Counterpoint: why should I, as an American, be willing to die or pay tax money to prevent this from happening?Let's see...
- Russians would come crawling out of the woodwork quite immediately and invade at least all of the former Soviet Union satellites, if not the whole Europe in one fell swoop.
- Turkey would carve out a new Ottoman Empire around itself. Armenians would be wiped from the face of Earth this time. Syria, Iran and Iraq would most likely cease to exist.
- China would take Taiwan, South Korea and most likely at least try to take Japan. Most likely they would also try to take all the other small nations in the area surrounding China.
- India would blast the shit out of Pakistan. Nukes or not, India could just steamroll Pakistan with sheer numbers if nothing would stand in their way.
- Territorial wars would start between the four main players mentioned above.
I would rather prefer American imperialism to the abovementioned.
You really want those people to become our citizens? Really? All of them? Even the Chinese?
Fuck no. We couldn't even make a tiny patch of desert more American. No way we can do that globally. Better to just dominate the trade routes and snack skills occasionally if people get too far out of line.
That mindset does not guide American policy and never has.Wilsonian interventionism is a term that derives from President Woodrow Wilson. Think; "We aren't fighting a war for oil, we're fighting a war for Democracy!"
Yes, it absolutely does. Every politician today has the we are the world police mindset. And yeah, lot of south American puppet governments, especially after Wilson got into office. And before the whole world wasn't effected by it.That mindset does not guide American policy and never has.
Even under Wilson there were autocratic puppet governments in Latin America.
Woodrow Wilson before Congress requesting a Declaration of War against Germany in WWI, 1917"Armed neutrality is ineffectual enough at best; in such circumstances and in the face of such pretensions it is worse than ineffectual: it is likely only to produce what it was meant to prevent; it is practically certain to draw us into the war without either the rights or the effectiveness of belligerents. There is one choice we cannot make, we are incapable of making: we will not choose the path of submission and suffer the most sacred rights of our Nation and our people to be ignored or violated. The wrongs against which we now array ourselves are no common wrongs; they cut to the very roots of human life. "
Choosing to do nothing is still a choice to do something. Its the biggest paradox in politics, economics and war.Woodrow Wilson before Congress requesting a Declaration of War against Germany in WWI, 1917
Woodrow Wilson initially didn't really want the US to be involved in WWI. Europe got so out of control with its total warfare that the US eventually saw itself drawn in thanks to the Lusitania. WWI taught the US a painful lesson. It can either steer the world or it can be steered by the world. Isolationism is a fantasy. Technology makes it a fantasy. It is a painful realization especially in this day and age where people want to shut the world out because of the imbalances created by globalization.
The sad truth is that you can't really shut out the outside world. It eventually comes for you. People love to say that everything the US does backfires, but I would also argue that there is a cost for doing nothing. Either way there is no easy answer and no easy way to proceed. Sometimes the choice is between something that is bad initially and might get better or something that seems easy at first but only gets worse over time.
Yeah Wilson's eventual realization of this is a huge pillar of US Foreign Policy. People want to forget this, but they are all living in a dream world.
There would be knock on effects that would severely effect the US. Say a billion screaming Chinese get nuked off the face of the earth, who buys our surplus grain then?
Back then the Reps were the dove party. The Dems were the hawks. Things changed in, what, the 50's 60's? Somewhere in there. Teddy was the outlier but he was always a bit of an odd fit to the party.Choosing to do nothing is still a choice to do something. Its the biggest paradox in politics, economics and war.
America chose to do nothing when Japan invaded Manchuria, which was a flagrant violation of the Washington Naval Treaty that had included guarantees for Chinese independence in it. Chamberlain gets a bad rap for letting things get out of hand in Europe, but Herbert Hoover gets the distinct pleasure of choosing to do nothing both in the face of an economic crisis and a geostrategic one. Choosing to do nothing in both cases had massive negative repercussions for America. People forget Hoover was the guy asleep at the switch when Japan started steam rolling over Asia. Imo it makes him the second worst president. After Buchanon. Nothing can top letting the country slide into civil war. Again by choosing to do nothing.
Why bother when you can just fast-colonize and fortify the moon? From there you can pretty much freely dictate planetary access to space. He who has command of the sea has command of everything. Fuck planet earth lets get started on Empire Solaria.
I did not become a naturalized US citizen to just roll over to the Canucks. They burned DC.... We still need to burn Toronto.In many respects the US is the perfect hegemony, as it has no territorial ambitions and no historical axes to grind