Why Not Disband The US Military?

[BigRob]

That's not an answer, it's an evasion. If you really believe that every single country in the world is ready to attack the US, and/or our interests abroad, then lets start with your best example: Which country do you consider to be the most likely to attack the US with conventional military forces?

I only have a minute to post, so I will have to come back and reply to the other comments...

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

The biggest threats coming from China are industrial espionage (stealing trade secrets) and cyberwarfare, having the largest conventional military, and the largest stockpile of nukes, does absolutely nothing to combat or deter those threats.

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

That said, those are big problems with China, but another major problem with China is their new ability to limit our area of operations in the Pacific. That can have a dramatic effect on our ability to respond to a crisis..whatever the cause might be. China cannot currently compete with us in terms of conventional military, but they are rapidly expanding that changing that...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.

Our military is engaged in armed conflict with China?

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

Our military is engaged in armed conflict with Russia?

Same response as with China.

That's the Economic form of MAD that results from having a global economy. You spoke about deterrents, economic collapse is a huge deterrent.

I spoke about deterrents because that is the conventional wisdom. I think MAD however is a useless theory that holds no water. Is it your assertion that intertwined economies will not war? Centuries of European conflict seem to fly in the face of that assertion.

Some dispute? I'm talking about a military attack on the US. Any nation that holds our debt should know without asking the question that if they invade our country, whatever debt we owe them will be considered null and void. The only countries who would be deterred from purchasing our debt after such an event, are those that plan to attack America.

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

That's Europe and Asia, not America. Let the them fight their own battles, with their own money and their own soldiers.

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

We've had nuclear capability for the better part of a century and we've only ever used two, TWO! We've built THOUSANDS in that time! During that same span of time we have actually used our military for armed conflict in just about every corner of the globe. So that in itself makes it a bad comparison.

But let's say you're right, lets say that eliminating our military would be entirely unilateral, no other nations would follow suit... We'd still have over 500,000 men and women in the National Guard and Coast Guard combined, entirely sufficient to patrol our EEZ's and protect American soil from foreign threats. Meanwhile, we'd save hundreds of billions of dollars every year.

And just how long do you believe America will remain in our position as lone super power with the greatest military on earth? You should consider the fact that our mandatory spending is increasing every year and there is absolutely nothing that would indicate this trend will halt, much less be reversed.

Increases in mandatory spending come at the expense of discretionary spending, and our entire military budget is paid for out of discretionary spending, so the cuts are going to happen eventually whether we like it or not. By phasing out and disbanding the military, we will be doing what's already inevitable by choice, rather than out of necessity. If we wait till it's too late and have to disband the military out of fiscal necessity, we are going to go down in the history books as having gone the way of the Roman and Soviet empires.

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

 

[Openmind]

Your reference got messed up. This is what it should be.
http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/071001-jobcreation.pdf
That is a very definitive article. Just looking at Table 2 in that reference shows your point at a glance. The military creates fewer jobs than any other sector. Furthermore the jobs it creates are considerably slanted to the government payroll.

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!

 

[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!

I am still reading your study. My first impression is that it seems somewhat limited in scope. After I get time to finish it I can better reply.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

disbanding the army worked great for Iraq. so why not us?

Not read most of the thread...but its a horribly bad idea...
our control of the oceans is a key economic driver...just as a start.

 

[Gipper]

Expand on those beliefs, that's the point of this thread. And...

Do you believe America would be invaded/attacked by conventional military forces as a result of disbanding our military? If so, from which country or countries?

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

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?

But that said, I think history tells us a superpower suddenly becoming like Switzerland could have very detrimental consequences in the long run. When great military powers become weak, they get attacked.

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?

 

[Openmind]

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

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?

But that said, I think history tells us a superpower suddenly becoming like Switzerland could have very detrimental consequences in the long run. The only historical analogy that comes to mind is China. I believe they chose an isolationist approach and ultimately suffered greatly.

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?

I don't think anyone is talking about terminating all our military forces abroad in the next 6 months, not even in the next 6 years. I believe what some of us are looking at as a possibility is to begin DE-escalating, instead of continuing to EScalate the cost of our military force, and our involvement outside the U.S.

We are not talking even about cutting military expenditure by 50% over the next 3 years, but maybe cutting it by 5% a year, for the next 10 years.

Everything being equal, we would still spend 3 X as much on military than the next power that be. . .

 

[ProudLefty]

Good points Openmind. I like that approach, yet I will still plump for some re-purposing. We know that our "Kill em til they love us" approach is flawed. Somehow we have to beat our swords into plowshares. We need to learn how to stabilize an area, provide safety, and help them join the nations in peace.

 

[Openmind]

Good points Openmind. I like that approach, yet I will still plump for some re-purposing. We know that our "Kill em til they love us" approach is flawed. Somehow we have to beat our swords into plowshares. We need to learn how to stabilize an area, provide safety, and help them join the nations in peace.

Yes, I agree. As I mentionned before, what I hate the most is that we spend more money to KILL people around the world (and our own soldiers also, by the way), then to EDUCATE, or to SAVE people right here in this country.

THAT is not sustainable.

And, in a perfect world, we could find a way to "stabilize an area." However, I don't think it will ever happen. . .because it would be counter productive for US. . .for big business, (especially oil business and defense industry).

I wish I could find that article that I read a few weeks ago that explained that, after the fall of the Berlin wall, the defense industry was shrinking, because there wasn't a REAL need for escalation. ..and so, even before GW Bush came to the White House, even BEFORE 9/11, it had already been decided to invade Iraq, for one reason or another. . .so as to "revitalize" the defense industry!

If I can find that article again, I will provide the link.

 

[ProudLefty]

It will be hard to convince me that we invaded Iraq for any reason other than GW's daddy issues.

 

[Openmind]

It will be hard to convince me that we invaded Iraq for any reason other than GW's daddy issues.

Well, sorry!

"daddy's issues" is actually the "good reason," or at least a cute reason. . .if there is such a thing!

BIG Money is the real reason!

 

[ProudLefty]

Well, sorry!

"daddy's issues" is actually the "good reason," or at least a cute reason. . .if there is such a thing!

BIG Money is the real reason!

OK. So then the scenario becomes: Big business wants war with Iraq. How to do that? Easy. Appoint GW Bush as president and let his daddy issues do the dirty work for big business?

OK. I guess I could buy into that scenario.

 

[dahermit]

I am old enough to remember the beginning of the United Nations. It was supposed to end warfare by providing an arena to air grievances and seek justice. If that had happened, all countries could scale back their militaries. Unfortunately, the U.N. has failed in its primary mission. Warfare has continued, the U.N. ignores its charter (its charter requires action in the event of a genocide...they get around that by not calling a genocide a "genocide), and has shown to be ineffective and without the will to stop world violence.
It begs the question: Why do the countries of the world still waste time and resources with U.N. membership?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I am old enough to remember the beginning of the United Nations. It was supposed to end warfare by providing an arena to air grievances and seek justice. If that had happened, all countries could scale back their militaries. Unfortunately, the U.N. has failed in its primary mission. Warfare has continued, the U.N. ignores its charter (its charter requires action in the event of a genocide...they get around that by not calling a genocide a "genocide), and has shown to be ineffective and without the will to stop world violence.
It begs the question: Why do the countries of the world still waste time and resources with U.N. membership?

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

 

[ProudLefty]

I am old enough to remember the beginning of the United Nations. It was supposed to end warfare by providing an arena to air grievances and seek justice. If that had happened, all countries could scale back their militaries. Unfortunately, the U.N. has failed in its primary mission. Warfare has continued, the U.N. ignores its charter (its charter requires action in the event of a genocide...they get around that by not calling a genocide a "genocide), and has shown to be ineffective and without the will to stop world violence.
It begs the question: Why do the countries of the world still waste time and resources with U.N. membership?

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.

,

 

[Gipper]

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

To think the UN had anything to do with ending the cold war, is to believe Obama is America's greatest president.

PS. You guys have completely twisted this thread...into something only lefties can recognize.