PDA

View Full Version : The Future of the US in the World


Porpoise101
March 3rd, 2017, 06:45 PM
What is the US' role in the world? Are we to be the 'world policeman', terrorist hunters, global leaders, or walled off from the world? Discuss.

I think that American leadership is key to the promotion of Western values as well as global stability and economic prosperity. There is no power that is at the level the US is currently, so the only country that has the ability to make and enforce international agreements and such is the US.

Unless one wants to see a world devolved by regional powers bullying each other, it's better to have a single superpower bully everyone else because you can be sure that this power has values positive for the deveopment of mankind.

Critics may call this a type of imperialism, and it is. So what, it's not an inherently harmful type like colonialism was in the preceding centuries. Colonialism was harmful because the benefits were only reaped by one side at best, and at worse, a side lost out in the relationship (almost always the natives). Instead, this type of imperialism is based on the dominion of a nation seeking to enforce a world order agreed upon by representatives of the world. In this way, everyone relinquishes a bit of sovereignty in order to improve everyone's state and guarantee peace. This is superior because it ensures mutual benefits, even if they are not evenly spread out.

In the past, it may have been excusable to not have international structures. But with all of the risk associated with weapons of mass destruction, epidemics, and global pollution, we need some sort of international order to deal with these issues. The US is best-equipped to lead this in conjunction with the international community.

Seraph
March 5th, 2017, 10:46 AM
I have not been to the west for some time and thus I cannot be very sure. But as it looks to me, US reminds me of the Roman Empire in its last days. And yes, I fear history may repeat itself.

bentheplayer
March 6th, 2017, 04:24 AM
Strictly speaking in today’s context, US isn’t the world’s policeman as its role is born out of diplomacy and somewhat global majority mutual agreements. It is not a policeman as it doesn’t have the right to enter other countries without respecting their sovereign rights or without due process in general. The idea is that US is the main form of deterrent used by various countries through mutual defense agreement treaties. This has been a generally mutually beneficial relationship for all involved as the US improves their warfare capabilities and gain defense income through purchase of US made weapons while the partners know that they will have allies to rely on if they are attacked.

This idea of being a world’s policeman is yet again another political marketing rhetoric. There is some truth to this statement but it actually isn’t what most people would think it means.

Currently, I think the US is in too much internal/domestic turmoil to be able to have a functional foreign policy. The current administration is constantly plagued by scandals of leadership and faced with questionable integrity.

This topic is way too wide for serious in depth discussion. Perhaps you might want to break it up into chucks and more specific areas either by geographical region or by topic like terrorism. While these are all somewhat connected, on a whole this is simply too vast for discussion. Role is also rather vague as it could be either idealistic role or pragmatic role.

You might want to read up on the hegemonic stability theory that is mostly under the realm of political science and economics. I am rather interested in foreign policies/affairs as this is one of the few areas that needs a multi-disciplinary approach. One needs to have at least a rudimentary understanding of international law, economics, history, military, regional culture, etc.

Perhaps when you have elaborated further on what you are asking, I might write more when I have the time.

Stronk Serb
March 6th, 2017, 06:23 PM
Strictly speaking in today’s context, US isn’t the world’s policeman as its role is born out of diplomacy and somewhat global majority mutual agreements. It is not a policeman as it doesn’t have the right to enter other countries without respecting their sovereign rights or without due process in general. The idea is that US is the main form of deterrent used by various countries through mutual defense agreement treaties. This has been a generally mutually beneficial relationship for all involved as the US improves their warfare capabilities and gain defense income through purchase of US made weapons while the partners know that they will have allies to rely on if they are attacked.

This idea of being a world’s policeman is yet again another political marketing rhetoric. There is some truth to this statement but it actually isn’t what most people would think it means.

Currently, I think the US is in too much internal/domestic turmoil to be able to have a functional foreign policy. The current administration is constantly plagued by scandals of leadership and faced with questionable integrity.

This topic is way too wide for serious in depth discussion. Perhaps you might want to break it up into chucks and more specific areas either by geographical region or by topic like terrorism. While these are all somewhat connected, on a whole this is simply too vast for discussion. Role is also rather vague as it could be either idealistic role or pragmatic role.

You might want to read up on the hegemonic stability theory that is mostly under the realm of political science and economics. I am rather interested in foreign policies/affairs as this is one of the few areas that needs a multi-disciplinary approach. One needs to have at least a rudimentary understanding of international law, economics, history, military, regional culture, etc.

Perhaps when you have elaborated further on what you are asking, I might write more when I have the time.

A policeman enforces a pre-established law. The US is more of a tyrant, imposing it's will or trying to without any real upholding of the international law.

bentheplayer
March 6th, 2017, 08:36 PM
A policeman enforces a pre-established law. The US is more of a tyrant, imposing it's will or trying to without any real upholding of the international law.

Thats why I said US isn't the policeman of the world. Its the same with all countries that mostly act with self interest in mind. Historically, US has only acted when their own interests or certain allies are at risk. To call itsself the world's policeman is an overstatement.

Porpoise101
March 7th, 2017, 06:06 PM
Stronk Serb I think I half-agree with you. The US does enforce the law, but not fairly. It is not accountable to international law and neither are those countries that would have the capacity to negatively retaliate against it.
bentheplayer This thread was more of a way for people to discuss what they think the US should do to other countries in the world, with some justfication why they think that way. By role I mean the way the US conducts itself in the world.

Here are some general questions that you can feel free to answer, and feel free to be broad. I am just trying to get an idea of what people think during this time.

Should the US be an active part of the world or should it keep to itself generally?
If the US acts, should it employ military force?
How should the US deal with international problems like terrorism?
If there is a country you look to as a leader rather than the US (now or in the future), what country would that be?

bentheplayer
March 7th, 2017, 10:48 PM
The US isn't the only country that enforces international law such as the law of the sea. Most huge countries are not exactly held accountable to international law either such as China and Russia.

Whether US should keep to itself or play an active role depends on its objectives. It would seem that Trump supporters want to be loners. Either way it doesn't really matter.

The use of military force is not always applicable. This is still too broad.

Considering that terrorism is a creation of the US, obviously they should take responsible. Also, most terror attacks are on the West so yeah obviously they should as there is little incentive for other countries to act when it doesn't affect them as much.

No country can ever be a true leader in today's world as no country can hold a monopoly on wisdom or morality. Even under the hegemony theory, many would agree that US is gradually losing its "power". I used to joke with some other people that we probably don't have even bullets to fight a war with China/India if everyone in China or India choose to invade any mid-sized country. US has approx 300mil ppl while China and India has at least 1.2 bil ppl each. 4 to 1. Based on warfare one needs (3-7) to 1 or for a near definitive victory. So still think u can afford to not invest in the military?

Porpoise101
March 9th, 2017, 07:49 PM
I used to joke with some other people that we probably don't have even bullets to fight a war with China/India if everyone in China or India choose to invade any mid-sized country. US has approx 300mil ppl while China and India has at least 1.2 bil ppl each. 4 to 1. Based on warfare one needs (3-7) to 1 or for a near definitive victory. So still think u can afford to not invest in the military? I feel like you neglect the power of technology. In WW2, the Western Allies in general avoided the casualties of the USSR because of artillery techniques and bombing. Combined arms and naval warfare can reduce the manpower needed to inflict massive amounts of damage. I think that one can easily devastate a nation of millions with a few thousand aviators, soldiers, and sailors.

I think war is not anything that people want to pursue in terms of conquest any more, except in a few circumstances. Instead, the main type of war nowadays are rebels (terrorism is apart of this) and organized civil war. The US has reason to support the factions it deems worthy because it reinforces the international order that it wants everyone to follow to some extent.

bentheplayer
March 10th, 2017, 01:05 AM
I feel like you neglect the power of technology. In WW2, the Western Allies in general avoided the casualties of the USSR because of artillery techniques and bombing. Combined arms and naval warfare can reduce the manpower needed to inflict massive amounts of damage. I think that one can easily devastate a nation of millions with a few thousand aviators, soldiers, and sailors.

I think war is not anything that people want to pursue in terms of conquest any more, except in a few circumstances. Instead, the main type of war nowadays are rebels (terrorism is apart of this) and organized civil war. The US has reason to support the factions it deems worthy because it reinforces the international order that it wants everyone to follow to some extent.

I didn't neglect tech. That is why I said it was a joke but one that could end up being true depending on circumstances. Modern warfare is a pretty complex operation and there are many components like logistics, tech advantage, manpower, natural resource etc. Since WW2, a number of weapons of mass destruction have been banned. China and India are both focusing on defense too and China is rapidly catching up. Don't forget that China has various mineral resource while US has no rare metal mines so in a drawn out war, US might not have the resource to continue producing weapons.

In terms of supporting fractions in civil war, US is not being a policeman but rather doing so out of self interest. They want a sympathetic government installed so that the US can reap economic benefit off those regions once the war is over. There is a pretty huge industry in this aspect and a lo of them are US companies.

Porpoise101
March 10th, 2017, 10:01 PM
Since WW2, a number of weapons of mass destruction have been banned These weapons are only going to be banned as long as the US dominates international institutions. As the US weakens, "rogue states" can be emboldened to create their own contraband. I say rogue in the sense that these countries disregard the general order of the world. In this way, the authoritarian and militant countries of the world will have a perpetual advantage because they undermine the interests of the US.

I mention this because the economic desires involved in regime change are not alone. For the US to not have their order dissolve and snowball out of control, they need to use preventative warfare and other illegal (but justified practices) to maintain the system of cooperation, peace, and trade in the world.

bentheplayer
March 10th, 2017, 11:52 PM
These weapons are only going to be banned as long as the US dominates international institutions. As the US weakens, "rogue states" can be emboldened to create their own contraband. I say rogue in the sense that these countries disregard the general order of the world. In this way, the authoritarian and militant countries of the world will have a perpetual advantage because they undermine the interests of the US.

I mention this because the economic desires involved in regime change are not alone. For the US to not have their order dissolve and snowball out of control, they need to use preventative warfare and other illegal (but justified practices) to maintain the system of cooperation, peace, and trade in the world.

Lol as if US cares. US only cares if there is some kind of benefit from intervention. North Korea has been there for so long anyways and how about all that atrocities done in Africa? In international relations, at least now, it seems that the trend is not in my backyard. US soldiers are rarely seen as a force of good but most smart political leaders want the guarantee of help from the US aircraft carriers which can respond quickly. However with new Chinese arms, the carriers might be becoming an outdated tactical advantage.

Katie96xox
March 17th, 2017, 09:28 AM
Using American soldiers as human fodder to slaughter innocent Arabs will not achieve global stability and economic prosperity, no matter how many erections it gives John McCain.

How has it worked out so far? Ronald Reagan funds Arab terrorists to make them powerful. George Bush and Bill Clinton start bombing these empowered Arab's families leading them to kill 3000 Americans. To avenge the deaths of 3000 Americans George W Bush sends 5000 Americans to their deaths in Middle East in an illegal war. He also destroys a stable government to allow Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to create ISIS. At the same time Obama and Clinton were overthrowing a bad but relatively harmless dictator in Egypt so the Muslim Brotherhood could take control and also doing something similar in Libya. Now people are calling on America to overthrow Assad so that terrorists can take control of Syria. The same people are also demanding that America weakens Russia and Iran who are some of the main nations stopping ISIS from total dominance in the region. Meanwhile, Donald Trump is joining in the Saudi led assault on Yemen which is making al Qaeda stronger than it was even in its halcyon days. Keeping in mind that Saudi Arabia is the number one supporter of terrorism of any middle eastern country.

Trillions are spent on this as people right around America are plunged into poverty. So as I said, if this gives John McCain an erection then all power to him and anyone else who gets horny off of this shit, but forgive me for failing to see the benefits.

Porpoise101
March 25th, 2017, 10:31 AM
Lol as if US cares. US only cares if there is some kind of benefit from intervention. North Korea has been there for so long anyways and how about all that atrocities done in Africa? I don't know if you've been watching the news, but NK actually serves as a good example. The US has been working to put them down every since their existence because they actively assist states that the US doesn't like and wants​the international community to shun (think Iran and Cuba). Efforts have been intensifying since the 90s to get them to fall in line, but the US just wasn't capable enough as a world power to have them pacified. They did this because they recognized that the cost of negotiating and mitigating future problems within the global system is more important than letting the North Koreans free reign in their corner. It's gotten so bad that even China is giving them the cold shoulder.

bentheplayer
March 25th, 2017, 10:38 AM
I don't know if you've been watching the news, but NK actually serves as a good example. The US has been working to put them down every since their existence because they actively assist states that the US doesn't like and wants​the international community to shun (think Iran and Cuba). Efforts have been intensifying since the 90s to get them to fall in line, but the US just wasn't capable enough as a world power to have them pacified. They did this because they recognized that the cost of negotiating and mitigating future problems within the global system is more important than letting the North Koreans free reign in their corner. It's gotten so bad that even China is giving them the cold shoulder.

I think you are confusing the issue here. The reason NK exists is because of aid from China which is using NK as a geographical barrier between SK (ie US) and them. NK hardly has the resources to assist other states. The real reason US is so actively involved is due to NK thinly veiled threat to nuke the US as soon as they develop such a capability.

Porpoise101
March 25th, 2017, 10:59 AM
NK hardly has the resources to assist other states. The Juche Idea and repressive policy goes a long way for justifying this kind of action. While it's true that arms exports have diminished since the fall of the USSR, the conditions outlined here (https://fas.org/irp/dia/product/knfms/knfms_chp3a.html) have changed relatively​ little. Before the Iran nuclear deal, North Korea clandestinely supplied some rudimentary equipment to them for example.

The nuclear issue is just a way for the US to build up International credibility and justification for this new campaign.

bentheplayer
March 25th, 2017, 11:38 AM
The Juche Idea and repressive policy goes a long way for justifying this kind of action. While it's true that arms exports have diminished since the fall of the USSR, the conditions outlined here (https://fas.org/irp/dia/product/knfms/knfms_chp3a.html) have changed relatively​ little. Before the Iran nuclear deal, North Korea clandestinely supplied some rudimentary equipment to them for example.

The nuclear issue is just a way for the US to build up International credibility and justification for this new campaign.

Yup it was true that they did those stuff back then but now it is getting harder. Atm NK seems to be in dire need of forex till the point that they have been sending their own people overseas to work. If you are interested in defence issues, Janes IHS is an extremely useful resource. The last I heard of NK is that there is some kind of internal political turmoil in recent months. Who knows?

The main concern would be of a rogue nation with nuke capabilities. NK isn't exactly famous for having accurate missile. There is a very high probability of problems in the event NK starts using them. In some sense it might even be better to be their target since the chance of their missile missing the target is pretty high.