View Full Version : So Why Do We Have (Or Want) To Be The Big Dog?
I've asked that question (speaking about the USA) a few times lately and have received looks back that seemed to label me anywhere on the scale from idiot to commie. But it's a serious question. Lots of people hold up the Scandinavian countries as models and given their relative lifestyles that's not totally unreasonable. Simply redirecting a good portion of our substantial resources inward should allow us to be competitive in that regard.
For the record I'm not talking about becoming isolationist or abandoning true humanitarian causes here, just ceasing to maintain a big chunk of our global empire in places that aren't thrilled to have us there anyway. That money could then be redirected to infrastructure, education, healthcare (there, I said it), clean energy, etc.
I feel like I'm ready to let someone else take the lead. We've had it for 70ish years and that feels like enough. Our kids deserve something better than what we've got going right now. What do you think? Too utopian?
I see no reason for us to be spending more on our nation's military than most of the rest of the entire planet combined. It's just silly, and a horrible waste of our society's resources.
Seems to me that all things lead back to money and power. As long as we feel the need to dominate and control, that story won't change. I too am sorry that our children might have to continue this way when it could be so different. I will stay committed to being an idiot, thank you.
iris lilies
3-19-15, 6:15pm
I've asked that question (speaking about the USA) a few times lately and have received looks back that seemed to label me anywhere on the scale from idiot to commie. But it's a serious question. Lots of people hold up the Scandinavian countries as models and given their relative lifestyles that's not totally unreasonable. Simply redirecting a good portion of our substantial resources inward should allow us to be competitive in that regard.
For the record I'm not talking about becoming isolationist or abandoning true humanitarian causes here, just ceasing to maintain a big chunk of our global empire in places that aren't thrilled to have us there anyway. That money could then be redirected to infrastructure, education, healthcare (there, I said it), clean energy, etc.
I feel like I'm ready to let someone else take the lead. We've had it for 70ish years and that feels like enough. Our kids deserve something better than what we've got going right now. What do you think? Too utopian?
What do I have to give up if I give up Big Dog status? I mean material things. musing here.
Cheap gas? I personally am ok with that giving up cheap gas, both in my car and for products I buy.
Would I be able to give up having to listen to endless kvetching from Huffington Post types about the Industrial-War machine? That would be worth something.
If we have to continue with all Humanitarian Aid, I am not up for that. I would throw that onto the table for debate.
cow-hi Huffington Post type here, and yes, if we give up world domination, I promise to kvetch endlessly about something else.
iris lilies
3-19-15, 10:10pm
What do I have to give up if I give up Big Dog status? I mean material things. musing here.
Cheap gas? I personally am ok with that giving up cheap gas, both in my car and for products I buy.
Would I be able to give up having to listen to endless kvetching from Huffington Post types about the Industrial-War machine? That would be worth something.
If we have to continue with all Humanitarian Aid, I am not up for that. I would throw that onto the table for debate.
edited to add: I see that Gregg specified continuing with "true" humanitarian causes, so only some are up for debate.
I see no reason for us to be spending more on our nation's military than most of the rest of the entire planet combined. It's just silly, and a horrible waste of our society's resources. It's a Human shortcoming. We are not yet evolved enough. Eisenhower warned us about "the undue influence...of the military industrial complex..." over 50 years ago in his farewell speech, and he was in a position to know! But, it isn't just Congress' or Big Defenses' fault. You have the aggressive RWNJ rabble-rousers with the hyperpatriotic, nationalist We VS Them attitude, and the very gullible types sitting in their EZ chairs, TV on, as their political constituents. To them, world affairs and all of humanity is like one big Stadium Sports League. They dogmatically believe we HAVE to be rooting for our side, against the opposition. It is largely contrived, much like gun-nut Ted Nugent and his followers going "hunting". Even though they already have sources of readily-available food to eat, the primitives have got to engage in killing, and the odds of winning must be in their favor. That is why we specialize in attacking countries we perceive as a winnable challenge. Also, Afghanistan is a trophy; the Soviets spent a decade there, and had a 100,000 casualties, before they pulled out. It evens the score, after "our" loss in Viet Nam, 40 years ago. It is senseless and futile, though, as today's state of VN has proven. There is one thing: even if the gross majority of our citizens finally realize the folly of being the Top-Ranked Team, this does not mean that the other wannabee-powers will cease and desist. So, the solutions fall into a gray area, because we will still have to maintain a proper defense, instead of going on the Offense. The scare tactics will start: do you want to be fighting a war on U.S. territory?, will be the rhetorical question. So, there's no easy solution.
edited to add: I see that Gregg specified continuing with "true" humanitarian causes, so only some are up for debate.Yeah, that also leads the question: Is converting everyone to Christianity a humanitarian cause? I'd bet there are a whole lot of people that vote, who believe it is.
It's the empire, not wanting to face its decline. I just hope we can gracefully fade back from being on top, rather than have a war on our soil when the rest of the world can't take us anymore.
There always seems to be someone who wants us to pull their nuts out of the fire.
ApatheticNoMore
3-20-15, 12:10am
An empire in decline yes. It may not be a question of what one wants to give up but what happens regardless, what the rest of the world claims. And many countries have reason to resist the U.S., and more and more have some active ability to, though I'm not going to make a prediction about how exactly long the empire will dominate.
While "true" humanitarian causes can be an open ended phrase, such as 'humanitarian" wars (oh talk about your oxy-morons that spout this stuff), I think maybe it was just meant for humanitarian relief efforts with no military component, although even that might not be so pure. Disaster and humanitarian aid is less than 20% of foreign aid (most is economic development and then military).
Yeah, arming small countries with our big weaponry, and then having to intervene when they attack each other. That's another problem.
Before we beat our swords into entitlement programs, let’s take advantage of the current situation in Europe to conduct a sort of experiment. Historically rich but weak countries have not fared terribly well. Europe is relatively rich, and has been hollowing out its military capabilities since the 1970s. Let’s step back for a generation or two, and see how they do using “soft power”.
What about trying some stepping back in moderation? It does not have to be all or nothing. Of course, in Canada, we kind of rely on the US for military and we spend the money on aid programs so hesitated to post.
There always seems to be someone who wants us to pull their nuts out of the fire. Yes, but to paraphrase Nancy Reagan, what about "just saying No?"
I'm kinda giggling, imagining the US waking up one morning, smiling calmly and saying no, sorry, don't take it personally but we don't do that any more. And by the way, please stop sending us your poor sick huddled masses, we reached quota on that in 1985.
Before we beat our swords into entitlement programs, let’s take advantage of the current situation in Europe to conduct a sort of experiment. Historically rich but weak countries have not fared terribly well. Europe is relatively rich, and has been hollowing out its military capabilities since the 1970s. Let’s step back for a generation or two, and see how they do using “soft power”.
"Speak softly and carry a big stick". We don't have to be weak just because we become non aggressive. My proposal is that we keep our weapons on our own soil, be prepared to defend our space, and stop sticking our fingers in everyone else's pies while we mind our own crumbling affairs.
... the "enough point" ... it could be a national concept, not just an individual one.
Humanitarian aid ... my opinion:
In a perfect world, we should help others who through no fault of their own are suffering. However, I think in this world of greed and corruption, what we need is more like a matching program. Considering how little aid ever gets to where it's intended, I'd see a lot more accountability by regimes and governments, and proof of a lot more resources on the ground where they are needed, before I added my resources to the pot. AND, I'd make sure my own country was at its "enough point" first in the areas Gregg pointed out as places to put our military spending. I'm pretty sure we'd still have some left over.
ApatheticNoMore
3-20-15, 11:58am
We don't have to be weak just because we become non aggressive.
right we were talking about aggressive wars right? Certainly I have been. Ok, but historically rich but non aggressive peaceful countries may not have fared well? (although Switzerland, maybe you just need to have a bunch of very secretive banks ....) So then you arrive at declaring war i.e. committing mass murder (which otherwise goes by the name of war) and throw in coups and drones (but those are war) etc.. is the way to fare well. Now, do you want to fare well? Personally I've had enough of it.
I don't think the rest of the world will even try to compete with the u.s. on the basis of aggressive wars as they aren't likely to win, as best they can try to defend themselves. They will try to compete economically instead by building their own economic partnerships.
I just don't think 'historically rich but non aggressive' really applies to the US. We're historically rich but we're also enormously well armed; it's not like we've been growing petunias in window boxes and just begging to be invaded.
I also look at Canada and Australia, which at least in comparison to the US are certainly non-aggressive, and could be categorized as rich, and they seem to be doing just fine. They tend first to their own knitting and then offer what they have left of their considerable wealth. So to me, there's evidence that this soft-voice-big-stick model is viable for large, rich countries, in fact, why not, "the bigger the stick, the softer the voice"?
I believe in the wisdom of carrying a big stick.
There's a limit to the size of stick you really want to carry around. Our stick is bigger than everyone else's stick combined. Foolishness.
Elect me President, I'll cut the military 50% overnight, and I bet we'll be safer because of it.
I believe in the wisdom of carrying a big stick.
There's a limit to the size of stick you really want to carry around. Our stick is bigger than everyone else's stick combined. Foolishness.
Elect me President, I'll cut the military 50% overnight, and I bet we'll be safer because of it.
Peter Zeihan wrote an interesting book (“The Accidental Superpower”) on just that topic. His contention is that the shale oil revolution and the receding memory of the Cold War are resulting in a decline of American interest in intervening in world affairs. A loss of interest in protecting world trade and security will result in a more chaotic and dangerous situation for everyone; although the US, with its large internal market and relatively diversified economy and resource base will suffer the least.
ApatheticNoMore
3-20-15, 3:09pm
Of course the line between carrying a big stick for purely defensive purposes and offensive ones is probably blurrier than usually admitted. Sure in theory purely defensive purposes would be just that and no matter how big the stick it could be used purely defensively. But in actuality carrying a stick that big and you'll find ever more occasions to use it.
Just as how to a hammer, everything looks like a nail, so must everything look like it needs defending form, to a massive military.
Just as how to a hammer, everything looks like a nail, so must everything look like it needs defending form, to a massive military.
Perhaps. But in the long run, "Your superior intellect is no match for my primitive weapons".
Maybe if we put our massive military to work doing something else that actually made sense - building solar panels? repairing roads? Creating wave power desalination plants to take the place of our catastrophically depleted fresh water supply? - we could assuage people's need to lead and conquer without actually conquering anything but our own problems.
Who, exactly, does the US think is going to launch an even remotely successful attack on our homeland? The far most likely attack would seem to be some sort of non-nation state actor(s) using some terrorism method that is likely best prevented through solid spying and police work. A large, expensive military doesn't seem like the right tool to deal with that threat.
"Speak softly and carry a big stick". We don't have to be weak just because we become non aggressive. My proposal is that we keep our weapons on our own soil, be prepared to defend our space, and stop sticking our fingers in everyone else's pies while we mind our own crumbling affairs.
... the "enough point" ... it could be a national concept, not just an individual one.
There is, IMO, a lot to be said for having an iron fist in a velvet glove. A small force, highly trained with cutting edge equipment, but only really designed to defend our soil and bolster the UN forces at a level equal to say...France. Enough to say to the world, "don't #&@% with us", but at the same time not enough to irritate the world to the point that they want to #&@% with us.
Before we beat our swords into entitlement programs, let’s take advantage of the current situation in Europe to conduct a sort of experiment. Historically rich but weak countries have not fared terribly well. Europe is relatively rich, and has been hollowing out its military capabilities since the 1970s. Let’s step back for a generation or two, and see how they do using “soft power”.
I will be at the front of the line to vote in favor of the resolution by which we withdraw from NATO. My guess is that a big old sleeping bear would make Europe interesting in far less than a generation. We can always go back and offer the Norwegians $30/bbl for their Brent Crude so they can afford to stand an army of their own.
I believe in the wisdom of carrying a big stick.
There's a limit to the size of stick you really want to carry around. Our stick is bigger than everyone else's stick combined. Foolishness.
Elect me President, I'll cut the military 50% overnight, and I bet we'll be safer because of it. I totally agree with this, just pointing out that we're already carrying double the stick we need to keep from falling into the "we have lots of resources and no way of protecting them" trap. No one's suggesting we dump our entire arsenal in the ocean and sing kumbaya on the weekends.
And ... I would. Winning the left-handed compliment of the week award, I'd say everything I've ever read of yours leads me to believe you'd make a better leader than other choices available. :)
Who, exactly, does the US think is going to launch an even remotely successful attack on our homeland? The far most likely attack would seem to be some sort of non-nation state actor(s) using some terrorism method that is likely best prevented through solid spying and police work. A large, expensive military doesn't seem like the right tool to deal with that threat.
Nation state sponsored or otherwise I think its generally accepted that the most devastating attacks in the future will be in the cyber world. There are already plenty of examples of nasty bugs and worms for which no one has claimed ownership, but suspicion points to US, Israel, China, Russia, the Russian mob, North Korea, al Queda... It seems like we could hire some pretty solid network security guys for the same price as a new Ford Class Carrier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford-class_aircraft_carrier).
There are many practical benefits to maintaining a strong capacity for destruction, even if used but infrequently. I certainly think that we don't always need to protect rich countries from threats they refuse to protect themselves from. Nor do we necessarily need to commit a big chunk of the world's last blue water navy to keeping the sea lanes open for the flow of Persian Gulf oil to China. But there are many legitimate interests to protect (all the talk of empire being nonsense), and intimidating potential enemies is cheaper than appeasing or killing them.
I think that while it may be tempting to think so, and even though we are probably in the best position to try it, isolationism ultimately creates more problems than it solves.
Why are isolationism and world police the only two choices?
Yossarian
3-20-15, 11:01pm
Why are isolationism and world police the only two choices?
Do we have either currently?
While you may be singing the country music refrain of I can't miss you until you're gone, I'm not convinced you will really want the alternative to Pax Americana. It's not rainbows and unicorns. But hey, feel free to sit around thinking oooohh, those bad Americans, I can't wait until they are gone and we can finally enjoy the Russians, the Chinese, Boko Haram, and the Islamic State!!! Liberty at last.
Do you actually read anything I write? In what universe is a big stick and a severely constrained policy of humanitarian aid, "rainbows and unicorns"? I've been arguing Against putting down the stick. We just don't have to hit people first.
There are many practical benefits to maintaining a strong capacity for destruction, even if used but infrequently.
If only it were used infrequently. Unfortunately we get back to my previous comment about hammers and nails. The capacity for destruction seems to inevitably lead to "everything needs to be destructed." Which leads me back to my previous question. Who the **** is actually likely to successfully attack the US on US soil. Our security presence, both within and outside the US is so far beyond anyone else's that the likelihood of any serious, credible attack on our soil is quite unlikely.
Isolationism only sounds good if you are completely self-sustaining, which we're not, and if you can maintain that status ad infinitum, which we can't. Just like a small community being stronger when the neighbors all know one another the global community will be stronger (and presumably safer) if all the members interact.
The global policing, OTOH, is something that global community should ALL participate in. Having the single superpower in that position hasn't worked out all that well. It is extremely expensive and in many cases unwanted by those who are being policed.
...intimidating potential enemies is cheaper than appeasing or killing them.
+1 IMO, that is the primary reason to maintain a small-ish, nimble and lethal quiver. We don't have to keep such a force on display 24/7. Just show enough so everyone else knows its there.
Who the **** is actually likely to successfully attack the US on US soil.
China (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/21/us-usa-security-nsa-idUSKCN0J420Q20141121), for one.
There's always going to be a big dog, the question is, who should hold the title? If it's not us, would you prefer Russia or China?
ApatheticNoMore
3-21-15, 12:20pm
If China is such a danger why did we ship all production there, why do we buy all our things there? (and I don't strongly mean to blame the individual consumer. As has been mentioned they don't always have a choice, I mean why was it done AS POLICY? Because POLICIES are what led to it. It might be one of those mistakes (uh one hopes they are mistakes) like how middle east policy led to the rise of ISIS? When do we fire the incompetents that rule us then?
I think isolation on the community and national level makes a great deal of sense (not can always be done, merely makes a great deal of sense ...). The consequences of policy other than isolationism seems to be Greece. Ok maybe you won't become Greece if you have military dominance used to maintain a reserve currency (but really for how long?) status. But would Greece itself BE Greece if they produced what they needed locally? Local production for local needs? Though there are natural resource constraints in the modern world, not everyone has fossil fuels, not everyone has rare earth metals etc.. But would a move in the more self-sufficient level in nations not protect them some from the fickleness of finance capitalism. Although if of course it is the opposite direction they tend to go if trying to build a counterpoint to u.s. power - then it's economic unity.
I'm not sure a mufti-polar or different polar (the the u.s.) world would necessarily be worse. If this is interpreted as "rainbows and unicorns" it's quite a stretch. If my deepest cynicism about the nature of power and wealth is interpreted that way ok. I suspect in terms of nations (I am not debating about individuals here) "behind every great fortune is a great crime". I mean I think it is what is often behind national wealth. And the exceptions are more likely to be countries like China! Which has mostly just trashed it's environment, exploited it's workers, and manipulated it's currency - but hey it hasn't been going around bombing and droning and making war against the entire world!!! unlike some other countries we could name ....
China (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/21/us-usa-security-nsa-idUSKCN0J420Q20141121), for one.
And a massive military is going to prevent cyber attacks? I agree with the article that cyber attacks amongst countries is likely to grow. After all, the US is certainly not going to stop its efforts in those areas. But the solution to cyber attacks isn't military, it's technological.
And a massive military is going to prevent cyber attacks? I agree with the article that cyber attacks amongst countries is likely to grow. After all, the US is certainly not going to stop its efforts in those areas. But the solution to cyber attacks isn't military, it's technological.
I will still argue that its both. The scaled down military we've been discussing (read: not massive) would have to be heavily skewed toward cyber defense, and a capability for offense when necessary, to be effective. We really only need enough traditional weaponry to let the rest of the world know its not worth the effort to physically invade/attack us. The rest of our revised defense budget could be spent safeguarding our cyber lives. That is tremendously resource efficient compared to our current model.
There's always going to be a big dog, the question is, who should hold the title? If it's not us, would you prefer Russia or China?
That is exactly the approach I'd like to see us step away from. There is no metric I know of that proves the world is a better place with the US as a single superpower than it would be in other scenarios. That's only American vanity and you don't have to look very far to find people that don't share it with us.
From my catbird seat in Nebraska its pretty easy to take on a superior moral tone and assume all the worst from the would be challengers, but what answer would we get if we asked anyone else how they'd like to live? There's around 7.3 billion people in the world and the US makes up just a little more than the .3 part. What do the other 7 billion have to say? If we're going to walk the walk on the moral high ground of our own founding principles don't we need to listen to what the other 96% of the world's population has to say? My guess is that they might not want to let our 4% of the population continue to consume a quarter or so of the world's resources. They might ask for something a little more equitable. And who's to say China wouldn't give it to them?
I will still argue that its both. The scaled down military we've been discussing (read: not massive) would have to be heavily skewed toward cyber defense, and a capability for offense when necessary, to be effective. We really only need enough traditional weaponry to let the rest of the world know its not worth the effort to physically invade/attack us. The rest of our revised defense budget could be spent safeguarding our cyber lives. That is tremendously resource efficient compared to our current model.
I think we're actually pretty much in agreement here. I acknowledge that we still need some level of military. Just no where near the size of what we have.
I'm also reminded of something Jack Spirco said on the survival podcast a couple of years ago, "It's a lot easier to feed your neighbors than it is to shoot them." He was referring to one's immediate neighbors after some sort of disaster that causes power outages and so forth, but that premise could certainly scale. And would certainly win us more friends than we've won with giving people guns so they can shoot their own neighbors.
I think it's a number of things. I do wonder about the genetic make-up of the europeans who initially came over and populated the country. Maybe they had genes that were aggressive?
But....in line with my always comparing human behavior to animal behavior (because we ARE animals), I'm thinking it's natural to want to dominate.
I think the hopes and dreams of the original "founding fathers" were well-intentioned, but it doesn't necessarily work in today's world. I think capitalism played into our personality and caused a lot of confusion as to what was really needed. Plus, we get aggressive when we can't have what we want.........and we want A LOT.
I think originally, the early europeans here thought it would be good to have certain rights.........and the whole world should have those rights. And if another country didn't, then it was up to us to insist on it!
I do wonder, though, what it would feel like to NOT be the top dog. I don't think it would be good for us now, because we've messed sooooooo much up. I think it probably works in some other "civilized" countries, because they are making some very different choices than we have made.
Plus, in today's world, I have fears that if we quit being top dog........we would be obliterated, because of the problems we have caused in other countries, and their ensuing hatred for us.
I can't think about this too long, or I get too depressed. :(
ApatheticNoMore
3-22-15, 12:24pm
That is exactly the approach I'd like to see us step away from. There is no metric I know of that proves the world is a better place with the US as a single superpower than it would be in other scenarios. That's only American vanity
+1
Plus, in today's world, I have fears that if we quit being top dog........we would be obliterated, because of the problems we have caused in other countries, and their ensuing hatred for us.
When we were kids playing king of the mountain everyone was always gunning for the guy on top of the dirt pile. No one paid any attention to the guy holding his position 1/2 way down the hill. Its not all that much different in global politics. But in a way I think that represents the problem most Americans would have with stepping back a notch. If we're not #1 that means someone else is stronger which, in turn, must mean we're weak. Right? Just because we were no longer the leader in military spending, world policing, resource acquisition and consumption, etc. doesn't mean we couldn't be strong, fierce when necessary, well respected, admired and maybe even liked.
If we had the 5th largest military in the world, but used it mostly to protect our own resources and citizens instead of everyone else's it would be a force to reckon with. If we had the 5th largest economy in the world we would presumably consume less, but would still be a strategic trading partner for any exporting nation. And we would still be the envy of at least 191/196 countries in the world.
imagine redirecting all the costs of global domination to education, infrastructure, social safety nets, economic opportunity, renewable energy, healthy diets, building bike trails... If we could get up close to the top of the list in all the quality of life categories I think we would still be in pretty good standing globally.
When we were kids playing king of the mountain everyone was always gunning for the guy on top of the dirt pile. No one paid any attention to the guy holding his position 1/2 way down the hill. Its not all that much different in global politics. But in a way I think that represents the problem most Americans would have with stepping back a notch. If we're not #1 that means someone else is stronger which, in turn, must mean we're weak. Right? Just because we were no longer the leader in military spending, world policing, resource acquisition and consumption, etc. doesn't mean we couldn't be strong, fierce when necessary, well respected, admired and maybe even liked.
If we had the 5th largest military in the world, but used it mostly to protect our own resources and citizens instead of everyone else's it would be a force to reckon with. If we had the 5th largest economy in the world we would presumably consume less, but would still be a strategic trading partner for any exporting nation. And we would still be the envy of at least 191/196 countries in the world.
imagine redirecting all the costs of global domination to education, infrastructure, social safety nets, economic opportunity, renewable energy, healthy diets, building bike trails... If we could get up close to the top of the list in all the quality of life categories I think we would still be in pretty good standing globally.
Absolutely! The choices aren't just top of pile and bottom of pile. I think we could exist somewhere in the middle quite nicely. Even in the upper middle would be fine. As you say strong enough to defend what is ours to defend, and quit defending everyone else's stuff.
I have traveled in this world quite a bit and believe me, the world views us a the wild wild west. They think we all run around with guns strapped to our waists shooting each other up. Often foreigners come here for the first time and are surprised it isn't a tv show shoot out on every corner. I don't think anyone would dare to invade our shores. Not anyone worth really worrying about.
I think we have been in the world wide rat race long enough. If any of you have ever had to fight corporate ladder battles with all the positioning and back stabbing and gaming then you see how we as a country have been running for a very long time, and it's exhausting! Think about retiring or just stepping back a bit. Think how much calmer you became and how much healthier you were after leaving that race.
Think about the politicians in congress/white house/lobbyist. They are all fighters who had to play the game and scrabble to get where they are. Of course they want to do this on a global scale. It's in their blood isn't it. Maybe we should pay a little more attention to these people when they campaign and listen to how they view their position and the position of the US in the world. There are some who don't spoil for war war war, and who talk about the US as our home to take care of nurture with infrastructure spending and targeted spending on our own people. We should vote for those who are willing to stand up to the bullies who brand them weak if they don't want to conquer the world war by war. Maybe it's time we change the conversation and label the true patriots as those who shun constant war while demanding we spend our money and lives making America strong within our borders.
Gregg for President! ;)
I'm not so sure. We had the sort of multipolar world people are wishing for in the first half of the last century, and look how that worked out.
I'm not so sure. We had the sort of multipolar world people are wishing for in the first half of the last century, and look how that worked out.
History is hard.
History is hard.
So is learning not to waste one's time and money preparing for the last war instead of the next war.
I'm not so sure. We had the sort of multipolar world people are wishing for in the first half of the last century, and look how that worked out.
So far no one's been an advocate of that system. In starting this thread my only goal was to promote discussion of the idea that the US doesn't need to maintain its position as the sole pole. The world has its own way of sorting out who gets to be in the lead. And if you want to go back a few millennia farther its pretty easy to see that no one gets to stay on top for all that long. I just think it might make sense to retire while we're still on top and intact. History is a lot easier than we make it.
When we were kids playing king of the mountain everyone was always gunning for the guy on top of the dirt pile. No one paid any attention to the guy holding his position 1/2 way down the hill. Its not all that much different in global politics. But in a way I think that represents the problem most Americans would have with stepping back a notch. If we're not #1 that means someone else is stronger which, in turn, must mean we're weak. Right? Just because we were no longer the leader in military spending, world policing, resource acquisition and consumption, etc. doesn't mean we couldn't be strong, fierce when necessary, well respected, admired and maybe even liked.
If we had the 5th largest military in the world, but used it mostly to protect our own resources and citizens instead of everyone else's it would be a force to reckon with. If we had the 5th largest economy in the world we would presumably consume less, but would still be a strategic trading partner for any exporting nation. And we would still be the envy of at least 191/196 countries in the world.
imagine redirecting all the costs of global domination to education, infrastructure, social safety nets, economic opportunity, renewable energy, healthy diets, building bike trails... If we could get up close to the top of the list in all the quality of life categories I think we would still be in pretty good standing globally.
I want to live that country, Gregg! But don't you think the millions of us have been taught (brain washed) to think we need to keep wanting everything we've learned to want? I'm not sure how to start over. I would be willing to give up a lot to not be so dependent on other countries......but I don't think the majority of people would. :(
It's an interesting topic Gregg.
DH has been watching various series on things like The Roman Empire, The Barbarians (anyone not Roman), and other societies that wanted to conquer everyone else. I'd hate to think this is all we can expect from mankind.......to want to always be top dog. Maybe it's just certain arrangements of hormones and genetics? Because I'm sure when all these conquerors went through the world, they met on smaller groups of people who were happy just being who and where they were. It does make me think back to a PBS special I saw about the concept of humans evolving from 2 different primate lines. One was very aggressive, and the other was very mellow/sensitive/caring.
The world has its own way of sorting out who gets to be in the lead.
It's called war. You can't opt out of history, ugly as it can sometimes be.
IshbelRobertson
3-23-15, 11:35am
Ahhhhhhh, the good old days: when 'the sun never set on the British Empire' and vast swathes of the map of the world was coloured pink and was 'OURS'....
The thing is.... All Civilisations wax and wane. The US has had a shorter time at the top than many empires in the past, but it has done many wonderful things (as well as some not so wonderful). You have much to be proud of. Just let it go..... We did:D
Ahhhhhhh, the good old days: when 'the sun never set on the British Empire' and vast swathes of the map of the world was coloured pink and was 'OURS'....
The thing is.... All Civilisations wax and wane. The US has had a shorter time at the top than many empires in the past, but it has done many wonderful things (as well as some not so wonderful). You have much to be proud of. Just let it go..... We did:D
America could do that. We could endeavor to manage a degree of military decline for ourselves short of collapse. That would mean accepting perhaps a somewhat lower level of domestic security in exchange for a somewhat upgraded welfare state or lower tax/debt burden.
We would suffer less as a result than the increasingly impotent states of Western Europe who would need to either rebuild their strength or take their chances with the more proximate threats they face. We would certainly suffer less than the countries reliant on maritime trade, in the absence of the post-WWII US guarantees of freedom of the seas.
If you imagine the US to be just another predatory empire, than I suppose it doesn’t matter if China gains a few more Tibets or Russia gains a few more Ukraines. Or if China pushes Japan out of the South China Sea or Russia pushes Canada out of the arctic.
It's called war. You can't opt out of history, ugly as it can sometimes be.
If we really want to be students of history its called resource ownership. War is simply the means through which the have-nots try to get what the haves have or the haves try to get more of it (usually because they used up their initial supply and don't want to become have-nots). Doesn't matter if its cedar or oil or, soon enough, water.
America could do that. We could endeavor to manage a degree of military decline for ourselves short of collapse. That would mean accepting perhaps a somewhat lower level of domestic security in exchange for a somewhat upgraded welfare state or lower tax/debt burden.
All that through the lens of our current modus operandi. If the goal changed and most of our military efforts were directed homeward we should be able to spend less and have more security. Additionally, if we give up our presence in parts of the world that don't really want us there anyway we remove a lot of the basis for the hostility we currently face. In the end, isn't taking the target off your back the most efficient way to increase your security?
We would suffer less as a result than the increasingly impotent states of Western Europe who would need to either rebuild their strength or take their chances with the more proximate threats they face. We would certainly suffer less than the countries reliant on maritime trade, in the absence of the post-WWII US guarantees of freedom of the seas.
If you imagine the US to be just another predatory empire, than I suppose it doesn’t matter if China gains a few more Tibets or Russia gains a few more Ukraines. Or if China pushes Japan out of the South China Sea or Russia pushes Canada out of the arctic.
Our freedom of the seas extends to whom we see fit, but gets pretty limited for the countries or groups we deem unworthy. Nothing wrong with that, its our navy, but to try to make the US out as the world's benevolent overlord would be a stretch. Whether the US is a predatory empire can be argued ad nauseum, but any country can enter into trade agreements, mutual protection pacts or whatever with any other country as they see fit*. The main difference is that a few of our friends may have to start writing checks to get those services.
*And that type of agreement would be more crucial to a scaled down USA than ever before. We would just be a contributing member rather than the banker and the chairman. One vote instead of the only vote, as it were.
ApatheticNoMore
3-23-15, 2:27pm
don't you think the millions of us have been taught (brain washed) to think we need to keep wanting everything we've learned to want? I'm not sure how to start over. I would be willing to give up a lot to not be so dependent on other countries......but I don't think the majority of people would.
I think this is judging people based on frames of reference they probably don't share. If you tell people that the reason for the slaughter that was the Iraq war, is because they are shopaholics, it probably makes about as much sense to them as being told in childhood "finish your broccoli, children are starving in Africa". Yes, but whether or not the broccoli got finished, had nothing to do with whether children starved in Africa. Now I think military dominance probably does allow the U.S. to consume vastly disproportionate amounts of the world's resources. But this is never the reason given for it. Ever. Even that the U.S. involvement in the middle east is almost certainly about oil (I mean come on), it's uncertain that something like the war with Iraq even increased the oil available on the marketplace. So it's probably about oil, but it's not a direct link. Maybe it's more about oil companies than oil itself. Maybe they go to war for private companies profits as much as they do for nation states.
Even with critics of U.S. policy and there are many, do you almost ever get concrete arguments about the aims of U.S. policy, rather than sloganeering "war for oil" etc. (even though I pretty much agree with the slogans mind you). And the goal is for Joe on the street to understand what even the most vocal critics won't explain. Plus the people don't directly control the government anyway! They vote for Change (tm) after years of wars, police state, and ultimately complete failure of economic policies (2008) and what they get instead is more of the same! Talk about your loaded dice.
How to get people not to want everything they've learned to want? You could start with something less obscure than U.S. foreign policy (deliberately obscure, secretive, classified, mystified, not directly influenced by votes, and who really knows whose interest it ultimately serves). Teach people about how wastefulness fills up the local landfill, at least that's understandable. Or how various products produce pollution in their manufacture, that's fairly understandable as well. Then understand that how open one is to change is probably a personality trait, but with many it is a long slow process, not some quick thing. Then to what extent are people able to change if there is no social support for such? If the entire society is one way to what extent are most people really able to be otherwise? And maybe build up social structures to support people in trying things differently.
ApatheticNoMore
3-23-15, 2:39pm
If you imagine the US to be just another predatory empire, than I suppose it doesn’t matter if China gains a few more Tibets or Russia gains a few more Ukraines.
Or the U.S. gains a few more Iraqs, Afghanistans, Libyas, etc.. No it really doesn't matter. At least China and Russia mostly stick to countries nearby (not that they necessarily always would - power corrupts and all - it certainly has corrupted it's current owner). The U.S. declares war on the whole world. Yes the situation in Tibet or Chechnya was horrible (no I don't accept that the Ukraine situation was Russia's fault). So was the Iraq war horrible. Horrible beyond measure, beyond articulation.
Or if China pushes Japan out of the South China Sea or Russia pushes Canada out of the arctic.
what is anyone going to do with the arctic but mine it for oil? So no it really doesn't matter. If the U.S. wanted instead to turn it into a nature preserve well I guess that would be a different matter.
......
How to get people not to want everything they've learned to want? You could start with something less obscure than U.S. foreign policy (deliberately obscure, secretive, classified, mystified, not directly influenced by votes, and who really knows whose interest it ultimately serves). Teach people about how wastefulness fills up the local landfill, at least that's understandable. Or how various products produce pollution in their manufacture, that's fairly understandable as well. Then understand that how open one is to change is probably a personality trait, but with many it is a long slow process, not some quick thing. Then to what extent are people able to change if there is no social support for such? If the entire society is one way to what extent are most people really able to be otherwise? And maybe build up social structures to support people in trying things differently.
But people are told these things and presented with these ideas already! The response is to just deny there's a problem, or they think you're an alarmist and make fun of you. Not to be a debbie downer..........but the horse is out of the barn.
Not sure much can change without a few catastrophes.
If we really want to be students of history its called resource ownership. War is simply the means through which the have-nots try to get what the haves have or the haves try to get more of it (usually because they used up their initial supply and don't want to become have-nots). Doesn't matter if its cedar or oil or, soon enough, water.
Your side of the argument seems to be prevailing right now. We have a president pursuing a lead-from-behind strategy in times of crisis, and pursuing an appeasement policy in the intervals between crises. He has announced his intention of reducing troop strength down to a 1938 level. His response to ISIS atrocities has been to advise us to get off our high horse. After all, Europeans were doing the same thing in that area as recently as 1229, so who are we to be so self-righteous?
One consolation will be the closing of the American security umbrella over our more sophisticated allies, who are no doubt tired of explaining to us that we don’t understand history and lack their soft-power finesse. They can get their chance to return us to a more elegant age, as when Hapsburg and Hohenzollern crafted a peace for the ages.
All that through the lens of our current modus operandi. If the goal changed and most of our military efforts were directed homeward we should be able to spend less and have more security. Additionally, if we give up our presence in parts of the world that don't really want us there anyway we remove a lot of the basis for the hostility we currently face. In the end, isn't taking the target off your back the most efficient way to increase your security?
Our freedom of the seas extends to whom we see fit, but gets pretty limited for the countries or groups we deem unworthy. Nothing wrong with that, its our navy, but to try to make the US out as the world's benevolent overlord would be a stretch. Whether the US is a predatory empire can be argued ad nauseum, but any country can enter into trade agreements, mutual protection pacts or whatever with any other country as they see fit*. The main difference is that a few of our friends may have to start writing checks to get those services.
*And that type of agreement would be more crucial to a scaled down USA than ever before. We would just be a contributing member rather than the banker and the chairman. One vote instead of the only vote, as it were.
Your side of the argument seems to be prevailing right now. We have a president pursuing a lead-from-behind strategy in times of crisis, and pursuing an appeasement policy in the intervals between crises. He has announced his intention of reducing troop strength down to a 1938 level. His response to ISIS atrocities has been to advise us to get off our high horse. After all, Europeans were doing the same thing in that area as recently as 1229, so who are we to be so self-righteous?
One consolation will be the closing of the American security umbrella over our more sophisticated allies, who are no doubt tired of explaining to us that we don’t understand history and lack their soft-power finesse. They can get their chance to return us to a more elegant age, as when Hapsburg and Hohenzollern crafted a peace for the ages.
Your side of the argument seems to be prevailing right now. We have a president pursuing a lead-from-behind strategy in times of crisis, and pursuing an appeasement policy in the intervals between crises. He has announced his intention of reducing troop strength down to a 1938 level....
Not my side. No one in office seems to be interested in my side. I don't advocate leading from behind at all; I'm a proponent of leading by example. Quality over quantity. To do that it makes no real difference what relative position you hold in terms of world domination, as long as you're high enough up the food chain to keep everyone interested in the example you're setting and to be able to negotiate from a position of strength. With that in mind I'd say there's virtually no chance that the US will drop back to rival Burundi economically or stand an army that compares to Luxembourg in any of our lifetimes.
Times of crisis are obviously when the strength is needed. We have it, but we have a lot more than we need, which is incredibly expensive and inefficient to maintain, and its not applied in a way that benefits anyone (arguably corporate interests, but that's another thread). 1938 Level troop strength would probably be more than sufficient if we reduced or closed 2/3 of our bases around the world and kept most of our navy within a few hundred miles of our shores. If we simply cut the troop numbers without doing anything else then we're that guy playing Risk who tries to hold Asia too early in the game with one little army on each country. We'd easily be wiped out because we're spread too thin. Ask a Roman. That may be where our current leadership is taking us, but it is not the example I suggest we lead with.
Not my side. No one in office seems to be interested in my side. I don't advocate leading from behind at all; I'm a proponent of leading by example. Quality over quantity. To do that it makes no real difference what relative position you hold in terms of world domination, as long as you're high enough up the food chain to keep everyone interested in the example you're setting and to be able to negotiate from a position of strength. With that in mind I'd say there's virtually no chance that the US will drop back to rival Burundi economically or stand an army that compares to Luxembourg in any of our lifetimes.
Times of crisis are obviously when the strength is needed. We have it, but we have a lot more than we need, which is incredibly expensive and inefficient to maintain, and its not applied in a way that benefits anyone (arguably corporate interests, but that's another thread). 1938 Level troop strength would probably be more than sufficient if we reduced or closed 2/3 of our bases around the world and kept most of our navy within a few hundred miles of our shores. If we simply cut the troop numbers without doing anything else then we're that guy playing Risk who tries to hold Asia too early in the game with one little army on each country. We'd easily be wiped out because we're spread too thin. Ask a Roman. That may be where our current leadership is taking us, but it is not the example I suggest we lead with.
What is lead-from-behind except insisting on consensus from at best token contributors prior to acting?
Maintaining bases pre-positioning facilities and supplies world-wide is a sound practice in a world where events can move quickly because it provides options that wouldn't otherwise exist. As the man said, "amateurs talk about strategy, professionals talk about logistics." Very few of those bases are garrisoned to hold down local populations, as in your Roman analogy. Quite the opposite. During the Cold War, Churchill said something to the effect that Europe's best defense would be one American soldier, "preferably dead".
What is lead-from-behind except insisting on consensus from at best token contributors prior to acting?
Exactly. We have no need for that type of consensus in our current position as #1 and we wouldn't have a need as #5 either. I think we can all agree that part of our current foreign policy is a failure.
Maintaining bases pre-positioning facilities and supplies world-wide is a sound practice in a world where events can move quickly because it provides options that wouldn't otherwise exist. As the man said, "amateurs talk about strategy, professionals talk about logistics." Very few of those bases are garrisoned to hold down local populations, as in your Roman analogy. Quite the opposite. During the Cold War, Churchill said something to the effect that Europe's best defense would be one American soldier, "preferably dead".
Little room for doubt that "the man" was a military man. Omar Bradley, was it? How about we quote a few leaders from the field of education instead of the field of war? Which is more powerful in the long run? And of course Prime Minister Churchill was grateful for that dead American solider (the first time around). His path to never surrendering might have been quite different otherwise and he knew the same would be true in the future.
It seems sad that military might is the only area in which we seem to flourish or that we believe anything else we do would fail without the strong arm to back it up. Even this relatively simple discussion of the value (or lack of value) of a competitive global position always breaks down to "defending" every asset imaginable and being able to take out anyone who would dare challenge us. If the Saudis, for example, can evolve their long term strategy to move from oil to solar we should be able to step outside the better-living-through-WMDs box.
In an effort to get back on track and just to site an example outside Scandinavia, Costa Rica doesn't officially even have a military (they do have a small commando style force of something like 70 people). All things are relative, but... It has low crime in an otherwise unsettled region. It has a healthy economy. It has a very strong national conservation/sustainability ethic. In a fun fact the whole country didn't use any energy for the first 75 days of this year that wasn't renewably generated (http://www.iflscience.com/environment/costa-rica-has-only-used-renewables-electricity-year). I'm not holding Costa Rica up as a poster child or saying we should emulate everything they do there, but they are far, far down the line of global powers and still manage to do ok.
How about we quote a few leaders from the field of education instead of the field of war? Which is more powerful in the long run?
It would be tragic indeed if we were to allow our county's military establishment to deteriorate as much as our educational establishment.
In an effort to get back on track and just to site an example outside Scandinavia, Costa Rica doesn't officially even have a military (they do have a small commando style force of something like 70 people). All things are relative, but... It has low crime in an otherwise unsettled region. It has a healthy economy. It has a very strong national conservation/sustainability ethic. In a fun fact the whole country didn't use any energy for the first 75 days of this year that wasn't renewably generated (http://www.iflscience.com/environment/costa-rica-has-only-used-renewables-electricity-year). I'm not holding Costa Rica up as a poster child or saying we should emulate everything they do there, but they are far, far down the line of global powers and still manage to do ok.
Thank you, President Monroe.
Gregg, happy to see the counter arguments are becoming a tremulous gasp ...
Costa Rica has one magnificent thing going for it: the resources that make it economically viable could never be spoils of war, they could only be destroyed, so there's not much point in invading the country. While they do need to focus on things like catering to the wants of tourists, conservation is the essential leg of their economy. If only we could say the same.
(That is to say, eventually conservation is going to be the essential leg of our survival, but meanwhile we're busy tearing down our ecosystem for the short-term profit. Which means that our resources do make us somewhat vulnerable. I think we're primarily a target for ideological reasons, not for our forests or coal deposits, but nevertheless, we do have defensible resources.)
It would be tragic indeed if we were to allow our county's military establishment to deteriorate as much as our educational establishment.
I completely agree. On the other side, it could be our most glorious victory if our educational establishment were to surpass the superiority of our military establishment.
And just for the record, any military downsizing in no way needs to equate to deterioration. As before, quality over quantity.
Thank you, President Monroe.
If I remember my history correctly Monroe was an expansionist. My personal belief is that we've done enough expanding for one dominion.
Gregg, happy to see the counter arguments are becoming a tremulous gasp ...
Costa Rica has one magnificent thing going for it: the resources that make it economically viable could never be spoils of war, they could only be destroyed, so there's not much point in invading the country. While they do need to focus on things like catering to the wants of tourists, conservation is the essential leg of their economy. If only we could say the same.
(That is to say, eventually conservation is going to be the essential leg of our survival, but meanwhile we're busy tearing down our ecosystem for the short-term profit. Which means that our resources do make us somewhat vulnerable. I think we're primarily a target for ideological reasons, not for our forests or coal deposits, but nevertheless, we do have defensible resources.)
I wish the status quo hardliners were shaking in their boots! Unfortunately all the real world inertia is on that side of the line. Inertia born of financial resources that are well insulated by the existing state of affairs. It is so insulated that no logical argument pointing out how egocentric or how detrimental it is will be heard. I'm afraid change probably won't happen through negotiation, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it.
Costa Rica is a good example of what people can do when they put their mind to it and then follow up with the effort needed to *change*. There's no panacea to be had by anyone, but there's no gain that will ever come without that effort. We need to start somewhere.
I've mentioned before that I have family members in Pakistan, working in the diplomatic corps. They tell me again and again that while there are a very small number of people in that part of the world that just want to wipe out everyone who they consider an infidel, the vast majority just want to be left alone. Their take on the situation is that if American military personnel just went home almost all of the threats we perceive from radical Islam would dissolve because the threats are from small groups without the resources it would take to invade anyone and, if the soldiers were gone, any support from the general population would have the wind taken out of its sails. Pakistanis and others in the region want to continue to trade with America and generally like Americans (individually), they just don't want to be occupied. That is not unreasonable, IMO.
And just for the record, any military downsizing in no way needs to equate to deterioration. As before, quality over quantity.
I think it is entirely likely that if we spent quite a bit less on our military, we'd have a better, more effective military that provided better protection for the nation.
I mean, really, we spend more than the whole rest of the planet combined, basically. That's just silly.
I am in more risk of dying from a poorly-maintained federal highway bridge in my state collapsing into a river, as happened recently a few miles from my home (which also cut off several counties from the rest of the nation, causing serious economic hardship) than I am at risk from Chinese Red Dawn Paratroopers invading the Pacific NW. (And in any case, they'd all live about 10 minutes, considering the number of proficient elk/deer hunters around here with military training, which would make for a real short movie...)
I think it is entirely likely that if we spent quite a bit less on our military, we'd have a better, more effective military that provided better protection for the nation.
I mean, really, we spend more than the whole rest of the planet combined, basically. That's just silly.
I am in more risk of dying from a poorly-maintained federal highway bridge in my state collapsing into a river, as happened recently a few miles from my home (which also cut off several counties from the rest of the nation, causing serious economic hardship) than I am at risk from Chinese Red Dawn Paratroopers invading the Pacific NW. (And in any case, they'd all live about 10 minutes, considering the number of proficient elk/deer hunters around here with military training, which would make for a real short movie...)
Your hunting buddies against the PLAAF 15 Corps? Sure.
Then afterward you and the boys at the gun club can wipe out the 45th Guards Regiment.
Your hunting buddies against the PLAAF 15 Corps? Sure.
Then afterward you and the boys at the gun club can wipe out the 45th Guards Regiment.
Sounds kinda like a conversation that could have taken place in Moscow in early 1979. We know how well that superior military force worked out. The San Juan Islands: where civilizations go to die.
I have a not-quite off topic question about all of this. The other day I was listening to a podcast about our military entanglements. The speaker was doing a brief sum up of modern day American warfare, i.e. from 1900 forward, and he matter of factly stated that the 'world-war' model, by which he seemed to mean war and commitment to war on the scale of WWII, "isn't how we go to war anymore".
Disappointing as that would be for Hollywood, do you agree, and how would that change our military strategy? (Or is that really the premise/disagreement of what we're discussing here?)
-- was also watching a Modern Marvels about what we have stockpiled in terms of outlawed or obsolete WMDs and I can only pray that we've gotten slightly less stupid. We at one point had a large enough chemical arsenal to wipe out human life on earth THIRTY TIMES OVER. ... just in case some people were really resistant, I guess. superheroes, maybe. Who's in charge of idiocy like this?
I do seriously mean that. I don't care how much sh** the USSR had, the mine-is-bigger-than-yours concept ceases to be of any value whatsoever once you reach the point of enough. Who kept authorizing More? Are they dead and gone now, please say yes?
Your question is based on the premise that some clever mandarin can quantify “enough”, and all we need to do is fill the order. It is also based on the premise that this week’s threat spectrum invalidates all of past history and can be reliably projected into the future. Personally, I’m a big believer in overkill as a hedge against uncertainty.
Sounds kinda like a conversation that could have taken place in Moscow in early 1979. We know how well that superior military force worked out. The San Juan Islands: where civilizations go to die.
Look how well *we* did in Afghanistan, against guys who live in caves and make their weapons using rocks for anvils. With a space-age military with more funding than most of the rest of the planet devotes to the task.
Now consider how many people are armed in the US, have recent military experience, have HAZMAT operator certification (that one is perhaps more important than you think, and most first responders since 9/11 have gone through a course in what is basically "how to be a really good terrorist...").
I don't think anyone is going to invade the USA by land or sea, and prevail. I don't think the USA could even manage it.
Look at NASA's budget. It's pathetic. I've been to White Sands a fair bit - better budget, but still pretty ghetto. If I were running the show, I'd boldly leap into the future/past, while cutting obsolete/unnecessary force. Seize the high ground, get Project THOR (1950s...) and Brilliant Pebbles and half a dozen other things up-and-running, spend on human intelligence and cyber intelligence/war abilities, then sit back and enjoy the peace. Anyone messes with us, make an example to educate future generations.
And rebuild the darned highway/railway bridges FFS.
The Chinese Army has 2,285,000 active personnel, and 800,000 reservists. And the entire Chinese military budget, the #2 in the world, is about 1/4 of ours...
Pennsylvania alone has 1.3 million licensed deer hunters. Michigan about 1 million. Ohio about 500,000. Texas about 1.25 million. Etc.
...boldly leap into the future/past, while cutting obsolete/unnecessary force. Seize the high ground...spend on human intelligence and cyber intelligence/war abilities, then sit back and enjoy the peace. Anyone messes with us, make an example to educate future generations.
And rebuild the darned highway/railway bridges FFS.
For any hedge against uncertainty you have to identify what it is that you're uncertain about in order for it to have a chance at being effective. We were uncertain about whether or not the Soviets would ever launch a nuclear attack so we built up an arsenal that guaranteed mutual obliteration. An effective, if nonsensical and expensive, way to deter each other. Now the aging stockpiles of chemical/biological/nuclear weapons appear to pose a greater danger to us than to our adversaries. In addition to getting rid of all that baggage we have to identify what the credible threats are in the modern world and how to safeguard against them. I can't lay out what I would consider a logical plan any more succinctly than bae did above.
Your question is based on the premise that some clever mandarin can quantify “enough”, and all we need to do is fill the order. It is also based on the premise that this week’s threat spectrum invalidates all of past history and can be reliably projected into the future. Personally, I’m a big believer in overkill as a hedge against uncertainty. I base my entire life on the premise that some clever soul can quantify enough, in fact, that we all can. The fact that I'm wrong - or no one's trying - is half the reason our world is failing.
The San Juan Islands: where civilizations go to die.
LOL, Wolverines!!! Apropos even in the San Juan Islands.
http://www.sjisd.wednet.edu/Page/549
Pennsylvania alone has 1.3 million licensed deer hunters. Michigan about 1 million. Ohio about 500,000. Texas about 1.25 million. Etc.
I don't think the issue is the security of the US. It's more what kind of world do you want to live in. Sure you can say **** the neighborhood and stock up on M855, but it's not irrational to want to keep the neighboors daughter from being raped. The number of deer hunters in the Midwest doesn't let you influence who stands against ISIS or who gets to vote in Kiev.
I don't think the issue is the security of the US. It's more what kind of world do you want to live in. Sure you can say **** the neighborhood and stock up on M855, but it's not irrational to want to keep the neighboors daughter from being raped. The number of deer hunters in the Midwest doesn't let you influence who stands against ISIS or who gets to vote in Kiev.
Exactly the reason(s) no one is proposing eliminating our military. The notion of protecting our people and assets has been hashed out already. There is still a need for that, its just a matter of finding a sane and sustainable level.
When it comes to humanitarian efforts and working to thwart groups, like ISIS, who don't seem to operate with the same moral compass as the rest of us it would be nice to see the US as part of a larger force. Part of it, rather than the de facto leader and provider of the force who may or may not receive additional support from the rest of the world. The UN is a good idea, its just not operated very sensibly and is too disproportionate to be valuable to most of the world. Plus the forces tend to be heavily skewed with US troops or we simply send troops to areas in addition to UN forces. If that changed the US could still play a part in stopping genocide and other atrocities around the world, just as a supporting player rather than the constant point man and there could be more leadership from the areas that are most effected.
Sure you can say **** the neighborhood and stock up on M855, but it's not irrational to want to keep the neighboors daughter from being raped.
That's not what I said, of course...
I simply recommended a drastic cut in the amount of $$$ we throw at the problem, and a more forward-looking approach to the compostition of our force.
Besides, M855 sucks, though I do have about 25,000 rounds of XM1022, M20, M8, M903, and M2 sitting around the place somewhere.
Agreeing with you Gregg.
And can we reiterate that all of the cost for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - All of it - has been done with borrowed money? The impact on our ability to do Everything Else in our society has been severely limited because of this tremendous debt.
Not sustainable by any means.
I don't have any problem in general with "borrowed money". If you look at what "money" is in the USA anyways, it's all created from borrowing, there's no actual "money" there anymore. Still, it works for us, and allows us to expand the money supply as needed for a growing population/economy. Well, it would, if you trusted the people controlling the knobs.
In specific though, if we're going to go into further "debt", I'd rather have us borrow the money to build schools, roads, bridges, railways, hospitals, fire/police stations, and other stupid infrastructure thingies. Things with some enduring value that produce network effects.
In specific though, if we're going to go into further "debt", I'd rather have us borrow the money to build schools, roads, bridges, railways, hospitals, fire/police stations, and other stupid infrastructure thingies. Things with some enduring value that produce network effects.
Agreed. In the end its the difference between spending and investing. Wars and their ilk are kind of like taking out a loan to buy fast food. They'll keep [the economy] alive for now, but will probably do more harm than good in the long run. The other 'stupid infrastructure thingies' can produce a very tangible return over a very long period of time. The interstate highway system, for example, is coming on 60 years old. If we pay for the new generation of such things by selling China more 30 year T-bills (borrowing) we get the benefit of 30 years inflation before the debt comes due, which likely negates the interest, and another 30 years use after its paid for as a bonus. That's a good investment. War? Not so much.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.