Do we need a military?

[Tergnitz]

Do we need a military anymore? It's a serious question, particularly when it comes to the US. Consider:

1. There has not been a battle on US soil against a foreign invader since the War of 1812, unless you consider the Confederacy's battle against the North to qualify. In WW1, the US was attacked at sea only, and for violating the principles of neutrality in trade during wartime. Japan's Pearl Harbor attack was arguably in response to US embargoes and other belligerent actions, and was a targeted strike against a military target without an intent for acquisition of US territories.

2. The Soviet Union is dead, and there is no other superpower that poses a threat to the US. China is growing in power, but economic ties make war nearly impossible. There is no empire threatening world conquest...

3. ...Except the USA or the NATO alliance, who engage in military adventures worldwide. Are these actions stirring up the very terrorists they are allegedly suppressing? The 9-11 attacks were stated to be in response to militaristic US foreign policy. That isn't very unlikely, since...

4. ...A standing military encourages national leaders to have a more belligerent attitude in foreign relations rather than seeking diplomatic resolution to conflict. Witness the recent "coalition" attack against Libya as an example.

5. In the US, at least, there are enough civilian riflemen to withstand any invasion force. Assuming the state National Guard units were repurposed as artillery, armor, and air support specialists, a full military force would still be able to resist invasion in the unlikely event it may occur.

6. So, in conclusion: In a time of economic turmoil, can we afford to expend so much money and so many resources on a global military? It drains the economy of the general productive populace, threatens global stability, and exists to combat threats that may no longer exist.

Totally agree, but how is the gov. meant to install there totalitarian dictatorships without it?

[Indeos]

There really isn't one, I think at this point you think I'm misunderstanding you. I know what you're saying, I was just clarifying what I meant.

Fair enough - I'm actually an international relations student; and since I beleive in hegemonic stability, I want the U.S to be as strong as possible.

That includes the U.S having a good economy, being internationally secure and her taxpayers being content. Wether my support is irrelavant or not (and I fully admit it is), I only want good things for the U.S, which btw includes eventual energy self-sufficiency. That is not out of any altruism or genuine concern for the well being of Americans mind you - it is completely self serving. But that being said - given that my framework is geared towards benefiting the United States, I occasionally take it upon myself to defend United States policies to American citizens.

And given that your country has such a hegemonic influence on world affairs (which again, I don't see as a bad thing necessarily) - and that your country effects mine in a way that mine doesn't effect yours - I feel entitled to have an opinion. What Americans do howver is, and should be decided by your ballot.

Just clarifying my position.

- Now obviously if you guys did something that harmed my interests, or myself - that would become relavant. At least to to me. -

See, if we were as strong as possible you wouldn't be a foreign country at all. The real best-case scenario for global stability would be to have one power rule the entire globe.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Fair enough - I'm actually an international relations student; and since I beleive in hegemonic stability, I want the U.S to be as strong as possible.

That includes the U.S having a good economy, being internationally secure and her taxpayers being content. Wether my support is irrelavant or not (and I fully admit it is), I only want good things for the U.S, which btw includes eventual energy self-sufficiency. That is not out of any altruism or genuine concern for the well being of Americans mind you - it is completely self serving. But that being said - given that my framework is geared towards benefiting the United States, I occasionally take it upon myself to defend United States policies to American citizens.

And given that your country has such a hegemonic influence on world affairs (which again, I don't see as a bad thing necessarily) - and that your country effects mine in a way that mine doesn't effect yours - I feel entitled to have an opinion. What Americans do howver is, and should be decided by your ballot.

Just clarifying my position.

- Now obviously if you guys did something that harmed my interests, or myself - that would become relavant. At least to to me. -

See, if we were as strong as possible you wouldn't be a foreign country at all. The real best-case scenario for global stability would be to have one power rule the entire globe.

Yes.

[Indeos]

See, if we were as strong as possible you wouldn't be a foreign country at all. The real best-case scenario for global stability would be to have one power rule the entire globe.

Yes.

So, shouldn't you be in favor of imperialism and therefore with having your own country taken over by one that has a chance of establishing a working global government?

[EnragedMaldivians]

Yes.

So, shouldn't you be in favor of imperialism and therefore with having your own country taken over by one that has a chance of establishing a working global government?

In the abstract - that is what I am in favour of. I fully support the prospect of world government, should it ever become a viable option. The Next best alterntative is unilateral global hegemony - only the U.S is capable of this currently.

[Sciox]

the pen is mightier than the sword

And whoever said that obviously never encountered automatic weapons.

[Galonica]

YES! We're the protectors of the free world.

[Indeos]

So, shouldn't you be in favor of imperialism and therefore with having your own country taken over by one that has a chance of establishing a working global government?

In the abstract - that is what I am in favour of. I fully support the prospect of world government, should it ever become a viable option. The Next best alterntative is unilateral global hegemony - only the U.S is capable of this currently.

Well, then the best thing you can do for it is enter your nation's political system and convince them to willingly become a territory of the US. We need to get the ball rolling somewhere.

[Caninope]

Yes.

So, shouldn't you be in favor of imperialism and therefore with having your own country taken over by one that has a chance of establishing a working global government?

While I support, with EM, the idea of a hegemony, I don't support a unilateral world government. Within a hegemony there's still chances of a tyrannical country being overthrown, be it the hegemonic country or not. In a one world government, there wouldn't and there would be a lot of civil war.

[Indeos]

So, shouldn't you be in favor of imperialism and therefore with having your own country taken over by one that has a chance of establishing a working global government?

While I support, with EM, the idea of a hegemony, I don't support a unilateral world government. Within a hegemony there's still chances of a tyrannical country being overthrown, be it the hegemonic country or not. In a one world government, there wouldn't and there would be a lot of civil war.

I'd be more in support of a psuedo-feudalistic government, honestly. Something where there is an equilibrium of power between the global government and the governed.

[EnragedMaldivians]

In the abstract - that is what I am in favour of. I fully support the prospect of world government, should it ever become a viable option. The Next best alterntative is unilateral global hegemony - only the U.S is capable of this currently.

Well, then the best thing you can do for it is enter your nation's political system and convince them to willingly become a territory of the US. We need to get the ball rolling somewhere.

We're a sinking island - partly due to American comsumption habits, reliance on oil and unwillingness to acknowledge the science behind global warming. Annexing us, would be completely redundant.

And Caninope - I support it in the context that it becomes gradually institutionalized and people come to accept it, not through a war of conquest.

[New Alaxia]

yes.

[Corvinna]

Abso-f**kin-lutely.

[Michael VII]

Of course you need a military! If you don't people will attack you, because you can't defend yourself! Would you rather have an insurance policy in case of war, or pay the price of not preparing for one?

[Anders4]

Are kidding me? Its because if any group or nation started massively affecting shipping it would be stopping within a few weeks by the might of the US navy. If the US navy didn't exist then pirates, or other nations would actually have he ability to start disrupting trade.

Complete and utter bullshit. Piracy ended long before the US navy became near the top 20 on earth, it was barely of importance in the 1800s, and died out by the late 1800s. The US has done nothing in particular to halt piracy, and if it ever became a major problem (it isn't currently if you didn't notice) a dozen other nations could easily hunt down the pirates just as quickly as the US, the UK, France, China, Russia, and several other countries have more than enough naval power to suppress the major threat of pirates.

Tell that to the Somalis

[Farnhamia]

Complete and utter bullshit. Piracy ended long before the US navy became near the top 20 on earth, it was barely of importance in the 1800s, and died out by the late 1800s. The US has done nothing in particular to halt piracy, and if it ever became a major problem (it isn't currently if you didn't notice) a dozen other nations could easily hunt down the pirates just as quickly as the US, the UK, France, China, Russia, and several other countries have more than enough naval power to suppress the major threat of pirates.

Tell that to the Somalis

Last I heard, they had taken so many hostages, they were offering discounts on the ransoms just to unload them.

[Norstal]

the pen is mightier than the sword

And whoever said that obviously never encountered automatic weapons.

Well, the pen is needed to draw the blueprints for automatic weapons.

[Farnhamia]

And whoever said that obviously never encountered automatic weapons.

Well, the pen is needed to draw the blueprints for automatic weapons.

Among other things.

[Norstal]

Well, the pen is needed to draw the blueprints for automatic weapons.

Among other things.

Saw that today too. Classic.

[Scientific socks]

Do we need a military anymore? It's a serious question, particularly when it comes to the US. Consider:

1. There has not been a battle on US soil against a foreign invader since the War of 1812, unless you consider the Confederacy's battle against the North to qualify. In WW1, the US was attacked at sea only, and for violating the principles of neutrality in trade during wartime. Japan's Pearl Harbor attack was arguably in response to US embargoes and other belligerent actions, and was a targeted strike against a military target without an intent for acquisition of US territories.

2. The Soviet Union is dead, and there is no other superpower that poses a threat to the US. China is growing in power, but economic ties make war nearly impossible. There is no empire threatening world conquest...

3. ...Except the USA or the NATO alliance, who engage in military adventures worldwide. Are these actions stirring up the very terrorists they are allegedly suppressing? The 9-11 attacks were stated to be in response to militaristic US foreign policy. That isn't very unlikely, since...

4. ...A standing military encourages national leaders to have a more belligerent attitude in foreign relations rather than seeking diplomatic resolution to conflict. Witness the recent "coalition" attack against Libya as an example.

5. In the US, at least, there are enough civilian riflemen to withstand any invasion force. Assuming the state National Guard units were repurposed as artillery, armor, and air support specialists, a full military force would still be able to resist invasion in the unlikely event it may occur.

6. So, in conclusion: In a time of economic turmoil, can we afford to expend so much money and so many resources on a global military? It drains the economy of the general productive populace, threatens global stability, and exists to combat threats that may no longer exist.

1. Yes, due to the military
2. China, India and Russia are quite powerful. Without a military shipping routes could be controlled and the US invaded with ease. None of thoes countries are true democracies and you will eventually be living in some kind of dictatorship. Plus the military keeps insurgents down.
3. People who want to kill and oppress will always find a weak excuse. The terrorist attacks on the US were partly due to sociopaths, partly due to religous extreemism and partly due to people whom want to control the will of others. The military is the main defence against this for any democracy. If not you get guns for hire like in Africa.
4. The military is not a popular choice. Lacking a military to defend you without relying on allies forces complaince more than diplomacy.
5. In the likely event it would occur you would have a trained army against armed but untrained citizens. Look at Libya. The Libyan people need foriegn military help, without it they would have already become a dictatorship again.
6. The military is an expense against the econemy in times of turmoil. Just like helping the life long disabled, paying pensions and other social welfare, maintaining police, firefighters, environmental protection and most court procedures. I would like to keep all thoes things in my country at all times.

[Scientific socks]

And whoever said that obviously never encountered automatic weapons.

Well, the pen is needed to draw the blueprints for automatic weapons.

I have never heard of a pen shortage or blueprint for gun shortage during a war. A lack of pens was not the main problem for the Soviet troops

[GOLTZBORG]

Yes, however, many of the military operations could be done with a joy-stick from the Pendagon; by using unmanned drones equipped with cameras and weapons. ( some boots on the ground will always be required too )

And/or....use the stealth bombers, and other high altitude bombers; that way, fewer boots are required.

[Iuuvic]

the pen is mightier than the sword

Ahh, but the Iphone is far mightier still.

[Pedokala]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleutian_Islands_Campaign

[Keronians]

Totally agree, but how is the gov. meant to install there totalitarian dictatorships without it?

The US military has not helped install dictators in various countries?

I'm curious. Tell me how it hasn't.