American Imperialism in the future?

[Seatbeltnazi]

American Imperialism in the future? If we slide out of superpower status, our economy goes into decline, we run out of oil, or any number of things, I don't see why we wouldn't start invading people. I mean if it comes down to it I think we would adopt an It's Us or Them attitude and just start taking shit. There is a reason we have over 800 military bases worldwide.

If the whole world is going to shit, I see no problem taking whatever it takes to keep America going because as long as we stay aloft we will always come and save Europe first, then everyone else eventually. Or maybe not, who knows. But out military is too advanced compared to others to think we wouldn't use it if we needed to.

[Malachy]

Historically the US likes to revert to isolationism. We weren't the "first" to save Europe in either World War... In fact the US was so emotionally scarred by WWI that it went right back to non-intervention for the most part until Pearl Harbor dragged us kicking and screaming back into the international stage. The isolation was so quick that the League of Nations that Wilson practically built was never ratified by the US in the wake of WWI. The Great Depression didn't help tthings either.

If we are going to hit hard times, don't you think we'd pretty quickly lose any technological edge in the military as well? Imagine trying to play a video game with a 10 year old computer...Technology moves fast and it's expensive. If the US doesn't have enough money to keep itself a superpower it sure as hell isn't going to have any floating around for R&D for the military. If anything, I would imagine the US would revert to isolationism in the circumstances you have explained.

In such circumstances we may see drastic austarity measures that would include cuts to defense spending. We'd close many of those 800 bases (which are based on a post-WWII-cold-war strategy and is pretty outdated as it is). When the likely successors of our supremacy are China or India as far as economically and militarily is concerned...all those bases in pretty stable Europe won't do much of any good to start any more wars.

We are also stuck in 2 wars in the Middle East...Our foreign policy wouldn't be geared toward a new super power because it isn't coming out of that region in any event. And it's not like the US is going to just start randomly invading countries to try and get its clout back.

No, I believe that it would be isolationism in the circumstances you have suggested and not (expensive) military aggression.

[Seatbeltnazi]

My thought though, is more in line with a resource war or something of that nature where without military intervention, the United States and the rest of the would would slide into decline slowly over time.

[altanese-mistress]

At 4/30/11 08:37 AM, Seatbeltnazi wrote: My thought though, is more in line with a resource war or something of that nature where without military intervention, the United States and the rest of the would would slide into decline slowly over time.

Who would the United States invade? What resources are we talking about? Would it be a combined effort of the United States and it's (many) allies, or a solo thing? Is this near-future (before 2040)? How would the United States have resources to spare for major military action? For that matter, if the entire world is declining, how would a war solve anyone's problems?

[Warforger]

At 4/30/11 12:23 AM, Seatbeltnazi wrote: American Imperialism in the future? If we slide out of superpower status, our economy goes into decline, we run out of oil, or any number of things, I don't see why we wouldn't start invading people. I mean if it comes down to it I think we would adopt an It's Us or Them attitude and just start taking shit. There is a reason we have over 800 military bases worldwide.

It's mostly because of NATO and UN things along with leftovers from the Cold War that the people who have them in their territory would rather have as to not have to spend money on military like say Japan or Germany.

If the whole world is going to shit, I see no problem taking whatever it takes to keep America going because as long as we stay aloft we will always come and save Europe first, then everyone else eventually. Or maybe not, who knows. But out military is too advanced compared to others to think we wouldn't use it if we needed to.

Technically our military is not as good as we think it is, the Abrams tank is behind British and French tanks, the Soviets made an attack helicopter that was superior and cheaper then to the Apache etc. etc. Nevermind that we're losing industrial capacity we once had since much of it is imported, I mean China right now will probably have the most industrial capacity so if we fight them they can more easily replace their destroyed equipment then we can, even if it is sub-par in comparison to ours it'll still overcome us just like what happened in WWII with the Americans and Germans.

[Camarohusky]

Imperialism is expensive. If America is having money problems, what makes you think it'll embark on such an expensive campaign?

[JudgeDredd]

At 4/30/11 09:03 AM, altanese-mistress wrote: What resources are we talking about?

For argument sake, let's just say worldwide runaway inflation. ie. collapse of all currencies.

[adrshepard]

At 4/30/11 12:07 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Imperialism is expensive. If America is having money problems, what makes you think it'll embark on such an expensive campaign?

That's the key to everything right there. Iraq was not a "resource" war. If all the US wanted was oil, then it would have very easy to appropriate the wells and refineries, draw back from major populated areas, and take whatever we wanted while the country was too fractured and chaotic to do anything about it.
But in that case, everyone would be upset, especially Americans, and so it will never happen. More likely we will see limited interventions like the one in Libya.

At 4/30/11 11:45 AM, Warforger wrote: ...China right now will probably have the most industrial capacity so if we fight them they can more easily replace their destroyed equipment then we can, even if it is sub-par in comparison to ours it'll still overcome us just like what happened in WWII with the Americans and Germans.

That's true, but in terms of overall ability, the US is still very much in the lead. China's military is growing, but its influence is limited to China and its immediate surroundings, whereas we have the logistical capability to deploy forces anywhere in the world. Ultimately, these sort of comparisons are pointless right now since there's no realistic scenario where the US and any other major army would engage each other, short of some bizarre invasion.

[Warforger]

At 4/30/11 12:12 PM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 4/30/11 09:03 AM, altanese-mistress wrote: What resources are we talking about?

For argument sake, let's just say worldwide runaway inflation. ie. collapse of all currencies.

Buuut then it's not that bad, currencies are determined by how many of it are around as well as how good the country it comes from as well, this means that it's dependent on the general consensus of the rich countries on your country, this also means that a world wide inflation means that everyone's currency is going at the same rate so it would be worth the same, I mean take a country like Mozambique, because Mugabe is a moron he took in so many loans for his country, but he couldn't pay them so he just printed more money causing Mozambique's currency to collapse with no consequences outside of Mozambique. Or at least that's what I understand, if there's something I'm not getting I'm not an economist.

[JudgeDredd]

At 4/30/11 04:54 PM, Warforger wrote: Buuut then it's not that bad, currencies are determined by how many of it are around as well as how good the country is... this also means that a world wide inflation means that everyone's currency is going at the same rate so it would be worth the same... Or at least that's what I understand, if there's something I'm not getting I'm not an economist.

Correct, but what you've described is only classical inflation (like money printing, or economic wellbeing) some of which is present today. As you suggest, Mozambique, Greece, Iceland, Japan, and even America are of current concern regarding government mismanagement.

Less classical is business related. Bubbles and burst bubbles, where banks are often behind the "printed money".

Depleted resources such as "peak oil" is more a 21st century inflationary trend, as although we know resources are limited, they haven't in most previous cases run out. Extinction of fisheries is a good example.

But there's also a public element to inflation like panic buying. War or disaster would generally depresses the economy, and depressed economy means reducing prices, but basics can becoming scarce meaning prices will go the other direction, so it's not a clear correlation between falling economy and falling prices.

Another would be distrust of money (ie. too heavily taxed) or a general reluctance to hold any monetary assets. Owning your own house, growing veges, and doing online barter trade would mean that money is "worthless to you". If more people went this way, then inflation might result. Since inflation has tendency to create more inflation, as people quickly decide that the cost of foods warrants growing their own, the producers then have to adjust to a shrinking market, but price per unit is linked to turnover.

Technology could also play a part if more of us can produce our own power, drinkable water, etc. Alternatively we might develop smaller home fabrication units satisfying more of our own needs, and increasing barter trade, and so on. Thus, the quantity printed money is not the whole issue with inflation.

.

[Chris-V2]

At 4/30/11 04:07 PM, adrshepard wrote:

That's the key to everything right there. Iraq was not a "resource" war. If all the US wanted was oil, then it would have very easy to appropriate the wells and refineries, draw back from major populated areas, and take whatever we wanted while the country was too fractured and chaotic to do anything about it.

And installing a government that would lend a symphathetic ear within the Arab Leauge (though it could be argued that this already exists with the heavy funding the Egyptian army receives from the US) and consent to better trade prices isn't taking advantage of a country in the midst of chaos.

The US is quite comfortable to us government instability to its advantage and does it frequently. Even the Wikileaks cables make several mentions to generating regime change through either their own agents or funding agents within the state they want to topple.

But you don't want literal conflict while taking oil - buyer confidence would be shot and the chance of accidents are high. It'd also be PR suicide.

Imperialism hasn't dissapeared. I don't think it'll get more agressive, but I think private international bodies will. The future super powers aren't countries, they're not going to be lead by people in the public domain.

[joe9320]

Big business will eat America and will fall eventually. In fact, America will no longer be a superpower in 2016. America had seen better days.

[LordZeebmork]

lol, "in the future"

what use do we have for expensive military operations when we can just get everyone to buy our burgers and coffee?

[orangebomb]

Judging on how our economy is only now recovering from the collapse in 2008, the fact that our money is slowly being worthless, compared to the euro and others, and the fact that imperialism is considered almost universally negative by the UN and the critics from the left wing, means that America will not have any incentive to relive their imperial past like they did in the early 1900's.

It's not that we don't have the technology or the resources to at least attempt to colonize another country, but the long term overhead and resentment of the native people outweigh the short term gains. Just look at the British Empire as an example.

[LordZeebmork]

No. We fund the UN. We don't need to listen to them.

We aren't going to bother with imperialism for two reasons:
1. Nukes.
2. We don't need to. Why bother with all the hard work of taking over a country when you can just fill it with fast food chains tied to your economy? Or, failing that, orchestrate a coup and install a US-friendly leader, who will probably go on to get the country into piles of debt so the IMF can force it open for looting by multinationals.

[morefngdbs]

At 5/10/11 05:21 AM, LordZeebmork wrote: No. We fund the UN. We don't need to listen to them.

;;;;
You sir are INCORRECT.
You see (if you bothered to look) the US stopped paying in 1985.
You stopped paying in an attempt to get them to do as you tell them to do..they don't.
You presently owe them about 1.3 Billion dollars.
According to this easy to read wiki article, you have no intention to pay your debt any time soon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat es_and_the_United_Nations

Scroll down to The US arrears issue.

[Sheepiez]

It's not the future, it's the PRESENT.

[ImaSmartass2]

Gosh, I never thought so many people on Newgrounds would be unaware that American Imperialism never ended. It just became more covert. Don't you people know that we usually stir up a revolution whenever someone we don't like gets into to power in foreign countries that are of vital U.S. economic interests?

[IAmYossarian]

We're already imperialistic. Look at Guam, Puerto Rico, Samoa or the Virgin Islands.