So, on a recent thread a noticed a couple of vocal people expressing their belief about how much more peaceful and prosperous the world would be if the United States turned into a third world country. Here's a few tid-bits of wisdom (The people I'm quoting know who they are I think):

"But really, I won't complain, I totally support Trump's crusade to make America a third world country again! With a weaker America, the world may finally get more peaceful"

"A third world USA would only help the world. They have been useful in the past, but now they serve no purpose anymore."

Let's explore that thought shall we?

The details don't really matter. Let's say for whatever reason the U.S falls into anarchy and becomes a third-world country. What's going to be the after-affects?

The Global Economy:
-Prepare for the largest recession ever seen. The United States is very interwoven with the rest of the world in terms of trade and business. Our collapse would signal the worst economic crash in the history of economic crashes.

Geopolitical Problems:
-Europe now stands alone against whatever Vladimir Putin has in store. I know many Europeans like to see themselves as strong,independent countries who don't need the U.S. However, a lonely Europe is an endangered one. While most European countries are great places with good quality of life, great education/healthcare, and other boons; their military strength isn't something that's feared. The majority of European nations are too weak or too pacifist to put up a solid front against Russia. If Putin decides to expand western, the only thing you'll have to deter him would be French nukes.

-The United Nations and NATO lose whatever teeth they currently have. Russia is free to bring much of the Middle East into their sphere of influence, meanwhile the U.N will struggle to maintain its peacekeeping forces around the globe. The DMZ in Korea will be particularly worrisome, and North Korea could easily overrun it once the threat of U.S intervention is taken away. South Korea is left isolated with Japan as their sole hope of military relief.

-The U.S government is rendered inert, but their infrastructure and assets are not. Keep in mind the United States nuclear stockpile is strong enough to destroy the world several times. If the United States is weakened, than someone else will get control of all of those nukes. A massive arsenal of WMDs is now open for any group to take and use as they please.

-The United States has over 300 Million citizens, many of which will likely flee from the new dystopia. Canada will face an immigration crisis equal or greater to the one Europe faces. The massive border they share with the U.S is impossible to guard and there will be nothing they can do to stem the tide. Immigrants from Central America will likely skip over the U.S and move into Canada as well. The Canadian economy is brought to its knees and all of North America is left in a very unstable position.

-The aforementioned 300 million citizens are now a prime recruitment pool for terrorist organizations, drug cartels, and other criminal outfits. Terrorism and Crime will spike globally.

So, to all the people who think the world will be better if the United States become a third world country. Does any of this look good for you? Do you like the idea of Russian/Chinese supremacy? Do you like the idea of 300+ million Americans suffering? Or how about all the people who will suffer in the ensuing power vacuum? Will you still be giddy when ISIS gets their hands on American nukes and decides to truly purge the infidels?

The U.S isn't perfect. But if you think the world would be better with an American collapse than you're woefully ignorant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7PpdYil-7Y;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHfBIO-alTI

enough Russia scarecrow building to scare yourself
---
UN does not hinge on USA, and never really had much "teeth" anyway.

Russia is free to bring much of the Middle East into their sphere of influence

And Macedonia will be free to rebuild the Macedonian empire! Oh no, this is bad, indeed.

U.N will struggle to maintain its peacekeeping forces around the globe

"In June 2013. Pakistan contributed the highest number overall with 8,186 personnel, followed by India (7,878), Bangladesh (7,799), Ethiopia (6,502), Rwanda (4,686), Nigeria (4,684), Nepal (4,495), Jordan (3,374), Ghana (2,859), and Egypt (2,750)."

oh yes the takeout of the USA would be such a big hit to the peacekeeping forces...let's hope Nepal doesn't crash, as well.

North Korea could easily overrun it once the threat of U.S intervention is taken away.

1. you don't know Choson nor Hangook's militaries. It's likely pretty safe to assume that Hangook's is way better though, since it has NATO funding for years, one of the highest education systems in the world, and overall just a way more developped country than backwater.

immigration crisis

"crisis"

i rather China's softpower economic strategies and relatively peaceful foreign policy than America's rigging of economic standards and military invasions.

Also Russia is to China as Canada is to America, saying Russian domination really just makes me laugh each time. Russia sucks and is declining.

Edited 6/3/2017 00:13:17

A world without the United States...

Would look like this



Edited 6/3/2017 00:16:19

So, you're telling me that a country with the largest nuclear arsenal, largest land mass, extensive natural resources, and a permanent UN seat among other things is not capable of posing any threat?

Doesn't sound like a country that sucks to me.

'Prepare for the largest recession ever seen.'
Every major recession has been caused because Wallstreet and their banker pals across the globe. Boo hoo. Without the US, petrodollar ends and with it the point of the dollar. We return to a new medium of international exchange. Hardly unheard of.

'European nations are too weak or too pacifist to put up a solid front against Russia.'

Yes because overrunning so many ethnic groups and incorporating them into one big nation is always successful right? Russia maybe powerful but it cannot achieve what all empires, the USSR being the most recent failed at.

'The United Nations and NATO lose whatever teeth they currently have.'

When has the UN ever had any teeth? Its always been the rubber stamp for the Europeans and their cousins in the USA to go ape man on the rest of the world.

'A massive arsenal of WMDs is now open for any group to take and use as they please.'

Which is why sane people back in the 60's argued for a third way. Nuclear disarmament. Which of course hasn't happened cause the US and the Russians are busy giving each other the finger.

'The Canadian economy is brought to its knees and all of North America is left in a very unstable position.'

Who cares? The land was stolen off its original inhabitants to start with. Worst case scenario, they learn to cooperate and NOT repeat the mistakes of before.

'Terrorism and Crime will spike globally.'

I find it hard to believe any sane country would go into the USA in such a scenario. Ergo, no reason for global terrorism. Let it burn in itself.

'Do you like the idea of Russian/Chinese supremacy? Do you like the idea of 300+ million Americans suffering?'

I don't like the idea of anyone reigning supremacy. Unlike the US though they don't claim the moral high ground whilst engaging in the basest of actions. As for 300 million suffering. Tell that to the millions they killed along with the millions they've hurt throughout their expansionist policies.

'if you think the world would be better with an American collapse than you're woefully ignorant.'

World would be better without the US acting like the worlds policeman.

Until we don't play the global police. Then everyone begs us to do something. No matter what we do, we'll be criticized.

Which is why sane people back in the 60's argued for a third way. Nuclear disarmament. Which of course hasn't happened cause the US and the Russians are busy giving each other the finger.

That's irrelevant though. The nukes exist. If the U.S Government collapses, those nukes are open for the taking. I know you blindly hate the United States, but try to at-least admit it's better to keep nuclear weapons in the hand of an actual country with something to lose than to let them get taken by desperado terrorists with nothing to lose.

I find it hard to believe any sane country would go into the USA in such a scenario. Ergo, no reason for global terrorism. Let it burn in itself.

Poverty always breeds terrorism. If 300 million people are suddenly left without hope, someone will come along and give them somebody else to blame. It doesn't matter if the rest of the world stays out, terrorism will come whenever there's such a vacuum.

Unlike the US though they don't claim the moral high ground whilst engaging in the basest of actions.

Except they do. Every country claims to have the moral high ground. That's the only way to justify such violations to the general population.

As for 300 million suffering. Tell that to the millions they killed along with the millions they've hurt throughout their expansionist policies.

You realize the average citizen has nothing to do with the actions committed by their government? In addition, every country has hurt people with "expansionist policies". Do the people of U.K, France, Germany, Russia, and essentially every other relevant country deserve death because of some backward sense of retribution?

Punishing people for actions they had nothing to do with, or actions that their ancestors did, is backwards and barbaric. It's sociopathic to advocate such a position.

World would be better without the US acting like the worlds policeman.

If the U.S didn't, than someone else would. There's always going to be a country acting as the leader/hegemon/alpha.

^ I was just about to say that.
The only reason WW3 didn't happen is because of mutually assured destruction.

I find it hard to believe any sane country would go into the USA in such a scenario. Ergo, no reason for global terrorism. Let it burn in itself.

Thats not how global politics works, you fuck face. If there are nukes on the line then terrorists of all stripes will seek them out. Furthermore, nobody is just going to let the US burn. The US has one of the largest stockpiles of natural resources in the world and Russia and China would fight a war over who would control it. Wars have been fought over far more stupid reasons.

The winner would be your next global superpower/policeman.

Edited 6/3/2017 02:03:29

At this point there is no possible way to destroy the United States. You'd have at-least 100 million pissed off citizens even if you take out our government. Guess who defeated the strongest army in the world in 1776? Yeah, American citizens.

So you would either live in a world where you couldn't have a second child or one where you can't be openly gay and speak out against Putin. Or you will get driven over by a tank in protest. Take your pick.

Edited 6/3/2017 02:08:38

LOL nuclear disarmament. Nukes preserve peace. Nukes are why we aren't fighting WWV now.

you realise that more than one documented time a world war would've began between Russia and America and it was only the DIRECT DISOBEYING of protocol that stopped it? Folk had the same idea about Mutually Assured Destruction since a long time ago. in the First World war, it was the invention of the mobile machine gun (Maxim gun). Later it was gas warfare, but that didn't stop 2nd World War (they just agreed not to use gas warfare).

Likely the idea (and it's proofs of failures) goes way back even before the 1900s.

If 300 million people are suddenly left without hope, someone will come along and give them somebody else to blame. It doesn't matter if the rest of the world stays out, terrorism will come whenever there's such a vacuum.

do you know what the population of India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan is? also not to say that dread is a greatly exxagerated problem.

Punishing people for actions they had nothing to do with, or actions that their ancestors did, is backwards and barbaric. It's sociopathic to advocate such a position.

I agree, but then are you against all wars and lots of sanctions since it's harming innocent folk involved?

Edited 6/3/2017 02:20:53

I'm against wars on principle. However, it's sometimes necessary.

You should also note there's a difference between waging war on an armed entity with civilians being caught in the crossfire, and direct targeting of civilians.

Innocents had to die for Hitler to be removed from power, but German civilians weren't the targets of the war. Once Hitler was gone, the civilians were left be.

People like eisenheim don't stop at punishing the government, they want to make the general citizenry suffer as well.

Honestly, the world, would likely be a lot safer without the US government's democratic crusades. The US would probably just go on like normal, and likely even get better in terms of economics. Most police would just go private or settle with county governments depending on how much of the government is taken away. China would mostly invest in Africa and trade, Russia would breath and recover finally, Europe would be too split and indecisive to go conquering, and Saudi Arabia would get fuqqed by Iran. Oh and Assad wins. Yeah feels good man.

Oh I forget about the Petrodollar yeah that'll be bad for the US but it was going to happen anyway

Edited 6/3/2017 02:31:04

try to at-least admit it's better to keep nuclear weapons in the hand of an actual country with something to lose than to let them get taken by desperado terrorists with nothing to lose

Hahaha. Because the nation states of this world don't engage in state sponsored terrorism with their bombing campaigns eh ? The only difference between a terrorist and an army officer is one has no 'legal' status the other does. That is no way justifies targeting innocents such as children or people who go about their everyday life. But an army uniform does not grant carte blanche either.

Poverty always breeds terrorism

No. Systematic injustice and failure to resolve grievances through non-violent political means? A good example is the IRA and the Ulster Volunteer Force. Less to do with poverty everything to do with national identity along with political motivations.

That's the only way to justify such violations to the general population.

That's why I, on principle, call out any nation who makes this false claim.

You realize the average citizen has nothing to do with the actions committed by their government?

Fascinating. The last time I checked Western Europe and the USA were the bastions of Democracy. Representative government. Which literally derives power from THE people FOR the people and commits all actions IN their name. If the populace of said countries elect selfish ignorant leaders who flaunt the rights of everybody else and works for their national interest with no regard for the human cost then those of us not involved in the very least have a right to call them out on it.

Punishing people for actions they had nothing to do with, or actions that their ancestors did, is backwards and barbaric

I agree that such a scenario where hundreds of millions suffer is not humanely desirable. That being said a life is a life. Just like 1+1=2. American loss of life is no more important than the blood shed by its victims and in that respect, what should concern us is life, not their nationality or race. The whole point of attacking America is their callous disregard for life, liberty and rights of citizens that aren't theirs.

I know you blindly hate the United States

I don't blindly hate the US. I ridicule their hypocrisy and the notion theirs is the right way. Particularly when it comes to foreign policy. In that vein, I won't stop at anything to call it out where possible.

The US has one of the largest stockpiles of natural resources in the world and Russia and China would fight a war over who would control it. Wars have been fought over far more stupid reasons.

The US would likely be a bite too big for any imperialist. It's more likely the EU and UN set up a government in DC or NY, and get kicked out after a few years by the folk, like Somalia, rather than some apocalyptic war over the US.

For the record, people wanted the US to be a third world country, not collapse as a whole. Which means they still are there, the WMDs are under goverment control. They just stop their ridiculous foreign policy and get off the Internet.

Poverty always breeds terrorism. If 300 million people are suddenly left without hope, someone will come along and give them somebody else to blame. It doesn't matter if the rest of the world stays out, terrorism will come whenever there's such a vacuum.

If that was the case half of the world would be terrorists. Yet countries which are wealthier have more and more dangerous terrorists.
For terrorism it takes a motive to die for, a motivation, not just poverty.

Geopolitical Problems:
-Europe now stands alone against whatever Vladimir Putin has in store. I know many Europeans like to see themselves as strong,independent countries who don't need the U.S. However, a lonely Europe is an endangered one. While most European countries are great places with good quality of life, great education/healthcare, and other boons; their military strength isn't something that's feared. The majority of European nations are too weak or too pacifist to put up a solid front against Russia. If Putin decides to expand western, the only thing you'll have to deter him would be French nukes.

Ohh please, what did the US do to stop Putin's aggression in Europe? What did the US do against Krim and Ukraine? Nothing, but talking. What do they against Russian airstrikes in the middle east? Nothing but talking. If Russia invaded the Baltics today (members of NATO) the US would just talk to Russia, but not send a single airplane or soldiers, because "Muh America first!".

-The aforementioned 300 million citizens are now a prime recruitment pool for terrorist organizations, drug cartels, and other criminal outfits. Terrorism and Crime will spike globally.

Are you saying your people are recruitment pool for terrorists? Ohh, maybe we should dronetrike the US instead of Syria, Iraq, etc. After all you have more weapons and more potential terrorists! You even terror yourself and blow up your own Trade Center. Patenthic.

So, to all the people who think the world will be better if the United States become a third world country. Does any of this look good for you? Do you like the idea of Russian/Chinese supremacy? Do you like the idea of 300+ million Americans suffering? Or how about all the people who will suffer in the ensuing power vacuum? Will you still be giddy when ISIS gets their hands on American nukes and decides to truly purge the infidels?

Russian supremacy is unlikely. Besides WMDs the Russian military is weak. Even weaker than Turkey. This is not COD where they singlehand entire countries. Be realistic.
China supremancy is more likely but okay. They are already dominating economically. They don't have the capability or technology to build an empire. Infact they are instead aiding countries' economy and creating jobs. Example Indochina.
I am actually more worried about US-Supremacy, because they have the technology and ressources to seriously be a threat to the world.

Innocents had to die for Hitler to be removed from power, but German civilians weren't the targets of the war. Once Hitler was gone, the civilians were left be.

Wrong once again.

I implore anyone who takes any interest in this to read the on the RAF Bomber Command's record during WWII. I also suggest you look at firebombing Tokyo. Hamburg, Dresden, Berlin I can go on. 500,000 civilians died for nought. Post-war Allied research showed area bombing (Which as the name suggests BOMBS THE AREA) had minimal if zero impact on the war. What defeated Hitler was Russia and the collapse of his armies. NOTHING TO DO WITH CIVILIAN bombing. As for they stopped. That's why Dresden was destroyed eh?

You should also note there's a difference between waging war on an armed entity with civilians being caught in the crossfire, and direct targeting of civilians.

Yes modern warfare likes to deliberately target them and then label them as 'collateral damage'. It falls under this concept called 'proportionality'. All nice in theory, horrendously abused in real life.

People like eisenheim don't stop at punishing the government, they want to make the general citizenry suffer as well.

People like Eisenheim will attack indefensible interventionist attitudes and the record of guilty nations.

I don't have relatives in the US. neither has my surname. I honestly couldn't care less of America existing or not

people wanted the US to be a third world country, not collapse as a whole.

there're thirdworld countries like India that are still quite strong and arguably superpowers. Also Cata why d'you care, you don't even think USA is a superpower today.

This is not COD where they singlehand entire countries. Be realistic.

lol, indeed

They don't have the capability or technology to build an empire.

how's that?