No military

[Earl of Rochester]

I know this may sound crazy, but I really think that every nation should disband its military. At least its offensive capabilities.

I say this as an America. Lets say America kept its Coast Guard, and enough troops/weapons to defend itself. Lets say 1/20th or so the current budget. The layed over military men could go into the core of engineers. If instead of making war, we built infrastructure in our nation, imagine how much better off we would be.

And imagine the international consequences. Most nations have military because of fear. If America dropped hers, then what would they fear? Obviously inter-tribal warfare in Africa would go on, but this is not an international threat.

North Korea is really the one nation who I think would act negatively to this, perhaps China as well. But overall I think the world would see wide scale demilitarization, if America had the balls to do it first.

Not that it will happen though, or that many(any) of you will agree with me. Im sure probably should provide more evidence to my assertions, but I don't have the time or will power to do so. Just throwing my idea out there.

[nightwar]

So are you saying that its America that makes the whole worlf tremble in fear??? cause they invaded 2 third rate countrys?? Bud theres dozens of countrys who are on the brink of war not cause of the US. My country Greece could go to war with turky at anymoment so we need a large defensive army. And its not cause of the US empire!!

[Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus]

I think its utterly Naieve. A better step would be to just become one world state, damn nationality and genetics. A human is a human, and humanity should be one.

[Earl of Rochester]

So are you saying that its America that makes the whole worlf tremble in fear??? cause they invaded 2 third rate countrys?? Bud theres dozens of countrys who are on the brink of war not cause of the US. My country Greece could go to war with turky at anymoment so we need a large defensive army. And its not cause of the US empire!!

Of course there will still be regional conflicts, however I think many nations would downsize. You only need a big army if the other guy has one.

I think its utterly Naieve. A better step would be to just become one world state, damn nationality and genetics. A human is a human, and humanity should be one.

Naieve has nothing to do with it. This came from a lot of pondering. Not ignorance of facts. Wrong I may be, but naieve, no.

[Denny Crane!]

Libertarianism for the win says I.

People don't realise how much of their money is thrown down the drain on nationalistic pursuits and very often just sheer waste. We would all be a lot richer without it, the economy would explode as a result and poverty would be reduced.

[Earl of Rochester]

Exactly, the world is so tied in the American economy that we dont really have to worry about a real war anyways.

Just these damn regional conflicts, which would drastically decrease without all this huge military spending.

[LoZz]

well iceland does ok without a military.

and switzerland just has defencive abilites and do ok

[Feliks]

and switzerland just has defencive abilites and do ok

Like when they cruelly INVADED Liechtenstein?

**************************
Joking aside, I just don't think it's feasible to disband the world's armies and offensive weapons. While it may seem immoral, fear is often the best peace keeper. Why hasn't there been a global war in the past 50 years? Nuclear weapons.

An assurance of mutual destruction goes miles in preventing war.

What might work is disarming only conventional offensive troops. That way, people know that if there's a war, its going to be nuclear; a not gradual escalation.

[Richard]

I agree it's a good idea in theory, except it wouldn't work: there's always going to be somebody who doesn't want to play nice.

[HansDuet]

It aint the perfect world..

[Denny Crane!]

I don't think anyone assumed it was as it happens. Proposals like this are often met with an outcry of naievity which isn't an attack on the theory but an attack on the person making the arguement.

Assume the people making the suggestion of a downscale of national interests know as much about the world as you do and then go from there.

[ajm317]

There's a lot of reasons this won't happen.

First of all, I challenge the assumption that the economy would "boom". U.S. military expenditures are what, 3% of GDP? That's a decent chunk, but assuming that 3% were spread evenly it probably wouldn't radically alter the way I live my life.

More importantly though, the military is an investment. It actually makes money (or it is supposed to), as have all militaries throughout history. The U.S. military protects U.S. economic interests across the world. Look at the middle east, the U.S. is there to make sure that no one ever shuts off the oil like they did in the 70's, and, if necessary, to make sure that most of it goes to the west, and not to, say, China. Consider South Korea and Taiwan. These two countries have extensive trade ties with the U.S. If we cut our military as you suggest South Korea could be attacked by North Korea and China could reassert it's claims on Taiwan. Latin American country gets uppity and goes against U.S. interests? Call in the carriers. This happens like, once a decade. Currently the U.S. is able to use its military to impose an unfair balance of trade on the world. Take away the navy, that ability goes away.

Second, militaries aren't something you can just pull out of thin air when you need them. Even if Europe started pouring money in their armed forces tomorrow, it would probably take decades before they were on par with the U.S. Carriers take years to build. Fighters take 15 years to develop and put into service. If you scrapped the army navy and air force, you can't just bring it back if and when you need it.

Finally I don't think that if the U.S. disarmed other countries would follow suit. Russia would still need it's armed forces to counter Western Europe, and vice versa (in fact the folks in Western Europe would almost certainly begin an arms buildup). China, quite the contrary, would probably build a navy to fill the power vacuum in the Pacific, India might follow suit. Indeed, history has shown that when a great power falls everyone else struggles for their piece of the newly available pie, and sometimes they fight over the scraps.

In other words, I don't think this is a good idea.

[Earl of Rochester]

First of all, I challenge the assumption that the economy would "boom". U.S. military expenditures are what, 3% of GDP? That's a decent chunk, but assuming that 3% were spread evenly it probably wouldn't radically alter the way I live my life.

I didnt say boom, the military is something like 1/3 the national budget, Bush is about to ask for another 120 billion for the war. That could be used to make drastic internal improvements.

More importantly though, the military is an investment. It actually makes money (or it is supposed to), as have all militaries throughout history. The U.S. military protects U.S. economic interests across the world. Look at the middle east, the U.S. is there to make sure that no one ever shuts off the oil like they did in the 70's, and, if necessary, to make sure that most of it goes to the west, and not to, say, China. Consider South Korea and Taiwan. These two countries have extensive trade ties with the U.S. If we cut our military as you suggest South Korea could be attacked by North Korea and China could reassert it's claims on Taiwan. Latin American country gets uppity and goes against U.S. interests? Call in the carriers. This happens like, once a decade. Currently the U.S. is able to use its military to impose an unfair balance of trade on the world. Take away the navy, that ability goes away.

Ultimately a truly global economy is in everyone's favor.

Second, militaries aren't something you can just pull out of thin air when you need them. Even if Europe started pouring money in their armed forces tomorrow, it would probably take decades before they were on par with the U.S. Carriers take years to build. Fighters take 15 years to develop and put into service. If you scrapped the army navy and air force, you can't just bring it back if and when you need it.

And? We keep defensive capabilities, when would we need it?

Finally I don't think that if the U.S. disarmed other countries would follow suit. Russia would still need it's armed forces to counter Western Europe, and vice versa (in fact the folks in Western Europe would almost certainly begin an arms buildup).

Russia has its military to counter the west. If the west cuts its military, what does it need to counter?

China, quite the contrary, would probably build a navy to fill the power vacuum in the Pacific, India might follow suit. Indeed, history has shown that when a great power falls everyone else struggles for their piece of the newly available pie, and sometimes they fight over the scraps.

Who says anything about falling? Historically there was never a world police until America, no reason to think that somebody has to fill that void.

t will never happen what reasonable nation would downsize their military just because the us is doing it?and it would also be many soldiers without a job what are you going to do with them?

Because they have considerable less need for a military. And they will realize its beneficial for them to do so.

And the second I already answered. The military could be used to build internal improvements across the nation and in developing countries. It already does this, but instead of spending billions on war, we could divert it to this purpose.

[ajm317]

I didnt say boom, the military is something like 1/3 the national budget, Bush is about to ask for another 120 billion for the war. That could be used to make drastic internal improvements.

But that 120 billion doesn't just vanish. It serves a purpose, which I mentioned later.

Ultimately a truly global economy is in everyone's favor.

No it isn't. It's in the multinational corporations favor, I'll grant you that, but it is not in the U.S.'s favor. Much better that we get to write the rulebook in our favor.

Do you really think we do all the interfering in other nations affairs that we do for any other reason than money?

And? We keep defensive capabilities, when would we need it?

The coast gaurd and a reserve is only "defensive capabilities" if we're talking about the Mexicans. In the face of a major power, you need to counter with major power.

Russia has its military to counter the west. If the west cuts its military, what does it need to counter?

The "West" is not 1 entity under central control. The U.S. can not unilatteraly disarm the entire "West".

Who says anything about falling? Historically there was never a world police until America, no reason to think that somebody has to fill that void.

It's not about being the world police. It's about economic intrests. The U.S. has a bunch in the Pacific and China would love to move in. What if they establish a sphere of influence that only trades with the U.S. on China's terms? Not so far fetched. It's basically what we're doing now.

[Denny Crane!]

There's a lot of reasons this won't happen.

First of all, I challenge the assumption that the economy would "boom". U.S. military expenditures are what, 3% of GDP? That's a decent chunk, but assuming that 3% were spread evenly it probably wouldn't radically alter the way I live my life.

More importantly though, the military is an investment. It actually makes money (or it is supposed to), as have all militaries throughout history. The U.S. military protects U.S. economic interests across the world. Look at the middle east, the U.S. is there to make sure that no one ever shuts off the oil like they did in the 70's, and, if necessary, to make sure that most of it goes to the west, and not to, say, China. Consider South Korea and Taiwan. These two countries have extensive trade ties with the U.S. If we cut our military as you suggest South Korea could be attacked by North Korea and China could reassert it's claims on Taiwan. Latin American country gets uppity and goes against U.S. interests? Call in the carriers. This happens like, once a decade. Currently the U.S. is able to use its military to impose an unfair balance of trade on the world. Take away the navy, that ability goes away.

Second, militaries aren't something you can just pull out of thin air when you need them. Even if Europe started pouring money in their armed forces tomorrow, it would probably take decades before they were on par with the U.S. Carriers take years to build. Fighters take 15 years to develop and put into service. If you scrapped the army navy and air force, you can't just bring it back if and when you need it.

Finally I don't think that if the U.S. disarmed other countries would follow suit. Russia would still need it's armed forces to counter Western Europe, and vice versa (in fact the folks in Western Europe would almost certainly begin an arms buildup). China, quite the contrary, would probably build a navy to fill the power vacuum in the Pacific, India might follow suit. Indeed, history has shown that when a great power falls everyone else struggles for their piece of the newly available pie, and sometimes they fight over the scraps.

In other words, I don't think this is a good idea.

I love it 3 percent GDP shift in favour of pensions is a national disaster and we can't cope with the baby boomer generation. Talk about 3% going on a military budget and that is a steadily rising cost, no problem. I think all problems and numbers have perspective and we are looking at two different ones.

As for the economy booming well that requires a tighter military budget and quite a few other things to but the military would help.

[Chlodwig I.]

...
More importantly though, the military is an investment. It actually makes money (or it is supposed to), as have all militaries throughout history. The U.S. military protects U.S. economic interests across the world. Look at the middle east, the U.S. is there to make sure that no one ever shuts off the oil like they did in the 70's, and, if necessary, to make sure that most of it goes to the west, and not to, say, China. Consider South Korea and Taiwan. These two countries have extensive trade ties with the U.S. If we cut our military as you suggest South Korea could be attacked by North Korea and China could reassert it's claims on Taiwan. Latin American country gets uppity and goes against U.S. interests? Call in the carriers. This happens like, once a decade. Currently the U.S. is able to use its military to impose an unfair balance of trade on the world. Take away the navy, that ability goes away....

So China is investing $ into Iraq and Iranian Oilfields and America is declaring war on Iraq to prevent the Iraq from selling iraq Oil, iraq property to China?
Well yeah thats free trade, democracy, capitalism etc.

Why should China invade Taiwan if the Taiwanees Economy already depends on outsourcing thier production to China?
Taiwans econonmy needs the trading with China but China doesn't need Taiwan as a Tradepartner.

South America acts against US interests....
Doesn't have Democratic Countries the right to have thier own intrest
or do they need to act only in US intrests....
And what kind of picture do you draw where your country needs Military Force to keep other countrys in line....
Sounds like what the USSR did.

...Finally I don't think that if the U.S. disarmed other countries would follow suit. Russia would still need it's armed forces to counter Western Europe, and vice versa (in fact the folks in Western Europe would almost certainly begin an arms buildup). China, quite the contrary, would probably build a navy to fill the power vacuum in the Pacific, India might follow suit. Indeed, history has shown that when a great power falls everyone else struggles for their piece of the newly available pie, and sometimes they fight over the scraps.
In other words, I don't think this is a good idea.

Russia has the Capacity to completly Nuke Europe 3 Times back to stoneage
and which European Country should try to attack them
Germany to far away and not allowed to
England and France are like gGermany to far away,
The same for Spain, Italy etc. they would have to cross 3-4 other countries before they could reach Russia.
And most of thier Military is to weak to be threat to Russia.

To only military threat to Russia is China and USA but not Europe
And Europe wouldn't build up thier Military because they need the Taxmoney to spend it on walfare, Trade, EU etc.

By the way if you didn't notice USA is currently slowly falling.

[ajm317]

So China is investing $ into Iraq and Iranian Oilfields and America is declaring war on Iraq to prevent the Iraq from selling iraq Oil, iraq property to China?
Well yeah thats free trade, democracy, capitalism etc.

Why should China invade Taiwan if the Taiwanees Economy already depends on outsourcing thier production to China?
Taiwans econonmy needs the trading with China but China doesn't need Taiwan as a Tradepartner.

South America acts against US interests....
Doesn't have Democratic Countries the right to have thier own intrest
or do they need to act only in US intrests....
And what kind of picture do you draw where your country needs Military Force to keep other countrys in line....
Sounds like what the USSR did.

Did you actually read my post and assume I was attempting to dictate from some sort of moral high ground?

I'm just telling you the way things are, and why they won't change. The OP wasn't arguing for "no military" based on moral reasons, but practical ones. I disagreed with his reasoning.

Russia has the Capacity to completly Nuke Europe 3 Times back to stoneage
and which European Country should try to attack them
Germany to far away and not allowed to
England and France are like gGermany to far away,
The same for Spain, Italy etc. they would have to cross 3-4 other countries before they could reach Russia.
And most of thier Military is to weak to be threat to Russia.

Sometimes it is nice to be able to tell nations what to do without having to threaten to turn them into a parking lot. Consider Venezuela for example. If the U.S. wants their oil, what sense does it make to nuke the crap out of them?

And exactly because Russia has a stronger military than Western Europe is why, as I've said twice now, if the U.S. disarmed, the Germans and French would arm. Without us the Russians would start to push them around. They're already trying to do it now with natural gas supplies.

[Chlodwig I.]

Sometimes it is nice to be able to tell nations what to do without having to threaten to turn them into a parking lot. Consider Venezuela for example. If the U.S. wants their oil, what sense does it make to nuke the crap out of them?

And exactly because Russia has a stronger military than Western Europe is why, as I've said twice now, if the U.S. disarmed, the Germans and French would arm. Without us the Russians would start to push them around. They're already trying to do it now with natural gas supplies.

1st why did you invade Iraq then
and please don't say terrorism

2nd maybe france has the money to rise his military spendings, Germany has no money for that and even if we had equal military forces to the Russians they could still continue to threat us with stoping the gas dilivery.

But both Russia and EU need each other EU needs Russia because of Oil and Gas and Russia needs EU for selling them Oil and Gas.
So there is no need for military or war.
Why spend millions of $ in a war when you can spend the same money to buy the things that you start the war for?

[ajm317]

1st why did you invade Iraq then
and please don't say terrorism

?

I already touched on Iraq. If you don't believe we did it for terrorism I assume you think we did it for money, like I suggested. If so thank you for making my point for me. I appreciate it?

2nd maybe france has the money to rise his military spendings, Germany has no money for that

Bull. You're one of the worlds largest economies and currently your at, I believe, less than 2% of GDP (or right around that). You COULD afford it if you NEEDED to. Right now you don't NEED to.

Why spend millions of $ in a war when you can spend the same money to buy the things that you start the war for?

1. War is a last resort. Usually you can get what you want by saber rattling, but you can't saber rattle if you don't have any sabers.
2. Why do you assume you'll always just be able to buy what you need? What if peak oil becomes a reality? You might have to TAKE what you need.

[mongrel]

I think it could work, especially if it was tied in with an expanded and better equipped reserve force, based on the Swiss model. I can't see the US taking this route in the short term, however, as its armed forces and the the industries supporting them are effectively a form of state welfare.