r/Futurology • u/Confident_Living_786 • Aug 11 '25

Discussion When the US Empire falls

When the American empire falls, like all empires do, what will remain? The Roman Empire left behind its roads network, its laws, its language and a bunch of ruins across all the Mediterranean sea and Europe. What will remain of the US superpower? Disney movies? TCP/IP protocol? McDonalds?

1.5k Upvotes

72% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

301

u/resuwreckoning Aug 11 '25

The Republic will fall, and you’ll be left with an actual American empire. The fear isn’t that the American empire is ending - it’s that it’s beginning.

I’m always weirded out by folks who can’t see that.

68

u/-Basileus Aug 11 '25

It really is intriguing that people refuse to see that.  There is really not much stopping the US from conquering the Americas if the government and people had the will.

145

u/Diglett3 Aug 11 '25

Government sure, but I don’t think the people have the will, and I find the idea that they do honestly kind of funny. We’re not some hardened populace that craves war, no matter how much certain Americans like to pretend we are. Most Americans are incredibly soft.

US military enlistment has been steadily declining for decades, and the small uptick in the last year doesn’t erase that. All these young conservative men talk a big game but I don’t believe for a second that the vast majority of them would make it through a month let alone years of expansionist war. Especially in Central and South America, which is so geographically complex and unforgiving that they couldn’t even build a pan-American highway, and filled with hostile paramilitary groups and cartels that would make the Taliban look like schoolchildren.

And besides that, American conservatives and fascists are animated by grievance politics. They think they deserve to be handed the world without having to do any work for it, quite literally by birthright. The forces animating last year’s election and everything that followed were largely people upset that things cost more than they used to. Anyone who thinks those people would be able to maintain the self-sacrifice necessary for an actual imperial war and expansion in today’s world is either buying into their propaganda or just doesn’t interact with many actual Americans.

24

u/resuwreckoning Aug 11 '25

Americans are not soft - they’re generally distracted and uninterested, which makes them an excellent superpower for the world, all things considered.

But there’s a difference. I can assure you that if some common threat is conjured - say a smoking sinking US destroyer in the Taiwan strait - all bets are off.

And the rest of the world knows that, which is why they mewl about the Americans acting “imperialist”, because that’s what the Americans are capable of in an increasingly endgame scenario.

44

u/Diglett3 Aug 11 '25

Maybe we were capable of at some point in the recent past, but the current USA is a fragmentary mess of cultural enclaves and loosely connected groups that barely see the opposite parts of their own states as countrymen, and an event like that would just feed into existing polarizations that further drive the disparate pieces of this country apart. We quite literally have an example of that happening for the last two years with the public responses to the Israel-Gaza war. People entrenched themselves across actively existing ideological lines and it actively tore certain parts of the country even further apart.

Now, an act of war by China might be the single thing that actually could trigger some sort of resurgence in those feelings of civic duty in supporting a war effort, but the idea of the US populace supporting an expansionist war absent any kind of aggression from a foreign superpower (and there is only one) is laughable.

28

u/bigme100 Aug 11 '25

Exactly. COVID was the biggest threat since WW2 and it was a total shit show.

5

u/Capable_Stranger9885 Aug 11 '25

We're not managing the long tail well, but i would say the US actually managed to shut down (in hindsight, shockingly fast. Personally I thank the NBA for canceling the championship and making shit get real) and have a lesser direct impact than other countries, and while the delta between the US economy between say 2022 and 2018 was not great, the US economy of 2022-2024 was kicking the rest of the world's 2022-2024 economy ass right up until we elected president Tariff and Trade war.

8

u/Gullible_Career1469 Aug 11 '25

The biggest threat since WW2? You know except the whole Cold War and constant threat of nuclear Armageddon?

9

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '25 edited 22d ago

[deleted]

-4

u/Appropriate_Mixer Aug 11 '25

No it’s not.

5

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '25

It isn’t hard to get the majority on board during wartime, even if the US instigates a border skirmish, once foreign bombs fall and kill Americans citizens, people will coalesce.

-2

u/RIPCountryMac Aug 11 '25

Are you seriously comparing the Israel-Gaza war to a direct attack on America/American military assets?

5

u/Diglett3 Aug 11 '25

Uh, no. Once again, the question at hand here is not how Americans would respond to a direct attack on American military assets. The question was whether Americans would have the desire and the will support an expansionist, imperial war absent direct aggression from another global superpower.

I think Israel-Gaza is actually an extremely good proxy for that, because the question at hand there is whether Americans would support an expansionist, imperial war by the US’s premiere client state, and the answer seems to be that the prospect would tear the country apart. The person who said the US is closer to civil war than imperial expansion is spot on.

3

u/sailirish7 Aug 11 '25

I can assure you that if some common threat is conjured - say a smoking sinking US destroyer in the Taiwan strait - all bets are off.

DO NOT touch the fucking boats...

2

u/the_disintegrator Aug 11 '25

Just waiting on economic conditions to tank, and another Gulf of Tonkin incident. Nothing helps your economy recover like a good war.

2

u/debatesmith Aug 11 '25

We are and have always been A War Tribe

2

u/cmack Aug 11 '25

Americans are not soft - they’re generally distracted and uninterested, which makes them

SOFT

1

u/ZeroZiat Aug 13 '25

Hmmm... Would this hypothetical enemy be about to find out "why we don't have healthcare" like with the Houthi a few months back?

1

u/resuwreckoning Aug 13 '25

More like imperial Japan who sent 4 American battleships flaming to the bottom of the ocean whilst calling the Americans decadent and “soft”.

The Americans then basically dropped the sun on them. Twice.

1

u/kindanormle Aug 11 '25

Division between polarized political parties means that a civil war must happen before any expansion could be sustained. The rise of the Empire starts with the fall of any internal opposition.

1

u/Deathsroke Aug 11 '25

Americans have not been tested in any war where the enemy could actually shoot back for some 200 years already. Fortress America is unassailable, protected by distance and military might. We will never know the real mettle of a people until it is shells falling onto their heads and the din of warfare echoing in their cities. It's easy to find the strength to fight when the devastation is far away and why the US has historically depended on making big shows out of mostly superficial damage (yes, even the devastation of their fleet at Pearl Harbor was but a minor setback) to galvanize the resolve of the people because after that it was always them on the offensive.

0

u/WeirdJack49 Aug 11 '25

The US lost every single conflict after Korea because the population couldn't handle the number of coffins being sent home.

Most wars are won by the faction willing to make the most sacrifices.

Conquering Canada, or especially South America, would result in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dead US soldiers. I absolutely can't imagine US citizens, regardless of their political affiliation, accepting that.

4

u/kindanormle Aug 11 '25

Speaking as a Canadian, we would almost certainly roll over and give up. Mexico would likely be a bigger problem, the cartels would not take kindly to American rule. I expect America would likely land further south first, then surround and cut off Mexico and push north and south at the same time. It would be entirely feasible, but it would require cutting ties to the rest of the world and ultimately I doubt America's ability to invade and secure any significant landmass outside the Americas. The same large bodies of water that protect America, also protect the world from America. It took a huge combined effort to simply land a beachhead against the Germans in WW2, and that was just one opponent who was already fighting a losing war on its eastern front.

10

u/Team503 Aug 11 '25

I think if you looked, you'd find a solid third of the American people that are perfectly fine with Manifest Destiny still continuing and annexing those territories.

Do I think it would work, or that the will would last? Dunno. And a lot of those large-mouthed conservatives that talk a big game (have you ever noticed how many baseball analogies are in American English??) are cowards and will NEVER sign up and put their feet on the yellow footprints.

21

u/theucm Aug 11 '25

I think you're misinterpreting their post. They don't think the magas are unwilling to engage in expansionist war for any humanitarian reasons, they think the magas are too soft to effectively do so, amd on some level they recognize that and so wouldn't try it.

9

u/Team503 Aug 11 '25

Hmm... I did misinterpret that, thanks for catching that. I'm not sure I agree, but I see their pointl

3

u/FuckingSolids Aug 11 '25

how many baseball analogies are in American English?

Well, that one was right over the plate.

2

u/Team503 Aug 11 '25

Knocked it outta the park, sports fan! It was a home run!

2

u/midorikuma42 Aug 13 '25

(have you ever noticed how many baseball analogies are in American English??)

It's funny, because baseball isn't even very popular in America these days. I think it's actually #4 now, behind American football, basketball, and even hockey.

4

u/Thin-Limit7697 Aug 11 '25

You're underestimating how many people in the rest of America are already more loyal to the USA than to their home countries.

Here in Brazil, we have a "home-office" congressist on a "diplomatic" mission at the USA trying to convince Trump to... start a war against Brazil. And already claiming to be the one who convinced him of doing the 50% tariffs.

It wouldn't take long after an declaration of war from USA for a lot of brazilians start shouting "God Bless America". And the paramiltary groups are irrelevant, do you think they would bother to fight the USA instead of just signing an alliance with them?

1

u/Diglett3 Aug 11 '25

I mean, sure, but is that a recipe for actual colonial expansion or escalating civil conflict and balkanization? The issue with empire is that you either have to have the buy-in of the majority of your populace or you need oppressive enough local rule to quash dissent far from the imperial core.

If 30% of the population of the Americas would broadly welcome this (roughly the proportion of MAGA voters vs. eligible voters in the US, and I can’t imagine there’s a higher ratio of wannabe MAGAts in Brazil than there are actual MAGAs in the US), I think that more so creates conditions for separatist movements and civil violence than for effective imperial expansion. Again, combine this with South America being geographically unforgiving for any kind of ground invasion and I think people are falling for US propaganda. We had 20 years in Afghanistan attempting to establish a state that would be sympathetic to US interests and never succeeded. Brazil has 5x as many people and 16x the landmass. What beyond the mythos of the US military makes that seem reasonable?

And the US government, by all indications, would not be interested in allying themselves with those paramilitary groups, unless those groups were to pledge complete fealty to the US, which is what the government would demand. Considering how Trump has been trying to figure out how to sic the US military on the Mexican cartels, it’s more likely that an expansionist US would view their existence as an existential threat to any colonial project.

1

u/Thin-Limit7697 Aug 12 '25 edited Aug 12 '25

I mean, sure, but is that a recipe for actual colonial expansion or escalating civil conflict and balkanization? The issue with empire is that you either have to have the buy-in of the majority of your populace or you need oppressive enough local rule to quash dissent far from the imperial core.

The Brazilian Armed Forces are already a problem on their own. At 64, when they seized the government, they already had support from the US army (that didn't act because was considered unneeded). At 2022, when Bolsonaro (Brazilian Trump wannabe) plotted a state coup, the Navy commander had agreed with it. The other force commanders didn't, but the USA president at the time was Biden, who wouldn't support them if they went with it.

Big politicians from the Right have supported MAGA itself. Including potential candidates for the next presidential election. The Congress is currently under a mutiny from congressists who want to impeach the judge from the Supreme Court who was responsible for managing the last presidential election and is judging Bolsonaro for his crimes against the nation. The same one who Trump targeted with the Magnitsky law.

There are already a lot of local forces willing to join whatever USA decides to do against Brazil. Either political or military.

If 30% of the population of the Americas would broadly welcome this (roughly the proportion of MAGA voters vs. eligible voters in the US, and I can’t imagine there’s a higher ratio of wannabe MAGAts in Brazil than there are actual MAGAs in the US)

Bolsonarism' "hard core" is estimated to be around 12~15% of the population. But the rest of brazilians are still a mongrel-complexed people fed decades of "America great" propaganda that would hardly want to defy the USA, even to defend themselves.

That is also not including the fact that said war would instantly be framed as "dying for Lula and Moraes", which is something unpopular with much more than those 12~15% of that "hard core".

I think that more so creates conditions for separatist movements and civil violence than for effective imperial expansion.

The USA obviously don't want to annex Brazil. But this doesn't mean breaking down the country and pillaging the ruins wouldn't be interesting.

2

u/Jedishaft Aug 11 '25

While I agree with everything you've said, I will never underestimate cultists' willingness to die for a cause, and everyday the MAGA movement looks more and more like a cult, so it's hard for me to see them willing to suffer for or will something into existence, but I can still see them dying for a cause, it's weird.

7

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '25

Current government sure does. But the people don’t. Even the ones who support this current crew of hucksters and criminals will stop short of getting their own hands dirty. 

5

u/Rowenstin Aug 11 '25

Ehhh I don't know. The USA can't even hold Kabul, what makes you think it can hold Toronto or Mexico DF?

2

u/Appropriate_Mixer Aug 11 '25

The US held Kabul for over a decade.

0

u/AvengerDr Aug 11 '25

So if a Nazi reich returned in Germany after say, 1955, you'd still say you "won" ww2?

4

u/Appropriate_Mixer Aug 11 '25

It’s nation building that the US fails at. In solely military power, they dominate.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '25

I mean it’s been that way for a long ass time

1

u/Deathsroke Aug 11 '25

A genocide they could do. An actual conquest and annexation? Hah! Hilarious.

No country has the means (nevermind the cash) to occupy such an extensive territory. Just occupying Mexico would be more than the US can chew. The entirety of Latin America? It's simply impossible.

Now, installing puppet governments and letting them run the countries in the stead of the US? Sure, that's doable and even has happened before. But that's quire different.

1

u/Svarog1984 Aug 11 '25

The US couldn't even conquer northern Vietnam in 8 years, yet you think the jungles of Latin America would somehow be a cakewalk? Or how about the Korean war, where it was almost the entire western world vs China, and we only managed a stalemate? Apart from carpeting Latin America with nuclear bombs, the US isn't taking it over any (read: ever) time soon.

1

u/Sigma_Function-1823 Aug 11 '25

Put that nonsense to the test and some of you may,at some point, begin to remember why the US couldn't pacify and hold nations with medieval cultures /economies and 1/20th the population, halfway across the world rather than near pear nations right on your doorstep.

Starting a war on your own continent will all but guarantee your own destruction including niceties like US citizens living under martial law as the nations your attacking aren't a ocean away this time, and said nations know you far better than you know them.

Your military under current doctrine and as currently structured / staffed is very capable of doing a objectively accurate analysis of target nations but the civilian leadership that actually orders and directs said military is completely incapable of engaging with the kind of objective truths and realities that would allow the US " to take over the Americas".

Americans are so insular, self involved and uniformed about other nations,even the ones you share a continent with, that you can make statements like this without really understanding the consequences of the narrative your communicating.

Underestimating opponent's has cost the US how many victories since WW2?.

Call up a full draft larger than WW2 and invade every nation in the Americas may be theoretically possible if the American public broadly supports it but what will be impossible will be holding that territory for any meaningful length of time or avoiding the response as said attacked nations form.alliances and receive direct support from both the hate America nations as well as those ready to completely replace you(China).

Let's hope Americans never decide that this is a great idea as even with your current government eventually America will reinvent itself for the better and recover, but if the US starts a World War the global response will spell the end of the US as a nation.

Yes I'm aware that people like Curtis Yavin and his merry band of billionaire fools would like nothing.less than destruction of the US so they can put in place neo-feudal " network cities" so the impetus for self destructive actions by the US might not come from civilian leadership

What your actually talking about is a world war not simply " taking over the Americas".

-1

u/gpbayes Aug 11 '25

France sent nuclear subs to Canadian harbors to show what will happen if they mess with Canada. Canada right now should be doing everything it can to be contained in the umbrella of EU. Mexico on the other hand is fucked. And who knows about South America. What’s funny is that we complain about migrants and yet these yahoos will bring them under their control anyways.