Research on Missile Defense Shields has been going on for decades, with few signficant results. Generally the critique is that the measures needed to defeat the shield are quite simple and easily developed, or the complexity of the system would so much that the system would breakdown during operation. At this point in time there is no system that looks viable. This is reality. Perhaps in a few decades something more viable will be developed, but that is not the case now. Let's go over this. There is no shield. So what exactly do you think is protecting this country from nuclear weapons? To confuse what *may* be developed in the future with what exists *now* is an irresponsible approach to decision making. "Won't know 'till we try!!" But we have tried -- for decades.
I reserve the right to disagree with the idea that the Shield "will not work". While I would be the first to doubt Government press releases, recent reports on the success of directed laser weapons at successfully accomplishing multiple independent shoot-downs are encouraging, to say the least. (I'll admit it's about time. We have indeed spent many years, and many billions, trying to get where we are today).
That said, until the Shield is fully implemented, what's wrong with makin' like Switzerland? If Muslims really hate us purely for our "freedom, our constitutional democracy, our wealth", etc.... why not ram 767's into Geneva? The Swiss asset base is gigantic (far out of proportion to their population), their Government is constitutional rather than Theocratic, and their freedoms secure and cherished.
Yet nobody's particularly interested in picking a fight with the Swiss.
Is it just possible that this is because the Swiss are not really interested in picking a fight with anybody in particular?
I mean, seriously... is that verboten even to imagine that Swiss non-interventionism might have something to do with their lack of real enemies, just for the sake of discussion?
Nor is size and population -- "we are really big, that's why they hate us" -- a valid excuse. The Islamists aren't particularly interested in picking fights with Brazil, either, last I checked.
If you want to avoid potential WMD conflicts, make like Switzerland. The fact that this particular "switzerland" is the size and population of Brazil is besides the point; them as don't stick their feet in snake pits, get bit less.
No one is claiming that "direct military confrontation" with China is implied by an non isolationist approach. The actors that we should be worried about are unstable regimes or individuals who would tend to either use nuclear weapons against the United States or perhaps lose control of their weapons. This would include nations like Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea. You're also missing the obvious point that the time to prevent proliferation is *prior* to these nations aquiring nuclear weapons.
Pakistan has nukes. Now.
But their attention can be entirely focused on India, quite easily. Without a dime of Foreign Aid outlays, or restrictions on Home Liberties.
Same with North Korea (they hate the *other* Koreans -- the Free ones; and they are always going to be paranoid about the Japanese), and Iran and Iraq (they hate eachother).
Why cram your feet into third-world snake pits in which -- if you are not present -- the snakes are perfectly content to kill eachother and not us?
Islamic Proverb:
Me against my brother.
Me and My brother against our cousin.
Look, an Infidel!! All three against the Infidel!!
Unless, of course, the "infidel" doesn't bother making an appearance in the region.
Neither option either increases American taxes, extends American military involvements, or decreases civil liberties at home. In fact, both ideas enjoy moral rectitude on their own -- generally speaking, Free Trade is a good thing, and that includes free trade with India; and as far as defensive capabilities, military self-sufficiency for Japan is nothing more or less than that which is moral for any Republic. ~~ Non isolationism is not incongruent with other policies as you have described above. So I'm not sure why you are raising this issue.
Because these policies are not incongruent with Non-Interventionism either, and Interventionism doesn't work.
At least, it hasn't worked for decade after decade after decade.
Insanity is, attempted the same failed policy over and over, and expecting a better result.
At least, it hasn't worked for decade after decade after decade.
But it has worked for decade after decade after decade. It doesn't work perefectly but it still works.
And so we are back to the beginning. What to do about the proliferation of WMD (especially among unstable regimes) -- the fundamental question that started this debate, and a question you have yet to answer.
Without the inducement of money Pakistan could just as easily focus its attention toward helping its Muslim brothers in other nations. What if a more fundamentalist government were to gain power in Pakistan? You make quite a number of assumptions concerning what Pakistan would do without *any* financial aid from the US. It's a foolish wish that by isolating ourselves from the world that "somehow" things will work out for the best.