Superpower - the inevitable fall of the U.S?

The US is basically bankrupt, can it afford to keep patrolling the world on behalf of everyone else? Why do it when plenty of other nations can do a decent enough job of it. Having the biggest force in certain classes of the military does not guarantee victory. China has a larger army in terms of numbers but it doesn't have the technology or training available to the likes of US soldiers.

Why worry about patroling the Oceans, the UK can do that. They've been doing it since before the US existed and they've been better at it than anyone else.

Overstreching is what causes a nation's downfall. Plenty of other nations can look after themselves they don't need protecting. The US can help if it is asked to but otherwise don't go assuming every other nation is too weak to stand up for itself. Plus it will save the US money in the long term if it doesn't try to be the world's military.

 

If we withdraw from certain bases, like Japan and South Korea, then the balance of power will be shifted and the entire region will militarize. Which is good for no one. Nevermind the value of US military bases to local economies.

I do not think overseas bases are even a large portion of the defense budget (though I could be wrong).

 

HAHAHAHAHAH Only would the French call an evacuation an "intervention." They should just replace all those pictures of military looking planes with little guys running away. Man I am sure grateful for the US intervening in that war with Lebanon.

And even the little Blue soldiers are just peacekeeping missions, and I have to say I am thoroughly impressed by the peace they have kept in Somalia since 1992.

Edit: Oh I'm sorry my French sucks, I guess "les interventions militaries" must mean retreat.

 

Yup, your French does suck & your interpretation is off. What, threatened in your national masculinity are we? What does your little display of gallophobia have to do with anything, if I may ask?

 

Well we may fall from being a superpower, but as long as we can still make fun of the French we'll at least still have our manhood.

 

A historic moment: we are witnessing the inevitable fall of this thread.

 

U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!

I wouldn't make fun of those interventions though, 'cause French 'intervention' usually isn't all that pretty, nor 'funny' :0 I'd post the link, but it might break some rules on the JCC, but you can always look up the video clip to Monsieur R - FranSSe ... if you want to see the African viewpoint on it.

 

I'm not saying have no overseas bases. Places like Korea are unstable and need support. But why does the US need bases in every major western nation? Are those nations going to attack you? Are they incapable of defending themselves?

Don't fall for some illusion that military bases are for the defense of other nations and benefit anyone except the nation they represent. How exactly does a military base help local economy, do the soldiers help out with local jobs? As if Germany needs help with its economy, considering it's had nearly 3% economic growth this year. Maybe their troops should help the US with local economy....

 

Wow, I see the British fantasy land is still going strong.


The Royal Navy gave up the global power-projection ability when they retired their last carrier in the 1970s.

 

The Navy still has carriers and many other ships. Having greater numbers does not ensure victory.
Besides, I didn't suggest the Royal Navy would take over patrolling the world's oceans, only that it doesn't need the US to protect it. Neither does most of Europe anymore (There is a NATO combined global force you know and the EU states look out for each other). If it is needed it will be called upon. Most western nations with sea access can look after themselves well enough, as can most in military ground battles.
USA needs to stop acting as though it has some all powerful army that can do everything by itself and will single-handedly save the world.

Vietnam worked out really well didn't it?
How is the Middle East "victory" going against dudes with AK-47s and home-made bombs?

 

But Richie, you also have to stop lumping all sorts of very different ideas under a single umbrella:

The Navy still has carriers and many other ships. Having greater numbers does not ensure victory. Besides, I didn't suggest the Royal Navy would take over patrolling the world's oceans, only that it doesn't need the US to protect it.

Except the Royal Navy doesn't have blue water supercarriers, it has what are called "pocket" carriers or "light" carriers. For example, a US supercarrier may displace 100,000tons (such as the Nimitz, which is actually an older design) compared to the Royal Navy's 22,000ton carrier displacement. The new Queen Elizabeth design displaces 55,000tons, which would bump it up to medium carrier size. But the Royal Navy doesn't have the capability for carrier group protection, so I bet the new British carriers are going to operate in tandem with the US Navy. The British armed forces also rely on the US Air Force for global heavy airlifting capabilities.

The point is that cooperation and continued integration is the theme, which is actually planned on by the UK Ministry of Defense.

Neither does most of Europe anymore (There is a NATO combined global force you know and the EU states look out for each other).

And here's the double edged sword. Because let's look at the troop breakdown for Afghanistan:

US-50,000
UK-9,000
Canada-2,800
France-3,500
Germany-4,500
The rest of the countries comprise just a handful each.

The ongoing operation in Afghanistan is NATO mission, but realistically, its a US mission with allied help. This has been the norm since the US assumed the bulk of the UN operation in Korea, and has continued from the Sinai to the Balkans and everywhere in between. Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. But you can't simply say the US needs to stop acting like a policeman, when in fact, the rest of the world defaults to this arrangement. If you really think the other countries are being forced into this relationship, then they're doing it with a nod, a wink, and a handshake.

Vietnam worked out really well didn't it?

Except Vietnam was a major cold war proxy war fought with a WWII mentality. Conscripted troops still fought in it. The US quickly learned and adapted, (the helicopter, the M16 rifle, modern ground attack tactics, etc..) but you have to account for the transition. The US military missed a technology transition phase because of Vietnam, but afterward, vaulted to becoming the technological leader. And not just a leader, being 2-3 design cycles ahead.

How is the Middle East "victory" going against dudes with AK-47s and home-made bombs?

Again though, you have to define what you're talking about. The initial ground invasion in Iraq was over within weeks, with unopposed military success. If Iraq, as a military objective, was about simply winning a war, US troops would have been home in late 2003. However, both Afghanistan and Iraq highlight the challenges of nation building, which are just as much political goals as they are military goals.

I just don't think anyone has to be so snarky to look at the obvious relationship that exists between everything being examined here.

 

You seem to have overlooked the fact that the US army has many more troops than most allied nations that are "assisting" with various conflicts. The US can spare 50,000 troops, the UK can't as it has other stations to occupy as well as home defense. Same with most European countries.
UK does have the advantage of Commonwealth support in its endevours, although they obviously all operate under their own national flags instead of just being additions to the British Army. But they will always help out if needed.

I don't object to the US being the world police force, they certainly have the resources to do it. What I object to is them saying they fight for freedom and justice throughout the whole world yet they only serve in conflicts that directly benefit them. A real fighter for justice would target all violators. In the end it's still a self-serving nation pretending it's not doing things for its own ends.

Plus the whole air of "no-one can do anything without the awesomeness of America helping them out" type thing.
The Team America theme song tends to say it best.

 

Yeah, this is what I mean though. I don't think that it should be seen as a negative either. But realistically, that's the paradigm that's still upheld.

There's no stronger military bond that exists between The US, the UK, Canada, and Australia. The sheer level of integration has never existed before. But the relationship brings obvious strengths and weaknesses for each. The US is the face, and as such, gets both the blame and the glory. Realistically, I just don't think the UK could undertake another Falkland Islands operation without the US. A large part of this reality has been engineered by design by the UK MOD.

Or on another level, when the entirety of Europe voted to interceded in the genocide that was occurring in the former Yugoslavia, nothing happened until the US took the lead, and this was with NATO rapid reaction force sitting in Europe. I mean, Dutch UN troops stood by and watched during the Srebrenica massacre, which resulted in the largest mass killing since WWII, simply because they didn't want to risk getting involved. The US had zero interest in the Balkans, except for ideological goals. At any rate, it resulted in 12 years of US troops being stationed in another European country. One can look to all sorts of examples were the US got involved in conflicts which didn't directly benefit it.

But if anyone wants change, and I'm not sure if any of the Western powers want to change the relationship, it has to involve a top-down assessment.

 

What will be interesting is seeing whether or not China commits to more overseas military engagements with other forces as it becomes more of a "superpower" in its own right. Having the biggest economy as it one day will and no doubt becoming an important world leading nation it will be required to take on more roles as the US does now.

 

Though I agree with the notion that the US saved the day in former Yugoslavia, I feel obliged to correct the conclusion that the Dutch were chicken: they were dumb and naieve. But more importantly, the Dutch depended on French air assistance which was never greenlighted.

 

Though I agree with the notion that the US saved the day in former Yugoslavia, I feel obliged to correct the conclusion that the Dutch were chicken: they were dumb and naieve. But more importantly, the Dutch depended on French air assistance which was never greenlighted.

Well, eh, the French have already been eloquently mentioned in this thread...

But I wouldn't even say the Dutch troops were chicken, dumb, or naieve. They were paralyzed by red tape and bureaucracy. Which is the other reason why I think it's so easy for other nations to continue to default to the US for this role even after the cold war. I'd say there is no other nation that is more ideological than the US. In the above example if the US was there, the unit specific officer/NCO in charge would have the authority to act, and most likely would. Unless the odds were like 500 FRY troops vs a squad of 9 US soldiers (and even then it wouldn't surprise me if they took on those odds as well), I couldn't see US troops waiting in idling vehicles like the Dutch did because that was extent of their orders.

Again, this perception..reality..expectation..whatever you want to call it- both works for and against the US, but I also think its something that other nations rely on.