALL of its foreign military presence. It dealt specifically with the ME and Asia and follows a hypothetical presidential candidate who runs on a platform of using all the money that is spent on foreign military aid for domestic purposes. What would/could happen? Nothing good, the movie concludes:
Japan would be forced to go nuclear to “compete” with China.
China would take Taiwan.
Israel would no longer exist.
The ME in general would be much more of a mess than it already is.
Iran.
Kosovo ethnic cleansing would/could start again.
North Korea invades the South.
Are these accurate predictions?
Also the movie makers questioned the EUs ability to fill any void militarily on a global scale that would occur if the US did pack it in (due to both lack of political will and lack of military force.) Is this an accurate assessment?
If Israel stopped existing, there would be several radioactive craters where major cities used to be. They have nukes, and they will use them if their continued existence as a state is in jeopardy.
China taking Taiwan seems…unlikely. Getting enough troops to the island is just not something they have the ability to do, unless they nuke it first.
Japan might become a declared nuclear state, but I think it’s a step they’d be very reluctant to take.
North Korea might invade the South, but they’d lose, and likely be conquered in retaliation.
More importantly, a candidate that ran on this proposed platform would have zero chance of winning a major party nomination, much less the Presidency.
I really don’t believe that China’s only obstacle in taking Taiwan is the US. Granted, we’ve put ourselves in their way just in case, but the current Chinese government is not the government of Mao. People on Taiwan are Chinese too, they’re not just going saunter in and blow everyone up. China’s policy of slowy engaging Taiwan will continue because neither side wants a war. China doesn’t want to be seen as a provocateur, they want to be seen as a global superpower that can be trusted. Taiwan’s existence doesn’t threaten that
North Korea can barely keep its own people alive, they have no capacity for invasion. All their power is on a devastating first strike/retaliation bombardment. Beyond that, their people will be defecting like it was a bodily function, which they won’t have much of due to their malnutrition
Nukes. Everyone suddenly decides that the world is a lot scarier place, and that they need lots of nukes, and need them now.
Europe becomes a lot more nervous about Russian intentions, the EU incorporates the (minus USA) NATO, and Britain and France formally agree to make their nuclear weapons available to a unified strategic command. Which makes Russia more paranoid and belligerent than ever.
Saudi Arabia goes on a crash program to develop its own nuclear weapons. Possibly, if China goes for it, they buy ready-to-use nukes from China in exchange for billions of dollars worth of petroleum.
Say these scenarios are doom and gloom then what specifically justifies our massive defense spending in Asia? If China is the benevolent up and comer and N. Korea seals it fate with a major attack, (can S. Korea win without us.)do we need to be there?
Iran: nuclear capability, destruction of Israel, funding of proxy armies/terrorists etc.
I haven’t seen the movie, but does it assume that US isolationism includes not sending troops and supplies to UN peacekeeping forces? If so, then the UN becomes toothless. (More so even than now.)
The economies of Europe (and Okinawa) would take a hit, as they would have to spend their own money on their own bases, and would lose the local spending from GIs.
North Korea isn’t guaranteed to invade SK, but it becomes more likely, since Kim Jong-Mentally Ill would take it as a commitment that the US would not get involved in the Korean peninsula.
Israel would still exist. Iran’s nuclear development program might not last too long without a visit from Israeli air forces.
The US would still be a naval power, so I doubt the Red Chinese are going to invade Taiwan. Unless the premise is that the US is just not going to do anything even if its interests are attacked.
It would be a lot harder to defend ourselves, which is why the idea is a stupid one, but it might still be possible for a while. Add to that the disilluisionment of the US to find out that all we spend on foreign military aid is a drop in the bucket to our current deficit, and mostly gets spent on subsidies to US weapons companies, and I don’t know how long this isolationism will last.
What, you think we’re going to defund the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans? Because the vast majority of our defense consists of not being on the same landmass as any of our enemies.
Even if you’re a tinpot dictator with a god complex, waging war is still a huge undertaking. Especially if you’re probably going to lose. I remain unconvinced that all of these people in NK or Iran or whatever are just itching at the chance to invade. Even if the US pulls out of SK permanently and says they won’t interfere, I STILL don’t think NK will try to take over SK. For one thing, they’d probably lose. They’d stand to gain little. There are organizations like NATO or the UN who will definitely get involved, and it takes them out of their cushy lifestyle now.
Same with Iran and Israel. The rules of Iran may foment hatred against Israel, but I don’t think they’d launch a pre-emptive attack, no matter what Amadinejad has said in the past, just because they really hate Israel. Hate is one thing. Launching a war with a nuclear capable country for vague goals of religious or ethnic purity is another
Seems like if the US stepped down, China would rise up or crumble depending on how (un)involved we remained with the rest of the world economically. If China crumbles, then it’s up to the EU to get its act together and play world police, and they’ve had a hell of a time of it financially lately as well and may not be up to the task. If China rises, “Iran” would be dealt with swiftly and decisively if China’s attitude about human rights is any indication. China now has the seat AND a decent supply of oil. Securing the western shore of the Gulf would not be considered unwise, so there might be a brief stir in the rest of the ME, but order would probably be quickly restored and maintained.
Cynically: who knows? Maybe if the US kept her fingers in her own gloves for a while peace and stability might run rampant…after a period of adjustment.
I’m not in favor of Israel not existing, but I think you have to give serious consideration to the idea that the ME would be more stable if it wasn’t there, at least in the medium to long term. If the various Arab governments don’t have Israel as an all-purpose boogeyman to explain the ills of their people, they might have to actually do something about things (or be force to by their populations).
Similarly, if the Great Satan has returned to its borders, a lot of the hype for terrorism is going to need a new target.
I don’t know about this - consider what is currently happening in Syria, the Iran-Iraq war, the invasion of Kuwait, all of which have almost nothing to do with Israel. I concur with your hopes that Israel continue to exist, but not because her destruction is going to stabilize the region. Pretty much the opposite - Israel is a nuclear power. If she ever has her back up against the wall, it isn’t going to be pretty. For anyone.
And don’t forget well-educated, dirt poor, and very aggressive culturally. That’d get interesting really fast. Perhaps the plutocrats would give us real opiates this time to keep us down.