It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fortress America...an isolationist nation?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   
At one time, an "iron curtain" stretched across Eastern Europe separating Europe and, ostensibly, the world from the Soviet Union. This wall, figuratively and literally, was designed to keep the people of the "captive nations", dominated by the Soviet sphere of influence, from escaping to the freedom of the West.

It seems, with the ever growing debate about a wall between the United States and Mexico and increased border security between the United States and Canada that a new "iron curtain" is being raised. Could it be possible that, eventually, the United States will raise an invulnerable shield between itself and the rest of the world?

Will the United States become an isolationist nation? What if the U.S. simply withdrew it's troops based all around the world and retreated within the confines of the continental United States, Alaska and Hawaii -- while maintaining a cordial, albeit cool, relationship with Canada -- and stopped trading and even communicating with the rest of the world?

Could the world survive without the United States? Could the United States survive without the rest of the world?




posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   
look, there is no way in hell that the US would totally just withdraw into its self.

think all you want...but it wond happen



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I think we could last longer without them, then they would without us. As powerful as they are, without the rest of the world they would diminish. Do they have an oil supply to last from? I am not going to preach that I am an expert on this topic, but in my opinion from what I think I know, they depend on everybody else alot more than we depend on them. The % of recourses they use compared to the rest of the world is alot higher. How could they sustain these rates.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
look, there is no way in hell that the US would totally just withdraw into its self.

think all you want...but it wond happen


Which is the point of this site, to think all we want? No need to knock anybodies ideas just for thinking.

Seems like the purpose of this was to talk about the possibility of it ever happening, and the ramifications if it did. I dont think it was said that is WAS happening



[edit on 9-1-2006 by chissler]



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   
The US is not denying contact with the rest of the world ala the USSR.

We are denying ILLEGAL immigration.

There is a bit of a difference.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   


Will the United States become an isolationist nation? What if the U.S. simply withdrew it's troops based all around the world and retreated within the confines of the continental United States, Alaska and Hawaii -- while maintaining a cordial, albeit cool, relationship with Canada -- and stopped trading and even communicating with the rest of the world?

Could the world survive without the United States? Could the United States survive without the rest of the world?


Again, I dont think he is saying this already has happened. This is whether it is possible and what if it happened



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Thank you Chissler. it seems that few ppl actually read what was stated in this thread. I am proposing a hypothetical situation, not an existing one. I am simply asking whether the United States of America could exist in a total isolationist state.

Personally, I do believe that the United States could exist without the rest of the world. But, of course, I also believe that almost any nation could do this. I think of Iceland, for example. They are a nation that is, basically self sufficient. But life there is very different than in the present United States. Really, any nation or group of people could exist in an isolationist state.

Of course, if the United States did become totally isolationist, things would, indeed, be very different. What would change?



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Outsourced labor and the ability to exploit technologically inferior nations is the reason we are the "richest nation on earth." Our entire economy would change completely. I am too lazy to post quotes, but a lot of our profits, corporate or gov't wise, comes from our practice of importing cheap goods, outsourced labor, and cheap pay to the disadvantaged. I dont think it would ever happen, or work. At least not if we are to preserve our current standard of living.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   
I don't think we could survive. We have too much oil to import. There are a few things we would have to do to insure that we could keep afloat.

1. Abandon Hawaii. Hard to defend that place...
2. Abandon Alaska or absorb/take over Canada. The latter would be more practical, because of the oil...
3. Take over Mexico...wouldn't be too hard...most of its citizens already wanna be here.
4. Take serious steps toward Communism. After all, if we have capitalism, who's gonna tell people to stop exporting/importing.

I'm sure there are more steps than what I am listing, but...these are just things that I have off the top of my head. I just couldn't see us becoming isolationist...we are too dependent on foreign oil...



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Imagine, if you will, a completely different United States of America. It's really not so hard if you try.

The countryside along the US/Mexico border has a long ribbon of impenetrable steel wall. Towers filled with electronic sensing equipment dot the landscape. All Brush, Trees and vegetation has been cleared in a wide perimeter from the fence. Armed military patrols maintain ground surveillance and security while, overhead, Blackhawk Helicopters provide additional intelligence, deterrence and security. Border Crossings have been sealed and heavily armed military units stand guard.

Way to the North, the Canadian border is similarly fortified, albeit more discretely. Since the Diefenbaker era, the Canadian economy has become entirely entwined and dependant upon US trade. American corporations had become primary employers -- directy or indirectly -- of a majority of Canadians to the point where ecomic control of the Canadian government was ipso facto. In spite of American isolation, Canada maintains a mock sovereignty while bowing to American economic demands for oil, lumber, water and raw materils. For all intents and purposes, Canada is an ecomic vassal of the United States.

Canada, sovereign in name only, fulfills the role as "agent" for "Fortress America" , providing the US with contact to the rest of the world -- primarily Britain, Australia and New Zealand -- the commonwealth countries. Naturally, Canadian Immigration and security has been greatly improved; almost to the point where international air travel has become restrictive. A homogenized form of the "Patriot Act" has been enacted across the Canadian Provinces. Tourism between US and Canada (sic) has also become restrictive and mostly curtailed. Given this situation, the United States is, essentially, isolated from the rest of the world.

Since it has been mentioned in a previous post, Alaska, Hawaii, American , Rico and all territories and protectorates also maintain an isolationist policy where necessary. The same heightened levels of security exist and these zones are, likewise, restrictive. Naturally, this would apply to "American" shipping lanes, territorial seas and flight paths.

In this "new America", the U.S. has ceased, essentially all international trade. That is, the U.S. no longer imports -- anything (Canada and some essential bilateral trade would exist, in this scenario with the UK). All goods, all services would be totally, 100% U.S. owned and operated. The U.S. would continue to sell it's products to the outside world but would not be reliant upon this activity. The only cauldron of Capitalism that would exist would be within the boundaries of the United States.

Would the United States be able to exist in the world, much less be able to continue to exist within itself? Could the U.S. re-develop all the technology and the industry needed to sustain itself and prosper? And, could the current trends in politics lead towards this scenario? Would the sham of two-party politics be finally discarded for a government that is, essentially a triumvirate of the leaders of corporate Industry, Technology and Resource? Would it be necessary to essentially develop a dictatorship (benevolent or otherwise)?

Would such an isolationist nation implode from within or could it actually be governed to nurture and foster original views of the Founders of the United States and the "Don't Tread On Me" doctrine while staying out of "any and all foreign entanglements"?

Sure, this is long-winded reply and reformulation of the thread's title but change is good, isn't it?









.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   
ummmm.....ya, maybe, if you are talking about a forced state of isolation, forced upon the us by the rest of the world......

maybe, sometime in the not too distant future...



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   
It wouldn't have to "forced" on the U.S. by the rest of the world. And there are some genuine reasons to be isolated. Nevertheless, if one extrapolated upon the current anti illegal immigrant movement and the current state of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act, one could envision an isolationist America.

Keep in mind that, until Nixon and Kissinger's "Ping Pong" diplomacy with Red China, that country had isolated itself from the rest of the world for quite some time. Some countries, because of geography are isolated as well, such as Iceland and, even, New Zealand and Australia. One could easily consider these countries as being isolated as their economies have had to develop a great self reliance due to their geographical locations and positions in the worlds supply and commodity distribution lanes.

If the U.S. were to become a cauldron of capitalism in isolation, would the rest of the world suffer? After all, it has been the American economic and political system, for the most part, that has allowed the U.S. to develop such technological and Industrial dominance in the world when compared to other nations on this globe. Such systems in an isolationist incubator could easily restore, if not broaden, America's lead in these and other areas. and I won't even mention the prospect of future space colonization under the Stars and Stripes.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   
The big difference here is that the Iron Curtain was built to keep people IN, whereas the border wall would be built to keep people OUT. However, not to make us an isolationist country, but to better control the criminals from coming across our border (s), to the great detriment of our economy and society.

America would never become totally isolationist as no-one would benefit from that.

Actually, we have more than enough oil and coal to sustain us untill substitutes could be found for both industry and energy uses.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
benevolent tyrant,

considering the state of our trade deficit, along with our current reliance on that cheap labor to manufacture so many of the things we need in everyday life, reckon how long it would take us to recover if the rest of the world decided it just didn't want to trade with us anymore?

add to that the repercussions if Bush's war on terror breaks out into a full fledge world war which it might do if we decide to go into Iran, since, by what I hear, Iran has made some treaties with the likes of Russian and China and others similar to our NATO treaty.....
then imagine a few nukes being launched on both sides, along with all the unpleasant consequences of those. Bush's war, america's war.....who do you think history will record as the bad guys??? the arabs? don't think so...
there's be alot of angry people in the world I think. and well, it would probably lead to sanctions, and blockades, ect...against the us....

before ww2 germany was one of the major players of of the world, so wasn't england and europe. the us was just there. they were the economic powerhouses, not us. and because of this, well, they called alot of the shots....kind of like we are doing now. during world war two, we sat back, and europe exploded and self destructed.....but before this, the economy they built had collasped....it needed to be replaced. our economy is collasping, it needs to be replaced....thus well, it the powers that be have chosen war to be the main tool for initiating the changeover, like I think they have, well..........we are at war, wasting our resources, and somewhere, the one chosen to take the mantle it sitting back, waiting till the last minute to step in and "save the world"!! japan is still occupied. and germany had a long rough road to recovery after world war two. most of europe was destroyed.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   
It will never happen, because US has to keep supremacy in the world and Isolation is not going to do it.

Plus our nation is also in domination of world markets so money is to important for the US investors.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 11:59 PM
link   
An interesting scenario I think the US would lose it's dominant position in the world by sacrificing it's relationship with other nations. The level of isolation your suggesting is the equivalent of strict economic sanctions applied against America by the the entire rest of the world (except Canada). Isolation leads to stagnation. We would carry on in some form but I am not sure if it is a form I would want to live in.

The price of goods would skyrocket with no more cheap foreign labor so either we'll have to start dishing out those kind of wages here or we'll have to abandon capitalism as we know it.

The government would have to institute some form of fuel rationing to counteract our rather limited domestic supplies.

Our technological edge will degrade due to the lack of interaction with the rest of the world (science is based on the free exchange of ideas the only isolationist scientists are mad scientists).

Once prosperous cities will crumble with the loss of foreign capital.

Finally the walls that were originally built to keep people out will eventually be used to keep people. They'll either be looking for better opportunities overseas or to escape the tyranny needed to make a purely isolationist America a feasible system.

The rest of the world gets by just fine they did just fine before us there is no reason they won't be fine without us.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   
boogyman

That may happen eventually but with US now holding the worlds market I don't see it in a near future.

The dependency of the rest of the world in the US is to great, perhaps with time other nations will rise and become center stage.

What I see going on is if world producing oil countries will sanction US and use oil to get to us.

Why? because we are to Dependant on foreign oil.

We have to be very careful because very soon other nations need for oil like China and India will be greater than ours.

So we will be challenged for oil.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaFunk13
Outsourced labor and the ability to exploit technologically inferior nations is the reason we are the "richest nation on earth." Our entire economy would change completely. I am too lazy to post quotes, but a lot of our profits, corporate or gov't wise, comes from our practice of importing cheap goods, outsourced labor, and cheap pay to the disadvantaged. I dont think it would ever happen, or work. At least not if we are to preserve our current standard of living.


REPLY: Ahhhhh.. someone else who knows absolutely nothing about economics.
We've been the richest nation on earth long, long before China began producing so many things. People and countries will ALWAYS invest in countries where their money is threated the best.

What you call "cheap pay" is usually 3 to 10 times more than they made before, and they don't mind because it allows them a better standard of living.

We've outsourced labor for over 25 years; currently there about 6 million outsourced jobs, but the number of "insourced" jobs is about 14 million.
Many American companies have moved overseas because of the level of taxation and over-arching government control.

The "cheap goods" like sold at Wal Mart, Target, K-Mart, etc, have had a positive economic effect. In ten years, Wal Mart, alone, has saved the consumer over $600 billion, while providing tens of thousands of jobs.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Building a wall between the US and Mexico is hardly comparable to the "Iron Curtain" across Europe. This wall would be made to keep people out, not keep people in. I know youre trying to create a hypothetical situation, but there is simply no comparison. The US and International worlds relationship is interdependent, one could survive without the other, but both would be worse off without the other. I prefer to look at it as one person helping another for mutual benefits. That is how international politics work. You know, the you scratch my back I'll scratch yours type of deal. There is no realistic hypothetical situation for this to happen! Both the US and the rest of the world could survive without each other but both would be worse off without the other.

[edit on 1/15/2006 by ludaChris]



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1

The "cheap goods" like sold at Wal Mart, Target, K-Mart, etc, have had a positive economic effect.


Really!!!! they are killing middle class American with outsourcing American good pay jobs with low pay jobs that can not feed a family.

You have not Idea of the impact of these "Mega stores are doing to littler towns in American do you"

Wal-Mart cheap goods are produce in sweat shops in China because like that they don't have to pay for American labor.

In exchange they can offer a low pay job when "John" loses his job at the town manufacturing plan because it was move to Mexico, and then the government can said that they are producing jobs.

I guess you support outsourcing and cheap labor from third world countries because is good for the economy. Right. Wrong

Wal-mart, low pay, not benefits up to two years and people can not afford their medical insurance.

But is ok wal-mart is cheap.


[edit on 15-1-2006 by marg6043]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join