The world and the West overall sins away its day of grace, awaiting judgment, for the greatest enemy of most of the West and of world is the God of the Bible, who often has used the wicked as His sword of chastisement - Psalms 17:13. Thus surrender to God is the victory it needs.
Yet as regards the interim, since typical isolationist posters (who never seem to provide details as to their position) argue as if the US should not be involved in forming and supporting strategic allies against China and Iran, etc., then I asked perplexity.ai:
What would the world look like if America was strict isolationist, and having withdrew all forces in the world, then what threats would it face?
If the United States adopted strict isolationism and withdrew all military forces globally, the world would undergo profound geopolitical shifts, leading to increased instability, power vacuums, and emerging threats. Below is a comprehensive analysis based on current geopolitical assessments and expert projections.
Global Geopolitical Shifts
Power Vacuum and Rival Expansion
Russia would likely expand its influence in Eastern Europe, testing NATO’s weakened defenses. Aggression against the Baltics, Ukraine, or Moldova could escalate, exploiting the absence of U.S. deterrence24.
China would accelerate territorial claims in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait, potentially invading Taiwan without U.S. counterbalance. Beijing might also expand economic coercion through initiatives like the Belt and Road56.
Regional Powers (Iran, Turkey, North Korea):
Alliance Fragmentation
NATO would weaken significantly without U.S. leadership, forcing Europe to develop autonomous defense capabilities. However, political divisions and military underinvestment could delay effective coordination24.
New Blocs: Alliances like BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) might gain prominence, promoting alternatives to Western-led institutions5.
Threats to the United States
Economic Risks:
The U.S. dollar could lose its status as the global reserve currency, leading to financial instability. Trade routes might face disruption from piracy or regional conflicts, increasing costs for goods5.
Security Threats:
Direct Aggression: Adversaries like China or Russia could test U.S. resolve in the Pacific or Arctic6.
Nuclear Proliferation: Allies like Japan, South Korea, or Saudi Arabia might pursue nuclear weapons for self-defense, increasing global nuclear risks56.
Cyber and Asymmetric Warfare: State-sponsored cyberattacks (e.g., from China, Russia, Iran) would target U.S. infrastructure, with reduced capacity for retaliation67.
Loss of Global Influence:
International institutions (UN, IMF, WTO) could become dominated by China or Russia, eroding democratic norms and human rights standards5.
Regional Impact Summary (Hypothetical "Map")
| Region | Key Changes | Primary Threats |
|---|---|---|
| Europe | Russian expansion into Baltic states; NATO fragmentation | Energy coercion, hybrid warfare, refugee crises24 |
| East Asia | Chinese annexation of Taiwan; North Korean attacks on South Korea | Naval blockades, nuclear brinkmanship67 |
| Middle East | Iranian dominance; ISIS resurgence; Israel-Gulf insecurity | Terrorism, oil supply disruptions35 |
| Indo-Pacific | Chinese control of sea lanes; territorial disputes | Trade route instability, resource conflicts56 |
| Global South | Economic collapse in aid-dependent nations; regional power struggles | Mass migration, authoritarian regimes5 |
Conclusion
A strictly isolationist U.S. would trigger a fragmented, multipolar world marked by heightened conflict, economic volatility, and diminished American security. Power vacuums would empower authoritarian states like China and Russia, while threats such as nuclear proliferation, cyber warfare, and disrupted trade would directly endanger U.S. interests. Without forward bases and alliances, America’s ability to project power or shape global norms would erode, potentially forcing costly re-engagement in the future. - https://www.perplexity.ai/search/
Iran, China, Russia, and North Korea all play outsized roles in determining the future viability of the international order—from weakening the nonproliferation regime to establishing alternatives to the IMF and World Bank to violating international law. The next six years will be a critical juncture: Whether these “Big Four” choose to upend the international order, work within it, or create competitive arrangements will have lasting effects. - https://www.hoover.org/research/tomorrows-national-security-landscape
No exact prior post from our conversation matches "strategic alliances" tied to strict isolationism outcomes, but the closest discussion (Dec 20, 2025) covers aid to allies as deterrents against China/militant Islam/Iran, with clear predictions for cutting it (akin to isolationism).Memory
Key prior exchange recapped
You debated an isolationist on FreeRepublic, arguing aid > domestic welfare cuts, and asked: "What countries receiving aid deter China/militant Islam, and what happens if aid stops?" Response: Aid recipients like Taiwan, Israel, Jordan act as buffers; strict cuts lead to Chinese/Iranian expansion, refugee crises, higher U.S. defense costs (insurance premium analogy).milsteinff+1
If strict isolationism was followed: Foreseen results
China gains: Taiwan falls or neutralizes without U.S. arms; faster BRI expansion, South China Sea dominance, lost trade routes.globaltimes+2
Iran/Islamist surge: Israel/Jordan/Egypt weaken; Iran proxies (Houthis, Hezbollah) unchecked, nuclear risk rises, energy shocks hit U.S. economy.hoover+1
Broader fallout: Allies pivot to China/Russia; U.S. faces costlier solo interventions, eroded tech edge (AI/drones), multipolar decline.belfercenter+2
Plaintext Sources (copyable):
Dec 20 convo: US aid deterrents – conversation_history:499
Global Times: Isolationism hurts US vs China – https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202409/1320113.shtmlglobaltimes
CFR: Isolationism vs Engagement – https://education.cfr.org/learn/reading/isolationism-versus-engagementeducation.cfr
MilsteinFF: Isolationism dangers US-Israel – https://www.milsteinff.org/the-growing-threat-of-america-first-isolationism-a-danger-to-the-u-s-israel-and-their-alliance/milsteinff
Hoover: China’s Iran strategy fails – https://www.hoover.org/research/marx-we-trust-iran-we-bust-chinas-iran-strategy-collapseshoover
Belfer: Isolationism hits US tech – https://www.belfercenter.org/research-analysis/emerging-tech-american-isolationism-consequences-ai-drone-and-space-launchbelfercenter
Reddit geopolitics: Anti-isolationism args – https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/181j59x/what_are_the_best_arguments_against_isolationism/reddit
Isolationists highlight Vietnam, Contras, Iraq, and Afghanistan as costly failures, but these interventions—despite tactical/political setbacks—contributed to deterring Soviet expansion (not primarily China) by raising costs and buying time for broader Cold War victories.cvce+4
Vietnam: Political failure, strategic deterrence
U.S. involvement (1955–1975) aimed to block "domino theory" communism spread via Soviet/Chinese aid to North Vietnam; South fell, but no wider SE Asia dominoes—Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, India stayed non-communist, partly due to Vietnam's post-war focus on independence over export (even fought China 1979). Political mismanagement (e.g., micromanagement, no-win rules) caused U.S. withdrawal, but 20-year bleed imposed huge costs on Hanoi/Moscow/Beijing, weakening Soviet proxies and enabling Nixon's China pivot.reddit+3
Reagan's Contras: Rollback success
Contra aid (1981–1989, $19M initial) was Reagan Doctrine core—overt/covert support vs. Soviet-backed Sandinistas in Nicaragua; tied to global anti-communist push (Afghanistan mujahedeen, Angola UNITA). Isolationists call it quagmire, but it pressured Moscow (Nicaragua cost Soviets $billions), contributed to USSR overstretch/collapse by 1991—no hegemony gained.discoursemagazine+2
Iraq/Afghanistan: Post-9/11 threats contained
Post-2001 invasions degraded al-Qaeda/Taliban sanctuaries, prevented major attacks (9/11-scale) for ~20 years; Iraq ousted Saddam (Iran counterweight), disrupted WMD/terror networks. Flaws: Nation-building overreach, Taliban resurgence. But no Soviet angle (post-Cold War); deterred jihadist caliphate, bought time vs. Iran/ISIS—despite costs, isolationism risks safe havens for worse threats.washingtoninstitute+1
Isolationists discount Soviet deterrence
They frame as endless wars, ignoring cumulative bleed on USSR: Vietnam/Afghanistan/Contras forced massive Soviet spending (~25% GDP on military), enabling Reagan's arms race win; no global communist hegemony emerged—China split, Eastern Europe freed. Strict isolationism might've let Moscow dominate unchecked (e.g., no Afghan "Soviet Vietnam").wikipedia+3
Plaintext Sources (copyable):
CVCE: Vietnam domino theory – https://www.cvce.eu/en/education/unit-content/-/unit/55c09dcc-a9f2-45e9-b240-eaef64452cae/5ad21c97-4435-4fd0-89ff-b6bddf117bf4cvce
Reddit/AskHist: Vietnam strategic win? – https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/oslewu/was_the_vietnam_war_a_strategic_american_victory/reddit
Wiki: Vietnam War – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_Warwikipedia
Britannica: Vietnam facts – https://www.britannica.com/event/Vietnam-Warbritannica
Discourse: Reagan ended Cold War – https://www.discoursemagazine.com/p/how-reagan-ended-the-first-cold-wardiscoursemagazine
Wiki: Contras – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraswikipedia
Wiki: Reagan Doctrine – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Doctrinewikipedia
WashInst: ISIS threats post-defeat – https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/islamic-state-five-years-later-persistent-threats-us-optionswashingtoninstitute
..
If strict isolationism was followed: Foreseen results
China gains: Taiwan falls or neutralizes without U.S. arms; faster BRI expansion, South China Sea dominance, lost trade routes.
Iran/Islamist surge: Israel/Jordan/Egypt weaken; Iran proxies (Houthis, Hezbollah) unchecked, nuclear risk rises, energy shocks hit U.S. economy.
Broader fallout: Allies pivot to China/Russia; U.S. faces costlier solo interventions, eroded tech edge (AI/drones), multipolar decline.
Plaintext Sources (copyable):
Dec 20 convo: US aid deterrents – conversation_history:499
Global Times: Isolationism hurts US vs China – https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202409/1320113.shtml
CFR: Isolationism vs Engagement – https://education.cfr.org/learn/reading/isolationism-versus-engagement
MilsteinFF:
Isolationism dangers US-Israel –
https://www.milsteinff.org/the-growing-threat-of-america-first-isolationism-a-danger-to-the-u-s-israel-and-their-alliance/
Hoover: China’s Iran strategy fails – https://www.hoover.org/research/marx-we-trust-iran-we-bust-chinas-iran-strategy-collapses
Belfer:
Isolationism hits US tech –
https://www.belfercenter.org/research-analysis/emerging-tech-american-isolationism-consequences-ai-drone-and-space-launch
Reddit
geopolitics: Anti-isolationism argu... –
Isolationists highlight Vietnam, Contras, Iraq, and Afghanistan as costly failures, but these interventions—despite tactical/political setbacks—contributed to deterring Soviet expansion (not primarily China) by raising costs and buying time for broader Cold War victories.cvce+4
Vietnam: Political failure, strategic deterrence
U.S. involvement (1955–1975) aimed to block "domino theory" communism spread via Soviet/Chinese aid to North Vietnam; South fell, but no wider SE Asia dominoes—Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, India stayed non-communist, partly due to Vietnam's post-war focus on independence over export (even fought China 1979). Political mismanagement (e.g., micromanagement, no-win rules) caused U.S. withdrawal, but 20-year bleed imposed huge costs on Hanoi/Moscow/Beijing, weakening Soviet proxies and enabling Nixon's China pivot.reddit+3
Reagan's Contras: Rollback success
Contra aid (1981–1989, $19M initial) was Reagan Doctrine core—overt/covert support vs. Soviet-backed Sandinistas in Nicaragua; tied to global anti-communist push (Afghanistan mujahedeen, Angola UNITA). Isolationists call it quagmire, but it pressured Moscow (Nicaragua cost Soviets $billions), contributed to USSR overstretch/collapse by 1991—no hegemony gained.discoursemagazine+2
Iraq/Afghanistan: Post-9/11 threats contained
Post-2001 invasions degraded al-Qaeda/Taliban sanctuaries, prevented major attacks (9/11-scale) for ~20 years; Iraq ousted Saddam (Iran counterweight), disrupted WMD/terror networks. Flaws: Nation-building overreach, Taliban resurgence. But no Soviet angle (post-Cold War); deterred jihadist caliphate, bought time vs. Iran/ISIS—despite costs, isolationism risks safe havens for worse threats.washingtoninstitute+1
Isolationists discount Soviet deterrence
They frame as endless wars, ignoring cumulative bleed on USSR: Vietnam/Afghanistan/Contras forced massive Soviet spending (~25% GDP on military), enabling Reagan's arms race win; no global communist hegemony emerged—China split, Eastern Europe freed. Strict isolationism might've let Moscow dominate unchecked (e.g., no Afghan "Soviet Vietnam").wikipedia+3
Plaintext Sources (copyable):
CVCE: Vietnam domino theory – https://www.cvce.eu/en/education/unit-content/-/unit/55c09dcc-a9f2-45e9-b240-eaef64452cae/5ad21c97-4435-4fd0-89ff-b6bddf117bf4cvce
Reddit/AskHist: Vietnam strategic win? – https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistory/comments/oslewu/was_the_vietnam_war_a_strategic_american_victory/reddit
Wiki: Vietnam War – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_Warwikipedia
Britannica: Vietnam facts – https://www.britannica.com/event/Vietnam-Warbritannica
Discourse: Reagan ended Cold War – https://www.discoursemagazine.com/p/how-reagan-ended-the-first-cold-wardiscoursemagazine
Wiki: Contras – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraswikipedia
Wiki: Reagan Doctrine – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Doctrinewikipedia
WashInst: ISIS threats post-defeat – https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/islamic-state-five-years-later-persistent-threats-us-optionswashingtoninstitute
Thx. Can you give me examples in which the majority of citizens were against something the government did, but the majority were shown to be wrong
Public opinion has been wrong many times, especially where fear, prejudice, or short‑term costs hid long‑term benefits.brookings+1
Civil rights and desegregation
In the early–mid 1960s, large shares of white Americans opposed sit‑ins, Freedom Rides, and other civil‑rights protests, viewing them as disruptive or dangerous, even as these were pushing toward equal protection under law.jacobin+1
Segregation itself was widely accepted in parts of the country, but later rulings, legislation, and retrospective polling treat Jim Crow as a grave injustice that the earlier majority was wrong to defend.pewresearch+1
Entry into World War II
Before WWII, overwhelming majorities opposed declaring war on the Axis; a 1939 Gallup poll found about 88–90% against entering the war, even as Hitler overran Europe.nationalww2museum+1
With hindsight, most historians and citizens now judge that resisting Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan was necessary, and an earlier, firmer stand might have reduced the ultimate death toll and destruction.news.gallup+1
Economic and foreign‑policy rescues
In 1995, President Clinton’s decision to guarantee loans to Mexico during its peso crisis was unpopular with U.S. voters who saw it as a bailout of foreigners at their expense.courses.lumenlearning
The loans were repaid ahead of schedule with interest, and many economists now cite the rescue as stabilizing a key neighbor’s economy and protecting U.S. jobs and banks—contrary to the majority’s initial view.tandfonline+1
Policy misconceptions
Studies of issues like Common Core standards show that large portions of the public formed negative opinions based on factual misconceptions (for example, believing it was a federal Obama program that barred states from adding content).brookings
When those misconceptions are corrected, support for the policy rises noticeably, indicating that the earlier “majority” view was at least partly wrong because it was built on false premises rather than informed judgment.onlinelibrary.wiley+1
Punishment and civil liberties
Modern polling in democracies shows majority or near‑majority support for stronger punitive measures (e.g., death penalty in some countries) that legal scholars and rights advocates argue are unjust or error‑prone.lotswife
Commentators going back to James Fenimore Cooper have warned that unfiltered public opinion can become a form of tyranny, where majorities demand policies later recognized as abusive or unconstitutional.lotswife
But did not majorities support declaring war on the Axis after the sinking of us and allied ships?
Yes, majorities strongly supported declaring war on Japan after Pearl Harbor (Dec 7, 1941), but opposition to war with Germany/Italy remained high until Hitler declared war on the U.S. (Dec 11).news.gallup+3
Pre‑Pearl Harbor: Strong isolationism
Late 1940–early 1941: 80–90% opposed U.S. entry into European war; e.g., Jan 1941 Gallup: 88% against declaring war on Axis.reddit+2
Even Oct 1941: 81% vote to "stay out" vs. Germany/Italy.teachingamericanhistory
Ship sinkings: Support grew but no war declaration
Lusitania (1915, WWI): Sinking of U.S./Allied passenger ship by U-boat shifted opinion (from 60% pro-German to war support), but didn't cause immediate U.S. entry—Wilson waited for broader factors.daily.jstor
WWII U-boat attacks (1941): USS Reuben James sunk (Oct 31, 1941, 115 dead); 62% approved U.S. Navy shooting on sight, but no majority for full war declaration on Germany pre-Pearl Harbor.news.gallup+1
Pearl Harbor pivot
Dec 10 Gallup: 97% approved Congress declaring war on Japan (2% disapprove); unified nation.wikipedia+1
Germany: Hitler’s declaration unlocked full Axis war; pre-Pearl polls showed ~47% saw Germany as bigger threat, but no preemptive U.S. war push.ropercenter.cornell+1
Point stands: pre-attack majorities opposed entry despite sinkings; direct attack flipped it, proving public needed visceral trigger despite strategic necessity.nationalww2museum+2
Plaintext Sources (copyable):
Gallup: Unified after Pearl Harbor – https://news.gallup.com/vault/199049/gallup-vault-country-unified-pearl-harbor.aspxnews.gallup
Reddit/AskHist: WWII opposition – https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ggvp1m/were_the_majority_of_americans_still_opposed_to/reddit
Roper: Polling Pearl Harbor – https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/blog/polling-and-pearl-harborropercenter.cornell
JSTOR: Lusitania effect – https://daily.jstor.org/lusitania-effect/daily.jstor
Wiki: Pearl Harbor consequences – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequences_of_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harborwikipedia
Gallup: WWII start opinion – https://news.gallup.com/vault/265865/gallup-vault-opinion-start-world-war.aspxnews.gallup
Can you give me a list of conservative issues (posting 10 commandments in schools, etc.) majority Americans are against
Recent 2025–2026 polls confirm majorities opposing several conservative‑backed policies, from religion in schools to Project 2025 pillars and foreign adventures; others like school choice split evenly.navigatorresearch+2
Expanded conservative issues with majority opposition
Issues with split/near-majority opposition
Teacher‑led prayer: 48% oppose nationally (Pew); 52% favor but varies by state.the74million+1
National abortion ban: 60% oppose (Gallup/Pew trends).news.gallup
School vouchers (universal): Opposed by teachers/public school advocates; polls ~50/50, but seen as discriminatory.firstfocus+1
Social conservatism hit 38% (Gallup high), but these specifics draw broad pushback across parties.news.gallup
Plaintext Sources (copyable):
Navigator: Oppose Project 2025 – https://navigatorresearch.org/a-majority-of-americans-continue-to-oppose-project-2025/navigatorresearch
UMass: Project 2025 unpopular – https://www.umass.edu/news/article/americans-widely-oppose-project-2025-according-new-umass-amherst-pollumass
NBC: Project 2025 unpopular – https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/poll-project-2025-broadly-known-severely-unpopular-voters-rcna172660nbcnews
CNN: Greenland poll – https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/15/politics/greenland-cnn-pollcnn
UT Tyler: 10 Commandments – https://www.uttyler.edu/about/news/pressrelease/2025/03072025.phputtyler
Pew: Prayer schools – https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/06/23/support-for-christian-prayer-in-us-public-schools-varies-widely-by-state/pewresearch
Recent 2025–2026 polls show majorities opposing certain LGBTQ policies often backed by conservatives (e.g., restrictions on trans youth in sports/bathrooms), while broad gay rights have majority support.abcnews.go+1
LGBTQ issues with majority opposition
Context and contrasts
Gay marriage/LGBT rights: 71% support (Gallup 2025); opposition now minority (~29%).news.gallup
Regional: Support for bans higher among Republicans (78–92%), independents (75–80%), even Dems (58–60%).angelusnews
Drag queens for kids: No clear majority poll, but conservative pushback strong amid "moral panic" claims.harvardlawreview
Plaintext Sources (copyable):
ABC/538: Bathroom/sports polls – https://abcnews.go.com/538/congressional-bathroom-ban-latest-transgender-policy-battle/story?id=116205618abcnews.go
Parents Def Ed: Parents oppose trans ideology – https://angelusnews.com/news/nation/poll-parents-oppose-trans-ideology/angelusnews
CNN: SCOTUS trans athletes – https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/supreme-court-arguments-transgender-athletes-01-13-26cnn
Gallup: LGBTQ trends – https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspxnews.gallup..
Yes, the 72% opposition refers specifically to "restricting a woman's right to contraception" as described in the UMass Amherst Poll on Project 2025 (July–Aug 2024).
Poll clarification
Exact phrasing: "restricting a woman’s right to contraception (72% opposed)".
Context: Project 2025 critics link it to conservative pushes for contraception limits (e.g., via Comstock Act revival or employer mandates), though authors deny broad bans.
Cross‑tabs: Opposition spans parties; even former Trump voters largely against.
This fits the pattern of unpopular "conservative" policies per polls, despite conservative defenses as overblown interpretations.
Plaintext Sources (copyable):
UMass Poll full text – https://www.umass.edu/news/article/americans-widely-oppose-project-2025-according-new-umass-amherst-poll
Recent polls confirm majority support for same‑sex marriage at 68–71% (Gallup/Pew 2024–2025), up from ~63% cited earlier, with ~29% opposed—a conservative position lacking majority backing.
Updated marriage equality polling
Party splits: Dems 88%, Ind 76%, GOP 41–46% (Gallup).
Trend: Stable high since Obergefell (2015); slight GOP dip post‑2024.
Adds to prior list: Same‑sex marriage reversal (conservative goal) has ~30% support nationally.
Plaintext Sources (copyable):
Wiki: SSM polls summary – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States
Gallup: Record divide post-Obergefell – https://news.gallup.com/poll/691139/record-party-divide-years-sex-marriage-ruling.aspx
Gallup: SSM still supported – https://news.gallup.com/poll/646202/sex-relations-marriage-supported.aspx
Substack: SSM support stable – https://matthewvines.substack.com/p/same-sex-marriage-polls
