Do we need a military?

[Conserative Morality]

Completely unnecessary. Projecting power is pretty useless if its anything more than a quick campaign, as our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown, and a quick campaign wouldn't accomplish much positive in itself, maybe only remove a government we don't like, but wouldn't establish one we do.

And if we can't project power effectively, spending 6 times as much as China and 100 times as much as Iran on defense, then nobody can seriously harm us, perhaps the most heavily armed citizenry on the planet.

Aside from nukes, that is.

I laugh at the bolded.

[Mongolian Khanate]

TBF, irregular militia have proven to be effective morale destroyers. Not necessarily winning in any sense, but unless you're fighting Kitchener you can bet that most guerrillas will be able to effectively rape morale.

Still need legit military to actually win the war, though see every LIC ever.

Oh for sure. The ridiculously high rate of American civilian weaponry would be hugely advantageous.

Unfortunately, civilian militia irregular infantry with non-military grade small-arms weaponry would not be enough to really stop a modern army. Helpful... but not quite enough.

Mix the number of weapon stores with the number of liquor stores, and you have enough molotov-cocktail material and smalls arms to plan a longterm guerilla campaign.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Which would be most effective against enemy naval, armored, and air forces....

TBF, irregular militia have proven to be effective morale destroyers. Not necessarily winning in any sense, but unless you're fighting Kitchener you can bet that most guerrillas will be able to effectively rape morale.

Still need legit military to actually win the war, though see every LIC ever.

Awesome battle plan. Keep getting you're ass kicked until the enemy can't kick any more ass.

[Whiskey Hill]

I laugh at the bolded.

Perhaps you should elaborate why, then.

At one time it was possible, and at some point in the future it will again, but given conditions in the world right now, we're pretty incapable of having an effective empire, and if we are incapable, everyone is.

[Lord Tothe]

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. So? There are more reasons to have a military than simply preventing an outright invasion.
2. China possibly could in a few years, modern Russia would steamroll us if we didn't have a military.
3. We also help keep peace in foreign countries such as the Koreans, or in former Yugoslavia.
4. How would diplomacy have helped there? Gaddafi is crazy in case you have not noticed, and diplomacy didn't do much to stop Hitler or the USSR.
5. Not necessarily, the Boers were very militarized and were still beaten by the British, and as I said before, who cares? There are still problems abroad that may require a military.
6. Yes, there are lots of things that cost as much as the military, and a lot of stuff that the military uses money developing helps the civilian secotr as well. Also, there is a major difference between eliminating the military, and lowering spending to 200 or 100 billion.

1. what legitimate purpose is there for a military besides national defense?
2. maybe, but the armed civilian population outnumbers their armies, probably even if combined. Besides, why WOULD they need to invade, barring US action causing such grievous conflict?
3. Why do we need to "keep peace" in foreign countries? Interventionism breeds future conflict, and presents the US as an authoritarian invader as well.
4. In Libya, we interfered with a civil war, possibly siding with Al-Qaeda, bombed infrastructure, and for what? It looks like just another war for oil against a nation that wouldn't go along with US economic foreign policy. Wars are never truly "humanitarian". And Hitler only gained power in response to Allied postwar conditions imposed after WW1. If the Allies hadn't crippled Germany as "punishment" then there would have been no disaster for Hitler to promise salvation from. And was the USSR ever really a threat outside of mutual belligerence and threats of military action? If the US weren't pointing bombers and missiles at Russia, the USSR would not have had occasion to respond in kind.
5. Why does our military need to fight abroad? Please answer me this simple question. National defense should be ample. Instead, we have had a century of nearly endless wars with no end in sight, and each war leads to another, where old allies become new enemies and the slaughter and waste continue again.
6. Military expenditure is not the most efficient or useful use for limited resources. And don't resort to the broken window fallacy.

[Mongolian Khanate]

1. So? There are more reasons to have a military than simply preventing an outright invasion.
2. China possibly could in a few years, modern Russia would steamroll us if we didn't have a military.
3. We also help keep peace in foreign countries such as the Koreans, or in former Yugoslavia.
4. How would diplomacy have helped there? Gaddafi is crazy in case you have not noticed, and diplomacy didn't do much to stop Hitler or the USSR.
5. Not necessarily, the Boers were very militarized and were still beaten by the British, and as I said before, who cares? There are still problems abroad that may require a military.
6. Yes, there are lots of things that cost as much as the military, and a lot of stuff that the military uses money developing helps the civilian secotr as well. Also, there is a major difference between eliminating the military, and lowering spending to 200 or 100 billion.

1. what legitimate purpose is there for a military besides national defense?
2. maybe, but the armed civilian population outnumbers their armies, probably even if combined. Besides, why WOULD they need to invade, barring US action causing such grievous conflict?
3. Why do we need to "keep peace" in foreign countries? Interventionism breeds future conflict, and presents the US as an authoritarian invader as well.
4. In Libya, we interfered with a civil war, possibly siding with Al-Qaeda, bombed infrastructure, and for what? It looks like just another war for oil against a nation that wouldn't go along with US economic foreign policy. Wars are never truly "humanitarian". And Hitler only gained power in response to Allied postwar conditions imposed after WW1. If the Allies hadn't crippled Germany as "punishment" then there would have been no disaster for Hitler to promise salvation from. And was the USSR ever really a threat outside of mutual belligerence and threats of military action? If the US weren't pointing bombers and missiles at Russia, the USSR would not have had occasion to respond in kind.
5. Why does our military need to fight abroad? Please answer me this simple question. National defense should be ample. Instead, we have had a century of nearly endless wars with no end in sight, and each war leads to another, where old allies become new enemies and the slaughter and waste continue again.
6. Military expenditure is not the most efficient or useful use for limited resources. And don't resort to the broken window fallacy.

1- "Last time I checked into a political science course, the monopoly of violence represented by the availability of armed forces (or a very armed police department) is still the number one criteria to national sovereignty in the definition of the State."

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

Awesome battle plan. Keep getting you're ass kicked until the enemy can't kick any more ass.

You honestly believe that to be the basic tactic of guerilla warfare?

[Conserative Morality]

Perhaps you should elaborate why, then.

Power projection is useless, except in quick campaigns?

I'm really not even sure where to start. The entire statement just... Astounds me.

At one time it was possible, and at some point in the future it will again, but given conditions in the world right now, we're pretty incapable of having an effective empire, and if we are incapable, everyone is.

Who said anything about an Empire?

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Awesome battle plan. Keep getting you're ass kicked until the enemy can't kick any more ass.

You honestly believe that to be the basic tactic of guerilla warfare?

A guerilla army cannot hope to defeat a modern army, at least not one of any quality. All they can do is make the campaign not cost effective for the invader to continue.

[Lord Tothe]

1. what legitimate purpose is there for a military besides national defense?
2. maybe, but the armed civilian population outnumbers their armies, probably even if combined. Besides, why WOULD they need to invade, barring US action causing such grievous conflict?
3. Why do we need to "keep peace" in foreign countries? Interventionism breeds future conflict, and presents the US as an authoritarian invader as well.
4. In Libya, we interfered with a civil war, possibly siding with Al-Qaeda, bombed infrastructure, and for what? It looks like just another war for oil against a nation that wouldn't go along with US economic foreign policy. Wars are never truly "humanitarian". And Hitler only gained power in response to Allied postwar conditions imposed after WW1. If the Allies hadn't crippled Germany as "punishment" then there would have been no disaster for Hitler to promise salvation from. And was the USSR ever really a threat outside of mutual belligerence and threats of military action? If the US weren't pointing bombers and missiles at Russia, the USSR would not have had occasion to respond in kind.
5. Why does our military need to fight abroad? Please answer me this simple question. National defense should be ample. Instead, we have had a century of nearly endless wars with no end in sight, and each war leads to another, where old allies become new enemies and the slaughter and waste continue again.
6. Military expenditure is not the most efficient or useful use for limited resources. And don't resort to the broken window fallacy.

1- "Last time I checked into a political science course, the monopoly of violence represented by the availability of armed forces (or a very armed police department) is still the number one criteria to national sovereignty in the definition of the State."

And I compromised from my anarchistic stance to allow for a well-prepared defense force. You say a nation can only exist through threatening its neighbors? if so, I'll go back to posting as my true anarchistic self instead of trying to compromise through minarchism

You honestly believe that to be the basic tactic of guerilla warfare?

A guerilla army cannot hope to defeat a modern army, at least not one of any quality. All they can do is make the campaign not cost effective for the invader to continue.

that strategy seems to be working in Afghanistan.

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

A guerilla army cannot hope to defeat a modern army, at least not one of any quality. All they can do is make the campaign not cost effective for the invader to continue.

I would count that as defeating them.

Breaking their morale, the will of their people to continue a war and their funding does not require getting your ass kicked until they can't kick ass any more.

[Seleucas]

I think the US should make some kind of declaration of perpetual neutrality, in the mold of Austria or Switzerland. Heck, the last time that there was an occupying army in the United States, it came from the Northern States to the South. (Not to mention that our interventions abroad have had almost entirely negative effects, well before the mania of the Global War on Terror started by Dubya and perpetuated by Obama...)

[The Murtunian Tribes]

A guerilla army cannot hope to defeat a modern army, at least not one of any quality. All they can do is make the campaign not cost effective for the invader to continue.

I would count that as defeating them.

Breaking their morale, the will of their people to continue a war and their funding does not require getting your ass kicked until they can't kick ass any more.

Tomato tomahto. Point is without an effective military force, the U.S. is a viable target, and I don't exactly want to have to be a guerilla fighter until some jackoffs in a foreign country decide that their war is eating up too many tax dollars.

[Mongolian Khanate]

1- "Last time I checked into a political science course, the monopoly of violence represented by the availability of armed forces (or a very armed police department) is still the number one criteria to national sovereignty in the definition of the State."

And I compromised from my anarchistic stance to allow for a well-prepared defense force. You say a nation can only exist through threatening its neighbors? if so, I'll go back to posting as my true anarchistic self instead of trying to compromise with minarchism

Not what I implied good Sir

But a military must indeed be a credible threat to enforce national sovereignty, or it is dependant on the good will of others to do so. A good example of what I'm aiming for is the swiss army. While some countries may contend themselves with a strictly defensive force (like the swiss), the sheer geography of the US and oversea possessions means they need a projection force that could be seen as threatening to it's neighbors.

I think we can agree that the US military needs a budget slashing thought

[Keronians]

You do. But perhaps reduce spending. I mean, you guys spend a fortune on defense. Surely this money could go to other sources, education, for example?

It's also too large, IMO. But this is perhaps justified. The ridiculous amount you spend on it, not so much. There are other areas that need this money. However, reducing spending may increase unemployment (as military staff is laid off to make ends meet).

[Lowell Leber]

Yes-How is a country (especially the US) going to secure needed yet dwindling natural resources in the future without a strong military?

Oh shit, I don't know, how about the exact same way it always has - through trade?

Seriously, America needs a military, but not for this reason.

I should disclose that I am an Imperialist. That said it will become much more expensive and difficult, if not impossible, to trade for vital resources when said resources become extremely scarce.

[Swkoll]

This is what would happen if the us got rid of its military:

1. Congressman WTF says, "We're broke, let's get rid of the military"

2. Military goes away.

3. Most Countries in the world look over and go

4. us goes

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

1. So? There are more reasons to have a military than simply preventing an outright invasion.
2. China possibly could in a few years, modern Russia would steamroll us if we didn't have a military.
3. We also help keep peace in foreign countries such as the Koreans, or in former Yugoslavia.
4. How would diplomacy have helped there? Gaddafi is crazy in case you have not noticed, and diplomacy didn't do much to stop Hitler or the USSR.
5. Not necessarily, the Boers were very militarized and were still beaten by the British, and as I said before, who cares? There are still problems abroad that may require a military.
6. Yes, there are lots of things that cost as much as the military, and a lot of stuff that the military uses money developing helps the civilian secotr as well. Also, there is a major difference between eliminating the military, and lowering spending to 200 or 100 billion.

1. what legitimate purpose is there for a military besides national defense?
2. maybe, but the armed civilian population outnumbers their armies, probably even if combined. Besides, why WOULD they need to invade, barring US action causing such grievous conflict?
3. Why do we need to "keep peace" in foreign countries? Interventionism breeds future conflict, and presents the US as an authoritarian invader as well.
4. In Libya, we interfered with a civil war, possibly siding with Al-Qaeda, bombed infrastructure, and for what? It looks like just another war for oil against a nation that wouldn't go along with US economic foreign policy. Wars are never truly "humanitarian". And Hitler only gained power in response to Allied postwar conditions imposed after WW1. If the Allies hadn't crippled Germany as "punishment" then there would have been no disaster for Hitler to promise salvation from. And was the USSR ever really a threat outside of mutual belligerence and threats of military action? If the US weren't pointing bombers and missiles at Russia, the USSR would not have had occasion to respond in kind.
5. Why does our military need to fight abroad? Please answer me this simple question. National defense should be ample. Instead, we have had a century of nearly endless wars with no end in sight, and each war leads to another, where old allies become new enemies and the slaughter and waste continue again.
6. Military expenditure is not the most efficient or useful use for limited resources. And don't resort to the broken window fallacy.

1. Power projection, if everyone let everyone else do whatever they want than WW1 never would have happened because Russia and France never intervened, but Serbia would likely be oppressed by Austria-Hungary, Hitler could have invaded Poland and Britain and France wouldn't have become involved until they were invaded (and Hitler really wanted the Alsace and Lorraine). Japan would have conquered China, than Burma, then the Philippines, then Hawaii in WW2.
2. The fact that the US is a completing nation economically, perhaps control over the pacific. Also, without our army your first point is invalid since anyone can easily take one region and no one can do anything. Mexico could easily take part of Texas, and their only problem would be rednecks with guns that would give up after a generation.
3. Because if we don't keep the peace than greater problems could erupt. We ignore problems in country A and a dictatorship forms, we ignore country B's fears that they will be invaded and they are conquered, 2 years later country A owns half of Europe or Africa or South America.
4. If the allies hadn't had such harsh conditions than the Germans would have had an even greater belief that militarily they didn't lose and probably would have started a war 20 years later to retake the Alsace and Lorraine regions that France would have demanded from any treaty. If no one helped Serbia at all than they would have been conquered outright by a nation known for abusing ethnic minorities. Also, Germany was growing very expansionist and would have sought to expand their borders further at some point.
5. Because we have interests abroad, investments in foreign companies, american citizens, resources that we import. If country A is seized by extremists who don't like us and country A has American citizens (we have embassies in most countries) than they make take out people hostage. Iran did it. Also, Ponch Villa once invaded the US and threatened US citizens.
6. It is the most important basic expense. With the exception of nations protected by foreign countries everyone has an army because they may someday face a threat. Switzerland is very well armed and practically everyone is in a militia, but they still have a standing army because they might someday need it.

[Keronians]

Oh shit, I don't know, how about the exact same way it always has - through trade?

Seriously, America needs a military, but not for this reason.

I should disclose that I am an Imperialist. That said it will become much more expensive and difficult, if not impossible, to trade for vital resources when said resources become extremely scarce.

That, and the imperialistic method of working isn't really too hot these days.

I mean, sure, that's how you guys will secure them; projecting power, however, INVESTMENT in those countries, and developing good relations with the country to me seems more important than waving your dick in their face.

Just my two cents.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

I should disclose that I am an Imperialist. That said it will become much more expensive and difficult, if not impossible, to trade for vital resources when said resources become extremely scarce.

That, and the imperialistic method of working isn't really too hot these days.

I mean, sure, that's how you guys will secure them; projecting power, however, INVESTMENT in those countries, and developing good relations with the country to me seems more important than waving your dick in their face.

Just my two cents.

That's why you need a bit of both.

[Ovisterra]

It's good to have a military, because not having one is as good as flying a three mile wide banner saying "INVADE PLZ", but the size of the US military is the most ridiculous thing I've ever come accross.

Ireland does not need one, for two reasons.

1. Our military is so useless, we could just keep some guns in a hut, and hand them to randomners in the street during wars, as they would be just as good.

2. Were we invaded, America, England, or someone from the EU would likely come and shove the attacker's head up their own backside.

[Keronians]

That, and the imperialistic method of working isn't really too hot these days.

I mean, sure, that's how you guys will secure them; projecting power, however, INVESTMENT in those countries, and developing good relations with the country to me seems more important than waving your dick in their face.

Just my two cents.

That's why you need a bit of both.

IMO, more of the investment and sense of true friendship, and a little less of the dick-waving.

Maybe make the dick-waving look like a good thing? I mean, God, with how unstable the Middle East is, you'd think that somebody'd come up with the "it's for your security. See? I care for you! Now gimme some oil" idea, but no.

*Thinks of Israel*

Never mind.

[Keronians]

It's good to have a military, because not having one is as good as flying a three mile wide banner saying "INVADE PLZ", but the size of the US military is the most ridiculous thing I've ever come accross.

Ireland does not need one, for two reasons.

1. Our military is so useless, we could just keep some guns in a hut, and hand them to randomners in the street during wars, as they would be just as good.

2. Were we invaded, America, England, or someone from the EU would likely come and shove the attacker's head up their own backside.

Oh, shut up, we're already tired with the bail-outs. We don't need a MILITARY bail out, as well.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

That's why you need a bit of both.

IMO, more of the investment and sense of true friendship, and a little less of the dick-waving.

Maybe make the dick-waving look like a good thing? I mean, God, with how unstable the Middle East is, you'd think that somebody'd come up with the "it's for your security. See? I care for you! Now gimme some oil" idea, but no.

*Thinks of Israel*

Never mind.

Friendship? What the fuck? Countries do not have friends.

[Keronians]

IMO, more of the investment and sense of true friendship, and a little less of the dick-waving.

Maybe make the dick-waving look like a good thing? I mean, God, with how unstable the Middle East is, you'd think that somebody'd come up with the "it's for your security. See? I care for you! Now gimme some oil" idea, but no.

*Thinks of Israel*

Never mind.

Friendship? What the fuck? Countries do not have friends.

Allies, whatever.