Why Not Disband The US Military?

[dahermit]

has it failed? the cold war ended...cold...maybe it did not end war..but it may have stopped some major ones.

Viet Nam was not a "major war"? And can you list even one minor war that the U.N. stopped, averted? Was that the 3 Israel/Arab wars?, Panama?, Granada?, two Iraq wars?, Lebanon?, Congo?, East Timur?, Uganda?, Nicaragua?, Cuba?, Yugoslavia?, Falkland Islands?
Can you list (cite some evidence) that the U.N. has effectively intervened and stopped even one conflict?

 

[dahermit]

We have now been 66 years without a major conflict amongst the members of the UN. When was the last time that happened? England, France, Germany, and America have been at each others throats regularly since at least Roman times and probably before. I haven't checked carefully, but the 1900s, the 1800s, the 1700s, the 1600s, the 1500s, and the 1400s all had severe wars. The Crusades were in the 1200s, right? I just do not remember a period of 60+ years of mostly peace.

,

60 years of mostly peace??!! Where the hell have you been? Every country you can name is a member of the U.N. For example Israel and Syria are both members. They have had, what to them were, major wars. North Viet Nam and the U.S. were members of the U.N. when that war went on for ten years. It was not a "major war"?
The minor wars: Panama, Granada, Iraq I, Iraq II, did not end because of the U.N., they ended because the U.S. completed its objectives, or in the instance of Somalia, got its ass kicked. Was the past 60 years "mostly peace"? If it was, I must have missed it.

 

[Openmind]

60 years of mostly peace??!! Where the hell have you been? Every country you can name is a member of the U.N. For example Israel and Syria are both members. They have had, what to them were, major wars. North Viet Nam and the U.S. were members of the U.N. when that war went on for ten years. It was not a "major war"?
The minor wars: Panama, Granada, Iraq I, Iraq II, did not end because of the U.N., they ended because the U.S. completed its objectives, or in the instance of Somalia, got its ass kicked. Was the past 60 years "mostly peace"? If it was, I must have missed it.

The US only goes along with the UN when it "feels like it!" That's one reason why the UN couldn't do anything to stop the Vietnam war.

War as we knew it is over. . .now it is economic wars, even if military are involved! Wars for oil, wars for religions!

And, if we didn't have such a huge military machine, we wouldn't be so hot in getting involved in every local conflicts in the world!

At least 1/2 of the money spend on our military might is a waste of our money, and it is only serving the interest of the defense industry. IF that money was applied to education within the US, to health care within the US, and to infrastructure and enterprises development within the US, we would be WINNING the economic war. . . and that is all that matter in these times.

 

[Lagboltz]

The New American Century explains the military philosophy of the previous administration.

This organization was formed around 1997. This LINK is a Statement of Principles on June 3, 1997, which is remarkable in the clarity of what the conservatives wanted at that time. It is important for everyone to read this link to understand the path choosen for the US at that time. The people who signed the statement are remarkable in that they became the government and clearly did what they set out to do. There are a number of signers of the historic document. Very notably missing among the signers is GW Bush. He was a nonentity at that time. Other than Bush the 1997 signers who became the Bush administration are,

Dick Cheney VP
I. Lewis Libby Chief of Staff to Vice President Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense
Paul Wolfowitz Deputy Secretary of Defense
Eliot A. Cohen Counselor of the State Department,
Paula Dobriansky Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs
Aaron Friedberg deputy assistant for national-security affairs
Zalmay Khalilzad United States Ambassador to Iraq
Dan Quayle VP under Papa Bush
Peter W. Rodman Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs
(Jeb Bush Forgotten son; not part of the administration.)
(Papa Bush did not sign it.)

This is a LETTER to Clinton. Look who signed it in 1998. It came from the New American Century members. They urged Clinton to remove Saddam from power. Since Clinton didn't do it, they took it upon themselves to do it.

January 26, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
....
....
Excerpt from paragraphs 5:

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

Sincerely,
Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz .... + 16 others

 

[Openmind]

The New American Century explains the military philosophy of the previous administration.

This organization was formed around 1997. This LINK is a Statement of Principles on June 3, 1997, which is remarkable in the clarity of what the conservatives wanted at that time. It is important for everyone to read this link to understand the path choosen for the US at that time. The people who signed the statement are remarkable in that they became the government and clearly did what they set out to do. There are a number of signers of the historic document. Very notably missing among the signers is GW Bush. He was a nonentity at that time. Other than Bush the 1997 signers who became the Bush administration are,

Dick Cheney VP
I. Lewis Libby Chief of Staff to Vice President Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense
Paul Wolfowitz Deputy Secretary of Defense
Eliot A. Cohen Counselor of the State Department,
Paula Dobriansky Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs
Aaron Friedberg deputy assistant for national-security affairs
Zalmay Khalilzad United States Ambassador to Iraq
Dan Quayle VP under Papa Bush
Peter W. Rodman Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs
(Jeb Bush Forgotten son; not part of the administration.)
(Papa Bush did not sign it.)

This is a LETTER to Clinton. Look who signed it in 1998. It came from the New American Century members. They urged Clinton to remove Saddam from power. Since Clinton didn't do it, they took it upon themselves to do it.

Yes, the defense industry was in a slump at that time, and needed more "demand" for their product: So, they "created the demand" as soon as they found a strawman president willing to go along with them. . .and who best than an OIL guy, with an ax to grind with Iraq, because of his father's history?

 

[GenSeneca]

It is an answer. I believe that EVERY other country in this world can at any time oppose our interests.

1. I think you should define your use of the phrase "American Interests".
2. Oppose us in what way? I'm talking about taking direct military action against us.
3. Are you suggesting that we need to "kill people" who "oppose our interests"?

I am all for eliminating some of the nuclear stockpile, provided we assure what we have left actually works.

I agree in principle but lets save that for another thread.

...you don't build a military to fight the enemies of right now, you build a large part of it to fight the enemy of tomorrow.

Which is why we should disband our conventional military and focus on the threats of tomorrow, such as terrorism, espionage, and cyberwarfare.

We are engaged in conflict with China yes...Is it armed at the moment? No. Same response as with China.

How do you define "conflict" in that context?

I spoke about deterrents because that is the conventional wisdom. I think MAD however is a useless theory that holds no water.

You are espousing basically the same theory only with conventional military forces.

Is it your assertion that intertwined economies will not war?

Which of the two following scenarios is most likely to result in armed conflict:

1. The economies of two nations are dependent upon one another.
2. Both nations are in a race to build up their military forces.

Since we cannot guarantee there will be no wars, the idea is to pick the path least likely to result in war.

Centuries of European conflict seem to fly in the face of that assertion.

The global economy is relatively new and has not been around for centuries. The nations of Europe did go to war with each other for centuries, now, thanks to the interdependency of their economies, they are working closely together, and even bailing each other out, they are not going to war with each other. So the example of Europe doesn't fly in the face of my assertion, it actually supports it.

What is a military attack on the United States exactly? A cyber attack? An EMP? A terror proxy? An attack of financial means? What?

Those would all be considered attacks but I was specifically referring to attacks by conventional military forces... After all, our conventional military forces are well suited to tackle other conventional military threats however, they are woefully inadequate to deal with the types of attacks you just mentioned.

They won't do so, and another power will fill our void, leaving us behind.

Leaving us behind in what? Russia and China already have a great deal of influence in the world, and it's growing, despite our economic and military superiority. Do you honestly believe that maintaining our military superiority is going to halt, or reverse, that trend?

So you are basically arguing we are done as superpower and ought to just accept it and move on?

My primary argument is that our conventional military forces are only adequate for dealing with other conventional military forces. Given the threats facing us today, and in the foreseeable future, our military forces have become superfluous. Conventional military forces are the least likely threat to our nation, so maintaining, much less expanding, such a lavish conventional military force is counterproductive.

 

[GenSeneca]

Not read most of the thread...but its a horribly bad idea...

Under my proposal, we would still have over 500,000 troops between the National Guard and Coast Guard to protect our country and our EEZ's. That seems adequate enough to deal with any conventional military threats.

our control of the oceans is a key economic driver...just as a start.

We only control the areas within our EEZ's, all the rest of the oceans are either international waters or EEZ's of other countries.

 

[GenSeneca]

I do not believe we would be invaded by conventional forces. At least not initially.

We would still have the 7th or 8th largest military in the world, numerically speaking, and it would still be the best equipped.

We need to set some ground rules for this debate. First, dismantling the military does not mean eliminating the CIA, space capabilities, nuclear forces, and expansion of the Coast Guard would be a likely requirement. And the libs don't get to spend the savings elsewhere. Are these acceptable?

I don't really consider this a debate, just an interesting question for people to ponder. As for spending the savings, there are no savings, eliminating 100% of our military budget would still leave us with about a half billion dollar annual deficit.

But that said, I think history tells us a superpower suddenly becoming like Switzerland could have very detrimental consequences in the long run.

I know of no such occurrence in history.

When great military powers become weak, they get attacked.

Some would see our military reduction as a sign of weakness but, as I've said, that's inevitable. We will eventually leave Iraq and Afghanistan, will that too be seen as a sign of weakness?

For one thing, we would have to renege on all our military treaties. This alone could lead to aggression against Israel, S. Korea, Japan, former Soviet republics, and others. Would we just sit back and watch our allies fight for survival without our support? I suppose we could resort to using nukes to stop the aggression. But, are we really prepared to do that? And, would it not lead to nuclear escalation resulting in a nuclear attack on us?

You make a good point about our military treaties... If we are obligated to remained allied, then we could not declare neutrality. However, I'm confident that Israel and S. Korea would be just fine. Japan? I couldn't say. Besides, given the gradual nature of our reduction, our allies would have time to adjust. It's long past due that they carry their own weight and stop relying on the US to save their asses.

 

[BigRob]

1. I think you should define your use of the phrase "American Interests".

It is difficult to do...because our interests change. But basically whatever goal we want to accomplish and derive a benefit from could be described as our interests.

2. Oppose us in what way? I'm talking about taking direct military action against us.

I am saying people can oppose your interests in various ways. For example if we want to push something through the UNSC and China vetoes it, we haven't gone to war, but they are actively opposing our interests.

3. Are you suggesting that we need to "kill people" who "oppose our interests"?

I am saying we need to be prepared to do so.

I agree in principle but lets save that for another thread.

Ok.

Which is why we should disband our conventional military and focus on the threats of tomorrow, such as terrorism, espionage, and cyberwarfare.

I am not entirely sold that those are the sole threats of tomorrow. Let's not forget that conventional forces being pursued by the Chinese and others right now are just as effective at limiting our area of operations all over the world.

How do you define "conflict" in that context?

When our interests clash. Obviously it is in the interest of the Chinese to lock up access to raw materials etc, and it is clearly in our interest not to allow them to dominate that market.

You are espousing basically the same theory only with conventional military forces.

I was stating it because that is the common argument, and in a conversation such as this it has to come up. Deterrence works...until it doesn't.

Which of the two following scenarios is most likely to result in armed conflict:

1. The economies of two nations are dependent upon one another.
2. Both nations are in a race to build up their military forces.

Since we cannot guarantee there will be no wars, the idea is to pick the path least likely to result in war.

So it is your assertion that dependent economies prevent war?

The global economy is relatively new and has not been around for centuries. The nations of Europe did go to war with each other for centuries, now, thanks to the interdependency of their economies, they are working closely together, and even bailing each other out, they are not going to war with each other. So the example of Europe doesn't fly in the face of my assertion, it actually supports it.

No it doesn't. The "global" economy is relatively new, but regional economies are not. Europe has been intertwined economically for centuries (less than today certainly, but majorly intertwined all the same) and wars continued for centuries.

Those would all be considered attacks but I was specifically referring to attacks by conventional military forces... After all, our conventional military forces are well suited to tackle other conventional military threats however, they are woefully inadequate to deal with the types of attacks you just mentioned.

Which is why we need to realize these things are threats and take them seriously...but that is not to say those are our only threats.

Leaving us behind in what? Russia and China already have a great deal of influence in the world, and it's growing, despite our economic and military superiority. Do you honestly believe that maintaining our military superiority is going to halt, or reverse, that trend?

I believe it is going to keep it in check, and give us a ton of leverage despite that the fact that we may be in decline.

My primary argument is that our conventional military forces are only adequate for dealing with other conventional military forces. Given the threats facing us today, and in the foreseeable future, our military forces have become superfluous. Conventional military forces are the least likely threat to our nation, so maintaining, much less expanding, such a lavish conventional military force is counterproductive.

It is not counterproductive at all. We assign varying missions to our military that provide enormous economic benefit...such as protecting shipping lanes all over the world. Image a world in which an Iran, for example, could effectively shut down the Strait of Hormuz...that would be devastating. However, with the 5th fleet in the area, that scenario is all but eliminated.

 

[BigRob]

Some would see our military reduction as a sign of weakness but, as I've said, that's inevitable. We will eventually leave Iraq and Afghanistan, will that too be seen as a sign of weakness?

Not if we do it on our own terms.

You make a good point about our military treaties... If we are obligated to remained allied, then we could not declare neutrality. However, I'm confident that Israel and S. Korea would be just fine. Japan? I couldn't say. Besides, given the gradual nature of our reduction, our allies would have time to adjust. It's long past due that they carry their own weight and stop relying on the US to save their asses.

No treaty is set in stone, any treaty can be broken....that said, it might cause a massive wave of nuclear proliferation if we suddenly decided we were not interested in extending protection all around the globe to our allies.

 

[ProudLefty]

The real issue isn't about military preparedness. The real issue is: prepared for what? Is there any reason to prepare for great tank battles on the plains of Germany? Is the real threat from nations like Grenada? Should we be preparing to defend against bombs, bullets, or cyber attacks? Is the threat from armies or from cells?

 

[BigRob]

The real issue isn't about military preparedness. The real issue is: prepared for what? Is there any reason to prepare for great tank battles on the plains of Germany? Is the real threat from nations like Grenada? Should we be preparing to defend against bombs, bullets, or cyber attacks? Is the threat from armies or from cells?

I don't think anyone is actually planning for a tank battle in Germany....

That said, we ought to be preparing for an effective missile defense shield, or a capability to stop anti-ship missiles etc.

 

[Gipper]

We would still have the 7th or 8th largest military in the world, numerically speaking, and it would still be the best equipped.


I don't really consider this a debate, just an interesting question for people to ponder. As for spending the savings, there are no savings, eliminating 100% of our military budget would still leave us with about a half billion dollar annual deficit.


I know of no such occurrence in history.


Some would see our military reduction as a sign of weakness but, as I've said, that's inevitable. We will eventually leave Iraq and Afghanistan, will that too be seen as a sign of weakness?


You make a good point about our military treaties... If we are obligated to remained allied, then we could not declare neutrality. However, I'm confident that Israel and S. Korea would be just fine. Japan? I couldn't say. Besides, given the gradual nature of our reduction, our allies would have time to adjust. It's long past due that they carry their own weight and stop relying on the US to save their asses.

If we eliminate military spending by eliminating our military, we have saved a considerable amount of money. Yes? I never said anything about the deficit.

History tells us weakness leads to war. America has many enemies and eliminating our military would be a sign of weakness. A reduction in the military may be in order, but full elimination has too many potentially negative consequences.

I agree that our military needs to be structured to defend against the tactics used by our enemies in the future. Preparing to defend against actions of the last war is not effective, as history also tells us.

Leaving Afghan and Iraq are not analogous to eliminating the world's largest and most powerful military.

I also agree that all our allies need to depend on their military to stop aggression. We have been carrying the load for much too long.

However, as Big Rob stated, if we were to eliminate our military, this could result in a huge proliferation of nuclear weapons by nations who do not now possess them. Proliferation could lead to nuclear war.

 

[ProudLefty]

If we eliminate military spending by eliminating our military, we have saved a considerable amount of money. Yes? I never said anything about the deficit.

History tells us weakness leads to war. America has many enemies and eliminating our military would be a sign of weakness. A reduction in the military may be in order, but full elimination has too many potentially negative consequences.

I agree that our military needs to be structured to defend against the tactics used by our enemies in the future. Preparing to defend against actions of the last war is not effective, as history also tells us.

Leaving Afghan and Iraq are not analogous to eliminating the world's largest and most powerful military.

I also agree that all our allies need to depend on their military to stop aggression. We have been carrying the load for much too long.

However, as Big Rob stated, if we were to eliminate our military, this could result in a huge proliferation of nuclear weapons by nations who do not now possess them. Proliferation could lead to nuclear war.

The World is a small enough place now that we are not going to be suddenly surprised by 2 million soldiers massed on the borders of the US, poised to invade us. Our current military is prepared to fight an enemy who no longer exists and is completely unprepared to fight the enemy who does exist. Discussing military preparedness while ignoring our overwhelming failures in every war of the past 40 years is an exercise in ambiguous goals.

 

[Lagboltz]

.....while ignoring our overwhelming failures in every war of the past 40 years is an exercise in ambiguous goals.

You forgot, we won the Granada war. That was our proudest and finest war in the last 40 years. It took less than 2 months and only 19 US killed.