Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:
And our wars in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Korea, Afghanistan. Iraq, Kuwait, and actions in Somalia helped that not a whit.

Where did I say that they did again?

Frazzled wrote:
This sounds vaguely familiar…

It should, though strangely the US then went on to be one of the most prosperous nations in the world.

Frazzled wrote:
If you have no enemies save the great evil that is Vancouver and are protected a strong Navy you didn’t need one. The UK didn’t have one either.

No, the UK had a standing army, it just went through significant restructuring due to budget cuts, and lessons learned from WWI. And those budget cuts? They weren't the result of the absence of a significant enemy, more like economic problems due to the loss of major infrastructure.

Frazzled wrote:
You mean back when we could make more than the rest of the world combined, kind of like China now?

We still produce more than China does*, we simply don't export as much as they do.

~30% of our GDP, which is significantly larger than China's, is composed of industrial production, while China's is ~20%.

I don't have any material references at hand, but I doubt the US could outproduce the rest of the world combined during the 40's.

This IS the long-term solution. Isolationism is not.

Melissia wrote:This IS the long-term solution. Isolationism is not.

No, its not. Your troops are spread thin, and your finances drained...there has to be another way, apart from complete isolation, like sharing responsibility with Britain and Japan instead of trying to handle it all by yourselves.

Frazzled wrote:
An insult after such a fine conversation. I'll take that as your white flag of surrender.

You can take it however you want, but my point stands. Considering training operations as relevant to this conversation is absurd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
When NY is vapororized by some smuggled out old USSR nuke by terrorists or Irantell me about how all that internationalism is good for the US.

Do you really think that nuclear proliferation wouldn't have occurred if there had been no Cold War?

The end of WWII left a massive power vacuum that someone was going to fill, that it was the US and the USSR was a matter of circumstance. Someone was going to develop nuclear weapons, and once someone did, someone else was going to follow suit.

Tadashi wrote:Your troops are spread thin

We've withdrawn from Iraq, and are withdrawing from Afghanistan. Since the topic is "after Afghanistan", this is a false statement.

Tadashi wrote:your finances drained

The US still effectively has the best finances in the world today as far as the sheer amount of resources we can draw upon for military spending. Even China, despite its massive size, draws upon a less skilled population with less experience at modern war and less technological superiority.

Tadashi wrote:there has to be another way, apart from complete isolation, like sharing responsibility with Britain and Japan instead of trying to handle it all by yourselves.

We already do. They're really not capable of it, politically or militarily, at least not any more than they have done so recently.

Melissia wrote:

Tadashi wrote:there has to be another way, apart from complete isolation, like sharing responsibility with Britain and Japan instead of trying to handle it all by yourselves.

We already do. They're really not capable of it, politically or militarily.

Show some trust in Japan, and we can do it. Give Britain an incentive/ultimatum, and they could do it.

Well Mel to be fair militarily we have a significant role in the military weakening of our allies. We picked up thier slack and if we stop there's no way they will fill that gap.

Tadashi you said it yourself, we have something like 50,000 troops in Japan, including my brother as it happens and a good number of my friends with the 3rd MarDiv. I'm pretty sure if anyone feths with Japan they know they're fething with the US too.

Pretty sure there's a couple long standing treaties to that effect as it happens.

Edit: missed like 6-7 posts, epic fail XD

Tadashi wrote:
An act of war is an act of war...you would the same of a Chinese/NK missile dropped on your homeland. If that happened Japan will stand by America, and we expect the same from America if a Chinese/NK missile dropped on our homeland. Just as Britain is your 'unsinkable aircraft carrier' in the Atlantic, let Japan be the same in the Pacific. Show some trust in the Empire, and we can bury the last of WWII's grudges and stand by you as allies...if you give platitudes and use us as meat-shields, then you'll lose over fifty years worth of built-up trust and respect.

Why? To be isolationist means you're on your pal. No US city gets nuked for you.

AustonT wrote:Well Mel to be fair militarily we have a significant role in the military weakening of our allies. We picked up thier slack and if we stop there's no way they will fill that gap.

This is certainly true.

Tadashi wrote:

Melissia wrote:This IS the long-term solution. Isolationism is not.

No, its not. Your troops are spread thin, and your finances drained...there has to be another way, apart from complete isolation, like sharing responsibility with Britain and Japan instead of trying to handle it all by yourselves.

One way or another the US will pull back in a major way, just like the UK and Spain did. Its already started.
To quote agent Smith: "Mr. Anderson that sound is the sound of inevitability."

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:Well Mel to be fair militarily we have a significant role in the military weakening of our allies. We picked up thier slack and if we stop there's no way they will fill that gap.

This is certainly true.

Oh yeah and we sold our major allies on the F-35. Our own procurement stupidity is now world wide.

AustonT wrote:

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:Well Mel to be fair militarily we have a significant role in the military weakening of our allies. We picked up thier slack and if we stop there's no way they will fill that gap.

This is certainly true.

Oh yeah and we sold our major allies on the F-35. Our own procurement stupidity is now world wide.

I'm surprised. With how many chunks the F35 blows, I'd have expected people to say no.

We must have pulled some serious political capital to get that thing sold.

Tadashi wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Tadashi wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Remember boys, thanks to the Cold War, we're one "oops" away from nuclear armageddon. The only difference is that now we have nukes from China and North Korea pointed at us (ok trying to point at us NK still sucks).

The NK nukes aren't aimed at your homeland...they're aimed at my homeland, or rather, your bases there. If you want the Empire as an ally, then do something about it, or since you can't, give us an incentive to do something about it and amend Article Nine.

Insofar as they're aimed anywhere they'd be aimed at your population centers. North Koreas nukes aren't being built with the purpose of disabling American military forces, they're being built with the purpose of evaporating south korea and its population (and ensuring no one can militarily interrupt their sovereignty). If they launched one at you at all it'd just hit the closest densely populated area.

Tokyo and Yokata Air Base...no enemy has ever landed or attacked Japan in force and not suffered retribution (the American Occupation was different, the Showa Emperor cooperated and so the Americans never really invaded) - if so much as a single NK missile hits Japan, American support or not, NK will cease to exist.

What you posted has seemingly nothing to do with what I posted.

Frazzled wrote:

Tadashi wrote:
An act of war is an act of war...you would the same of a Chinese/NK missile dropped on your homeland. If that happened Japan will stand by America, and we expect the same from America if a Chinese/NK missile dropped on our homeland. Just as Britain is your 'unsinkable aircraft carrier' in the Atlantic, let Japan be the same in the Pacific. Show some trust in the Empire, and we can bury the last of WWII's grudges and stand by you as allies...if you give platitudes and use us as meat-shields, then you'll lose over fifty years worth of built-up trust and respect.

Why? To be isolationist means you're on your pal. No US city gets nuked for you.

So the Japanese Empire gets abandoned...complete isolationism really does bite in the ass...if that's the case, we have no choice: the Japanese Empire must re-militarize. But if its just partial isolationism - as in America places more responsibility and trust on its allies and allows them to 'grow claws and talons', then we can still stand together as allies.

So you're just looking for what's best for Japan?

Screw that. Isolationism isn't about what's good for other countries. Screw other countries. If we go isolationist, Japan can fend for its fething self.

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:Well Mel to be fair militarily we have a significant role in the military weakening of our allies. We picked up thier slack and if we stop there's no way they will fill that gap.

This is certainly true.

Oh yeah and we sold our major allies on the F-35. Our own procurement stupidity is now world wide.

I'm surprised. With how many chunks the F35 blows, I'd have expected people to say no.

We must have pulled some serious political capital to get that thing sold.

Supposedly Mitsubishi is working on a prototype fighter jet to give our air force an equivalent to the F-22, or so heard.

We can stand as economic partners. We don't need military allies if we only are protecting ourselves. Interestingly, you really don't either. If you're not aggressive, oceans are wonderful things.

Melissia wrote:So you're just looking for what's best for Japan?

Screw that. Isolationism isn't about what's good for other countries. Screw other countries. If we go isolationist, Japan can fend for its fething self.

Then the Empire will rise again, and this time, it will end differently. Our technology will overshadow the Pacific...or worse, Japan and China form a co-prosperity sphere between them and seize control of East Asia and the West Pacific together.

Frazzled wrote:We can stand as economic partners. We don't need military allies if we only are protecting ourselves. Interestingly, you really don't either. If you're not aggressive, oceans are wonderful things.

Tell that to China...either we stand alone, with America, or with China.

If America is just trading with you what do we care what you do? I have no special beef with China. My relatives fought them just like they fought the Japanese. If they and you leave us alone then I am fine and happy with them.

Frazzled wrote:If America is just trading with you what do we care what you do? I have no special beef with China. My relatives fought them just like they fought the Japanese. If they and you leave us alone then I am fine and happy with them.

So you're fine with either Japanese fleets ruling the seas and skies over the Pacific, or Japan and China building an empire together across the Asia-Pacific?

Tadashi wrote:

Melissia wrote:So you're just looking for what's best for Japan?

Screw that. Isolationism isn't about what's good for other countries. Screw other countries. If we go isolationist, Japan can fend for its fething self.

Then the Empire will rise again, and this time, it will end differently. Our technology will overshadow the Pacific...or worse, Japan and China form a co-prosperity sphere between them and seize control of East Asia and the West Pacific together.

Frazzled wrote:We can stand as economic partners. We don't need military allies if we only are protecting ourselves. Interestingly, you really don't either. If you're not aggressive, oceans are wonderful things.

Tell that to China...either we stand alone, with America, or with China.

Oh thanks for that, I haven't laughed that hard all week. If I can get a hillbillie to say the South will rise again I may reach nirvana.
Erm Frazz?

Tadashi wrote:

Frazzled wrote:If America is just trading with you what do we care what you do? I have no special beef with China. My relatives fought them just like they fought the Japanese. If they and you leave us alone then I am fine and happy with them.

So you're fine with either Japanese fleets ruling the seas and skies over the Pacific, or Japan and China building an empire together across the Asia-Pacific?

Fine? No. Enough to get giggy about it? Also no.
I'll sell you stuff, you sell me stuff. life is good. If you don't want to buy my stuff, fine I'll shrug and won't buy your stuff either. What else is this evil empire going to do to a major nuclear power?

Oh thanks for that, I haven't laughed that hard all week. If I can get a hillbillie to say the South will rise again I may reach nirvana.
Erm Frazz?

Sorry I've been remiss. Let me help. The South will rise again! Oh wait, Texas never fell. Never mind then.

Isolationism is the hobgoblin of defeatist reactionaries.

Manchu wrote:Isolationism is the hobgoblin of defeatist reactionaries.

And peacenik hippy tree huggers. Don't forget them. Time to break out the Hawaiian flower power shirt. Oh wait I'm already wearing one.

And I think -now that I realize I'm wearing one my dozen Hawaiian shirts- the more relevant question is, how on earth am I going to survive a 3 hour tournament outside, in Austin? Its like 8million degrees in Austin. What was I thinking??? I'm gonna die.

Manchu wrote:Isolationism is the hobgoblin of defeatist reactionaries.

Do you really believe that or is it just to elicit a response?

AustonT wrote:

Manchu wrote:Isolationism is the hobgoblin of defeatist reactionaries.

Do you really believe that or is it just to elicit a response?

Well to be fair hobgoblinism is the isolation of defeatist reactionaries.

Frazzled wrote:

Manchu wrote:Isolationism is the hobgoblin of defeatist reactionaries.

And peacenik hippy tree huggers. Don't forget them. Time to break out the Hawaiian flower power shirt. Oh wait I'm already wearing one.

And I think -now that I realize I'm wearing one my dozen Hawaiian shirts- the more relevant question is, how on earth am I going to survive a 3 hour tournament outside, in Austin? Its like 8million degrees in Austin. What was I thinking??? I'm gonna die.

Well ,it is Austin, the Gay Capital of Texas, I'm sure there'll be a handsome rogue glad to "cool you off".

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

labmouse42 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Northern Mali, Yemen. Northern Afghanistan, Western Pakistan.

Frazzled...the problem is that these countries are areas where terrorists can go and be trained.

How do we best handle it?
Remember, Pakistan is a nation with nuclear capabilities -- unwarranted attacks on their soil may have dire repercussions.

If we wipe Pakistan off the map I bet India would send us a fruit basket.

*snark*

This thread demonstrates why some topics are just too complex for the internet to discuss with any validity...

Someone doesn't want a fruit basket