Strong US Military Key to Peace and Prosperity

[the-other-lib]

Very fallacious argument in the context of recent history.

One recent example, Iraq did not have any "comparable military strength" to US and got invaded under false petences motivated by greed, revenge, religious/racial extremisms etc resulting in deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians and millions of lives destroyed. North Korea has nukes and avoided a military attack.

How do you defend your argument with evidence?

I've only claimed relative world peace and not absolute peace. Wars have always happened and they will continue to happen and I would have advocated against the Iraq war and the subsequent occupation.

As far as North Korea goes, they have a Nuke and the only reason they haven't used it on South Korea and possibly Japan is because of threat of force by the overwhelming U.S. military.

 

[the-other-lib]

there are 4 criteria, or pillars, for a superpower:

cultural influence
economic influence
diplomatic influence
a strong military.

you are laying it all on one.

No, I'm saying one facilitates the others. The peace provided by overwhelming military power opens channels for commerce and immigration allowing us to export our culture & flourish economically. The great economic and military strength gives us added diplomatic leverage.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

While very Libertarian on domestic policy my interest in history required me to be much more pragmatic in my views of foreign policy.

Pax Americana is Latin for “The American Peace” and the term is symbolic of an irrefutable truth that history has taught us. Throughout recorded history when one nation proved itself to be a dominating military power what resulted were periods unprecedented peace. In these times of peace humanity is been able to focus its collective energy in intellectual and commercial directions. Conversely, when many nations have comparable military strength, war inevitably follows and human progress stagnates or regresses.

This is essentially the benevolent dictator argument. How has that benevolence worked out?

 

[moderate libertarian]

I've only claimed relative world peace and not absolute peace. Wars have always happened and they will continue to happen and I would have advocated against the Iraq war and the subsequent occupation.

As far as North Korea goes, they have a Nuke and the only reason they haven't used it on South Korea and possibly Japan is because of threat of force by the overwhelming U.S. military.

Human nature being human nature, weak and defensless invite aggression from others as long as there are differences in humans as they always will be.

In theory, world could become an utopia of peace and golbal welfare state where rights of all are protected by a large world order policed by one supreme force that is governed by "right is might" and not "might is right". But if this single strong force is going to be under control of greedy money mongers, racists or religious zealots etc, it turns world into a nightmare of violent exploitations of the weak and colonialism.

 

[the-other-lib]

This is essentially the benevolent dictator argument. How has that benevolence worked out?

Only on foreign policy, not domestic, and it works out fine when your the dictator; which we are.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Additionally, how does outsourcing our leading edge military technology around the world help with US Military strength and superiority?

 

[the-other-lib]

Human nature being human nature, weak and defensless invite aggression from others as long as there are differences in humans as they always will be.

In theory, world could become an utopia of peace and golbal welfare state where rights of all are protected by a large world order policed by one supreme force that is governmed mu "right is might" and not "might is right". But if this single strong force is going to be force is under control of racists, religious zealots, exploiters etc, it turns world into a nightmare of exploutations and colonialism.

Well I'll admit that I'm putting America first in my argument. The rest of the world may hate it and they'll never admit it but they do benefit from the peace.

Additionally, how does outsourcing our leading edge military technology around the world help with US Military strength and superiority?

If you're talking about the fact that we're downsizing the military at the same time that we have an army of "contractors' in Iraq. I'm with you 100%, its very troubling...

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Only on foreign policy, not domestic, and it works out fine when your the dictator; which we are.

You didn't address my point. Internationally we have been bullies, not benevolent. That "works out fine" if you believe that the rest of the world are sub-humans. And you can not separate global totalitarianism from domestic policy, which has resulted in the demise of the Bill of Rights. Totalitarians don't draw any lines on the scope of their power.

 

[cucucachu0000]

we can still have the strongest military in the world but we just use it when WE are attacked thats it. it doesnt make sense to tax businesses in this country to protect shipping lanes in other countries waters which make it cheaper for foreign goods to ship here. that is litteraly making our things more expensive and theres cheaper. have private companies provide security that way the cost is the same to all businesses. we are always at war with someone it doesnt stop just because we arent getting attacked at home doesnt mean our country is at peace, and it is bleeding this country dry. when our dollar collapses it these countries we help wont care they wont lift a finger except to swoop in an buy our natural resources, land, and busineses like some 3rd world country. and even in your roman example is full of flaws, first of all rome was also always at war somewhere, it drained rome of its wealth while the government tried to inflate the money by shaving the coins and such (sound familiar?) and it all ended it up with a bunch of warring dictators that eventually split the empire up into pieces........ i do not want to follow in there footsteps.

 

[TER]

No, I'm saying one facilitates the others. The peace provided by overwhelming military power opens channels for commerce and immigration allowing us to export our culture & flourish economically. The great economic and military strength gives us added diplomatic leverage.

I'm tempted to put on Civ IV!

 

[moderate libertarian]

Well I'll admit that I'm putting America first in my argument. The rest of the world may hate it and they'll never admit it but they do benefit from the peace.

If you're talking about the fact that we're downsizing the military at the same time that we have an army of "contractors' in Iraq. I'm with you 100%, its very troubling...

I was under the impression this discussion was to exchange logical arguments to defend a view and was not an exercise in blind patriotism. You can't argue with a statement if not based on logic/evidence.

I was referring to violent invasion of Iraq with no "comparative military strength" based on cooked up lies/lowly unholy motives VS leaving NK with some "comparative military strength" alone.

http://www.caerdroia.org/blog/pic11962_1.jpg

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01638/kim_1638848c.jpg

 

[Brian4Liberty]

If you're talking about the fact that we're downsizing the military at the same time that we have an army of "contractors' in Iraq. I'm with you 100%, its very troubling...

I'm talking about joint military technology contracts with foreign powers. Giving away tech to any other country is troubling, it doesn't matter which one it is. That is not national defense. As for specifics, Jeffery Immelt and GE moving to China with our most advanced military aircraft technology should be shocking to all, yet it is accepted without a peep.

 

[TER]

As long as we live in this world, there will be war or rumors of war. But just because this is so does not mean that we have to be the ones involved in it, or financing it, or initiating it. We should only be used to end it when it threatens our sovereignty or the threat of the very world of which we are a part of.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

no you dont. get back in here!

kiwi is right. We need defense, not a strong standing army.

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
-Eldrige Gerry, member of the Constitutional Convention-who (rightly so) refused to sign the Constitution because it consolidated too much power in the central government

 

[moderate libertarian]

As long as we live in this world, there will be war or rumors of war. But just because this is so does not mean that we have to be the ones involved in it, or financing it, or initiating it. We should only be used to end it when it threatens our sovereignty or the threat of the very world of which we are a part of.

Well put.

We can be force of good in the world so to speak in many ways but violent miltariism and foreign policy based on feeding war profiteers profits is not the way to go.

 

[Zippyjuan]

The problem with having a really strong military compared to the rest of the world is that you start to believe that you can do whatever you want wherever in the world you want. And you have all these generals with all these cool toys and they would like to take them out and play with them at least once in a while. More balanced forces between countries would lessen wars between them- and trade decreases that risk even more. Both of those situations make the costs of fighting higher.
But more balanced alone does not prevent wars. The US and USSS and Europe were fairly well balanced (close enough anyways) during the cold war. Did that lead to more peace? Between NATO and the Soviet Union directly, there were no wars. But instead they fought in other countries over "spheres of influence". Central and South America. East Asia. Africa.

 

[paparazziparks]

You want your country to be strong enough that nobody wants to attack it. Having the strongest military in the world is one very expensive way to do it, and one downside to it is as Zippy said, you start to get cocky. You start to think you "deserve" resources from other countries and that you can do as you please, which angers others (sound familiar?). I would also say that it can have a negative effect on your national economy since resources used to build bombs and guns could be used for medical or energy research.

You could also be a technologically advanced country with a great economy and a lot of trading partners, with a strong national defense to help. Your trading partners don't want to invade, because that would be bad for the economy. If some outside country tries, your trading partners have motivation to help you out and can help with economic sanctions.

I've heard the argument that war is less prevalent now than it was in ancient times. It may be true, although you have to think about how history is written. History is written mostly about wars and battles because that is what excites people to read and write about. It's kind of like how most of written history involves male characters. Were there that many more men than women? No. That's just what you hear about the most.

 

[JackieDan]

maybe a STRONG economy is the word for prosperity and peace, instead of wasteful money spent on wars we don't need to be in. Does this require logic?

 

[Sola_Fide]

While very Libertarian on domestic policy my interest in history required me to be much more pragmatic in my views of foreign policy.

What history are you looking at? Why don't you look at how Rome bankrupted themselves into oblivion by debasing their currency and losing their republic to an overstretched empire?

Why don't you look at the mighty USSR and see what central planning and empire did to them in little over 70 years.



People who think like you are destroying this country. The Founders would drive you out of this Republic. The number one enemy for them was this permanent war state that you seem to love so dearly. It is antithetical to liberty.

If you are a Christian, why would you support our interventionist foreign policies which have driven out Christians from the middle east, led to their martyrdom, and caused Muslim people to put even more radical regimes in power?

 

[georgiaboy]

just so we're clear, under a Ron Paul presidency, the US Military would still be the strongest in the world, and the strongest the world has ever seen.