Is Trump sane on (non trade) foreign policy?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

No, but who is?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The one foreign policy facet that unites all Republicans - and what makes them a fundamentally dangerous party - from Ron Paul and Buchanan to Trump's machismo, to the "establishment" wing, to the "WW3 now!" of people like Carly is unilateralism. To the GOP, America playing by other nation's rules is an affront to its sovereignty. That is why the population and establishment of US's allies (Israel and certain Eastern European nations aside) universally back the Democrats and treat the Republican Party with universal didsain. (and no it's not because of any hackneyed crap like "OMG IF SARKOZY/MERKEL/CAMERON WERE IN THE US THEY WOULD BE BERNIE SANDERS!!1!!")

The GWB Presidency's tendency  of unilateraism unleashed a tidal world of Anti-American sentiment through the world. For a while elections across the world were won by who could hate on Dubya the most. Thoroughly mediocre politicians like Schroeder were kept alive on the spectre of the Republican's arrogant views of the world. And this attitude has never diminished as the GOP has been locked out of power watching Obama (horror of horrors!) "apologise for the US" (witness the candidates bafflement at the idea other countries matter at all irt the Iran Deal).

Trump is the embodiment of this "foreign policy by id" perspective. Trump explicitly rules out being constrained by international law. He doesn't particularly care about established patterns or alienating allies - everything seems to be "do it because I feel like it" with him. And although I'm no fan with the "global establishment" by any means, such a thinking pattern would be dangerous for America's leading position in the world; it would inflame anti-American sentiment (indeed, my one potential scenario for a PM Corbyn would be if he were to pivot against the actions of a President Trump).

It would also be a very interesting departure for America. It would be kind of like going back to the days before Wilsonian liberal interventionism came into vogue and foreign policy was explicitly based around self-interest. (which would make Trump like Teddy Roosevelt )

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

A lot of American military is built along Cold War grounds. The nuclear defense policy is hilariously outdated, for a world where the major issue was trying to swagger over the USSR. I've never heard a decent argument that the whole triad couldn't just be replaced by a few defensive nuclear subs.

The defense of the high military spending is officially that being a hegemon inspires stability. Whether that has happened (or even if "stability" is the most important goal around) is another matter...

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

@ Virginia, I still don't see much of an argument for non-sea based deterrent. As long as you have enough subs so that three or four are always out you'll always have the power of second strike. ICBM's simply aren't needed (and mobile ones, as well as being costly, seem like a really bad idea, considering the ... reputation of the military in charge of missiles) in a post-Cold War context ; and bombers are based on a very dangerous game (i.e. that scrambling bombers will "demonstrate resolve" and deter an adversary (it would also free bombers up for conventional use).

@ Last Northerner, I do think that the US hegemony despite its flaws is better than if it were to drop off the face of the earth suddenly and let every nation start rearming itself en mass. Peace must be achieved multilaterally, otherwise other countries will just fill the vacuum. It's easy to fall in the common leftist trap of "US imperialism is the only force in the world", but other countries would quite happily fill the American's role if they vanished.