[deMolay]

What will be the worldwide effects of the USA ending it's role as the World's policeman. Due to the economic collapse. The same thing happened to Great Britain. Let's suppose that the economic collapse is so great that the USA no longer can afford a 7 Seas Navy and pulls back to true national defense only. What will that mean worldwide? What will happen to globalism? What will it mean at the local level?

[EnergyUnlimited]

What will be the worldwide effects of the USA ending it's role as the World's policeman. Due to the economic collapse. The same thing happened to Great Britain. Let's suppose that the economic collapse is so great that the USA no longer can afford a 7 Seas Navy and pulls back to true national defense only. What will that mean worldwide? What will happen to globalism? What will it mean at the local level?

It will mean freedom of nations from unwarranted intrusion.

Darker side include increased frequency of local/regional wars, proliferation of atomic weapons and other WMDs etc.
Why do you ask?
You probably know it...

[Fishman]

EU
You contradict yourself

"It will mean freedom of nations from unwarranted intrusion.
Darker side include increased frequency of local/regional wars"

You are saying unwarranted intrusion will just take another form. I think it will probably be far more brutal.

[Cloud9]

We are stepping back into the 1930's. The Hitlers and Stalins of the world are just now warming up.

[retiredguy]

Those new Hitlers and Stalins are going to run into the same problem as the US: money and energy to run their military machines.

I see a lot of local conflicts, especially over resources, much like what happened during the Middle Ages.

[Blacksmith]

One thing is for certain, the United Nations will be helpless.

We may see nations protecting thier own interests, similar to their reaction to Somali pirates.

Then again I don't see why the US taxpayer should have to pay to police the world without deriving any economic benifit.

[deMolay]

As I said the cost of projecting power around the world would mean cuts in the military and a drawing back of the US Empire the same as Great Britain in her decline. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first10 ... icit-half/

[mos6507]

The european welfare state will suffer when the EU has to spend more of its resources on its own military protection. Japan will have to be allowed to have an unfettered military. The house of Saud may fall to extremism. Pakistan as well.

[EnergyUnlimited]

EU
You contradict yourself

"It will mean freedom of nations from unwarranted intrusion.
Darker side include increased frequency of local/regional wars"

You are saying unwarranted intrusion will just take another form. I think it will probably be far more brutal.

I presume you are considering wars less brutal if US military is involved.

[Snowrunner]

One thing is for certain, the United Nations will be helpless.

Umm, the United Nations was never designed as an "intervention force". The whole thing with Peace Keepers was an "afterthought" by Lester B. Pearson (then PM of Canada).

"Attempts will be made" but the UN was never able to do more than that.

We may see nations protecting thier own interests, similar to their reaction to Somali pirates.

They always have, they just did it less openly.

I think we will see a lot more regional conflicts and "scores will be settled" but it really depends on the part of the world you are in.

Then again I don't see why the US taxpayer should have to pay to police the world without deriving any economic benifit.

Oh come on now, the American Empire wasn't build to bring freedom and prosperity to those parts of the world that weren't the US, it was done to guarantee the prosperity of the Homeland.

In the long run the world will not be off any worse or better than if the US would be there.... People WILL find a way to make things work, otherwise they won't be around and nobody will have to worry.

[Snowrunner]

The european welfare state will suffer when the EU has to spend more of its resources on its own military protection.

From whom? Russia? They want trade. Africa? Possible, but the refugees are more of a problem than military invasion.

Europe isn't in such a bad position. Russia will have much more problems with the Chinese right at the underbelly of the Russian Empire.

Japan will have to be allowed to have an unfettered military.

Again, why? They are a nation of Islands with no real strategic or resource benefit. China couldn't care less really, they will have their hands full.

The house of Saud may fall to extremism. Pakistan as well.

Yes, I agree with that assessment. Both are already on the verge and are only kept in power because of US intervention.

[deMolay]

It will be a much more dangerous world, for everyone from the seafaring traders to the hungry of Africa. The unintended consequence will be huge. It will be much better for the American people tax wise. As they will no longer have to carry the burden of keeping the sealanes safe for all international trade. They will merely concern themselves with their own affairs again. Without the American hammer over the heads of many of the radical nations the news will become more violent. The UN may as well leave and send all the unelected parasites home. I think it will be a good and positive thing for North America. The closing of hundreds or thousands of American outposts or bases will be a big drain for local governments who count on the American spending in their countries. It will also drain their treasuries keeping their neighbours from taking what they want. It will bring an increase in the threat of global conflict. But on this idea of Obama's I have to agree with him. Bring them all home protect National interests and let the rest of them go to hell. It really is not the West's responsibility to keep feeding and protecting the world. Perhaps we will see a new alliance form an Anglo Alliance. Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, Canada and the USA.

[deMolay]

I found this link on the US Military scope worldwide. Incredible. Over 1,000,000 employed, and the cost in 2003 was about 500B per year. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=5564

[mos6507]

The european welfare state will suffer when the EU has to spend more of its resources on its own military protection.

From whom? Russia? They want trade. Africa? Possible, but the refugees are more of a problem than military invasion.

Europe isn't in such a bad position. Russia will have much more problems with the Chinese right at the underbelly of the Russian Empire.

Japan will have to be allowed to have an unfettered military.

Again, why? They are a nation of Islands with no real strategic or resource benefit. China couldn't care less really, they will have their hands full.

The house of Saud may fall to extremism. Pakistan as well.

Yes, I agree with that assessment. Both are already on the verge and are only kept in power because of US intervention.

Helloooo. Peakoil.com. You know, catton, overpopulation, climate refugees, resource wars? Don't assume the EU or Japan will never face a military threat.

[Snowrunner]

Helloooo. Peakoil.com. You know, catton, overpopulation, climate refugees, resource wars? Don't assume the EU or Japan will never face a military threat.

Peakoil won't be a concern in the immideate future, nor in the next 20 years per-se because with much reduced economic activity the need for oil and resources in general will be diminished, it will have us bought some time.

Europe's military position is more towards the South and Africa where they have to make sure they don't get overrun by refugees there, but this is hardly a military role per-se at least not in the sense that you need to buy heavy equipment etc.

Yes, there will be resource conflict but the countries that have to worry about it will be the ones who actually HAVE the resources that means Russia, the Middle East and Canada (mainly).

What would anybody want with either Europe or Japan? Neither of them have enough resources for their own population so an invasion would be a waste of money.

There COULD be a resource war where either of these would strike out at someone else who has the resources, but who could they go after? It would only leave Russi and then they have China to deal with.

I think more likely that Europe will move closer to Russi and provides assitance against the Chinese, Japan would probably consider something similar.

[dorlomin]

What will be the worldwide effects of the USA ending it's role as the World's policeman. Due to the economic collapse. The same thing happened to Great Britain. Let's suppose that the economic collapse is so great that the USA no longer can afford a 7 Seas Navy and pulls back to true national defense only. What will that mean worldwide? What will happen to globalism? What will it mean at the local level?

The British empire ceased to be as it became unprofitable not because of the UKs economic collapse. It became unprofitable mostly when the Indians began serious internal resistance to British rule meaning that in the 30s Britain was seriously moving to exit India. The meme that the Brits left because of WWII is largely lazy historiography. The UK was subsequently ejected from Africa by Soviet backed resistance movements and the fact that those territories had a decidedly negative cashflow.

In many respects it was squeezed out of its empire by other, more powerful powers seeking to replace its formal control with zones of their informal control i.e. the US and the Soviets. Post war economic weakness was in part responsible in that the US had economic leavers over the British to break up the Empire trade block for 'free trade'. This was an important part of the Bretton Woods era economic planning.

The UK has subsequently gone on to be vastly wealthier than it was during it imperial heyday.

The US has never been a 'world policeman'. This is a meme used to sell its imperialism to a population inherently hostile to the idea of empire. Couple of instructive examples....

During the East Pakistan crisis of 1971, hundreds of thousands and perhaps up to 3 million people were killed in a deliberate genocide aimed at terrorizing Bangladeshi Muslims and exterminating Bangladeshi Hindus. The US moved a carrier into the area to try to discourage India from intervening to bring a halt to the carnage.

The US is very widely regarded as having green lighted the Indonesian invasion of East Timor which lead to the deaths of up to 200 000 East Timorese (largely Christian).

The US was very active in supporting the Iraqi invasion of Iran that lead to in excess of 800 000 deaths.

During its hijinks in South East Asia in the 60s and 70s the various wars down there killed somewhere between 2 000 000 and 3 000 000 civilians.

The list goes on and on an on. The US military presence round the world is aimed at preventing alternative economic systems, local nationalization of resources, independent development and to ensure as much access to all markets as can be obtained for US companies where ever possible.

Its a more of a mafia don making sure no one encroaches upon its turf than a bobby on the beat.

The idea that the US will retreat from this is laughable. What is looking like changing is a more 'republican' style management of empire. The neoconservatives were ex-democrats who sought to actively intervene in the world to spread liberty while opening the globe for the US business. The new administration is looking like a return to the realities of a Eisenhower or Nixon from the fantasies of the neocons. Hard power will be less obvious as the president and his team charm the world......... this will be permitted because it is a much cheaper way to run an empire, let the Iranians get on with being Iranian, but sell us the oil instead of threatening to 'liberate' them all the time. It’s a cheaper means of doing the same thing.

Less troops in South Korea, Germany and Iraq is not the same as no troops.

[ReverseEngineer]

The UK has subsequently gone on to be vastly wealthier than it was during it imperial heyday.

By what measure? Last time I checked, the UK was about broke and the Pound Sterling was making the Dollar look like a strong currency. How does being massively in debt make you wealthy?

Reverse Engineer

[mos6507]

let the Iranians get on with being Iranian, but sell us the oil instead of threatening to 'liberate' them all the time.

Do you have a problem with that? You believe in absolute isolationism? The oil doesn't do Iran any good until it's sold to somebody.

[dorlomin]

The UK has subsequently gone on to be vastly wealthier than it was during it imperial heyday.

By what measure? Last time I checked, the UK was about broke and the Pound Sterling was making the Dollar look like a strong currency. How does being massively in debt make you wealthy?

Reverse Engineer

Compare the lifestyle of the median British income today to that of the 1930s when they were citizens of a state that ruled 1/4 of the world......

[dorlomin]

let the Iranians get on with being Iranian, but sell us the oil instead of threatening to 'liberate' them all the time.

Do you have a problem with that? You believe in absolute isolationism? The oil doesn't do Iran any good until it's sold to somebody.

Sorry, perhaps I wrote badly. I was not advocating any particular position, just passing my view on the way things are.