Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

My point is that your assertion that every nation must have a military is demonstrably false.

[kingfisher1112]

My point is that your assertion that every nation must have a military is demonstrably false.

Must have a military in case of attack. If one of those countries was attacked, what then? And like I said before, it creates jobs.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

War is becoming an uncommon thing in this day and age. These nations have abolished or limited their armed forces specifically because of that.

As for JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS, money not being spent on the military can be spent on other things which will also create jobs.

[kingfisher1112]

War is becoming an uncommon thing in this day and age. These nations have abolished or limited their armed forces specifically because of that.

As for JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS JOBS, money not being spent on the military can be spent on other things which will also create jobs.

It may become a common thing in the near future. Look at China's military spending, for example.

Completely abolishing a military is a bad idea in any case. You get rid of hundreds of years of tradition, and even then you lost the expertise generated.

[Descan]

Tradition for the sake of tradition is useless.

If that tradition actually does something, then by all means, use the tendency of the human brain to venerate the "old ways" to retain it. But keeping something -because- it's traditional is worse than useless, tradition is at best a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.

Expertise if it's needed will be retained. Again, just because someone is an expert in something doesn't mean that something is important. Would you say that expertise in flinting stone tools is important in this day and age? Same principle.

[Culise]

So, to put it more bluntly, you believe that the British system (unwritten constitution, hereditary monarch) works for Britain and the Commonwealth, though the American system wouldn't work because... "it will be stifling to future political development and growth". Can you please explain that in greater detail? Also, would the British system not work better for the Americans if there was a way to move to our system gradually?

Also, all this talk about job preservation: I would argue that the armed forces are not a make-work program or a job agency.  Like bureaucracy, their primary goal should never be to make jobs for people, but to protect, defend, and serve the nation.  I argue that the existence of a military is not necessary, per se (Costa Rica gets by relying on Big Brother America), but it is not mutually exclusive with the principle of "peacekeeping agencies" - rather, militaries stemmed originally from keeping the peace, and throwing out the principles of the armed forces and replacing them with a new institution will either be pointless (as the old people from the former military carry their principles and goals to the new institution) or destructive (as they throw away such things as military tradition and the concept of an apolitical military).  Rather, militaries can and should be reoriented to new peacekeeping roles, especially in an era of asymmetric rather than conventional warfare, but still remain the military.

The nation does not need to be defended, served or protected by the military. The police provide that adequately.

The issue with the old people carrying their principles and goals to the new institution isn't such a problem if it is built in such a way that they wouldn't be able to really change things besides strong lobbying - in which case they'll die off. The apolitical military point is also nonsense - all modern militaries are used as arms of the respective Governments, politically elected. I also find military tradition abhorrent and worth no more than something that is scraped off bootheels.

Certainly.  The American system was fundamentally designed to avoid rapid change and maintain control by a politically-educated and savvy elite in the Senate, while still permitting representation of the majority in the House of Representatives; this has been changing ever since Jackson took the Presidency, but still remains common to the American system even today.  I believe this to be beneficial to America, in particular because its present system is also designed to reward populism and tends to suffer certain excesses of political strife and extremism in the electorate (in the 1990s, the greatest terrorist threat was not considered to be radicalized Islam, but domestic right-wing militias).  I believe that imposition of this fashion of system without regard for preexisting structures of governance will only result in needless political polarization and fragmentation in whatever poor nation gets stuck with the short end of the stick.  I also do not believe that the present crop of political leaders in the United Kingdom would be able to draw up a suitable Constitution for their nation with the foresight of those Founding Fathers or the nobility who led the push for the Magna Carta, especially considering certain other constitutions they've had a hand in drafting a few years back. 

You misinterpret what an apolitical military is, I believe.  The principle of an apolitical military is not the notion of a military that acts and operates independent of the government, but one utterly subservient to the government, regardless of the composition of that government.  A politicized military is one like that which existed until recently in Turkey, was only very recently brought to heel in Egypt, and still exists in many parts of the world; it is willing to intervene in political affairs directly and with either the threat or actual use of force in order to secure its own position and desires.  An apolitical military is one that stays out of political affairs, except in the informal manner that all large social groups influence political matters, and critically, does not seek to use its monopoly on force in order to suppress dissenting political opinions at home (except at the behest of the government, but we'll leave my dislike of martial law out of this as irrelevant to the primary argument).  Politicization of the military is one of the biggest threats of a standing army and undermines the concept of a state monopoly on force, but it is also not relevant to either the United Kingdom or Australia.  It's also critical to note that a police force is not ordinarily sufficient to defend a nation against external military threats, unless you turn it into a military, but I'll get into that in a bit. 

A military tradition is critical to the maintenance of discipline and order in conditions where a military is necessary.  Most crises stemming from an uncontrolled military actually originate in the breakdown of discipline and failure of tradition, or where tradition has become warped to permit such breakdown of discipline (or its concealment).  It takes time and experience to build a skilled cadre of officers, soldiers, or NCOs, and the abolition of the military effectively leads to the disintegration of these social structures.  Like sourdough, should a military become necessary in the future, it is far more difficult to create such an effective, disciplined armed force quickly without a starter around which it can grow and develop.  Observe, for instance, the case of other militaries that had been forced to make the attempt - the Red Army, in spite of ideological issues, was forced to permit Tsarist officers in its ranks in order to establish the necessary skills and talents in its cadre.  America and the Soviet Union also sent trainers and equipment to many fledgling states in the decolonization era in order to educate their militaries; the greatest flaw here was not the military teachings, but the other, political lessons they inculcated in their students.

In essence, I consider it suitable to abolish the military primarily in conditions where even an established regular military would not aid materially in the defense of the nation against external threats (Andorra, Liechtenstein) or where the military, having become greatly politicized, is a greater threat to domestic instability than neighboring nations (Costa Rica, Panama).  In most or all cases of nations where a military has been abolished, domestic security agencies have received expanded resources to compensate for the lack, and moreover, a far larger nation (France, America, Australia) already exists to provide security against foreign threats.  Australia cannot afford to abolish its military entirely; its light naval units provide a critical service in conjunction with its Coast Guard, and while it has little need of an Army per se (in the Wooden Wall mentality), it does provide critical services in defense of the nation and in maintenance of the borders.  As one of the major powers of the South Pacific itself, its withdrawal from military actions would lead to a power vacuum. 

Another reason to avoid abolishing the army is that I also think it critical to keep the military and police distinguished, by and large; entrusting the police with significant military responsibilities effectively turns them into a second military, and one that now lacks a countervailing domestic agency rooted in the still-civilian population to act as a brake.  The Coast Guard is not as much of a threat, like the navy (Aurora aside), but I even view gendarmerie with distrust for blurring the lines.  Downsize the military, certainly, but dismantling it entirely simply creates a power vacuum and a new need for domestic security, one which other agencies will move to fill. 

NOT-AN-EDIT:
Warning - while you were typing 8 new replies has been posted. You may wish to review your post.
*sigh*

GENUINE-EDIT:

Tradition for the sake of tradition is useless.

If that tradition actually does something, then by all means, use the tendency of the human brain to venerate the "old ways" to retain it. But keeping something -because- it's traditional is worse than useless, tradition is at best a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.

Expertise if it's needed will be retained. Again, just because someone is an expert in something doesn't mean that something is important. Would you say that expertise in flinting stone tools is important in this day and age? Same principle.

It's probably worth noting that expertise in war is only needed in actual war.  In times of peace, even temporary, it is typically unnecessary.  However, should a war come up again, you don't want to be forced to rebuild that expertise from scratch.  That's why standing armies and a professional soldiery became a thing, rather than the older days of the peasant levy.  Keeping a knowledgeable cadre to maintain that expertise in times of peace, therefore, is a reasonable safeguard against future need, rather than directly comparable to maintenance of flint-knapping. 

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Completely abolishing a military is a bad idea in any case. You get rid of hundreds of years of tradition, and even then you lost the expertise generated.

Tradition is a useless concept that holds humanity back. If something is good or becomes good, do it. If something is bad or becomes bad, don't do it. "Because other people did it" is not a valid justification for anything.

As for expertise, the useful non-war expertise does not have to go anywhere (see: William James' The Moral Equivalent Of War). The purely combat-related expertise is better off being relegated to the archives of history.

[kingfisher1112]

Tradition for the sake of tradition is useless.

If that tradition actually does something, then by all means, use the tendency of the human brain to venerate the "old ways" to retain it. But keeping something -because- it's traditional is worse than useless, tradition is at best a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.

Expertise if it's needed will be retained. Again, just because someone is an expert in something doesn't mean that something is important. Would you say that expertise in flinting stone tools is important in this day and age? Same principle.

Like Culise just said, if a military is ever needed it takes time to build. One does not simply design tanks, find a service rifle, get said rifle in the hands of soldiers, make uniforms, train NCOs, train important support staff, figure out a doctrine, get said doctrine implemented, and get a good amount of manpower in a short space of time. We need to keep our position in our part of the world, almost as ' enforcer' sorting out small conflicts if they happen. You never know when small countries might go to war.

Completely abolishing a military is a bad idea in any case. You get rid of hundreds of years of tradition, and even then you lost the expertise generated.

Tradition is a useless concept that holds humanity back. If something is good or becomes good, do it. If something is bad or becomes bad, don't do it. "Because other people did it" is not a valid justification for anything.

As for expertise, the useful non-war expertise does not have to go anywhere (see: William James' The Moral Equivalent Of War). The purely combat-related expertise is better off being relegated to the archives of history.

Like I said above, if a military is needed that expertise is gone. Tradition is a unifying factor, or tradition of ANZAC day for example. It bring a group of people together, usually regardless of most factors.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

A military is not going to be needed in a world where all the nations are capable of existing in harmony and with a satisfied populace. We aren't there yet by any means, but there are locations where this is effectively the situation (the isolated or peace-surrounded nations listed before).

[kingfisher1112]

A military is not going to be needed in a world where all the nations are capable of existing in harmony and with a satisfied populace. We aren't there yet by any means, but there are locations where this is effectively the situation (the isolated or peace-surrounded nations listed before).

The world will always have conflicting interests. We are most likely going to have an economic breakdown soon, followed by installing of extremist governments, thus leading to war. That's my guess anyway. Living in harmony is basically impossible. How do you balance the needs of hundreds of different powers?

[Culise]

A military is not going to be needed in a world where all the nations are capable of existing in harmony and with a satisfied populace. We aren't there yet by any means, but there are locations where this is effectively the situation (the isolated or peace-surrounded nations listed before).

Yes, in an ideal world (or, failing that, the one I like to feel we're gradually moving towards).  In these cases, we can let it wither away on its own, just as the military cohesion of the Roman legions dissolved under centuries of relative peace (beyond some border scuffles that aren't really worth mentioning, lacking the necessary impetus to actually threaten the Roman state or Roman institutions).  We don't need to force the issue, because we aren't going to use the militaries whether they exist or not. 

EDIT: And I forgot the other half of the argument.  In contrast, in the present day or if I am wrong about my ideals, the maintenance of that cadre can become critical to the survival of one's own nation-state in defense against the depredations of other nations who do not believe living in harmony is sufficient, and who desire power or additional resources.  It is a safeguard or a bulwark, insufficient to threaten other nations, but sufficient to protect.  That, I believe, is the military ideal to which we should strive. 

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The world will always have conflicting interests.

That's true, but in a world of democratic governments those interests don't have to resort to violence. They don't even necessarily have to get what they want as long as they believe they can get it without bloodshed. 

We are most likely going to have an economic breakdown soon, followed by installing of extremist governments, thus leading to war.

The economic breakdown I grant you, but it won't lead to extremist governments, it will lead to a long-needed recognition that our current financial system is unsustainable and trying to do something we can no longer really do (that is, get larger and larger). The resulting reconstruction will be a positive influence, not a negative one. We might see some war because of it, but ultimately the war trend will continue as it has been-downward.

Living in harmony is basically impossible. How do you balance the needs of hundreds of different powers?

Living in harmony is not impossible. It just requires an honest, open political system and a culture of peace. These things are both growing and spreading. The Western world is pretty much there in regards to one another, for example.

We don't need to force the issue, because we aren't going to use the militaries whether they exist or not.

We don't need to force disarmament, but we do need to be ready to slide down the curve. Militaries suck up lots of cash even when they aren't be used. This is why I advocate the idea posed in The Moral Equivalent To War, in which peacetime forces will gradually transition to more of a civil service institution.

[kingfisher1112]

The world will always have conflicting interests.

That's true, but in a world of democratic governments those interests don't have to resort to violence. They don't even necessarily have to get what they want as long as they believe they can get it without bloodshed. 

We are most likely going to have an economic breakdown soon, followed by installing of extremist governments, thus leading to war.

The economic breakdown I grant you, but it won't lead to extremist governments, it will lead to a long-needed recognition that our current financial system is unsustainable and trying to do something we can no longer really do (that is, get larger and larger). The resulting reconstruction will be a positive influence, not a negative one. We might see some war because of it, but ultimately the war trend will continue as it has been-downward.

Living in harmony is basically impossible. How do you balance the needs of hundreds of different powers?

Living in harmony is not impossible. It just requires an honest, open political system and a culture of peace. These things are both growing and spreading. The Western world is pretty much there in regards to one another, for example.

The western world, yeah sure. But there are hundreds of different cultures, races, ideals and such that absolutely hate each other. How will you get rid of that hate?
And when things turn to shit, people turn to extremism. It had some support in Greece with the Fascist party The Golden Dawn. Who says that other countries won't turn to these extremists, just like the NSDAP and Russia?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The western world, yeah sure. But there are hundreds of different cultures, races, ideals and such that absolutely hate each other. How will you get rid of that hate?

Exposure breeds tolerance. The increasing inter-connectivity leads people to adopting the reality of "The Other" being actual living, breathing people who are the same as them, instead of just "dem [whatever]". What I'm telling you here is that the internet is going to save humanity.

And when things turn to shit, people turn to extremism. It had some support in Greece with the Fascist party The Golden Dawn. Who says that other countries won't turn to these extremists, just like the NSDAP and Russia?

That's not always true. Sometimes things turning to shit causes people to turn to extremism, but not every time. The Golden Dawn are well known to me and are concerning, but all they can do is play of the fears of the uneducated and the hateful. That isn't how most people really are, and certainly not how they are when there is an educated population. The Golden Dawn are an example of some of the worst that can come out of crisis, but what you don't hear from the media is actually very inspiring. Keep in mind that the Greek people, not their government, have kept the nation from collapsing into total chaos during a period of economic and political insolvency. All things considered, the Golden Dawn have utterly sucked at what they want to accomplish given what they have to work with.

[kingfisher1112]

The western world, yeah sure. But there are hundreds of different cultures, races, ideals and such that absolutely hate each other. How will you get rid of that hate?

Exposure breeds tolerance. The increasing inter-connectivity leads people to adopting the reality of "The Other" being actual living, breathing people the same as them, instead of just "dem [whatever]". What I'm telling you here is that the internet is going to save humanity.

And when things turn to shit, people turn to extremism. It had some support in Greece with the Fascist party The Golden Dawn. Who says that other countries won't turn to these extremists, just like the NSDAP and Russia?

That's not always true. Sometimes things turning to shit causes people to turn to extremism, but not every time. The Golden Dawn are well known to me and are concerning, but all they can do is play of the fears of the uneducated and the hateful. That isn't how most people really are, and certainly not how they are when there is an educated population. The Golden Dawn are an example of some of the worst that can come out of crisis, but what you don't hear from the media is actually very inspiring. Keep in mind that the Greek people, not their government, have kept the nation from collapsing into total chaos during a period of economic and political insolvency. All things considered, the Golden Dawn have utterly sucked at what they want to accomplish given what they have to work with.

The Golden Dawn are only a sign of the times. Back in our history, people thought that the Federation movement was never going to catch on. It did. Plenty of movements started with a single thing that failed.
And the Internet? The Internet breeds hatred. Go on a number of websites, and political ideals and race/religion are heavily criticised. You a gun-owner? Baby-killing hillbilly. Muslim? Terrorist. Right-wing? Obviously a cisprivilged white male who oppresses people. It is breeding hate at the same rate it breeds tolerance.