Scientific socks wrote:Lord Tothe wrote: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.
1) Agreed.
2) China would not interfere with the US to extents that it would be detrimental to the US. This would be harmful to its own economy, since the two are interdependent. As for India, it is a Commonwealth country. It will not act out of favour of the US. Much of its trade, too, comes from multinationals setting up in India and trading with the Indian population (hence India's HUGE domestic trade). Please, tell, though, as an Indian I am curious. How is India NOT a democracy?
3) Partially agree.
4) ... What?
5) Partially agree. Though it depends as well. A militia is also a good fighter if its sole purpose is to DEFEND. Not to attack. Mao, IMO, was a genius guerrilla warfare strategist. However, the US needs to do far more than just defend itself. Hence, it needs a military.
6) Agreed. Though there are many who do disagree.