politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I'm actually terrified of this. With all it's flaws and even evilness - I/we can't ignore the fact that it was keeping other major powers in check. China would far more likely invade Taiwan and likely whatever else they want, I'm in Baltics so.. Russia won't be so scared to attack it. Shipping lanes and global transportation of goods will no longer be protected by US (where credit is due, they really cared about it, up until Trump), other powers like Pakistan, Turkey and Venezuela might get funny ideas, etc.
Ironically, world without US would look less secure to me
Is it possible that your security is unsustainably expensive and comes from the exploitation of human rights in other places? Why was it necessary for the people of Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Nigeria, Libya, and others, to pay for your perceived security?
I also find it hard to believe that China has had little military engagement for the last 25 years because it's worried about the US. Up until 5 years ago it was the US's top foreign Treasury security owner.
I've read before that the US couldn't realistically defend the Baltics from a ground invasion due to distance. It could only re-capture it afterwards. Your best bet is a strong Europe (Germany, Poland) that can actually provide assistance if Russia decides to invade the Baltics.
Yes, the world without the US would create a massive power gap and instantly cause multiple wars everywhere. Also I don't know of a country who has the geographical characteristics and the will to pick up US naval protection. The US is kind of unique in that aspect. China doesn't want to do it, and their geography limits them to a degree. I'm worried about the Pakistan-India-Chinese feuds as these countries kind of hate each other and have nuclear weapons.
With that being said, it's very unlikely that the country will explode due to its debt issues. It will definitely hurt the average person's well being with higher interest rates and inflation, though.
On the other hand, the world wouldn't have wars and coups, caused by the USA.
Do you honestly believe there would be less wars overall without US? Actually think about this
Yes. Especially within South America.
Really? Venezuela was looking to invade Guyana before US snatched Maduro. There have been no real open wars with US and South excluding ones that can now be considered historical (Ie. Mexico-US war). Panama was quite small.
Sooo... Currently unstable regions get a bit less unstable and stable regions get to become unstable? I guess we would be nicely averaging out then. Is this us government communist after all? Equality for all, but not the equality anyone desired! :(
/s incase it wasn't obvious
Stable for who though? Stability has not been my lived experience in the states.
If the US goes down, they won't be able to NIMBY over South America. Those countries can rise to prominence on the world stage.
Yeah, because the US military is just going to vanish if the government collapses.
All those aircraft carriers, nuclear subs, and land based missiles will just leave.
Gotta pay and feed your soldiers and sailors and pilots to keep that military running.
Good news, we won't have to feed them with tax dollars. Bad news is the people building data centers that are part of a kill chain are now feeding the soldiers
The US military will be too busy with power struggles to care about South America.
They'll likely be subdivided between costal states and be scrapped. A lot of that shit is non-viable to maintain if you aren't the US, if memory serves right aircraft carriers are generally built in Maine for example kinda doubt South Carolina has the infrastructure to maintain one.
Mind you that's assuming a lot of things going a relatively specific way but I can't imagine even a reduced federal government maintaining any of the fleets.
South Carolina might not have the ships, but we got the nukes lol
My point was moreso that no individual state would have the resources or even infrastructure to properly maintain the various ships in the US Navy. I suspect that for any who would try (assuming new federations and unions don't pop up) would basically be stuck with the same issue as Russia with that one aircraft carrier.
I was trying to play into it in a more macabre manner. I was hoping to imply that in the event of the collapse of the US, the states would go free for all and protect resources. I have no doubt that South Carolina would try to keep as many weapons as we manufacture. It's a fun hypothetical to think about. The level of chaos that would ensue. It's fascinating, really.
I, too, am actually terrified of this yet still looking forward to it.
But otoh it was also always the major power stirring the pot, and more so recently. So much that that argument doesn't hold anymore imo.