Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

What if America totally isolated itself?


F3SS

Recommended Posts

On 1/17/2017 at 4:37 PM, Agent0range said:

Rare earth metals...vital in ALL electronics, and 95% of them come from China..

We have a massive deposits of all the rare earth minerals here in United States that is untapped, we let others sell to others so they can make money in the free trade, but we never touched ours and it lead to other nations depleting theirs and ours being reserved. Really, you should do more research before making a claim like that. United States would do just fine, matter of fact, we be better off than most nations because they sold all theirs and we kept ours.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
3 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Cutting off the internet is a bit extreme, and a bit harder to do now given recent turn of events but would be an entertaining way of messing with the world if America went full isolationist.

Wouldn't you want to do this as well to reduce hacking risks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is too extreme albeit hypothetical.  A better situation to discuss might be pulling all military home and imposing identical tariffs and regulations on imports and exports.

 

On Risk,   I found building up in Australia and then attacking with a big army did more to keep me in the game, but not winning.   South America was another story.   With Australia, you couldn't really come out and take and hold Asia.  So you almost had to go for Africa which is usually blocked pretty well.    What I also found is that by sitting in Australia, I didn't gain enough troops to combat what others got.   Now, if you were active outside Australia, it was a great continent to hold.   Only one border to defend.  

Sorry for the side tracking.   I hadn't played Risk for years, but me and a couple buddies used to play all the time.   Damn!   Now I have to find an app.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Myles said:

On Risk,   I found building up in Australia and then attacking with a big army did more to keep me in the game, but not winning.   South America was another story.   With Australia, you couldn't really come out and take and hold Asia.  So you almost had to go for Africa which is usually blocked pretty well.    What I also found is that by sitting in Australia, I didn't gain enough troops to combat what others got.   Now, if you were active outside Australia, it was a great continent to hold.   Only one border to defend.  

Sorry for the side tracking.   I hadn't played Risk for years, but me and a couple buddies used to play all the time.   Damn!   Now I have to find an app.

Many times I was forced to fortify Australia just to prolong the ending.  A couple times I did very well, pushing well into Asia from there, but never once did that strategy work.  I usually ran out of troops too soon and the other player(s) would eventually build up faster than I could.

Thanks, I'm on a nostalgia trip (read: midlife crisis).  Talking about Risk helps a bit. :) 

Edited by Thorvir
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Thorvir said:

Many times I was forced to fortify Australia just to prolong the ending.  A couple times I did very well, pushing well into Asia from there, but never once did that strategy work.  I usually ran out of troops too soon and the other player(s) would eventually build up faster than I could.

Thanks, I'm on a nostalgia trip (read: midlife crisis).  Talking about Risk helps a bit. :) 

Yep, it's great if you can get it early, but late in a game you are usually prolonging your death.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Myles said:

Yep, it's great if you can get it early, but late in a game you are usually prolonging your death.  

Better is the duo of Africa and S. America. Hit Europe or N. America depending on whichever is weaker while the northern hemisphere fights it out for Asia. It worked for me over Christmas with the family.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Thorvir said:

Many times I was forced to fortify Australia just to prolong the ending.  A couple times I did very well, pushing well into Asia from there, but never once did that strategy work.  I usually ran out of troops too soon and the other player(s) would eventually build up faster than I could.

Thanks, I'm on a nostalgia trip (read: midlife crisis).  Talking about Risk helps a bit. :) 

That was my experience too.  Its been 20 years since I played, I thought things might have changed, but I did read a couple of sites about winning strategies just to catch up.

 

23 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

I got to ask how many times did you actually win or even play Risk cause one of the most basic winning strategies is to bunker in Australia and exploit the card system, which depends on the particular rules, to in one turn get a massive army that can depending on the game conditions wipe the board, or capture multiple continents and reinforce the choke points, or cripple all other players.  

I used to win once in a while, but I thought you had to capture territories to gain a card..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

That was my experience too.  Its been 20 years since I played, I thought things might have changed, but I did read a couple of sites about winning strategies just to catch up.

I used to win once in a while, but I thought you had to capture territories to gain a card..

There are other versions of Risk that have differing mechanics to make the game a bit more diverse.  I've played many of them, and a couple are good games in my opinion.  I think Lord of the Rings Risk is a fair one.

Did any of you ever play Castle Risk?  I remember really enjoying that.  Haven't played in decades, but still have the game and my original Risk (they've got to be thirty years old now).

Edited by Thorvir
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Thorvir said:

There are other versions of Risk that have differing mechanics to make the game a bit more diverse.  I've played many of them, and a couple are good games in my opinion.  I think Lord of the Rings Risk is a fair one.

Did any of you ever play Castle Risk?  I remember really enjoying that.  Haven't played in decades, but still have the game and my original Risk (they've got to be thirty years old now).

Oh man, some memories there.  Played Lord of the Rings Risk on weekend marathons.  Never tried Castle Risk.  I will look that one up.  Thanks!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/18/2017 at 7:11 PM, Tatetopa said:

First your statement about coffee and tea is factually incorrect.  Coffee can be easily grown in Hawaii not that it matters since Puerto Rico, a United States territory, has a rather large and thriving coffee industry.  As for tea while not all types of tea are or can be grown in the United States there are a few large domestic tea producers, if I remember correctly the largest is in South Carolina.

Yes indeed, it is factually incorrect.  I am grateful that you spurred me on to do a little research.

https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/coffee.pdf

Apparently the US consumes roughly three billion pounds a year. (25,299 thousand 60 kg. bags)  That is a sobering statistic.  Also I didn't know the unit of coffee measurement was thousands of 60 kg bags.  

Puerto Rico produced roughly 10.5 million pounds of coffee last year, slightly more than Hawaii which was about 9 million.   US Virgin Islands also produces coffee, but only about 30% of what they drink.   In round numbers that  seems to be about 1% of US consumption.  EU is the only area that beats us in consumption close to 5 billion pounds.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/258620/main-import-countries-for-tea-worldwide/

Tea data is a little harder to get.  Total imports 119,638 metric tons  Domestic production is in fact in many small  tea plantations scattered through the South and Northwest, and Hawaii with the biggest in South Carolina.  I didn't know that.  Thanks for that Dark Hunter.  US production seems to be around than 500,000 pounds,250 English tons;  but sources usually state retail data. Again it seems domestic production is less than 1% consumption.

 

On 1/17/2017 at 2:11 PM, F3SS said:

but trade and military operations are end

Back to the original premise.  No more military operations beyond our borders (except retaliation for attack), and no trade.  Why no trade?  What about all of the jobs that rely on import or export of products?  I can sure understand secure borders and no military adventures, but I don't get the trade part. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Yes indeed, it is factually incorrect.  I am grateful that you spurred me on to do a little research.

https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/coffee.pdf

Apparently the US consumes roughly three billion pounds a year. (25,299 thousand 60 kg. bags)  That is a sobering statistic.  Also I didn't know the unit of coffee measurement was thousands of 60 kg bags.  

Puerto Rico produced roughly 10.5 million pounds of coffee last year, slightly more than Hawaii which was about 9 million.   US Virgin Islands also produces coffee, but only about 30% of what they drink.   In round numbers that  seems to be about 1% of US consumption.  EU is the only area that beats us in consumption close to 5 billion pounds.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/258620/main-import-countries-for-tea-worldwide/

Tea data is a little harder to get.  Total imports 119,638 metric tons  Domestic production is in fact in many small  tea plantations scattered through the South and Northwest, and Hawaii with the biggest in South Carolina.  I didn't know that.  Thanks for that Dark Hunter.  US production seems to be around than 500,000 pounds,250 English tons;  but sources usually state retail data. Again it seems domestic production is less than 1% consumption.

 

Back to the original premise.  No more military operations beyond our borders (except retaliation for attack), and no trade.  Why no trade?  What about all of the jobs that rely on import or export of products?  I can sure understand secure borders and no military adventures, but I don't get the trade part. 

The coffee bean is a big one- but we can "stretch" coffee with other things. Probably not billions of pounds worth of stretch though. The tea statistic is interesting because it did not say if it was just Camellia sinensis, or if it included tisanes.

Another big one in the U.S. that it does not make for itself- Chocolate. No cocoa bean farms in the states really, it tends to only grow in the magical 20 degrees off the equator. No more trade would mean no more chocolate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Yes indeed, it is factually incorrect.  I am grateful that you spurred me on to do a little research.

https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/coffee.pdf

Apparently the US consumes roughly three billion pounds a year. (25,299 thousand 60 kg. bags)  That is a sobering statistic.  Also I didn't know the unit of coffee measurement was thousands of 60 kg bags.  

Puerto Rico produced roughly 10.5 million pounds of coffee last year, slightly more than Hawaii which was about 9 million.   US Virgin Islands also produces coffee, but only about 30% of what they drink.   In round numbers that  seems to be about 1% of US consumption.  EU is the only area that beats us in consumption close to 5 billion pounds.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/258620/main-import-countries-for-tea-worldwide/

Tea data is a little harder to get.  Total imports 119,638 metric tons  Domestic production is in fact in many small  tea plantations scattered through the South and Northwest, and Hawaii with the biggest in South Carolina.  I didn't know that.  Thanks for that Dark Hunter.  US production seems to be around than 500,000 pounds,250 English tons;  but sources usually state retail data. Again it seems domestic production is less than 1% consumption.

 

Back to the original premise.  No more military operations beyond our borders (except retaliation for attack), and no trade.  Why no trade?  What about all of the jobs that rely on import or export of products?  I can sure understand secure borders and no military adventures, but I don't get the trade part. 

I think my idea here was mostly about if we could self sustain in bubble and how the world outside the bubble would do without us. It's nothing I actually want but I'm glad I brought it up because a lot of interesting points have come up here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I have a question, when did Anerica become an economic super power? We all know it was t during its isolationist period but only when it stopped those practices and became the global superpower after the Second World War. 

If America returns to being an isolationist nation I highly doubt it would help the Us economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Is it possible or realistic to become totally isolationist in this day and age. i think we shouldn't reject globalism but rather figure out ways to make it work better

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, rashore said:

The tea statistic is interesting because it did not say if it was just Camellia sinensis,

I am not sure, I hit a "buy this report for a yearly subscription of $84." and decided not to.  It does seem to have a lot of statistics.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for this topic, It did cause me to think a great deal. At first I thought it was about all of the material things we needed and wouldn't have or all of the income lost.  In the end it was a lot more than that to me.  I thought about my ancestors who started coming her after the Jacobite Rebellion.  Some wound up in Georgia, some in Canada.  With not much more than an ax and a musket they made their way into an  unknown territory.  That traveling, exploring spirit  shows up in me a little bit although I am not as tough or resourceful as those people were.  For me, the world is a wonderful and amazing place that I want to take in. Some day I hope our descendants get in a ship and head for the unknown stars.   That's just me, it has no logic behind it and I can't support it by reason.

I think of that flyspeck town in southern Denmark, Haithabu, Hedeby in English.  A thousand years ago the harbor was crowded with ships form the north, Europe, the rivers of Russia, England, Ireland, Iceland and beyond. A dozen languages were spoken in those mud streets between the wooden houses.  Traders came overland from the Mediterranean, the Middle East and Asia.  Silk from China, steel from Damascus,  amber and furs from Scandanavia, Saxon and Gaelic gold and silver work all found their way through Hedeby.  The world was open; maybe only a voyage away.  I know I have romanticized it and dismissed the 30-40 year lifespan of most folks, but it was a fascinating age that still has a grip on me.

Again, thanks for the topic.  Best wishes.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

So what would happen if America became a strict isolationist country? Citizens could still travel the world freely...

It's a good hypothetical question, but traveling the world freely isn't "strict isolationism".   There are some notorious classic ideas on what isolationism means (e.g. isolationism means non-interventionism) passing through our govt figures and their peddlers in recent years. 

We're not "isolationists" because we talk to our neighbors, don't bomb people on the other side of town, or don't go tell people three towns over what to do in their own yards.   It's only when we get too sheeple on any of these collectivist mentalities (statism, nationalism, globalism et al) that we lose the plot and start thinking that human nature changes once it's collective and bureaucratized.

But nobody in govt has proposed strict isolationism in the absolute.  There's some real but limited examples of it, started by politicians who don't even realize they're isolationists, like economic sanctions on Russia, trade and travel embargoes on Cuba, or not talking to Iran.   If we can't talk, travel or trade with other countries, our relationships suck. 

If we don't have "enemies", the war profits dry up.  The true cost of not-being isolationist.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.