Projection of power.

[Solon]

First off let me say that I am not knocking the military itself, I am just trying to understand the practical applications the current military could JUSTIFIABLY be used in. Nor am I advocating eliminating it entirely, however, why the hell does our military have to cost so much? I would think, with the advent of nuclear weapons, that using conventional forces for defense of the nation is impractical at best, impossible at worst. One thing to keep in mind is that during the Cold War, the United States and Western Europe could not hope to hold back the USSR or the Warsaw Pact from a conventional invasion of Western Europe. Nuclear weapons were the only feasible way of "defending" Europe from the USSR. Why would that be any different today in defending the United States from the same thing?

There is no nation on Earth that can successfully invade the United States by conventional means. Neither is the military equipped to deal with terrorism, for you could have 10 million troops stationed nationwide and could not protect a city from the acts of a few. The days of WWI and WWII battles are over, the idea of a total war waged today is suicidal for the Human Race.
So what is the point of the conventional military. Only one thing comes to mind, and that is projection of power. Even with the ability to wipe out all life on the surface of this planet five times over, the United States still has regional interests that have little to do with "National Security" or peace that do not warrant the suicidal use of nuclear weapons.

Unlike empires of the past, the United States faces major stumbling blocks to empirical ambitions. One is flow of information, as demonstrated for much of this century, it is getting increasing harder to hide the facts from the populace of the aggressor nation. Another is cultural, that combined with the previous, could spell disaster for any nation waging war. That is the lack of blood lust, for whatever opinion that people have about Americans, we are not as bad today as we were one hundred years ago, or even 30 years ago. Regardless of the freepers with no soul, we are not all heartless people, many are ignorant of the situation, or how bad it is or can be.

Now I go on to the biggest stumbling block to American Empire, and that is nuclear weapons. Right now, many nations around the world are trying to develop or acquire nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. Does anyone here think they would choose to use them once they have them? While not all nations are nice and peaceful, most are not suicidal either, they are acquiring these weapons for the exact same reason the US and USSR had their arms races, deterrence. If Iraq had working nuclear weapons, would the United States have even dared to invade at all? Of course not, and that is why North Korea and Iran are rushing to develop working weapons for the purpose of preventing other nations from invading.
In defense, the United States Military has limited usefulness unless either Canada or Mexico decides to invade. If a "Rogue State" decides to lob a nuclear warhead at an American city, the most we could do is warn the target city and evacuate as many as we can in the time allowed, and then literally wipe that nation off the face of the Earth.

Two other stumbling blocks in the way of building an American Empire are knowledge and technology. Unlike the European Empires of the past, we do not face people who are ignorant of modern warfare or of the technology to build the weapons necessary to fight us. As we are learning, painfully, in Iraq, citizens in other nations are very quick to learn how to fight us. No matter how advanced we get in conventional war machines and weapons, there are ways around them. An Abrams M1A2 tank could be defeated by using an improvised land mine and a Molotov cocktail, and those weapons are much cheaper than the tank.

Yes in conventional warfare, the United States Military is bar none at the top of the heap, however, its usefulness is also limited to conventional warfare only. As learned in Vietnam and now in Iraq, it is hard to "pacify" a nation that does not want you there, and unconventional methods of warfare have the edge in the wars of today. We faced a nation that posed little threat to us and yes we defeated the conventional army easily enough, and now the siege has started, and time is not on our side, so to speak.

FYI: I never supported the Iraq war, just pointing out the practical difficulties that modern militaries would face in these "new" old wars.

[The Traveler]

1. The military is required

because really interesting folk like you need grunts like me to keep the really bad people out there from giving people you a hot lead enema.

Beat an Abrams with a Molotov cocktail?!? (Laughing my ass off.)

BTW I was professionally involved in the cold war and I assure you had the Warsaw Pact crossed the line they would have had the shit kicked out of them WITHOUT the use of nukes. Incorrect info there, my friend. But there would have been a lot of corpses on both sides. Good thing it didn't happen.

America is not yet an Empire. I really hope we don't go there. It would be a horrible error.

Still, you are moving in the right direction.

[Solon]

2. An RPG then, and not just a molotov cocktail

BTW I did not say that the military wasn't neccessary. You say it exist to stop me from getting a "hot lead enema", I did not know that the US Military was in law enforcement domestically, for that bullet is much more likely to come from an American Citizen than any foriegn power. Honestly, how likely is it that any nation can invade the US and shoot at me in the middle of the country? My best friend is a former Marine veteran of Somalia, and specialized in explosives. He told me many interesting stories and techniques to defeat both our tanks and others. All machines have vulnerabilities that can be exploited, none are invincible. The point is that with experience a motivated population can give us hell in their nation. As far as the United States being an Empire, look up the history of the Carribean, Central and South America and then we could talk about that later. As far as I can tell we have two contentious territories under US control that were not previously a part of the United States. If that doesn't make an Empire I don't know what does. Not to mention the puppet states that we had and have today that answer to Washington.

Not entirely sure about the exact stance of NATO at the time, I heard, I think on the History Channel, that the USSR had the largest armored force in the world, and nuclear weapons were thought of as an option in dealing with an invasion senario. Could be wrong though.

[The Traveler]

5. My point was not well made

But is nonetheless valid. It is inconceivable to you that we could be invaded. But is IS conceivable to guys like me. And because we conceive that and prepare against it, it is inconceivable to you.

Which is exactly the way I want it. Guys like you push us forward. Guys like me create a safe zone for guys like you to operate. I am happy with the arrangement, even if guys like you don't get it.

[Solon]

9. Our best defense...

Is geography, not the military, no offense. From a practical standpoint, unless Canada or Mexico cooperate fully with an invading power, it would be a logistical nightmare. Not to mention the motivated populace who would not want a foriegn power to gain control of the country. BTW I don't think that invasion is inconcievable, just unlikely.

[The Traveler]

21. I can recommend some books

if yer interested in the topic. Would have to dig up some titles.

[el_gato]

17. that is total horseshit robg

If you think the U.S. would be invaded by another country
if we reduced our military you must be delusional.

By who?

Safe zone my ass! Gimme a fucking break.

Listen robg we don't need you to protect us.
Protect yourself and I'll protect myself.
I didn't ask "guys like you" for any help. You got it?

[The Traveler]

20. robg

Sure. Whatever, dude.

[mulethree]

12. Ever Notice

How much the History channel loves to cover wars and weapons and such? Almost ;-) like they were a propaganda engine for the military and weapons manufacturers.

We, and the brits, spent billions on nuclear artillery specifically as a last ditch means to stop a major Soviet advance. I don't know if they were "just in case" or if at some point round 1960 we didn't have the capability to stop them conventionally.

We had what? 300,000 troops in europe During the cold war? Plus the local europeans. There would be a lot of notice if the soviets were getting together an army big enough to take that on. Enough notice that you could bomb them before they even got close? A lot of big rivers to cross, take out the bridges.

Yes the Military budget is too big. A big piece is waste in weapons development and procurement. Big pieces that aren't too useful for wars like Iraq - NORAD, ICMB's, SLBM's are primarily for detecting and countering a soviet attack.

Intelligence like the CIA, NSA etc. Are huge expenses but I don't know if they show up in the DoDefense budget. Likewise a lot of nuclear stuff - new nuke warheads, disposal of dismantled nukes etc is under the Dept of Energy.

I think people forget that modern chemical weapons date back more than a century and that the A-Bomb was developed with 1940's technology and ICBM's with 1960's technology. They don't have to be very high tech to be very deadly. I think the proliferation dangers are of countries getting tech that can be hidden easier and can make 5 bombs from the same materials that one primitive bomb would need.

Yes self preservation means having bombs but not using them except as a last resort - deterrence. But if terrorists get them, does deterrence work? If bin laden had used a nuke, or crashed the 2 WTC jets into the Indian Point nuclear reactors about 30 miles north of manhattan ... who do you nuke in response?

So we protect a lot of countries, if we stopped they would pretty much need nukes of their own and delivery mechanisms. Maybe we'd rather they not all have nukes but then they sure as heck need to be returning favors big time. I suspect though that the favors are not all coming back to the public budget but to secret budgets and to private companies.

[sweetheart]

3. nuclear weapons are useless as hell

There is a new version of a computer video game you might enjoy. It
is called "Command & Conquor: Generals". It is a battlefield
simulation game. I believe that all the republicans have been
playing this game, and that they come to the same conclusions that
a game player does.... whomever controls the power supplies wins
the war. I swear this electronic arts game is the primary strategy
learning tool for republican war mongers, and hence why we are
staking out (tiberium supplies) oil supplies the world over and
controlling access.

If your enemies gang up on you and use nuclear weapons, you lose...
as once they are in play, your only card is nuclear response with
what remains, and both countries are left to win a post-nuclear
conflict with what remains of their conventional forces.

I don't agree: Right now, many nations around the world are trying
to develop or acquire nuclear weapons as quickly as possible.
That is propaganda talking. Smart nations don't waste the money
on stupid white elephants they can do nothing at all with except
sell to terrorists at a radical discount. Rather, a wise military
nation of today looks how to deter an american invasion by engagement
with the USA. In this regard, they follow the "keep your friends
close, keep your enemies closer" maxim. America's worst enemies
are its close allies. They are the nations that have foregone
military attack for civilian competition and suck the life out of
the US by draining the treasury on aid without recompense.

Malaysia is a new modern enemy. They refuse to engage on worldbank
and IMF terms economically, and instead suckle on the teet of
western technology, without adopting US control of their economy.
This will allow them, in the future, to set up an alternate pole
of economic power without the US, once the transfusion is complete.
As more nations push towards unilateral disengagement with the
US by being appearant "friends", then the cost of the empire will
cost us even more, as it will have no value to have such expensive
hardware in the field without uses, and who wants a global police
thug around when there is nobody to beat up.

The cost of militarization is shrinking radically. For the cost of
a child's model airplane, one can rig up a tiny aircraft drone to
be flown remotely for reconnaisance. These simple innovations are
available to military forces the world over, and provide on-the-cheap
military power.

My prediction is that war will come to north america in the next 20
years by nukes, and that after 40 million people are killed, and we
kill as many millions elsewhere, that we will be defeated even in
victory. If we can avoid that one, then the empire will collapse
just like rome, with the debt of huge militarization finally crushing
what remains of civilian government, that, like the soviet union,
the other side of the cold war will walk off the job without pay.

In the subsequent breakup of states in to regional nations, the
propensity for north american war, will re-emerge as it once did
between some indian tribes on the continent before the white man.
The breakup in to states, like the soviet "stans" will leave many
states with nuclear arsenals, and a massive WMD proliferations
problem that makes today's russia problems look benign by comparison.

[Solon]

4. Agree and disagree.

Nuclear weapons are useless as practical military weapons, for their sheer destructiveness. But that is not the primary use of possessing them, it is the threat of using them that makes them useful political tools. Anyone using nuclear weapons in today's world potentially faces total destruction, this includes the United States along with every nuclear power.

The cost of militarization is shrinking radically. For the cost of
a child's model airplane, one can rig up a tiny aircraft drone to
be flown remotely for reconnaissance. These simple innovations are
available to military forces the world over, and provide on-the-cheap
military power.

Proved one of my points right there, it is much more difficult for US Conventional Forces to subjugate other nations if their militaries do not rely on not necessarily the absolute best in military technology, but in tried and true technologies that can be made cheaply and get the job done. BTW I would say that it would be for the price of a remote controlled airplane not a model airplane.

[sweetheart]

6. Think like an enemy for a moment

You're the Autarch, the primary ruler of a second-rate nation
in asia. You want to strategically defeat the USA. You send as
many citizens as possible to western schools, to learn from your
enemy. You set up an arms-length relationship with the US by
inviting Russian military cooperation and getting russian forces
training, or chinese. These defense arrangements, will allow you to
keep the US military out. If you have oil, you set up intense
insurgency plans, that were the US to ever invade, the entire
nation would stop and fight the invader as a trained militia. In
this regard, every citizen in your country would do military service
and keep weapons in their homes. If the US ever invades, the
entire nation is prepared to fight against the invader. There
is no point in opposing overwhelming military force with like, rather
like a guerilla, you focus on less direct means. Knowing that you
special forces are adept and would cause serious insugency damage,
the US knows that invading is really unwise... taking lessons from
iraq-nam.

This national security strategy keeps the US at bay. Now you set
up strategic industrial clusters in various cities around technology
universities. These free trade areas invite in foreign companies
provided that 51% of the local operation is locally owned. This
will allow you to nationally control all corporate activity of the
US and other multinationals. You pay lip service to intellectual
property rights, but secretly support piracy, knowing that
all nations that experience serious economic growth do not support
Intellectual property historically, despite the US knoweldge worker
claim to creating wealth.

You invite in international power companies to train your people
to set up nuclear power reactors that your nation have nuclear
knowledge skills... just in case you need to militarize it in the
worst case.... but for all intents, that remains a secret plan
at best, just in case the US needs to be deterred on relatively
shorter notice.

You set up a state propaganda regulator that supports local film
and imports a set of media from around the world that supports your
political views towards permanent independence from US overlording.
Then your ciizens will be ideologically empowered to confront
the US empire, and undermine it.

Finally, for all practical intents, you keep the fact that you
are an enemy as secret as possible, so that Americans will think
your nation a friend.

Sounds like: Malaysia, Finland, Switzerland

[Solon]

7. Being a competitor is not the same as an enemy

That is a confusing concept apparently, to you all countries are potential enemies of the United States. That is an erronious assumption, simply because they want to even the playing field seems to be an unforgivable sin. Preparations for defense doesn't make an enemy either. These are preparations any nation would make, and if they decide to form alliances outside US influence, why can't they?

[Solon]

11. Another point Sweetheart...

Just because a nation opposes the United States diplomatically does not mean that it is automatically an enemy of the nation. Finland and Switzerland as enemies, LOL. To be an actual enemy of the United States, you would have to pose a military threat to either us or our allies.

[sweetheart]

18. Not with the neoliberal interventionism we've been up to

If you read Chalmer's Johnson's book, Sorrows of Empire, he very
clearly lays out, in a profoundly academic manner, the way the
US is making a global play for empire, to deliberately repress nations
the world over. What do you think was Argentina, Korea, Thailand,
Mexico...and a good portion of africa, what was saudi arabia and
pakistan. Safeguarding democracy makes one an enemy of the united
states, be very clear about that. The United States only supports
dictators and antidemocratic means. Conquoring nations by overt
or covert means is no friend. All of south america are enemies of
the flag-cult. Ameirca does nothing but subvert democracy the
continent over. America is not the victem. It is the agressor.
It is the one who will invade if its corporations are not getting
the right deal. It should try invading india next to see if that
can be done. The absurdity of this military adventure makes america
the potential enemy of any nation on earth. That, IMO, is why
the voter turnout for Democrats Abroad is higher than ever before
in history. Belgium went from under 10 to 300 in a year. This
is happening all over the world. Americans abroad suddenly discover
that we are potentially the enemy, and that we are putting terror
out the world over with out military abroad.

The entire world, must defend itself from the US, who, like hitler
before him, and the mongolians before that and Assyrians, Greeks
and Egyptians are making the classic play for central asia, for
its power, and its oil. Oh what fools and how slow they learn.
We are a very dangerous nation, with a loose felon at the helm..
indeed.

[mulethree]

15. Unless you're the U.S.

Then your RC airplane has to have real time cameras with jam-resistent radio links and extra long range and a self-destruct so the enemy can't get ahold of the fancy radio.

BAM the $500 RC plane with a digital camera that costs $2000 to develop becomes a $50mm project and costs $50,000 per plane.

1000x the cost for 2x the function?

[mulethree]

13. RE Malaysia

Imagine if they boycotted a country from receiving CPU's and hard disk drives :)

On the other hand, those things go obsolete within ?6? years and if the malaysians give us trouble we could just cancel some new factories there and build them in South Korea? Poland? even - OMG! in the US?

I am so pissed that I built my computer myself but that all the parts have to come from Malaysia, Tiawan, S. Korea and Costa Rica.

US and "dragon" companies making big profits off sales to the US but with the factories all overseas in "dragon" countries that would be prime targets except for our military protection.

[sweetheart]

19. Totally, yea

All the chips say malasia on them. Once in a past life in a wafer
lab related job (calibrating oscilloscopes), I met all these malaysian
people who they brought over to work in marina del rey, because
they were the only ones who would put up with the working conditions
and tedious micro-assembly line work making microelelectronics for
guidance of missiles, like the maverick. The whole brain is on
a single custom chip, that is embedded inside a nuclear hardened
EMP package.

I think they used malaysians also, to keep control of that technology
in an obscure area of the world, to their thinking. Lets put our
chip factories in malaysia, like we put our programmers in india...
and they are happy happy while we go bankrupt protecting them in a
farce for empire.

Malaysia's Mahathir, was the only chap smart enough to resist the
IMF world bank suffle that knocks over countries in covert warfare.
He has done pretty well, by the standards of the region. We
pushed over indonesia and its never recovered. We pushed over
the phillipines and they'll take a long time to get it back.

As much as this globalization helps by specialization, it presumes
that labour is replaceable at diminsithing rates by its search
for industrial perfection, the "free labour market". This deskilling
and dumping of planned economics overseas is bankrupting us.
We can program computers as well as indian people. We designed the
bloody things for christs sake. We are purposely deskilling the
economy with an excuse called globalization. The complexity of not
forcing the market to monopoly... that there is no global maxima
to be achieved, and rather a complex set of local economic maxima,
that the entire relationship of 2 nations is reduced to 1.8944 .

[Old and In the Way]

8. How do you justify a $400BB budget if you don't have wars and

"gathering threats"? Apparently, for the last 35 years, Iraq has been chosen as the deiginated testing ground for our military technology. We also need to have seasoned, war-hardened vetrens to run the next generations war, too.

[Solon]

10. You can't, and that is the point.

We live in a time that still has the cold war paranoia that is symptomatic of collective mental illness. We use our "National Security" as an excuse for all types of actions that are at best, questionable.

[izzie]

14. We need it because it is big business. Money

To be safe a small one would do.

[kentuck]

16. Military power is highly over-rated....

It is political and economic power that has made the US a "superpower". After all, a few people with mighty weapons like boxcutters were able to bring a strong military to its knees.