Foreign Policy Realism

[Peter1469]

I'm pretty sure the tangible results for modern warfare would show gains to the few, death brought unnecessarily to many , a net loss for the common folk , an actually loss of human rights and oil government sponsored to out compete alternate energy along with severe damage to National security.
Which is why such evaluations are not preformed!

A lot less people die in modern warfare.

[ripmeister]

It is though. The founders and their posterity practiced neutrality in foreign policy up until the late 1800's. The Swiss have been practicing it for over 200 years. It's the only rational, sustainable foreign policy a country can pursue in this messed up world.

I'm not sure you can compare the dynamic of a couple of hundred years ago to today with the advances in technology that now exist.

[ripmeister]

What do you mean by that?

Assuming that extremists are a threat to our "Freedom, Peace and Prosperity" as you put it is it in our interests to do something about the incubators of said extremism?

[Admiral Ackbar]

I'm not sure you can compare the dynamic of a couple of hundred years ago to today with the advances in technology that now exist.

What hasnt changed and wont change is geography and that dictates a lot. Dont discount that fact. The Swiss stay out of trouble because they live in a mountain fortress that is on the high end of impossible to invade. That gets the credit more than any neutrality policy. It is easy to be neutral when no one wants to mess with you.

[Captdon]

Our policy about everything is what is in our best interest at the time. We can change it anytime.

[Admiral Ackbar]

Our policy about everything is what is in our best interest at the time. We can change it anytime.

I agree but with the caveat that there are somethings that never change. That is controlling the seas and the Mississippi River Basin. (don't take that for granted)

[Tahuyaman]

The US agreed to be the "world police" at Breton Woods (1944) in exchange for the USD becoming the reserve currency.

I would argue that that it goes back to the US entering WWI. That was the begining of American interventionism. Much of what led to the US entry into WWI still guides American foreign policy today.

[Tahuyaman]

What hasnt changed and wont change is geography and that dictates a lot. Dont discount that fact. The Swiss stay out of trouble because they live in a mountain fortress that is on the high end of impossible to invade. That gets the credit more than any neutrality policy. It is easy to be neutral when no one wants to mess with you.

Also, the Swiss have no cultural or economic impact upon the world. It's not about geography or topography.

[Admiral Ackbar]

Also, the Swiss have no cultural or economic impact upon the world. It's not about geography or topography.

Nope it is all about geography. Poland for example never stands a chance. It is on the North European Plain with no defensible borders and surrounded by great powers. The Poles can be "neutral" all they want and they can be as culturally inoffensive as they want. Bottom line they are getting invaded either way

[Tahuyaman]

Nope it is all about geography. Poland for example never stands a chance. It is on the North European Plain with no defensible borders and surrounded by great powers. The Poles can be "neutral" all they want and they can be as culturally inoffensive as they want. Bottom line they are getting invaded either way

Its not, but you can think what you want.