Should the US give up its role as a superpower? No. Whether or not it's the lone superpower is dependent on what other nations want to and are able to do. I would view Russia and China as regional powers, though not yet superpowers.
First, for a nation with an economy as big as ours, our military-industrial complex isn't very big (about 3.5 percent of GDP and hasn't reached 5 percent in 25 years). If you assume they're being honest, Russia spends 4.5 percent, so at least in context, your comrades in Moscow maintain a bigger military-industrial complex.
Second, it's popular (particularly by enemies of the US) to call the US an empire, but it's a bit of a misnomer. Most empires have large overseas possessions and have large foreign populations subject to their jurisdiction. As powerful as the US is, it doesn't really fit either of those criteria. Its influence comes mostly from its economic power.
The "blame America" crowd (of both the Right and Left) always operate from the assumption that if the US cuts its military and plays less of a leadership role, the rest of the world will mostly get along and that even if they don't, it won't impact the US at home. I just don't understand where that silliness comes from. Was the world a peace-loving place before the US was a global leader? That's not what I remember from history class.
In addition, the US economy relies heavily on international trade, and that relies heavily on our military. For example, South Korea and Taiwan are major trading partners with the US. If the US made it clear that it would not defend either of those countries, do you really think China would just let bygones be bygones with Taiwan? Do you think that freak show in North Korea would do the same with South Korea? Surely you aren't that naive. Would they invade them tomorrow? Who knows? Would they assert themselves enough to disrupt our trade with those nations? Hell yes.
As for bankruptcy, 3.5 percent of GDP isn't going put us into bankruptcy or come even close to doing so. For about 50 years after WWII, we consistently spent double and sometimes triple that amount without putting us into bankruptcy. In fact, we were much further from bankruptcy then than we are now will a relatively smaller defense budget. The 14.6 percent (and rapidly growing) that we spend on social programs will bankrupt us a lot faster.
Could we get into a nuclear confrontation? Over a few man-made islands? No chance in hell.
A few things that need to made clear. First, I don't advocate jumping into whatever quagmire opportunity that comes along. If it's not our fight, we should stay out of conflicts. I also don't buy into the neocon myth that imposing democracy on a country will bring stability. However, if we draw red lines, we need to back them up. We look ridiculous and blow our credibility when we don't. Second, I know that not everybody that's involved in our military-industrial complex are choir boys. They aren't. There are colossal crooks and fraudsters involved at all levels - in the military, civilian bureaucrats, politicians, and especially defense contractors. However, the remedy isn't to throw the baby out with the bathwater for the same reason you don't close the police department just because you find some crooked cops.
-
Like x 4
Last edited: Oct 11, 2015