Do we need a military?

[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.

[Milograd]

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.

Yeah...I wonder why... :/

[Saurisisia]

Yes, yes we do. There's still the threat of war with other countries as well as terrorists and drug cartels right on your own backyard.

[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?

[The Murtunian Tribes]

It could do with a size reduction, but disbanding it? Ridiculous. And what's wrong with attacking Libya?

[Tridence]

the pen is mightier than the sword

[Conserative Morality]

Yes, we do. Detterrance comes to mind, as does the ability to project one's influence and one's interests globally instead of, you know, needing to bend over and take it every time US interests are threatened by a foreign power.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

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.

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

the pen is mightier than the sword

Generally it's handy to have both in play

[Maniaca]

We need a military twice as much as we need congress.

In times of economic turmoil, governments ramp up spending, see: The Roosevelt Administration.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

the pen is mightier than the sword

Only cause the pen signs the checks.

[Lord Tothe]

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.

Yeah...I wonder why... :/

See point #5. There would be "a rifle behind every blade of grass" if a foreign country invaded.

Yes, yes we do. There's still the threat of war with other countries as well as terrorists and drug cartels right on your own backyard.

see points #2, 3, & 4. Furthermore, the drug cartels are empowered because there is a black market for drugs. Legalize drugs, and prices drop. Prices dropping and purchasing becoming legal remove the power of the drug cartels. Imagine: If there is no more need to smuggle drugs, there is no more drug smuggling or drug war or drug gang violence. Thus there is no need for military action.

[Tubbsalot]

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.

[Der Teutoniker]

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.

Cutting military spending to tighten the waistline in an economic recession =/= disbanding all military forces altogether.

I think that the defense budget should be cut (not a large cut, something very small, manageable) but a total elimination of all military forces? That's a conclusion that was reached without thought.

[New Bern99]

Disbanding it would throw a million and a half people into unemployment directly (approximate number of active US military personnel). Not to mention the numerous industries supporting the military that provide jobs for even more people that would suffer from suddenly having no one to sell their products to.

So probably a bad idea.

[Galla-]

1. Aleutian Islands. You're wrong.

2. China is a threat to US interests in the Pacific. If we cut our military, they will have a reason to do bad things to the people there.

3. The only reason AQ hasn't attacked Europe or the USA in the past ten years...I wonder why. It couldn't be because the US military has killed many of their important higher ups and much of AQ's power structure has been forced into hiding to avoid being bombed.

4. The UK and France are leading those attacks. America just sent one boat. Not seeing your point at all how this relates to "American imperialist aggression" or w/e you're saying.

5. And yet America would be unable to flex its muscle in foreign interests to protect natural resources, to keep people from extorting the American people through military embargoes, etc. A military with force projection is necessary for the protection of any people, state or otherwise.

6. Lol^lol @ "threatens global stability". American military can get cut back by a lot, but it cannot be disbanded because that would threaten American interests in the Pacific and Asia, although the Atlantic Fleet could do for some cost cutting.

[Whiskey Hill]

Yes, we do. Detterrance comes to mind, as does the ability to project one's influence and one's interests globally instead of, you know, needing to bend over and take it every time US interests are threatened by a foreign power.

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.

[Der Teutoniker]

See point #5. There would be "a rifle behind every blade of grass" if a foreign country invaded.

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

[The Murtunian Tribes]

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.

Well, I don't know about that. If America still had a manufacturing industry it might work.

[Glorious Freedonia]

If there are oppressed people anywhere in the world we need rough men with weapons ready to liberate them the second that we get a president who cares enough to give them the order.

[Galla-]

See point #5. There would be "a rifle behind every blade of grass" if a foreign country invaded.

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.

[Mike the Progressive]

Of course....

[Mongolian Khanate]

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.

[Der Teutoniker]

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.

[Forsakia]

Yeah...I wonder why... :/

See point #5. There would be "a rifle behind every blade of grass" if a foreign country invaded.

And what are they going to do when a foreign power sails its boats up to the coast and starts drilling offshore?

Or says "agree to these terms or pick a city to get bombed the hell out of". There's more ways to skin a cat than simple ground invasion.