# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  Does America need a standing army?

## Cutlerzzz

Well, taking a look at the map of the world, the US has 6,000 miles of ocean to the West, 3,500 miles to the East, a mountainous arid border with an undeveloped country to the South, and a frigid border with a small country to the North. 

Canada could not invade if they wanted to. Their population is a 9th of ours, their economic output is a 10th of ours, our economies are too intertwinned to risk it, and the natural ostacles are extreme(the extreme cold, the mountains to the west, the Great Lakes to the East) . If Mexico tried(cue illegal immigration joke) I can't imagine that they would have much success either. They are an undeveloped country with a fairly small economy, a much smaller population than us, an economy heavily dependent on ours, and nearly our entire border is covered by mountains.

Cuba is far too small and poor to do much of anything in any case.

A strong Navy and Air Force can keep virtually any country away from the US mainland. Even if any countries managed to somehow gain a foothold(almost impossible), the US could create an army by the time they have arrived. Any enemy advance would be stalled, as there would be "a gun behind every blade of grass" to quote Yamamoto; the Second Amendment protecting the people's natural right to bear arms is the ultimate "standing army". This would make any occuptation by a foreign army virtually impossible. Any foreign armies would get bogged down and an American army could then be created to defeat the enemy.

Of course, nuclear weapons and MAD make any wars with major powers unlikely. 

For these reasons, I view a standing army(especially a government army...) as unneeded. A decent Navy and Air Force, the Second Amendment, and the state national guards is all that is needed to protect the United States.

----------


## Kludge

America has more guns than citizens, and we have plenty of citizens. We need nothing for self-defense as-is.

We could be exterminated, but why if we have no standing army oppressing abroad? I would as readily give my revenue to the Canadian government as the US. That is to say, governments can go $#@! themselves, and I would rather die than be enslaved, no matter how many children I leave behind. (-And I hope they follow in my footsteps.)

----------


## Jace

..

----------


## pcosmar

> America needs a standing army if Americans want to continue to occupy foreign countries and engage in costly wars overseas. A standing Army is a necessity for those who want to maintain an Empire.
> 
> If Americans want a Republic, the National Guard works fine for homeland defense. Volunteers serving a weekend a month and two weeks a year in the Army and Air National Guard is all the defense we need for a fraction of the cost we are paying now. I can see the need for an active-duty Navy, but what we have now is bloated and excessive and is not defending American interests or waters. Our current Navy is going to get us into a shooting war once the Chinese start asserting themselves in the South China Sea.


We need a Constitutional Militia.

----------


## tremendoustie

I'll do ya one better: the federal government shouldn't have a standing air force or navy either. Well funded, well trained militias are all that's needed. Plus, they enjoy three major advantages: they cannot be used to impose tyranny on people at home, nor for foreign adventurism, and they needn't be funded by extortion.

----------


## dean.engelhardt

Standing Army, National Guard, Militia, what ever you call, we need one.  We are very good at making enemies.  I don't think they should go outside our borders though.

----------


## nobody's_hero

We need more blades of grass to hide our guns behind; we don't need a standing army.

EDIT: FYI, there is some controversy over whether or not Yamamoto actually ever said those words, but it's a good quote (or non-quote, lol). I'm sure the Japanese knew the U.S. mainland could never be occupied, though.

----------


## Uriah

The United States has over 310,000,000 people; and is the third most populous country in the world behind China and India. If we have more guns than people then we don't need a standing army. The people are the army.

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> Standing Army, National Guard, Militia, what ever you call, we need one.  We are very good at making enemies.  I don't think they should go outside our borders though.


Standing Armies are prohibited by our constitutions most importantly because they aren't supposed to exist INSIDE the borders.  Caesar destroyed the roman republic when he led the legions across the Rubicon and headed for Rome.  This time around one of the benchmarks that will be cited will be when the American military hegemon retreats back across the Rio Grande and seals the borders and smothers our last gasp of freedom in the U.S.

Its not a question of whether or not the US government should have a "standing army". Standing armies are prohibited by the state and federal constitutions.  The principle that is enshrined by these prohibitions is the ancient common law idea that the people shall not trust weapons in the hands of the government.

Just as the powers to pass judgement on the laws and fact, assign guilt, and punish for crimes are not delegated to the government and are reserved by the people through the jury system, likewise the power to use force against people with weapons cannot be delegated to the government and is reserved by the people through the militia.

If the government needs to round up criminals within the country, let them get a posse.  If they say they need to defend the country from invaders, let them request the militia.  The great thing about this system is there are more checks/balances/vetoes possible as people sort out the information and decide whether the call to arms is a bunch of b.s., based on a false flag, etc.

My tag lines below cite 3 constitutional prohibitions against "standing" (i.e. permanent) armies.

----------


## Brett85

Yes.  America should have the largest military in the world and be the world's leading superpower.  However, we should use our troops to defend our own country rather than using them to police the world.

----------


## TCE

> Yes.  America should have the largest military in the world and be the world's leading superpower.  However, we should use our troops to defend our own country rather than using them to police the world.


What is your opinion on shifting the powers back to the states and their militias? As opposed to the U.S. having a giant military, each state could have as big or small of one as they wanted and protect their borders to their liking? For instance, Texas could raise a large military of their own to protect their borders versus Nebraska, which wouldn't need much of a military presence.

----------


## Brett85

> What is your opinion on shifting the powers back to the states and their militias? As opposed to the U.S. having a giant military, each state could have as big or small of one as they wanted and protect their borders to their liking? For instance, Texas could raise a large military of their own to protect their borders versus Nebraska, which wouldn't need much of a military presence.


I'm generally a big advocate of states' rights, but I just think that the number one priority of the federal government is national defense.  The federal government shouldn't do much else besides national defense.  I think that we need a strong military to defend our country.  I would put our troops along the U.S-Mexico border and the U.S- Canadian border.  Illegal immigration is a big threat to our national security, and putting our troops along the borders would stop illegal immigration cold.  I don't think it really makes sense to have 50 different states that have their own national defense.  The states do have the right under the Constitution to form militias, but I also think that it's necessary for the federal government to have an army.  The articles of Confederation were abolished mostly because our founders realized that it didn't make sense for 50 different states to have their own national defense.

----------


## aGameOfThrones

Of course we need the police!

----------


## lynnf

after Hitler, Tojo, Mussonini, Norriega, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Stalin, and Hugo Chavez, this question has to be asked?

you can't just raise up an Army, Navy and Air Force from dry bones (as in the Bible) on a moment's notice without a miracle.  I believe in miracles but I don't advocate voluntarily relying on them for my existence.

this is a no-brainer.  if you don't think a standing army is needed, you have no brains.

----------


## affa

Wolverines!

----------


## asurfaholic

I believe a strong army (AF/Navy/Organized Infantry) should be PART of the plan to defend America. We have technology, and we could easily defend our entire coast and borders with a military 1/4 size of what we have now. The other part of national defense should lie with a well armed populace. Community organizations, such as the North Carolina Citizen Militia, would be the secondary line of defense, should a threat ever come across a border either by defeating the government army or sneaking past. 

http://www.ncmilitia.org/

Having bases all over the world and being what some people like to call a "super power" is not part of a good national defense plan. Set up bases and bunkers along the coast and borders, maybe even open the military up for volunteers to man the bases (as Volunteer Fire Departments do) and we are virtually untouchable. 

The worst thing that can be done for our defense is to take away the guns from Americans.

----------


## affa

> after Hitler, Tojo, Mussonini, Norriega, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Stalin, and Hugo Chavez, this question has to be asked?
> 
> you can't just raise up an Army, Navy and Air Force from dry bones (as in the Bible) on a moment's notice without a miracle.  I believe in miracles but I don't advocate voluntarily relying on them for my existence.
> 
> this is a no-brainer.  if you don't think a standing army is needed, you have no brains.


Damn it. I guess I have no brains.  Again.  Darn internet logic.

----------


## aGameOfThrones

> Damn it. I guess I have no brains.  Again.  Darn internet logic.


I blame zombies for you having no brain.

----------


## AFPVet

> We need a Constitutional Militia.


This. Groups of unregulated citizen volunteers are not enough... they should have all of the resources they need for defense under the leadership of elected officersespecially at the border states! What is going on down there is a nightmare. Interestingly, the Constitution allows for both an active military and militia.

----------


## Brett85

> Having bases all over the world and being what some people like to call a "super power" is not part of a good national defense plan.


We can be the world's leading superpower without having foreign military bases.  We can bring all of our troops home and create more military bases here in the U.S.

----------


## josh b

Standing armies and extensive military forces are dangerous.  There's no such thing as a benevolent superpower.

I'd say no.  

I would never trust such a thing to be used purely for defense.

----------


## BlackTerrel

Could Iraq have used a stronger standing army?  I'd say yes.

----------


## suoulfrepus

The military is completely unnecessary. We're not threatened by anybody. Mexico and Canada are our friends. We're also on good terms with Europe, China, Japan and all the other major countries. No country has the resources to cross the ocean and mount a war against us.

----------


## AFPVet

> The military is completely unnecessary. We're not threatened by anybody. Mexico and Canada are our friends. We're also on good terms with Europe, China, Japan and all the other major countries. No country has the resources to cross the ocean and mount a war against us.


I assume you are being entirely sarcastic

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Could Iraq have used a stronger standing army?  I'd say yes.


They were actually said to have one of the strongest standing armies in the world during Desert Storm, and it was certainly one of the largest. It didn't do them much good.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> They were actually said to have one of the strongest standing armies in the world during Desert Storm, and it was certainly one of the largest. It didn't do them much good.


Mainly because it was weaker than our military.

----------


## idirtify

> Standing armies and extensive military forces are dangerous.  There's no such thing as a benevolent superpower.
> 
> I'd say no.  
> 
> I would never trust such a thing to be used purely for defense.


Agreed. Funny how no one here has even mentioned the dire effects of the current MIC, which is the effect of a standing military. A MIC will always (among other horrible things) grow in size and power, cause conflict in times of peace, control the press and politicians and news (general sociopolitical reality), and historically will have no problem turning on its own country - if it hasn't already destroyed it financially (bankrupted it). So it’s funny when I hear the fearful claims that we need a standing military for security, without any expression of fear that our country is currently in the process of being destroyed from within by that same “protector”. Of course much of that unreasonable fear is a result of the brainwashing power of the MIC.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> after Hitler, Tojo, Mussonini, Norriega, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Stalin, and Hugo Chavez, this question has to be asked?
> 
> you can't just raise up an Army, Navy and Air Force from dry bones (as in the Bible) on a moment's notice without a miracle.  I believe in miracles but I don't advocate voluntarily relying on them for my existence.
> 
> this is a no-brainer.  if you don't think a standing army is needed, you have no brains.


I fail to see what point you're trying to make. Not one of those countries touched the states(save some Japanese ballons...), or came anywhere close to a any kind of invasion of the United States. If anything, it proves my point: The US geographical position makes it almost completely invulnerable to foreign invasions. 

The US had always had one of the worlds smallest militaries before the Korean War. Yet it only took a short period of time to prepare for the World Wars.

----------


## suoulfrepus

> I assume you are being entirely sarcastic


I'm completely serious. Don't know why you would think I was being sarcastic.

By the way, Ron Paul isn't far from my position.




> In an interview with Washingtonpost.com's PostTalk program, the Texas congressman said he could see "no reason" to justify military action if he were elected president. He compared the United States to a schoolyard bully and said the country has no reason to flex its muscles overseas.
> 
> "There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today," he said in the interview. "I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapon."

----------


## AFPVet

> I'm completely serious. Don't know why you would think I was being sarcastic.
> 
> By the way, Ron Paul isn't far from my position.


Take a trip to Southern Arizona or Texas and tell me that we aren't being invaded. People are being kidnapped, beheaded, shot... *on U.S. soil!* This is not a joke. I have friends who are in law enforcement in those areas... it is getting crazy... and some of what is going on will never make the news—such as militias trying to push those Mexican gangs back.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This entire argument, idealogy aside, hinges on our foreign policy. I see no reason for a "standing army" in free state, but interventionism has its price. That price is an ever expanding and unsustainable military.


 +10000000000000

----------


## CasualApathy

So how does a local militia defend itself against say an aircraft carrier, nuclear weapons and an organized army in this day and age? (It's not like you can just hide in the bushes anymore)

----------


## pcosmar

Here in this video you see a bunch of "liberals" defending the idea of militarism. 
I am seeing the very same arguments from "conservatives".

The Army  has never been used for defense. It is used in retaliation.
An Army is used for offense, conquest and occupation.
Armed citizens are the best defense. END Gun Control. Repeal the GCA of 1934 and ALL that came after.
Encourage ownership, and training. Put the guns back in the hands of the people.

----------


## oyarde

> A few points (by way of reference. I have been an active duty Army  officer, National Guard officer, Army Reserve officer, now hang out in  the militia movement, and have lived in Switzerland for 10 years).
> 
> The Swiss militia system is very different from the US system laid out  in the 1790s. The about 5000 professional Swiss are the full time  personnel who are eligible to qualify for a pension after 35 years of  service, there are some short term (non career) active duty types, and  then those doing basic training or working off their military  obligation, and then the 500,000 or so who do their 15 to 30 days  refresher at some time during the year. Fully mobilized, the Army would  be 8 divisions and a few security brigades. It is a national army, but  all of the units have 80 to 90 percent militiamen who make up the bulk  of the unit. Officers easily spend 30 days per year or more on duty.
> 
> The US model was designed with each state having its own fully  functional regiment and brigades which could be called out to repel  invasion pending the call out or raising of a national army.
> 
> The US militia model was decentralized, while the current Swiss model is  centralized in order to provide for a uniform tactical doctrine,  training, and operations model.
> 
> Armed mobs really are not that effective at repelling invasions (movies  and Internet aside). First - they sustain very high loss rates compared  to regular organized forces.
> ...


Yes , there is no way a militia could call , control fire ...

----------


## pcosmar

> So how does a local militia defend itself against say an aircraft carrier, nuclear weapons and an organized army in this day and age? (It's not like you can just hide in the bushes anymore)


Where are you going to hide this aircraft carrier in the Hiawatha National Forrest. Nukes are impressive against cities, pretty useless in open spaces. Organized armies need logistics. supply lines. support.

They are presently being decimated by primitives in Afghanistan. (once again) 

Do you think the militia is just a few guys that the media portrays? Do you have any idea how many "civilians" have prior military training? 

Do you have any concept of what a few rednecks can build inside the barns and garages all across this country,,,given inspiration.?

----------


## oyarde

> Clearly.  
> 
> Now that we have enslaved Arion45, I got dibs on his house.
> 
> What do you want?


I will take the vacum cleaner

----------


## CasualApathy

> Where are you going to hide this aircraft carrier in the Hiawatha National Forrest. Nukes are impressive against cities, pretty useless in open spaces. Organized armies need logistics. supply lines. support.
> 
> They are presently being decimated by primitives in Afghanistan. (once again) 
> 
> Do you think the militia is just a few guys that the media portrays? Do you have any idea how many "civilians" have prior military training? 
> 
> Do you have any concept of what a few rednecks can build inside the barns and garages all across this country,,,given inspiration.?


LOL!

So I guess the utter nuclear destruction of all major cities is not a big deal and doesn't present a problem for your argument, just forget about them? xD

And obviously an aircraft carrier would only dominate the coastal regions, but hey - no biggie, eh? :P 

Sure an army needs supply lines, but honestly an enemy wouldn't have to rush anything at all, since scattered militia wouldn't have the capability to launch any major attacks behind enemy lines (history has shown that if ruthless enough, an invading army can totally crush any resistance as they go, just look at what the russians did to the germans in WW2, or even look to ancient history where it was arguably even harder)

The only reason the US is having trouble in Afghanistan is the restraints placed on the military, without any rules of engagement, any afghan left alive would be a cowering serf.

You live in a fantasy world.

Edit: The ruthless but effective sollution to Afghanistan: Go to a city, kill everyone. Go to the next, repeat. Do this untill the people turn on the resistance fighters for fear of their life.

----------


## pcosmar

> LOL!
> 
> So I guess the utter nuclear destruction of all major cities is not a big deal and doesn't present a problem for your argument, just forget about them? xD
> 
> And obviously an aircraft carrier would only dominate the coastal regions, but hey - no biggie, eh? :P 
> 
> Sure an army needs supply lines, but honestly an enemy wouldn't have to rush anything at all, since scattered militia wouldn't have the capability to launch any major attacks behind enemy lines (history has shown that if ruthless enough, an invading army can totally crush any resistance as they go, just look at what the russians did to the germans in WW2, or even look to ancient history where it was arguably even harder)
> 
> The only reason the US is having trouble in Afghanistan is the restraints placed on the military, without any rules of engagement, any afghan left alive would be a cowering serf.
> ...


Not so much.
Not nearly the fantasy of fears of some.
 What country has the ability to attack the continental US? (that would be NONE)

What would be the purpose of nuking cities? Other that pissing of the surviving population. 

How would a marching army survive and secure their supply lines in the US? 

It ain't gonna happen.

----------


## jmdrake

> Whatever JM. I am afraid I have lost a lot of respect for you. Since you seem to be lost in a discussion without ample sarcasm and ridicule here you are


Roll your eyes all you want.  Just start being honest about the position of people you are debating with.  It's dishonest to continue to claim anyone's trying to get around the constitution on the airforce when I've repeatedly said that function could be handled by the navy and repeatedly pointed out that flight didn't exist in 1789.

----------


## Brett85

> Here in this video you see a bunch of "liberals" defending the idea of militarism. 
> I am seeing the very same arguments from "conservatives".
> 
> The Army  has never been used for defense. It is used in retaliation.
> An Army is used for offense, conquest and occupation.
> Armed citizens are the best defense. END Gun Control. Repeal the GCA of 1934 and ALL that came after.
> Encourage ownership, and training. Put the guns back in the hands of the people.


So to you the 2nd amendment is our entire national defense.  That's quite a strategy.

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm pretty sure I didn't advocate putting massive amounts of troops in our cities.  I advocate putting our troops along both of our borders and coastlines.


You want to bring them home and keep them active.  Obama is the commander in chief.  Once he gets all of these troops back on U.S. soil do you think he's just going to restrict himself to how *you* want to use them?  And even if he did, what about the next president?  If all the troops that are positioned overseas are repositioned here, even if 75% of them were put on the border Obama would have more than enough for his domestic unrest agenda.  (And we would save any significant amount of money).

----------


## jmdrake

> So to you the 2nd amendment is our entire national defense.  That's quite a strategy.


2nd amendment + constitutionally maintained navy + air defenses that are either part of the navy or that acknowledge the fact that airforce, just like the Internet, couldn't be envisioned by the founders so is not constitutionally barred + maintaining a constitutional ability to raise an army when necessary which includes a West Point style officer and trainer corps and militia who train like today's national guard and reservists.

----------


## Krugerrand

> You want to bring them home and keep them active.  Obama is the commander in chief.  Once he gets all of these troops back on U.S. soil do you think he's just going to restrict himself to how *you* want to use them?  And even if he did, *what about the next president?*  If all the troops that are positioned overseas are repositioned here, even if 75% of them were put on the border Obama would have more than enough for his domestic unrest agenda.  (And we would save any significant amount of money).


I'm not worried about the next president.  I trust Ron Paul's judgment.  It's those before and after him that would be cause for alarm.

----------


## Pericles

> Yes , there is no way a militia could call , control fire ...


Which is why today, it is hard to build a good militia unit at anything above company level. The skills needed at battalion and higher require more sophisticated training, which means drawing those people with the appropriate active duty experience, or a good deal of training time that requires much more than you can get in one weekend a month and two weeks a year.

----------


## CasualApathy

> Not so much.
> Not nearly the fantasy of fears of some.
>  What country has the ability to attack the continental US? (that would be NONE)
> 
> What would be the purpose of nuking cities? Other that pissing of the surviving population. 
> 
> How would a marching army survive and secure their supply lines in the US? 
> 
> It ain't gonna happen.


I am relying on history for my argument, not unfounded fears. You have to understand the nature of war... If the US didn't have a standing army, several countries would have the ability to attack the continental US, hell even Denmark could probably secure a beachhead without too much trouble, but realistically China and Russia at least would be able to launch an attack. 

What is the purpose of nuking cities? The same as when the allies firebombed major German cities towards the end of WW2, to break the will of the people. 

How would a marching army secure supply lines? Well, total control of the airspace would certainly help a lot, but even without that you simply crush the resistance as you go. An organized army (millions of soldiers if say China was the enemy) wouldn't have too much trouble securing supply lines, and again, they would not have to extend themselves too far since they wouldn't have to fear a major offensive from scattered militias.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

I never got an answer to my question, so I'll pose it again-
For all of you who favor a standing army-who are you afraid of that justifies a "need" for such a force?

----------


## CasualApathy

> I never got an answer to my question, so I'll pose it again-
> For all of you who favor a standing army-who are you afraid of that justifies a "need" for such a force?


Any state with a standing army, since history has shown that an organized army is simply superior.

----------


## pcosmar

> I am relying on history for my argument, not unfounded fears. You have to understand the nature of war... If the US didn't have a standing army, several countries would have the ability to attack the continental US, hell even Denmark could probably secure a beachhead without too much trouble, but realistically China and Russia at least would be able to launch an attack. 
> 
> What is the purpose of nuking cities? The same as when the allies firebombed major German cities towards the end of WW2, to break the will of the people. 
> 
> How would a marching army secure supply lines? Well, total control of the airspace would certainly help a lot, but even without that you simply crush the resistance as you go. An organized army (millions of soldiers if say China was the enemy) wouldn't have too much trouble securing supply lines, and again, they would not have to extend themselves too far since they wouldn't have to fear a major offensive from scattered militias.


 You really have no concept do you?

You are comparing Germany to the US. Bombing cities? You do realize that Germany is smaller than many US states.

China and India combined could not successfully invade the US with any hope of success if they threw everything they had at it.
And the have neither ships nor aircraft capable of moving men and equipment into place.

Even with present and repressive gun control, they are still out gunned by the civilians alone, without opening the armories to the population.

----------


## CasualApathy

> You really have no concept do you?
> 
> You are comparing Germany to the US. Bombing cities? You do realize that Germany is smaller than many US states.
> 
> China and India combined could not successfully invade the US with any hope of success if they threw everything they had at it.
> And the have neither ships nor aircraft capable of moving men and equipment into place.
> 
> Even with present and repressive gun control, they are still out gunned by the civilians alone, without opening the armories to the population.


You're hilarious xD

I never compared Germany geographically to the US, I was using WW2 as an example of the tactics and ruthless logic of all out war.

China has been building it's navy up for the past decade, they have aircraft carriers, troop transports, destroyers, battleships, the works. And they wouldn't have to occupy the entire US, they could take Florida and sit on it for a couple of years, then move on, destroying any resistance as they go. Unless the US banded the scattered local militias together into an organized army, there wouldn't be a thing you could do about it.

----------


## Arion45

> Yes.  Do I have the right to support having troops here in the U.S without being called a "big government conservative?"


No

----------


## jmdrake

> I never got an answer to my question, so I'll pose it again-
> For all of you who favor a standing army-who are you afraid of that justifies a "need" for such a force?

----------


## jmdrake

> You're hilarious xD
> 
> I never compared Germany geographically to the US, I was using WW2 as an example of the tactics and ruthless logic of all out war.
> 
> China has been building it's navy up for the past decade, they have aircraft carriers, troop transports, destroyers, battleships, the works. And they wouldn't have to occupy the entire US, they could take Florida and sit on it for a couple of years, then move on, destroying any resistance as they go. Unless the US banded the scattered local militias together into an organized army, there wouldn't be a thing you could do about it.


Germany to Britain is like China to the U.S.  Britain repelled a German invasion with air power alone.  Enough said.

----------


## CasualApathy

> Germany to Britain is like China to the U.S.  Britain repelled a German invasion with air power alone.  Enough said.


Which you wouldn't have - an organized air-force that is capable of doing that.

Edit: Britan was barely able to somewhat defend it's airspace only because the state organized a huge effort to bolster the British air-force.

----------


## pcosmar

> You're hilarious xD
> 
> I never compared Germany geographically to the US, I was using WW2 as an example of the tactics and ruthless logic of all out war.
> 
> China has been building it's navy up for the past decade, they have aircraft carriers, troop transports, destroyers, battleships, the works. And they wouldn't have to occupy the entire US, they could take Florida and sit on it for a couple of years, then move on, destroying any resistance as they go.* Unless the US banded the scattered local militias together into an organized army,* there wouldn't be a thing you could do about it.


 That is exactly what would happen. People would come together in defense. They do whenever there is a natural disaster, and would do so to repel an invasion.

The movie "Red Dawn" took  a look at such an attempt. It was tactically interesting, but would fail for exactly the reason portrayed in the movie. 
The US is friggin' huge. I have hitched crossed it several times. RPH has taken a bike across it. And still not seen all.
And outside of cities especially it is fiercely independent. 

There is no way to hold it but by consent of the people, and no way to survive if you piss off the people.

----------


## jmdrake

> Which you wouldn't have - an organized air-force that is capable of doing that.


You haven't really been reading this thread have you?  For the last time an air-force is *not* barred by the constitution anymore than the Internet is outside the first amendment.  But even if it is, navy pilots are better anyway and can serve the same function.




> Edit: Britan was barely able to somewhat defend it's airspace only because the state organized a huge effort to bolster the British air-force.


Doesn't matter.  They *did* defend it.  And since there is constitutional authority to maintain an navy, air superiority via a navy can be constitutionally maintained.  I wish your side would quit with this ridiculous "You can't have airplanes under your theory" argument.

----------


## Pericles

> I never got an answer to my question, so I'll pose it again-
> For all of you who favor a standing army-who are you afraid of that justifies a "need" for such a force?


The best chance of getting a serious answer is to pose something other than a rhetorical question.

 At a basic level no threat is relevant - you need to have the military skills period.

How many units need to be on active duty are a function of maintaining  proficiency with additional units based on threat assessment.

Threat assessment is the intersection of capability and intent.  Capability is more easy to measure and intent more difficult to discern.  It terms of US security, the picture looks good for the next 5 years,  in that missile or terrorist attacks are the threat.

Longer term, the actions of Russia and China to modernize and make their armed forces more capable is a concern.

Actions we consider not rational are not viewed the same universally. In  2002, if I was asked whether the US would invade Iraq, I would consider  the very idea out of the question, as I doubted the Congress would  declare war, and the resulting occupation would be a mess. The fact that  the guys on the E-Ring thought a US invasion would be greeted by the  population as a liberation and no large numbers of troops required,  shows me an organization out of touch with reality.

Someone out there might look at US economic collapse and anger at  government as a sight that they might be greeted by the US population as  saviors that most of the population would greet warmly. That does not  make any sense to us, but who thought Japan would have a reason to  attack Pearl Harbor?

----------


## CasualApathy

> That is exactly what would happen. People would come together in defense. They do whenever there is a natural disaster, and would do so to repel an invasion.
> 
> The movie "Red Dawn" took  a look at such an attempt. It was tactically interesting, but would fail for exactly the reason portrayed in the movie. 
> The US is friggin' huge. I have hitched crossed it several times. RPH has taken a bike across it. And still not seen all.
> And outside of cities especially it is fiercely independent. 
> 
> There is no way to hold it but by consent of the people, and no way to survive if you piss off the people.


So you just admitted defeat in a sense. If that is exactly what would happen, surely it would be more beneficial to have some sort of standing army ready and on stand-by so you wouldn't have to organize such an effort after the fact.

You'd need to maintain a navy, since you can't just build one when you need it, the same with an airforce, something that requires organization, training, and huge rescurces. (No, your local militia can't afford an aircraft carrier, i'm sorry - the bank says no.)

----------


## CasualApathy

> You haven't really been reading this thread have you?  For the last time an air-force is *not* barred by the constitution anymore than the Internet is outside the first amendment.  But even if it is, navy pilots are better anyway and can serve the same function.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't matter.  They *did* defend it.  And since there is constitutional authority to maintain an navy, air superiority via a navy can be constitutionally maintained.  I wish your side would quit with this ridiculous "You can't have airplanes under your theory" argument.


So you agree that the state has a role in the defence of the nation? Maintaining a navy/air-force/army?

----------


## CasualApathy

> Doesn't matter.  They *did* defend it.


Also, this is a hilarious argument worthy of a 5 year old xD

----------


## pcosmar

> I never compared Germany geographically to the US, I was using WW2 as an example of the tactics and ruthless logic of all out war.


Then compare . Look at what happened to Germany at Stalingrad.
Attacking Russia was a huge blunder. and massive failure.

every peasant became a combatant. Munitions were produced in every small shop.
The Molotov Cocktail was invented.

Look at History. look what happened to the Russian Military in Afghanistan. Watch it being played out yet again by the US Military.
Attacking the US would be pure foolishness.

----------


## CasualApathy

> Then compare . Look at what happened to Germany at Stalingrad.
> Attacking Russia was a huge blunder. and massive failure.
> 
> every peasant became a combatant. Munitions were produced in every small shop.
> The Molotov Cocktail was invented.
> 
> Look at History. look what happened to the Russian Military in Afghanistan. Watch it being played out yet again by the US Military.
> Attacking the US would be pure foolishness.


Look, I already addressed this:

An invading army wouldn't have to occupy more geographical area than they could secure, if not facing an organized army. 

Invading Russia in winter is pretty dumb, but the Germans were also facing the full force and power of the soviet state. They literally moved entire factories and relocated them away from the invading German army, an impressive feat that couldn't have been accomplished without the soviet state directing it. Also it's really no surprise that regular people fought back along with the soviet army since they knew that there was no mercy even for civilians when the German army advanced. 

Afghanistan is a mute point, since the resistance there could be crushed easily by the vastly superior might of the US forces if they didn't have to care how it looked on TV.

----------


## Danke

> For the last time an air-force is *not* barred by the constitution anymore than the Internet is outside the first amendment.  But even if it is, *navy pilots are better* anyway and can serve the same function.

----------


## jmdrake

> So you agree that the state has a role in the defence of the nation? Maintaining a navy/air-force/army?


Have you not read the constitution?  The state has a role in maintaining a navy and raising an army.  Please look up the difference between the worlds "maintain" and "raise".  While the airforce isn't mentioned, it's functionally equivalent to the navy in the respect that it's centered around equipment difficult for an individual to own and maintain and it's needed to protect the approaches to this country.  You can't "raise" a navy or airforce quickly like you can an army.  That said, for those who are constitutional purists *only when it is convenient for them*, the navy can do the role of the airforce.  So maintain equipment needed to protect the approaches to this country (airplanes and ships) through the navy and/or airforce and raise the army when necessary.  Maintain the officer and training corp needed to raise an army, but not the army per se itself.  In other words, simply follow the constitution.  Is that too much to ask?

----------


## jmdrake

> Also, this is a hilarious argument worthy of a 5 year old xD


 Says the guy that apparently doesn't know the difference between the words "raise" and "maintain".

----------


## jmdrake

> 


LOL.  Yeah if I show up to a navy/air force game I'd better choose carefully where I sit.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The best chance of getting a serious answer is to pose something other than a rhetorical question.
> 
>  At a basic level no threat is relevant - you need to have the military skills period.
> 
> How many units need to be on active duty are a function of maintaining  proficiency with additional units based on threat assessment.
> 
> Threat assessment is the intersection of capability and intent.  Capability is more easy to measure and intent more difficult to discern.  It terms of US security, the picture looks good for the next 5 years,  in that missile or terrorist attacks are the threat.
> 
> Longer term, the actions of Russia and China to modernize and make their armed forces more capable is a concern.
> ...


 Anyone who knew about the US regime's economic crimes against Japan (restricting exports, instituting an embargo, and freezing assets).  A few people, like John T. Flynn, understood this, but it was sadly not well known enough to prevent the attack and the ensuing unnecessary war.

----------


## Anti Federalist

I think what has to happen here is a serious discussion of how much "risk" we, as a nation, are willing to take.

The fundamentals of this argument boil down to the same arguments as having a large standing occupation force to defend against "terrorism".

In other words, just like I would be more than willing to risk the very unlikely prospect of getting killed in a terrorist attack, rather than submit to a stifling level of tyranny in the *hope* that *all* terrorist attacks get stopped, I'd be willing to take the gamble that a greatly reduced military along with non interventionism, would reduce risk of atttack or invasion to an acceptable level.

Or put yet another way, the "cures" for both terrorism (The Homeland Security and Surveillance State apparatus) and national defense (the Defense Surveillance State and MIC) are worse than the diseases.

I prefer to live free and take my chances, than deal with the consequences of both.

----------


## Pericles

> Anyone who knew about the US regime's economic crimes against Japan (restricting exports, instituting an embargo, and freezing assets).  A few people, like John T. Flynn, understood this, but it was sadly not well known enough to prevent the attack and the ensuing unnecessary war.


What should be the response to the Japanese invasion of China in 1931 - continue to sell steel and oil to Japan so they could more effectively commit aggression against China? Funny way of supporting the "non aggression principle" - welcome to the real world.

----------


## Pericles

> I think what has to happen here is a serious discussion of how much "risk" we, as a nation, are willing to take.
> 
> The fundamentals of the this argument boil down to the same arguments as having a large standing occupation force to defend against "terrorism".
> 
> In other words, just like I would be more than willing to risk the very unlikely prospect of getting killed in a terrorist attack, rather than submit to a stifling level of tyranny in the *hope* that *all* terrorist attacks get stopped, I'd be willing to take the gamble that a greatly reduced military along with non interventionism, would reduce risk to acceptable level.
> 
> Or put yet another way, the "cures" for both terrorism (The Homeland Security and Surveillance State apparatus) and national defense (the Defense Surveillance State and MIC) are worse than the diseases.
> 
> I prefer to live free and take my chances, than deal with the consequences of both.


This is the real issue - liberty requires taking a certain level of risk as necessary to maintain freedom.

----------


## affa

> How would a marching army secure supply lines? Well, total control of the airspace would certainly help a lot, but even without that you simply crush the resistance as you go. An organized army (millions of soldiers if say China was the enemy) wouldn't have too much trouble securing supply lines, and again, they would not have to extend themselves too far since they wouldn't have to fear a major offensive from scattered militias.


You obviously haven't read this entire thread.  I don't think anyone has advocated removing the navy/air force for coastal defense.  This hypothetical enemy aircraft carrier of yours couldn't get close to us without sinking.  And they wouldn't have any control of air space, let alone total. 

This debate is about a standing -army-, period.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> What should be the response to the Japanese invasion of China in 1931 - continue to sell steel and oil to Japan so they could more effectively commit aggression against China? Funny way of supporting the "non aggression principle" - welcome to the real world.


 Yep.  Not following the NAP in that situation resulted in a far worse result than otherwise would have happened.  The US has no business in foreign conflicts, just as it has no business meddling in the mideast.  Blowback is a bitch, then just as much as now.

----------


## pcosmar

> What should be the response to the Japanese invasion of China in 1931 -


That was between Japan and China. hence none of our business.
Supplying Mercenaries could also be viewed as taking sides and active support which made us a legitimate target.

----------


## CasualApathy

> Have you not read the constitution?  The state has a role in maintaining a navy and raising an army.  Please look up the difference between the worlds "maintain" and "raise".  While the airforce isn't mentioned, it's functionally equivalent to the navy in the respect that it's centered around equipment difficult for an individual to own and maintain and it's needed to protect the approaches to this country.  You can't "raise" a navy or airforce quickly like you can an army.  That said, for those who are constitutional purists *only when it is convenient for them*, the navy can do the role of the airforce.  So maintain equipment needed to protect the approaches to this country (airplanes and ships) through the navy and/or airforce and raise the army when necessary.  Maintain the officer and training corp needed to raise an army, but not the army per se itself.  In other words, simply follow the constitution.  Is that too much to ask?


Then I don't see where we have disagreement?

You should read my posts as an argument against those who say that we need no standing army/navy/air-force at all.

----------


## CasualApathy

> You obviously haven't read this entire thread.  I don't think anyone has advocated removing the navy/air force for coastal defense.  This hypothetical enemy aircraft carrier of yours couldn't get close to us without sinking.  And they wouldn't have any control of air space, let alone total. 
> 
> This debate is about a standing -army-, period.


I concede that my posts may be tainted by previous discussions with pcosmar, as I am fairly certain he maintains that we don't need a government run navy or air-force at all.

Edit: That being said, I would still maintain that you need a standing army as well, although there is no doubt it could be greatly reduced from where it is at today.

----------


## pcosmar

> I concede that my posts may be tainted by previous discussions with pcosmar, as I am fairly certain he maintains that we don't need a government run navy or air-force at all.
> 
> Edit: That being said, I would still maintain that you need a standing army as well, although there is no doubt it could be greatly reduced from where it is at today.


You are putting words I NEVER said in my mouth.
I am more inclined to side with *Pericles* on this. At least as far as an organizational and training base.
No standing Army=/=NO Military at all.
It does require rethinking both the purpose of the military and the actual threats. (as opposed to manufactured threats)

I am a proponent of Defense. The present military structure has NOTHING to do with Defense.

----------


## jmdrake

Folks I think we can put a wrap on this one.  On the one extreme you have Traditional Conservative who would keep the military close to the same size but just bring them home.  On the other extreme you have...well nobody that I can actually think of but a popular target of the standing army proponents, somebody who believes there should be no military at all.  In the middle you have two groups that both think the military should be *much* smaller.  One group believes that the best way to have the appropriate size military is to follow the constitutional pattern of maintaining a navy (and air defenses however that can constitutionally be accomplished) and the *capability* of raising an army (officers, trainers, equipment etc plus a "well regulated" militia).  The other side in the middle believes that unless there's something they can put their finger on and call a "standing army", it's somehow not good enough.  Those of us who want to work within the constitutional framework believe that no matter what the good intentions are, without some kind of constitutional restraint (i.e. "framework") this "leaner/meaner" standing army will regrow the the unsustainable behemoth of empire that the current standing army is.  We think the founders actually had a reason for why they wrote that part of the constitution the way they did and that it's still a good reason.  The middle positions aren't that far apart.  One just leaves a security blanket for those who just have to have the words "standing army" and the other provides a security blanket for those of us you believe that standing army will grow like a cancer if it's not constitutionally contained.

----------


## CasualApathy

> You are putting words I NEVER said in my mouth.
> I am more inclined to side with *Pericles* on this. At least as far as an organizational and training base.
> No standing Army=/=NO Military at all.
> It does require rethinking both the purpose of the military and the actual threats. (as opposed to manufactured threats)
> 
> I am a proponent of Defense. The present military structure has NOTHING to do with Defense.


Well in that case I apologize, I must have remembered incorrectly, or perhaps our discussions in the past just never actually got right down to this question. My motivation for participating in this discussion is simply to argue against the extreme position that the federal government shouldn't be involved in running an army/navy/air-force at all. Like i said, that's fantasy-land :-)

EDIT: Trust me, I've heard this argued many times, often by the more hardcore anarchy crowd who don't trust the state to do ANYTHING or even exist.

----------


## pcosmar

> EDIT: Trust me, I've heard this argued many times, often by the more hardcore anarchy crowd who don't trust the state to do ANYTHING or even exist.


 I repeat (again) I am not an anarchist. I believe in a Limited Government.(very limited) And locally controlled.

It is just a very drastic difference from the bloated and out of control government we have presently.

----------


## Anti Federalist

“The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labor. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.”

_George Orwell - 1984_

----------


## CasualApathy

> I repeat (again) I am not an anarchist. I believe in a Limited Government.(very limited) And locally controlled.
> 
> It is just a very drastic difference from the bloated and out of control government we have presently.


Then why did you take offense at my comment?!

EDIT: The thing you need to understand about me is that all I really care about is ideas, I don't take pretty much anything personally or hold grudges, I do enjoy debate though.

----------


## Anti Federalist

*Wisdom From an Ex-Marine* 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...ves/91768.html

Posted by Laurence Vance on July 20, 2011 07:58 AM 

My response to those that claim they protect our freedom is this: When was the last time you protected me from the federal or state governments that have no problem enacting laws that require background checks for gun purchases, enacting laws that enable police to set up roadblocks (checkpoints) for whatever reason, and allowing police to break into my house and search for whatever they want without telling me?

What have you done to keep the federal government from searching my library records and telling the librarian she will go to jail if she lets me know? When have you protected the people against no-knock warrants to enforce a draconian law that prohibits the possession of a plant? A PLANT!!! The list is too long.

So protect my freedoms like you claim to do. But do it here in the States united not in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, or Libya.

----------


## klamath

> Yep.  Not following the NAP in that situation resulted in a far worse result than otherwise would have happened.  The US has no business in foreign conflicts, just as it has no business meddling in the mideast.  Blowback is a bitch, then just as much as now.


Blow back was a bitch for the japanese as well.

----------


## Pericles

> Folks I think we can put a wrap on this one.  On the one extreme you have Traditional Conservative who would keep the military close to the same size but just bring them home.  On the other extreme you have...well nobody that I can actually think of but a popular target of the standing army proponents, somebody who believes there should be no military at all.  In the middle you have two groups that both think the military should be *much* smaller.  One group believes that the best way to have the appropriate size military is to follow the constitutional pattern of maintaining a navy (and air defenses however that can constitutionally be accomplished) and the *capability* of raising an army (officers, trainers, equipment etc plus a "well regulated" militia).  The other side in the middle believes that unless there's something they can put their finger on and call a "standing army", it's somehow not good enough.  Those of us who want to work within the constitutional framework believe that no matter what the good intentions are, without some kind of constitutional restraint (i.e. "framework") this "leaner/meaner" standing army will regrow the the unsustainable behemoth of empire that the current standing army is.  We think the founders actually had a reason for why they wrote that part of the constitution the way they did and that it's still a good reason.  The middle positions aren't that far apart.  One just leaves a security blanket for those who just have to have the words "standing army" and the other provides a security blanket for those of us you believe that standing army will grow like a cancer if it's not constitutionally contained.


Prety much, except to remark that although the founders expected to use the militia, the regular Army dates from 1784, the militia is not effective in fighting the natives, and a second regiment of regulars are added in 1791 for the next year's campaign, the Military Academy is founded in 1802, the tendency to assign tasks (exploration, arsenals, and internal improvements) to the Army as no other logical place to assign the work started early. Even under Jefferson, the regular Army doubled in size ....

And even by the War of 1812, the militia was only marginally effective, despite over 15 years after the passage of the Militia Act of 1792 / 1795. Four states refused to take part in the War of 1812, as there had yet been no actual invasion of the US, and some militia units refused to cross into Canada (others did), as there was no authorization in the Constitution for the militia to invade other countries.

One can argue that the War of 1812 showed the best and the worst of the system.

----------


## klamath

And what people are failing to realize is that the training reserve and national guard units receive does not make them ready to go to war at a division level. Almost all of the guard units are required to be federally activated and trained for 3 to 12 months BEFORE they are sent overseas. Many reserve comanders get relieved of command on activation because they do NOT have the skills to integrate their unit into a large military command. The reserve officers go through all the same war colleges as their active duty counterparts yet what they don't have is any real on the ground large training that seperates a real commander from a good test passer in college. I have deployed three times and everyone of my commanders was not ready to lead. One would have been fragged by the vietnam war veteran warrent officer pilots in my unit had we seen combat. One was not releaved of command only because the active brigade commander could not come up with a active MSC officer in his command to replace him with. The last one WAS relieved of command in combat and shipped out of the country withing 24 hours. The morale was absolutely horrible not because these commanders were bad people but were untrained and could not provide the necessary leadership to bring the unit together as a team. 
My unit that trained four times as long as most other reserve units because of our mission, was never ready to become part of the active combat unit until we had three months of active duty training. The training necessary to become proficient at mobile war operations takes a lot longer than any reserve unit can spent the time doing. Any reserve unit put together in a matter of days or weeks would absolutely be routed and scattered on contact with a trained army.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> And what people are failing to realize is that the training reserve and national guard units receive does not make them ready to go to war at a division level. Almost all of the guard units are required to be federally activated and trained for 3 to 12 months BEFORE they are sent overseas. Many reserve comanders get relieved of command on activation because they do NOT have the skills to integrate their unit into a large military command. The reserve officers go through all the same war colleges as their active duty counterparts yet what they don't have is any real on the ground large training that seperates a real commander from a good test passer in college. I have deployed three times and everyone of my commanders was not ready to lead. One would have been fragged by the vietnam war veteran warrent officer pilots in my unit had we seen combat. One was not releaved of command only because the active brigade commander could not come up with a active MSC officer in his command to replace him with. The last one WAS relieved of command in combat and shipped out of the country withing 24 hours. The morale was absolutely horrible not because these commanders were bad people but were untrained and could not provide the necessary leadership to bring the unit together as a team. 
> My unit that trained four times as long as most other reserve units because of our mission, was never ready to become part of the active combat unit until we had three months of active duty training. The training necessary to become proficient at mobile war operations takes a lot longer than any reserve unit can spent the time doing. Any reserve unit put together in a matter of days or weeks would absolutely be routed and scattered on contact with a trained army.


 I agree.  The purpose of a militia is defense, not going abroad into combat.  I doubt anyone would argue that a militia is sufficient to fight abroad.  However, there needs to be a real and present danger to warrant a standing army, and there simply isn't at this time.  If there were hostile powers on all sides, you would have a good case.

----------


## klamath

> I agree.  The purpose of a militia is defense, not going abroad into combat.  I doubt anyone would argue that a militia is sufficient to fight abroad.  However, there needs to be a real and present danger to warrant a standing army, and there simply isn't at this time.  If there were hostile powers on all sides, you would have a good case.


It has nothing to do with going abroad. It has to do with putting together an effective fighting force on american soil and being able to provide that defence on American soil. As far a a present danger I agree but as to whether we should wait until the threat becomes obvious before trying to play catch up we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

----------


## Brett85

> Folks I think we can put a wrap on this one.  On the one extreme you have Traditional Conservative who would keep the military close to the same size but just bring them home.


Yeah, it's funny that I'm an "extremist" on these forums for not wanting to reduce the size of the army.  Over at free republic I'm an extremist for wanting to bring all of our troops home from around the world.  So I'm really just somewhere in the middle.

----------


## Pericles

> And what people are failing to realize is that the training reserve and national guard units receive does not make them ready to go to war at a division level. Almost all of the guard units are required to be federally activated and trained for 3 to 12 months BEFORE they are sent overseas. Many reserve comanders get relieved of command on activation because they do NOT have the skills to integrate their unit into a large military command. The reserve officers go through all the same war colleges as their active duty counterparts yet what they don't have is any real on the ground large training that seperates a real commander from a good test passer in college. I have deployed three times and everyone of my commanders was not ready to lead. One would have been fragged by the vietnam war veteran warrent officer pilots in my unit had we seen combat. One was not releaved of command only because the active brigade commander could not come up with a active MSC officer in his command to replace him with. The last one WAS relieved of command in combat and shipped out of the country withing 24 hours. The morale was absolutely horrible not because these commanders were bad people but were untrained and could not provide the necessary leadership to bring the unit together as a team. 
> My unit that trained four times as long as most other reserve units because of our mission, was never ready to become part of the active combat unit until we had three months of active duty training. The training necessary to become proficient at mobile war operations takes a lot longer than any reserve unit can spent the time doing. Any reserve unit put together in a matter of days or weeks would absolutely be routed and scattered on contact with a trained army.


And that's ^ a fact, Jack!

By the time we get down to the current crop of militia guys, most of the units and leaders don't even have a clue as to how much they don't know about fighting a war (hint to some posters on this board).

----------


## affa

> Well in that case I apologize, I must have remembered incorrectly, or perhaps our discussions in the past just never actually got right down to this question. My motivation for participating in this discussion is simply to argue against the extreme position that the federal government shouldn't be involved in running an army/navy/air-force at all. Like i said, that's fantasy-land :-)
> 
> EDIT: Trust me, I've heard this argued many times, often by the more hardcore anarchy crowd who don't trust the state to do ANYTHING or even exist.


I honestly wouldn't fear invasion if we dismantled everything, but I know that's an extreme position and haven't argued it here.  But yea, where some seem to think we're going to get attacked if there is even a teensy hint of weakness, I don't.  At all. Especially since that would go hand in hand with an end to US imperial aggression.  That said, I'm perfectly fine with stepping down the military to the limits discussed in this thread.  Anything that stops our aggression and expenditures, anything that stops enriching the warmongers and war profiteers, really.

----------


## idirtify

> I'm pretty sure I didn't advocate putting massive amounts of troops in our cities.  I advocate putting our troops along both of our borders and coastlines.


So you are agreeing with my post 118?

----------


## idirtify

> Now you're just being ridiculous.


Really? Do you think Ron Paul is being ridiculous also?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...793&context=va

In the words of  Rep. Ron Paul: 
"...the fusion centers, militarized police, surveillance cameras and a domestic military command is not enough... Even though *we know that detention facilities are already in place*, they now want to legalize the construction of *FEMA camps on military installations* using the ever popular excuse that the facilities are for the purposes of a national emergency. With the phony debt-based economy getting worse and worse by the day, the possibility of civil unrest is becoming a greater threat to the establishment. One need only look at Iceland, Greece and other nations for what might happen in the United States next." (Daily Paul, September 2008, emphasis added)

----------


## Brett85

> Really? Do you think Ron Paul is being ridiculous also?
> 
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...793&context=va
> 
> In the words of  Rep. Ron Paul: 
> "...the fusion centers, militarized police, surveillance cameras and a domestic military command is not enough... Even though *we know that detention facilities are already in place*, they now want to legalize the construction of *FEMA camps on military installations* using the ever popular excuse that the facilities are for the purposes of a national emergency. With the phony debt-based economy getting worse and worse by the day, the possibility of civil unrest is becoming a greater threat to the establishment. One need only look at Iceland, Greece and other nations for what might happen in the United States next." (Daily Paul, September 2008, emphasis added)


I think Ron was a little over the top on this one.  Unfortunately, some libertarians seem prone to accepting fringe conspiracy theories.  From the article:

"The stated purpose of  the "national emergency centers" is to provide "temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster." 

While that certainly seems unnecessary to me, the purpose of it is to provide assistance to people who have been displaced by hurricanes.  After Hurricane Katrina, FEMA had to transport people to other states and find homes for them to live in.  Apparently they now think a large facility would be better.  But they aren't going to start rounding millions of people up for some evil purpose of creating an American holocaust.

----------


## Brett85

> So you are agreeing with my post 118?


You were right that bringing our troops home to defend our own country would save a lot of money, because we wouldn't be using them to intervene in all these foreign conflicts all the time.  It's the foreign intervention that costs so much money.

----------


## pcosmar

> After Hurricane Katrina, FEMA had to transport people to other states and find homes for them to live in.  Apparently they now think a large facility would be better.


NO they didn't have to. They did it because they could. They did it so developers could seize property. They did it for practice in moving populations .
There was never any NEED. FEMA deliberately prevented aid, clean up and rebuilding.
That was a training exercise.

----------


## idirtify

> I think Ron was a little over the top on this one.  Unfortunately, some libertarians seem prone to accepting fringe conspiracy theories.  From the article:
> 
> "The stated purpose of  the "national emergency centers" is to provide "temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster." 
> 
> While that certainly seems unnecessary to me, the purpose of it is to provide assistance to people who have been displaced by hurricanes.  After Hurricane Katrina, FEMA had to transport people to other states and find homes for them to live in.  Apparently they now think a large facility would be better.  But they aren't going to start rounding millions of people up for some evil purpose of creating an American holocaust.


So the basis of your argument here is that you believe what the federal government tells you, even though you admit it doesn’t seem credible? That doesn’t sound like a credible basis to me. Do you typically believe what the government tells you? Do you not know that they have a reputation for lying?

----------


## idirtify

> You were right that bringing our troops home to defend our own country would save a lot of money, because we wouldn't be using them to intervene in all these foreign conflicts all the time.  It's the foreign intervention that costs so much money.


Well that’s great. We agree. Except for the detail of building “bases”. Guard duty for “Homeland Sentinel” would not need new “bases” (as is typically defined in this context as: “huge military installations”). I mean all that’s needed are more “clock-in offices” for all the guards to keep their time (and maybe take coffee breaks). Of course you will correct me if you think I’m wrong about that. OK, maybe I am a little. Maybe they will need a place to store guns and ammo. No; they could do that in their vehicles, of which there will be shortage after all the transportation and portable storage equipment has been brought back from the foreign wars. Heck maybe we’ll even let them sit in the vehicles, rather than stand/pace like a guard all day. No, I take that one back; they need to stand outside their vehicles at watch all day so that we can see to it that they are not cruising the internet or on their cell phone all day; maybe even require that they pace back and forth with their rifle over their shoulder like in the movies. Agreed?

----------


## affa

> "The stated purpose of  the "national emergency centers" is to provide "temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster."


Oh, well, if that their 'stated purpose' we should all just move along, nothing to see here.  Right? As long as they come up with a reason, however nonsensical, we should take them at their word.

----------


## Brett85

> So the basis of your argument here is that you believe what the federal government tells you, even though you admit it doesnt seem credible? That doesnt sound like a credible basis to me. Do you typically believe what the government tells you? Do you not know that they have a reputation for lying?


I don't believe that the government is inherently evil.  I just believe that the government is way too big, spends too much, taxes too much, and takes away too many of our personal liberties.  But I don't believe that our politicians are secretly trying to kill us all.  That's a pretty extreme point of view.

----------


## Brett85

> Well that’s great. We agree. Except for the detail of building “bases”. Guard duty for “Homeland Sentinel” would not need new “bases” (as is typically defined in this context as: “huge military installations”). I mean all that’s needed are more “clock-in offices” for all the guards to keep their time (and maybe take coffee breaks). Of course you will correct me if you think I’m wrong about that. OK, maybe I am a little. Maybe they will need a place to store guns and ammo. No; they could do that in their vehicles, of which there will be shortage after all the transportation and portable storage equipment has been brought back from the foreign wars. Heck maybe we’ll even let them sit in the vehicles, rather than stand/pace like a guard all day. No, I take that one back; they need to stand outside their vehicles at watch all day so that we can see to it that they are not cruising the internet or on their cell phone all day; maybe even require that they pace back and forth with their rifle over their shoulder like in the movies. Agreed?


I really don't understand your writing style.

----------


## idirtify

> I don't believe that the government is inherently evil.  I just believe that the government is way too big, spends too much, taxes too much, and takes away too many of our personal liberties.  But I don't believe that our politicians are secretly trying to kill us all.  That's a pretty extreme point of view.


OK, so you disagree with what Thomas Paine said in 1776, and with all the related Jeffersonian views about government being a necessary evil. That is a very contentious viewpoint and does nothing to add credibility to your position, but at least it’s relevant to the discussion. But where did I say anything about “our politicians are secretly trying to kill us all”? I agree that that’s a “pretty extreme point of view”, but it’s also a strawman argument.

----------


## idirtify

> I really don't understand your writing style.


Sorry… I was originally being facetious, but now I’m being serious. Is this (the job description in my post) close to what you are advocating, in terms of what our military should be doing after all the troops are brought home?

----------


## affa

> OK, so you disagree with what Thomas Paine said in 1776, and with all the related Jeffersonian views about government being a necessary evil. That is a very contentious viewpoint and does nothing to add credibility to your position, but at least it’s relevant to the discussion. But where did I say anything about “our politicians are secretly trying to kill us all”? I agree that that’s a “pretty extreme point of view”, but it’s also a strawman argument.


I wonder, if he hears this term 'strawman' enough times, whether he'll bother to actually research what it means and take it to heart.

----------


## pcosmar

> I don't believe that the government is inherently evil.  I just believe that the government is way too big, spends too much, taxes too much, and takes away too many of our personal liberties.  But I don't believe that our politicians are secretly trying to kill us all.  That's a pretty extreme point of view.


 then you are* ignorant of history.* and recent history at that.
There are a great may evil people in government. Evil and Power hungry people seek out such positions.
There are multiple examples of deliberate evil done by government. You would have to be willfully ignorant to not have heard of some.

----------


## Brett85

> Sorry… I was originally being facetious, but now I’m being serious. Is this (the job description in my post) close to what you are advocating, in terms of what our military should be doing after all the troops are brought home?


I'm advocating that we close down all of our foreign military bases and bring our troops home.  I would then place our troops along both of our borders and both of our coastlines.  This seems like it would be a much better *national defense* strategy than using our military to defend the entire world.  Since we would have troops along the borders and coastlines, we would have to build additional bases for their living quarters.  I don't believe the number of new bases would have to equal 800, which is the number of foreign bases we now have.  So we would still be saving money by bringing troops home and not intervening overseas.  The troops that I wouldn't put along the borders and coastlines would be sent to military bases that already exist in the United States.  They would serve the same function as the troops that currently serve within the United States.

----------


## Brett85

> But where did I say anything about our politicians are secretly trying to kill us all?





> Are you not aware of the many detention camps around the country ready and waiting to fence in millions?


I assumed you were saying that the government is planning to round up millions of Americans and place them in detention camps with the ultimate goal of mass genocide.

----------


## pcosmar

> I assumed you were saying that the government is planning to round up millions of Americans and place them in detention camps with the ultimate goal of mass genocide.


There is that potential. Though no one made that claim.
How many Americans were sterilized by the government?
How many were permanently scared by MK Ultra experiments?
How many were infected with diseases? or radiation?
*Deliberately.*
Cases of these are documented,,, before you attempt to refute the facts.

Then start looking into CPS or pedophile rings involving High level Government officials.
Look into the face of EVIL.

----------


## idirtify

> I'm advocating that we close down all of our foreign military bases and bring our troops home.  I would then place our troops along both of our borders and both of our coastlines.  This seems like it would be a much better *national defense* strategy than using our military to defend the entire world.  Since we would have troops along the borders and coastlines, we would have to build additional bases for their living quarters.  I don't believe the number of new bases would have to equal 800, which is the number of foreign bases we now have.  So we would still be saving money by bringing troops home and not intervening overseas.  The troops that I wouldn't put along the borders and coastlines would be sent to military bases that already exist in the United States.  They would serve the same function as the troops that currently serve within the United States.


Very good. You have elaborated a bit more on your plan for the troops after bringing them home. But I’m perplexed on why you are avoiding directly replying to my plan, since it is so similar to yours. No matter, I’ll handle that end of it just fine: About how many of the total 1.5 million troops would you place around our nation – literally standing guard duty 24/7 around the perimeter of the USA?

----------


## idirtify

> I assumed you were saying that the government is planning to round up millions of Americans and place them in detention camps with the ultimate goal of mass genocide.


While I do not know how many the government is planning to round up and place in detention camps or if they are planning mass genocide, there’s quite a gap between “millions” and “us all” (300+million). I mean the camps/yards that exist could hold millions, but certainly not the whole population. I think the basic theory is that they would only imprison the dissidents. 

Do you understand the term “strawman” and that it means distorting your opponent’s position?

----------


## AFPVet

> Very good. You have elaborated a bit more on your plan for the troops after bringing them home. But I’m perplexed on why you are avoiding directly replying to my plan, since it is so similar to yours. No matter, I’ll handle that end of it just fine: About how many of the total 1.5 million troops would you place around our nation – literally standing guard duty 24/7 around the perimeter of the USA?


Technology has come a long way. Troops are no longer required to stand guard duty on the borders. Sensors and camera's and/or satellite systems can signal problems which could result in troops in vehicles who would respond and investigate. They would be a great resource for border patrol... in fact, our troops are supposed to be doing border patrol during wartime anyways.

----------


## CasualApathy

> I honestly wouldn't fear invasion if we dismantled everything, but I know that's an extreme position and haven't argued it here.  But yea, where some seem to think we're going to get attacked if there is even a teensy hint of weakness, I don't.  At all. Especially since that would go hand in hand with an end to US imperial aggression.  That said, I'm perfectly fine with stepping down the military to the limits discussed in this thread.  Anything that stops our aggression and expenditures, anything that stops enriching the warmongers and war profiteers, really.


I am really curious why you wouldn't worry about being basically defenseless? If you dismantled everything, how would you defend yourself _as individuals_ against the potential aggression of nation states?

----------


## Brett85

> Very good. You have elaborated a bit more on your plan for the troops after bringing them home. But Im perplexed on why you are avoiding directly replying to my plan, since it is so similar to yours. No matter, Ill handle that end of it just fine: About how many of the total 1.5 million troops would you place around our nation  literally standing guard duty 24/7 around the perimeter of the USA?


I would imagine probably half that number.  Perhaps 750,000.

----------


## Pericles

For the amusement of the posters on this thread:

----------


## Arion45

Propaganda.

----------


## Pericles

> Propaganda.


Yes, but who's propaganda would CNN promote?

----------


## 1836

> Yes.  America should have the largest military in the world and be the world's leading superpower.  However, we should use our troops to defend our own country rather than using them to police the world.


Exactly. We need that army to defend our rights from threats abroad, just as we should have other checks to defend our rights at home.

----------


## Arion45

> It has nothing to do with going abroad. It has to do with putting together an effective fighting force on american soil and being able to provide that defence on American soil. As far a a present danger I agree but as to whether we should wait until the threat becomes obvious before trying to play catch up we are just going to have to agree to disagree.


What you don't understand is that it is not a disagreement. It is either one pays to support this army or be imprisioned. You support this. So you are not saying I disagree with you, what you are saying is you are wrong and I support armed men with guns to put a person if a cage if thay do not support your position. This is not freedom but tyranny of the maases.

----------


## Arion45

> Look, I already addressed this:
> 
> An invading army wouldn't have to occupy more geographical area than they could secure, if not facing an organized army. 
> 
> Invading Russia in winter is pretty dumb, but the Germans were also facing the full force and power of the soviet state. They literally moved entire factories and relocated them away from the invading German army, an impressive feat that couldn't have been accomplished without the soviet state directing it. Also it's really no surprise that regular people fought back along with the soviet army since they knew that there was no mercy even for civilians when the German army advanced. 
> 
> Afghanistan is a mute point, since the resistance there could be crushed easily by the vastly superior might of the US forces if they didn't have to care how it looked on TV.


Your statement about Afghanistan was just  outrageously ridiculous. First of all the media no longer reports on what is really going on over there. So it does not matter what they do because the majority of thempopulation is not paying attention. The government learned not to give too much info from vietnam. Second the United States has spent over a trillion dollars over ten years of war there. If they can not get the job done in this amount of time then it is either impossible or the military is completely inept.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Lying down armies aren't that effective. Standing is much better.   Lol.

----------


## jmdrake

> For the amusement of the posters on this thread:


Yeah.  So?  China is the world's dominate economic superpower and they are becoming the world's dominate military superpower.  The only way for us to compete as it stands it to borrow more money....from *China*.  That just increases China's economic power.  Also the mission on that video was an appropriate one.  (Evacuating Chinese nationals in Libya).  I hate to say this, but in many ways our foreign policy should match what China did here.

----------


## idirtify

> Technology has come a long way. Troops are no longer required to stand guard duty on the borders. Sensors and camera's and/or satellite systems can signal problems which could result in troops in vehicles who would respond and investigate. They would be a great resource for border patrol... in fact, our troops are supposed to be doing border patrol during wartime anyways.


Good post, but although guard duty is no longer required, we are talking about what SHOULD BE required. So why not require it again? Adding troops to stand guard duty AND having all the latest technology would certainly be a winning combo. And it wouldnt be a problem even if its only allowed/constitutional during wartime, since we have officially entered the phase of perpetual war (war on terror). But given this particular perpetual war, I dont think anyone is going to argue that 1.5 million troops brought home will be too busy doing other things to stand guard duty. I mean reallywhat else will they be able to credibly claim they have to do? How long can 1.5 million well-trained soldiers get away with using the training and maintaining bases excuses for not doing the most no-brainer, most fundamental, most obvious kind of military defense??

----------


## idirtify

> I would imagine probably half that number.  Perhaps 750,000.


And the other 750,000 well-trained troops will be doing WHAT?

----------


## AFPVet

> Good post, but although guard duty is no longer required, we are talking about what SHOULD BE required. So why not require it again? Adding troops to stand guard duty AND having all the latest technology would certainly be a winning combo. And it wouldnt be a problem even if its only allowed/constitutional during wartime, since we have officially entered the phase of perpetual war (war on terror). But given this particular perpetual war, I dont think anyone is going to argue that 1.5 million troops brought home will be too busy doing other things to stand guard duty. I mean reallywhat else will they be able to credibly claim they have to do? How long can 1.5 million well-trained soldiers get away with using the training and maintaining bases excuses for not doing the most no-brainer, most fundamental, most obvious kind of military defense??


Well said!

----------


## Brett85

> And the other 750,000 well-trained troops will be doing WHAT?


They would be involved in training and performing all the other functions that our troops currently perform on the military bases that we already have within the United States.

----------


## Pericles

> And the other 750,000 well-trained troops will be doing WHAT?


FYI

Active Army strength (including mobilized Guard & Reserve) 547,400
National Guard authorized strength 358,200
Army Reserve authorized strength 205,000

Don't know where you get the rest from - carry on.

----------


## oyarde

> While I do not know how many the government is planning to round up and place in detention camps or if they are planning mass genocide, there’s quite a gap between “millions” and “us all” (300+million). I mean the camps/yards that exist could hold millions, but certainly not the whole population. I think the basic theory is that they would only imprison the dissidents. 
> 
> Do you understand the term “strawman” and that it means distorting your opponent’s position?


Anyone have an estimate on how many dissidents ? If I recall , active participation in the Revolution was around 15 % .

----------


## CasualApathy

> Your statement about Afghanistan was just  outrageously ridiculous. First of all the media no longer reports on what is really going on over there. So it does not matter what they do because the majority of thempopulation is not paying attention. The government learned not to give too much info from vietnam. Second the United States has spent over a trillion dollars over ten years of war there. If they can not get the job done in this amount of time then it is either impossible or the military is completely inept.


No it wasn't :P

You can bet the media would report it if American troops started carrying out a genocide in Afghanistan. And genocide works too, no matter what you may think, all throughout history it has been shown to be the ultimate solution to break the resistance of a people, or simply clearing them out. Sad but true. (In ancient times ravaging armies would even salt the earth to prevent agriculture and make it uninhabitable).

There can be no question that if the US forces had no limitations put on them, and the goal was to secure Afghanistan at any cost, rebels wouldn't stand a chance (I.E. they can't hide amongst civilians as they do today)

----------


## klamath

> What you don't understand is that it is not a disagreement. It is either one pays to support this army or be imprisioned. You support this. So you are not saying I disagree with you, what you are saying is you are wrong and I support armed men with guns to put a person if a cage if thay do not support your position. This is not freedom but tyranny of the maases.


Well get used to it if you want to be a smartass. Anarchy has never existed in the history of the world and it is not going to  start. I feel that there is a greater  threat of the armed gangs of the attempted anarchy taking by force what is mine, or a foreign power taking what is mine whether it is my property or life, than a small active army.
I can say you support armed gangs killing me and taking my property. This is not freedom but tyranny of the few.

----------


## klamath

> No it wasn't :P
> 
> You can bet the media would report it if American troops started carrying out a genocide in Afghanistan. And genocide works too, no matter what you may think, all throughout history it has been shown to be the ultimate solution to break the resistance of a people, or simply clearing them out. Sad but true. (In ancient times ravaging armies would even salt the earth to prevent agriculture and make it uninhabitable).
> 
> There can be no question that if the US forces had no limitations put on them, and the goal was to secure Afghanistan at any cost, rebels wouldn't stand a chance (I.E. they can't hide amongst civilians as they do today)



Absolutely true. People that have no clue, always make the statement that a few insurgents pinned down the worlds most powerful army in Iraq. Iraq would have been a barren waste land had utter "brown people" elimination had been our goal.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> No it wasn't :P
> 
> You can bet the media would report it if American troops started carrying out a genocide in Afghanistan. And genocide works too, no matter what you may think, all throughout history it has been shown to be the ultimate solution to break the resistance of a people, or simply clearing them out. Sad but true. (In ancient times ravaging armies would even salt the earth to prevent agriculture and make it uninhabitable).
> *
> There can be no question that if the US forces had no limitations put on them, and the goal was to secure Afghanistan at any cost, rebels wouldn't stand a chance (I.E. they can't hide amongst civilians as they do today)*


 O, really?  AFAIK, the Soviets didn't have any limitations put on them, (even though they didn't have the kind of hardware the modern occupying forces have, they still had more firepower than the Afghans) and they still lost in trying to conquer Afghanistan.  (correct me if I'm wrong, of course)

----------


## CasualApathy

> O, really?  AFAIK, the Soviets didn't have any limitations put on them, (even though they didn't have the kind of hardware the modern occupying forces have, they still had more firepower than the Afghans) and they still lost in trying to conquer Afghanistan.  (correct me if I'm wrong, of course)


Well, as far as you know is wrong - the soviets were limited by public opinion as well, especially at the time of their Afghan war.

Edit: The soviets were certainly more ruthless than the US, but their invasion of Afghanistan also led to strong condemnation, trade embargoes and many other sanctions. Still, nearly 2 million afghans were killed, and nearly 10 million displaced, leading to a large outcry and accusations of genocide. International pressure along with the collapsing soviet economy and military forced the withdrawal before they could "finish the job", so to speak...

Soviet casualties numbered at 14.453, do the math.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Well, as far as you know is wrong - the soviets were limited by public opinion as well, especially at the time of their Afghan war.


 Got a link?  I can't find anything to verify your claim.

----------


## Brett85

The thread that never dies.

----------


## CasualApathy

> Got a link?  I can't find anything to verify your claim.


If wiki is good enough for ya: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan :-)

----------


## idirtify

> They would be involved in training and performing all the other functions that our troops currently perform on the military bases that we already have within the United States.


Please go back and read my post 420 (the second half), where I perfectly predicted your excuses (for not making the troops perform the most basic defense function of guard duty). And as you write a better response, remember that:
1) all 150million of these troops are well trained and experienced;
2) most of the current military-base functions are connected to the foreign wars.

----------


## idirtify

> The thread that never dies.


Aw, this is nothing. Now suck it up and reply to my rebuttals!

----------


## idirtify

> FYI
> 
> Active Army strength (including mobilized Guard & Reserve) 547,400
> National Guard authorized strength 358,200
> Army Reserve authorized strength 205,000
> 
> Don't know where you get the rest from - carry on.


The 1.5 mil figure came from affa, post #112.

----------


## Brett85

> Aw, this is nothing. Now suck it up and reply to my rebuttals!


I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "guard duty," but it sounds like it could be a good plan.  I'm not a military expert by any means, but I just know that my philosophy is that we shouldn't use our military to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries, but we should have a strong military to maintain a strong national defense here at home.  I think if our country was attacked and we actually had to raise an army before we went to war, that could end up taking many months or even years.  So it's essential to have an army ready and well equipped at home to be able to immediately respond to an attack on our soil.  As for all of the exact different functions that our troops would perform here at home, that's something that I should probably think more about and do more research into.  But what exactly do the 50,000 troops do that we have in Germany?  It seems as though they would certainly have nothing to do.  Germany isn't exactly a hot spot in the world at the current moment.

----------


## klamath

> I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "guard duty," but it sounds like it could be a good plan.  I'm not a military expert by any means, but I just know that my philosophy is that we shouldn't use our military to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries, but we should have a strong military to maintain a strong national defense here at home.  I think if our country was attacked and we actually had to raise an army before we went to war, that could end up taking many months or even years.  So it's essential to have an army ready and well equipped at home to be able to immediately respond to an attack on our soil.  As for all of the exact different functions that our troops would perform here at home, that's something that I should probably think more about and do more research into.  But what exactly do the 50,000 troops do that we have in Germany?  It seems as though they would certainly have nothing to do.  Germany isn't exactly a hot spot in the world at the current moment.


Any well trained army unit trains at least 7 to 11 months a year. That is what it takes to stay proficient. They don't set around planning how they are going to kill the next US citizen.

----------


## Pericles

> The 1.5 mil figure came from affa, post #112.


Knowing something about the subject being discussed can enhance credibility.

----------


## Arion45

> Well get used to it if you want to be a smartass. Anarchy has never existed in the history of the world and it is not going to  start. I feel that there is a greater  threat of the armed gangs of the attempted anarchy taking by force what is mine, or a foreign power taking what is mine whether it is my property or life, than a small active army.
> I can say you support armed gangs killing me and taking my property. This is not freedom but tyranny of the few.


That is the stupidest response I have ever received , you win the internets.

----------


## affa

> I'm advocating that we close down all of our foreign military bases and bring our troops home.  I would then place our troops along both of our borders and both of our coastlines.  This seems like it would be a much better *national defense* strategy than using our military to defend the entire world.


I know you'll never respond to me, because you never do, but here's a thought:

What would you think America's response would be if Mexico suddenly moved, say, 100k of it's 250k (if i remember correctly) army to the US Border to 'protect' it?

Now, what do you think Mexico would think if we suddenly moved, say, 500k (of our just under 1.5million troops) to the Mexico border?   Would that not practically force them to move a sizeable number of troops to the border as well, otherwise they might seem 'weak' by your own arguments and statements?   Can you not see the fundamental flaw in your reasoning?

----------


## Arion45

> No it wasn't :P
> 
> You can bet the media would report it if American troops started carrying out a genocide in Afghanistan. And genocide works too, no matter what you may think, all throughout history it has been shown to be the ultimate solution to break the resistance of a people, or simply clearing them out. Sad but true. (In ancient times ravaging armies would even salt the earth to prevent agriculture and make it uninhabitable).
> 
> There can be no question that if the US forces had no limitations put on them, and the goal was to secure Afghanistan at any cost, rebels wouldn't stand a chance (I.E. they can't hide amongst civilians as they do today)


Sure the United States could also end the war on terrorism by nuking the middle east but what exacltly is your point? 

How many afghan civilains have died since 2001? When you find that that out imagine if that was your country.

----------


## Brett85

> I know you'll never respond to me, because you never do, but here's a thought:
> 
> What would you think America's response would be if Mexico suddenly moved, say, 100k of it's 250k (if i remember correctly) army to the US Border to 'protect' it?
> 
> Now, what do you think Mexico would think if we suddenly moved, say, 500k (of our just under 1.5million troops) to the Mexico border?   Would that not practically force them to move a sizeable number of troops to the border as well, otherwise they might seem 'weak' by your own arguments and statements?   Can you not see the fundamental flaw in your reasoning?


If there were a large number of Americans who were illegally crossing into Mexico every single day, I could see your point.  But the entire illegal immigration problem is coming from Mexico, not the United States.  I wouldn't think there would be a problem with sending our troops to the U.S-Mexico border as long as they stayed on our side of the border.  But yes, we would need to make sure not to make any move that would provoke Mexico in any way.  We would need to make it clear to them that we were sending our troops to the border to maintain our sovereignty as a country and keep out people who may want to harm us.  At the same time, we would need to make it clear to Mexico that we aren't going to prohibit people from coming to the United States legally.  I would keep the rate of legal immigration about the same as it is right now.

----------


## klamath

> That is the stupidest response I have ever received , you win the internets.


Funny I thought the same thing about yours.

----------


## CasualApathy

> Sure the United States could also end the war on terrorism by nuking the middle east but what exacltly is your point? 
> 
> How many afghan civilains have died since 2001? When you find that that out imagine if that was your country.


My point was simply to burst the illusion that somehow scattered groups of ill equipped fighters (compared to the US army) could somehow stand their own if it really came down to it.

----------


## idirtify

> FYI
> 
> Active Army strength (including mobilized Guard & Reserve) 547,400
> National Guard authorized strength 358,200
> Army Reserve authorized strength 205,000
> 
> Don't know where you get the rest from - carry on.


Agreed, so lets look into it further. Your numbers, total 1.11million. Wikipedias total 2.94million (active personnel 1,477,896; reserve personnel 1,458,500). 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces
Ours was 1.5million. 

So whose numbers do you prefer?

----------


## idirtify

> Any well trained army unit trains at least 7 to 11 months a year. That is what it takes to stay proficient. They don't set around planning how they are going to kill the next US citizen.


Are you telling us that active/experienced troops need to retrain for 60% to 92% of the year, every year; and can only serve/fight 8-40% of the time?

----------


## idirtify

> I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "guard duty," but it sounds like it could be a good plan.  I'm not a military expert by any means, but I just know that my philosophy is that we shouldn't use our military to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries, but we should have a strong military to maintain a strong national defense here at home.  I think if our country was attacked and we actually had to raise an army before we went to war, that could end up taking many months or even years.  So it's essential to have an army ready and well equipped at home to be able to immediately respond to an attack on our soil.  As for all of the exact different functions that our troops would perform here at home, that's something that I should probably think more about and do more research into.  But what exactly do the 50,000 troops do that we have in Germany?  It seems as though they would certainly have nothing to do.  Germany isn't exactly a hot spot in the world at the current moment.


Ahh, it is good to agree. And I also agree that many of the troops would be well experienced in doing nothing but rote guard duty, because thats probably what they do (or less) in places like Germany (as you say). But its basically wasted over there, so lets bring them home and put them to good use and stand them all around OUR country.

----------


## affa

> I am really curious why you wouldn't worry about being basically defenseless? If you dismantled everything, how would you defend yourself _as individuals_ against the potential aggression of nation states?


Again, I am not arguing for this extreme, because I'd be perfectly content with the wind down already being discussed within this thread.  However, I do not not believe:
1) A United States without a military is 'defenseless' given our
a) naturally defensive geography
b) a massive, armed population
c) the logistical difficultly of mounting a sustained attack given a and b

2) Furthermore, I do not believe a demilitarized US will be a 'instant target', since we'd also be removing our troops from around the world.  Why risk waking a 'sleeping giant' by attacking us?  Why risk destroying their own economy?  

3) It would be much easier for a nation like China to absolutely destroy our economy than mount a physical attack.  This is true now, even with a massive military, but would still be true even if demilitarized.   To put it clearly: I do not believe any nation capable of attacking us would attack us when there are significantly better alternatives.

4) Troop buildup creates a ripple effect.  For example, if we placed 500k troops on the Mexico border, as TC seems to suggest, it would force Mexico to similarly build up along that border for their own defense against us.  In fact, they'd likely need to double the size of their own military just to handle this new 'threat'. 

Basically, I just don't think, as several have claimed here, that we will be attacked the second we look 'weak'.  I think that's an absurd concept, in fact.  The most likely reason we will be attacked is due to our own never ending aggression.   

I mean, let's say China demilitarized tomorrow.  Would we attack them because they're 'weak'?  I don't think we would, at least, I hope not, because if so we've become a terrible people.  And no small nation would even consider it, since they'd wake the giant and get slapped down.  

But again, I'm perfectly happy with a defensive navy and air force, and small group of 'trainers', plus general militias, etc.

----------


## Brett85

> Again, I am not arguing for this extreme, because I'd be perfectly content with the wind down already being discussed within this thread.  However, I do not not believe:
> 1) A United States without a military is 'defenseless' given our
> a) naturally defensive geography
> b) *a massive, armed population*c) the logistical difficultly of mounting a sustained attack given a and b


Sorry, but a lot of this stuff just seems crazy to me.  Are you suggesting that American citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons in order to defend the United States?  If not, what kind of weapons would individuals actually own?

----------


## pcosmar

> Sorry, but a lot of this stuff just seems crazy to me.  Are you suggesting that American citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons in order to defend the United States?  If not, what kind of weapons would individuals actually own?


Who said anything about Nuclear weapons?
And why do you think they are used in defense? (they never have been)

----------


## CasualApathy

> Again, I am not arguing for this extreme, because I'd be perfectly content with the wind down already being discussed within this thread.  However, I do not not believe:
> 1) A United States without a military is 'defenseless' given our
> a) naturally defensive geography
> b) a massive, armed population
> c) the logistical difficultly of mounting a sustained attack given a and b
> 
> 2) Furthermore, I do not believe a demilitarized US will be a 'instant target', since we'd also be removing our troops from around the world.  Why risk waking a 'sleeping giant' by attacking us?  Why risk destroying their own economy?  
> 
> 3) It would be much easier for a nation like China to absolutely destroy our economy than mount a physical attack.  This is true now, even with a massive military, but would still be true even if demilitarized.   To put it clearly: I do not believe any nation capable of attacking us would attack us when there are significantly better alternatives.
> ...


Thanks for laying out your argument so well. You make good points, and I agree that if the US demilitarized tomorrow, it probably wouldn't lead to any kind of imminent military attack. The geopolitics in play in the world today are like a giant cobweb of conflicting interests, with power constantly shifting between factions, and in todays information age world especially the world is a very complex place.. o_0

The US withdrawing from foreign wars should have a great positive impact, at least initially. I personally think that the goodwill might be a little short lived, as people tend to be pretty glad when you stop abusing them, but in the long run they're really not going to just forgive you for it. That's going to take a lot more, and a long time probably.

My point is that when you envision how you might wish to change the nature of society, you have to think beyond the present and immediate future, and consider the long term viability of your ideas. The world could look completely different 10 years from now, not to mention 20 years from now. If the US demilitarized to a point where you would be vulnerable to an attack, I believe history sadly demonstrates that it is only a matter of time before someone will attempt to take advantage of your weakness. To a large extent it is human nature I'm afraid, our lust for power and domination over others. We often claim to be above our basic biological nature, but so often I see us just trying to over-rationalize, as we close our eyes to just how much it influences our actions. Case and point being how two people in differing emotional states will react completely differently to the exact same situation. 

Some things you just can't ever expect to change, a lot of great poetry has been written about them though.

----------


## Brett85

> Who said anything about Nuclear weapons?
> And why do you think they are used in defense? (they never have been)


I would think that U.S citizens would need the same type of weapons that a potential invading nation would have.  Fighting nuclear weapons with bombs wouldn't work very well.

----------


## pcosmar

> I would think that U.S citizens would need the same type of weapons that a potential invading nation would have.  Fighting nuclear weapons with bombs wouldn't work very well.


Why would anyone invading make the place they wanted   UNINHABITABLE ?

You lack both logic and critical thinking.

----------


## CasualApathy

> Why would anyone invading make the place they wanted   UNINHABITABLE ?
> 
> You lack both logic and critical thinking.


If we imagine the scenario where the US was under attack by an enemy capable and willing to use nukes, and you had none to fire back, they wouldn't have to nuke every square inch of the US to get the American people to end their resistance... The Japanese took two before they surrendered unconditionally, I honestly don't think it is ever going to take more than one ever again.

----------


## pcosmar

> If we imagine the scenario where the US was under attack by an enemy capable and willing to use nukes, and you had none to fire back, they wouldn't have to nuke every square inch of the US to get the American people to end their resistance... The Japanese took two before they surrendered unconditionally, I honestly don't think it is ever going to take more than one ever again.


And again,,Japan is how small compared to the US?
 A nuke in ANY major city would affect me how? (other than to piss me off)

nuclear weapons are about useless in an invasion. They are for retaliation and NOTHING Else.

----------


## Pro-Life Libertarian

Absolutely

----------


## CasualApathy

> And again,,Japan is how small compared to the US?
>  A nuke in ANY major city would affect me how? (other than to piss me off)
> 
> nuclear weapons are about useless in an invasion. They are for retaliation and NOTHING Else.


... I don't really know how to argue with that. For me, seeing major cities wiped out by nuclear bombs would affect me a lot. The tragedy of it, I can't even imagine how I would feel.

----------


## pcosmar

> ... I don't really know how to argue with that. For me, seeing major cities wiped out by nuclear bombs would affect me a lot. The tragedy of it, I can't even imagine how I would feel.


 I am an Angry American. I am angry about a great many things.
An attack that took out a city would Anger me even more.

And a great many like me.

I prefer to avoid violence,, that would likely provoke me to violence.

----------


## CasualApathy

> I am an Angry American. I am angry about a great many things.
> An attack that took out a city would Anger me even more.
> 
> And a great many like me.


Yeah, that sounds like a slogan :-)

I'm sorry, but I'm just being real. I appreciate that you're very angry and that's fine, but your arguments seem to be completely based your own ideals of rugged individualism. I don't believe most Americans, or indeed most people anywhere, would want to live in a society incapable of offering them any protection. When it comes right down to it what most people want is really just to live good happy lives, that's the real simple truth of it all.

----------


## affa

> The 1.5 mil figure came from affa, post #112.


The 1.5 million troops from post 112 is referring to all active duty troops, not just army.  It was in response to TC, who claimed we need to have the largest military in the world, and I was pointing out that we don't - we'd need to almost double our military to have the largest military.  I was also asking what why in the world we'd need that many active duty troops if all we were doing is defending our country.

----------


## robert68

> If we imagine the scenario where the US was under attack by an enemy capable and willing to use nukes, and you had none to fire back, they wouldn't have to nuke every square inch of the US to get the American people to end their resistance... The Japanese took two before they surrendered unconditionally, I honestly don't think it is ever going to take more than one ever again.


They had already surrendered and were already devasted from aerial fire bombings. What the US government did to them was savage and probably intended as a message to the Soviets.

----------


## affa

> Sorry, but a lot of this stuff just seems crazy to me.  Are you suggesting that American citizens should be allowed to own nuclear weapons in order to defend the United States?  If not, what kind of weapons would individuals actually own?


Um. No.  We have a massive, armed population already. Where in the world did I mention citizens owning nuclear weapons?  What?

----------


## Brett85

> Um. No.  We have a massive, armed population already. Where in the world did I mention citizens owning nuclear weapons?  What?


I'm just wondering how U.S citizens armed with guns can compete with Chinese nukes.

----------


## idirtify

> I know you'll never respond to me, because you never do, but here's a thought:
> 
> What would you think America's response would be if Mexico suddenly moved, say, 100k of it's 250k (if i remember correctly) army to the US Border to 'protect' it?
> 
> Now, what do you think Mexico would think if we suddenly moved, say, 500k (of our just under 1.5million troops) to the Mexico border?   Would that not practically force them to move a sizeable number of troops to the border as well, otherwise they might seem 'weak' by your own arguments and statements?   Can you not see the fundamental flaw in your reasoning?


I think you should reconsider Homeland Sentinel. We would have no thicker line on the southern border than we would on the rest of the US perimeter. The whole world would know we are doing nothing but bringing all troops home and keeping them employed to defend our soil. If Mexico doubts it, they could just call the Canadians and ask them if they see the same human fence? Actually I think most countries would interpret it as good news, especially the previously occupied ones. But if any country tried to interpret such a simple thing as offensive, they would not be credible.

----------


## Brett85

> A nuke in ANY major city would affect me how? (other than to piss me off)


It's simply unreal that anybody could write anything like that.  I've honestly never heard anything so ridiculous and dumbfounding.  You honestly think that millions of people dying from a nuclear explosion in a major city wouldn't affect you?  You don't believe that an entire city being wiped off the map would affect the economy in any way?  We lost over 1 million jobs on 9-11 alone, and that was an attack that killed 3,000 people.  What do you think would happen to the economy and our country in general if an entire city was wiped off the map?  Our country would cease to exist.  The United States of America would be extinct.  But I guess that wouldn't even matter to the anarchists.  All they care about is getting rid of government at all costs, even if that means the destruction of the United States.

----------


## JackieDan

what if America falls into Civil war? Don't you need an army to deal with this? I am not saying that a huge army is needed. But I think it's somehow necessary for governments to act immediately if needed. Maybe special forces and well trained marines are good. Remember, the standing army of the united states counts for approximately 1 % of U.S. population, it's a tiny number. However I think with today's technology, that can be considered to be great. America cannot invade the whole world with its current army. 

I would say that a standing army is more referred to an army much like Hitler and the Soviet Union had during WW2. See, Nazi Germany had 18 million active duty personnel just within the army. The Red Army consisted of 20 million people, and it was just an army of men. This excludes the Air force, Navy, police etc.

----------


## affa

> Thanks for laying out your argument so well. You make good points, and I agree that if the US demilitarized tomorrow, it probably wouldn't lead to any kind of imminent military attack. The geopolitics in play in the world today are like a giant cobweb of conflicting interests, with power constantly shifting between factions, and in todays information age world especially the world is a very complex place.. o_0


Thanks for the kind words, they're appreciated.  People debating often forget civility on the internet.  It's a shame it's that way nowadays, so good to see.




> The US withdrawing from foreign wars should have a great positive impact, at least initially. I personally think that the goodwill might be a little short lived, as people tend to be pretty glad when you stop abusing them, but in the long run they're really not going to just forgive you for it. That's going to take a lot more, and a long time probably.
> 
> My point is that when you envision how you might wish to change the nature of society, you have to think beyond the present and immediate future, and consider the long term viability of your ideas. The world could look completely different 10 years from now, not to mention 20 years from now. If the US demilitarized to a point where you would be vulnerable to an attack, I believe history sadly demonstrates that it is only a matter of time before someone will attempt to take advantage of your weakness. To a large extent it is human nature I'm afraid, our lust for power and domination over others. We often claim to be above our basic biological nature, but so often I see us just trying to over-rationalize, as we close our eyes to just how much it influences our actions. Case and point being how two people in differing emotional states will react completely differently to the exact same situation. 
> 
> Some things you just can't ever expect to change, a lot of great poetry has been written about them though.


I absolutely agree about the 'things change'.  100%.  Heck, many of the things I, and I bet many of us, were warning against in 1995 were in full effect by 2005, let alone 2011.  Things change.   

And that's essentially why I'm okay with the navy/air force/trainer/militia plan.  It's a solid defense, and it's defensive in nature -- as long as we don't start abusing the AF by sending them on endless bombing runs, but that's a different discussion. 

However, ultimately, I believe that we... hmm... this is hard to word, but we often create our own fate.  That is, if we plan for war, if we build for war, war will happen.  In a way, it must happen.  And so I propose building for, working towards, striving for peace.  And I believe if a country acts in such a manner -- both in talk and in walk -- one no longer has such a 'target' on it's back.   Of course, we can still get attacked.  I know terrible things can happen.  But we can be nuked, either literally or economically, any day as it is, if it came to that.  

There was a time when one could say America was beloved by the world.  That time is long gone.  But we could be that again, but part of accomplishing that requires not being puffed up like a peacock, thinking we rule the world.   With military might comes responsibility (that we've let wane), but also enemies.  In fact, that simple fact that we've let our military run so amok in the world is, to me, evidence that we need to take the car keys away from the drunk.  We're not responsible enough - at least, not now.

And ultimately, in regards to the title of this thread, I believe a standing army (as in specifically, army) is incredibly dangerous to liberty.

----------


## pcosmar

> It's simply unreal that anybody could write anything like that.  I've honestly never heard anything so ridiculous and dumbfounding.  You honestly think that millions of people dying from a nuclear explosion in a major city wouldn't affect you?  You don't believe that an entire city being wiped off the map would affect the economy in any way?  We lost over 1 million jobs on 9-11 alone, and that was an attack that killed 3,000 people.  What do you think would happen to the economy and our country in general if an entire city was wiped off the map?  Our country would cease to exist.  The United States of America would be extinct.  But I guess that wouldn't even matter to the anarchists.  All they care about is getting rid of government at all costs, even if that means the destruction of the United States.


We could do without Detroit, and that is closest. It would piss me off.( my sister is near by,, but well outside a blast area)  And it might piss off the neighbors as well. perhaps I would get some help from my cousins.

It would not help an invading army at all and would be of no tactical purpose.
I really wonder why people worry about something that is realistically unlikely.

----------


## affa

> I'm just wondering how U.S citizens armed with guns can compete with Chinese nukes.


If the Chinese decide to nuke us, no standing army, no navy, no air force, and no amount of nukes will save us.

----------


## affa

> what if America falls into Civil war? Don't you need an army to deal with this? I am not saying that a huge army is needed. But I think it's somehow necessary for governments to act immediately if needed.


If America falls into Civil War, the last thing we want would be for America to have a huge standing army.   Whose side do you think they're going to be on, ours?

----------


## pcosmar

> I'm just wondering how U.S citizens armed with guns can compete with Chinese nukes.


Why. What would be the purpose of the Chinese nuking the US? Why would they? 
It would make occupying and recovering resources in the radioactive areas impossible.
What possible reason would they have to do so?

----------


## Brett85

> If the Chinese decide to nuke us, no standing army, no navy, no air force, and no amount of nukes will save us.


We could build a missile defense system that's more technologically advanced and designed to even stop nuclear weapons from reaching the ground.  Also, if China nuked us, our government would then nuke them and there would be mutual destruction.  But my point is that United States citizens are not capable of defending the United States on their own.  National defense is something that our government is needed for.  If we didn't have a government we wouldn't even have a country.  I'm not even talking to the people who say that we should abolish the army and keep the navy and air force.  I'm just talking to *a very few* anarchists on these forums who believe that the 2nd amendment would somehow keep the U.S safe, even without any national defense from our government.

----------


## pcosmar

> Yeah, that sounds like a slogan :-)
> 
> I'm sorry, but I'm just being real. I appreciate that you're very angry and that's fine, *but your arguments seem to be completely based your own ideals of rugged individualism.*


You don't know much about America do you? My attitude is not mine alone.
The area where I live is populated with people like myself. Those that are not die or move.
UP winters will kill you,, or make you stronger.

----------


## Brett85

> Why. What would be the purpose of the Chinese nuking the US? Why would they? 
> It would make occupying and recovering resources in the radioactive areas impossible.
> What possible reason would they have to do so?


Just to prove to the United States how dumb we are for abolishing our military.

----------


## Brett85

> We could do without Detroit, and that is closest.


We could do without Detroit?

----------


## pcosmar

> We could do without Detroit?


Yup.  Though that is a pretty common Yooper attitude. Detroit is the smelly armpit of the state. (or perhaps the dingleballs)

----------


## ProIndividual

sorry, double post again.

----------


## ProIndividual

Let a gambler break down knives, gun ownership, and nuclear weapons game theoretically:

We will make several assumptions in the following...that of the two actors in every example, one is a person tending toward violent behavior. We also assume the other agent believes in self defense. Logically two pascifists will not lead to a violent outcome EVER, and if one is a pascifist not a criminally violent actor, again, there will be no violent outcome.

Imagine you have two people who are aware of each other's arms. In the first example we will have unarmed agents, in the seond knife wielders, in the third gun carriers...then we will deduce the effect of nukes.

_If two agents are aware of each other's arms, and they get into a dispute, what is the safest situation overall?_

We will define "safest overall" as being a weighted average of each outcome, the possibility of any violence altogether, and the deterent factor. We will express serious harm (death and maiming), and moderate harm (rape, assault, or lesser harms that are not necessarily permanent physically). 



We will assume that everyone realizes the safest result for you against an unarmed violent attacker is to have a weapon. By this reasoning, if they have a knife, you a safer to have at least a knife, or preferably a gun.

We will also assume everyone knows that criminals inherently do not follow laws, and violent criminals inherently would rather attack someone when they (the attacker) have perfect knowledge of the victim's arms. They would prefer that the victim be unarmed, then to hold a knife, and finally a gun, in that order. They would rather be unsure as to the status of arms of their victim than to KNOW the victim is armed. The fact both weapons are exposed make it easier for the sake of the math, however, when the information is imperfect it is actually safer, because of game theory. When you have 4 possible victims and tell a violent agent there is only one armed (while not saying which one), there is a 75% chance of success, and depending on the value (marginal utility) of the victim, this may be enough to make it "worth it" for the criminal. When you say 2 of the 4 possible victims are armed, but conceal which ones, the criminal has no incentive to victimize these people, and it cannot be "worth it", barring a survival motive like starvation.  This is called being "unexploitable". This balance works better, because obviously if the violent actor had perfect knowledge of which 2 possible victims were armed, he would choose to victimize the other two.

We'll also assume the victims are smaller than the violent actors, and for the sake of simplicity, women. This is often the case in real life, and illustrates the importance of arms in society.

Now let's answer our question:


_If two agents are aware of each other's arms, and they get into a dispute, what is the safest situation overall?_

When two actors have no weapons and are aware of it, the violent actor will use their size advantage to rape or otherwise cause moderate harm to our victim. At an even lack of arms, the vitim is at a serious natural disadvantage. The chance of moderate harm (when harm occurs) will be estimated at 75%, as the violent actor is prone to such behavior. The chance of serious harm is 25%. The chance of no harm will be 10%, given 1 in 10 times the victim will luckily defeat the attacker. The total chance of harm is 90%. 

Now, the two actors have knives. The penalty for failure is now increased for the violent actor. The chance of harm altogether is decreased to 80%. The risk of moderate harm is decreased to 50%, but serious harm risks increase to 50%. The chance of no harm is now 20%, 10% when a successful defense happens, and 10% because the blade is a deterent.

The two actors now have guns. The penalty for the violent actor's failure to succeed is further increased. The chance of harm altogether is 60%. The risk of moderate harm is decreased to 25%, while the risk of serious harm increases to 75%. The chance of no harm is now 40%, 10% self defense success, 30% deterent.

So, who is better off?

Let's assume the cases each had 10 trials:

unarmed: 9 of 10 times there was a violent outcome. 1 out of 10 times the victim and criminal escaped rape, assault, or worse. Of the 9 times violence happened, almost 7 of them were rapes or lesser harms (accounting for injuries to the assailant), and a little over 2 of them were maiming or death (accounting for the death of the assailant).

knives: 8 of 10 times there was a violent outcome. 2 out of 10 times the victim and criminal escaped rape, assault, or worse. Of the 8 times violence happened, 4 of them were rapes or lesser harms, 4 of them were maiming or death.

guns: 6 out of 10 times there was a violent outcome. 4 out of 10 times the actors both escaped assault or worse. Of the 6 times violence happened, 1.5 of them were moderate harm, 4.5 of them were serious harm like maiming or death. 

Let's compare:

                     chance of no harm/         chance of harm total/       chance of moderate harm occuring/         chance of serious harm occuring /         deterent factor

unarmed                10%(1)/                           90%(9)/                              75%(6.75)/                                        25%(2.25)/                                   0%

knives                    20%(2)/                           80%(8)/                              50%(4)/                                             50%(4)/                                       10%

guns                      40%(4)/                           60%(6)/                              25%(1.5)/                                           75%(4.5)/                                    30%



The Weighted average:

WA = ((the % of average non-violent outcomes per category)(the # of non-violent outcomes per category) + (the % of avg non-v outcomes per next category)(the # non-v outcomes per category)) / ((the # of non-v outcomes per category) + (the # of non-v per  next category))

So,

WA = ((.1 * 1) + (.2 * 2) + (.4 * 4)) / (1 + 2 + 4)
      =  2.1 / 7
      = 30% (.3)

The total with all is 30% chance of non-violent results.

Is this less or more as weaponry technology increased? Let's exclude guns to see:

WA = ((.1 * 1) + (.2 * 2)) / (1 + 2)
      = .5 / 3
      = 16.67%(.1667)

The total with unarmed and knife holding situations is 16.67% of non-violent results, nearly half that of the percentages with guns.

Is there less or more unarmed?

the unarmed percentage was 10% for non-violent results.

The increase from 10%, to 16%, to 30% shows how introducing higher levels of weaponry created a larger and larger incentives for non-violent outcomes.


Observations:

It's obvious as we increase the level of mutual arms we increase the chance of nonviolent, not violent, outcomes. What happens is the criminal agent has a lesser and lesser incentive to try and victimize our potential victim. The reason the chances are arbitrarily increased for deterent in guns is the huge increase in death.

In poker there is something called EV, or expected value. In cash games, no one cares if they lose their whole stack of chips, you can just buy-in again. In tournaments, once you lose all your chips (usually once, but certainly finite), you are done and out of the tournament, and your money is lost. In cash you take any close edge if you're ahead, or think you're ahead, because you can buy back in at anytime. Real life doesn't reflect cash games. In tournaments and in real life you get one buy-in (life), and a fatal mistake ends all future possibility for EV. For this reason you will pass on small edges when ahead, in order to "accumulate EV" in the future, when it's more valuable.

So, our criminal agent jumps from a deterent of 10% with unarmed agents, to a deterent factor of 40% with guns, precisely because guns are more likely to kill them. The "mutually assured destruction" is the most powerful deterent to violent behavior. Other EV for the criminal would be victims with lesser levels of arms (or none), perfect info of those arms (like in the example), and getting "the drop" on their victim (catching them by suprise, which we ignore in our examples). The reason I ignore this particular issue is because it's irrelevant in nuclear war, the destruction is mutually assured by computers versed in game theory mathematics.

Conclusion:

Guns=more safety according to game theory. Concealing these weapons make you even safer. Any higher level of weaponry for nonviolent actors also increases the benefit. We also notice law is not a deterent largely for the violent actor, therefore not worth consideration overall. No criminal in prison thought "I'm going to be caught". Well, few anyway.

Also, since mutually assured destruction leads to less and less violent outcomes, it would be predictable and expected that when every nation on Earth has nukes, assuming nukes are still the highest form of arms at that point, there will cease to be major military actions. War, essentially, will be non-existant. It's also predictable that armies, navies, and air forces incapable of stopping these types of attacks will become obsolete, unless used for OFFENSE largely. In any case, to be purely defensive they will require immense downsizing. 

No wonder so many nations want nukes...especially those opposed to us! Ever notice that few (Japan is one) of our allies want nukes? When the violent attacker isn't conflicting with you, you don't feel the need to have a nuke to inact game theory. Miracles! When they do want one, it's to defend against a neighbor with them who they are at odds with!

Nuclear weapons are defensive weapons more than they are offensive weapons. The "seen" of Bastiat's Broken Window Fallacy (to use the economic parable for a non-economic metaphor) is the attack we did on Japan. The "unseen" is the peaceful resolution of the Cold War, the existance at all of a "cold war", and the steady decline in military fatalities across the globe as better and higher levels of weapon technology becomes available. True, we killed 130,000 civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan over the last 10 years...we killed millions of Vietnamese in less time...and that's 13,000 deaths of civilians a year, the exact same number of Americans killed by guns every year...the flu kills 30,000 Americans a year, and 15,000 American arthritis patients alone die of SAIDs (anti-inflamatory drugs, both over the counter and prescription) as weak as asprin every year in the U.S.

Wars are becoming largely non-threats to American soldiers, and to a lesser extent civilians in the countries we attack. The same is true of our foes legitimately in the fight against us. Yes, we killed a lot of people, but compare the stats to past wars of similar scope....it's decreasing. We've lost far less soldiers in the last ten years than we lost in some BATTLES of the Civil War. This is also why the anti-war movement faces such apathy...the population rises, the number of dead shrink, and so the percentage of impacted citizenry falls (not a reason for draft, please don't start).

I hope everyone can see, nukes are inevitable, and good. Unless you're anti-gun, there is no reason to be anti-nuke. Well, unless you're a primitivist who wants to ban technology. There is no putting the genie back in the bottle. True, it only takes one nut, and those nuts will exist (and have), but look at the numbers above. Do you find them illogical? They are made up, arbitrary, but are they not rational? Could you not look up stats at the CDC and Department of Justice to plug in and prove my point?

I'm not out on a limb here. Nukes are defensive weapons...but only when not used. When used they are either offensive or simply retaliatory. If they can be made precision enough to only attack a certain square milage where government is, like say Iran's government, and not to target civilians like they mostly do now, then I'd say they are rather likable. Unfortunately, they target civilians, and give a threat of total annihilation necessary to game theory and being unexploitable mathematically...so they are good, defensive mostly, but not likable.

I better get rep'd for this one...lol.

----------


## MelissaCato

I voted yes. Because I think America is worth fighting for and one of these days someone's gonna have to save us come hell or highwaters, I would hope the First Marines and National Guard. God forbid we the people can't.

----------


## mport1

No, we should get rid of the military completely.

----------


## idirtify

> The 1.5 million troops from post 112 is referring to all active duty troops, not just army.  It was in response to TC, who claimed we need to have the largest military in the world, and I was pointing out that we don't - we'd need to almost double our military to have the largest military.  I was also asking what why in the world we'd need that many active duty troops if all we were doing is defending our country.


OK. I admit I skimmed a lot. But no matter. Wikipedias total is 2.94million.

----------

