History has proven we don't need a centralized standing army.

[Anarchist420]

All of the wars we've been through have been due to the U.S. militarily invening, or having our military off of U.S. soil.

The Emperor of Japan said he would never have his forces invade the continental U.S. because there were too many armed civilians.

Shay's rebellion was surpressed because MA was able to sufficiently raise an army.

A decentralized militia defeated the greatest military in the world to gain independence.

Countries collapse when their standing army gets too strong.

Standing armies usually do what the commander-in-chief wants, not what's in the best interest of individual security.

One may make the argument that China could come and kill us overnight, but first we need to examine the facts:
They would have to pay to do so.
They don't have much of a reason to if we don't mess with them.
The citizens are armed enough, and if they aren't, then ambassadors and a well-maintained and well-guarded federal underground armoury would suffice until an army could be raised.

 

[Sephire]

Pacific Ocean?

 

[Infohawk]

Sure, it may be hard to occupy countries with armed populations. It's still easy to ruin their economies. The US needs a reasonable standing military (smaller than it is now), very little infantry, large navy and air force and significant unconventional weaponry.

 

[MovingTarget]

Sure, it may be hard to occupy countries with armed populations. It's still easy to ruin their economies. The US needs a reasonable standing military (smaller than it is now), very little infantry, large navy and air force and significant unconventional weaponry.

This. We should also reevaluate what 'defense' means in that context.

 

[JSt0rm]

This. We should also reevaluate what 'defense' means in that context.

But as tax payers we are supporting this huge industry. The republicans love it and the dms are to afraid to look weak so on we will go into oblivion. At least there will be a light show.

 

[fskimospy]

The purpose of the US Army is not only to defend the United States proper, but to defend United States interests. Once you realize this, you will understand why having a standing army is a good idea.

Jesus christ you're dumb.

(this is not to mean that we couldn't use large defense cuts, just that Anarchist420 is stupid)

 

[ProfJohn]

Anarchist420 is stupid

Fixed

 

[Craig234]

The purpose of the US Army is not only to defend the United States proper, but to defend United States interests. Once you realize this, you will understand why having a standing army is a good idea.

Jesus christ you're dumb.

(this is not to mean that we couldn't use large defense cuts, just that Anarchist420 is stupid)

The thing is, what is in the way of the US agenda being 'global empire', and the whole planet becoming US 'interests'? We were defending 'our interests' in Vietnam.

The real issue IMO is some global political system reducing the permanent state of every nation competing with every other to take more when they think they can.

For the powerful to abuse their power over the weaker, for governments to protect their 'interests' by the misuse of war.

In the meantime until there is such improvement, there is an issue that the US military budget (calling it a defense budget is inaccurate, the point I am making here) is for much more than 'defense', it's for maintaining a global role of power that is anti-democratic, and more of an empire.

There is an issue that we don't create a vacuum for some other power to become the empire instead, but the answer isn't for the US to simply play that role to prevent it.

Our dirty hands in the Middle East are one example of how not to do it.

Funny enough, the Iraq war is one of our *better* policies there in a way, however unintentionally (there were big plans the US did not get to do).

Regimes from removing Democracy in Iran (leading to a dictator and corrupt Muslim regime), to Egypt (finally changing), to Saudi Arabia - not exactly great policies.

The cost of defending the US - and we can eliminate nuclear weapons in the world and do so - is a lot less than the cost of the current global force (750? bases etc.)

That leads us to tend to establish these 'comfortable' arrangements with longtime dictators who can 'prevent any problems' unlike democracy.

If we just supported democracy, there would have been no Vietnam, no Iran-Contra, no history of death squads we backed, no history of supporting Saddam Hussein, no corrupt fundamentalist government in Iran, perhaps not even a 'Red China', and many other conflicts. There may have still been a WWII, a Korean war. But what after? Iraq is tricky - but its issues go back to the British creating it as a country of warring groups for their own interests, not support for democracy.

 

[Infohawk]

Fixed

If he's a teenager he might not be stupid, just uneducated.

And at least he keeps his garbage relatively short unlike craig.

 

[davmat787]

All of the wars we've been through have been due to the U.S. militarily invening, or having our military off of U.S. soil.

The Emperor of Japan said he would never have his forces invade the continental U.S. because there were too many armed civilians.

Shay's rebellion was surpressed because MA was able to sufficiently raise an army.

A decentralized militia defeated the greatest military in the world to gain independence.

Countries collapse when their standing army gets too strong.

Standing armies usually do what the commander-in-chief wants, not what's in the best interest of individual security.

One may make the argument that China could come and kill us overnight, but first we need to examine the facts:
They would have to pay to do so.
They don't have much of a reason to if we don't mess with them.
The citizens are armed enough, and if they aren't, then ambassadors and a well-maintained and well-guarded federal underground armoury would suffice until an army could be raised.

Armed citizens with semi-auto AR-15's are no match for a foriegn country's armed forces, let alone China's. Professional army's exist so that citizens can, you know, be citizens and stuff.

If you want me, the citizen, to be your army, may I ask your opinion on gun rights? At what level would we be allowed to arm and prepare for China?

Also, I think you are discounting the role standing militaries play in national and regional disasters.

 

[CycloWizard]

The thing is, what is in the way of the US agenda being 'global empire', and the whole planet becoming US 'interests'? We were defending 'our interests' in Vietnam.

The real issue IMO is some global political system reducing the permanent state of every nation competing with every other to take more when they think they can.

For the powerful to abuse their power over the weaker, for governments to protect their 'interests' by the misuse of war.

In the meantime until there is such improvement, there is an issue that the US military budget (calling it a defense budget is inaccurate, the point I am making here) is for much more than 'defense', it's for maintaining a global role of power that is anti-democratic, and more of an empire.

There is an issue that we don't create a vacuum for some other power to become the empire instead, but the answer isn't for the US to simply play that role to prevent it.

Our dirty hands in the Middle East are one example of how not to do it.

Funny enough, the Iraq war is one of our *better* policies there in a way, however unintentionally (there were big plans the US did not get to do).

Regimes from removing Democracy in Iran (leading to a dictator and corrupt Muslim regime), to Egypt (finally changing), to Saudi Arabia - not exactly great policies.

The cost of defending the US - and we can eliminate nuclear weapons in the world and do so - is a lot less than the cost of the current global force (750? bases etc.)

That leads us to tend to establish these 'comfortable' arrangements with longtime dictators who can 'prevent any problems' unlike democracy.

If we just supported democracy, there would have been no Vietnam, no Iran-Contra, no history of death squads we backed, no history of supporting Saddam Hussein, no corrupt fundamentalist government in Iran, perhaps not even a 'Red China', and many other conflicts. There may have still been a WWII, a Korean war. But what after? Iraq is tricky - but its issues go back to the British creating it as a country of warring groups for their own interests, not support for democracy.

I actually agree with you for the most part. I disagree with the idea that we can really get rid of nuclear weapons. Once Pandora opened her box, the evils that escaped can't be put back in, and so it is with nuclear weapons.

I also think that the idea of defending an "interest" of a country is a pretty shaky proposition with minimal (at best) ethical footing. One can make a logically strong case for military defense of a nation, but war outside of that framework becomes very difficult to justify (though not impossible). Indeed, a pre-emptive attack as part of a national defense strategy is one possibly defensible action, though only when certainty of an attack on that nation is beyond a reasonable doubt.

One big problem is that there is no such ethical framework for a nation going to war with a non-nation entity. Surely there are some cases where such could be justified, but it simply hasn't been considered until recently. This is a problem with the Geneva Conventions as well. The mindset of the world needs to be updated to account for the realities of modern warfare or we'll keep faltering every time such issues come up.

 

[Siddhartha]

All of the wars we've been through have been due to the U.S. militarily invening, or having our military off of U.S. soil.

The Emperor of Japan said he would never have his forces invade the continental U.S. because there were too many armed civilians.

Shay's rebellion was surpressed because MA was able to sufficiently raise an army.

A decentralized militia defeated the greatest military in the world to gain independence.

Countries collapse when their standing army gets too strong.

Standing armies usually do what the commander-in-chief wants, not what's in the best interest of individual security.

One may make the argument that China could come and kill us overnight, but first we need to examine the facts:
They would have to pay to do so.
They don't have much of a reason to if we don't mess with them.
The citizens are armed enough, and if they aren't, then ambassadors and a well-maintained and well-guarded federal underground armoury would suffice until an army could be raised.

All empires require large militaries to maintain their "sphere of influence". The questions that should be asked are:

!. Does the US really need this sphere of influence?
2. What price is the US paying for this empire?
2.Is it worth the cost?

I have advocated that the US reduce it's military to a size that is large enough to protect the North American continent. Does the US still need troops in Asia and Europe? WWII and the Cold War are over. Does the US need to protect it's supply lanes? Does the US need to protect it's sources of supplies, for example oil?

 

[Pocatello]

All empires require large militaries to maintain their "sphere of influence". The questions that should be asked are:

!. Does the US really need this sphere of influence?
2. What price is the US paying for this empire?
2.Is it worth the cost?

I have advocated that the US reduce it's military to a size that is large enough to protect the North American continent. Does the US still need troops in Asia and Europe? WWII and the Cold War are over. Does the US need to protect it's supply lanes? Does the US need to protect it's sources of supplies, for example oil?

Hopefully the U.S can find a balance some where to protect its own interests while not bankrupting the whole country, I don't see that happening anytime soon. I see a lot of politicians protecting their own turfs when it comes to reducing the military budget.

 

[Steeplerot]

Good luck with your privileged libertarian lifestyle when there is no wage-slave labor market overseas to exploit to keep the failing ship of capitalism afloat in this country.

Do you really think we earned all this around us? This country is built from the ground up through exploitation of one minority or another. The military in this country is a bigger part of capitalism then wall st itself for wealth/resource accumulation to feed the insatiable appetite of capitalism for the cheap shit that keeps Americans fat, docile, and most important, apathetic.

With no imperialist military guarding the third world labor markets our house of cards fall -as does your libertarian fantasyworld that is nothing less then the childish musings of the bourgeois in this country with nothing better to do but whine for more.

lol @ the arrogance of someone calling themselves a "self-made capitalist" in this country.

To be fair liberals are worse about this as they supposedly care about labor rights of workers, yet they too act like nothing is going on when everyone knows where all this useless shit to distract us comes from in reality.

Damn shame Adam Smiths idea of capitalism has morphed into the exploitative imperialism he warned of. Now the thieves are running the show and framing the very debate itself.

 

[Tom]

History has proven exactly the opposite.
1. the Bristish lost the colonies because they had no standing army here.
2. our capitol burned to the ground in the War of 1812.
3. Civil War took years instead of days.
4. Without a standing army and navy we would be speaking German or Japanese. if they hadn't have been so weak WW2 would have been 3 years shorter.
5. We and our allies are the most successful civilization in history, in part because the last 60 years have been relatively secure for the advancement of society.

We should be more careful how we spend money on defense, and not misuse military power like we have in Iraq.

 

[Anarchist420]

Armed citizens with semi-auto AR-15's are no match for a foriegn country's armed forces, let alone China's. Professional army's exist so that citizens can, you know, be citizens and stuff.

If you want me, the citizen, to be your army, may I ask your opinion on gun rights? At what level would we be allowed to arm and prepare for China?

Also, I think you are discounting the role standing militaries play in national and regional disasters.

Like I said, we could keep an armory built up, and well guarded.

I favor the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I don't think there should be any assault weapons ban, any gun control laws whatsoever.

All empires require large militaries to maintain their "sphere of influence". The questions that should be asked are:

!. Does the US really need this sphere of influence?
2. What price is the US paying for this empire?
2.Is it worth the cost?

I have advocated that the US reduce it's military to a size that is large enough to protect the North American continent. Does the US still need troops in Asia and Europe? WWII and the Cold War are over. Does the US need to protect it's supply lanes? Does the US need to protect it's sources of supplies, for example oil?

!. No.
2. Too much.
2. No.
No, to the rest of your questions.

History has proven exactly the opposite.
1. the Bristish lost the colonies because they had no standing army here.
2. our capitol burned to the ground in the War of 1812.
3. Civil War took years instead of days.
4. Without a standing army and navy we would be speaking German or Japanese. if they hadn't have been so weak WW2 would have been 3 years shorter.
5. We and our allies are the most successful civilization in history, in part because the last 60 years have been relatively secure for the advancement of society.

We should be more careful how we spend money on defense, and not misuse military power like we have in Iraq.

1. um, no, the British did have a standing army here.
2. the capitol burned to the ground in 1812 because we tried to invade canada.
3. The War to Preserve Government Revenue pretty much says it all.
4. What makes you think that Japan would've conquered us? Don't you know that FDR manuevered them into firing the first shot and that was only possible with a standing military?
5. I'd hardly call 50,000 or more of our troops killed and the country being bankrupt successful.

 

[fskimospy]

Fixed

No, ~$1 trillion is not necessary to enforce US interests. Military spending outside of what is necessary to enforce US interests is money that could have been spent to improve the quality of life of US citizens, either privately or through government. Instead of an extra school, we have an extra tank. Which one do you think US citizens get more good out of?

 

[MovingTarget]

A Democratic aide said the budget would reduce Pentagon spending by $78 billion over five years.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/13/us-usa-budget-obama-idUSTRE71B1QU20110213

Perhaps we can now begin the process of reducing our defense budget. A strong defense is a good thing for this nation, but what we have now is complete overkill in terms of treasure spent.

Unfortunately, it is only during bad economic times that the whole 'guns versus butter' debate gets any attention.

 

[Anarchist420]

78B over 5 years is a drop in the bucket (15.6B/year), when they could reduce it to nothing.

 

[MovingTarget]

78B over 5 years is a drop in the bucket (15.6B/year), when they could reduce it to nothing.

It is a drop in the bucket. However, it is progress from the Bush years when the mere mention of defense cuts would immediately elicit calls of "you hate America!" or other such nonsense.

Its a start. Reducing it to zero is not practical though. When were we going to see that "peace dividend" from the end of the cold war, or Vietnam, or WW2, etc.?

 

[Craig234]

I actually agree with you for the most part. I disagree with the idea that we can really get rid of nuclear weapons. Once Pandora opened her box, the evils that escaped can't be put back in, and so it is with nuclear weapons.

Good to hear we agree on most of the post, on the issue of global nuclear disarmament I understand your concern.

I think it's normal to be concerned. I have concerns about it I've looked at.

Someone who knew more than we do about the practicality is the man who was responsible for the military leadership of the US at the height of the old war, who before that was the first president of the Ford corporation not named Ford, Robert McNamara. He walked into an insane policy of hair-trigger massive nuclear response with every sizable city in the USSR - and just for good measure, China while we're at it.

He strongly supported the global abolition of nuclear weapons and felt the US could be safe doing so.

I see two main concerns for the US about doing this.

One is, can the US protect its security without nuclear weapons? If we get rid of them, are we at risk for losing a non-nuclear war?

The second is, can we protect against some other group - nation or not - obtaining nuclear weapons and using them against us so we're at a nuclear disadvantage?

On the first, McNamara believed the answer is yes, we can. Understanding the massive military technology we have, from monitoring to weapons, I think the answer is yes.

I'm fine with the policy being contingent on our best experts confirming this, and expect they will say we can. We need to get over the reliance on them.

On the second issue, the experts I've seen again say yes. It's easy not to understand the ability of monitoring systems to do so - but it seems likely to me that the actual requirements for building such a weapon - much less a delivery system - can be monitored by the global tools we have. Check what the IAEA can monitor.

There are an extremely limited number of places to get the things needed for nuclear weapons that are strictly controlled. This is why the main danger looked at by non-proliferation people is the control of existing nuclear weapons - such as the USSR, and the coming threat of North Korea.

Again, I'm fine with this being contingent upon experts confirming this.

So, ask the questions, but don't just assume.

I also think that the idea of defending an "interest" of a country is a pretty shaky proposition with minimal (at best) ethical footing. One can make a logically strong case for military defense of a nation, but war outside of that framework becomes very difficult to justify (though not impossible). Indeed, a pre-emptive attack as part of a national defense strategy is one possibly defensible action, though only when certainty of an attack on that nation is beyond a reasonable doubt.

One big problem is that there is no such ethical framework for a nation going to war with a non-nation entity. Surely there are some cases where such could be justified, but it simply hasn't been considered until recently. This is a problem with the Geneva Conventions as well. The mindset of the world needs to be updated to account for the realities of modern warfare or we'll keep faltering every time such issues come up.

This seems reasonable - you have described the international law in the UN charter on pre-emptive war, which we signed and violated for Iraq.

It's a bigger issue to apply law to non-nation groups without legislating tyranny.

 

[Steeplerot]

Don't you know that FDR manuevered them into firing the first shot and that was only possible with a standing military?

Aww, hell yeah dawg!!

They want you to THINK Bush did 9/11!

Everyone knows FDR's gimp ass (he was hiding the Fusion reactor in his crotch under that blanket when you see him in a wheelchair) knocked down both towers with one blow of his Communist New Deal Fist.

TROOF!

 

[CycloWizard]

Good to hear we agree on most of the post, on the issue of global nuclear disarmament I understand your concern.

I think it's normal to be concerned. I have concerns about it I've looked at.

Someone who knew more than we do about the practicality is the man who was responsible for the military leadership of the US at the height of the old war, who before that was the first president of the Ford corporation not named Ford, Robert McNamara. He walked into an insane policy of hair-trigger massive nuclear response with every sizable city in the USSR - and just for good measure, China while we're at it.

He strongly supported the global abolition of nuclear weapons and felt the US could be safe doing so.

I see two main concerns for the US about doing this.

One is, can the US protect its security without nuclear weapons? If we get rid of them, are we at risk for losing a non-nuclear war?

The second is, can we protect against some other group - nation or not - obtaining nuclear weapons and using them against us so we're at a nuclear disadvantage?

On the first, McNamara believed the answer is yes, we can. Understanding the massive military technology we have, from monitoring to weapons, I think the answer is yes.

I'm fine with the policy being contingent on our best experts confirming this, and expect they will say we can. We need to get over the reliance on them.

On the second issue, the experts I've seen again say yes. It's easy not to understand the ability of monitoring systems to do so - but it seems likely to me that the actual requirements for building such a weapon - much less a delivery system - can be monitored by the global tools we have. Check what the IAEA can monitor.

There are an extremely limited number of places to get the things needed for nuclear weapons that are strictly controlled. This is why the main danger looked at by non-proliferation people is the control of existing nuclear weapons - such as the USSR, and the coming threat of North Korea.

Again, I'm fine with this being contingent upon experts confirming this.

So, ask the questions, but don't just assume.

I'm not arguing with either of those conclusions - I'm arguing with the underlying premise that we can actually achieve global abolition of nuclear munitions. There are simply too many people that know how to build them for this to ever be accomplished. While monitoring can be used to detect a large nuclear program, a one-off, low-yield device could be built in someone's bathroom with minimal equipment by someone with the right skillset. Nuclear prohibition would fail for the same reason as alcohol prohibition.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Our standing military is definitely oversized right now, but it is necessary.

4. What makes you think that Japan would've conquered us? Don't you know that FDR manuevered them into firing the first shot and that was only possible with a standing military?

Yes, FDR caused Pearl Harbor. Fuck you.

 

[Anarchist420]

Yes, FDR caused Pearl Harbor. Fuck you.

You've apparently never heard of the McCollum memorandum. FDR not only followed every single one of the 8 points, he exceeded them.