But then the Pentagon is not even bothering to buy F22s (because they are not useful against terrorists in Afghanistan) so it is going to be little help against (say) China in a few years anyway.

As for default – as I have already said…..

It is already happening – if you “monetarize the debt” (i.e. create money, out of thin air, to buy up government debt with) that is a de facto default.

And both the British and American governments (via the Central Banks) are doing this.

This will happen by surprise, tho after the fact it will seem predictable (like Northern Rock or Bear Stearns or Lehman). It’ll develop over the course of a few days, couple of weeks at most, and then we enter the brave new world. The US won’t be able to keep running $700B trade deficits, which will threaten to knock the props from under China as well as an instant 5% reduction in the US economy, and the rest of the world will scramble to figure out how to deal with existing dollar-denominated contracts and to find an alternative.

This will happen by surprise, tho after the fact it will seem predictable (like Northern Rock or Bear Stearns or Lehman). It’ll develop over the course of a few days, couple of weeks at most, and then we enter the brave new world. The US won’t be able to keep running $700B trade deficits, which will threaten to knock the props from under China as well as an instant 5% reduction in the US economy, and the rest of the world will scramble to figure out how to deal with existing dollar-denominated contracts and to find an alternative.

Japan is, too; its military forces may be called “police” but they are nonetheless very potent. Japan has long outgrown its military expansionist tendencies. It is a westernized, capitalist nation now, and we are as far from its WW2 atrocities as we are from Germany’s. Three generations is long enough for everyone to have gotten over it.

I agree with your point that there should be natural affinities between the US and both India and China, but those are commercial in nature. Reciprocal trade is a better guarantee of our mutual security than is military posturing, especially the sort conducted through proxies. So I’m still for bringing home all those troops, although I understand that it needn’t happen overnight. We can announce our intentions and gradually reduce our asian troop strength over a period of time, perhaps five years. That would give the region time to adjust to the new dynamic. (And I never said that we couldn’t keep a few nuclear subs cruising around in secret, just in case.)

And in any event, the troops in Europe should all be home by this Christmas.

I’m not sure what Laird is reading into my comment, so I will try to clarify without overly abusing the courtesy of our hosts with another too-lengthy post.

Nato has been meaningless for quite some time, and the idea that the US would risk itself for the safety of Germany or France any longer is delusional. Their relentless anti-Americanism and slanderous backstabbing at every opportunity makes the prospect even more repugnant.

Between their own demographics, and the longing gazes aimed their way by the new Russian aristocracy, there’s not much future to save anyway. Moslem dhimmi’s or Russian vassals, either is better than they deserve.

It’s a shame about the eastern European states that have demonstrated some true desire for a strong relationship with the US, but geography is what it is, and the relatively strong isolationism found in Laird’s comment is widespread in the US now.

Defense of one’s own is a proper function of the state, and I am loath to join those who call for the US to disarm itself in a hostile world, regardless of their oh-so-proper libertarian anti-militarism.

I believe the US still has strong allies, and significant interests in the pacific and Asian regions, not only in trade, but as regards the continuing aggressiveness of islamic jihadists.

China and India are natural allies in this latter regard, and further interaction may improve their current statism towards a more open system, but only if the US can provide an example of less, not more, state intervention. That certainly will not occur under the current regime.

While I would love to see the long overdue redeployment of troops from Korea, in the current circumstances it would appear as one more instance of appeasement, and, therefore, must be delayed a while yet.

As much as it appears a burden to continue to guarantee the security of Japan, it is very much in the interests of the US to prevent any aggressive actions either by or toward Japan.

Disarmed, it would prove an overly tempting apple on a low branch hanging near the Chinese, and re-armed, it would immediately antagonize, if not actually threaten, the several countries nearby which have frequently been the object of Japan’s overly ardent desires.

The best world would have pacifistic and disarmed cultures in both Germany and Japan, but one out of two may be the best we can do at this point.

There are no perfect choices in this, as in many other areas of international relations. Better to be so strong that none dare attack, than weak and inviting repeated predation.

I have not mentioned many aspects of these questions, in Europe, Asia and the Western Hemisphere, that would be covered if I was writing a thesis or a book. I had hoped to keep this comment from becoming either.

By now, of course, Europe is sufficiently detesticate that NATO is no longer needed.

Many of us have argued for a long time that the US government shouldn’t be spending our tax dollars being “the world’s policeman”, let alone in trying to force our brand of governance on the rest of the world. NATO outlived whatever utility it may once have had when the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed; we should withdraw from it and remove all of our troops in Europe. Same with SEATO (if it even still exists and which, as far as I can see, never had any utility). Japan can defend itself, as can South Korea. Bring all those troops home, and muster them out of the military; you* can fight your own fights. And also abolish the purile joke which the UN has become. Please.

In fact, the US is the largest market in the world, and the dollor is (at least for now) the world’s de facto reserve currency. Our collapse would be terrible for us but a total disaster for you. If anything, you should be defending us.

* I don’t know veryretired’s nationality, so this isn’t directed to him personally; when I use “you” here it is intended to mean everyone outside the US.

Any new programs, such as Obamacare, or other major entitlements as yet only proposed, but not enacted, will only hasten and make more severe the collapse.

The last several administrations have operated under the assumption that the wealth of the country was some sort of magical spring which could never go dry, but would always refill itself to satisfy any requirements the various levels of government might make of it.

Various states within the country are now experiencing the consequences of this kind of thinking, as the businesses which create jobs and wealth either close up or leave their high tax/poor services environments for more open spaces, either foreign or domestic.

If the current political viewpoint acsendent in the country remains the general approach, one of the major effects our various allies and friends around the world will notice soon is that the US is drawing down its military forces, and will no longer be able to be relied upon for major efforts in situations of mutual assistence and military aid.

Many around the world have been asking for exactly that, especially in Europe. You are going to get your wish over the next several years.

At some point in the near future, when threatened by agression or terrorism by any of the ususal suspects, the response of the US will be “Good luck and godspeed.”

You asked for it, you got it.