Perhaps; it depends on whether investors have rules about percentage of foreign holdings (many do). You'd also need to find countries with AAA ratings that still have big enough outstanding debts that the markets are sufficiently liquid even for large transactions. For example, Canada has $550 billion in total outstanding bonds, so you couldn't easily move $50 billion there, since that'd require buying up 10% of the entire market. Even moving $5 billion there is buying up 1%, which the liquidity may or may not support.

Everybody's missing the point here.

The credit rating agencies (S&P, Moody's and Fitch) don't know what they are doing! They enabled the financial meltdown. Their ratings are not useful. Their numbers are bad. They are either corrupt, inaccurate or both.

It would be nice and easy to believe that, since S&P puts a "AAA" beside a company's name, that the company is solid. We now know that is false.

Pay attention to Nicholas Taleb's writings: the financial models commonly in use don't work - don't trust them. Use more conservative measures. Avoid markets where you cannot quantify risk.

I think at least one of the issues is that other AAA countries/entities simply don't produce enough debt. It' not just that we're AAA, it's that we produce so much AAA paper. The AAA bond market gets so much smaller is the issue. That's my understanding, but I'm no expert.

I think that is largely why this won't have that much of an effect, there isn't a replacement for that much money that is AAA. The "cure" (crowding into what is left) would be more painful to the bond market than the "disease" (us).