U.S. and G.B develop working fusion reactor......

[Ralph]

Well.....just kidding......but lets pretend for a second they did.

We are no longer dependant on the Mid-East for energy. Along with this...there have been sweeping changes in US foreign policy
resulting in a far more "isolationist" approach to the world scene.

Our new leaders have realized the error of our past ways.......and
we have decided to mind our own business.

The US will no longer be the world's policeman.

The US military will begin a massive disarmamant program.
Defensive purposes only..............No more power-projecting carrier groups.

No more stealth bombers.

No more M1 tanks........

The US will send a clear message to the world-----Do what you wish----we won't interfere, as long it it doesn't involve a direct invasion of US soil.

If your country wants to develop nukes---who are we to stop you.

If your country wants to become a training camp for terrorists---that's entirely your business....

We will of course, withdraw our support of Israel..... but neither will we urge restraint----when the next "Sword of Allah" comes along----and Israel does what it needs to do to defend itself.


What will the world be like----if the "evil imperialist US" is no longer carrying that big stick.

Will the world be a better place.......safer......less poverty.......Who'll be the new "cop" on the block.

What about China???.......What about N. Korea???.......Iran...?????

What will be the nature of the world if the US.....just starts minding it's own business like so many feel it should????

[corplinx]

If you think the mideast is full of flaming yahoos now, wait until the poverty rate goes up because they can't sell oil.

Saudi Arabia would buy the plane tickets to take out that reactor with.

[Chaos]

On the other hand, without Saudi money, the funding of these terrorists would dry up pretty quickly. Sooner or later, anything but Afghanistan-style guerilla campaigns and Palestinian-style suicide bombings would stop. No more elaborate plots for attacks on U.S. or European soil.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Chaos
On the other hand, without Saudi money, the funding of these terrorists would dry up pretty quickly. Sooner or later, anything but Afghanistan-style guerilla campaigns and Palestinian-style suicide bombings would stop. No more elaborate plots for attacks on U.S. or European soil. Are you suggesting that one of the benefits of the US disarming would be a decrease in world terrorism?????............

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Ralph
Are you suggesting that one of the benefits of the US disarming would be a decrease in world terrorism?????............

I think he's saying that without the money from oil sales, the terrorists would not be able to fund themselves (regardless of how many weapons the US maintains).

[arcticpenguin]

Should we assume that Bush himself contributed to the fusion breakthrough? (http://www.lns.cornell.edu/~neubert/bush_finds_error.html)

[Sundog]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Should we assume that Bush himself contributed to the fusion breakthrough? (http://www.lns.cornell.edu/~neubert/bush_finds_error.html)

Oh God that's funny.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


I think he's saying that without the money from oil sales, the terrorists would not be able to fund themselves (regardless of how many weapons the US maintains).

Forget the fusion thing I said. The point is the US has decided to disarm and will no longer play the role of the worlds police force........make up your own reasons why it's doing that.

I'm interested in what the state of the world would be under those circumstances......................

[jj]

Within a week somebody would be trying to steal our stuff and/or our land.

That's the truth of it.

Armies are an inefficiency, but since we don't live in the best of all possible worlds, we need the best one.

Sigh.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by jj
Within a week somebody would be trying to steal our stuff and/or our land.

That's the truth of it.

Armies are an inefficiency, but since we don't live in the best of all possible worlds, we need the best one.

Sigh. No-----remember--we are keeping our defenses strong. Invading the US would be suicide. We're simply not going to get involved in other parts of the world.

Countries will be free to develop whatever weapons they desire---without fear of US intervention.....

If you want to invade your neighbor----as long as it's not us---you have no need to fear any US intervention.

There will be no more Iraqs....no more Koreas.....No more Afghanistans............we're pulling back all the troops and they'll simply be used to guard our own borders.

How's the rest of world going to do????????

Will the world be a "better" place??????......................

[ssibal]

We still need to have a strong offensive force, regardless of how strong our defense is. If we are attacked, we need a force to go and wipe out the attacking nation so that they can no longer launch attacks against us. We cannot trust them to not attack again simply because we defeated their invasion.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
Should we assume that Bush himself contributed to the fusion breakthrough? (http://www.lns.cornell.edu/~neubert/bush_finds_error.html)
You had me going there. I thought this was real until I read this:
The Bush correction makes it possible for scientists to further study the tau lepton, a subatomic particle formed by the collision of a tau neutrino and an atomic nucleus.
That was the key that this was a work of fiction. We all know it is a "nuculus."

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Ralph
No-----remember--we are keeping our defenses strong. Invading the US would be suicide.


But that goes against several of your previous posts, where you said:
The US military will begin a massive disarmamant program.
and
The point is the US has decided to disarm

In my opinion, I don't think such actions will keep people from targeting the US, and here's why:

Personally, I think a lot of the resentment over the US is not because of its military force, its because dictators don't like US/western ideals of freedom and democracy (it interferes with their control over the population.) And regardless of how isolationist the US gets, it can never totally isolate itself. It will always need some trade with the rest of the world (the US doesn't have everything it needs, even if its energy can be supplied elsewhere), and its culture (music, movies, etc.) will always be picked up around the world. And it will be hard for your local Islamic fundamentalist to make the next generation of kids pray 30 times a day when they can instead be listening to the latest Brittney spears CD.

So, in order to maintain control, they will still have to target 'the great Satan', even if its limited in its military actions in the world.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


But that goes against several of your previous posts, where you said:
The US military will begin a massive disarmamant program.
and
The point is the US has decided to disarm

In my opinion, I don't think such actions will keep people from targeting the US, and here's why:

Personally, I think a lot of the resentment over the US is not because of its military force, its because dictators don't like US/western ideals of freedom and democracy (it interferes with their control over the population.) And regardless of how isolationist the US gets, it can never totally isolate itself. It will always need some trade with the rest of the world (the US doesn't have everything it needs, even if its energy can be supplied elsewhere), and its culture (music, movies, etc.) will always be picked up around the world. And it will be hard for your local Islamic fundamentalist to make the next generation of kids pray 30 times a day when they can instead be listening to the latest Brittney spears CD.

So, in order to maintain control, they will still have to target 'the great Satan', even if its limited in its military actions in the world.

I probably should've worded my original post differently.
There's been more than the usual amount of US bashing here lately. Sceptics "good vs evil" post (which I tend to agree with)
instigated a lot of it.

AUP seems to jump at every new story he reads that hints of "US evil".....and the "usual suspects" are quick to put their own 2 cents in.

My contention is that despite our faults---a militarily strong US....and our willingness to intervene in other countries.....is all that prevents the world from going from the frying pan to the fire.

I can find things wrong with cops-----but I wouldn't want to live in a society without them.

I'd simply like to see what others--esp the US bashers--feel the world would be like......if we stopped playing cop...........

[Ladewig]

So, someone in Congress is going to stand up and say, "let's spend less money on the military," and then the funding sources of one of the most powerful lobbies in modern America is just going say, "hey, that congressman is right; why don't we make plowshares instead of warships"? I think the Bush/Tau-Lepton-Paths story is more believable. I don't think the military-industrial-Halliburton complex is going to go along with closing overseas bases.

[jj]

Originally posted by Ralph
No-----remember--we are keeping our defenses strong. Invading the US would be suicide. We're simply not going to get involved in other parts of the world.


I regard your statement of the tactics of the situation as fatally flawed. It is not possible to become entirely isolationist and continue to serve our own self-interest.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by jj


I regard your statement of the tactics of the situation as fatally flawed. It is not possible to become entirely isolationist and continue to serve our own self-interest. You're missing the point........

I simply want to know what would happen---if the US stopped being the worlds policeforce.

What might happen if this occurred?????...........

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Ralph
You're missing the point........

I simply want to know what would happen---if the US stopped being the worlds policeforce.

What might happen if this occurred?????...........

Hard to say. The US exercises it's policing power very selectively, only policing things that affect the US. If the US stopped being the police for the things that affect the US, then it would likely be detrimental to the US.

Liberia is an anomaly. There is a strong emotional attachment to Liberia in the US because of its origins. Certainly the US has not interceded in any of the other intertribal wars that ravage Africa. The US had a big effect on ending apartheid in South Africa, but the method of doing so was economic, rather than military.

For a long time, the US would intervene any time a country looked like it was leaning towards communism, which caused us to make some very bad decisions about how to exercise our "police power".

So to answer your question, I think think there wouldn't be much change. Countries that don't rely on us will do whatever they damn well please. Countries dependant on us will pay lip service to our "rules" while hating us for imposing them and trying to find any way around the rules that they can.

Of course, all countries are afraid of our weapons. No country would dare attack us directly (they would use groups like the Taliban to keep the blame off themselves). But what would happen if India and Pakistan got into a big war, as is scarily possible? Would the US step in? Would they nuke Pakistan?

I suspect they would do nothing other than supply one side or perhaps both with weapons while loudly proclaiming that the combatants should "reach a peaceful resolution."

[LucyR]

Originally posted by Tricky


The US had a big effect on ending apartheid in South Africa, but the method of doing so was economic, rather than military.



To assuage their own sense of guilt more than anything else. Just thought I'd interject that.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by LucyR
To assuage their own sense of guilt more than anything else. Just thought I'd interject that.
Yes indeedy! Guilt is a powerful motivating factor. Why do you think the US is giving so many gambling exemptions to Native Americans?

[Ed]

Well, there would be a lot of whining about our responsibilities, blah, blah, blah. People like AUP would blame the US for much that went on in the world that is bad. The A-rabs would (putting their Harvard MBA's to work) would adjust their prices to make our action revenue neutral.... The Frogs would scream a bit but given the size of their Moslem population, would do nothing. They would try to re-exert their anicent influence in a more agressive manner in the mid-east and Africa. The Euro trash countries would have to actually develop stand alone armies. That would probably, along with their aging populations and socialist programs send their economies into the crapper, for which we would be blamed.

The Peoples Paradise of NK would see a wonderful opportunity and would saber rattle. The Japs would take them out with the tacit support of the Chinese. Japanese hegemony would extend through the Korean peninsula, for which we will be blamed. Once again the Pacific will become a Japanese Lake (along with their new found Chinese friends). The Aussies will worry, rightly.

The Germans will put down their beer steins and legal prostitutes and think about past glories and wonder if their time is coming once again. The left in the UK will dust off "appeasement" under a new name. Something like "progressive un-intervention" yeah, that's the ticket.

Because of the costs of their militaries and oil and a general economic malise, the Europeans will cast off a bunch of social programs that they heretofore were so proud of. recipients of social programs will increasingly be viewed as "Parasites".

The brakes will be off fundimental islam. With the restraining influence of the US gone, "indiginous peoples will be able to actualize their historical roots" or some such liberal crap. This will of course allow them to cast covetous eyes on the Ibearian penninsula. Given that they can out-breed effete, well educated europeans 1000 to 1 we will see a replay of the Islamic expansion post 600ce.

The Africans will continue to kill each other throughout this period and will not enter this story again.

In essence we will see a replay of the islamic wars which will take a bit of time to occur as the Europeans adjust their mindset. Since France will be coopted (a cresent will be mounted over Notre Dame by this time) and an Anglo-Teutonic (germany+Scandinavia) allience will be formed and led by a latter day Charles Martel. The "Anglo" part will consist of the reminents of the British Empire, including Canada, NZ, Australia.

They will prevail amidst much bloodshed.

The US will be blamed.

Does this answer your question?

Edit to add: Halliburton will get the contract for world wide reconstruction.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Ed
Well, there would be a lot of whining about our responsibilities, blah, blah, blah. People like AUP would blame the US for much that went on in the world that is bad. The A-rabs would (putting their Harvard MBA's to work) would adjust their prices to make our action revenue neutral.... The Frogs would scream a bit but given the size of their Moslem population, would do nothing. They would try to re-exert their anicent influence in a more agressive manner in the mid-east and Africa. The Euro trash countries would have to actually develop stand alone armies. That would probably, along with their aging populations and socialist programs send their economies into the crapper, for which we would be blamed.

The Peoples Paradise of NK would see a wonderful opportunity and would saber rattle. The Japs would take them out with the tacit support of the Chinese. Japanese hegemony would extend through the Korean peninsula, for which we will be blamed. Once again the Pacific will become a Japanese Lake (along with their new found Chinese friends). The Aussies will worry, rightly.

The Germans will put down their beer steins and legal prostitutes and think about past glories and wonder if their time is coming once again. The left in the UK will dust off "appeasement" under a new name. Something like "progressive un-intervention" yeah, that's the ticket.

Because of the costs of their militaries and oil and a general economic malise, the Europeans will cast off a bunch of social programs that they heretofore were so proud of. recipients of social programs will increasingly be viewed as "Parasites".

The brakes will be off fundimental islam. With the restraining influence of the US gone, "indiginous peoples will be able to actualize their historical roots" or some such liberal crap. This will of course allow them to cast covetous eyes on the Ibearian penninsula. Given that they can out-breed effete, well educated europeans 1000 to 1 we will see a replay of the Islamic expansion post 600ce.

The Africans will continue to kill each other throughout this period and will not enter this story again.

In essence we will see a replay of the islamic wars which will take a bit of time to occur as the Europeans adjust their mindset. Since France will be coopted (a cresent will be mounted over Notre Dame by this time) and an Anglo-Teutonic (germany+Scandinavia) allience will be formed and led by a latter day Charles Martel. The "Anglo" part will consist of the reminents of the British Empire, including Canada, NZ, Australia.

They will prevail amidst much bloodshed.

The US will be blamed.

Does this answer your question?

Edit to add: Halliburton will get the contract for world wide reconstruction.



Yes Ed....this is what I had in mind and thank you for your reply.

Not a very pretty scenario overall.... tho for the most part---I agree. I'm not so sure about the "China & Japan becoming friends" part though.

I see China emerging as the new world military superpower. They may feel it's time for a little payback for what Japan did to them in the 30s and 40s........Japan will be nervous and may start re-arming.....


Gosh amighty tho----I'm being so negative & pessimistic.

I was hoping for a more positive scenario from the US bashers.
With so much of the evil in world today being the US's fault-------I'd think we could expect lots of peace,love, and happiness now that the evil US military will be staying within it's own borders.

As someone allready pointed out.......we can expect LESS terrorism. With no military presence in the Mid-East and no furthur support of Israel........we've removed the reasons for the terrorists to hate us.

How about nuclear proliferation?????? Now---any country that wants to .. can develop their own nukes. Hell--they can even have a missle sub if they want. No longer will we have the tremendous inequity we have today where the US,GB, and Israel have nukes........and Iran,Sudan, and Syria.......do not.

I'm sure all these emerging nuclear powers........will show the same restraint in their use that the US has shown over the last 60 years..........

AUP,Malachi, JIL, Mr.Manifesto...........(visual of Moe, Curly, Larry, and Shemp dressed in those "uniform of the proletariat" Mao suits)............these were the people I really hoped would respond to my post...............Ralph

[Jon_in_london]

Theres more to all the wrolds problems than fusion can solve.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Theres more to all the wrolds problems than fusion can solve. The post wasn't about whether or not perfecting fusion would solve the worlds problems.

It was about what the overall state of the world would be..........if the US made it clear to the world----that it was going to be minding it's own business from now on.

No more support of Israel......no more Afghanistans & Iraqs........no interference if a country chooses to develop WMD....




Do you think the world will be a "better" place if this were to happen??..............

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Ralph
It was about what the overall state of the world would be..........if the US made it clear to the world----that it was going to be minding it's own business from now on.

No more support of Israel......no more Afghanistans & Iraqs........no interference if a country chooses to develop WMD....



Thats a very good and valid question.

I think the answer is both yes and no. I personally advocate that each western democracy does its part in making the world a better place. For that matter, so should each third-world country.

I think the world would be a better place if the US adopted a moral foreign policy rather than a foreign policy based on george bush getting re-elected and getting loads of lucrative contracts for Halliburton.

Of course, I think the UK should also take a look at it FP. So should the French and Germans who seem to be happy to let everyone else to the dirty work...

I should point out though.. WMDs and oil arent the same thing. And WMDs are as much a problem for the US as anyone else, regardless of wherther or not the US has fusion.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Thats a very good and valid question.

I think the answer is both yes and no. I personally advocate that each western democracy does its part in making the world a better place. For that matter, so should each third-world country.

I think the world would be a better place if the US adopted a moral foreign policy rather than a foreign policy based on george bush getting re-elected and getting loads of lucrative contracts for Halliburton.

Of course, I think the UK should also take a look at it FP. So should the French and Germans who seem to be happy to let everyone else to the dirty work...

I should point out though.. WMDs and oil arent the same thing. And WMDs are as much a problem for the US as anyone else, regardless of wherther or not the US has fusion.


That's all well & good.............but it still doesn't answer the question.

I've suggested an IMAGINARY scenario involving sweeping changes in US policy.......mostly related to our whittling down that big stick we carry....to a toothpick.

No more Kuwaits,Iraqs, or Afghanistans.............if country A invades country B......we're staying out of it. Not our business.

If we feel threated...no more "unilateral" action.......we'll go running to the UN and let them deal with it.

No more being the worlds policeman......the UN will handle all that now.

No more support of Israel.........when the next Saladin arrives on the scene and attempts to push the Jews into the sea-------we're staying out of it.

Sure---we'll keep a few nukes...just in case....but most of them will be scrapped. No more power-projecting carrier groups. No more stealth bombers. No more US marine corp.


We'll be getting rid of much of what many people seem to feel is the underlying cause of much of the "evil" & suffering in the world today. I'd just like to know what you feel that world will be like under these circumstances.....It has nothing to do with fusion reactors, George Bush, or what you feel the Western powers should or should not do.

If you look at Eds post-------thats more of what I had in mind.....................Ralph

[LucyR]

Originally posted by Tricky

Yes indeedy! Guilt is a powerful motivating factor. Why do you think the US is giving so many gambling exemptions to Native Americans?

Well, it's a particularly selfish form of guilt. Mind you, I'm not singling out the US, such an accusation can be applied to the Western world in general as far as I'm concerned. Since the collapse of Apartheid more blacks have died violently than ever met their demise at the hands of the Apartheid government. Were talking actual death here, not just the denial of political rights and education, etc. As long as racism is not involved, (more precisely white racism), nobody seems to care.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Ralph



We'll be getting rid of much of what many people seem to feel is the underlying cause of much of the "evil" & suffering in the world today. I'd just like to know what you feel that world will be like under these circumstances.....It has nothing to do with fusion reactors, George Bush, or what you feel the Western powers should or should not do.

If you look at Eds post-------thats more of what I had in mind.....................Ralph

A probable answer is that the amount of evil and suffering stays much the same.

The US would be as safe and secure as today, probably more so. There are no current or likely enemies on your borders and under the scenario you describe no foreign state or alliance would have the ability, or more important, the motive to attack or threaten you. States go to war for good solid reasons involving fear, greed, benefit to the ruling elite and sometimes ideology ( but even then they usually expect financial benefit ). This applies to the US as well, obviously. They do not go to war just because they have some imprecisely defined predisposition to evil.

The risks of Islamic terrorism would decline if the US had no involvement in the Middle East and no longer supported Israel as there would be no motive for significant numbers of muslims to hate the US. Clearly there would be a residual risk of terrorism e.g. "support our cause or we blow up this plane" but this would be a relatively trivial risk. Islamic Fundamentalism would probably go into terminal decline in the absence of an easy to identify external power seen as interfering and manipulating their affairs.

What is quite impossible to quantify is whether serious conflicts are likely to arise as a result of the political vacuum created by a withdrawal of US interest. An example would be whether China is likely to expand agressively in Asia. Does if have the means or the motive? Would it bother trying to invade Taiwan or would it just rely of political pressure and blackmail. It is likely the Taiwanese would settle for a Hongkong style solution without US backing. It is very likely that the Chinese would not tolerate an unreliable nuclear armed N.Korea of their borders ( at present it serves to worry and confuse the US, a good thing in China's book ). So that problem would be "solved".

It should be remembered that these days all the major powers have an interest in and benefit from a stable world order and none could conceivably benefit from a major conflict......unlike the situation in WW1 and WW2 or the cold war. In addition all the important players are ruled by clever technocrats rather than crazed ideologues or the dim offspring of clever fathers.......with the possible exception of the US of course.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Nikk


The risks of Islamic terrorism would decline if the US had no involvement in the Middle East and no longer supported Israel as there would be no motive for significant numbers of muslims to hate the US. Clearly there would be a residual risk of terrorism e.g. "support our cause or we blow up this plane" but this would be a relatively trivial risk. Islamic Fundamentalism would probably go into terminal decline in the absence of an easy to identify external power seen as interfering and manipulating their affairs.



I don't know about that. It appears that they really hate western permissive culture (it is amazing that so many of the real loons of the world seem hung up about sex). As someone said "how do you get the kids to pray 5 times a day when you are up against jolt cola and thong bikinis" or words to that effect. I suppose the question is "why would they not try to 'correct' the west?"

[Ladewig]

Ralph-
I see China emerging as the new world military superpower. They may feel it's time for a little payback for what Japan did to them in the 30s and 40s........Japan will be nervous and may start re-arming.....


I thought the idea about Japan re-arming sounded a bit far-fetched, until I did a bit a research and came up with a timely article (http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/1138.cfm) about the majority of the populace wanting to change the Constitution to allow re-arming.


I am still having a hard time picturing the isolationist policy being put in place when a few hundred thousand people in Miami can control foreign policy through more than a handful of administrations. Even if we did pull out of the Middle-East, it is inconceivable that we would close bases in England, The Phillipines, Cuba, Japan, Korea, and all the other places where the U.S. engages in international trade. Sure we could ignore country A warring with country B, until country A's naval blockade of B's ports prevented American goods from landing. The U.S. navy would show up damned quick.

We can't even close bases in the U.S., how will we close overseas bases?

[gnome]

Personally I think the benefit of fusion power or some other major alternative source of energy, would not be in the ability to "mind our own business," but instead to be able to make wiser choices on intervention. No longer would our middle eastern foreign policy need to be distorted by our need to purchase oil.

We could base our foreign policy on other things, such as human rights... or indeed the terrorism threat. Right now I can seriously imagine the anti-terrorist agenda coming into conflict with our oil interests... if it hasn't already.