Does America need a standing army?

[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

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 populationc) 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.

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.

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.