Why does the United States need a military today?

[anotherneil]

Why does the US need a military, especially one as large and spread around the world as it is now? We are a constitutional republic with a Bill of Rights, not an empire.

I get that back during the Revolution against the British Empire, the 13 colonies were part of it and along with it had a military, so that's what they knew back then & perhaps assumed that it was a normal part of society.

We no longer have anything to do with any empire, so there's no need for the remnants of such a thing. Although military ranks may not technically be considered the same as titles of nobility, which are prohibited by the US Constitution, in practice they are alike & when someone joins the military, they lose their rights as a citizen; neither one, to me, are compatible with the American way.

I think the first clue that it's not something we no longer need here in the US is that the Department of War had its name changed to Department of Defense, which occurred in 1947, just a couple of years before George Orwell's book 1984 was published.

In the past century it has mostly been used in foreign wars, such as WW1 & WW2 in Europe. The US is also mixed up in being part of NATO, which is mainly a European thing - it's centered there.

I shouldn't have to pay taxes to fund a military that protects shipping routes, unless I'm directly engaging in international commerce; let shipping companies pay for their own security and protection. If other nations want outside help for their defense and security, such as from the US, I think they ought to just work that out with private entities that offer such services & leave taxpayers out of that.

Some of the military even involves things that aren't in the US Constitution, such as having an air force or using aircraft (such as in the US Army & Navy). Same with ICBMs, nuclear weapons, etc. It only gives the federal government the power for armies and a navy. I'm not sure how the federal government is getting around the constitution - if at all.

We already have the US Coast Guard to protect the border at sea. National guard units can be managed at the state level. If 2nd Amendment rights were respected, as they always ought to be, then everyone in the US could be armed to the teeth & no foreign entity would dare try to invade us.

Regarding conscription in the US - it's totally unconstitutional. It blatantly disregards the 13th Amendment ban on slavery & involuntary servitude. The reason it exists now is because a bunch of totally corrupt US Supreme Court justices ruled unanimously that it is constitutional (Arver v. US) back in the early 20th century. It seems like a lot of crap that took our rights & destroyed the US happened back in the early 20th century, but that's for a different thread.

 

[Heyo]

Why does the US need a military, especially one as large and spread around the world as it is now?

Primarily, to protect the interests of US based corporations.
Also, to boost the ego of quite a few citizens.

 

[Augustus]

Why does the US need a military, especially one as large and spread around the world as it is now?

It needs a military to protect itself. You can't rely on the benevolence of others to keep you safe.

Whether it needs such a large military depends on your view of international relations and geo-politics.

I imagine, over the next decade or so, you will get to see the consequences of the declining power and (partial) withdrawal of a hegemon from a position of global dominance. Tbh we are seeing it already.

There will be positives and negatives, my guess is there will be more of the latter, but others may disagree.

 

[anotherneil]

It needs a military to protect itself.

From what?

You can't rely on the benevolence of others to keep you safe.

That's exactly what a military is - others to keep me safe.

Whether it needs such a large military depends on your view of international relations and geo-politics.

Well, you can derive my personal view from the OP - what is it for that?

I imagine, over the next decade or so, you will get to see the consequences of the declining power and (partial) withdrawal of a hegemon from a position of global dominance. Tbh we are seeing it already.

There will be positives and negatives, my guess is there will be more of the latter, but others may disagree.

The US has the resources it needs to be independent and self sufficient, even with energy - it's just an artificial scarcity as a result of stupid policy.

Should a nation be energy independent if it has the resources to do so?

 

[ajay0]

I suppose there are credible military invasion threats from neighboring countries Canada and Mexico. It is the neighbors who are usually the problem.

 

[Augustus]

From what?

From other countries with militaries and powerful weapons.

That's exactly what a military is - others to keep me safe.

Not quite what I meant. Ok, you can't rely on the benevolence of other countries respecting your sovereignty and desire to live peacefully to keep you safe.

A citizen militia is not much match for a modern advanced military force.

The US has the resources it needs to be independent and self sufficient, even with energy - it's just an artificial scarcity as a result of stupid policy.

Should a nation be energy independent if it has the resources to do so?

It could do if people were happy to accept a lower standard of living.

There are arguments in favour of autarky certainly, as there are arguments against.

Others might decide they fancy your resources if you don't have a military to protect your borders though.

 

[anotherneil]

From other countries with militaries and powerful weapons.

There are other ways for the US to do that. I'm not talking about getting rid of that protection; for instance, protection can still be done by a private companies with which the US contracts, just like it does to make guns, bombs, missiles, tanks, naval ships, fighter jets, satellites, rocket ships, cargo planes, etc. I don't know if anyone realizes this, but all those things are designed and manufactured by private companies.

It's one thing to speak of the US defending its territory, but the US military is used for much more than that & like I said, the states can deal with defending its territory with their own national guard units.

Not quite what I meant. Ok, you can't rely on the benevolence of other countries respecting your sovereignty and desire to live peacefully to keep you safe.

I never said you could.

A citizen militia is not much match for a modern advanced military force.

I never said that there only ought to be a citizen militia. The states can have their own national guard units, and the federal government can make arrangements with privately operated entities that offer such services. It would be better to have private entities handles such things, since they can do things much better than the government, and would compete against each other to provide the best for the least amount of money.

It could do if people were happy to accept a lower standard of living.

Why would that necessarily lead to a lower standard of living?

 

[Augustus]

There are other ways for the US to do that. I'm not talking about getting rid of that protection; for instance, protection can still be done by a private companies with which the US contracts, just like it does to make guns, bombs, missiles, tanks, naval ships, fighter jets, satellites, rocket ships, cargo planes, etc. I don't know if anyone realizes this, but all those things are designed and manufactured by private companies.

It's one thing to speak of the US defending its territory, but the US military is used for much more than that & like I said, the states can deal with defending its territory with their own national guard units.

Seems far less accountable, efficient and effective than just paying for a traditional military focused purely on defence.

Why would that necessarily lead to a lower standard of living?

It's cheaper to buy many things from overseas and true self-sufficiency requires a lot of redundancy and excess capacity in the system.

 

[anotherneil]

Seems far less accountable, efficient and effective than just paying for a traditional military focused purely on defence.

Why?

It's cheaper to buy many things from overseas and true self-sufficiency requires a lot of redundancy and excess capacity in the system.

In many cases things are cheaper to buy from "overseas" for the same reason that we could have energy independence but don't - because of policy.

For example, people here in the US want their unions and minimum wage, which drives up prices, takes jobs away, and destroys smaller businesses; these kinds of problems cause things to be cheaper from "overseas."

 

[Callisto]

Why does the US need a military, especially one as large and spread around the world as it is now?

 

[bobhikes]

Why does the US need a military, especially one as large and spread around the world as it is now? We are a constitutional republic with a Bill of Rights, not an empire.

You do understand the United States is a country blessed with natural resources that every nation would like to have. Without a military we would not exist as the United States. Wars will continue to happen, and no country can instantly create a military just because a war broke out tomorrow you need to have an active practicing military, or your country will simply not exist. Lastly, we need the military to protect our friends and interests in the world. It is now a world community and our country though, resource rich does not have all the resources necessary to keep the country running without outside resources. The size of the military necessary can be challenged but the need of a military cannot for any country that wants to keep its sovereignty.

 

[wellwisher]

Why does the US need a military, especially one as large and spread around the world as it is now? We are a constitutional republic with a Bill of Rights, not an empire.

I get that back during the Revolution against the British Empire, the 13 colonies were part of it and along with it had a military, so that's what they knew back then & perhaps assumed that it was a normal part of society.

We no longer have anything to do with any empire, so there's no need for the remnants of such a thing. Although military ranks may not technically be considered the same as titles of nobility, which are prohibited by the US Constitution, in practice they are alike & when someone joins the military, they lose their rights as a citizen; neither one, to me, are compatible with the American way.

I think the first clue that it's not something we no longer need here in the US is that the Department of War had its name changed to Department of Defense, which occurred in 1947, just a couple of years before George Orwell's book 1984 was published.

In the past century it has mostly been used in foreign wars, such as WW1 & WW2 in Europe. The US is also mixed up in being part of NATO, which is mainly a European thing - it's centered there.

I shouldn't have to pay taxes to fund a military that protects shipping routes, unless I'm directly engaging in international commerce; let shipping companies pay for their own security and protection. If other nations want outside help for their defense and security, such as from the US, I think they ought to just work that out with private entities that offer such services & leave taxpayers out of that.

Some of the military even involves things that aren't in the US Constitution, such as having an air force or using aircraft (such as in the US Army & Navy). Same with ICBMs, nuclear weapons, etc. It only gives the federal government the power for armies and a navy. I'm not sure how the federal government is getting around the constitution - if at all.

We already have the US Coast Guard to protect the border at sea. National guard units can be managed at the state level. If 2nd Amendment rights were respected, as they always ought to be, then everyone in the US could be armed to the teeth & no foreign entity would dare try to invade us.

Regarding conscription in the US - it's totally unconstitutional. It blatantly disregards the 13th Amendment ban on slavery & involuntary servitude. The reason it exists now is because a bunch of totally corrupt US Supreme Court justices ruled unanimously that it is constitutional (Arver v. US) back in the early 20th century. It seems like a lot of crap that took our rights & destroyed the US happened back in the early 20th century, but that's for a different thread.

The role of US Government, by the Constitution, is to provide for the common defense and to promote the general welfare. The operative words are provide and promote. Provide is not the same as promote, and therefore the approach; means to the end, was supposed to be different for each need. Provide requires resources, while promote is more like moral support, education, volunteering, clever policy changes, etc. It was not intended to be throw money at the problems. Promote was based on the old saying. "if you feed a man a fish today, he will be hungry tomorrow, but if you teach him to fish he can feed himself, forever."

Government and Defense is doing what is required; provide. However, the welfare state is off the rails, since the Constitution says we are to promote but says nothing about Big Government providing for the general welfare. The Founding Fathers envisioned the general welfare being promoted in a way similar to way of religion; moral teachings, responsibility, charity and volunteers among the citizens, not huge bureaucracies with huge budgets that never seem to solve any problem, but only make things worse so they can grow.

The so called "war against poverty" was a word scam to game the system. The word game "war", was used like a political loophole to violate the promote the general welfare clause of the Constitution. The term war, was there to get provide the common welfare into public psyche. This made it easier for stupider leadership who had no clever ideas. That war is now on its 60th year; 1964, and has cost $15 trillion so far, with little progress in terms of actually reducing poverty; safety net became a safety hammock. It is designed to milk the job, to grow Government and use it buy votes money laundering tax payer money. Which party is running this scam; D, who do their clients vote for; D, and who pays for the votes; D and R?

Which party complains about all that Unconstitutional providing in the Welfare State, instead of promoting the General welfare. It is the party more connected to Religion, who can do the same things better and cheaper, locally, through church style interactions. It is not coincidence that so many hospitals were once named after Saints, with many church volunteers and donors. Welfare was about neighbors helping neighbors. This was more efficient than cold bureaucrats calculating their votes and pension between pushing paper around.

As far as the military and providing for military spending, the USA originally to want to stay out of the foreign wars in Europe and beyond. However, this was not possible in WWII, since the enemies of our friends and trading partners also become our enemies in WWII. We were forced to amplify our military might, on two fronts, to help provide for a larger common defense.

Today we have Russia and China, both with military expansion, with Russia seeking to restore a Soviet style buffer zone and China needing more and more resources to grow its economy. There is also the Middle East and Africa. The common defense is still world wide, until we can find a path for world peace. I would prefer a huge tax cut at the expense of a total restructuring of the welfare state back to promote, and the reduction of the military provide, but we are required to provide of the common defense and promote the general welfare by providing training for good jobs in a robust economy.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I imagine, over the next decade or so, you will get to see the consequences of the declining power and (partial) withdrawal of a hegemon from a position of global dominance. Tbh we are seeing it already.

There will be positives and negatives, my guess is there will be more of the latter, but others may disagree.

What positives and negatives do you see occurring now and in the next decade or so as a result of what you described above? I would be highly interested in reading your views on this, if you wouldn't mind sharing.

 

[Stevicus]

Why does the US need a military, especially one as large and spread around the world as it is now? We are a constitutional republic with a Bill of Rights, not an empire.

I get that back during the Revolution against the British Empire, the 13 colonies were part of it and along with it had a military, so that's what they knew back then & perhaps assumed that it was a normal part of society.

We no longer have anything to do with any empire, so there's no need for the remnants of such a thing. Although military ranks may not technically be considered the same as titles of nobility, which are prohibited by the US Constitution, in practice they are alike & when someone joins the military, they lose their rights as a citizen; neither one, to me, are compatible with the American way.

I think the first clue that it's not something we no longer need here in the US is that the Department of War had its name changed to Department of Defense, which occurred in 1947, just a couple of years before George Orwell's book 1984 was published.

In the past century it has mostly been used in foreign wars, such as WW1 & WW2 in Europe. The US is also mixed up in being part of NATO, which is mainly a European thing - it's centered there.

I shouldn't have to pay taxes to fund a military that protects shipping routes, unless I'm directly engaging in international commerce; let shipping companies pay for their own security and protection. If other nations want outside help for their defense and security, such as from the US, I think they ought to just work that out with private entities that offer such services & leave taxpayers out of that.

Some of the military even involves things that aren't in the US Constitution, such as having an air force or using aircraft (such as in the US Army & Navy). Same with ICBMs, nuclear weapons, etc. It only gives the federal government the power for armies and a navy. I'm not sure how the federal government is getting around the constitution - if at all.

We already have the US Coast Guard to protect the border at sea. National guard units can be managed at the state level. If 2nd Amendment rights were respected, as they always ought to be, then everyone in the US could be armed to the teeth & no foreign entity would dare try to invade us.

Regarding conscription in the US - it's totally unconstitutional. It blatantly disregards the 13th Amendment ban on slavery & involuntary servitude. The reason it exists now is because a bunch of totally corrupt US Supreme Court justices ruled unanimously that it is constitutional (Arver v. US) back in the early 20th century. It seems like a lot of crap that took our rights & destroyed the US happened back in the early 20th century, but that's for a different thread.

Well, we do need at least some form of defense agency, but how large or far-reaching it needs to be seems to be a matter of disagreement among some (although not as many as one would hope for). 50 years ago, society had a much more vigorous open discussion about the government, military, and what our role in the world should be.

 

[Augustus]

Why

Because having 50 states organising their own defences with differing degrees of commitment, free riding, duplication etc. makes little sense.

Doubly so when you add in for profit companies aiming to make a quick buck.

For example, people here in the US want their unions and minimum wage, which drives up prices, takes jobs away, and destroys smaller businesses; these kinds of problems cause things to be cheaper from "overseas.

Unless you have people working for 50c an hour, it costs more money for some things.

Also to build up production capacity to make everything you need leads to waste and either over/under capacity production.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There are other ways for the US to do that. I'm not talking about getting rid of that protection; for instance, protection can still be done by a private companies with which the US contracts, ...

Just brilliant! What could possibly go wrong?

(Does anyone here know if the Wagner Group is available for lease?)

 

[Augustus]

Just brilliant! What could possibly go wrong?

(Does anyone here know is the Wagner Group is available for lease?)

No doubt some Germanic tribes might be willing to secure the frontiers in exchange for 2000 swords and shields and a couple of chests of gold.

It’s great value and I can’t imagine that it could lead to any problems down the line…

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why does the US need a military, especially one as large and spread around the world as it is now? We are a constitutional republic with a Bill of Rights, not an empire.

I get that back during the Revolution against the British Empire, the 13 colonies were part of it and along with it had a military, so that's what they knew back then & perhaps assumed that it was a normal part of society.

We no longer have anything to do with any empire, so there's no need for the remnants of such a thing. Although military ranks may not technically be considered the same as titles of nobility, which are prohibited by the US Constitution, in practice they are alike & when someone joins the military, they lose their rights as a citizen; neither one, to me, are compatible with the American way.

I think the first clue that it's not something we no longer need here in the US is that the Department of War had its name changed to Department of Defense, which occurred in 1947, just a couple of years before George Orwell's book 1984 was published.

In the past century it has mostly been used in foreign wars, such as WW1 & WW2 in Europe. The US is also mixed up in being part of NATO, which is mainly a European thing - it's centered there.

I shouldn't have to pay taxes to fund a military that protects shipping routes, unless I'm directly engaging in international commerce; let shipping companies pay for their own security and protection. If other nations want outside help for their defense and security, such as from the US, I think they ought to just work that out with private entities that offer such services & leave taxpayers out of that.

Some of the military even involves things that aren't in the US Constitution, such as having an air force or using aircraft (such as in the US Army & Navy). Same with ICBMs, nuclear weapons, etc. It only gives the federal government the power for armies and a navy. I'm not sure how the federal government is getting around the constitution - if at all.

We already have the US Coast Guard to protect the border at sea. National guard units can be managed at the state level. If 2nd Amendment rights were respected, as they always ought to be, then everyone in the US could be armed to the teeth & no foreign entity would dare try to invade us.

Regarding conscription in the US - it's totally unconstitutional. It blatantly disregards the 13th Amendment ban on slavery & involuntary servitude. The reason it exists now is because a bunch of totally corrupt US Supreme Court justices ruled unanimously that it is constitutional (Arver v. US) back in the early 20th century. It seems like a lot of crap that took our rights & destroyed the US happened back in the early 20th century, but that's for a different thread.

Despite the criticisms, I like it beint there just in case its actually needed for actually defending the country.

There are other ways for the US to do that. I'm not talking about getting rid of that protection; for instance, protection can still be done by a private companies

Yeah, I'd much rather have a civilian army with all the benefits of the United States Federal Government backing it than a mercenary army. Why let it be professional killers for hire when we have citizens who do it out of a sense of duty to country?
Also, 50 individual state militias is not as effective as one organized military. This is a big reason Europe struggled against the Ottoman Empire because Europe was many states working towards the same goal but doing as many states against many states acting as one.
And militias weren't intended to replace the army but act as a first response of defense, especially in a world where the military could be marching a few days or more before they arrive.

For example, people here in the US want their unions and minimum wage, which drives up prices, takes jobs away, and destroys smaller businesses; these kinds of problems cause things to be cheaper from "overseas."

Amd yet the rest of the Western world is doing very well with a much stronger union presence and membership base and far better minimum wage laws.
Like it or not we need to pay more. Our low costs are artificial and subsidized through exploitation over seas and low wages and poor benefits here that are supplimented by the tax payer.

 

[Augustus]

What positives and negatives do you see occurring now and in the next decade or so as a result of what you described above? I would be highly interested in reading your views on this, if you wouldn't mind sharing.

Advantages basically relate to the idea the hegemon can’t throw their weight around.

Disadvantages are that in a multipolar system it becomes easier for others to throw their weight around destabilising the system.

The hegemony tends not to benevolent and certainly takes advantage of its position, but does also play a stabilising role.

With modern technology advancing so rapidly, the potential for destabilisation is greater than ever.

I doubt the next period of international affairs will be remembered for its peacefulness, but hopefully I’m wrong about this.

 

[Revoltingest]

Primarily, to protect the interests of US based corporations.
Also, to boost the ego of quite a few citizens.

Not to assist NATO or other allies?
Not in case USA is ever attacked.?
Let go the hatred for capitalism.