Quote:
Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer
I guess the first thing I'd do is surreptitiously bankroll the election of a president who had no interest in seeing the US maintain military and economic superiority and indeed actively disdained it going so far as to deeming that the US would "lead from behind" in any activities it did undertake.
I'd make sure he was a charming ideologue, a darling to the youth yet with enough heft and gravitas that the baby-boomer generation would be drawn to him as well. I'd make sure it was someone who would fiddle while a fiscal crisis burned assuring that if his administration wasn't the one directly responsible for castrating any ability for the U.S. to maintain a global response (and domestic response) capability, his successors would be in such a deep financial hole that there'd be absolutely no way they could fix both the economy and a domestic defense budget. I'd make sure he was someone who would convince our allies we were no longer worth assisting, by way of subtle insults (small, cultural ones), direct refusal to assist with defense (like denying an ABM shield), and insistence on ignoring regional crises regarding other nations' manufacture of WMDs and vows to use them on our allies. Thus, whether he was in office or his successor was in office, by the time we called for help there'd be no-one left willing to lift a finger when someone "kicked the door in" on us and the "whole rotten structure" came falling down.
That's how I'd start.
|
Would this hypothetical President also be considering a treaty with the UN that would affect private ownership of weapons? And maybe have a mainstream media obviously biased towards him?