Why Not Disband The US Military?

[GenSeneca]

As I said. I agree with you on this issue.

I hope that doesn't cause you any discomfort... Pocket says that agreeing with me makes him feel "dirty".

When I said "extreme," it wasn't intended as a dispareging comment, mainly I would probably proceed more causciously as you would, and eventually bring the whole "defense industry" more in line with a sort of "National guard" idea, then a "foreign force" system.

Agreed.

 

[Openmind]

Europeans should be more concerned about military problems in their area. They have done very little unless badgered by the U.S.

9/11 was a terrible tragedy in the cost of human lives and the 1.5 Billion dollars building costs, but the wars that resulted in this cost twice as much in American lives and a trillion dollars. If we spend a small percent of the military budget on homeland security and a beefed up national guard, we could safeguard the US with much less cost in lives and dollars. So, yes, I think cutting the military far down to, say, the size of the Canadian military is a good idea. However we must foresee and be ready for another Pearl Harbor.

I am not sure that another Pearl Harbor would every happen. As I stated before, winning a war no longer rest on armements, military forces, or even nuclear threat, it is more about economic and psychological welfare.

In spite of all our military might, we are not winning even the war against terrorism. . .we are still terrorized, and we are spending so much money on it that we are killing our economy. That is NOT winning! That is losing the psychological and economic war.

 

[Openmind]

I hope that doesn't cause you any discomfort... Pocket says that agreeing with me makes him feel "dirty".


Agreed.

No, no discomfort. I actually am glad to find common ground, even if I always feel an "earthquake" may be coming! (This may be due to my history of living in California for 15 years and experiencing the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989!)

And not dirty either!

 

[GenSeneca]

Europeans should be more concerned about military problems in their area. They have done very little unless badgered by the U.S.

I'm not sure what you meant by those statements... Please expand on your thought when you have a chance.

9/11 was a terrible tragedy in the cost of human lives and the 1.5 Billion dollars building costs, but the wars that resulted in this cost twice as much in American lives and a trillion dollars.

Revenge, as it were, did come a huge cost and the supposed benefits are not readily apparent. I opposed Iraq entirely and I opposed sticking around in Afghanistan, we shouldn't be nation building anywhere. US taxpayer money should go to US citizens, not citizens of foreign governments.

If we spend a small percent of the military budget on homeland security and a beefed up national guard, we could safeguard the US with much less cost in lives and dollars. So, yes, I think cutting the military far down to, say, the size of the Canadian military is a good idea. However we must foresee and be ready for another Pearl Harbor.

If the information on Wiki is accurate, our National Guard is already 10X the size of the entire Canadian Military, 470,000 and 48,000 respectively. So if we disband the 4 branches of the military and rely entirely on the National Guard, even without 'beefing' it up, we'd still have one of the largest armed forces in the world (it would be ranked 8th) and it would still be the best equipped. A force that size seems sufficient to keep around "just in case", would you agree?

So why keep any of the military?

 

[Lagboltz]

I am not sure that another Pearl Harbor would every happen. As I stated before, winning a war no longer rest on armements, military forces, or even nuclear threat, it is more about economic and psychological welfare.

As long as other rising world powers keep their military at a low level, I agree with you about Pearl Harbor.

In spite of all our military might, we are not winning even the war against terrorism. . .we are still terrorized, and we are spending so much money on it that we are killing our economy. That is NOT winning! That is losing the psychological and economic war.

I agree with you on that, and also I see harbingers of cyberwarfare that we are currently very careless about.

 

[BigRob]

I do not believe it is necessary to use a sledge hammer to keep influence in the world. . .especially at a time when wars are won more on "economics" than on "military might!"

Don't be fooled into thinking that we don't see a huge return economically from our military.

Right now, OUR spending on military forces is SIX TIMES greater than China! Wouldn't you think that TWO TIMES would be appropriate at a time when, that huge expense is actually making us weak economically?

I think that comparison is simply idiotic. It would be akin to simply looking at two houses on a street, ignoring who lives inside, and saying house 1 spends 6 times more on food than house 2, and therefore that is ridiculous and house 1 needs to cut back to only 2X house 2. Maybe house 1 has 6X more people living in it etc...

It is the same with the military...our threats are not threats the Chinese automatically face, our goals are not the same etc....you don't spend based on what another country with different aims and goals is spending, you spend based on what it takes for you to be prepared to meet your own goals.

But. . .obviously, we have a great lobby from the defense industry making sure that we keep on spending!

We have a great lobby from ALL industries...so what?

Here are some factual numbers from Wikepedia (numbers from 2009)

The 2009 U.S. military budget accounts for approximately 40% of global arms spending and is over six times larger than the military budget of China (compared at the nominal US dollar / Renminbi rate, not the PPP rate). The United States and its close allies are responsible for two-thirds to three-quarters of the world's military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority).[31][32][33]

In 2005, the United States spent 4.06% of its GDP on its military (considering only basic Department of Defense budget spending), more than France's 2.6% and less than Saudi Arabia's 10%.[34]information 2006 This is historically low for the United States since it peaked in 1944 at 37.8% of GDP (it reached the lowest point of 3.0% in 1999–2001). Even during the peak of the Vietnam War the percentage reached a high of 9.4% in 1968.[35] Countries like Canada and Germany spend only 1.4% of GDP on their military.

Countries like Canada and Germany don't have to spend much on their military because they are not a world power and they rely on the United States for protection.

 

[BigRob]

Protect American interests from what/who?

Everyone.

I don't see that as a problem.

China is a major holder of US debt, and a major exporter of goods to America, they are not going to invade the US or attack any of our overseas interests. If they did attack us in some way, we would have justification for voiding all of our debt currently held by China and we could cut off all Chinese imports, which would tank the Chinese economy (which requires high and consistent growth rates to keep the government itself from collapsing).

The fact that China won't invade the US, therefore we ought to disband the military is simplistic and lacks strategic thought. We are already battling with China over influence in resource rich areas, and with Russia over pipeline access etc that plays a major role economically and in terms of security.

Plus, cutting off Chinese imports hurts the American consumer just as much as it hurts the Chinese. How many Americans are going to sit around thinking it is oh so great to pay triple what they were used to for products at Wal-Mart? You don't think that will impact the US economy?

Plus, if we just void all our debts with China over some dispute, how many nations do you suppose are going to line up to buy our debt? Zero.

As for Russia, they are no longer the expansionalist nation they were under Communism. I see no reason to consider Russia a threat to America or our interests abroad.

Ha, tell that to Europe and parts of Asia where Russia is making huge plays to control the flow of natural gas into Europe and basically dominate Europe with threats of cutting the flow off...something we have ALREADY seen happen.

I'm talking about the US shaping the world how we want it to be, by disbanding our military and encouraging other nations of the world to follow suit. How many of the countries you fear filling the power vacuum see America as a threat to them and their national interests? I'm guessing all of them.

That is just wishful thinking. We signed the NNPT decades ago with the hope that it would cause nations to ultimately give up their nuclear arms...that has been a total failure at this point in my opinion, what makes it somehow different with conventional forces?

 

[BigRob]

Europeans should be more concerned about military problems in their area. They have done very little unless badgered by the U.S.

9/11 was a terrible tragedy in the cost of human lives and the 1.5 Billion dollars building costs, but the wars that resulted in this cost twice as much in American lives and a trillion dollars. If we spend a small percent of the military budget on homeland security and a beefed up national guard, we could safeguard the US with much less cost in lives and dollars.

We could spend trillions on "homeland security" and it would not have prevented 9/11.

So, yes, I think cutting the military far down to, say, the size of the Canadian military is a good idea. However we must foresee and be ready for another Pearl Harbor.

What is this based on? Just arbitrarily decided we could manage with a military the size of Canada? That makes no sense and follows no logical analytical process.

 

[BigRob]

I am not sure that another Pearl Harbor would every happen. As I stated before, winning a war no longer rest on armements, military forces, or even nuclear threat, it is more about economic and psychological welfare.

In spite of all our military might, we are not winning even the war against terrorism. . .we are still terrorized, and we are spending so much money on it that we are killing our economy. That is NOT winning! That is losing the psychological and economic war.

We are not winning the war against terrorism because the idea that the military can go to war with an idea is moronic. The military is not designed to fight ideas, it is designed to kill people.

That said, if you believe government spending stimulates the economy, then military spending ought to be causing an economic boom...otherwise you are trying to have it both ways and being intellectually dishonest.

 

[Openmind]

We are not winning the war against terrorism because the idea that the military can go to war with an idea is moronic. The military is not designed to fight ideas, it is designed to kill people.

That said, if you believe government spending stimulates the economy, then military spending ought to be causing an economic boom...otherwise you are trying to have it both ways and being intellectually dishonest.

You're correct about the military existing to KILL, and that ideas cannot be killed. In fact, blood poured in their name makes them stronger.

Obviously, our military do have a job, so that brings SOME economic advantage (versus being unemployed!). . .however, the bulk of the money spent on war is spent ABROAD, not in this country!

And even if the economic benefits from "spending" on defense industry was equal, even slightly superior to, let's say, benefits from "spending" on healthcare.. . .(which ALSO support a HUGE number of people including nurses, secretary, doctors, technicians, hospitals. . etc), I will NEVER find it moral to spend MORE MONEY ON a KILLING machine than on a SAVING machine.

If you think about it. . .I'm pretty sure you would rather spend your money on saving life than taking life also!

 

[BigRob]

You're correct about the military existing to KILL, and that ideas cannot be killed. In fact, blood poured in their name makes them stronger.

I disagree..it makes them stronger among smaller and smaller circles. Be real, we broke the back of Al Qaeda following 9/11.

Obviously, our military do have a job, so that brings SOME economic advantage (versus being unemployed!). . .however, the bulk of the money spent on war is spent ABROAD, not in this country!

And you have yet to answer what happens to those dollars AFTER a person in another country gets them.

And even if the economic benefits from "spending" on defense industry was equal, even slightly superior to, let's say, benefits from "spending" on healthcare.. . .(which ALSO support a HUGE number of people including nurses, secretary, doctors, technicians, hospitals. . etc), I will NEVER find it moral to spend MORE MONEY ON a KILLING machine than on a SAVING machine.

If you think about it. . .I'm pretty sure you would rather spend your money on saving life than taking life also!

Or, one might argue that a large military have prevented thousands of wars and prevented millions of needless deaths. Nuclear weapons, as an example, can easily be argued to have saved millions of lives...if you buy into MAD.

A strong military is a deterrent...and deterrence saves lives.

 

[Lagboltz]

We could spend trillions on "homeland security" and it would not have prevented 9/11.

By spending millions I mean to spend it on tightening security like the Israelis did. That would have prevented 9/11. They would not have had the 9/11 problem. We are not proactive enough.

What is this based on? Just arbitrarily decided we could manage with a military the size of Canada? That makes no sense and follows no logical analytical process.

Of course it doesn't follow any analytical process. We are just free-thinking here. Lighten up.

 

[Openmind]

I disagree..it makes them stronger among smaller and smaller circles. Be real, we broke the back of Al Qaeda following 9/11.



And you have yet to answer what happens to those dollars AFTER a person in another country gets them.



Or, one might argue that a large military have prevented thousands of wars and prevented millions of needless deaths. Nuclear weapons, as an example, can easily be argued to have saved millions of lives...if you buy into MAD.

A strong military is a deterrent...and deterrence saves lives.

As I said before, EVEN IF a strong military is a deterrent. . .a military TWICE the size of the next largest military force in the world would be PLENTY strong enough. . .we don't need it to be 5 or 6 times stronger, especially if it weakens us economically!

Just as we didn't need enough nuclear power to destroy the world 200 times over! It was just a lot of unnecessary escalation. . .which led to escalations in other countries. . .which finally led to de-escalation (after billions and billions of dollars spent!)

 

[BigRob]

As I said before, EVEN IF a strong military is a deterrent. . .a military TWICE the size of the next largest military force in the world would be PLENTY strong enough. . .we don't need it to be 5 or 6 times stronger, especially if it weakens us economically!

It is irrelevant the size of other militarys, what is relevant is our capability to perform the missions we assign to the military.

Plus, I completely disagree, and I think most economists would too, that our military is an economic drain.

What do you think happens to dollars that are spent overseas?

Just as we didn't need enough nuclear power to destroy the world 200 times over! It was just a lot of unnecessary escalation. . .which led to escalations in other countries. . .which finally led to de-escalation (after billions and billions of dollars spent!)

The point was not to destroy the world 200 times over, the point was to provide a credible deterrent and second strike capability etc, which arguably saved millions of lives by preventing WWIII.

 

[Openmind]

It is irrelevant the size of other militarys, what is relevant is our capability to perform the missions we assign to the military.

Plus, I completely disagree, and I think most economists would too, that our military is an economic drain.

What do you think happens to dollars that are spent overseas?



The point was not to destroy the world 200 times over, the point was to provide a credible deterrent and second strike capability etc, which arguably saved millions of lives by preventing WWIII.

Are you really telling me that we are so very weak, that we need a military force 6 times greater than the next one to assure that we can resist attacks???

That doesn't sound like you put much faith in our military to begin with!

And obviously this huge military machine is a drain on our economy. . .but you are correct that it feeds the economy of other countries!

The dollars spend in Italy, for exemple in Aviano: The housing market is booming because OUR dollars are paying housing for our soldiers there, housing that they would NEVER have access to here in the States on their salary! In fact, as I said before, my brother is renting two of his houses near Aviano to two American soldiers, at a price that is twice what he could get out of the local Italians. . .because it is the "running price" decided by our military!

I believe that those dollars (about $1,200 a month for a one bedroom apartment) would be much better used if they were spent right here at home, to help our military HERE to be able to afford decent homes, and to trigger the LOCAL economy, instead of the economy half way across the world!

What do you think happens when Japan builds a new HONDA factory in the U.S.? It helps the local US economy, a lot more than it helps the Japanese economy.

Yes, I know, we are moving closer and closer to world economy. . .but the fact is that we are still in need of money being spent HERE, rather than abroad. If that was not the case, why would we even complain about corporations taking their manufacturing overseas?