Why Not Disband The US Military?

[GenSeneca]

Well nothing...we do it for our own benefit though.

It seems to me that we are providing a service, one which the benefactors of that service do not pay us for providing. I think we're getting shafted, you think were coming out ahead... So, if possible, I'd like to see some actual numbers in term of our monetary "benefit" vs the cost of providing this service to the rest of the world.

Also, while doing research for a different topic, I came across an article at the HuffPo where the IPSO called for UN Governance of the High Seas.

Before you point out that their request is not intended to secure global shipping lanes, has the UN ever considered undertaking the responsibility of securing the international waters?

Because the smallest crisis could cripple global trade.

Can you cite a specific example of a small crisis crippling global trade? And if it's your assertions that our dominance of the worlds oceans prevents even the smallest crisis, then how do you account for all the acts of piracy?

China and Russia have a somewhat complex relationship...they are friendly in regards to certain things and cool in regards to other things.

Military dominance effects their relationship in varying ways depending on varying scenarios....but military dominance alone I don't think has much of an impact on their relations...aside from at times causing them to work against us...but then again, at times, they work against each other despite out military dominance.

Would you describe our relationship with either, or both, of these countries any differently than you have described the relationship they have with each other? I don't know that I would...

What impact does our military dominance have on these countries? How does it change their goals, their military budgets, the missions they assign to their military forces, etc.?

 

[BigRob]

It seems to me that we are providing a service, one which the benefactors of that service do not pay us for providing. I think we're getting shafted, you think were coming out ahead... So, if possible, I'd like to see some actual numbers in term of our monetary "benefit" vs the cost of providing this service to the rest of the world.

I'm not sure you can put a concrete figure on the benefit...I'll look for a study, but I doubt one exists.

Also, while doing research for a different topic, I came across an article at the HuffPo where the IPSO called for UN Governance of the High Seas.

Before you point out that their request is not intended to secure global shipping lanes, has the UN ever considered undertaking the responsibility of securing the international waters?

The United Nations has no army to secure international waters with...

Can you cite a specific example of a small crisis crippling global trade?

Perhaps I was not clear...I mean to say that a small crisis, like a Chinese/Taiwan standoff, could result in the Chinese (if they were running the show over there) shutting down the entire hemisphere from shipping.

And if it's your assertions that our dominance of the worlds oceans prevents even the smallest crisis

It doesn't prevent the smallest crisis, it keeps it from getting worse.

then how do you account for all the acts of piracy?

Piracy is not really crippling global trade.

Would you describe our relationship with either, or both, of these countries any differently than you have described the relationship they have with each other? I don't know that I would...

Probably not.

What impact does our military dominance have on these countries? How does it change their goals, their military budgets, the missions they assign to their military forces, etc.?

Off the top of my head I would say that it impacts their strategic decisions in terms of how they deal with and target other nations to pursue their own interests.

For example, the Chinese target specific African/ME nations due to pretty firm bond we have with other nations due to basing there etc.

 

[GenSeneca]

I'm not sure you can put a concrete figure on the benefit...I'll look for a study, but I doubt one exists.

I don't doubt there are some benefits to our "global supremacy of the oceans" but you are admitting you have no evidence that the benefits of our supremacy outweigh the costs of maintaining it.

For example, you could pack duffle bags full of 100 dollar bills and burn them in your fireplace to warm your home during the winter. You could point to the inarguable fact that such an action does produce some benefits, however, you could not rationally argue that the benefits gained by your actions outweigh the costs.

So if our "global supremacy of the oceans" is indeed the best example you can come up with to justify the expense of maintaining the size of our military, and you admit that there is no proof that the benefits of this policy outweigh the costs, then I have to point out that you're failing to defend this policy as being a rational course of action.

Perhaps I was not clear...I mean to say that a small crisis, like a Chinese/Taiwan standoff, could result in the Chinese (if they were running the show over there) shutting down the entire hemisphere from shipping.

Logically, if China were to shut down all shipping in their region (much less the entire hemisphere), the Chinese economy would suffer, and potentially collapse, as a result of pursuing that policy. While I certainly wouldn't claim that pursuing irrational policies detrimental to the country in which the policy originated is beyond the scope of what's possible (we certainly do it), I have not seen, and you have not offered, any information to suggest such an event is likely to take place. Simply put, China would stand to lose far more than it would gain, therefore, I do not see such an example as being a realistic concern.

It doesn't prevent the smallest crisis, it keeps it from getting worse.

Like the Gulf of Tonkin incident?

Piracy is not really crippling global trade.

Your statement was that "the smallest crisis could cripple global trade", so I offered piracy as a small crisis. If we both agree that piracy amounts to a small crisis, and we agree that piracy does not pose a threat to global trade, then your statement would seem to be based more on rhetoric than fact.

Off the top of my head I would say that it impacts their strategic decisions in terms of how they deal with and target other nations to pursue their own interests.

By your own admission, the US unilaterally protects the shipping lanes of the world making it safe for countries like Russia and China to conduct global trade across the oceans. It would stand to reason that, knowing the US has taken it upon itself to provide this service at no charge to other nations, nations like China and Russia do not have to spend their own money doing the same job. Therefore, their military expenditures can go towards accomplishing missions which the US government is not already doing free of charge, missions which could, in all likelihood, run counter to US interests, which results in increased costs and risks to the US. Hence my claim that such US policies are counterproductive.

 

[Openmind]

I don't doubt there are some benefits to our "global supremacy of the oceans" but you are admitting you have no evidence that the benefits of our supremacy outweigh the costs of maintaining it.

For example, you could pack duffle bags full of 100 dollar bills and burn them in your fireplace to warm your home during the winter. You could point to the inarguable fact that such an action does produce some benefits, however, you could not rationally argue that the benefits gained by your actions outweigh the costs.

So if our "global supremacy of the oceans" is indeed the best example you can come up with to justify the expense of maintaining the size of our military, and you admit that there is no proof that the benefits of this policy outweigh the costs, then I have to point out that you're failing to defend this policy as being a rational course of action.


Logically, if China were to shut down all shipping in their region (much less the entire hemisphere), the Chinese economy would suffer, and potentially collapse, as a result of pursuing that policy. While I certainly wouldn't claim that pursuing irrational policies detrimental to the country in which the policy originated is beyond the scope of what's possible (we certainly do it), I have not seen, and you have not offered, any information to suggest such an event is likely to take place. Simply put, China would stand to lose far more than it would gain, therefore, I do not see such an example as being a realistic concern.


Like the Gulf of Tonkin incident?


Your statement was that "the smallest crisis could cripple global trade", so I offered piracy as a small crisis. If we both agree that piracy amounts to a small crisis, and we agree that piracy does not pose a threat to global trade, then your statement would seem to be based more on rhetoric than fact.


By your own admission, the US unilaterally protects the shipping lanes of the world making it safe for countries like Russia and China to conduct global trade across the oceans. It would stand to reason that, knowing the US has taken it upon itself to provide this service at no charge to other nations, nations like China and Russia do not have to spend their own money doing the same job. Therefore, their military expenditures can go towards accomplishing missions which the US government is not already doing free of charge, missions which could, in all likelihood, run counter to US interests, which results in increased costs and risks to the US. Hence my claim that such US policies are counterproductive.

You are a very good debater, and you provide very logical and common sense arguments.

Although we don't agree on much, we obviously have a broad area of common beliefs on some issues!

 

[BigRob]

I don't doubt there are some benefits to our "global supremacy of the oceans" but you are admitting you have no evidence that the benefits of our supremacy outweigh the costs of maintaining it.

For example, you could pack duffle bags full of 100 dollar bills and burn them in your fireplace to warm your home during the winter. You could point to the inarguable fact that such an action does produce some benefits, however, you could not rationally argue that the benefits gained by your actions outweigh the costs.

The Navy has a budget of around $160 billion. (Keep in mind that includes a lot more than just ships etc) In terms of global trade conducted on the oceans, are you going to argue it is less than $160 billion, or that we get less than a $160 billion benefit from ensuring the safety of trading routes?

So if our "global supremacy of the oceans" is indeed the best example you can come up with to justify the expense of maintaining the size of our military, and you admit that there is no proof that the benefits of this policy outweigh the costs, then I have to point out that you're failing to defend this policy as being a rational course of action.

The simple fact is this. We are better off conforming the world to our worldview than going along for the ride as some other country molds the world into their worldview.

And I have never argued that we need to "maintain the size of our military", I said from the start we can make a lot of cuts in the military and be fine...but your argument (and the title of the thread) is to disband the military...you are arguing against a point that no one ever argued in favor of.

Logically, if China were to shut down all shipping in their region (much less the entire hemisphere), the Chinese economy would suffer, and potentially collapse, as a result of pursuing that policy.

Unless they shut down all shipping lanes except for their own traffic...imagine this scenario, almost all of the oil that Japan needs gets shipped past India, and then up along the coast. The Chinese could easily decide such shipments will stop, and it would devastate Japan.

While I certainly wouldn't claim that pursuing irrational policies detrimental to the country in which the policy originated is beyond the scope of what's possible (we certainly do it), I have not seen, and you have not offered, any information to suggest such an event is likely to take place. Simply put, China would stand to lose far more than it would gain, therefore, I do not see such an example as being a realistic concern.

That is because you are missing the point, and thinking that a country would simply eliminate all shipping in their "sector." That wouldn't happen, what is far more likely is that certain shipping would cut off, or the flow of oil cut off etc...

Look at Russia, they turned off the gas pipelines to Eastern Europe...even though they hurt themselves by not being able to sell that gas.

Like the Gulf of Tonkin incident?

Clearly there was more at play in that instance than simply dominating the oceans.

Your statement was that "the smallest crisis could cripple global trade", so I offered piracy as a small crisis. If we both agree that piracy amounts to a small crisis, and we agree that piracy does not pose a threat to global trade, then your statement would seem to be based more on rhetoric than fact.

I don't really view piracy as a crisis.. I am thinking more a long the lines of a North Korea artillery barrage on some disputed islands...in reality, a pretty meaningless crisis, but suddenly if the US Navy cannot show up in a show of force because China blocks the whole area, it can spiral out of control a lot more quickly.

By your own admission, the US unilaterally protects the shipping lanes of the world making it safe for countries like Russia and China to conduct global trade across the oceans.

Yes..and global trade is ultimately good for everyone.

It would stand to reason that, knowing the US has taken it upon itself to provide this service at no charge to other nations,

Don't pretend we do it at "no charge." We don't send a bill to your government, but we are far better able to basically insert our culture into other nations, get far better political leverage, and better a better negotiating position when we pursue free trade agreements and things of that nature.

nations like China and Russia do not have to spend their own money doing the same job.

Therefore, their military expenditures can go towards accomplishing missions which the US government is not already doing free of charge, missions which could, in all likelihood, run counter to US interests, which results in increased costs and risks to the US. Hence my claim that such US policies are counterproductive.

They could, and probably will do these things...but they will do them anyway, and it serves us no better purpose to pretend that their dominance of the seas is better for us than our own.

 

[GenSeneca]

Since you don't know if the benefits we derive from maintaining "global supremacy of the oceans" outweigh the costs, on what are you basing your opinion that we should maintain our "global supremacy of the oceans"? Remember that's supposed to be your best example, so I'd really like to focus on that and I'd hope you have at least some level of verifiable facts in support of your position.

What logical conclusion(s) do you expect people to arrive at from your scenarios? It would seem that you arrive at the same conclusion each time but you haven't offered a single one that would suggest to me that the "solution" to the hypothetical problem is for the US to have a globally dominant military force, not one.

I also find them incredibly unrealistic, like China blockading Japan, or the Norks firing artillery on a "disputed" island. What is the outcome in your mind, that we just show up in force, without actually firing a shot, and these countries capitulate to our will? Out of fear we may show up they don't dare attempt these forms of aggression in the first place? If we do have to show up, are we to engage them in battle over territory that is NOT part of the US, in defense of people who are NOT American citizens? ...All of your scenarios are left begging the question.

And lastly, you seem to have this view that if we go from a global offensive power to a regional defensive power that some other nation is going to suddenly take over the world. At best the next largest nations in the world could become regional powers, who would then have to compete against all the other regional powers if they actually hoped to obtain the level of global dominance we currently have. It took us decades, trillions of dollars, and the fall of the Soviet Union, to reach our current level of global military dominance. So if you have some evidence that any single nation would dominate the world if we became a regional power, then please offer it.

 

[BigRob]

Since you don't know if the benefits we derive from maintaining "global supremacy of the oceans" outweigh the costs, on what are you basing your opinion that we should maintain our "global supremacy of the oceans"? Remember that's supposed to be your best example, so I'd really like to focus on that and I'd hope you have at least some level of verifiable facts in support of your position.

The size, shape, and strategy of the US Navy are a critical element of America’s position as the world’s great power. Our ability to protect or rend asunder the globe’s ocean-going lines of communication is inseparable from our position as the world’s great power. The eventual impact of weakening or eliminating the Navy includes in my opinion a major shift of power away from American influence in Asia; the shattering of such key maritime alliances and partnerships as those we currently maintain with Australia, India, Japan, and Singapore; the rise of China as a hegemonicpower; a debilitating loss in America’s ability to shape the future global strategic environment; and a powerful reinforcement of the perception that the United States is in decline.

So, I can't say we derive $500 billion in benefits from dominating the oceans, and asking such a question is simplistic in my opinion to begin with and ignores the whole issue. What is the price tag of our relations with SE Asia? There is so much more to the equation than "The navy costs X, we get benefit Y"...

What logical conclusion(s) do you expect people to arrive at from your scenarios? It would seem that you arrive at the same conclusion each time but you haven't offered a single one that would suggest to me that the "solution" to the hypothetical problem is for the US to have a globally dominant military force, not one.

I expect them to arrive at the logical conclusion that threats are real, and do not go away because we decide to.

I also find them incredibly unrealistic, like China blockading Japan, or the Norks firing artillery on a "disputed" island. What is the outcome in your mind, that we just show up in force, without actually firing a shot, and these countries capitulate to our will? Out of fear we may show up they don't dare attempt these forms of aggression in the first place? If we do have to show up, are we to engage them in battle over territory that is NOT part of the US, in defense of people who are NOT American citizens? ...All of your scenarios are left begging the question.

NK bombared Yeonpyeong at the end of 2010, and regularly has crisis scenarios. The Chinese more or less hate the Japanese, and it would easily be conceivable that an issue like Taiwan could result in the Chinese navy shutting own the South China Sea...which 50% of the world oil tanker traffic goes thorugh (and almost all of Japan's supply coms through here). In fact, look simply at Chinese relations with Manila in the 1990s. At that time, Fillipino leaders flatly said it was solely because of US military presence that China did not dominate the entire region.

As for engaging in a battle, no wants to start a war, but we nee to be ready to fight one, and I see no problm fighting a war to protect our global interests.

And lastly, you seem to have this view that if we go from a global offensive power to a regional defensive power that some other nation is going to suddenly take over the world. At best the next largest nations in the world could become regional powers, who would then have to compete against all the other regional powers if they actually hoped to obtain the level of global dominance we currently have. It took us decades, trillions of dollars, and the fall of the Soviet Union, to reach our current level of global military dominance. So if you have some evidence that any single nation would dominate the world if we became a regional power, then please offer it.

No one would dominate the world like we do immediately, but it would make it far harder for us to operate and get what we wanted. China would dominate SE Asia, and it would test our relationships with Japan, Korea, Austraila etc...

Russia would easily dominate Eastern Eueope and control gas pipelines throughout the Caucuses. It would be a huge problem. Thinking that if we suddenly pulled back, no one would step up to take our place is wishful thinking.

 

[ProudLefty]

America dominates the ocean against an enemy that no longer exists and can not defeat the enemy that does exist. It is politics and diplomacy that keeps the Straits of Hormuz open, not the US Navy. The Somalia pirates operate pretty much at will.

 

[GenSeneca]

The size, shape, and strategy of the US Navy are a critical element of America’s position as the world’s great power. Our ability to protect or rend asunder the globe’s ocean-going lines of communication is inseparable from our position as the world’s great power.

I must say that I'm deeply disappointed...

Declining U.S. Navy vs. Chinese challenge

Cropsey, who served during the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations as a principal deputy under the secretary of the Navy, said the U.S. Navy is "in distress."

"The size, shape and strategy of the U.S. Navy are a critical element of America's position as the world's great power," Cropsey said. "Our ability to protect or rend asunder the globe's ocean-going lines of communication is inseparable from our position as the world's great power." - Excerpt from WorldNetDaily article posted February 13, 2010​

I will have to address the rest of your post after work.

 

[ProudLefty]

A couple of points: Please make the case that China would ever attack the US militarily. China's history of gaining land is not through military conquest. They use other means, as they are currently.

We see little value in Africa, beyond the mineral resources. China sees land as the real African resource, and they are in the process of taking over Africa. 150 years from now Africa will be firmly in the sphere of influence of China and few, if any, soldiers will have lifted a weapon.

 

[BigRob]

I must say that I'm deeply disappointed...

Declining U.S. Navy vs. Chinese challenge

Cropsey, who served during the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations as a principal deputy under the secretary of the Navy, said the U.S. Navy is "in distress."

"The size, shape and strategy of the U.S. Navy are a critical element of America's position as the world's great power," Cropsey said. "Our ability to protect or rend asunder the globe's ocean-going lines of communication is inseparable from our position as the world's great power." - Excerpt from WorldNetDaily article posted February 13, 2010​

I will
have to address the rest of your post after work.

Disappointed in what? The guy makes a salient point that is still a big issue. His entire paper is linked the original statement. It makes valid points.

 

[BigRob]

Well, I guess I didn't actually link it. My mistake.

 

[BigRob]

A couple of points: Please make the case that China would ever attack the US militarily. China's history of gaining land is not through military conquest. They use other means, as they are currently.

We see little value in Africa, beyond the mineral resources. China sees land as the real African resource, and they are in the process of taking over Africa. 150 years from now Africa will be firmly in the sphere of influence of China and few, if any, soldiers will have lifted a weapon.

China doesn't have to "attack" anyone to create a ton of problems for us.

 

[Openmind]

China doesn't have to "attack" anyone to create a ton of problems for us.

Is there anything that shows that any of those potential "problems" could be resolved with an oversized military?

 

[ProudLefty]

Is there anything that shows that any of those potential "problems" could be resolved with an oversized military?

Thats the right question, no doubt about it. What would China choose to do to have a result of the US deciding to invade China?