Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 November 3

= November 3 =

How many countries are dependent on the US for military protection?
Or I think that’s what the worldwide military bases are for. Is the entire world dependent on the US for international peace? But then, what’s the deal with modern countries and their insistence on having an independent government even though the government is reliant on foreign aid? In the past, weaker countries would probably be absorbed by more powerful countries. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * List of countries with overseas military bases should help you research your questions about US military presence and United States Agency for International Development should help you answer your question on U.S. foreign aid to other countries. The general underlying question you seem to have is probably best addressed by starting at the article titled American imperialism and seeing where it leads you. -- Jayron 32 15:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for supplying the links. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Military bases have different uses. Some are not for protecting the host country but for helping the US itself with a base of operations. The host may be paid to allow the base, or it may be there against their will like Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The last 2 are not necessarily an or. As per the article, the US (tries to) pay Cuba for Guantanamo although they don't Cuba doesn't cash it since they don't recognise the agreement it's based on (and the amount is pitiful). But you could also easily imagine a case where the a country does recognise the agreement and although they no longer want s it they also recognise there's nothing they can do under international law and so does accept the payment (especially if it's more reasonable). Nil Einne (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC) Edited at 03:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You may also want to look at national interest. The US believes that its own interest is best served by having a large number of independent allies and trading partners and is prepared to pay to protect them. It's not a one-way-street; the majority of recent US overseas interventions have been militarily supported by coalitions of friendly nations. Alansplodge (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Non, since its mostly a pure political choice who to choose as enemy or make peace with and which country or international group of countries to choose for an Military alliance or not. You could argue very obviously Saudi-Arabia is total dependent on buying military equipment from the USA and UK, since they have no capacity to build "hightech" military goods themselves, but just some weeks ago they signed some contracts in Russia. So this seems less a real dependency but more consequence from choosing and keeping to a specific geopolitical alliance (or not). --Kharon (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * If the question is actually why America doesn't absorb its military dependencies, Ohio State should read entangling alliances, Manifest Destiny, the Monroe Doctrine and American exceptionalism. Historically, the US has had no interest in absorbing non-alien cultures, ours being defined as a secular republican form of English common-law rule tempered by the liberalism of John Locke and a historical familiarity with the Roman Republic, and Suetonius's and Edward Gibbons' Decline and Fall thereof.
 * "no interest in absorbing non-alien cultures" They only want to absorb alien cultures?B8-tome (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The effect of our defending NATO and funding the UN at US Taxpayer expense has been to subsidize "our dictators" and the European welfare state, with the current tragic results in the EU and the Philippines just to name a few. Let me add the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers for good measure. μηδείς (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Medeis -- In the 1850s, many Southerners were anxious to seize parts of the Caribbean and/or Latin America in order to bolster slavery, and the idea wasn't considered all that unrealistic, since the U.S. had recently expanded through the Mexican Cession, Gadsden Purchase, division of the Oregon Country, etc. See Ostend Manifesto, Knights of the Golden Circle, William Walker (filibuster).  The Crittenden Compromise mainly failed due to disagreement on the question of whether slavery would be allowed in territories that would be acquired by the U.S. in future.  The Civil War put an end to this... AnonMoos (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The greater importance, than 19th century politics, is the 20th century concept of Neocolonialism. The U.S. learned well that actual colonialism and actual imperialism, whereby a country forcibly conquers another land tends to generate a lot of negative baggage.  Neocolonialist practices means the U.S. gets to maintain the illusion that its colonies have actual sovereignty, by allowing them to do so on paper, while exerting its influence through economic, cultural, and military means.  Sure, you get to SAY you have your own country, so long as you play by OUR rules.  Neocolonialism gives the US all of the benefits of an actual colonial empire but gives it plausible deniability to claim it is supporting independence and sovereignty in its colonies.  -- Jayron 32 04:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I wrote a thesis on Polk's presidency and the Mexican-American war. We even had the option to buy a window on the Sea of Cortez at the time of the Gadsen Purchase but didn't, we incompetent conquerors we.  I find the above imperialist narrative hysterical in both meanings.  Our subsidizing the welfare states of lands we will never rule and wouldn't if we could counts as "neocolonialism"?  I suppose a sugar-free diet is neogluconialism, and the fact that two of the richest Americans of the 1990's, Bill Cosby and Oprah Winfrey are examples of neoracism.  μηδείς (talk) 05:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Which are the United States colonies? Sleigh (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I can't speak on behalf of the believers in neocolonialism, but given our military bases in Japan and Germany), both Group of Seven) countries, our buyout and defense of the G20 countries of Mexico's debt, and our South Korean protectorate, one assumes they are our meatpuppets. This ignores the fact that we both house and own the UN.  μηδείς (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Military bases are mostly connected to prior wars and history. If they where really tools of Neocolonialism there where much more bases in Africa and South America. Neocolonialism also does not work well on developed countries and it does not develop real dependencies alto it will likely try to boost the believe in these. Obviously the escalating Anti-Russian sentiment is one way to convince the importance of close ties to a powerfull, "guarding", friendly Nation. --Kharon (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The idea of a powerful state supporting a weaker one in return for favours (rather than just taking it over) isn't new - see Client state.