Do we need a military?

[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.

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

But our country is so small and cute!

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

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.

We already do that

[The Murtunian Tribes]

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

Allies, whatever.

HUGE difference between an ally and a friend.

[Risottia]

the pen is mightier than the sword

Remove a blank space to achieve trivial humour.

[Conserative Morality]

Remove a blank space to achieve trivial humour.

I signed a petition to save the children yesterday. They asked me to donate some cash, so I decided to put my money where my pen is.

[Risottia]

Remove a blank space to achieve trivial humour.

I signed a petition to save the children yesterday. They asked me to donate some cash, so I decided to put my money where my pen is.

*hat off*

[Trollgaard]

Of course we do. That is a silly question. Our economic prosperity, despite recent troubles, relies on our military. We would have no international clout without our military, and would be vulnerable to attack, and unable to carry the war 'over there', if in fact a war did break out.

So basically getting rid of the military would be suicide.

[Siorafrica]

Militaries are necessary because it only takes 2 people to have a war.

[South Norwega]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_o ... on_of_Guam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake_Island#World_War_II

[Greed and Death]

Yes ?
Do we need as large of one as we do ? No.

[Maurepas]

We need a Military, especially a Navy(a big reason why there hasn't been a battle on US Soil in so long), however, we don't need a massively bloated professional military and Defense R&D/Industrial Complex. I think the Actual Army/Marine personnel can be slashed considerably in peace time, which should be all the time US Soil hasn't been attacked.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Yes.

[Augarundus]

Nope.

Plus, I have tons of debate files that show how an anarchist society could provide for its own defense with a militia...

[Roman Cilicia]

Of course America needs a military! If you all decide to disband it, the terrorists and Mexican opium warlords will win, and we don't want that.

[Greed and Death]

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.

The Japanese landed on the Aleutian islands.
Has not touched a state or the continental US since 1812 would be correct statements.
The US aggression stuff is nonsense countries are allowed to cease trade with other countries.
The Japanese also no longer needed US oil as they had all the oil they needed in the Dutch east indies.
And Japan had considered occupying Hawaii.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Eastern-Operati ... awaii-1941

[New Korongo]

the pen is mightier than the sword

this is the reason guns were developed

[Swkoll]

the pen is mightier than the sword

this is the reason guns were developed

[Camerania]

No, we most certainly don't. We aren't going to be invaded by anyone, and many of the reasons these people are giving for why we do need one are things that don't require violence or an entire military to achieve.

[Augarundus]

Harvard Debate, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

ANARCHIST SOCIETY COULD PROVIDE FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE
Robert Paul Wolff, Professor of Philosophy, University of Massachusetts, IN DEFENSE OF ANARCHISM, 1970, p.80. (PDNSS6082)
With regard to matters of national defense and foreign adventure, it seems
to me that there is much to be said for the adoption of a system of
voluntary compliance with governmental directives. If we assume a society
of anarchists- a society, that is to say, which has achieved a level of
moral and intellectual development at which superstitious beliefs in
legitimacy of authority have evap0rated-then the citizenry would be
perfectly capable of choosing freely whether to defend the nation and carry
its purpose beyond the national borders'';. The army itself could be run on
the basis of voluntary commitments and submission to orders. To be sure,
the day might arrive when there were not enough volunteers to protect the
freedom and security of the society. But if that were the case, then it
would clearly be illegitimate to command the citizens to fight. Why should
a nation continue to exist if its populace does not wish to defend it? One
thinks here of the contrast between the Yugoslav partisans or Israeli
soldiers, on the one hand, and the American forces in Vietnam on the other.



CHARITY WOULD PARTIALLY FINANCE NATIONAL DEFENSE '
David Friedman, ',Professor of Law, University of Chicago, THE MACHINERY OF 'FREEDOM, 1973, p.194. (PDNSS6083)
There are other ways that part of the cost might be paid. Charities exist
for the purpose of financing public goods. They currently collect billions
of dollars a year. There is no reason why national defense should not be
partly financed by charitable contributions. Historically it has been; in
time of war people often donate money, labor, and weapons and purchase war
bonds for more than their, market value.



VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION COULD FINANCE NATIONAL DEFENSE
David Friedman, Professor of Law, University of Chicago, THE MACHINERY OF FREEDOM, 1973, p.195. (PDNSS6084)
How much are people willing to pay on such a basis? I do not know, but one
way of getting a rough idea is by seeing how much they pay in tips under
circumstances where they receive no direct benefit by tipping well. This is
the normal case with taxis, since few of us expect to get the same driver
twice; with restaurants it only sometimes holds, since many customers go to
the same restaurant regularly. Taxi tips total about $150 million a year;
all sorts of tips combined total about $2 billion. Such figures suggest
that individual feelings of obligation, reinforced by social pressure,
might provide a substantial fraction of the cost of defending against
foreign enemies- a service most of us regard as somewhat more important
than keeping up the quality of restaurant service.

[Vetalia]

Yeah...if you think oil at $120/barrel is expensive, just imagine how much it would cost if we weren't guarding the world's oceans to ensure no supply interruptions.

[Galla-]

Yeah...if you think oil at $120/barrel is expensive, just imagine how much it would cost if we weren't guarding the world's oceans to ensure no supply interruptions.

The same?

The high oil prices are due to market speculation.

[Swkoll]

Yeah...if you think oil at $120/barrel is expensive, just imagine how much it would cost if we weren't guarding the world's oceans to ensure no supply interruptions.

The same?

The high oil prices are due to market speculation.

Without protection of shipping lines the market would speculate a lot differently .

[Vetalia]

The same?

The high oil prices are due to market speculation.

What do you think would happen when you drastically increase market risk? A whole lot more speculation and massively higher prices because there are suddenly many, many more risk factors out there.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

The same?

The high oil prices are due to market speculation.

Without protection of shipping lines the market would speculate a lot differently .

Not really, there are no nations that regularly harass nations, and the US doesn't do anything against pirates besides occasionally intervening when a few take Americans hostage.

[Trollgaard]

Without protection of shipping lines the market would speculate a lot differently .

Not really, there are no nations that regularly harass nations, and the US doesn't do anything against pirates besides occasionally intervening when a few take Americans hostage.

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.

If you like your lifestyle now, thank the might of the US military. Without it there would be chaos. Trade would be much reduced, piracy rapant, and overrall people would be worse off.

This is ridiculous argument.