Monaco has 5000 troops, and most of them are women without guns. Why are they not invaded? They are technically under the protection of France, but that is precisely the point. Why doesn’t France just annex them? It would be SUPER easy.
There’s also the possibility of letters of marque and reprisal to consider. Yes, I know they’re no longer considered valid by international law, but why should that really matter?
I get what you are saying and I think America itself would serve much better for your example. If North Korea, Iran, Russia or Mexico abolished their militaries overnight the USA would almost certainly invade them. (Not necessarily in a mayor way, but certainly to the extent it is intervening in Somalia or Yemen.)
Maybe not invasion, but perhaps a blockade and enforced tariffs could happen. Is it possible for Russia or China to blockade a couple of our busy ports and demand a fee be paid by all ships entering and leaving? Could this possibly be a profitable venture for a foreign nation to attempt?
It would piss off aaaall our customers 
+1
.
.
As if humans kill other humans easily. Why exactly would the North Korean people invade South Korea when there is no threat again?
Right, at least in the nationalistic sense of the term.
I notice that even Anarchists here are unable to relieve themselves of this habit of thinking about issues of defense from a nationalistic and collectivist perspective. The problem of national defense still remains in the Ron Paul or limited government State. Not in the free society. It’s not to say that the free society is bullet proof. Potential problems can always arise, however, a problem of national defense or a prospect of foreign invasion is not one of them.
Uh, I don’t have a country.
How is this not just pure fear-mongering? When was the last time the US government people invaded a place that had no military?
Although I did ask what’s meant by “us”, strictly speaking the question concerns simply abolishing the standing military forces. I don’t see how it necessarily implies abolishing political entityhood per se.
I see that now. He’s talking about abolishing the military only. You don’t kill just part of the cancer or even most of it. It would be more productive to talk about abolishing the State. I mean, if you’re going to be so radical at the dinner table anyway…you might as well go all the way.
The abolish the CIA (Ron Paul) and stick to the Constitution stuff sounds like rhetoric coming out of a bunch of pacifist and naive ideologues. And justifiably so in my opinion.
Edit: I sometimes think that Ron Paul saying he would abolish the CIA on mainstream media is his way of making sure he doesn’t accidently get elected.
I have one question: Is there a possibility other governments (take China as an example) would invade in order to protect themselves from the same fate as the federal government here? Might China be afraid that if the people they control see what happened in the United States they might replicate it? I’m going out on a limb here haha
Whether you think it’s more productive has no bearing on the intent of the thread, as outlined by the title and OP. You’re effectively saying the OP should’ve started a different thread from the one he actually did start. How is that not off-topic?
How about right now? Or maybe the bombs being droppd on Somalia or Pakistani tribal areas are just figments of my imagination??
Neither the Somalian nor Pakistani governments have militaries?
The Pakistani government has a military- in terms of active troops its one of the top ten largest in the world. They’re just ok with killing the people in the tribal areas
It is not Somali or Pakistani government militaries the US is intervening against, but the people battling the governments/militaries. It is not bombing state entities.