Disbandment of Armed Forces and Defense Spending?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
An extreme example being WWII where certainly we had an interest in seeing a free and friendly europe, if something similar were to occur today your plan would leave no options outside of nuclear war.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is really poor and shortsighted thinking. The US did not use a standing army to fight in Europe or in the Pacific but had to jack up its production many hundreds of times to be able to get enough men and supplies into the theaters of war.

[ QUOTE ]
means having interests through out the world which requires a military to protect those interests

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored]. You don't need much of a military to do business with other industrialized nations, and even if they did the threat of mobilization is as effective as having a standing army.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
means having interests through out the world which requires a military to protect those interests

[/ QUOTE ]

Then your not using very good thinking skills. Why would either the US or Russia launch nukes over Vietnam? That is the one action that will guarantee a nuclear strike in response. Vietnam and Korea were about posturing and influence (for the major world powers), but its a damn big leap from there to the end of the world.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just saying it's only a matter of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given enough time sure, but
[ QUOTE ]


Eventually two countries ARE going to go to war, and then it's over. India and Pakistan. China over Taiwan

[/ QUOTE ]

The people in these countries have more to lose than to gain. A lot more.

[ QUOTE ]
North Korea

[/ QUOTE ]

A threat, but not to the world. If N Korea nukes someone she will find herself without allies, no one wants to touch that type of threat. It would take a massive overreaction (like the US accusing China of encouraging the strike and retaliating against them as well) for it to go global.

[Woolygimp]

Ok, we are getting off topic. Can someone discuss whether or not we actually need a large military, or even one at all?

[DCopper04]

This is America. It's no big deal for our government to go billions of dollars in debt. So we might as well have lots of missiles and stuff to make other people do what we want them to do.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, we are getting off topic. Can someone discuss whether or not we actually need a large military, or even one at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sea power is essential to winning any war the U.S. might be involved in. Sea power is also especially vital to the U.S. because the U.S. is a maritime country with huge coastlines.

Control the seas and you control a lot, including the ability to intercept or destroy important commercial shipments. Without strong sea power, the U.S. trade with other countries could be significantly cut off by a country with a more formidable Navy.

Without sea power, the USA would be more defenseless to assaults from the coasts. Sea power facilitates the mobility of military assets to the points of struggle or attack, and an aggressor could use that to great advantage if the USA did not have a strong Navy.

Sea power played a role in the peaceful solution to the Cuban Missile crisis. Without sea power the blockade of Cuba could never have been enacted.

Without Western sea power acting as a safeguard, rogue nations in the Middle East could destroy the oil shipping lanes and commercial oil vessels.

I also don't think it would be a good thing if the USA were to be in a position where it could more easily be backed into a corner where it would have to rely on the deterrent value of nuclear war. That would make the use of nuclear weapons more likely, I think.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the primary purpose of our military?
To operate in defense of our country in a time of war.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The primary purpose is to transfer money from the citizens to the military industrial complex and the politicians. Your post provides ample evidence for it.


[ QUOTE ]
Honestly though, do we have to worry about the threat of invasion? It's different today than 50 years ago, with nuclear arsenals in the hands of dozens of countries, and our main threat coming from small unilateral terrorist groups which usually fall into the realm of law enforcement.

If we ever went to war with a nuclear superpower the size of our armed forces would be the last thing we'd need to worry about. We have 13,000 nuclear warheads, and most countries have plenty of their own.
Two major countries go to war? GG for everyone.

Anyway here's an idea of just how much things cost.
Nimitz class aircraft carrier - $4,500,000,000.00.
Seawolf class nuclear submarine - cost $1,250,000,000.00.
Abrams tank - $2,000,000.
Laser-guided ordnance - $25,000.
R&D for canceled Commanche - $15,000,000,000.

Then you have to take into account recruitment costs, salaries, R&D for our weapons (several billion dollars for each project, cost to build and operate, cost for maintenance of bases and facilities.

Our defense spending isn't in the billions, but is in the trillions.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct that defense is easy and cheap. But again: that's not what it's about. Think about Vietnam and Iraq. These are 100% wars of aggression. Soldiers from the states go to the other side of the world to drop bombs on cities from above the clouds. Doesn't really shout 'defense', does it?


[ QUOTE ]
We could use that money to for other projects, like cutting dependence on oil.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about not taking this money from citizens and letting people do whatever they want with their own money?

..but that's not what a state is about. So that would be a naive idea.


[ QUOTE ]
I'm also thinking that the military does have some benefits. Curbing unemployment rates? Selling defense technologies to other countries? Boosting the economy by putting more money into the hands of defense contractors?

[/ QUOTE ]

Broken window fallacy times 3.

You have to realize that in order to spend money on anything you first have to get it from somewhere. And in the case of the state (a violent monopoly), it can only take it on an involuntary base. You cannot create wealth through violence. And then spending the money on something completely useless and even destructive like the war machine is awful. But it's a mistake to discuss the pros and cons of this concept, because that's not what it's about. The reason these things happen is because a small group of people benefit at the cost of everyone else. If you can find those people, you'll understand what war is about.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is the primary purpose of our military?
To operate in defense of our country in a time of war.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The primary purpose is to transfer money from the citizens to the military industrial complex and the politicians.

[/ QUOTE ]


It just might be the primary effect, but that's different than saying it is the primary purpose.

Was it the primary purpose in the days of the American Revolution? If not, what changed that might have made it so today?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
If not, what changed that might have made it so today?


[/ QUOTE ]

corporations and lobbyists. see "star wars missle shield" for an example of spending for its own sake.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Interesting article about the US navy

[Skoob]

I think China and/or N. Korea would be salivating over the dismantling of the US military.

The fear of mutual destruction would keep everyone's fingers off the button. That's what happened during the cold war. The only a nuclear attack would happen is if a "rogue" nation or group gets one. And then they would only have a handful at the most, so only kiss a few big cities goodbye.

The US response in that scenario would likely be conventional as there would be at least one nuclear capable nation that would threaten retaliation if the US used nukes in response.

We would be fighting off a couple billion chinese with hand-guns and deer rifles if the US dismantled its military.