Why Not Disband The US Military?

[GenSeneca]

I am saying we could no longer dominate the world, but remain a major player in the South China Sea.

That doesn't make sense. The idea that WE, the US all by ourselves, need to keep China in check doesn't make sense to me in general. If it's so important, then why aren't the English, French, Canadians, etc. pouring their tax dollars and soldiers into the same effort?

Simply because you disregard the substance doesn't mean it was not presented. For starters, the dollar is going to stop being the global currency of choice if we suddenly stop being a world power.

It's our economic domination that makes the dollar the standard, not our military supremacy. The biggest threat to keeping the dollar as the worlds currency is our own inability to control spending in Washington. Monetizing our debt, downgrades to our AAA rating, inflating our currency, all contribute to fiscal concerns over the soundness of the dollar. I do not see our military strength being tied to the soundness of our dollar in any appreciable way.

They pay us by having a great relationship...by maintaining a huge trading relationship with us, by buying a ton of our debt, by supporting our global objectives in international bodies like the UN.

China has the largest trade relationship with us of any nation, they buy the bulk of our debt, but none of that can be attributed to our military dominance of the south China sea.

What is the value of Japanese (of English, French) support for a UN Resolution we want to push through? Monetarily, pretty limited, but it is still very important, and very worthwhile.

Well, to answer that question I had to ask myself; What is the value of a UN Resolution? Answer; No practical value whatsoever.

Only if you make the argument based on something that was never said.

Dominating the oceans can help us create great trading partners.
Being a great trading partner does not make someone an ally however.

China is our largest trading partner and the biggest holder of US debt, our economic supremacy, and not our domination of the oceans, is responsible for that relationship. You were citing our supremacy of the oceans as the reason for our trade relationship with Japan but make no effort to explain the contradiction of this assertion when applied to China. In both cases, it's our global economic power that attracts trading partners, not our military prowess.

In theory we can for a lot longer if we maintain the dollar as the global currency.

Then explain to me how our military might is more strongly associated with the soundness of our dollar than our economic power. I just don't see it. We could be a regional military power and still retain our global economic dominance. However, you see the two as being inexorably linked but I have yet to see any evidence of this.

The US military's mission, in my opinion, is to protect US interests.

I don't see it as being in our best interest to spat in the face of our greatest trading partner and the largest holder of our debt.

Absolutely. Europe was only able to accomplish this under the protection umbrella of American dominance.

Why hasn't the same thing happened in Africa?

They don't...we constantly have to protect our interests, and you see every day new nations attempting to establish themselves and challenge us.

Then why not use our military dominance to destroy every nation and government that dares challenge us?

One supreme power did basically gain control of Europe...The United States.

Again, unification of Europe was only possible because the US protected them....prior to this, it was constant wars in Europe..exactly the scenario that I described. What will make it different anywhere else if no super power is there to calm the waters.

Why aren't the waters calm in Africa? Perhaps we need to invade that continent and establish American dominance in that region as well... In the interests of peace of course.

 

[BigRob]

That doesn't make sense. The idea that WE, the US all by ourselves, need to keep China in check doesn't make sense to me in general. If it's so important, then why aren't the English, French, Canadians, etc. pouring their tax dollars and soldiers into the same effort?

Because China is not attempting to be a peer competiter of Canada, or the UK..

It's our economic domination that makes the dollar the standard, not our military supremacy. The biggest threat to keeping the dollar as the worlds currency is our own inability to control spending in Washington. Monetizing our debt, downgrades to our AAA rating, inflating our currency, all contribute to fiscal concerns over the soundness of the dollar. I do not see our military strength being tied to the soundness of our dollar in any appreciable way.

Our economic domination (ie favorable trading relationships, corporate interest abroad) stands in a big way on the capabiity of our military to protect that domination.

China has the largest trade relationship with us of any nation, they buy the bulk of our debt, but none of that can be attributed to our military dominance of the south China sea.

China does trade with us because of our economic power, but China also wants to dominate the region and this would have a lasting negative impact on our trading relations with other nations in the area...

Point is this...do we want China to have all the leverage over us, or do we want to have it over China?

Well, to answer that question I had to ask myself; What is the value of a UN Resolution? Answer; No practical value whatsoever.

That is simply not true. UN Resolutions can be meaningless, but they are important to have all the same.

China is our largest trading partner and the biggest holder of US debt, our economic supremacy, and not our domination of the oceans, is responsible for that relationship. You were citing our supremacy of the oceans as the reason for our trade relationship with Japan but make no effort to explain the contradiction of this assertion when applied to China. In both cases, it's our global economic power that attracts trading partners, not our military prowess.

Again, our economic supremacy is due in large part to our ability to protect our interests abroad.

Then explain to me how our military might is more strongly associated with the soundness of our dollar than our economic power. I just don't see it. We could be a regional military power and still retain our global economic dominance. However, you see the two as being inexorably linked but I have yet to see any evidence of this.

Any scholarly work on what it takes to be a superpower will point the military as a vital pillar of the overall structure. Military alone cannot really make us a superpower, but neither can economics alone.

I don't see it as being in our best interest to spat in the face of our greatest trading partner and the largest holder of our debt.

It depends on the scenario.

Why hasn't the same thing happened in Africa?

People have to want to actually unite or it will never happen in general...that said, we have seen large strides taken in Africa with the AU and the OAU etc.

Then why not use our military dominance to destroy every nation and government that dares challenge us?

We don't have the military capability to do that...outside of a nuclear one.

Why aren't the waters calm in Africa? Perhaps we need to invade that continent and establish American dominance in that region as well... In the interests of peace of course.

The waters are frankly very calm in Africa, relatively speaking...

 

[GenSeneca]

Because China is not attempting to be a peer competiter of Canada, or the UK..

What evidence do you have that China is attempting to be a peer competitor with the US? Their interest in controlling the south China sea, which is entirely in their region, does not suggest to me that they seek challenge us globally.

Our economic domination (ie favorable trading relationships, corporate interest abroad) stands in a big way on the capabiity of our military to protect that domination.

Considering that China is one of our largest trading partners, despite our "domination" of their region being a point of contention between our two nations, your claim seems to be contradicted by the apparent facts.

China does trade with us because of our economic power,

Does our domination of their region help, hurt, or not matter in regards to, our trade relations with China?

China also wants to dominate the region and this would have a lasting negative impact on our trading relations with other nations in the area...

I have no doubt China wishes to exert control over their region of the world, as I believe they have the right to do, but what evidence do you have that China being allowed to exert control over their region would "have a negative lasting impact on our trading relations with other nations in the area"?

Point is this...do we want China to have all the leverage over us, or do we want to have it over China?

I vote for mutually beneficial exchange based on volitional consent.

That is simply not true. UN Resolutions can be meaningless, but they are important to have all the same.

Important to what, Public Relations? I see no other use for UN resolutions.

Again, our economic supremacy is due in large part to our ability to protect our interests abroad.

If this were true, then China would not be one of our largest trading partners.

Any scholarly work on what it takes to be a superpower will point the military as a vital pillar of the overall structure. Military alone cannot really make us a superpower, but neither can economics alone.

I asked why you believe our military supremacy is more closely tied to the soundness of our dollar than our economic policy... I see no ties between our military might and the soundness of our dollar, however, the relationship between our economic policy and the soundness of our dollar is clear. Our AAA rating was not reduced as a result of our declining military prowess, it was lowered as a result of our fiscal and economic policy.

People have to want to actually unite or it will never happen in general...

I take it you do not believe that China wants to actually unite with the rest of the world... Their global trade relations suggest that they do, what suggests to you that they do not?

We don't have the military capability to do that...outside of a nuclear one.

But if we had the capability to destroy any nation who opposed US interests, you would see no reason why we shouldn't? You wouldn't have any moral or ethical reservation about using our military supremacy to bully the others nations of the world into submission?

The waters are frankly very calm in Africa, relatively speaking...

Relative to what? Armageddon?

There are currently fifteen African countries involved in war, or are experiencing post-war conflict and tension.

 

[BigRob]

What evidence do you have that China is attempting to be a peer competitor with the US? Their interest in controlling the south China sea, which is entirely in their region, does not suggest to me that they seek challenge us globally.

It follows the realist school of thought that changes in power inevitably lead to conflict...I think that is something we have seen time and time again.

China cannot compete with us globally yet, but they are clearly competing against our interests. They are pushing for an alternative to the dollar as the world currency, they are expanding their influence (many times unwanted influence) throughout an Asia that does not want to be dominated by China, and which will turn to us to stop that.

Unless you discount the notion completely that China wants to be a major world player, then there is simply no way to argue that China will not compete with the US on a global level eventually, albeit first on a regional level.

Considering that China is one of our largest trading partners, despite our "domination" of their region being a point of contention between our two nations, your claim seems to be contradicted by the apparent facts.

It is not a contradiction at all...our military dominance allows us to protect our economic trade relationships etc. As it currently stands, we continue to dominate China militarily, and even economically to a degree.

You see everything in black and white, which you cannot do in international relations. We can easily be trading partners with our enemy...we can easily support our enemy when our interests align...but none of that makes them not our enemy.

Does our domination of their region help, hurt, or not matter in regards to, our trade relations with China?

It helps...until the Chinese try to upset the status quo, ie dominate the region for themselves.

I have no doubt China wishes to exert control over their region of the world, as I believe they have the right to do, but what evidence do you have that China being allowed to exert control over their region would "have a negative lasting impact on our trading relations with other nations in the area"?

It is simple. Take a look at the nations around China that you feel they have the right to dominate. Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, Singapore...all of these nations despise the idea of an Asia dominated by China, and would be furious if we simply stepped aside and let it happen...they would retaliate in the only manner they have the capability to do so..economically.

I vote for mutually beneficial exchange based on volitional consent.

I vote for that in theory..but in reality I don't think that works on the international level.

Important to what, Public Relations? I see no other use for UN resolutions.

Providing perceived legitimacy is important.

If this were true, then China would not be one of our largest trading partners.

Why? Currently we are able to defend our interests against Chinese encroachment...that is changing however.

I asked why you believe our military supremacy is more closely tied to the soundness of our dollar than our economic policy... I see no ties between our military might and the soundness of our dollar, however, the relationship between our economic policy and the soundness of our dollar is clear. Our AAA rating was not reduced as a result of our declining military prowess, it was lowered as a result of our fiscal and economic policy.

I think both our military and economic power are a pillar on which the soundness of our dollar stands...especially when discussing the dollar as the global currency.

I take it you do not believe that China wants to actually unite with the rest of the world... Their global trade relations suggest that they do, what suggests to you that they do not?

That is absurd, simply having a trading relationship does not mean you have no desire to dominate the other party in that relationship. Germany had trading relationships with Europe prior to the World Wars, and that did not stop them.

But if we had the capability to destroy any nation who opposed US interests, you would see no reason why we shouldn't? You wouldn't have any moral or ethical reservation about using our military supremacy to bully the others nations of the world into submission?

When they actively oppose our interests, I would have no problem eliminating the threat to our interest...that does not automatically mean "destroying any nation" however by any stretch.

In terms of morality, I would have no qualms about using the military to protect US interests.

Relative to what? Armageddon?

There are currently fifteen African countries involved in war, or are experiencing post-war conflict and tension.

Relative to how it has/could be. So what if there is genocide in Darfur? There is no American interest at stake, and hence we are not involved..so what if Sierra Leone is a failed state, it does not threaten our interests right now, so there is no point to be involved.

Perhaps I am not being clear here....when American interests are at stake, I think we need to act. Currently, China is threatening our interests in Asia etc, whereas a civil war in Africa (for the most part) does not really matter all that much. In terms of our interests being threatened, Africa is relatively calm.

 

[GenSeneca]

China cannot compete with us globally yet, but they are clearly competing against our interests.

Of course they are "competing against our interests", we are pissing in their pond.

My dog and I park a tank in your back yard and camp out there, claiming that we're protecting our interests (your neighbors). You want us to leave, so you start building a bulldozer to push us off your property. I point to you building a bulldozer as proof that you're "competing against our interests" and further claim that it's only a matter of time before you're bulldozer is parked in our backyard.

Once again we're burning duffel bags full of 100 dollar bills and claiming that our actions are rational.

They are pushing for an alternative to the dollar as the world currency...

Considering that the US has become a fiscal basket case, their interest in changing the world currency so our collapse doesn't cause them to collapse as well seems perfectly reasonable.

Unless you discount the notion completely that China wants to be a major world player, then there is simply no way to argue that China will not compete with the US on a global level eventually, albeit first on a regional level.

It doesn't matter if they "compete" with us or not, so long as they do not launch military strikes against the US, it's not our problem.

You see everything in black and white, which you cannot do in international relations.

I hear that complaint quite often from people who cannot separate fact from fiction, who dwell in the "gray" areas of imagination thinking about what "might" happen, who see the world in "vibrant colors" and claim their positions are too "nuanced" to be fully appreciated (much less explained)... Horseradish.

Either the US faces a threat of military invasion from China or we do not, black or white, fact or fiction, there is no "gray" area. I have already said that the US does face a threat from China, and other nations, but not in the form of a conventional military, the threats we face are primarily in the form of terrorism and web based attacks. Our conventional military forces are the least adequate to deal with such threats.

We can easily be trading partners with our enemy...we can easily support our enemy when our interests align...but none of that makes them not our enemy.

We can easily be trading partners with our allies, we can easily support our allies when our interests align, but none of that actually makes them our allies... What does?

It is simple. Take a look at the nations around China that you feel they have the right to dominate.

Whoah there big guy... I'm not the one who thinks one nation has a right to dominate other nations, that's your position... You're the one saying we have a "right" to dominate any nation we so choose simply because "we can". I was speaking of the international waters in their region, not the land or territorial waters of other nations.

Japan, Vietnam, South Korea, Singapore...all of these nations despise the idea of an Asia dominated by China, and would be furious if we simply stepped aside and let it happen...

If they want our protection, they need to help pay our bills and I don't mean by continuing to be trading partners, we need to start charging them a nominal fee for the service we provide (same goes for all the other countries of the world, which seem to be known in your vernacular as "US interests").

Providing perceived legitimacy is important.

We aren't going to agree on the usefulness of the UN, or their worthless resolutions.

I think both our military and economic power are a pillar on which the soundness of our dollar stands...especially when discussing the dollar as the global currency.

I know that's what you think, I was hoping you could offer some evidence that our military is somehow tied to the soundness of our dollar... I pointed to our credit downgrade as evidence that our economic policy was tied to the soundness of our dollar, what evidence can you point to that will support your claim?

That is absurd, simply having a trading relationship does not mean you have no desire to dominate the other party in that relationship. Germany had trading relationships with Europe prior to the World Wars, and that did not stop them.

I find it absurd that because they "challenge US interests" you reach the conclusion that China seeks global domination. And... Germany also had trading relations with Europe before joining the EU.

When they actively oppose our interests, I would have no problem eliminating the threat to our interest...that does not automatically mean "destroying any nation" however by any stretch.

In terms of morality, I would have no qualms about using the military to protect US interests.

Seriously, you seem to be using the term "US interests" as a metaphor for "countries we like". Do we have any "interests" which are NOT sovereign nations?

Relative to how it has/could be. So what if there is genocide in Darfur? There is no American interest at stake, and hence we are not involved..so what if Sierra Leone is a failed state, it does not threaten our interests right now, so there is no point to be involved.

I feel the same way about the other nations of the world, so what? Let's take care of America for a change and stop being the worlds policeman (which we only do for countries we like, we could give a rats anus about countries in Africa). Of course I'd also be willing to accept a new policy of charging all "US interests" a substantial fee for providing them with protection, enough that we can cover our bills and make a reasonable profit.

Perhaps I am not being clear here....when American interests are at stake, I think we need to act. Currently, China is threatening our interests in Asia etc, whereas a civil war in Africa (for the most part) does not really matter all that much. In terms of our interests being threatened, Africa is relatively calm.

And when China expands their influence into Africa, do we suddenly find that we do have some "interests" there we didn't realize existed?

 

[BigRob]

Of course they are "competing against our interests", we are pissing in their pond.

My dog and I park a tank in your back yard and camp out there, claiming that we're protecting our interests (your neighbors). You want us to leave, so you start building a bulldozer to push us off your property. I point to you building a bulldozer as proof that you're "competing against our interests" and further claim that it's only a matter of time before you're bulldozer is parked in our backyard.

Well, such an action would threaten my interests in this scenario.

Considering that the US has become a fiscal basket case, their interest in changing the world currency so our collapse doesn't cause them to collapse as well seems perfectly reasonable.

It also undermines us as the world hegemon.

It doesn't matter if they "compete" with us or not, so long as they do not launch military strikes against the US, it's not our problem.

What is a "military strike" and what is "against the US"?

I hear that complaint quite often from people who cannot separate fact from fiction, who dwell in the "gray" areas of imagination thinking about what "might" happen, who see the world in "vibrant colors" and claim their positions are too "nuanced" to be fully appreciated (much less explained)... Horseradish.

Either the US faces a threat of military invasion from China or we do not, black or white, fact or fiction, there is no "gray" area. I have already said that the US does face a threat from China, and other nations, but not in the form of a conventional military, the threats we face are primarily in the form of terrorism and web based attacks. Our conventional military forces are the least adequate to deal with such threats.

Yes, but you present a false choice...the issue is not simply "will China invade the US or not", there is so much more to it. They don't have to roll tanks into LA to seriously cause damage to the US.

We can easily be trading partners with our allies, we can easily support our allies when our interests align, but none of that actually makes them our allies... What does?

I know you won't agree with this, but it fits right into the realist school of thought again. There are no allies/enemies, only overlapping interests.

Whoah there big guy... I'm not the one who thinks one nation has a right to dominate other nations, that's your position... You're the one saying we have a "right" to dominate any nation we so choose simply because "we can". I was speaking of the international waters in their region, not the land or territorial waters of other nations.

Yes, but you cannot separate the two...if China dominates the entire of the South China Sea (even just the International waters) they are in effect dominating many of those nations.

If they want our protection, they need to help pay our bills and I don't mean by continuing to be trading partners, we need to start charging them a nominal fee for the service we provide (same goes for all the other countries of the world, which seem to be known in your vernacular as "US interests").

What fee do you propose?

We aren't going to agree on the usefulness of the UN, or their worthless resolutions.

I agree with you that for all practical purposes, they are useless...but for image purposes, they play a role.

I know that's what you think, I was hoping you could offer some evidence that our military is somehow tied to the soundness of our dollar... I pointed to our credit downgrade as evidence that our economic policy was tied to the soundness of our dollar, what evidence can you point to that will support your claim?

The dollar is not specifically linked to the ability of our military...my point has been all along that the dollar is linked to our capability as a superpower, and that superpower capability rests on a few pillars, one of which is military power.

I find it absurd that because they "challenge US interests" you reach the conclusion that China seeks global domination. And... Germany also had trading relations with Europe before joining the EU.

China is clearly seeking to dominate Asia, the manner they trade and interact with other Asian nations clearly shows this in my opinion. If they dominate Asia, they are going to ultimately be forced to combat US...after all, rising powers and falling powers will always clash.

Seriously, you seem to be using the term "US interests" as a metaphor for "countries we like". Do we have any "interests" which are NOT sovereign nations?

Killing Bin Laden was in our interest...maintaining a strong dollar is in our interest, combating terrorism is in our interest...all one has to do is the read the National Security Strategy to see a ton of interests spelled out that are not "nations."

I feel the same way about the other nations of the world, so what? Let's take care of America for a change and stop being the worlds policeman (which we only do for countries we like, we could give a rats anus about countries in Africa). Of course I'd also be willing to accept a new policy of charging all "US interests" a substantial fee for providing them with protection, enough that we can cover our bills and make a reasonable profit.

I entirely agree...so what...until it challenges our interests.

And when China expands their influence into Africa, do we suddenly find that we do have some "interests" there we didn't realize existed?

I think that depends on the scenario.

 

[GenSeneca]

It also undermines us as the world hegemon.

So it's in our best interest to make sure that if we have a total economic meltdown that the rest of the world suffers the same fate along with us?

Russia and China are pissed, among other things, because of our QE policy, rightfully so, as are other nations. Putting forth self destructive policies, and trying to use our military power to drag the rest of the world down with us in the process, undermines our global hegemony more than any other nation could.

What is a "military strike" and what is "against the US"?

Rolling tanks into LA, or similar uses of conventional military assets against US territory.

Yes, but you present a false choice...the issue is not simply "will China invade the US or not", there is so much more to it.

Not in the context of maintaining a standing conventional military.

They don't have to roll tanks into LA to seriously cause damage to the US.

I agree but our conventional military forces are not the best suited to deal with the others threats we face from China. I know you claim our conventional forces give us an advantage but we can retain our advantage with non-conventional methods that are specifically designed to deal with the non-conventional threats we face.

I know you won't agree with this, but it fits right into the realist school of thought again. There are no allies/enemies, only overlapping interests.

You're wrong, I do agree. Yet for some reason, you see Japan as our ally and China as our enemy.

Yes, but you cannot separate the two...if China dominates the entire of the South China Sea (even just the International waters) they are in effect dominating many of those nations.

Dominate is your word, I said they should be allowed to exert influence in the region... As should all the other countries in that region, it's not our problem.

What fee do you propose?

We charge them enough to cover our costs plus a little extra. For example, if the navy costs us $160 billion, the naval assets that are used to protect Japan from China can be quantified and have a price tag applied. If Japan wishes to continue having the US protect them from China, they should have to pay for that service.

I agree with you that for all practical purposes, they are useless...but for image purposes, they play a role.

Our image in the world would be much better if we weren't seen as trying to "dominate" all the other nations of the world.

The dollar is not specifically linked to the ability of our military...my point has been all along that the dollar is linked to our capability as a superpower, and that superpower capability rests on a few pillars, one of which is military power.

Would reducing our military to 500,000 cause the value of our dollar to decline? I see no proof that it would.

China is clearly seeking to dominate Asia, the manner they trade and interact with other Asian nations clearly shows this in my opinion. If they dominate Asia, they are going to ultimately be forced to combat US...after all, rising powers and falling powers will always clash.

If we stop trying to dominate China, they will have no reason to combat the US.

Killing Bin Laden was in our interest...maintaining a strong dollar is in our interest, combating terrorism is in our interest...all one has to do is the read the National Security Strategy to see a ton of interests spelled out that are not "nations."

None of the "interests" you list are best dealt with by use of conventional military forces, and the stength of our dollar has no discernable relationship to the size of our military forces.