Print

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

World Police, we can take on the world, we could win a land war in Asia, god damn it!

24 (20.9%)

Matched Force, enough power to take on any other nation one on one and win

34 (29.6%)

Force Projection, enough to have influence around the world, but no real capability for a full on war in a foreign nation

10 (8.7%)

Fulfilling Treaty Obligations, no more

22 (19.1%)

Homeland Defense, no more

16 (13.9%)

Nuclear Deterrent is enough

4 (3.5%)

We need no military power at all

5 (4.3%)

Total Members Voted: 115

[GlyphGryph]

I've been running numbers, and I... just don't see how the expenditure is worth it, when looking at the cost-benefit analysis. The only thing it seems to do for us is encourage us to get tangled up in overseas wars that do more damage to us than ignoring them would have.

While there may be value to OTHERS in having the US police the world, I'd like this thread to mostly be about what the benefits/costs are to the US. And we'll make a couple concessions before we begin:
First: The National Guard would still be around, and we''ll assume the US population continues to be fairly well armed.
Second: We'll maintain a (much reduced) stockpile of nuclear weapons.
Third: We will not assume that all the spending will poof, magically disappearing. Whole a good portion of it might go to something like, say, paying off the debt, the rest will end up being pushed into other areas, like infrastructure or research.
Finally: It will not happen overnight - give it a slow dismantling over a dozen years or so.

So what are the likely negative costs of dumping the military to the US? What are the positives?

[squeakyReaper]

Mentality and support of voters.  Doing away with the military/Army will, most likely, elicit very negative responses from those that are currently in it...  like my family is.  In a utopic world, an active army is just a large waste, but the ills of actually getting rid of it are very very hard to overcome.  The best we can do in that regard is "minimalize" it, though we'll always have an invasion force- err, I mean, protective group of people- on payroll.

[Phmcw]

You'd loose the possibility to intervene in oversea conflict thus your grip on the raw material market.
Right now the US is a colonialist Empire who keep a strong military in it's area of influence (Europe, Middle east, Saudi arabia, Japan,....).
It give you the ability to threaten with war any country who don't do your bidding, restrained only by your own public opinion and the economic consequences of war.

You rely on your army a lot, be it for "humanitarian intervention", disaster relief, science program, protection of assets, destruction of hostiles governments... you'd basically have to change your whole economical model.

[Soulwynd]

While there may be value to OTHERS in having the US police the world

Considering I live in one of the OTHERS countries, I can say nobody wants the US to police the world. Nobody. Whenever your silly government gets into a pointless 'police' war, we all facepalm.

Specially because you dudes are so big, most of the world's economy depends on yours. Who else will buy the crap we manufacture? Or exploit our natural resources so we can eat and have tvs?

Don't get me wrong tho, your military is awesome when it's sent to provide aid and help with civil wars [when asked for]. I just really doubt that's even 10% or even 5% of your military spending. If you cut all the 90% bullshit of fighting wars nobody asked you to fight, you'd do a lot better.

Edit: Removed the douches bit, since it became apparent some browsers can't see abbreviations, so people got offended, since they didn't know I was referring to the government as they couldn't hover their mouse over it.

[Levi]

Hey man, Canada will protect you guys if you give up your military.  Plus you could always hire mercenaries in a pinch.

[squeakyReaper]

Hey man, Canada will protect you guys if you give up your military.  Plus you could always hire mercenaries in a pinch.

We already have private contractors for our weapons, tech and vehicle production.  Giving the military in whole to private contractors sounds...  uhh, dangerous I guess.  Plus, lol@Canada.

[Levi]

You laugh, but Canada has the best trained Canoe Navy since the vikings!

[Grimshot]

Hey man, Canada will protect you guys if you give up your military.  Plus you could always hire mercenaries in a pinch.

 Heh, Mercs are a bad idea. They are okay for support if you're winning and in control but when it benefits them they will screw you.

[ChairmanPoo]

Don't get me wrong tho, your military is awesome when it's sent to provide aid and help with civil wars [when asked for]

This part is... rolleye inspiring.

In fact the whole post was rolleye inspiring, given that it generalized US foreign policy as the responsability of every US citizen, and did it in a disparaging manner ("douches"?). But this part is the worst of it because it withdraws the meaning from what you stated before: it means that you're allright with US military interventionism, as long as the particular case suits your sensitivities.

[Nadaka]

I think it would be very dangerous for the US to abandon the military. In the past, the only thing that protected the US was our physical isolation from Europe and Asia. In the modern era transportation advancements make it possible for a determined enemy to launch a devastating first strike from anywhere in the world. What would have happened if the Wehrmacht wasn't held back by the English channel and Atlantic? At the time, the US military would have never stood a chance, and there would be no way to tool up and equip the army that we made if we had been invaded.

We need to maintain a nuclear deterrent.

We need to maintain a global strike capability to engage in two new regional conflicts in order to satisfy our treaty obligations. Hint! We can't actually do this right now because we are currently engaged in 3 wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea).

The defense budget is the largest and most successful jobs creation and scientific progress program in the US.

What we need to do is end our incursion in Iraq and Afghanistan, maybe even broker a final peace in Korea. Take procurement and funding detail decisions out of the hands of congress, removing the political motivation for inefficient and unneeded projects. Congress should set the budget and the military leadership should determine how best to spend it. That could allow the military budget to shrink without compromising actual capabilities. There are other things that could be done, but that alone could provide moderate savings and possibly even increased capabilities.

Note: I am a defense contractor, my livelihood depends on the military, but I have held these opinions since before that.

[Soulwynd]

given that it generalized US foreign policy as the responsability of every US citizen, and did it in a disparaging manner ("douches"?).

douches

1. Learn to hover your mouse over marked words.

Here's what you get if you cannot do that:
"As in the government, which is composed mainly by bought people, dumb people, and a rare few interesting individuals that make no difference whatsoever"

Thank you.

it means that you're allright with US military interventionism, as long as the particular case suits your sensitivities.

2. That's exactly right.

You're dealing with OTHER people's countries. With OTHER people's struggles. It should fit OTHER people's sensitivities whether you [As in the military, since you can't over your mouse over words] should go there or not.

[squeakyReaper]

Not everyone recognizes the acronym tag.  My version of firefox doesn't even display it...  annoying, because I have to view source to see image title tags.

[Soulwynd]

Not everyone recognizes the acronym tag.  My version of firefox doesn't even display it...  annoying, because I have to view source to see image title tags.

I guessed that could be case, but you never know. It's the first time I hear of that, so I might avoid using it from now on and put up huge ugly sidenotes.

[alway]

Chrome doesn't seem to display it either, so ya, ugly sidenotes it is.

[squeakyReaper]

But you are right about the people in Government.  It's kind of funny.  You either get someone who tries to appeal to many audiences, then becoming paralyzed in their desire to get re-elected and keep public opinion high...  or you get someone with their own ideals that are actually pretty good, but can't do anything because no one wants to vote for them.

I can only hope (as pessimistic as that sounds) that other countries have at least some degree of this, as a lot of news media only reports on how inept the US is...