Does America need a standing army?

[Arion45]

Yes. I said that I support bringing ALL of our troops home from around the world. How would we still be an "imperialistic" country if we simply used our army to defend our own country? My position is that our army should remain the same size that it is now, but we should use our army for our own national defense. We should create new bases along our borders and use our military to stop illegal immigration and defend our sovereignty as a nation.

So you are basically a big government conservative when it comes to the military?

 

[Brett85]

So you are basically a big government conservative when it comes to the military?

I basically support a strong national defense. I don't agree with the anarchist libertarians who support a weak national defense and a much weaker America.

 

[Brett85]

So you are basically a big government conservative when it comes to the military?

Also, if I'm a "big government conservative" for not wanting to abolish the military, Ron Paul himself is also a "big government conservative."

 

[Southron]

I basically support a strong national defense. I don't agree with the anarchist libertarians who support a weak national defense and a much weaker America.

I could possibly support turning offensive spending into defensive spending. Missile defense comes to mind and early warning detectors.

 

[pcosmar]

I basically support a strong national defense. I don't agree with the anarchist libertarians who support a weak national defense and a much weaker America.

This is a strong defense.



This is not.

 

[jmdrake]

Also, if I'm a "big government conservative" for not wanting to abolish the military, Ron Paul himself is also a "big government conservative."

Where did Ron Paul say that he wanted new military bases in America? How does that save the money he says he'll save by closing military bases overseas? And from the OP (which I'm increasingly wondering if you even read) that proposal including keeping a military capable of defending our skies and oceans. And land invasions are basically a non starter.

 

[Brett85]

Where did Ron Paul say that he wanted new military bases in America? How does that save the money he says he'll save by closing military bases overseas? And from the OP (which I'm increasingly wondering if you even read) that proposal including keeping a military capable of defending our skies and oceans. And land invasions are basically a non starter.

Ron Paul has said that he supports closing down all of our military bases overseas, but he's never said that we should reduce the size of our military. In the GOP debates he talked about using our military to defend our borders. I agree with Ron Paul 100% on this issue.

 

[Brett85]

I could possibly support turning offensive spending into defensive spending. Missile defense comes to mind and early warning detectors.

That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying that we should quit spending trillions of dollars on intervention overseas and start defending our own country. Amazingly enough, certain people here actually disagree with that position.

 

[SamuraisWisdom]

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.

This, except with our advanced technology over the rest of the world we can do without the largest, but rather the most efficient.

 

[jmdrake]

Ron Paul has said that he supports closing down all of our military bases overseas, but he's never said that we should reduce the size of our military. In the GOP debates he talked about using our military to defend our borders. I agree with Ron Paul 100% on this issue.

He says that if we close military bases overseas will save money. Inherent in that statement is not opening up needless military bases in the U.S. If you do that you won't save a dime. Also the only reason he supports controlling the border is because our stupid war on drugs and welfare state makes that (somewhat) necessary.

 

[jmdrake]

That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying that we should quit spending trillions of dollars on intervention overseas and start defending our own country. Amazingly enough, certain people here actually disagree with that position.

No. I agree with Rifleman's position. I disagree with yours. Supporting missile defense is not the same thing as maintaining the same sized military. Rifleman's idea fits more in line with the "Drop the standing army an keep an air force and navy" argument of the OP. Either branch could maintain an missile defense force. If you quit spending trillions overseas and instead spend trillions here for no apparent reason (and you really haven't stated a reason) then you haven't saved a dime. Ron Paul said that if we quit spending money in overseas adventures we could even afford universal healthcare. (Note that he still thinks that would be a bad idea. But at least it wouldn't break us). That wouldn't happen if every overseas base became some U.S. base.

 

[idirtify]

Are you aware we have in the ballpark of just under a million US active duty troops already stationed in the continental United States, and well over a million if you count our territories? A million. How many people do you think we need to 'protect our borders'.

We have, what, a bit less than a half a million troops give or take stationed or in combat around the world. If we can't seem to 'protect our borders' with 1 million troops, how is even half a million more going to help? Who the heck needs that many people to protect a 2000 mile border with Mexico, especially considering the state of technology today?

Are you really advocating needing (paying, housing, training, equiping) 1.5 million people to 'defend' a border with a country (or countries, if you include Canada) that has no military aspirations against us?

PS -- these numbers are based on the Sept. 30 2010 troop deployment numbers from the department of defense:
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/hst1009.pdf

Seriously, a standing army of 1.5 million people is ludicrous for a country that has no bordering enemies and is as protected by geography as we are. What an amazing, awe-inspiring expenditure, a bottomless pit of wasted money.

Hold on. Considering your troop figures, let’s take another look at TC’s idea.

I believe that’s one troop for every seven feet along our southern border. Not bad. Of course you would have to triple that distance if you had round-the-clock guard duty (3 shifts). So that’s one troop standing every 21 feet. I think they could handle that. It would sure cut down on fence expenses and illegal immigration.

This is fun; let’s continue. Maybe a troop could handle more. Let’s see if we have enough for 24/7 guard duty around the whole country.

Here are the distances:
Border with canada - 5525 miles
Border with mexico - 1996 miles
Coastlines total - 12,383 miles
Total US perimeter to guard – 19,904 miles

By golly I think we do. I come up with one troop for every 210 feet. That’s only 70 yards to guard; or actually only half that, since the next troop in line will have his half covered. Do you think a troop and an M16 could cover 35 yards? Hell, he could do it with a 22!

I say, let’s go with Traditional Conservative’s position and bring all the troops home and literally have a “STANDING” ARMY on guard duty around the whole damnation. Hell yeah! Takes care of the boats of Cubans and Haitians too; and those damned gun-running ATF motherfuckers.

 

[affa]

I basically support a strong national defense. I don't agree with the anarchist libertarians who support a weak national defense and a much weaker America.

Oh please. Stop labeling anyone you don't agree with whatever terms you like to throw around today.

You want to know something? We have enough nukes and other assorted missiles in place to have what any sane person would consider a 'strong national defense', period. We don't need 1.5 million troops at home to not have a 'weak military'.

Very few countries have over a million active duty troops, and unless you stay up at night worrying Russia, India, or Korea is going to somehow teleport their troops over here, they are of little concern. Not to mention, that troop presence isn't in a vacuum - India keeps a large military in part because of Pakistan, and the two Koreas face off as well. None of them can just send all their troops (or any, really) our way. China has 2-3 million troops, but again, if you're worried about their military you're worried about the wrong thing. A couple more countries are in the 500k range -- but I hope you're not worried about Turkey or Egypt.

Mexico is about 250k, but again, we're more likely to see a NWO joining of our countries than you are to see a war between us.

So tell me, Traditional Conservative... how many troops do you think we need to have a 'strong military'? How many nukes? How much will it cost? How do we pay for it?

Because you know what? I'm going out on a limb and saying if we had 250k troops + the advanced military technology we already have + the number of nukes we already have + the geographic advantage we already have... we don't just have a strong military, we have an extremely strong military. We can't attack China, sure, but they'd be crazy to attack us, too, given the logistics.

And to be truthful, I don't even think we need remotely that many. But my point is more that you are arguing for 6x that -- 1.5 million troops sitting around 'protecting our borders' and waiting for someone to attack us. Because you need us to have what you consider a 'strong military'. And you're advocating creating brand new bases to effectively increase our continental army by 50% (bringing them home). Where is that money coming from? You're spending monopoly money to create a dream fortress.

That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying that we should quit spending trillions of dollars on intervention overseas and start defending our own country. Amazingly enough, certain people here actually disagree with that position.

Amazing, right?! Especially when you don't even try to understand our positions. Anyone who doesn't support 'Caylee's Law' in that other thread is an anarchist who hates cops, anyone here who doesn't support a massive standing army thinks we should have a 'weak' military. You're extremely talented at misrepresenting the opinions of others. But you never seem to address the actual points we make, just dismiss us with dismissive labels like 'anarchist', which you don't even know the proper meaning of.

 

[Brett85]

No. I agree with Rifleman's position. I disagree with yours. Supporting missile defense is not the same thing as maintaining the same sized military. Rifleman's idea fits more in line with the "Drop the standing army an keep an air force and navy" argument of the OP. Either branch could maintain an missile defense force. If you quit spending trillions overseas and instead spend trillions here for no apparent reason (and you really haven't stated a reason) then you haven't saved a dime. Ron Paul said that if we quit spending money in overseas adventures we could even afford universal healthcare. (Note that he still thinks that would be a bad idea. But at least it wouldn't break us). That wouldn't happen if every overseas base became some U.S. base.

Rifleman didn't say that he disagreed with my position. He just mentioned a missile defense system, which I also agree with him on. I didn't say that we should create a military base here in the U.S for every one that we close down overseas. We could send a lot of our troops to U.S military bases which already exist. My position is that we need a strong military as a deterrent so that other countries won't even consider attacking us.

 

[jmdrake]

Rifleman didn't say that he disagreed with my position. He just mentioned a missile defense system, which I also agree with him on. I didn't say that we should create a military base here in the U.S for every one that we close down overseas. We could send a lot of our troops to U.S military bases which already exist. My position is that we need a strong military as a deterrent so that other countries won't even consider attacking us.

I didn't say Rifleman said he disagreed with your position. Please read more carefully next time. And the people you are arguing against aren't saying that we don't need a strong military. Not unless you don't think the air force and navy count as military. And with millions of guns in America there isn't another country considering a land invasion.

 

[Brett85]

I'm still waiting for somebody to provide a link to show where Ron Paul ever said that he supported abolishing the army or even reducing it.

 

[Brett85]

I didn't say Rifleman said he disagreed with your position. Please read more carefully next time. And the people you are arguing against aren't saying that we don't need a strong military. Not unless you don't think the air force and navy count as military. And with millions of guns in America there isn't another country considering a land invasion.

Why would you support keeping the Navy and Air Force if you support abolishing the army?

 

[idirtify]

Yes. I said that I support bringing ALL of our troops home from around the world. How would we still be an "imperialistic" country if we simply used our army to defend our own country? My position is that our army should remain the same size that it is now, but we should use our army for our own national defense. We should create new bases along our borders and use our military to stop illegal immigration and defend our sovereignty as a nation.

Would you mind responding to my post number 27? You want to keep a huge standing army but what about the Military Industrial Complex that comes with it?

 

[jmdrake]

I'm still waiting for somebody to provide a link to show where Ron Paul ever said that he supported abolishing the army or even reducing it.

I'm still waiting for you to quit building straw men. And saying that closing military bases overseas means having enough money to fund universal healthcare implies reducing the number of people in the military as personnel cost is the biggest expense.

 

[Brett85]

Would you mind responding to my post number 27? You want to keep a huge standing army but what about the Military Industrial Complex that comes with it?

I've never really understood the term "military industrial complex." You should expand on what exactly you mean.