@Prateek
You are correct. However, I try to make short arguments based on principle and logic. When we get caught up in the game of debating ends, the debate stops being about principles and instead becomes about preferences.
Russia and the U.S. still have ICBM nukes pointed at each other, so the threat of nuclear war exists. The risk associates the probability of occurrence and the consequences of occurrence. Relations between the U.S. and Russia are strained, but not to the degree where I think either side would lauch an attack. So the probability of occurrence is very low (almost negligible) whereas the consequences of occurrence would be catestrophic. It would be imprudent even as a isolationist country not to take precautions to advert war, most of which can be done diplomatically.
China is building a modern military, but it would appear this is just to keep up with the U.S. and Russia as it emerges as the world’s newest super power. China is a greater risk to nations in the region, where it has made claims that could result in military action. China also has the means of launching an attack against the U.S., but has not made it clear whether or not it has any intention to do so. The probability of occurrence is very low. The consequences of occurence are high. We already have a military to match China’s so all that’s required maintain diplomatic relations and attempt to dissuade China from any military adventures.
North Korea and Iran are emerging threats primarily due to their pursuit of nuclear weapons and launch systems to deliver them. Both countries have serious internal issues that could topple their existing regimes. They are not an immediate threat, but if they develop the systems they are seeking they could be. Assuming they do, that would make the probability of occurrence low and the consequence of occurrence high (nuclear attack of even 1 U.S. city is a high consequence). The prudent thing to do against these nations is to prepare for an adequate defense against the future threat. That does not mean pre-emptive strikes or invasions, but does include technologies to defeat an attack. Missile defense is still an emerging technology. My position is that private companies should develop the technologies that are most effective and efficient rather that the government, which tends to create ineffective, inefficient systems at astronomical costs. These missile systems aren’t something you create overnight, and take years to develop and perfect. The current systems are in the state of infancy (effectiveness of these systems are something I personally cannot discuss).
Other nations could attempt to harm the interests of the U.S., but I wouldn’t really call that a threat.
Only Russia and China have a limited capability to launch a serious attack against the U.S. Doing so wouldn’t be in their best interests either. Three party talks should take place to discuss the reductions in the size of these militaries. I would not just arbitrarily cut the U.S. military without assurances from the other two nations. The start would be to redeploy American armed forces from foreign locations to domestic locations. That action would take several years to accomplish at the cost of billions, if not trillions of dollars. This would be done in conjunction with the deployment of other nations’ militaries to provide for their own self defense. The overall size of the military would be reduced since it won’t be spread out as much. This is not isolationism, it’s just normalization of our armed forces and results in a stronger defense of U.S. territory.
Oh, and what should have happened? The Allies should have renegotiated the peace terms of WWI to undo the obvious injustices of Versailles. But instead the Allies decided to re-fight WWI in order to maintain the status quo.
Good Question - unfortunately, we will never know. - or perhaps, fortunately.
Philosophically, we should have no military.
Practically, we cannot defend ourselves without some means of defending ourselves.
I understand the position that an occupying force cannot in the long run sustain its domination over a populace, but that assumes the populace remains alive to put up an opposition.
Why do you assume a military is the only means of defense? Why do you assume that violence is the only way to resolve conflict?
So I guess I don’t believe in free markets now? Wow. I never said I oppose all taxation either. I do believe there is a need of government. I am not an anarchist. I don’t believe in the progressive tax, and I don’t believe in taxing in order to redistribute. I have no problem with say a national sales tax or some similar tax. I believe there is a need for government to prevent coercion both foreign and domestic. In order to pay for this, you need some source of revenue. If all members of the society are being protected equally by these laws and benefit from them, then they should all pay for them.
Who ever said this? Are you trying to claim we do stuff like this? This is just silly talk. While I don’t believe in killing people, I do believe you can justifiably kill someone in self defense. Rape would never be justified in any circumstance. There is a world of difference.
Did I write that?
Then it is hard to be a consistent free marketer.
And what can government do that private individuals working cooperatively cannot?
All tax is redistribution.
Government can only exist as a monopoly with coercion. So coercion to stop coercion doesn’t seem very consistent to me.
It is impossible to protect everyone with equal law, because not all people are equal.
In Japan, the US armed forces are notorious for raping young girls, but no, I was not claiming that anyone do that. What I am claiming, is that if you believe anything is justified to prevent “islamo fascism” then how far will you take that? Right now, the US mass murders innocent civilians. Is that acceptable to stop “islamo fascism”?
So you do believe in killing people.
So it’s ok to kill, but not ok to rape. Is it ok to torture?
So are we in agreement that there is really no military threat to the US?
I’m not sure Ron Paul or anyone here has advocated arbitrary cuts. What has been said is the current situation is a waste of trillions of dollars, illegal, and makes the world a much more radical and dangerous place.
It seems like you are with me on pulling the troops back to US soil but still think we need the same numbers. The only reason we need so many troops is to maintain our current obligation around the world. If we give up those obligations we dont need the same size military.
U.S. Government military isn’t the only possible means of defense, but it’s the only one we seem to have today.
If the enemy provides only the option to fight or die, then you must fight.
The means of warfare change. Voluntary militias were replaced with professional armies. Professional armies like the ones that fought WWII are being replaced with smaller, more specialized forces. Someday we may have an automatonic army utilizing nonlethal force to counter aggression (The Day The Earth Stood Still, Gort without the disintegration ray).
As for terrorism, so as not to confuse inconventional warfare with conventional warfare, a military is an inefficient means to handle that situation. Typically, when the terrorists are armed and dangerous it’s too late. Violence is a poor response to terrorism, and you could say it simply results in more terrorism.
As for the entire approach of War, the west and east differ. There are more ways to conduct warfare - and more directly self defense - than armed military confrontation. We tend to ignore this in the U.S., preferring to blow them away with superior firepower. This tends to fantasize war, particularly the violence. Throw in the 24-hour media, and you have arm chair soldiers who have no idea of the human cost associated not just with those who are killed, but those who kill as well. All true participants of war are anti-war very, very quickly.
Risk relates to probability and consequence. I place the risk of the threats from Russian and China at low. A low risk threat doesn’t imply no threat. So Russia and China are the only threats in you very limited definition.
Military’s defend governments, not people. Regardless, why does a geographic location whose people are not restricted from owning weapons need a military? Do you think that another group of people would invade the United States, given how many people own their own guns in the United States? Do you think anyone would invade the United States, given that the United States government has nuclear weapons? What do you think would have cost the U.S. government less, putting a bounty on Osama Bin Laden, or invading two countries?
Well, when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
This is so ridiculous. Do you realize the US has killed around 1,000 muslims for every American? How can anyone keep a straight face and try to portray the muslims as the more aggressive party? It’s like Israel, if you crunch the numbers, kills around 6 or 10 palestinian terrorists [sic] for every Israeli victim. These must be the world’s worst terrorists if that is the case…
Someday we will have peace when the state apparatus is dismantled. [:)]
The U.S. people are restricted from owning the weapons necessary to protect themselves from a foreign aggressor - not that we necessarily have one at this point. The U.S. Government seems to be the aggressor as it stands - both against us and those abroad.
You’re providing a circular argument. If there’s no Government military, then there’s no nukes. How can you uses nukes as an argument against the military - unless you don’t want nukes.
Techinically they did put a bounty on Osama bin Laden ($25 million), but no Muslim who calls himself a Muslim would ever do that.
What, you mean the people that own tanks and artillery? Regardless, why don’t we just get rid of all the gun and defense laws and let people buy what they feel they need for protection?
I would completely agree.
I am just giving options, and didn’t use very good grammar. I should have asked if the U.S. government, as it currently stands, needs to worry about invasion, given that it has nuclear weapons? Then I should have asked, even if the government got rid of the military, would we need to worry about invasion since the people would have their own weapons?
True. However, the government then spent hundreds of billions of dollars on its wars. So I should have asked, what would have been preferable, putting a ten billion dollar bounty on Osama Bin Laden, or spending hundreds of billions of dollars on wars?
I don’t think so. I guess it depends on who is defining free market. Wikipedia definition = A free market describes a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to regulate against force or fraud.
I agree with this definition, and it takes financial resources to have the government. I don’t see how having a tax on say consumption that is applied equally to all transactions would not be the free market. Maybe I’m just ignorant and you can enlighten me.
Well, I think the key word is cooperatively. Am I to believe everyone will behave cooperatively? If not, are we supposed to each have our own police forces? Who says what’s justified for that police force? Again, I must admit I haven’t read the docs on private defense yet, but if this is what it is I don’t see how it could work.
So how do you stop coercion?
I agree that maybe in some cases people don’t get the same legal defense because of their financial status, but I’m not sure how that means you should not have laws or government.
I don’t know this to be true or false, so i won’t make a claim either way. You make it sound like it’s a military strategy though, and it is not. You can’t claim we do this as a country because of someone’s actions. I do believe we have no business in Japan at this point though.
We will never agree because you believe we are mass murders. There is always collateral damage in any war whether even when it’s agreed its a justified war. We are not systematically mass murdering people.
Yes, I do believe it’s ok in self defense. If someone is trying to kill me, should I just say I don’t believe in killing and they’ll stop?
Again, yes. There is a world of difference between killing someone in self defense and raping someone. Killing someone because they are trying to take your life is a world of difference than raping someone.
And, no I am not ok with torture, but that is a sticky issue too. Torture can be classified many different ways.
Agree 100%.
My statement pertains to when it is rational to use violence, since that was the question that was asked of me. Has anyone in the middle east put the people of the U.S. into a position where their only options are to fight or die? No, except for maybe insurgents who ambush U.S. forces (but in that instance both sides are at war). We are at war, whether we declare it or not, because we occupy their land. We (the U.S. Government) initiated that war. The reasons we did so at this point are pretty irrelevant.
Your statement on the ratio between Americans killed to muslims killed only shows that the Americans are better killers than the muslims (or are just better armed). The U.S. Government is putting terrorists and even some nonterrorists in the position where the choice is to fight, die or surrender. I would also add that a lot of those muslims you mention die as a response to their own aggression. The concept of martyrdom is pretty strong, which results in young men throwing rocks at men with machine guns. Is this rational? I think the whole thing is quite tragic.
Utopia can not exist. Those laws’ protections and benefits are always inequitable, otherwise they would be created voluntarily with no need to ‘vote’ for them and force others who disagree to pay for them.
Agreed, but I think you’d see people pool together and buy “insurance” against military invasion. The costs of developing, acquiring, operating and maintaining some of the necessary equipment are quite high.
You assume that the capture or elimination of Osama bin Laden would stop al-Qaeda.
I agree that there is gross inefficiency in the way the U.S. Government has chosen to tackle the problem. They’ve actually made al-Qaeda more popular and more powerful in the long run, and there have been several off-shoots.
Not sure where I said a utopia would exist.
Ok, so let me walk through this and you can straighten me out. Having a law, say that you can’t murder anyone, would in my opinion benefit everyone. So you say this could be created voluntarily. What about with a serial killer? He may not agree with this.
Am I to believe that killing would not be a little more accepted and happen more often if there was no law prohibiting it? Obviously laws do not stop something, but they do dissuade the action. I think this would be a perfect example of a good place to force those who disagree.
How do you propose this protection without government? If someone decides to kill someone what are the repercussions?