Does America need a standing army?

[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.

 

[nobody's_hero]

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 guess you've never heard of a "minuteman." Or maybe a minute takes too long, in your book ?

 

[klamath]

After spending 20 years in the National guard I say yes we do need small number of army divisions that are training all the time. It takes about 4 months to get most guard units up to combat readiness. Talking about the timeline of historical wars does not work in a world of modern airborne assualts. China could have 100,000 highly trained troops on american soil in twentyfour hours.
Ask general Lee how he liked to beg for state militias to build his army. He could never get an army large enough to win a decisive victory because states were holding on to their state militias.

 

[nobody's_hero]

After spending 20 years in the National guard I say yes we do need small number of army divisions that are training all the time. It takes about 4 months to get most guard units up to combat readiness. Talking about the timeline of historical wars does not work in a world of modern airborne assualts. China could have 100,000 highly trained troops on american soil in twentyfour hours.

And we could have 3,000,000 guns to meet them on the West coast beaches in half the time, probably quicker if there are any gun owners left in California.

In fairness, you have to have 'readiness' even with a militia. I'll acknowledge that. To say that we could just do away with our [standing] military and not have a militia/national guard in place to be called up and regularly trained, would be stupid.

I should add that the militia in colonial times was not exactly 'voluntary.' Exceptions were made for conscientious objectors, but in general, if you had four limbs, two eyes, and a ***k, you were expected to train with a militia for defense of colonial townships.

EDIT: Of course, you'd have to ask yourself how these 100k Chinese troops got past our navy, which—if we were serious about providing for our defense and not that of the world—would be clogging the shipping lanes off of our coast, as large as it is.

 

[Carson]

Only the ones standing on the soil of the United States.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

After spending 20 years in the National guard I say yes we do need small number of army divisions that are training all the time. It takes about 4 months to get most guard units up to combat readiness. Talking about the timeline of historical wars does not work in a world of modern airborne assualts. China could have 100,000 highly trained troops on american soil in twentyfour hours.
Ask general Lee how he liked to beg for state militias to build his army. He could never get an army large enough to win a decisive victory because states were holding on to their state militias.

100,000 in 24 hours? Well, they don't have the aircraft to move that many men in 24 hours(their military only has a few thousand plains). The US Air National Guard is more powerful than the Chinese Air Force as it is, which would make an aerial assult unthinkable. Even ignoring that, what would they eat? Where would they get their ammo? A 6,000 mile supply line against the US is virtually impossible to supply. The US Navy is too powerful for them to be able to supply anything by ship. It would essentially be handing us 100,000 prisoners(provided they make it that far). As it stands, I believe that the largest airborne operation in history was conducted by US and only consisted of about 5,000 men.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

When talking to old guard Republicans I always advocate a powerful Navy with well trained Marines and Air support. I then mention that there is no shortage of Americans who would step up in case of Just War

 

[nobody's_hero]

When talking to old guard Republicans I always advocate a powerful Navy with well trained Marines and Air support. I then mention that there is no shortage of Americans who would step up in case of Just War

Same strategy here. We have to dissolve the misconceptions that America is weak.

We could beat any nation on earth with one army tied behind our back, if needed.

 

[GreenLP]

Great thread, Cutlerzzz! I was going to start a similar one a couple of weeks ago and ask if the US really needs much of a military because of the very quote you quoted:

Any enemy advance would be stalled, as there would be "a gun behind every blade of grass" to quote Yamamoto

So as you can guess, I voted "no."

I think superpowers use their military for imperialistic agendas, like the USA does. The USA is the biggest imperialists on the planet and I can't remember the last time the US military were used to actually defend our borders.

 

[GreenLP]

We can bring all of our troops home and create more military bases here in the U.S.

Why? Who are you afraid of?

 

[affa]

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.

And how exactly does the existence or non-existence of a standing army change this in any way? I'll point out that we currently DO have a standing army... so having one isn't exactly doing anything to stop what you see as an 'invasion'. And defending a standing army because civilian foreign nationals may cross a border is strange to me. Foreign soldiers? Sure. But civilians are a resource, and it would be better to design a system that saw them as a resource rather than as an enemy. We already have laws in place against the extreme 'kidnappings' and 'beheadings' that you focus on, though the majority of immigrants are really just hoping to get some menial job and have no interest in beheading anyone.

The inherent problem with a standing army is that it costs money, and if it's just 'standing' around it's not generating much in the way of income. However, if you put them into use invading a country, you can make the war industry (weapons manufacturers, suppliers/infrastructure like Halliburton, para-military like Blackwater (now XE)) extremely wealthy.

Therefore, over time, certain types of people will see $$$ and decide to put that standing army to use. It's terrible, it's tragic, and if I were religious I'd even say sinful. But if you believe in a large standing army, it's my belief you're also ultimately proposing what we have now - an endless state of war. Perhaps not today, or tomorrow, but at some point, a standing army will be used... because it's too profitable not to.

As many here have pointed out, there are many alternatives to a standing army, even assuming a country had the resources to invade us (which is questionable).