Do you support abolishing the military?

[erowe1]

Wow. Did you just call Ron Paul a liar?

I can't fathom how someone could get that from anything I said.

Were you under the impression that "campaign on" and "want" meant the same thing?

 

[FrankRep]

I can't fathom how someone could get that from anything I said.

Were you under the impression that "campaign on" and "want" meant the same thing?

I believe that Ron Paul didn't lie when he said reduce military spending.

 

[AFPVet]

Defense spending and military spending are dichotomous. Military spending can be anything... nation building, expansion.... Defense spending is purely for national defense purposes.

 

[erowe1]

Oh, OK.

I have a problem with ICBMs, but at the same time, as long as other people have them we kind of have to. I could never condone using them though, and its impossible to really do so in "Defense." They're a deterrent, but they can't actually be used for defense.

I don't think we actually need to have them to have the deterrent. Everybody knows we can make them in no time.

 

[erowe1]

I believe that Ron Paul didn't lie when he said reduce military spending.

So do I.

 

[Uriel999]

You know, I really get annoyed when people try to put words and opinions of their own into Ron Paul's mouth. Since 2007 when I discovered the man I remember him railing against the wars, ending the empire, and shrinking the military BUT not abolishing it. I am all about shrinking it. I'm a Marine. We do more with less yet I see ways to cut back spending even in the financially lean USMC. I could probably find ways to save billions of dollars and actually improve combat effectiveness just in my branch alone. I already can think of many. Other branches can do the same.

As for ICBM's they are a great deterrent. Think about it, an armed society is a polite society. We partially won the Cold War by having more than the USSR could produce. I truly hope they never be used EVER, but they are a deterrent.

 

[69360]

I want to at least know what we need an army for. Canada and Mexico are the only countries we have a border with. Otherwise, our army is not physically capable of being used unless it is deployed overseas.

So long as we have a standing army we will remain at war. Without one, we would never go to war.

A country would not have to share a border to attack or invade the US. Having trained soldiers with command and control structures in place ready to go stationed in the US is not a bad thing. Armies don't materialize overnight if you are attacked.

Those are some crazy poll results. Apparently anarcho capitalists now make up a majority of the members of this forum.

It's an off election year. Only the hardcore are posting.

I agree with ancaps about most business and economic issues but think a military stationed in the US for defense only is ok. I don't think the state should regulate business, but do think it should defend the people. I guess they don't have a word to describe my views.

 

[erowe1]

We partially won the Cold War by having more than the USSR could produce. I truly hope they never be used EVER, but they are a deterrent.

We didn't win squat.

And, assuming they really deterred anything at all, that deterrence stops once you cross the threshold of the number of warheads it takes to do as much damage as you could ever want to do. The USSR and USA had both crossed that threshold some time in the 70's.

 

[willwash]

We didn't win squat.

And, assuming they really deterred anything at all, that deterrence stops once you cross the threshold of the number of warheads it takes to do as much damage as you could ever want to do. The USSR and USA had both crossed that threshold some time in the 70's.

This assumes no missiles are stopped by antiballistic missile defense systems, which were also in development at that time on both sides. Thus, for strategic planning purposes you would need more missiles than you actually planned on hitting your target with. So it still helped to have more missiles. It allowed you to say, even if your SDI stops 90% of our missiles, we can still destroy you.

 

[willwash]

Abolishing the entire military would require a constitutional amendment. The Navy is expressly authorized by the Constitution, wartime or not.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I wonder what the market would say?

Will you pay $1000 a month for military "protection"?

 

[Cutlerzzz]

I want to change my answer. Instead of "yes" I want to vote no.

I don't support abolishing the military, I just support voluntarizing it.

The same goes for everything else the government does.

The poll asks "Should the Federal Military be abolished". Your vote is still accurate.

 

[osan]

Yes?

Not without establishing its replacement first - a well trained militia of at least 75 million people. Simple practicality will NOT allow us to safely dismantle out military unilaterally. If our armed forces disappeared permanently this minute, China and Russia would be landing troops here within a month. The rottenness of mean humanity has painted all of us into this corner and the preoccupation with the thrill of power leaves those wielding it in no mood to stand down from the edges of oblivion. So here we sit, perched on this knife's edge waiting for what is likely inevitable.

Glad I'm this old - in fact, wish I were my parent's age because I envy no soul inheriting what we leave behind.

 

[erowe1]

If our armed forces disappeared permanently this minute, China and Russia would be landing troops here within a month.

For what purpose?

 

[Contumacious]

For what purpose?

China wants to recover the 17 TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTrillion we owe them.

.

 

[erowe1]

This assumes no missiles are stopped by antiballistic missile defense systems, which were also in development at that time on both sides. Thus, for strategic planning purposes you would need more missiles than you actually planned on hitting your target with. So it still helped to have more missiles. It allowed you to say, even if your SDI stops 90% of our missiles, we can still destroy you.

That sounds like an argument bomb makers and politicians would use to make people think they need to keep spending tax dollars on useless crap.

 

[erowe1]

China wants to recover the 17 TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTrillion we owe them.

.

Flushing their own money down the toilet would not help them accomplish that.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

China wants to recover the 17 TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTrillion we owe them.

.

The US owes China 1.3 trillion.

China would have to spend several trillion a year to occupy the US. Hundreds of billions a year to occupy the West Coast.

Invading the US would shut down hundreds of billions of dollars of trade between the countries.

Invading the US would destroy the American economy and infrastructure, rending the US incapable of paying anything.


How is invading the US a good idea to get 1.3 trillion back?

 

[Pericles]

The US owes China 1.3 trillion.

China would have to spend several trillion a year to occupy the US. Hundreds of billions a year to occupy the West Coast.

Invading the US would shut down hundreds of billions of dollars of trade between the countries.

Invading the US would destroy the American economy and infrastructure, rending the US incapable of paying anything.


How is invading the US a good idea to get 1.3 trillion back?

Why ask why?

Why did the US invade Iraq?
Why did N Korea invade S Korea?
Why did did Japan invade Manchuria?
Why did the Soviet Union invade Finland?
Why did Germany invade Belgium?
Why did France invade Spain?
Why did England invade France?
Why did the Turks invade Europe?
Why did the Moors invade Spain?
Why did Spain invade the Incas?
Why did Macedonia invade Greece?

 

[Natural Citizen]

You can't abolish the military.