Why Not Disband The US Military?

[Openmind]

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.

19 too many!

 

[GenSeneca]

OK Rob, gonna try to reply to your post for the third time now...

 

[GenSeneca]

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.

If you cannot specify exactly what constitutes "our interests", then give me your best example of something that you currently consider to be "in our interests" which justifies, or necessitates, that we have global military superiority.

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.

I still do not see the connection. Of course other nations are going to oppose us on certain things, that doesn't mean we need to be prepared to launch a military invasion against that country at the drop of a hat.

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

So let's stop trying to carry all the weight ourselves and instead ask our allies to share the burden by protecting common interests in their regions.

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.

From their point of view, we the ones limiting their area of operations.

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.

And you think the best solution is to continue striving for global military dominance?

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.

Do you really believe our military superiority is a deterrent? I don't. Our enemies will either look for other ways to attack/weaken us and/or they will pursue a military build up of their own that can rival ours... You know, like China and Russia have been doing.

So it is your assertion that dependent economies prevent war?

No more so than you're asserting that our military dominance prevents wars... If I wasn't clear before, there simply is no way to prevent war, the best we can hope to do is pursue policies which lessen the likelihood of war. I do not see our continued pursuance of a policy that results in an arms race as lessening the likelihood of war.

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.

For the centuries that European nations fought each other, they were following your doctrine: Military dominance. As a result, the nations of Europe went to war on a regular basis. They've since abandoned that doctrine and stopped vying for military dominance... Do you think it's a coincidence they no longer go to war with each other? Do you give the interdependency of their economies any credit for the decades of peace in that region?

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.

I said they were the most likely threats, I never claimed they were the only threats. The threat of us being attacked by conventional military forces ranks as one of the lowest of all the possible threats we face and should be treated as such.

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.

I see it as having the opposite effect. Our military dominance poses a threat to them, so it's in their best interest to counter that threat any way they can.

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.

Devastating to who?

It seems to me that countries like Kuwait, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia would have a vested interest in making sure the SoH isn't blockaded by Iran. I'm sure that if they knew the 5th fleet wasn't going to be there to prevent such an occurrence, they would figure out some way to protect their own interests and prevent Iran from shutting down the SoH - using their own money and their own soldiers.

Not if we do it on our own terms.

I'm glad to hear you say that... Since we would be disbanding our military on our own terms, I don't want to hear it said that such a move will make us look weak.

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.

As I said, it's high time our allies pulled their own weight. That doesn't mean we have to abandon them, just let them know the free ride is coming to an end and they need to be prepared to defend themselves. If they are attacked, we can offer assistance but we're no longer going to fight their battles for them.

 

[GenSeneca]

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

Why couldn't we pursue those goals under my plan? There would certainly be a lot more money freed up for R&D of such proposals.

 

[GenSeneca]

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.

You said something about not letting the Liberals spend the money we saved, I simply pointed out that because of our deficit and debt, there really wouldn't be any money left over to spend.

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.

We'd still have a military force of more than 500,000 and we'd still be the best trained and best equipped military in the world, so I do not see where you believe it would make us look weak.

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.

I agree.

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

We are not the world's largest, we are currently ranked 6th in terms of size. The Russian Federation is the world's largest with nearly 22 million soldiers.

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.

Exactly, and having them expand their size and capability while we contract our own will avoid a power vacuum.

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.

Am I to understand you both as making the claim that our military is somehow preventing nuclear proliferation? I don't see it.

 

[James]

No, I'm not joking.

Just to be perfectly clear, I'm talking about disbanding all 4 branches of the military; Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. The Coast Guard, which primarily functions as search and rescue - within our own EEZ - and with only light armaments, would not be disbanded.

Going from the only super-power on earth to a neutral country without a standing military would be a real game changer, both domestically and internationally. I think we should do it. I see no reason to keep a standing military, there simply are no military threats to any of the 50 states, territories, or the US as a whole... Not one.

So, why not disband the US military?

I'm sure the Zetas would support your plan...

Mexican army soldiers invaded U.S. territory and held a member of the U.S. Border Patrol at gunpoint, according to a report from the union representing the guards.

"Unfortunately, this sort of behavior by Mexican military personnel has been going on for years," a statement from Local 2544 of the National Border Patrol Council said.

"They are never held accountable, and the United States government will undoubtedly brush this off as another case of 'Oh well, they didn't know they were in the United States,'" the group said.

The organization reported the Tucson Sector Border Patrol agent was held Sunday at gunpoint near Ajo, Ariz.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=71609

Nope, nothing to worry about...

 

[James]

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...

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the resident population of the United States, projected to 08/04/11 at 04:25 UTC (EST+5) is 311,911,385​

http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html

China: 1,336,718,015
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html

1,336,718,015 > 311,911,385
​

Rank
country Population Date of Information
1 China
1,336,718,015

July 2011 est.
2 India
1,189,172,906

July 2011 est.
3 United States
313,232,044

July 2011 est.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html

Care to try again?

 

[Gipper]

You said something about not letting the Liberals spend the money we saved, I simply pointed out that because of our deficit and debt, there really wouldn't be any money left over to spend.


We'd still have a military force of more than 500,000 and we'd still be the best trained and best equipped military in the world, so I do not see where you believe it would make us look weak.


I agree.


We are not the world's largest, we are currently ranked 6th in terms of size. The Russian Federation is the world's largest with nearly 22 million soldiers.


Exactly, and having them expand their size and capability while we contract our own will avoid a power vacuum.


Am I to understand you both as making the claim that our military is somehow preventing nuclear proliferation? I don't see it.

When I stated largest I meant largest in dollars spent. No other nation comes close to spending what we spend, which is reason enough for reducing it.

And, I suppose are you right as we reduce our military our allies will bluster theirs. Except that many of our European allies are bankrupt thanks to socialism, so they do not have the funds available to expand their military (which could be another reason why they would develop nukes as it is cheaper than developing a standing military).

And, I do believe our retraction could lead to nuclear proliferation. It seems likely many nations would employ nukes once they know the USA is no longer capable or willing to enforce peace.

 

[Openmind]

When I stated largest I meant largest in dollars spent. No other nation comes close to spending what we spend, which is reason enough for reducing it.

And, I suppose are you right as we reduce our military our allies will bluster theirs. Except that many of our European allies are bankrupt thanks to socialism, so they do not have the funds available to expand their military (which could be another reason why they would develop nukes as it is cheaper than developing a standing military).

And, I do believe our retraction could lead to nuclear proliferation. It seems likely many nations would employ nukes once they know the USA is no longer capable or willing to enforce peace.

The US has enough nukes today to blow the whole earth. Whether or not another country gets a couple of nukes is irrelevent, if we cannot (or are unwilling to) use our nukes anyway. Obviously, nukes as a deterrent have not worked, as Iran is well on its way to have its own nuke!

By the way, SOME countries in Europe may be bankrupt. . .as some states in the US are bankrupt (see link below)! The European Union itself is stronger, then the US in terms of economic stability at this time, AND they have a good safety net (thanks to social democracy) to protect their citizens from the dramatic downturn in economic health. . .which we don't! So, even when they do make cuts in their safety net/entitlement programs. . .they can AFFORD it, while we don't have programs that can be cut without affecting the poor and lower middle class in terrible ways!

46 Of 50 States Could File Bankruptcy In 2009-2010
January 30, 2009
John Paul Mitchell
There is a high chance a majority of the States within the United States of America could file for Chapter 9 bankruptcy. There are currently 46 states with high budget deficits, Arizona being one of them.

 

[GenSeneca]

I'm sure the Zetas would support your plan...

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=71609

Nope, nothing to worry about...

In order for your appeal to consequences to have the desired emotional impact, you should first try to establish that such occurrences would be likely to increase as a result of my proposal. Of course, that may be difficult to do since I'm suggesting we use our military to focus on domestic defense of our own country rather than the global defense of all countries.

 

[GenSeneca]

When I stated largest I meant largest in dollars spent. No other nation comes close to spending what we spend, which is reason enough for reducing it.

And, I suppose are you right as we reduce our military our allies will bluster theirs. Except that many of our European allies are bankrupt thanks to socialism, so they do not have the funds available to expand their military (which could be another reason why they would develop nukes as it is cheaper than developing a standing military).

And, I do believe our retraction could lead to nuclear proliferation. It seems likely many nations would employ nukes once they know the USA is no longer capable or willing to enforce peace.

We certainly do have the most expensive military in the world. As for the Europeans, it's time they had to face the same challenges that we face. As you and Openmind point out, their welfare states are huge, they've been able to have these massive welfare states thanks to the US spending it's own money to keep them safe. It's time they figure out how to strike a balance between welfare and defense spending, as we must do.

I don't know that nukes are cheaper than standing militaries, I'd be interested to see some actual numbers regarding such a claim, but either way the defense budgets of our allies will have to be increased much larger than current levels.

I also do not believe that our military is responsible for a lack of nuclear proliferation, therefore I do not see a correlation between a reduction in the size of our military and a global increase in nuclear proliferation.

 

[Openmind]

We certainly do have the most expensive military in the world. As for the Europeans, it's time they had to face the same challenges that we face. As you and Openmind point out, their welfare states are huge, they've been able to have these massive welfare states thanks to the US spending it's own money to keep them safe. It's time they figure out how to strike a balance between welfare and defense spending, as we must do.

I don't know that nukes are cheaper than standing militaries, I'd be interested to see some actual numbers regarding such a claim, but either way the defense budgets of our allies will have to be increased much larger than current levels.

I also do not believe that our military is responsible for a lack of nuclear proliferation, therefore I do not see a correlation between a reduction in the size of our military and a global increase in nuclear proliferation.

Come on, Seca! I agree with you (surprisingly) on the military stuff. But I totally disagree that Europeans have been able to build a strong safety net because they have been dependent on the US for "protection!" That is ridiculous. First, they haven't needed "protection," only assistance during WWII, and since the fall of the Berlin wall, they really don't have an ennemy that would even think of invading them!

They are dealing with a immigration problem (both legal and illegal) that is much more severe than ours, especially because they provide such good safety net, but it is certainly NOT our military that is "keeping them safe!"

What has provided that good social safety net is the higher taxes that they have been willing to pay for decades, and a relatively strong economic growth, even at this time.

As I thought we both agreed. . . the war machine is no longer effective to resist "invasions," since it is now the economics that decides of who are the winner and losers. .

I still agree with you re: cutting down our military. . . and to start by the forces in Europe, where they really are just using the countries as a basis for the Middle East wars, not as a protection for the Europeans!

 

[BigRob]

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the resident population of the United States, projected to 08/04/11 at 04:25 UTC (EST+5) is 311,911,385​

http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html

China: 1,336,718,015
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html

1,336,718,015 > 311,911,385
​

Rank
country Population Date of Information
1 China
1,336,718,015

July 2011 est.
2 India
1,189,172,906

July 2011 est.
3 United States
313,232,044

July 2011 est.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html

Care to try again?

Uhm...apparently you have missed the entire point...the issue is not the population..that was simply an example used to illustrate a broader point that there are more considerations than simply what someone else is spending when determining our own budget.

The issue (which I said all along in this thread) is that we have different missions and needs for our military than the Chinese....we need to be prepared for those, regardless of what some other nation is spending...

Do you care to try again?

 

[BigRob]

The US has enough nukes today to blow the whole earth. Whether or not another country gets a couple of nukes is irrelevent, if we cannot (or are unwilling to) use our nukes anyway. Obviously, nukes as a deterrent have not worked, as Iran is well on its way to have its own nuke!

Are nuclear weapons in your opinion a deterrent against possession of nuclear weapons or use of nuclear weapons? You know many of the biggest proponents of nuclear weapons envisioned a world where everyone had nuclear weapons as a driver for peace.

By the way, SOME countries in Europe may be bankrupt. . .as some states in the US are bankrupt (see link below)! The European Union itself is stronger, then the US in terms of economic stability at this time, AND they have a good safety net (thanks to social democracy) to protect their citizens from the dramatic downturn in economic health. . .which we don't! So, even when they do make cuts in their safety net/entitlement programs. . .they can AFFORD it, while we don't have programs that can be cut without affecting the poor and lower middle class in terrible ways!

Interesting chart here on European Debt.

Judging by the continued system problems within Europe at the moment, I wouldn't put to much money on their ability to maintain current levels of spending.

 

[BigRob]

Thanks for taking the time to look at this and to fix my mistake.

I really need help with posting links. . .half the time, I mess it up!

But I agree that it is an important article, I just wish some other people would take the time to look at it and think about it. . .and if they have arguments against it, I'd like to hear that too!

However, it seems that when people cannot contradict facts, they just prefer to ignore them!

Coming back to this issue...the main thing I see wrong with this study is that only calculates direct spending by our government on various programs.

My argument is that we derive other economic benefits from having our military and being a superpower, such as foreign investment, trade relationships etc...something not accounted for in your study...so I don't really see that is relates to that issue. Am I wrong?