Editor says, what if US President Ron Paul down-sized the military? Please note that the opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of the author(s). This story was published in the July 2012 edition of Changing the Times Magazine.

Share this Article on:

Facebook

Twitter

Editor says, in authoring this bluesky scenario we have collaborated with guest historian Scott Palter.

Jared Myers commented on 2012-06-13 02:43:40 ~ Not really believable, honestly. Paul has said multiple times, "Cut millions from militarism, not one penny from defense." I don't see the Navy being downsized at all under a Paul Administration, let alone being successfully challenged by the Chinese.

Scott Palter commented on 2012-06-13 02:55:56 ~ Paul is an old fashioned isolationist and could well see gutting the Navy and much of the AF as a way to make overseas adventures impossible.

Jared Myers commented on 2012-06-13 03:02:14 ~ Paul's a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. BIG difference.

Scott Palter commented on 2012-06-13 03:52:34 ~ Might I respectfully ask what you base that distinction on as regards Paul circa 2012? I listened to virtually every word of those silly debates and did not hear the distinction you seem to have.

Jared Myers commented on 2012-06-13 06:45:18 ~ Sure, no problem. Isolationism is defined as "the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, foreign trade, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities." On the other hand, Non-Interventionism is defined as "a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination." Non-interventionism says that political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial differences (self-defense). However, most non-interventionists are supporters of free trade, travel, and support certain international agreements, and therefore differ from isolationists.

Scott Palter commented on 2012-06-13 11:16:52 ~ Then we are using different words but essentially saying quite similar things. Historic Isolationists included pacifists, anti-imperialists and those who just believed in continental defense. Paul seems to prefer letting the rest of the world go away unless it actively attacks us and not seeing much danger that they will.

Eric Lipps commented on 2012-06-13 12:17:27 ~ Um . . . apparently in this alt, it's OK to name a carrier after a sitting president, Constitutional purists (and doesn't Ron Paul insist, loudly, that he's practically the only one in politics, with the posible exception of his son Rand Paul?) might be troubled, though; the same logic which bans putting a living president's image on coins would apply here.

Chris Oakley commented on 2012-06-13 17:17:46 ~ I have to agree with bagpipelover....I just don't see these kinds of drastic cuts coming to pass.

Scott Palter commented on 2012-06-13 17:22:27 ~ Extremely unlikely but how likely is a Ron Paul Presidency?

Sailorbarsoom commented on 2012-06-13 18:25:58 ~ Or we can resolve the dispute by playing a winner-take-all game of Futuresport.

Eric Oppen commented on 2012-06-13 18:53:21 ~ As long as we have nukes, and boomers, this is highly unlikely. The Chinese have other fish to fry much closer to home. And I will say that carriers are not the Unbeatable System a lot of people think they are. See the War Nerd's column for more details.

Jeff Provine commented on 2012-06-13 22:34:56 ~ Maybe not as soon as 2016, but steadily downgrading the military while other countries build could lead to a "Who's the Biggest Dog" showdown. On the other hand, so do arms-races, typically. The question is, who has the biggest economy to support it?

Mike commented on 2012-06-14 10:34:00 ~ I see Paul's ideas are even mis represented here too.