Does America need a standing army?

[Cutlerzzz]

http://www.mcs.k12.ny.us/pages/kgraham/US%20Geography.jpg

http://www.webresourcesdepot.com/wp-content/uploads/image/vector-world-map.jpg

Well, taking a look at the map of the world, the US has 6,000 miles of ocean to the West, 3,500 miles to the East, a mountainous arid border with an undeveloped country to the South, and a frigid border with a small country to the North.

Canada could not invade if they wanted to. Their population is a 9th of ours, their economic output is a 10th of ours, our economies are too intertwinned to risk it, and the natural ostacles are extreme(the extreme cold, the mountains to the west, the Great Lakes to the East) . If Mexico tried(cue illegal immigration joke) I can't imagine that they would have much success either. They are an undeveloped country with a fairly small economy, a much smaller population than us, an economy heavily dependent on ours, and nearly our entire border is covered by mountains.

Cuba is far too small and poor to do much of anything in any case.

A strong Navy and Air Force can keep virtually any country away from the US mainland. Even if any countries managed to somehow gain a foothold(almost impossible), the US could create an army by the time they have arrived. Any enemy advance would be stalled, as there would be "a gun behind every blade of grass" to quote Yamamoto; the Second Amendment protecting the people's natural right to bear arms is the ultimate "standing army". This would make any occuptation by a foreign army virtually impossible. Any foreign armies would get bogged down and an American army could then be created to defeat the enemy.

Of course, nuclear weapons and MAD make any wars with major powers unlikely.

For these reasons, I view a standing army(especially a government army...) as unneeded. A decent Navy and Air Force, the Second Amendment, and the state national guards is all that is needed to protect the United States.

[Kludge]

America has more guns than citizens, and we have plenty of citizens. We need nothing for self-defense as-is.

We could be exterminated, but why if we have no standing army oppressing abroad? I would as readily give my revenue to the Canadian government as the US. That is to say, governments can go fuck themselves, and I would rather die than be enslaved, no matter how many children I leave behind. (-And I hope they follow in my footsteps.)

[Jace]

..

[pcosmar]

America needs a standing army if Americans want to continue to occupy foreign countries and engage in costly wars overseas. A standing Army is a necessity for those who want to maintain an Empire.

If Americans want a Republic, the National Guard works fine for homeland defense. Volunteers serving a weekend a month and two weeks a year in the Army and Air National Guard is all the defense we need for a fraction of the cost we are paying now. I can see the need for an active-duty Navy, but what we have now is bloated and excessive and is not defending American interests or waters. Our current Navy is going to get us into a shooting war once the Chinese start asserting themselves in the South China Sea.

We need a Constitutional Militia.

[tremendoustie]

I'll do ya one better: the federal government shouldn't have a standing air force or navy either. Well funded, well trained militias are all that's needed. Plus, they enjoy three major advantages: they cannot be used to impose tyranny on people at home, nor for foreign adventurism, and they needn't be funded by extortion.

[dean.engelhardt]

Standing Army, National Guard, Militia, what ever you call, we need one. We are very good at making enemies. I don't think they should go outside our borders though.

[nobody's_hero]

We need more blades of grass to hide our guns behind; we don't need a standing army.

EDIT: FYI, there is some controversy over whether or not Yamamoto actually ever said those words, but it's a good quote (or non-quote, lol). I'm sure the Japanese knew the U.S. mainland could never be occupied, though.

[Uriah]

The United States has over 310,000,000 people; and is the third most populous country in the world behind China and India. If we have more guns than people then we don't need a standing army. The people are the army.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

Standing Army, National Guard, Militia, what ever you call, we need one. We are very good at making enemies. I don't think they should go outside our borders though.

Standing Armies are prohibited by our constitutions most importantly because they aren't supposed to exist INSIDE the borders. Caesar destroyed the roman republic when he led the legions across the Rubicon and headed for Rome. This time around one of the benchmarks that will be cited will be when the American military hegemon retreats back across the Rio Grande and seals the borders and smothers our last gasp of freedom in the U.S.

Its not a question of whether or not the US government should have a "standing army". Standing armies are prohibited by the state and federal constitutions. The principle that is enshrined by these prohibitions is the ancient common law idea that the people shall not trust weapons in the hands of the government.

Just as the powers to pass judgement on the laws and fact, assign guilt, and punish for crimes are not delegated to the government and are reserved by the people through the jury system, likewise the power to use force against people with weapons cannot be delegated to the government and is reserved by the people through the militia.

If the government needs to round up criminals within the country, let them get a posse. If they say they need to defend the country from invaders, let them request the militia. The great thing about this system is there are more checks/balances/vetoes possible as people sort out the information and decide whether the call to arms is a bunch of b.s., based on a false flag, etc.

My tag lines below cite 3 constitutional prohibitions against "standing" (i.e. permanent) armies.

[Brett85]

Yes. America should have the largest military in the world and be the world's leading superpower. However, we should use our troops to defend our own country rather than using them to police the world.

[TCE]

Yes. America should have the largest military in the world and be the world's leading superpower. However, we should use our troops to defend our own country rather than using them to police the world.

What is your opinion on shifting the powers back to the states and their militias? As opposed to the U.S. having a giant military, each state could have as big or small of one as they wanted and protect their borders to their liking? For instance, Texas could raise a large military of their own to protect their borders versus Nebraska, which wouldn't need much of a military presence.

[Brett85]

What is your opinion on shifting the powers back to the states and their militias? As opposed to the U.S. having a giant military, each state could have as big or small of one as they wanted and protect their borders to their liking? For instance, Texas could raise a large military of their own to protect their borders versus Nebraska, which wouldn't need much of a military presence.

I'm generally a big advocate of states' rights, but I just think that the number one priority of the federal government is national defense. The federal government shouldn't do much else besides national defense. I think that we need a strong military to defend our country. I would put our troops along the U.S-Mexico border and the U.S- Canadian border. Illegal immigration is a big threat to our national security, and putting our troops along the borders would stop illegal immigration cold. I don't think it really makes sense to have 50 different states that have their own national defense. The states do have the right under the Constitution to form militias, but I also think that it's necessary for the federal government to have an army. The articles of Confederation were abolished mostly because our founders realized that it didn't make sense for 50 different states to have their own national defense.

[aGameOfThrones]

Of course we need the police!

[lynnf]

after Hitler, Tojo, Mussonini, Norriega, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Stalin, and Hugo Chavez, this question has to be asked?

you can't just raise up an Army, Navy and Air Force from dry bones (as in the Bible) on a moment's notice without a miracle. I believe in miracles but I don't advocate voluntarily relying on them for my existence.

this is a no-brainer. if you don't think a standing army is needed, you have no brains.

[affa]

Wolverines!

[asurfaholic]

I believe a strong army (AF/Navy/Organized Infantry) should be PART of the plan to defend America. We have technology, and we could easily defend our entire coast and borders with a military 1/4 size of what we have now. The other part of national defense should lie with a well armed populace. Community organizations, such as the North Carolina Citizen Militia, would be the secondary line of defense, should a threat ever come across a border either by defeating the government army or sneaking past.

http://www.ncmilitia.org/

Having bases all over the world and being what some people like to call a "super power" is not part of a good national defense plan. Set up bases and bunkers along the coast and borders, maybe even open the military up for volunteers to man the bases (as Volunteer Fire Departments do) and we are virtually untouchable.

The worst thing that can be done for our defense is to take away the guns from Americans.

[affa]

after Hitler, Tojo, Mussonini, Norriega, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Stalin, and Hugo Chavez, this question has to be asked?

you can't just raise up an Army, Navy and Air Force from dry bones (as in the Bible) on a moment's notice without a miracle. I believe in miracles but I don't advocate voluntarily relying on them for my existence.

this is a no-brainer. if you don't think a standing army is needed, you have no brains.

Damn it. I guess I have no brains. Again. Darn internet logic.

[aGameOfThrones]

Damn it. I guess I have no brains. Again. Darn internet logic.

I blame zombies for you having no brain.

[AFPVet]

We need a Constitutional Militia.

This. Groups of unregulated citizen volunteers are not enough... they should have all of the resources they need for defense under the leadership of elected officers—especially at the border states! What is going on down there is a nightmare. Interestingly, the Constitution allows for both an active military and militia.

[Brett85]

Having bases all over the world and being what some people like to call a "super power" is not part of a good national defense plan.

We can be the world's leading superpower without having foreign military bases. We can bring all of our troops home and create more military bases here in the U.S.

[josh b]

Standing armies and extensive military forces are dangerous. There's no such thing as a benevolent superpower.

I'd say no.

I would never trust such a thing to be used purely for defense.

[BlackTerrel]

Could Iraq have used a stronger standing army? I'd say yes.

[suoulfrepus]

The military is completely unnecessary. We're not threatened by anybody. Mexico and Canada are our friends. We're also on good terms with Europe, China, Japan and all the other major countries. No country has the resources to cross the ocean and mount a war against us.

[AFPVet]

The military is completely unnecessary. We're not threatened by anybody. Mexico and Canada are our friends. We're also on good terms with Europe, China, Japan and all the other major countries. No country has the resources to cross the ocean and mount a war against us.

I assume you are being entirely sarcastic :confused:

[Cutlerzzz]

Could Iraq have used a stronger standing army? I'd say yes.

They were actually said to have one of the strongest standing armies in the world during Desert Storm, and it was certainly one of the largest. It didn't do them much good.

[BlackTerrel]

They were actually said to have one of the strongest standing armies in the world during Desert Storm, and it was certainly one of the largest. It didn't do them much good.

Mainly because it was weaker than our military.

[idirtify]

Standing armies and extensive military forces are dangerous. There's no such thing as a benevolent superpower.

I'd say no.

I would never trust such a thing to be used purely for defense.

Agreed. Funny how no one here has even mentioned the dire effects of the current MIC, which is the effect of a standing military. A MIC will always (among other horrible things) grow in size and power, cause conflict in times of peace, control the press and politicians and news (general sociopolitical reality), and historically will have no problem turning on its own country - if it hasn't already destroyed it financially (bankrupted it). So it’s funny when I hear the fearful claims that we need a standing military for security, without any expression of fear that our country is currently in the process of being destroyed from within by that same “protector”. Of course much of that unreasonable fear is a result of the brainwashing power of the MIC.

[Cutlerzzz]

after Hitler, Tojo, Mussonini, Norriega, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Stalin, and Hugo Chavez, this question has to be asked?

you can't just raise up an Army, Navy and Air Force from dry bones (as in the Bible) on a moment's notice without a miracle. I believe in miracles but I don't advocate voluntarily relying on them for my existence.

this is a no-brainer. if you don't think a standing army is needed, you have no brains.

I fail to see what point you're trying to make. Not one of those countries touched the states(save some Japanese ballons...), or came anywhere close to a any kind of invasion of the United States. If anything, it proves my point: The US geographical position makes it almost completely invulnerable to foreign invasions.

The US had always had one of the worlds smallest militaries before the Korean War. Yet it only took a short period of time to prepare for the World Wars.

[suoulfrepus]

I assume you are being entirely sarcastic :confused:

I'm completely serious. Don't know why you would think I was being sarcastic.

By the way, Ron Paul isn't far from my position.


In an interview with Washingtonpost.com's PostTalk program, the Texas congressman said he could see "no reason" to justify military action if he were elected president. He compared the United States to a schoolyard bully and said the country has no reason to flex its muscles overseas.

"There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today," he said in the interview. "I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapon."

[AFPVet]

I'm completely serious. Don't know why you would think I was being sarcastic.

By the way, Ron Paul isn't far from my position.

Take a trip to Southern Arizona or Texas and tell me that we aren't being invaded. People are being kidnapped, beheaded, shot... on U.S. soil! This is not a joke. I have friends who are in law enforcement in those areas... it is getting crazy... and some of what is going on will never make the news—such as militias trying to push those Mexican gangs back.

[nobody's_hero]

after Hitler, Tojo, Mussonini, Norriega, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Stalin, and Hugo Chavez, this question has to be asked?

you can't just raise up an Army, Navy and Air Force from dry bones (as in the Bible) on a moment's notice without a miracle. I believe in miracles but I don't advocate voluntarily relying on them for my existence.

this is a no-brainer. if you don't think a standing army is needed, you have no brains.

I guess you've never heard of a "minuteman." Or maybe a minute takes too long, in your book ?

http://www.britishbattles.com/military-prints/american-revolution/minute-men.jpg

[klamath]

After spending 20 years in the National guard I say yes we do need small number of army divisions that are training all the time. It takes about 4 months to get most guard units up to combat readiness. Talking about the timeline of historical wars does not work in a world of modern airborne assualts. China could have 100,000 highly trained troops on american soil in twentyfour hours.
Ask general Lee how he liked to beg for state militias to build his army. He could never get an army large enough to win a decisive victory because states were holding on to their state militias.

[nobody's_hero]

After spending 20 years in the National guard I say yes we do need small number of army divisions that are training all the time. It takes about 4 months to get most guard units up to combat readiness. Talking about the timeline of historical wars does not work in a world of modern airborne assualts. China could have 100,000 highly trained troops on american soil in twentyfour hours.


And we could have 3,000,000 guns to meet them on the West coast beaches in half the time, probably quicker if there are any gun owners left in California. :D

In fairness, you have to have 'readiness' even with a militia. I'll acknowledge that. To say that we could just do away with our [standing] military and not have a militia/national guard in place to be called up and regularly trained, would be stupid.

I should add that the militia in colonial times was not exactly 'voluntary.' Exceptions were made for conscientious objectors, but in general, if you had four limbs, two eyes, and a ***k, you were expected to train with a militia for defense of colonial townships.

EDIT: Of course, you'd have to ask yourself how these 100k Chinese troops got past our navy, which—if we were serious about providing for our defense and not that of the world—would be clogging the shipping lanes off of our coast, as large as it is.

[Carson]

Only the ones standing on the soil of the United States.

[Cutlerzzz]

After spending 20 years in the National guard I say yes we do need small number of army divisions that are training all the time. It takes about 4 months to get most guard units up to combat readiness. Talking about the timeline of historical wars does not work in a world of modern airborne assualts. China could have 100,000 highly trained troops on american soil in twentyfour hours.
Ask general Lee how he liked to beg for state militias to build his army. He could never get an army large enough to win a decisive victory because states were holding on to their state militias.

100,000 in 24 hours? Well, they don't have the aircraft to move that many men in 24 hours(their military only has a few thousand plains). The US Air National Guard is more powerful than the Chinese Air Force as it is, which would make an aerial assult unthinkable. Even ignoring that, what would they eat? Where would they get their ammo? A 6,000 mile supply line against the US is virtually impossible to supply. The US Navy is too powerful for them to be able to supply anything by ship. It would essentially be handing us 100,000 prisoners(provided they make it that far). As it stands, I believe that the largest airborne operation in history was conducted by US and only consisted of about 5,000 men.

[ronpaulhawaii]

When talking to old guard Republicans I always advocate a powerful Navy with well trained Marines and Air support. I then mention that there is no shortage of Americans who would step up in case of Just War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War)

[nobody's_hero]

When talking to old guard Republicans I always advocate a powerful Navy with well trained Marines and Air support. I then mention that there is no shortage of Americans who would step up in case of Just War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War)

Same strategy here. We have to dissolve the misconceptions that America is weak.

We could beat any nation on earth with one army tied behind our back, if needed.

[GreenLP]

Great thread, Cutlerzzz! I was going to start a similar one a couple of weeks ago and ask if the US really needs much of a military because of the very quote you quoted:


Any enemy advance would be stalled, as there would be "a gun behind every blade of grass" to quote Yamamoto

So as you can guess, I voted "no."

I think superpowers use their military for imperialistic agendas, like the USA does. The USA is the biggest imperialists on the planet and I can't remember the last time the US military were used to actually defend our borders.

[GreenLP]

We can bring all of our troops home and create more military bases here in the U.S.
Why? Who are you afraid of?

[affa]

Take a trip to Southern Arizona or Texas and tell me that we aren't being invaded. People are being kidnapped, beheaded, shot... on U.S. soil! This is not a joke. I have friends who are in law enforcement in those areas... it is getting crazy... and some of what is going on will never make the news—such as militias trying to push those Mexican gangs back.

And how exactly does the existence or non-existence of a standing army change this in any way? I'll point out that we currently DO have a standing army... so having one isn't exactly doing anything to stop what you see as an 'invasion'. And defending a standing army because civilian foreign nationals may cross a border is strange to me. Foreign soldiers? Sure. But civilians are a resource, and it would be better to design a system that saw them as a resource rather than as an enemy. We already have laws in place against the extreme 'kidnappings' and 'beheadings' that you focus on, though the majority of immigrants are really just hoping to get some menial job and have no interest in beheading anyone.

The inherent problem with a standing army is that it costs money, and if it's just 'standing' around it's not generating much in the way of income. However, if you put them into use invading a country, you can make the war industry (weapons manufacturers, suppliers/infrastructure like Halliburton, para-military like Blackwater (now XE)) extremely wealthy.

Therefore, over time, certain types of people will see $$$ and decide to put that standing army to use. It's terrible, it's tragic, and if I were religious I'd even say sinful. But if you believe in a large standing army, it's my belief you're also ultimately proposing what we have now - an endless state of war. Perhaps not today, or tomorrow, but at some point, a standing army will be used... because it's too profitable not to.

As many here have pointed out, there are many alternatives to a standing army, even assuming a country had the resources to invade us (which is questionable).

[Southron]

Why? Who are you afraid of?

I fear that several well placed nukes could destroy our military capabilities. That's why the Constitutional Militia is vital to our security.

[GreenLP]

Take a trip to Southern Arizona or Texas and tell me that we aren't being invaded. People are being kidnapped, beheaded, shot... on U.S. soil! This is not a joke. I have friends who are in law enforcement in those areas... it is getting crazy... and some of what is going on will never make the news—such as militias trying to push those Mexican gangs back.
You can thank the US's War on Drugs for that chaos!

[GreenLP]

I fear that several well placed nukes could destroy our military capabilities. That's why the Constitutional Militia is vital to our security.
I agree, but also ask why would people want to place nukes around like that to do that?

[Brett85]

Why? Who are you afraid of?

I support a strong national defense. I don't believe that the key to keeping ourselves safe from terrorism is to "fight them over there," but we need to have a strong army and a strong national defense here at home to keep our country safe.

[Carson]

When talking to old guard Republicans I always advocate a powerful Navy with well trained Marines and Air support. I then mention that there is no shortage of Americans who would step up in case of Just War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War)


The problem with that would be to know just what side was with you. We have many in the government now that refuse to uphold their oaths of office in regards to the United States Constitution and the rule of law. We have a military that has been co-opted and is off fighting the battles of the new world order.

Can you be sure that those you side with will be for the kind of freedom that the United States was founded on?

Can you be sure you're not being sucked in by another in a long line of false flag maneuvers?


How many now run around claiming to support freedom but can't allow any for any autonomous country anywhere in the world.

[GreenLP]

I support a strong national defense.
So do I, but why would we need any more military bases in the US to have a strong national defense?


I also don't want to turn America into a third world country.
How would having more military bases in the US prevent that?

[Brett85]

So do I, but why would we need any more military bases in the US to have a strong national defense?


How would having more military bases in the US prevent that?

I was just talking about the idea of having basically no government in general. I'm not saying that you support that, but many here would say that there should be no government at all. If we had that, we would be very simililar to the country of Somalia. That's a country with no central government, and it essentially has complete anarchy.

[GreenLP]

I was just talking about the idea of having basically no government in general. I'm not saying that you support that, but many here would say that there should be no government at all. If we had that, we would be very simililar to the country of Somalia. That's a country with no central government, and it essentially has complete anarchy.
Well I'm a Libertarian and not an anarchist. I think a lot of anarchists think they would like that, but wouldn't in reality. It's always easier to talk more "extreme" than actually live it out.

So what's your definition of a "strong military"? Do you agree the USA is the biggest imperialists currently on the planet?

[ronpaulhawaii]

The problem with that would be to know just what side was with you. We have many in the government now that refuse to uphold their oaths of office in regards to the United States Constitution and the rule of law. We have a military that has been co-opted and is off fighting the battles of the new world order.

Can you be sure that those you side with will be for the kind of freedom that the United States was founded on?

Can you be sure you're not being sucked in by another in a long line of false flag maneuvers?


How many now run around claiming to support freedom but can't allow any for any autonomous country anywhere in the world.

There will always be power hungry loons who don't care about the rule of law. The idea is to reduce their ability to wreak havoc. Having no standing army would help that, but really, the issues you are raising have little to do with the military and much to do with the type politicians that have evolved in our country. Luckily, the internet is changing things and that makes it easier to be sure that those who I may side with are "for the kind of freedom that the United States was founded on."

And very few things in life are certain; there is risk in living, and human nature is what it is...

[jmdrake]

We can be the world's leading superpower without having foreign military bases. We can bring all of our troops home and create more military bases here in the U.S.

Why do we need more military bases here in the U.S.? To defend ourselves from the Canadians and Mexicans?

This is what convinced me that we don't need a standing army.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. - Thomas Jefferson

If the Jefferson's benchmark for danger to liberty was a standing army, then we need to rethink standing armies. Or at least the huge mega army we have now. Plus we aren't the world's leading superpower anyway because we are broke and have been for some time. We need to fix our economy and more military bases in the U.S. wouldn't help with that.

[Brett85]

So what's your definition of a "strong military"? Do you agree the USA is the biggest imperialists currently on the planet?

Yes. I said that I support bringing ALL of our troops home from around the world. How would we still be an "imperialistic" country if we simply used our army to defend our own country? My position is that our army should remain the same size that it is now, but we should use our army for our own national defense. We should create new bases along our borders and use our military to stop illegal immigration and defend our sovereignty as a nation.

[Brett85]

Why do we need more military bases here in the U.S.? To defend ourselves from the Canadians and Mexicans?

To defend ourselves from people illegally crossing the borders who are coming here with the intention of doing harm to us.

[affa]

I was just talking about the idea of having basically no government in general. I'm not saying that you support that, but many here would say that there should be no government at all. If we had that, we would be very simililar to the country of Somalia. That's a country with no central government, and it essentially has complete anarchy.

over the course of repeated postings in multiple threads, i have come to the conclusion you have absolutely no understanding of what anarchism is, whatsoever. here's a hint: regional rule by militant warlords is not anarchism. here's another -- a country with no central government does not just become Somalia.

[AFPVet]

And how exactly does the existence or non-existence of a standing army change this in any way? I'll point out that we currently DO have a standing army... so having one isn't exactly doing anything to stop what you see as an 'invasion'. And defending a standing army because civilian foreign nationals may cross a border is strange to me. Foreign soldiers? Sure. But civilians are a resource, and it would be better to design a system that saw them as a resource rather than as an enemy. We already have laws in place against the extreme 'kidnappings' and 'beheadings' that you focus on, though the majority of immigrants are really just hoping to get some menial job and have no interest in beheading anyone.

The inherent problem with a standing army is that it costs money, and if it's just 'standing' around it's not generating much in the way of income. However, if you put them into use invading a country, you can make the war industry (weapons manufacturers, suppliers/infrastructure like Halliburton, para-military like Blackwater (now XE)) extremely wealthy.

Therefore, over time, certain types of people will see $$$ and decide to put that standing army to use. It's terrible, it's tragic, and if I were religious I'd even say sinful. But if you believe in a large standing army, it's my belief you're also ultimately proposing what we have now - an endless state of war. Perhaps not today, or tomorrow, but at some point, a standing army will be used... because it's too profitable not to.

As many here have pointed out, there are many alternatives to a standing army, even assuming a country had the resources to invade us (which is questionable).

When I think of a standing army, I think of the police force. I believe that an active military is necessary along with a Constitutional Militia for the defense of our republic.

[asurfaholic]

Is anyone involved with their local militia?

http://www.ncmilitia.org/

[affa]

Yes. I said that I support bringing ALL of our troops home from around the world. How would we still be an "imperialistic" country if we simply used our army to defend our own country? My position is that our army should remain the same size that it is now, but we should use our army for our own national defense. We should create new bases along our borders and use our military to stop illegal immigration and defend our sovereignty as a nation.

Are you aware we have in the ballpark of just under a million US active duty troops already stationed in the continental United States, and well over a million if you count our territories? A million. How many people do you think we need to 'protect our borders'.

We have, what, a bit less than a half a million troops give or take stationed or in combat around the world. If we can't seem to 'protect our borders' with 1 million troops, how is even half a million more going to help? Who the heck needs that many people to protect a 2000 mile border with Mexico, especially considering the state of technology today?

Are you really advocating needing (paying, housing, training, equiping) 1.5 million people to 'defend' a border with a country (or countries, if you include Canada) that has no military aspirations against us?

PS -- these numbers are based on the Sept. 30 2010 troop deployment numbers from the department of defense:
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/hst1009.pdf

Seriously, a standing army of 1.5 million people is ludicrous for a country that has no bordering enemies and is as protected by geography as we are. What an amazing, awe-inspiring expenditure, a bottomless pit of wasted money.

[affa]

When I think of a standing army, I think of the police force. I believe that an active military is necessary along with a Constitutional Militia for the defense of our republic.

A standing army is not the police force. (Well, it is now that we've militarized the police, but that's a different issue). A standing army means a professional, permanent army of soldiers, kept even during times of peace, aka 'the military'. The police are generally not considered part of the military, and thus not standing army, except perhaps in a police state (which again, arguably, we now live in).

[AFPVet]

I don't think that the military needs to be quite as large as it is today. The purpose of a military is to be the primary buffer for invasion... not for policing the globe. The purpose of the militia is explicitly outlined in Article I, Section 8.

[jmdrake]

To defend ourselves from people illegally crossing the borders who are coming here with the intention of doing harm to us.

And you think local militias can't do that? Do you think there'd even been significant numbers of people crossing the border illegally with the intention of doing harm without the U.S. government funding them through the war on drugs and arming them through the war on guns? And did you even read the OP?

[AFPVet]

A standing army is not the police force. (Well, it is now that we've militarized the police, but that's a different issue). A standing army means a professional, permanent army of soldiers, kept even during times of peace, aka 'the military'. The police are generally not considered part of the military, and thus not standing army, except perhaps in a police state (which again, arguably, we now live in).

Yes, I was speaking of the police state. On another note, our militias need to be well regulated and supplied. The militia's have been demonized and not even considered by the higher up's. State defense forces are a joke... and the national guard is simply another division of the US military.

[Arion45]

Yes. I said that I support bringing ALL of our troops home from around the world. How would we still be an "imperialistic" country if we simply used our army to defend our own country? My position is that our army should remain the same size that it is now, but we should use our army for our own national defense. We should create new bases along our borders and use our military to stop illegal immigration and defend our sovereignty as a nation.

So you are basically a big government conservative when it comes to the military?

[Brett85]

So you are basically a big government conservative when it comes to the military?

I basically support a strong national defense. I don't agree with the anarchist libertarians who support a weak national defense and a much weaker America.

[Brett85]

So you are basically a big government conservative when it comes to the military?

Also, if I'm a "big government conservative" for not wanting to abolish the military, Ron Paul himself is also a "big government conservative."

[Southron]

I basically support a strong national defense. I don't agree with the anarchist libertarians who support a weak national defense and a much weaker America.

I could possibly support turning offensive spending into defensive spending. Missile defense comes to mind and early warning detectors.

[pcosmar]

I basically support a strong national defense. I don't agree with the anarchist libertarians who support a weak national defense and a much weaker America.

This is a strong defense.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae74oMMQ4ak

This is not.

http://www.joiningthedocs.tv/ContentData/MercuryMedia/Waco.gif

[jmdrake]

Also, if I'm a "big government conservative" for not wanting to abolish the military, Ron Paul himself is also a "big government conservative."

Where did Ron Paul say that he wanted new military bases in America? How does that save the money he says he'll save by closing military bases overseas? And from the OP (which I'm increasingly wondering if you even read) that proposal including keeping a military capable of defending our skies and oceans. And land invasions are basically a non starter.

[Brett85]

Where did Ron Paul say that he wanted new military bases in America? How does that save the money he says he'll save by closing military bases overseas? And from the OP (which I'm increasingly wondering if you even read) that proposal including keeping a military capable of defending our skies and oceans. And land invasions are basically a non starter.

Ron Paul has said that he supports closing down all of our military bases overseas, but he's never said that we should reduce the size of our military. In the GOP debates he talked about using our military to defend our borders. I agree with Ron Paul 100% on this issue.

[Brett85]

I could possibly support turning offensive spending into defensive spending. Missile defense comes to mind and early warning detectors.

That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying that we should quit spending trillions of dollars on intervention overseas and start defending our own country. Amazingly enough, certain people here actually disagree with that position.

[SamuraisWisdom]

Yes. America should have the largest military in the world and be the world's leading superpower. However, we should use our troops to defend our own country rather than using them to police the world.

This, except with our advanced technology over the rest of the world we can do without the largest, but rather the most efficient.

[jmdrake]

Ron Paul has said that he supports closing down all of our military bases overseas, but he's never said that we should reduce the size of our military. In the GOP debates he talked about using our military to defend our borders. I agree with Ron Paul 100% on this issue.

He says that if we close military bases overseas will save money. Inherent in that statement is not opening up needless military bases in the U.S. If you do that you won't save a dime. Also the only reason he supports controlling the border is because our stupid war on drugs and welfare state makes that (somewhat) necessary.

[jmdrake]

That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying that we should quit spending trillions of dollars on intervention overseas and start defending our own country. Amazingly enough, certain people here actually disagree with that position.

:rolleyes: No. I agree with Rifleman's position. I disagree with yours. Supporting missile defense is not the same thing as maintaining the same sized military. Rifleman's idea fits more in line with the "Drop the standing army an keep an air force and navy" argument of the OP. Either branch could maintain an missile defense force. If you quit spending trillions overseas and instead spend trillions here for no apparent reason (and you really haven't stated a reason) then you haven't saved a dime. Ron Paul said that if we quit spending money in overseas adventures we could even afford universal healthcare. (Note that he still thinks that would be a bad idea. But at least it wouldn't break us). That wouldn't happen if every overseas base became some U.S. base.

[idirtify]

Are you aware we have in the ballpark of just under a million US active duty troops already stationed in the continental United States, and well over a million if you count our territories? A million. How many people do you think we need to 'protect our borders'.

We have, what, a bit less than a half a million troops give or take stationed or in combat around the world. If we can't seem to 'protect our borders' with 1 million troops, how is even half a million more going to help? Who the heck needs that many people to protect a 2000 mile border with Mexico, especially considering the state of technology today?

Are you really advocating needing (paying, housing, training, equiping) 1.5 million people to 'defend' a border with a country (or countries, if you include Canada) that has no military aspirations against us?

PS -- these numbers are based on the Sept. 30 2010 troop deployment numbers from the department of defense:
http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/MILITARY/history/hst1009.pdf

Seriously, a standing army of 1.5 million people is ludicrous for a country that has no bordering enemies and is as protected by geography as we are. What an amazing, awe-inspiring expenditure, a bottomless pit of wasted money.

Hold on. Considering your troop figures, let’s take another look at TC’s idea.

I believe that’s one troop for every seven feet along our southern border. Not bad. Of course you would have to triple that distance if you had round-the-clock guard duty (3 shifts). So that’s one troop standing every 21 feet. I think they could handle that. It would sure cut down on fence expenses and illegal immigration.

This is fun; let’s continue. Maybe a troop could handle more. Let’s see if we have enough for 24/7 guard duty around the whole country.

Here are the distances:
Border with canada - 5525 miles
Border with mexico - 1996 miles
Coastlines total - 12,383 miles
Total US perimeter to guard – 19,904 miles

By golly I think we do. I come up with one troop for every 210 feet. That’s only 70 yards to guard; or actually only half that, since the next troop in line will have his half covered. Do you think a troop and an M16 could cover 35 yards? Hell, he could do it with a 22!

I say, let’s go with Traditional Conservative’s position and bring all the troops home and literally have a “STANDING” ARMY on guard duty around the whole damnation. Hell yeah! Takes care of the boats of Cubans and Haitians too; and those damned gun-running ATF motherfuckers.

[affa]

I basically support a strong national defense. I don't agree with the anarchist libertarians who support a weak national defense and a much weaker America.

Oh please. Stop labeling anyone you don't agree with whatever terms you like to throw around today.

You want to know something? We have enough nukes and other assorted missiles in place to have what any sane person would consider a 'strong national defense', period. We don't need 1.5 million troops at home to not have a 'weak military'.

Very few countries have over a million active duty troops, and unless you stay up at night worrying Russia, India, or Korea is going to somehow teleport their troops over here, they are of little concern. Not to mention, that troop presence isn't in a vacuum - India keeps a large military in part because of Pakistan, and the two Koreas face off as well. None of them can just send all their troops (or any, really) our way. China has 2-3 million troops, but again, if you're worried about their military you're worried about the wrong thing. A couple more countries are in the 500k range -- but I hope you're not worried about Turkey or Egypt.

Mexico is about 250k, but again, we're more likely to see a NWO joining of our countries than you are to see a war between us.

So tell me, Traditional Conservative... how many troops do you think we need to have a 'strong military'? How many nukes? How much will it cost? How do we pay for it?

Because you know what? I'm going out on a limb and saying if we had 250k troops + the advanced military technology we already have + the number of nukes we already have + the geographic advantage we already have... we don't just have a strong military, we have an extremely strong military. We can't attack China, sure, but they'd be crazy to attack us, too, given the logistics.

And to be truthful, I don't even think we need remotely that many. But my point is more that you are arguing for 6x that -- 1.5 million troops sitting around 'protecting our borders' and waiting for someone to attack us. Because you need us to have what you consider a 'strong military'. And you're advocating creating brand new bases to effectively increase our continental army by 50% (bringing them home). Where is that money coming from? You're spending monopoly money to create a dream fortress.



That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying that we should quit spending trillions of dollars on intervention overseas and start defending our own country. Amazingly enough, certain people here actually disagree with that position.

Amazing, right?! Especially when you don't even try to understand our positions. Anyone who doesn't support 'Caylee's Law' in that other thread is an anarchist who hates cops, anyone here who doesn't support a massive standing army thinks we should have a 'weak' military. You're extremely talented at misrepresenting the opinions of others. But you never seem to address the actual points we make, just dismiss us with dismissive labels like 'anarchist', which you don't even know the proper meaning of.

[Brett85]

:rolleyes: No. I agree with Rifleman's position. I disagree with yours. Supporting missile defense is not the same thing as maintaining the same sized military. Rifleman's idea fits more in line with the "Drop the standing army an keep an air force and navy" argument of the OP. Either branch could maintain an missile defense force. If you quit spending trillions overseas and instead spend trillions here for no apparent reason (and you really haven't stated a reason) then you haven't saved a dime. Ron Paul said that if we quit spending money in overseas adventures we could even afford universal healthcare. (Note that he still thinks that would be a bad idea. But at least it wouldn't break us). That wouldn't happen if every overseas base became some U.S. base.

Rifleman didn't say that he disagreed with my position. He just mentioned a missile defense system, which I also agree with him on. I didn't say that we should create a military base here in the U.S for every one that we close down overseas. We could send a lot of our troops to U.S military bases which already exist. My position is that we need a strong military as a deterrent so that other countries won't even consider attacking us.

[jmdrake]

Rifleman didn't say that he disagreed with my position. He just mentioned a missile defense system, which I also agree with him on. I didn't say that we should create a military base here in the U.S for every one that we close down overseas. We could send a lot of our troops to U.S military bases which already exist. My position is that we need a strong military as a deterrent so that other countries won't even consider attacking us.

I didn't say Rifleman said he disagreed with your position. Please read more carefully next time. And the people you are arguing against aren't saying that we don't need a strong military. Not unless you don't think the air force and navy count as military. And with millions of guns in America there isn't another country considering a land invasion.

[Brett85]

I'm still waiting for somebody to provide a link to show where Ron Paul ever said that he supported abolishing the army or even reducing it.

[Brett85]

I didn't say Rifleman said he disagreed with your position. Please read more carefully next time. And the people you are arguing against aren't saying that we don't need a strong military. Not unless you don't think the air force and navy count as military. And with millions of guns in America there isn't another country considering a land invasion.

Why would you support keeping the Navy and Air Force if you support abolishing the army?

[idirtify]

Yes. I said that I support bringing ALL of our troops home from around the world. How would we still be an "imperialistic" country if we simply used our army to defend our own country? My position is that our army should remain the same size that it is now, but we should use our army for our own national defense. We should create new bases along our borders and use our military to stop illegal immigration and defend our sovereignty as a nation.

Would you mind responding to my post number 27? You want to keep a huge standing army but what about the Military Industrial Complex that comes with it?

[jmdrake]

I'm still waiting for somebody to provide a link to show where Ron Paul ever said that he supported abolishing the army or even reducing it.

I'm still waiting for you to quit building straw men. And saying that closing military bases overseas means having enough money to fund universal healthcare implies reducing the number of people in the military as personnel cost is the biggest expense.

[Brett85]

Would you mind responding to my post number 27? You want to keep a huge standing army but what about the Military Industrial Complex that comes with it?

I've never really understood the term "military industrial complex." You should expand on what exactly you mean.

[axiomata]

Why would you support keeping the Navy and Air Force if you support abolishing the army?

Because a standing (floating) Navy is constitutional?

[Brett85]

I'm still waiting for you to quit building straw men. And saying that closing military bases overseas means having enough money to fund universal healthcare implies reducing the number of people in the military as personnel cost is the biggest expense.

That seems like a stretch to me. We would save a lot of money if we quit paying for the defense of other countries. It's not just our army. It's also foreign military aid, missile defense systems that we provide other countries, nukes that we provide other countries, etc.

[Brett85]

Because a standing (floating) Navy is constitutional?

An army is authorized by the Constitution as well. If you want to get really technical about it, the Air Force is the one branch of the military that isn't authorized by the Constitution.

[jmdrake]

Oh, and here's Ron Paul's joint statement with Barney Frank on cutting military spending.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/107229-why-we-must-reduce-military-spending-reps-barney-frank-and-ron-paul

Pay close attention to this part:

In order to create a systematic approach to reducing military spending, we have convened a Sustainable Defense Task Force consisting of experts on military expenditures that span the ideological spectrum. The task force has produced a detailed report with specific recommendations for cutting Pentagon spending by approximately $1 trillion over a ten year period. It calls for eliminating certain Cold War weapons and scaling back our commitments overseas. Even with these changes, the United States would still be immeasurably stronger than any nation with which we might be engaged, and the plan will in fact enhance our security rather than diminish it.

From the task force recommendations:
Reduce US military presence in Europe and Asia by one-third and cut military end strength accordingly.

Note the recommendations are not "Reduce US military presence in Europe and Asia, but keep the same troop levels by re-deploying them here".

[jmdrake]

That seems like a stretch to me. We would save a lot of money if we quit paying for the defense of other countries. It's not just our army. It's also foreign military aid, missile defense systems that we provide other countries, nukes that we provide other countries, etc.

Foreign military aid + missile defense systems + nukes <<<<<<<< Obamacare.

[jmdrake]

An army is authorized by the Constitution as well.

But not a standing army. The constitution gives authority to raise an army in time of war. Note the text:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

Now here's a simple question. If a standing army is so necessary than why was Thomas Jefferson so against it? And why prior to WW II did we build down after every war?

[Brett85]

Oh, and here's Ron Paul's joint statement with Barney Frank on cutting military spending.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/107229-why-we-must-reduce-military-spending-reps-barney-frank-and-ron-paul

Pay close attention to this part:

In order to create a systematic approach to reducing military spending, we have convened a Sustainable Defense Task Force consisting of experts on military expenditures that span the ideological spectrum. The task force has produced a detailed report with specific recommendations for cutting Pentagon spending by approximately $1 trillion over a ten year period. It calls for eliminating certain Cold War weapons and scaling back our commitments overseas. Even with these changes, the United States would still be immeasurably stronger than any nation with which we might be engaged, and the plan will in fact enhance our security rather than diminish it.

From the task force recommendations:
Reduce US military presence in Europe and Asia by one-third and cut military end strength accordingly.

Note the recommendations are not "Reduce US military presence in Europe and Asia, but keep the same troop levels by re-deploying them here".

If that's what it actually meant, I don't agree with it. But I've still never heard anything like that come out of Ron Paul's mouth. By the way, I'm simply taking the same position on this issue that Pat Buchanan does, and people here generally praise him for his views on national defense/foreign policy issues.

[Brett85]

But not a standing army. The constitution gives authority to raise an army in time of war. Note the text:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

Now here's a simple question. If a standing army is so necessary than why was Thomas Jefferson so against it? And why prior to WW II did we build down after every war?

Our founding fathers were divided on the need for a standing army. Many of our founders supported a standing army. Also, you could interpret that section of the Constitution as saying that Congress simply needs to reauthorize the funding for the military every two years.

[Brett85]

But not a standing army. The constitution gives authority to raise an army in time of war. Note the text:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

Now here's a simple question. If a standing army is so necessary than why was Thomas Jefferson so against it? And why prior to WW II did we build down after every war?

Also, what about the fact that the Air Force isn't specifically authorized by the Constitution?

[jmdrake]

Our founding fathers were divided on the need for a standing army. Many of our founders supported a standing army. Also, you could interpret that section of the Constitution as saying that Congress simply needs to reauthorize the funding for the military every two years.

Some of our founding fathers supported central banking too. I wasn't asking about the Alexander Hamiltons but about Thomas Jefferson. Why do you think he was against a standing army?

And yes, you can misinterpret the army clause just like you can misinterpret the commerce clause or the general welfare clause. But you can't get around the fact that the constitution treats the army and navy different and that the army is seen as more temporary (to be raised in time of need) and the navy more permanent (to be maintained).

[Brett85]

Some of our founding fathers supported central banking too. I wasn't asking about the Alexander Hamiltons but about Thomas Jefferson. Why do you think he was against a standing army?

And yes, you can misinterpret the army clause just like you can misinterpret the commerce clause or the general welfare clause. But you can't get around the fact that the constitution treats the army and navy different and that the army is seen as more temporary (to be raised in time of need) and the navy more permanent (to be maintained).

We lived in a much less dangerous world when our country was founded, so Thomas Jefferson's opinion on standing armies doesn't carry much weight today. I really don't want to return our country to the defenses that we had in the 1700's.

[jmdrake]

Also, what about the fact that the Air Force isn't specifically authorized by the Constitution?

The Wright brothers weren't born yet. ;) It should be intuitively obvious to the casual observer that entities which existed or at least possibly existed at the time of the constitution (like the army) have to be looked at differently than entities that were beyond the imagination of the time (like an air force). Since you can't draw a direct inference on an air force, you can draw an indirect one. A navy was needed to protect the approaches to America from a foreign power and because it's hard for a militia to quickly build a navy. The same can be argued for an air force. The same is not true for infantry. Just look at the Swiss example. They follow a militia model. When's the last time they've been invaded? The Swiss have a small professional military, but that doesn't make up the bulk of their fighting force. That's what the founding fathers envisioned for the U.S. That and a Swiss like neutrality. But like so many other things, we have drifted far way from that.

[Anti Federalist]

Yes. America should have the largest military in the world and be the world's leading superpower. However, we should use our troops to defend our own country rather than using them to police the world.

Two things:

1 - Why? What is the benefit to myself and my fellow citizens by being the lone world "superpower"?

2 - We can't afford it anymore.

http://dailybail.com/storage/chart-military-global-spending.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1303481268 706

[jmdrake]

We lived in a much less dangerous world when our country was founded, so Thomas Jefferson's opinion on standing armies doesn't carry much weight today. I really don't want to return our country to the defenses that we had in the 1700's.

And that world is much more dangerous in large part because of our foreign adventurism. From the CIA overthrowing a democratically elected government in Iran on behalf of British petroleum to Jimmy Carter funding what would become Al Qaeda to fight the Soviet Union to Reagan giving poison gas to Saddam Hussein to Clinton supporting Al Qaeda linked terrorists in Kosovo Bush supporting Islamic Marxist terrorists in Iran to Obama supporting Al Qaeda linked terrorists in Libya and protecting opium growers in Afghanistan, every time we turn around we find how we're creating our own enemies. By contrast the Swiss live in as just a dangerous world in much more security following a Thomas Jefferson model.

Really, the straw men are getting old. Our country didn't have an air force in the 1700's. :rolleyes: So why are you falsely claiming that anyone wants a 1700s era defense? Do you think this is from the 1700s?

http://www.swissair.ch/2008/J-3069.jpg

[Brett85]

Two things:

1 - Why? What is the benefit to myself and my fellow citizens by being the lone world "superpower"?

2 - We can't afford it anymore.

http://dailybail.com/storage/chart-military-global-spending.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1303481268 706

1. It benefits you, because there's a much smaller chance of getting attacked if we have a strong military to deter other countries against attacking us.
2. We can't afford an approximately 1 trillion dollar federal budget? That's what I advocate, and it would be a 75% reduction in the size of the current federal government. I would spend about 700 billion on defense, and the other $300 billion would be spent on other things authorized by the Constitution.

[Brett85]

And that world is much more dangerous in large part because of our foreign adventurism. From the CIA overthrowing a democratically elected government in Iran on behalf of British petroleum to Jimmy Carter funding what would become Al Qaeda to fight the Soviet Union to Reagan giving poison gas to Saddam Hussein to Clinton supporting Al Qaeda linked terrorists in Kosovo Bush supporting Islamic Marxist terrorists in Iran to Obama supporting Al Qaeda linked terrorists in Libya and protecting opium growers in Afghanistan, every time we turn around we find how we're creating our own enemies. By contrast the Swiss live in as just a dangerous world in much more security following a Thomas Jefferson model.

Really, the straw men are getting old. Our country didn't have an air force in the 1700's. :rolleyes: So why are you falsely claiming that anyone wants a 1700s era defense? Do you think this is from the 1700s?

I agree with you on the foreign adventurism part. But you still haven't explained why you support having an Air Force when it isn't specifically authorized by the Constitution.

[jmdrake]

I agree with you on the foreign adventurism part. But you still haven't explained why you support having an Air Force when it isn't specifically authorized by the Constitution.

I have. You either weren't reading it or you didn't understand it. But I'll explain it again.

1) Anyone knows that things that didn't exist at the time of the constitution have to be looked at differently than things that did.
2) On principle an airforce serves the same function as a navy. Both defend approaches to the country. The navy defends the sea approach. The air force defends the air approach.
3) The airforce and navy are also similar in that those are functions not easily duplicated by a local militia. That is in contrast to the army.

Really, if you understand why freedom of the press extends to the internet even though that wasn't mentioned in the constitution, you should be able to understand how the navy and the airforce are cut from the same cloth. That said, the navy could do the same role as the airforce. Navy pilots think they're better than airforce pilots anyway. ;)

[jmdrake]

1. It benefits you, because there's a much smaller chance of getting attacked if we have a strong military to deter other countries against attacking us.


So why do you think the Swiss never get attacked even with a much smaller military?



2. We can't afford an approximately 1 trillion dollar federal budget? That's what I advocate, and it would be a 75% reduction in the size of the current federal government. I would spend about 700 billion on defense, and the other $300 billion would be spent on other things authorized by the Constitution.

I'm assuming you meant to say "We can afford an approx 1 trillion dollar fed budget". ;) Anyway I agree with what you wrote initially (We can't afford a 1 trillion dollar federal budget). And of course this is "my priorities are the ones that can't be cut regardless of whether we actually need them or not" is the reason why we have runaway deficits. Everyone has a sacred cow and they're eating all the grass. That's also why Ron Paul supports significant cuts in the size of the military budget. And I gave you the link. ;)

[Brett85]

I have. You either weren't reading it or you didn't understand it. But I'll explain it again.

1) Anyone knows that things that didn't exist at the time of the constitution have to be looked at differently than things that did.
2) On principle an airforce serves the same function as a navy. Both defend approaches to the country. The navy defends the sea approach. The air force defends the air approach.
3) The airforce and navy are also similar in that those are functions not easily duplicated by a local militia. That is in contrast to the army.

Really, if you understand why freedom of the press extends to the internet even though that wasn't mentioned in the constitution, you should be able to understand how the navy and the airforce are cut from the same cloth. That said, the navy could do the same role as the airforce. Navy pilots think they're better than airforce pilots anyway. ;)

That was a good answer, but I think there probably are many strict Constitutionalists who would say that the Air Force is unconstitutional. But, I think that there's room for debate on some Constitutional interpretations. Other parts of the Constitution are more specific.

[Anti Federalist]

1. It benefits you, because there's a much smaller chance of getting attacked if we have a strong military to deter other countries against attacking us.

You didn't say strong military, you said "be the world's leading superpower". Take at look at the military spending in that graph. Is anybody going to invade Germany any time soon? Or Russia? Or nations that didn't even make the top ten of spending, some of whom have higher standards of living than we do.


2. We can't afford an approximately 1 trillion dollar federal budget? That's what I advocate, and it would be a 75% reduction in the size of the current federal government. I would spend about 700 billion on defense, and the other $300 billion would be spent on other things authorized by the Constitution.

I'm assuming you meant "can"

That's about what we are spending now.

So if you close all those bases and stop the foreign interventionism, you still want spend 700 billion or so a year on defense?

Luckily Ron Paul does not agree:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/06/ron-paul-joins-house-lawmakers-in-push-for-military-spending-cuts.html



Ron Paul Joins House Lawmakers in Push for Military Spending Cuts

June 09, 2011 3:38 PM

Presidential candidate and Tea Party Godfather Rep. Ron Paul is among a group of six Members of the House of Representatives that released a letter Thursday calling for a reduction in U.S. military spending by scaling back U.S. military commitments and reconfiguring the country’s military posture abroad.

Although bipartisan negotiations on deficit reduction between Vice President Biden and a group bicameral legislators continue, Paul, who announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for President May 13, says that Congress “cannot be serious about reining in federal government spending if we take the military budget off the table.”

“We must focus our resources on defending the United States rather than on building and maintaining an unsustainable trillion dollar empire overseas,” Paul, R-Texas, said.

[Brett85]

So why do you think the Swiss never get attacked even with a much smaller military?



I'm assuming you meant to say "We can afford an approx 1 trillion dollar fed budget". ;) Anyway I agree with what you wrote initially (We can't afford a 1 trillion dollar federal budget). And of course this is "my priorities are the ones that can't be cut regardless of whether we actually need them or not" is the reason why we have runaway deficits. Everyone has a sacred cow and they're eating all the grass. That's also why Ron Paul supports significant cuts in the size of the military budget. And I gave you the link. ;)

I support cutting spending across the board, including the Pentagon's budget. But I just support cutting the one third of the Pentagon's budget that it spends on foreign intervention. You don't see very many conservative Republicans like myself who advocate bringing all of our troops home from around the world.

[demolama]

Someone needs to let Canada know they need to raise more troops so that they can deter other countries from attacking them :rolleyes:

[Echoes]

Heck no. Free market FTW.

If the cause is just, you will have NO shortage of motivated folks fleeing to defend Liberty.

A standing army is big part of why we're in the mess we're in today.

Jefferson was right.

[Anti Federalist]

I support cutting spending across the board, including the Pentagon's budget. But I just support cutting the one third of the Pentagon's budget that it spends on foreign intervention. You don't see very many conservative Republicans like myself who advocate bringing all of our troops home from around the world.

Well, the fact of the matter is that those troops are coming home, regardless.

I'm sure there were millions of Soviet patriots who felt the same way, circa 1990

[Brett85]

"We must focus our resources on defending the United States rather than on building and maintaining an unsustainable trillion dollar empire overseas"

That quote by Ron Paul is exactly what I've been saying. Also, a 700 billion defense budget would be a 100 billion cut from the current 800 billion defense budget. Nobody in Congress is advocating that large of a cut. (Other than Ron.) Also, the 700 billion number was just an estimate. The number could be lower than that. But I agree with what Rand Paul has said, which is that the defense budget should be about 70-80% of the overall budget.

[idirtify]

I've never really understood the term "military industrial complex." You should expand on what exactly you mean.

Well then you’ve also not really understood what you are advocating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex
Military–industrial complex (MIC), or Military–industrial-congressional complex[1] (MICC) is a concept commonly used to refer to policy and monetary relationships between legislators, national armed forces, and the industrial sector that supports them.

[Anti Federalist]

Well then you’ve also not really understood what you are advocating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex
Military–industrial complex (MIC), or Military–industrial-congressional complex[1] (MICC) is a concept commonly used to refer to policy and monetary relationships between legislators, national armed forces, and the industrial sector that supports them.

To follow up:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

[nobody's_hero]

Cool video footage anti-fed.

[jmdrake]

I support cutting spending across the board, including the Pentagon's budget. But I just support cutting the one third of the Pentagon's budget that it spends on foreign intervention. You don't see very many conservative Republicans like myself who advocate bringing all of our troops home from around the world.

And you don't see many African Americans like me willing to vote in Republican primaries to support Ron Paul either. ;) We all come from different backgrounds with different preconceived notions. But the key to growth is to at least think deeply about those preconceived notions. And the end of the day you might end up with the same notions, as I have largely done on the civil war and the civil rights movement (much to the chagrin of some here), but you should be at least able to understand the other side and better articulate your position.

With that in mind can you answer this question? What deficiency do you see with the Swiss military model? Do you honestly believe the Swiss are in danger of being invaded or that such an invasion could be successful? I don't. Even a modern military has a hard time dealing with a coordinated insurgency. Look at the Soviets in Afghanistan (or us in Afghanistan) or look at Israel's unsuccessful recent attempt to invade Lebanon and destroy Hezbollah. Think of the Swiss militia as mujahadeen on steroids. They go through the same professional training as any Chinese, Russian, American or Israeli solider. Plus they have an air force, and more importantly modern air defense systems. The Swiss wouldn't have to wait on someone else to supply them with the equivalent of stinger missiles.

The other element of the Swiss model that makes them more secure then the U.S. is since they have no large standing army there is no temptation to use it to intervene in foreign countries. I know that you are against foreign adventurism, but the problem is that you aren't the president. I remember reading once after the Bosnian war a general confiding with someone about his frustration with secretary of state Madeline Albright. He was trying to explain to her why the Bosnian intervention was not a good idea (we still have soldiers there by the way), and she responded by saying "What good is having a big military if you aren't going to use it?"

Nor is use in foreign countries the only concern. Remember Katrina? Remember how at first FEMA kept everybody out? Remember that later, after Bush fought with the governor of Louisiana over who should be in charge of the Louisiana national guard deployment, they sent the national guard in with a dual mission of providing aid and confiscating guns?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tta1qhQZWSE

Remember why this country passed the Posse Comitatus Act? It was to prevent scenes like the one above. This couldn't happen under a Swiss militia model, because the people you would be being asked to disarm would be your fellow troops. But with a large imperial style "professional" military it can happen (already HAS happened in the U.S.) because there is an "us" versus "them".


"We must focus our resources on defending the United States rather than on building and maintaining an unsustainable trillion dollar empire overseas"

That quote by Ron Paul is exactly what I've been saying. Also, a 700 billion defense budget would be a 100 billion cut from the current 800 billion defense budget. Nobody in Congress is advocating that large of a cut. (Other than Ron.) Also, the 700 billion number was just an estimate. The number could be lower than that. But I agree with what Rand Paul has said, which is that the defense budget should be about 70-80% of the overall budget.

Spending nearly 3/4 of a trillion a year hear at home to maintain a force ready to enforce martial law here in America isn't sustainable either. Oh, and you should change the above to say that no republicans in congress other than Ron (and I believe Justin Amash and a few others) are advocating that large of a cut. But there are democrats like Barney Frank who signed on to Ron's large cuts. And that's the problem. You can get republicans to sign on to massive cuts in social spending but not in the military. You can get democrats to sign on to massive cuts in military spending, but not social. It's like the debt is a huge arch with the left side and the right side of the arch propping it up. Here's a better way. Do away with taxes and let people donate to the part of the government they feel is necessary. You think we need 700 billion for the military? You fund it. Someone else thinks millions are needed for space exploration? They should fund that. Someone wants to spend money on education or medical research or anything else? Let that person fund that. But our current system is in reality unsustainable. Thinking there will be a balanced budget based on your priorities is a pipe dream.

[affa]

We lived in a much less dangerous world when our country was founded, so Thomas Jefferson's opinion on standing armies doesn't carry much weight today. I really don't want to return our country to the defenses that we had in the 1700's.

You are the king of straw men. Not having a standing army does not ' return our country to the defenses that we had in the 1700's' and to continually misrepresent the opinions of others as often as you do is both disrespectful and intellectually dishonest.

And I'm still waiting for an answer of any sort to my posts -- why do we need 1.5 million troops on US soil? Where are we going to base them? You can't simply add 50% population to existing bases as you half suggest in one post - that's overcrowding. How are all these new based being paid for? You seem to keep jumping back and forth between wanting these troops for 'defense in case of attack' and 'protecting our borders'...but we don't need 1.5 million troops to do either. So why do we need to keep all 1.5 million?

And perhaps most importantly - who are you actually worried might attack us in this "dangerous world" of yours. So worried about it, in fact, that you advocate having a standing army of 1.5 million soldiers because if we're seen as 'weak' we will be 'attacked'?

[RCA]

Isn't "standing army" just a figure of speech? I guess the real question is, does America need a "standing military"?

[affa]

Yes. America should have the largest military in the world and be the world's leading superpower. However, we should use our troops to defend our own country rather than using them to police the world.

Really?

Okay, first off -- do you realize China has about double the number of soldiers we have? So let's actually think through what you're suggesting:

First, you want us to bring home the hundreds of thousands of troops we have stationed around the world, bringing our continental army from just under a million to somewhere nearer 1.5 million (depending on how many troops we keep in our 'territories'). I still don't understand where you see these men and women being based, since you want to keep them active duty, but hey, whatever.

You now are suggesting (perhaps accidentally simply because you haven't thought it through) doubling the size of our military so that we are the "largest military in the world" because for some reason you think we need to have a bigger military than China. So... now we need to recruit, train, feed, house, and equip another 1.5 million troops. But hey, whatever.

But perhaps most ridiculous is this giant gap in logic -- "we should use our troops to defend our own country". Now, completely out of context, that sounds fine. We should use our troops only for defense. Got it! Great! But in context? If that is all we are planning to do with our military, then why in the world would we possibly need 1.5 million troops, let alone the 3 million you're now (perhaps unknowingly) suggesting? You don't need the world's largest standing army to just defend yourself. That's absurd. Especially given our technology and geography, but most importantly, simple logistics.

Are you seriously suggesting if we don't have between 1.5 million to 3 million troops we're in danger of being invaded simply because we "don't have the largest military"?

[erowe1]

The thread title and the poll question are different.

The name "America" could mean either the American people, or the regime in Washington DC that subjugates them. I want the army of the former to be as large as possible, and the army of the latter to be as small as possible.

[RCA]

Better still, why not take this same line of questioning to the logical endpoint: Should there be a State?

[AFPVet]

An army is authorized by the Constitution as well. If you want to get really technical about it, the Air Force is the one branch of the military that isn't authorized by the Constitution.

Actually, the Air Force is the Army. We were called the "Army Air Corps". We branched out from the U.S. Army in 1947. So for the purposes of the Constitution, the Air Force is still the "Army". In my opinion, we should still be under the Department of the Army just like the Marine Corps is under the Department of the Navy... but oh well.

[Slutter McGee]

We need a standing army. And airforce. While I certainly understand the dangers of a standing army, we live in a world where another country could launch and attack in a matter of hours.

Slutter McGee

[erowe1]

We need a standing army. And airforce. While I certainly understand the dangers of a standing army, we live in a world where another country could launch and attack in a matter of hours.

Slutter McGee

It's not the other countries we're worried about.

And what kind of attack launched in a matter of hours do you have in mind?

[idirtify]

Really?

Okay, first off -- do you realize China has about double the number of soldiers we have? So let's actually think through what you're suggesting:

First, you want us to bring home the hundreds of thousands of troops we have stationed around the world, bringing our continental army from just under a million to somewhere nearer 1.5 million (depending on how many troops we keep in our 'territories'). I still don't understand where you see these men and women being based, since you want to keep them active duty, but hey, whatever.

You now are suggesting (perhaps accidentally simply because you haven't thought it through) doubling the size of our military so that we are the "largest military in the world" because for some reason you think we need to have a bigger military than China. So... now we need to recruit, train, feed, house, and equip another 1.5 million troops. But hey, whatever.

But perhaps most ridiculous is this giant gap in logic -- "we should use our troops to defend our own country". Now, completely out of context, that sounds fine. We should use our troops only for defense. Got it! Great! But in context? If that is all we are planning to do with our military, then why in the world would we possibly need 1.5 million troops, let alone the 3 million you're now (perhaps unknowingly) suggesting? You don't need the world's largest standing army to just defend yourself. That's absurd. Especially given our technology and geography, but most importantly, simple logistics.

Are you seriously suggesting if we don't have between 1.5 million to 3 million troops we're in danger of being invaded simply because we "don't have the largest military"?

I have all your answers. ;)

Like I say, let’s “stand” the 1.5 million troops all around our borders; one troop every 70 yards. We could call it 24/7 360-degree guard duty. Or if you prefer to follow the trend of flashy war names, we could call it something like “Homeland Sentinel”. Seriously, that might actually be the only thing they REALLY have to do anyway. Any real threat of foreign aggression ended when the wall came down, and the MIC/GIC/BIC (military, government, banking complexes) has been making up enemies and conflicts ever since. And it would be a great demonstration to those who believe the complex’s programmed realities and think we need this huge military. The troops would just be standing there picking their noses all day like idiots with nothing to do; in hell or high water or rain or snow - including Hawaii and Alaska. I mean why concentrate them in stupid “bases” where their numbers are wasted? Let’s spread them out and reduce the risk of more false flag ops or other schemes to dupe the public. Let’s put every single one of them to work on the entire perimeter of the USA, including the officers, literally protecting American soil 24/7. Look, it’s the perfect solution. It would save lots of money compared to what’s going on now all over the world, and it’s actually what they are supposed to be doing. And it probably wouldn’t last long; since the “standing army” would soon become laughing stock after everyone literally sees the gigantic waste of money and resources, and troops would begin to be discharged.

(I started this out as a joke, but the more I read what I write, the more sense it makes.)

[oyarde]

I would like my own standing Army to protect me from govt :)

[ChaosControl]

Not really.
Its main purpose though is not defense of the nation. It is about securing corporate interests around the world and defending the government so the people have no real option to revolt.

[axiomata]

Actually, the Air Force is the Army. We were called the "Army Air Corps". We branched out from the U.S. Army in 1947. So for the purposes of the Constitution, the Air Force is still the "Army". In my opinion, we should still be under the Department of the Army just like the Marine Corps is under the Department of the Navy... but oh well.

Your history is certainly correct but do you agree with me that if we were to go back to a constitutionally sized army it would make sense to lump the air force in with the navy allowing it to constitutionally be maintained at the size necessary to defend our airspace from sudden attack even in times of peace?

[jmdrake]

We need a standing army. And airforce. While I certainly understand the dangers of a standing army, we live in a world where another country could launch and attack in a matter of hours.

Slutter McGee


It's not the other countries we're worried about.

And what kind of attack launched in a matter of hours do you have in mind?

That's just it. The proponents of a standing army in this thread will never outline an actual threat because they know anything they could come up with wouldn't stand up to real analysis.

But for the fun of it, let's do an analysis anyway. The U.S. currently has the best equipped and most battle hardened military in the world (although not the largest as someone else pointed out). Currently the only types of attacks we can launch in a "matter of hours" are 1) missile bombardment 2) air bombardment 3) sea based bombardment (missile, air or gun) or 4) special forces insertion. That's it. Any type of sustained land or ground offensive requires weeks if not months to put together. And guess what? A large standing army is not the right tool to protect against any of those threats. Missile bombardment? You just need enough men to man and support the anti missile batteries. Everybody else is superfluous. Air bombardment? You need air superiority and/or good SAMs and possibly stealth defeating radar (since other countries have stealth fighters now). Sea based bombardment? That's what your navy is for. And mainly you need subs and antisub systems. Surface ships are sitting ducks to today's antiship missiles. Special forces? Stopping attacks from insertions of special forces is a job of good counter intelligence. Having 1.5 million troops on the ground wouldn't stop 100 Spentnaz from running around blowing up soft targets, unless the 1.5 million ground troops were used to institute a total police state. And then it still wouldn't stop everything.

And what countries do the standing army advocates see trying to invade us? China? They don't need to invade us if destroying us was their aim. They could just stop buying our debt. But they won't because they need us to buy their junk. The only thing that could start a war with China is if we attacked Iran or if we tried to keep China from taking Taiwan. Russia? Don't make me laugh! They've had their Afghanistan and they've seen Red Dawn. Iran? All Iran wants is to be left alone. Their previous president Mohammed Khatami said as much in a back channel communication to Bush. He offered to give in to all U.S. demands if we just promised not to attack Iran. He was rebuffed. So they put in "crazy man" Amadenijad since it was clear we wouldn't listen to reason. Really no country has the means to sustain an invasion against the U.S. and few have the desire.

[pcosmar]

Your history is certainly correct but do you agree with me that if we were to go back to a constitutionally sized army it would make sense to lump the air force in with the navy allowing it to constitutionally be maintained at the size necessary to defend our airspace from sudden attack even in times of peace?

That is my wish. Along with a Militia modeled Civil Air Patrol.

[IndianaPolitico]

It all depends on what you consider a standing army. I think that we should have a few thousand troops ready to go just in case. But not ANYTHING near the size of what we have now. If we are attacked, they could help train volunteers, and hold off the enemy long enough for the rest of the country to organize.

[affa]

I have all your answers. ;)

Like I say, let’s “stand” the 1.5 million troops all around our borders; one troop every 70 yards. We could call it 24/7 360-degree guard duty.

hah. you know, it's funny. when i first brought up actual real world numbers, i started to do the math for 'hands across america' too, but decided not to post it because it would make the post too long. but i'm glad you did.

i'm in absolute awe that there are people who actually fear a full land invasion of the United States.

[Revolution9]

I am for a sitting army.... the hurry up and wait kind. The deer hunters alone in many states are the second largest army in the world.

Rev9

[Pericles]

Against my better judgment, I'll dive in here. The OP would be very comfortable with A. T. Mahan's The Influence of Sea Power Upon History (The case for why the US needs a strong Navy and not much of an Army).

Opinion is yes there needs to be a regular Army (with a different focus), an Army Reserve, and disbanding the National Guard in favor of the Militia.

Reason behind my opinion is the following:

Regular Army should be a General Staff, Training, and maintaining full strength Brigade, Division, Corps, and Army headquarters (these also serve as the training cadre for the Militia), and a few full strength units based on threat analysis, and the need to give NCOs and officers actual experience in operating units - this experience is needed to maintain a good training program.

The Militia is intended to be the primary building blocks for the National Army, should one be needed. One of the big problems in a militia structure is the quality of the unit, which determines the training time required to make the unit combat effective. You can draw experienced officers and NCOs into the militia units from former active duty people, you increase the ability of the militia unit, and shorten the training time required on call up. You can relatively quickly build support units if the equipment is on hand. Driving a military truck is not much different than any other truck, medical skills readily transfer to a military application, and the same for engineering and other support tasks. The combat arms skills are critical to military success, and this requires study and training is those operations, and some experience in order for leaders to make sound decisions. Computer simulations are not the same as actually doing it with a unit. Computers are bad at replicating the "friction" of war.

The other factor is the expense of equipping a soldier - in inflation constant 2010 dollars, is cost about $1500 to equip a WWII infantryman. Today's cost is about $15,000 because we want to put night vision, body armor, and communications in the hands of every infantryman in order to maintain absolute superiority over any possible opponent, which saves as many lives of our fellow citizens as possible (competent commanders being the other great life saver). I can train an infantryman in 30 days, but I can't train platoon leaders, company commanders, and battalion commanders that are really good, without a year for a platoon leader, a couple of years for a company commander, and a good four years minimum for a battalion commander. Bad company and battalion commanders caused a good bit of our loss in WWII.

[AFPVet]

Your history is certainly correct but do you agree with me that if we were to go back to a constitutionally sized army it would make sense to lump the air force in with the navy allowing it to constitutionally be maintained at the size necessary to defend our airspace from sudden attack even in times of peace?

Good point... yeah, it does make since.

[AFPVet]

That is my wish. Along with a Militia modeled Civil Air Patrol.

There ya go :)

[Pericles]

Good point... yeah, it does make since.
You could make the point that in a purely defensive scenario, you need an Air Force, and not a Navy. The main function of the Navy is guarding the "sea lanes" to where the war is.

[AFPVet]

You could make the point that in a purely defensive scenario, you need an Air Force, and not a Navy. The main function of the Navy is guarding the "sea lanes" to where the war is.

Hmm... interesting. What about merging the Navy with the Coast Guard in order to protect the coast lines?

[Pericles]

Hmm... interesting. What about merging the Navy with the Coast Guard in order to protect the coast lines?

Brown water is the role of a Coast Guard (part of the Navy Department in wartime), while the Navy is "blue water" to defeat other navies, and power projection. If you get out of the power projection business, you don't need aircraft carriers and much of the surface fleet - the role becomes protect US shipping, which is mostly reflagged anyway.

Aircraft w/ missiles and bombs do a better job of sinking ships than other ships do.

[Brett85]

to continually misrepresent the opinions of others as often as you do is both disrespectful and intellectually dishonest.

And I'm still waiting for an answer of any sort to my posts -- ?

I put you on my ignore list, and I am not going to answer your posts from now on. I've kept this focused on the issues all along. I've never personally attacked anyone on these forums. You feel the need to make this personal, and I feel the need to ignore you.

[Brett85]

@jmdrake-I support following the Swiss model as far as non intervention overseas. I think they've shown that by staying out of the world's affairs, they've created less enemies and haven't been attacked the way that we have. But I think there's just one particular area where we disagree. I do not want the United States to become just another average country like Switzerland. I believe in American exceptionalism. I believe that the United States is the greatest country on earth, and I believe that we should remain superior to all other countries both in terms of our military and in terms of our economy. I don't agree with the neo-cons that we should actually "spread our goodness around the world." I think that intervention overseas is counter productive and makes us less safe here at home. But there's no way in the world I'm going to support a policy that would turn the United States into just another average country.

[Feeding the Abscess]

@jmdrake-I support following the Swiss model as far as non intervention overseas. I think they've shown that by staying out of the world's affairs, they've created less enemies and haven't been attacked the way that we have. But I think there's just one particular area where we disagree. I do not want the United States to become just another average country like Sweden. I believe in American exceptionalism. I believe that the United States is the greatest country on earth, and I believe that we should remain superior to all other countries both in terms of our military and in terms of our economy. I don't agree with the neo-cons that we should actually "spread our goodness around the world. I think that intervention overseas is counter productive and makes us less safe here at home. But there's no way in the world I'm going to support a policy that would turn the United States into just another average country.

Switzerland isn't Sweden.

There isn't nothing inherently great about America. Our actions determine our standing. By this proper standard, we have been abysmal.

Our country was great before we were imperialistic.

Our country will be great again if we scale down the military once more.

[Revolution9]

I support cutting spending across the board, including the Pentagon's budget. But I just support cutting the one third of the Pentagon's budget that it spends on foreign intervention. You don't see very many conservative Republicans like myself who advocate bringing all of our troops home from around the world.

But it is a great idea and you should use your influence in your circles to convince folks to bring em home. Rebuild the bases here giving local jobs to carpenters, plumbers, electricians, the pizza place (big one there!) as they refurbish and add to facilities or bring sleeping or abandoned bases back up to utility status. Then you save money on foreign ventures of wasteful stupidity (maybe don't use that phrase amongst other traditional conservatives:)) and pump up the local economy. Get the guys out doing fancy drill and expand band programs..may be a good thing for those with certain injuries or mental/spiritual issues from war with some musical talent to begin with. Do local parades. My father was drill sarge for The Black Watch and I went to many parades, with fancy drill shows, horses, bagpipers and brass bands... Lots of fun for kids..no war or battle focus..just people and families proud of the soldiers (this was Canada in the 60's) Let it shift its focus to a Military-Industrial Gifting Complex and keep doing the research but repurpose it for the general publics benefit. All the repatriated soldiers at each base will be using the local gas stations, BARS!!, restaurants, car dealers, household and hard goods stores, which backends the money out to suppliers and manufacturers. So I am kinda serious in that I want to see a "sitting army"...one that hurries up waiting" and projects a citizen soldier face to and interaction with the public. They might want to change their boot camp degradation induction tactics. I talk to many vets disgusted at this. There are better ways to win over a new recruit without training them to be an unthinking psychopath.

Best Regards
Rev9

[klamath]

Against my better judgment, I'll dive in here. The OP would be very comfortable with A. T. Mahan's The Influence of Sea Power Upon History (The case for why the US needs a strong Navy and not much of an Army).

Opinion is yes there needs to be a regular Army (with a different focus), an Army Reserve, and disbanding the National Guard in favor of the Militia.

Reason behind my opinion is the following:

Regular Army should be a General Staff, Training, and maintaining full strength Brigade, Division, Corps, and Army headquarters (these also serve as the training cadre for the Militia), and a few full strength units based on threat analysis, and the need to give NCOs and officers actual experience in operating units - this experience is needed to maintain a good training program.

The Militia is intended to be the primary building blocks for the National Army, should one be needed. One of the big problems in a militia structure is the quality of the unit, which determines the training time required to make the unit combat effective. You can draw experienced officers and NCOs into the militia units from former active duty people, you increase the ability of the militia unit, and shorten the training time required on call up. You can relatively quickly build support units if the equipment is on hand. Driving a military truck is not much different than any other truck, medical skills readily transfer to a military application, and the same for engineering and other support tasks. The combat arms skills are critical to military success, and this requires study and training is those operations, and some experience in order for leaders to make sound decisions. Computer simulations are not the same as actually doing it with a unit. Computers are bad at replicating the "friction" of war.

The other factor is the expense of equipping a soldier - in inflation constant 2010 dollars, is cost about $1500 to equip a WWII infantryman. Today's cost is about $15,000 because we want to put night vision, body armor, and communications in the hands of every infantryman in order to maintain absolute superiority over any possible opponent, which saves as many lives of our fellow citizens as possible (competent commanders being the other great life saver). I can train an infantryman in 30 days, but I can't train platoon leaders, company commanders, and battalion commanders that are really good, without a year for a platoon leader, a couple of years for a company commander, and a good four years minimum for a battalion commander. Bad company and battalion commanders caused a good bit of our loss in WWII.
Spoken by someone that knows of what he is talking about. The people that think that a million guns in a million men's hands is a million man army and obviously have not ever been in modern warfare. A well trained army of 100,000 would take them out in a matter of days. Ask the million man Iraqi army dug in in Kuwait what happened to them when a well trained army of 1/5 the size devastated them in days

[Brett85]

Our country will be great again if we once again have a strong national defense and a non interventionist foreign policy.

Fixed.

[Tarzan]

Absolutely Yes!

Our history has proven that militias are not sufficiently effective when the nation is in real danger. National Defense is also the single most important responsibility of government as defined in the Constitution. The so called "national guard' is unconstitutional and should be abolished or made legal by Constitutional amendment. A solid corp of skilled war professionals is essential to our national defense with the ability to react quickly and train other citizens in time of a real emergency.

Bring our troops home... reduce their size... and train like hell in case they are actually needed. Put them on the Canadian border and keep the likes of Anne Murray, Keanu Reeves, Howie Mandel, Seth Rogen and especially Celine Dion north of the border where they belong. And, if we have enough left, put some on the Mexican border as well.

I honestly believe that the notion or eliminating our need for a standing army, able to react quickly and professionally trained in war is naive. It is an unrealistically Utopian view of the world not based in reality. The founders were rightly concerned about a standing army... but the Navy was set as a permanent fixture. A standing army is absolutely necessary... but they do not need to be in bases on Asia, and Europe, and South America... or anywhere else in the world.

Bring them home... train them well... and kick the crap out of anyone who messes with us.

[Brett85]

A standing army is absolutely necessary... but they do not need to be in bases on Asia, and Europe, and South America... or anywhere else in the world.

Bring them home... train them well... and kick the crap out of anyone who messes with us.

Yes, absolutely. +Rep.

[Pericles]

Spoken by someone that knows of what he is talking about. The people that think that a million guns in a million men's hands is a million man army and obviously have not ever been in modern warfare. A well trained army of 100,000 would take them out in a matter of days. Ask the million man Iraqi army dug in in Kuwait what happened to them when a well trained army of 1/5 the size devastated them in days

Which is why it will still be years (if ever) for Iraq and Afghanistan to have capable military forces that can function without US "stiffeners", typically SF A Teams work on the battalion and below level, while brigade and above get the MAAG - Military Assistance and Advisory Group.

[Cutlerzzz]

Against my better judgment, I'll dive in here. The OP would be very comfortable with A. T. Mahan's The Influence of Sea Power Upon History (The case for why the US needs a strong Navy and not much of an Army).

Opinion is yes there needs to be a regular Army (with a different focus), an Army Reserve, and disbanding the National Guard in favor of the Militia.

Reason behind my opinion is the following:

Regular Army should be a General Staff, Training, and maintaining full strength Brigade, Division, Corps, and Army headquarters (these also serve as the training cadre for the Militia), and a few full strength units based on threat analysis, and the need to give NCOs and officers actual experience in operating units - this experience is needed to maintain a good training program.

The Militia is intended to be the primary building blocks for the National Army, should one be needed. One of the big problems in a militia structure is the quality of the unit, which determines the training time required to make the unit combat effective. You can draw experienced officers and NCOs into the militia units from former active duty people, you increase the ability of the militia unit, and shorten the training time required on call up. You can relatively quickly build support units if the equipment is on hand. Driving a military truck is not much different than any other truck, medical skills readily transfer to a military application, and the same for engineering and other support tasks. The combat arms skills are critical to military success, and this requires study and training is those operations, and some experience in order for leaders to make sound decisions. Computer simulations are not the same as actually doing it with a unit. Computers are bad at replicating the "friction" of war.

The other factor is the expense of equipping a soldier - in inflation constant 2010 dollars, is cost about $1500 to equip a WWII infantryman. Today's cost is about $15,000 because we want to put night vision, body armor, and communications in the hands of every infantryman in order to maintain absolute superiority over any possible opponent, which saves as many lives of our fellow citizens as possible (competent commanders being the other great life saver). I can train an infantryman in 30 days, but I can't train platoon leaders, company commanders, and battalion commanders that are really good, without a year for a platoon leader, a couple of years for a company commander, and a good four years minimum for a battalion commander. Bad company and battalion commanders caused a good bit of our loss in WWII.

A modern professional is definately more powerful than militia, yes. However, this does not address the issue of how any enemy would reach US soil.

[Pericles]

A modern professional is definately more powerful than militia, yes. However, this does not address the issue of how any enemy would reach US soil.

The problem is that you have to see into the future. It takes 8 years to build an aircraft carrier, so today, the Navy needs to know what the threat picture looks like in 2019, the Air Force needs to know what the picture looks like in 2015, and the Army also needs time, because it takes two years to get a tank delivered, and max production was 2 per day with current machinery on hand - it takes much longer to build a factory and equip units.

In 1937 or 1933, who foresaw Pearl Harbor? That is the job of the General Staff, to take the intel picture, and determine possible threats and potential threats for Congressional action as to what level of risk is acceptable.

[Cutlerzzz]

The fact that it takes longer to develope a navy than an army kind of refutes your point. They cannot cross the sea without having a superior navy, no matter how strong their army is.

Honestly, the results of Pearl Harbor don't help either. Japan launched a sneak attack, went on the offensive for 6 months, was beat back for the rest of the war, and destroyed entirely without ever coming close to victory.

[QueenB4Liberty]

I just don't see how it's possible to have a standing army and not be involved in some sort of conflict. Our country is much bigger than it was in 1776, however, I still think we could do without being in over 100 military bases worldwide. We may not have as much oil, but that's already running out.

[Pericles]

The fact that it takes longer to develope a navy than an army kind of refutes your point. They cannot cross the sea without having a superior navy, no matter how strong their army is.

Honestly, the results of Pearl Harbor don't help either. Japan launched a sneak attack, went on the offensive for 6 months, was beat back for the rest of the war, and destroyed entirely without ever coming close to victory.

The Chinese and Russians are building aircraft carriers. What does that tell you?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13692558

http://siberianlight.net/russia-new-aircraft-carriers/

Those are the only other countries in the world that have a military that is working on the ability to project power in excess of a couple hundred miles outside of their borders.

[Cutlerzzz]

The Chinese and Russians are building aircraft carriers. What does that tell you?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13692558

http://siberianlight.net/russia-new-aircraft-carriers/

Those are the only other countries in the world that have a military that is working on the ability to project power in excess of a couple hundred miles outside of their borders.

It tells me how far behind they are.

[jmdrake]

@jmdrake-I support following the Swiss model as far as non intervention overseas. I think they've shown that by staying out of the world's affairs, they've created less enemies and haven't been attacked the way that we have. But I think there's just one particular area where we disagree. I do not want the United States to become just another average country like Switzerland. I believe in American exceptionalism. I believe that the United States is the greatest country on earth, and I believe that we should remain superior to all other countries both in terms of our military and in terms of our economy. I don't agree with the neo-cons that we should actually "spread our goodness around the world." I think that intervention overseas is counter productive and makes us less safe here at home. But there's no way in the world I'm going to support a policy that would turn the United States into just another average country.

That's the difference between you and me. You're trying to maintain American "exceptionalism". I realize that exceptionalism is already gone. We weren't exceptional because we had a great military. We were exceptional because of our production capacity. That's what won WW II. We had a powerful manufacturing base that was able to build a powerful military when needed. Now that manufacturing base is all but gone. Sure we can still produce great armaments, but we don't even make that much of the steel anymore. The idea that we can hold on to "exceptionalism", without even understanding what that really means, will be the death of this country just like it was the death of the Soviet Union. I mean really. Don't you understand the Chinese could destroy this country at any time economically without even firing a shot? The security challenges we face do not require military strength. They require economic strength. What's going to happen to this country is that we're going to become an oligarch style police state like the former Soviet Union because folks think being like the Swiss is not "cool" enough. And all those troops you want to hold onto so badly are simply going to be used to form the police state to extract the taxes to pay off the international bankers.

[jmdrake]

The Chinese and Russians are building aircraft carriers. What does that tell you?

Aircraft carriers are overrated.

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779&IBLOCK_ID=35

[Pericles]

It tells me how far behind they are.

Strategically, Russia is like US in that there is no imperative to have a strong navy, as Russia is a land power, and is not dependent on sea lanes to import resources.

At least the US has the excuse of ensuring the shipping of oil imports that can not be disrupted by other navies (if there is a navy capable of interdicting oil shipments).

[jmdrake]

Against my better judgment, I'll dive in here. The OP would be very comfortable with A. T. Mahan's The Influence of Sea Power Upon History (The case for why the US needs a strong Navy and not much of an Army).

Opinion is yes there needs to be a regular Army (with a different focus), an Army Reserve, and disbanding the National Guard in favor of the Militia.



Reason behind my opinion is the following:

Regular Army should be a General Staff, Training, and maintaining full strength Brigade, Division, Corps, and Army headquarters (these also serve as the training cadre for the Militia), and a few full strength units based on threat analysis, and the need to give NCOs and officers actual experience in operating units - this experience is needed to maintain a good training program.

The Militia is intended to be the primary building blocks for the National Army, should one be needed. One of the big problems in a militia structure is the quality of the unit, which determines the training time required to make the unit combat effective. You can draw experienced officers and NCOs into the militia units from former active duty people, you increase the ability of the militia unit, and shorten the training time required on call up. You can relatively quickly build support units if the equipment is on hand. Driving a military truck is not much different than any other truck, medical skills readily transfer to a military application, and the same for engineering and other support tasks. The combat arms skills are critical to military success, and this requires study and training is those operations, and some experience in order for leaders to make sound decisions. Computer simulations are not the same as actually doing it with a unit. Computers are bad at replicating the "friction" of war.

The other factor is the expense of equipping a soldier - in inflation constant 2010 dollars, is cost about $1500 to equip a WWII infantryman. Today's cost is about $15,000 because we want to put night vision, body armor, and communications in the hands of every infantryman in order to maintain absolute superiority over any possible opponent, which saves as many lives of our fellow citizens as possible (competent commanders being the other great life saver). I can train an infantryman in 30 days, but I can't train platoon leaders, company commanders, and battalion commanders that are really good, without a year for a platoon leader, a couple of years for a company commander, and a good four years minimum for a battalion commander. Bad company and battalion commanders caused a good bit of our loss in WWII.

That's basically the Swiss model. And it's the founding father's model as well.

[jmdrake]

Absolutely Yes!

Our history has proven that militias are not sufficiently effective when the nation is in real danger. National Defense is also the single most important responsibility of government as defined in the Constitution. The so called "national guard' is unconstitutional and should be abolished or made legal by Constitutional amendment. A solid corp of skilled war professionals is essential to our national defense with the ability to react quickly and train other citizens in time of a real emergency.

Bring our troops home... reduce their size... and train like hell in case they are actually needed. Put them on the Canadian border and keep the likes of Anne Murray, Keanu Reeves, Howie Mandel, Seth Rogen and especially Celine Dion north of the border where they belong. And, if we have enough left, put some on the Mexican border as well.

I honestly believe that the notion or eliminating our need for a standing army, able to react quickly and professionally trained in war is naive. It is an unrealistically Utopian view of the world not based in reality. The founders were rightly concerned about a standing army... but the Navy was set as a permanent fixture. A standing army is absolutely necessary... but they do not need to be in bases on Asia, and Europe, and South America... or anywhere else in the world.

Bring them home... train them well... and kick the crap out of anyone who messes with us.

Sounds great...until there's another civil war and the people they kick the crap out of are.....us. Please re-read the Posse Comitatus act.

[Pericles]

Aircraft carriers are overrated.

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779&IBLOCK_ID=35

I agree that modern warfare makes them much more vulnerable, but I'd defer to someone who is more has more expertise on sea warfare than I do as to how to do tanker escort.

[klamath]

It tells me how far behind they are.
There are a lot of countries that have severely regreted their underestimates of their enemies capabilities. The US is miliniums behind other countries in wanting to be an empire and we damned well won't be the last. Humans display the same tendencies no matter where in the world they live. I don't want my grandchildren dying in routed ragtag disorganized army of miltias all the while some general is scratching his head and saying "I guess I was wrong about America's geographic "maginot line".


The Maginot Line (French: Ligne Maginot, IPA: [liɲ maʒino]), named after French Minister of War André Maginot, was a line of concrete fortifications, tank obstacles, artillery casemates, machine gun posts, and other defences, which France constructed along its borders with Germany and Italy, in light of its experience in World War I, and in the run-up to World War II. Generally the term describes only the defences facing Germany, while the term Alpine Line is used for the Franco-Italian defences.

The French established the fortification to provide time for their army to mobilise in the event of attack, allowing French forces to move into Belgium for a decisive confrontation with German forces. The success of static, defensive combat in World War I was a key influence on French thinking. The fortification system successfully dissuaded a direct attack. However, it was strategically ineffective, as the Germans did indeed invade Belgium, defeated the French army, flanked the Maginot Line, and proceeded relatively unobstructed.[1]

Military experts extolled the Maginot Line as a work of genius, believing it would prevent any further invasions from the east (notably, from Germany). However, the German army in World War II largely bypassed the Maginot Line by invading through the Ardennes forest and via the Low countries, completely sweeping by the Line and conquering France in days. As such, the Maginot Line has come to mean a strategy or object that people put hope into but fails miserably. It is also the best known symbol of the adage that "generals always fight the last war, especially if they have won it

PS. Answer to a previous question. Operation market garden-41,628 airborne troops-67 years ago.

[Cutlerzzz]

There are a lot of countries that have severely regreted their underestimates of their enemies capabilities. The US is miliniums behind other countries in wanting to be an empire and we damned well won't be the last. Humans display the same tendencies no matter where in the world they live. I don't want my grandchildren dying in routed ragtag disorganized army of miltias all the while some general is scratching his head and saying "I guess I was wrong about America's geographic "maginot line".

???

The USN is over 10 times larger than the Russian or Chinese Navies. I'm not in any way underestimating them. They really are shit by comparison and will be for decades.

The Maginot Line is nothing like a 6000 mile ocean. France is smaller than the state of Texas and has no geographical boundaries to protect them beyond the Alps. They have no room to retreat to, and are surrounded by Great Powers. France lost because Germany went around the Maginot Line, out manuevered them, and they had nowhere to retreat to. The US has 6,000 miles of water to the West and 3,500 to the East, the Rockies on the West coast and Southern border, and the Appalachians on the East Coast. We have the worlds most armed and third largest population. No country has attacked US soil since the War of 1812. Never since the Revolution has American independence even been threatened.

The comparison holds no water.

[klamath]

???

The USN is over 10 times larger than the Russian or Chinese Navies. I'm not in any way underestimating them. They really are shit by comparison and will be for decades.

The Maginot Line is nothing like a 6000 mile ocean. France is smaller than the state of Texas and has no geographical boundaries to protect them beyond the Alps. They have no room to retreat to, and are surrounded by Great Powers. France lost because Germany went around the Maginot Line, out manuevered them, and they had nowhere to retreat to. The US has 6,000 miles of water to the West and 3,500 to the East, the Rockies on the West coast and Southern border, and the Appalachians on the East Coast. We have the worlds most armed and third largest population. No country has attacked US soil since the War of 1812. Never since the Revolution has American independence even been threatened.

The comparison holds no water.

The camparison is not direct strategic and tactical but to the mindset that we are safe and need never worry. If China or russia were threats now I would be advocating a buildup of the american army not a vast reduction.
The bering sea is not 6000 miles across. An airborne operation could secure alaska and the ALCAN highway in days opening a land route for a mass army invasion. Without a number of highly trained mobile American divisions to stop this, this would be an easy operation against poorly trained army guard and militia units.

[Cutlerzzz]

The camparison is not direct strategic and tactical but to the mindset that we are safe and need never worry. If China or russia were threats now I would be advocating a buildup of the american army not a vast reduction.
The bering sea is not 6000 miles across. An airborne operation could secure alaska and the ALCAN highway in days opening a land route for a mass army invasion. Without a number of highly trained mobile American divisions to stop this, this would be an easy operation against poorly trained army guard and militia units.

Invading Alaska? LOL! Alaska is largely roadless, it is covered in the highest mountains of the Western Hemisphere, and completely frozen 6 months out of the year. It is also 7,000 miles away from Russia's main population. The largest air borne operation in history involved 5,000 men, and that operation was conducted in uncontested airspace over Iraq in a relatively short, 3 week campaign.

Nobody is taking anything that large via airborne assault, much less a frozen, roadless state larger than Britain, France, and Germany combined. Invading Alaska to get to the United States would also involve invading Canada(and Britain by extension), not that it would get that far. It's not happening.

Nobody is conquering the United States. It has not been attempted since the Revolution because it is impossible. Look at what third world Iraq, with a population of 20 million has done to the richest most powerful country in the world, that has complete domination in almost every category.

[Anti Federalist]

I do not want the United States to become just another average country like Switzerland. I believe in American exceptionalism.

I find your definition of "exceptional", strange.

By what metric do you define "exceptional"?

The Swiss have been a free republic for almost 1000 years now. We are approaching 235 and are on the verge of bankruptcy and dissolution.

The Swiss have a higher median income than the US.

The Swiss have a longer life expectancy than the US.

The Swiss have a higher literacy rate than the US.

The Swiss children test higher in educational progress than the US.

The Swiss have retained quite a bit of freedom, more so than the US, although that is certainly subjective.

So, the Swiss live longer, make more money, have children that test better and are just as free, if not more free, than we are.

And that's just a few comparisons.

So, if that's "average" and we are "exceptional", you'll excuse me then for handing back your "exceptionalism" and your carrier battle groups, and your kill drones, and your smart bombs and your missile submarines.

I don't want 'em.

[Pericles]

That's basically the Swiss model. And it's the founding father's model as well.
Essentially, but there are some differences to work out.

In the past, Congress could just tell the states which drill manual to use to train the militia, and as it was the same manual and organizational structure laid down in the Militia Act of 1792/95, it worked. (In the War of 1912, the 5th Regt. Maryland Militia was as good as any regular Army unit, and better than 80% of the regular Army). Telling the state militias to use the current set of Army field manuals would not have the same effect today. And Constitutionally, the states have to do the training and appoint officers of their militias.

Thus, either the need to use militia personnel recently from the active Army, or the states to call out the militias on a rotating basis for training, which is disruptive to civil life. So, my idea is to limit militia organizations in scope to battalion size and smaller, to make the training fit into a more reasonable time period of 11 weekends and two weeks per year, unless there is a real need for a higher level of proficiency due to the military situation.

[klamath]

Invading Alaska? LOL! Alaska is largely roadless, it is covered in the highest mountains of the Western Hemisphere, and completely frozen 6 months out of the year. It is also 7,000 miles away from Russia's main population. The largest air borne operation in history involved 5,000 men, and that operation was conducted in uncontested airspace over Iraq in a relatively short, 3 week campaign.

Nobody is taking anything that large via airborne assault, much less a frozen, roadless state larger than Britain, France, and Germany combined. Invading Alaska to get to the United States would also involve invading Canada(and Britain by extension), not that it would get that far. It's not happening.

Nobody is conquering the United States. It has not been attempted since the Revolution because it is impossible. Look at what third world Iraq, with a population of 20 million has done to the richest most powerful country in the world, that has complete domination in almost every category. It isn't even about conquering but a deterent because somebody was tempted by our weakness. Give them no hope of winning and nobody has to die.
Actually I am done arguing with you if your military history is so spotty that you think that the 5000 man airborne over Iraq is the largest airborne operation in history even when I pointed out the real largest operation. You are showing poor grasp of even the geography of alaska. When you throw mountains around maybe you should study Hannibal.

One of his most famous achievements was at the outbreak of the Second Punic War, when he marched an army, which included war elephants, from Iberia over the Pyrenees and the Alps into northern Italy. In his first few years in Italy, he won three dramatic victories — Trebia, Trasimene, and Cannae — and won over several allies of Rome. Hannibal occupied much of Italy for 15 years
And this is why RP will never get elected. Sell this at the next REPUBLICAN rally and see just how many votes RP gets. "Eliminate the American army to zero" That will get him votes.

[Anti Federalist]

And this is why RP will never get elected. Sell this at the next REPUBLICAN rally and see just how many votes RP gets. "Eliminate the American army to zero" That will get him votes.

Well then, it's bankruptcy all around then.

See this:

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/files/images/russian_ships_0.jpg

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2007/01/09/tuesday_map_russian_naval_ships_rusting_outside_mu rmansk

That's just one small part of the rusting pile of bilge that once was the second greatest warship fleet in the world.

Now junk, rotting away in Russian backwaters all across their country.

We cannot afford to outspend the rest of the entire world, combined, on "defense" spending any longer.

It will come to an end one way or the other, regardless.

[heavenlyboy34]

I find your definition of "exceptional", strange.

By what metric do you define "exceptional"?

The Swiss have been a free republic for almost 1000 years now. We are approaching 235 and are on the verge of bankruptcy and dissolution.

The Swiss have a higher median income than the US.

The Swiss have a longer life expectancy than the US.

The Swiss have a higher literacy rate than the US.

The Swiss children test higher in educational progress than the US.

The Swiss have retained quite a bit of freedom, more so than the US, although that is certainly subjective.

So, the Swiss live longer, make more money, have children that test better and are just as free, if not more free, than we are.

And that's just a few comparisons.

So, if that's "average" and we are "exceptional", you'll excuse me then for handing back your "exceptionalism" and your carrier battle groups, and your kill drones, and your smart bombs and your missile submarines.

I don't want 'em.
FTW!! +rep (there should be a "mega +rep" for posts this full of win)

[Brett85]

Well then, it's bankruptcy all around then.

See this:

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/files/images/russian_ships_0.jpg

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2007/01/09/tuesday_map_russian_naval_ships_rusting_outside_mu rmansk

That's just one small part of the rusting pile of bilge that once was the second greatest warship fleet in the world.

Now junk, rotting away in Russian backwaters all across their country.

We cannot afford to outspend the rest of the entire world, combined, on "defense" spending any longer.

It will come to an end one way or the other, regardless.

How about ending the unconstitutional spending rather than making deep cuts into spending that's actually authorized by the Constitution.

[Pericles]

Invading Alaska? LOL! Alaska is largely roadless, it is covered in the highest mountains of the Western Hemisphere, and completely frozen 6 months out of the year. It is also 7,000 miles away from Russia's main population. The largest air borne operation in history involved 5,000 men, and that operation was conducted in uncontested airspace over Iraq in a relatively short, 3 week campaign.

Nobody is taking anything that large via airborne assault, much less a frozen, roadless state larger than Britain, France, and Germany combined. Invading Alaska to get to the United States would also involve invading Canada(and Britain by extension), not that it would get that far. It's not happening.

Nobody is conquering the United States. It has not been attempted since the Revolution because it is impossible. Look at what third world Iraq, with a population of 20 million has done to the richest most powerful country in the world, that has complete domination in almost every category.

1. The point of invading Alaska would be to deny the rest of the US a significant oil reserve.

2. The US was invaded in 1814/15 by Great Britain (ever heard of the Star Spangled Banner)
1846 by Mexico
Debate as to whether the raid on Columbus, NM by Pancho Villa counts
1942 by Japan (a couple of islands in Alaska)

While you are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.

[heavenlyboy34]

Well then, it's bankruptcy all around then.

See this:

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/files/images/russian_ships_0.jpg

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2007/01/09/tuesday_map_russian_naval_ships_rusting_outside_mu rmansk

That's just one small part of the rusting pile of bilge that once was the second greatest warship fleet in the world.

Now junk, rotting away in Russian backwaters all across their country.

We cannot afford to outspend the rest of the entire world, combined, on "defense" spending any longer.

It will come to an end one way or the other, regardless.
qft!!

[Brett85]

I find your definition of "exceptional", strange.

By what metric do you define "exceptional"?

The Swiss have been a free republic for almost 1000 years now. We are approaching 235 and are on the verge of bankruptcy and dissolution.

The Swiss have a higher median income than the US.

The Swiss have a longer life expectancy than the US.

The Swiss have a higher literacy rate than the US.

The Swiss children test higher in educational progress than the US.

The Swiss have retained quite a bit of freedom, more so than the US, although that is certainly subjective.

So, the Swiss live longer, make more money, have children that test better and are just as free, if not more free, than we are.

And that's just a few comparisons.

So, if that's "average" and we are "exceptional", you'll excuse me then for handing back your "exceptionalism" and your carrier battle groups, and your kill drones, and your smart bombs and your missile submarines.

I don't want 'em.

Then maybe you should just move there.

[idirtify]

How about ending the unconstitutional spending rather than making deep cuts into spending that's actually authorized by the Constitution.

TC,

What about the MIC, now that you have been made aware? It’s fairly conspicuous that you have proceeded with another round of posts, but have ignored this important point. Are you going to continue to ignore it?

[Anti Federalist]

How about ending the unconstitutional spending rather than making deep cuts into spending that's actually authorized by the Constitution.

Because the time has come to stop looking at spending as if it was Chinese menu, a little from column A and a little from column B, picking what we like and rejecting that which we find distasteful.

To get this country back on it's feet, grow the middle class, produce stuff and the jobs that go with it. it's going to require massive downsizing of the government apparatus.

It all has to be cut.

[Anti Federalist]

Then maybe you should just move there.

You know what? If they also didn't control their borders and keep a tight lid on immigration, (another two things they do right) I'd seriously consider it.

Trust me, I've looked into it.

But if all you got is "Iff'n yew doan like it, why doan you jus' get out?!", I'll stop hounding you.

[Pericles]

Two things:

1 - Why? What is the benefit to myself and my fellow citizens by being the lone world "superpower"?

2 - We can't afford it anymore.

http://dailybail.com/storage/chart-military-global-spending.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1303481268 706

That type of chart borders on the meaningless statistic. It makes no comparison of military capability, which is the real measure. The US cost appears extreme because of the amount of money spent for a capability - draftees paid less than $200 per month are much cheaper than US soldiers, $30 AK-74s appear the better deal than $512 M4 carbines, $250,000 T-90s against $4million M1A2 tanks and so forth. The US does not buy more stuff than other countries, it buys more expensive military things than other countries.

[Brett85]

TC,

What about the MIC, now that you have been made aware? It’s fairly conspicuous that you have proceeded with another round of posts, but have ignored this important point. Are you going to continue to ignore it?

What would be the alternative to giving contracts to private companies to make weapons? What should we do instead?

[klamath]

Well then, it's bankruptcy all around then.

See this:

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/files/images/russian_ships_0.jpg
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2007/01/09/tuesday_map_russian_naval_ships_rusting_outside_mu rmansk

That's just one small part of the rusting pile of bilge that once was the second greatest warship fleet in the world.

Now junk, rotting away in Russian backwaters all across their country.

We cannot afford to outspend the rest of the entire world, combined, on "defense" spending any longer.

It will come to an end one way or the other, regardless.

No it will be bankruptcy because people try and sell RP as an Zero army candidate instead of the 1/10 army candidate, and ensure Romney is elected who will jack the defence budget up another 20 or 30 percent.

[Anti Federalist]

No it will be bankruptcy because people try and sell RP as an Zero army candidate instead of the 1/10 army candidate, and ensure Romney is elected who will jack the defence budget up another 20 or 30 percent.

Ron Paul will sell Ron Paul, his words are his words.

He is in favor of cuts, but no where have I seen him say that defense would be reduced to zero.

If what we said around here carried the weight you think it does, RP would have won in 2008.

[idirtify]

What would be the alternative to giving contracts to private companies to make weapons? What should we do instead?

You are kidding, right? The alternative is to not have a standing army.

[Cutlerzzz]

1. The point of invading Alaska would be to deny the rest of the US a significant oil reserve.

2. The US was invaded in 1814/15 by Great Britain (ever heard of the Star Spangled Banner)
1846 by Mexico
Debate as to whether the raid on Columbus, NM by Pancho Villa counts
1942 by Japan (a couple of islands in Alaska)

While you are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.

1: As already pointed out, invading Alaska would be impossible.

2: None of those countries ever invaded the United States with the intent of conquering. The War of 1812 was an offensive war on the United States part that Britain wanted to end; conquering the US was not their goal. Beating Napoleon was.

Alaska was not a state in 1942.

[Anti Federalist]

That type of chart borders on the meaningless statistic. It makes no comparison of military capability, which is the real measure. The US cost appears extreme because of the amount of money spent for a capability - draftees paid less than $200 per month are much cheaper than US soldiers, $30 AK-74s appear the better deal than $512 M4 carbines, $250,000 T-90s against $4million M1A2 tanks and so forth. The US does not buy more stuff than other countries, it buys more expensive military things than other countries.

That may apply to some of the second or third world nations listed, but to first world nations like Germany?

I'd have to look into it, but I find it hard to believe that they are equipping the Deutsches Heer with $30 AK variants.

Or take the Saudis, they buy mostly all our stuff, they just don't buy as much of it.

[Cutlerzzz]

It isn't even about conquering but a deterent because somebody was tempted by our weakness. Give them no hope of winning and nobody has to die.

This "weakness" does not exist and would not exist without an army. Alaska is virtually impossible to conquer.



Actually I am done arguing with you if your military history is so spotty that you think that the 5000 man airborne over Iraq is the largest airborne operation in history even when I pointed out the real largest operation.

You did no such thing. The only one in history I can think of that was larger was Market Garden, which was performed at a time when the allies had complete domination of the skies, it was supported by forces on the ground elsewhere, and ended in a devastating failure that likely extended the war by several months.

They would be at a serious aerial disadvantage going into the US in any case and have no means of supplying their men through any other means(no roads to Russia, Russia's industrial sector is 7,000 miles away, no way to ship in supplies by sea), while advancing through 15,000 foot tall mountains in freezing temperatures, against an angry enemy. And they have to do this for one thousand miles. Attacking would be unthinkable. Their men could only land if it was a suprise attack, and even then they would starve to death after the USAF and USN cut them off of supplies.


You are showing poor grasp of even the geography of alaska. When you throw mountains around maybe you should study Hannibal.


Hannibal went through mountains that were generally 5-10,000 feet tall. The mountains in Alaska are nearly that. Southern Europe is fairly warm for most of the year and only gets cold during winter. Other than the rainforest in Southern Alaska, it is cold year round in most of the state. Modern armies need huge amounts of supply in order to function. 2000 years ago that was not as important, as they could live off the land and used primitive tools; there was no need for billions of bullets, millions of gallons of oil, millions of pounds of food, specific pieces of equipment for tanks, ect...

The situations are nothing alike.


And this is why RP will never get elected. Sell this at the next REPUBLICAN rally and see just how many votes RP gets. "Eliminate the American army to zero" That will get him votes

Ron wants serious cuts in the military. I'm concerned about principle, and about logic. Not winning votes.

[affa]

I put you on my ignore list, and I am not going to answer your posts from now on. I've kept this focused on the issues all along. I've never personally attacked anyone on these forums. You feel the need to make this personal, and I feel the need to ignore you.

I've made this personal? You've been labeling several of us over and over and repeatedly misrepresenting our views. This has been pointed out to you by multiple people in multiple threads. I point this out, and instead of apologizing you do it more.

The reason you will not respond is because I point out your statements such as 'we should have the largest military' make no sense when actual facts (such as the size of China's army) are taken into consideration. There is no response to that, because numbers are numbers. So ignore away.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No it will be bankruptcy because people try and sell RP as an Zero army candidate instead of the 1/10 army candidate, and ensure Romney is elected who will jack the defence budget up another 20 or 30 percent.

Who said no army? On the contrary -- those of us who want to abolish the Standing Army aka Government Army, want MORE defense. The only rightful defense of a Free-State is the Militia. People really need to stop with the false dichotomy and total non-sense regarding this issue. Mind you a significant portion of the original founders of this country wanted no Standing Army, and the defense was to be manned by Militia. Standing Armies have always been used for Offense everywhere and always, period. They always become pawns of the Government to be used to further profligate their 'prestige', influence, and power. It is the enemy of the People and of Property and Liberty. You should really open up some Anti-Federalist works.

(This is also an issue I usually depart on with reference to fellow An-Caps/Voluntaryists...I think Private Defense Agencies would be inimical to a free-society, but I wouldn't try to forcibly stop their chartering. Private Security is a wholly other matter to PDA's. I think Market Security would be amazing.)

[libertarian4321]

I don't think we need a massive Army, but we do need at least a small professional military.

Mexico may be friendly now, but it is a rather unstable nation. If something happens there, and they have a radical change of government, who's to say they couldn't become a base from which a nation like China (should our relations with them sour) couldn't attack? China would have no chance of winning if they had to establish a beach head, but if they had a massive staging area already set up, they (or maybe the Russians) could be a threat to an America defended only by minimally trained militia and untrained "guys with guns."

And you don't want to meet professional soldiers with tanks, artillery, etc using only Reserves/militias/guys with guns. It doesn't work very well. Look at what happened to the Soviets at the beginning of WW2- they got chewed up by a much smaller professional army (the Soviets, on paper, had a "professional" army, but in reality it was little better than a Reserve/militia).

You'd need at least some guys who were up to speed and able to operate modern weapons who could buy you time to get those militias up to speed.

This isn't 1776, where you could train a semi-competent soldier in a few days by showing him the basics of drill and how to fire a musket. The weapons systems are too complex. To train a soldier just to be semi-proficient can take months (and, btw, who is going to train those recruits and militia types if you don't have a standing professional army?).

[Cutlerzzz]

Who said no army? On the contrary -- those of us who want to abolish the Standing Army aka Government Army, want MORE defense. The only rightful defense of a Free-State is the Militia. People really need to stop with the false dichotomy and total non-sense regarding this issue. Mind you a significant portion of the original founders of this country wanted no Standing Army, and the defense was to be manned by Militia. Standing Armies have always been used for Offense everywhere and always, period. They always become pawns of the Government to be used to further profligate their 'prestige', influence, and power. It is the enemy of the People and of Property and Liberty. You should really open up some Anti-Federalist works.

(This is also an issue I usually depart on with reference to fellow An-Caps/Voluntaryists...I think Private Defense Agencies would be inimical to a free-society, but I wouldn't try to forcibly stop their chartering. Private Security is a wholly other matter to PDA's. I think Market Security would be amazing.)

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

-Frederic Bastiat

[libertarian4321]

Mind you a significant portion of the original founders of this country wanted no Standing Army, and the defense was to be manned by Militia. .



Yes, but in the late 18th century, the most complex weapon on the battle field was probably a 6- or 12-pounder cannon. Firing that weapon could be learned in fairly short order. Military battles usually consisted of small groups of men lining up and firing muskets at each other.

There were no complex weapons systems, there were no complex strategies, there were no complex communications systems, there was no need for coordination between land/sea/and air forces.

War is a Hell of a lot more complex today than it was then. Today, you can't train a soldier in a few days like you could in 1776. And even in those simpler times, the US always maintained at least a small professional military.

The USA doesn't need the massive standing army it has today, but to completely eliminate it would be a very bad idea. The best answer lies somewhere between "no army" and "massive, bloated army."

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yes, but in the late 18th century, the most complex weapon on the battle field was probably a 6- or 12-pounder cannon. Firing that weapon could be learned in fairly short order. Military battles usually consisted of small groups of men lining up and firing muskets at each other.

There were no complex weapons systems, there were no complex strategies, there were no complex communications systems, there was no need for coordination between land/sea/and air forces.

War is a Hell of a lot more complex today than it was then. Today, you can't train a soldier in a few days like you could in 1776. And even in those simpler times, the US always maintained at least a small professional military.

The USA doesn't need the massive standing army it has today, but to completely eliminate it would be a very bad idea. The best answer lies somewhere between "no army" and "massive, bloated army."

This is total drivel. War wasn't complex in 1776? Tell that to the British, French, Turks, and the Japanese. That completely misses the point in any event, as evidenced that the most advanced military in history the USA were defeated by a bunch of peasants in the Viet Cong, and the same in Afghanistan -- not withstanding the Swiss whom haven't been attacked in lord knows how long. A militia is a default Non-interventionist Defensive / Neutral stance. Having a Standing Army makes us less safe, poorer, and is the agent of TYRANNY. No ifs and or buts.

I would rather live in the tempestuous sea of liberty, than to be chained. I will not surrender this power to the Government, and if in the event of another Revolution you can bet your bottom gold coin that I will be strongly against any idea of a Government-Army.

The most complex weapon on the battlefield in 1776 was probably the Galleon, and as the same today you can teach someone to shoot in a few days no problem (You should go to an Appleseed). Not to mention that the Militia trains more than a Standing Army. Just imagine what the price of ammo and weapons would be without the Government...We could all afford our own arsenal!

I'll just leave by saying war is so complex we got beat by a bunch of peasants using bamboo traps. You severely under-estimate the power of will and heart -- things which no Standing Army has, just ask the Brits in 1780, the US in 1970, the Soviets in 1986, etc. etc.

[ProIndividual]

I voted "yes", but let me explain.

I would like to see the military, whether privately or publicly run (or some partnership), be completely voluntary. It is my belief a well disciplined military doesn't spontaneously appear. Washington spent a huge amount of time teaching his subordinates how to take stock, run drills, train each other, and count heads even! There is a certain art to being a soldier, like there is a certain art to how I play poker for money, or how a carpenter makes a chair magically from some horrid chunk of wood (sorry, that shit amazes me). I wouldn't suggest we revert to a society where there are no SWAT teams that deal with hostages standoffs in a logical and well trained manner...I just want them to do that, not raid people over weed, let's say. The same is true for a DEFENSIVE military. The larger a society (land and population), the more need for discipline and a chain of command. Sure, we shouldn't take this to Nuremburg standards of drone-ism, but certainly it's important to winning wars.

I's suggest we would have a voluntary military. Instead of only paying by rank, we would have more individualized contracts for troops. Some would be the warriors of the society (like we don't know there are some Spartans among us), it would be their CHOICE in life to simply be career military. They would be payed more than troops who do not choose this "universal service" (over the course of the contract, the soldier will go to any conflict ordered to). These "universal" soldiers would likely be the full time backbone of our defensive force.

But most people won't sign-up for this "universal" plan. They want to do 3 years and get some college money, and maybe that sign-up bonus. Assuming we don't recruit at high schools anymore (something I'm against), and the age to join is 21, not 18 (the original age of adulthood in the USA was 21), these type of soldier might sign a contract that is less lucrative than the "universal" contract, but one that says they have the right to choose what conflicts, humanitarian efforts, disater relief, etc., they want to participate in. These "choice" contracts will give soldiers the option, much like 70% of our Revolutionary force (militia), to decide for themselves if the conflict/effort has the proper utility to give up their life. This means any war not in self defense will likely gain little support. These troops are stuck with their decisions also, as for the sake of chain of command, dsicipline, and planning, there is no opting-out of operations half way through. Although they would recieve combat pay, it isn't as high as the combat pay of the "universal" soldiers.

Since we cover a military without coercion, one that is likely to be highly DEFENSIVE, and unlikely to be offensive, maybe we should cover how to fund it, therefore further creating a mechanism for peace. We fund it by DONATIONS. If Japan needs help pissing out their nuclear reactor, you not only ask the troops if they want to go to the island and turn themselves into glow worms, you also ask who is funding it, as to not STEAL from them. This means the actual justification morally for these type of actions (war, aid, humanitarian, blah blah blah) is quantified. The moment you run out of either funding or volunteers necessary to run the operation, you run out of moral justification. This also sets up the incentive to make the wars short and relatively casualty free, in order to save money and for worker (soldier) and customer (donaters) satisfaction.

There are no morally justified wars/humanitarian missions/foreign aid operations in which theft is needed to appropriate it's funding, or conscription (even of the contractual kind) is needed to fill the ranks of the military. Actions that use theft and conscription in any forms are impossible to prove as justifiable, as the very parameters for making such a judgement are coerced.

It's like saying "I was justified in stealing the bread necessary to feed me, because otherswise I could not protect the store from which I stole." A sane person might ask "But isn't the theft harmful to the store? And do they need your 'defense', given it isn't voluntary, and you seem to be more trouble than you're worth?" The line of thinking of today, and indeed this gangster would be "it is harmful to the store not to allow me to steal, VERY HARMFUL...if you know what I mean...and it's even more harmful to their owners to try and compete with this "security" service I provide, or to demand my gang members are not forced into service in the slightest...mind your business if you know what's good for ya."

The sane person would recognize there is an alternate outcome possible, although there is no way to prove what might have been. Maybe, just maybe, if we allow options in funding an manning our military, then we can quantify it's moral actions, and therefore judge with some relative certainty it's justification. Otherwise we doom ourselves to thinking like the thug above...that force on our own population (whether financial or contractual) is necessary to stop force on our population. I don't know about you, but that sounds like logical horse shit to me.

[erowe1]

I don't think we need a massive Army, but we do need at least a small professional military.

Mexico may be friendly now, but it is a rather unstable nation. If something happens there, and they have a radical change of government, who's to say they couldn't become a base from which a nation like China (should our relations with them sour) couldn't attack? China would have no chance of winning if they had to establish a beach head, but if they had a massive staging area already set up, they (or maybe the Russians) could be a threat to an America defended only by minimally trained militia and untrained "guys with guns."

And you don't want to meet professional soldiers with tanks, artillery, etc using only Reserves/militias/guys with guns. It doesn't work very well. Look at what happened to the Soviets at the beginning of WW2- they got chewed up by a much smaller professional army (the Soviets, on paper, had a "professional" army, but in reality it was little better than a Reserve/militia).

You'd need at least some guys who were up to speed and able to operate modern weapons who could buy you time to get those militias up to speed.

This isn't 1776, where you could train a semi-competent soldier in a few days by showing him the basics of drill and how to fire a musket. The weapons systems are too complex. To train a soldier just to be semi-proficient can take months (and, btw, who is going to train those recruits and militia types if you don't have a standing professional army?).

Of course, it wasn't the unprofessionalism of the Soviet military that led to them being attacked in the first place. It was Stalin's imperialism. Had the people under his rule been a free republic, with no standing army but with millions of separate armies in each neighborhood, the Axis powers would have had no interest in them.

[demolama]

Everyone seems to think fighting in lines was easy. It was very difficult to get a massive group of people to maneuver and to hold certain areas, especially as communication was lacking on the battlefield with all the chaos. You shouldn't down play the lines... they had bigger balls than most people today.

Who here today is willing to stand face to face with your enemy? Modern War has dehumanized war and made it easier to kill without ever seeing your enemy.

I think too many people are buying into Hollywood B.S and the "Red Dawn" theory. No country in their right mind would invade a country with a population as heavily armed as the U.S. What would be the benefit? The deathtoll alone on their side would not be worth the effort for such little gain

[idirtify]

The USA doesn't need the massive standing army it has today, but to completely eliminate it would be a very bad idea. The best answer lies somewhere between "no army" and "massive, bloated army."

Since you also advocate a standing army, I’ll ask you the same question as Traditional Conservative: What about the MIC?

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

War wasn't complex in 1776? Tell that to the British, French, Turks, and the Japanese. That completely misses the point in any event, as evidenced that the most advanced military in history the USA were defeated by a bunch of peasants in the Viet Cong, and the same in Afghanistan...

Austrian, You're so behind the times. Nowadays the the government has new technologies that its professional armies can use to put down any rebel militias. These complex technologies are more sophisticated than any weapons system that have been developed by the US government's technocrats.

Didn't you hear about the "surge?" Didn't you hear that its working? Admiral Mullen's dad was a Public Relations mullah for the William Morris agency. They dressed Pitch-man Petreaus up in the shiniest bling ever and put him on TV and ahd him lead the nation in chanting the mantra: "The surge is working. The surge is working".

And now Sadr's militia to whom the US's imperial legions had handed the country over have disappeared from TV news. What militia can overpower this kind of mass psychological technology when pointed at the brains of Boobus Americanus?

Comment by BlackTerrel from page 3 of this thread:


Could Iraq have used a stronger standing army? I'd say yes.

Yes, indeed the surge is "working"...on y'all.

[oyarde]

They were actually said to have one of the strongest standing armies in the world during Desert Storm, and it was certainly one of the largest. It didn't do them much good.

If I recall , they were #4 at the time . But , using outdated soviet tanks that ours can kill before they are in range , a conscript infantry and no air threat .

[oyarde]

Hold on. Considering your troop figures, let’s take another look at TC’s idea.

I believe that’s one troop for every seven feet along our southern border. Not bad. Of course you would have to triple that distance if you had round-the-clock guard duty (3 shifts). So that’s one troop standing every 21 feet. I think they could handle that. It would sure cut down on fence expenses and illegal immigration.

This is fun; let’s continue. Maybe a troop could handle more. Let’s see if we have enough for 24/7 guard duty around the whole country.

Here are the distances:
Border with canada - 5525 miles
Border with mexico - 1996 miles
Coastlines total - 12,383 miles
Total US perimeter to guard – 19,904 miles

By golly I think we do. I come up with one troop for every 210 feet. That’s only 70 yards to guard; or actually only half that, since the next troop in line will have his half covered. Do you think a troop and an M16 could cover 35 yards? Hell, he could do it with a 22!

I say, let’s go with Traditional Conservative’s position and bring all the troops home and literally have a “STANDING” ARMY on guard duty around the whole damnation. Hell yeah! Takes care of the boats of Cubans and Haitians too; and those damned gun-running ATF motherfuckers.

Heh , thats what it would take to shut down the atf , I am in :)

[jmdrake]

How about ending the unconstitutional spending rather than making deep cuts into spending that's actually authorized by the Constitution.

Except the modern army isn't authorized by the constitution. We've already gone over this, but I'll reiterate it. Congress was authorized to raise and army and the appropriation for that raised army wasn't supposed to be for more than 2 years. In other words that raised army was supposed to be de-mobilized when it was no longer needed. The constitution doesn't authorize having a million man army for the purpose of serving as a deterrent for someone who might attempt a land invasion sometime in the future. Yes we need to protect our approaches. That's what the navy (and by my reasoning air force) is for.

Now if you want to play fast and loose with the constitution and say that the only limitation is that the money needs to be "reauthorized" every two years, but an unnecessarily large standing army is ok? Well the Obama's of the world can play fast and loose with the meaning of the word "general welfare" to include food stamps and free healthcare. You can't have it both ways. Either be strict in your interpretation of the constitution, or be loose.

Really, this is ridiculous. Anyone who's looked at military spending knows that even our domestic military spending is largely wasteful and unnecessary. Why do you think we had the whole base closing commission some years ago? And some of the bases that were recommended for closing were kept open for political reasons. The bases provided jobs. For many the military is one big jobs program. Neither you nor anyone else in this thread have articulated any reason why we need anything close to a million man army for national defense. And we simply can't afford it.

[jmdrake]

Then maybe you should just move there.

You know, I expect this kind of childish retort at Redstate or Hannity forums. Let me turn it on it's head. Do you lament the fact that America has lost its manufacturing base while China's is growing? Does that mean you should move to China? Do you lament the fact that America is now the world's largest debtor nation and China is the world's largest creditor? Does that mean you should move to China? How about the fact that the people of Iceland were able to stop their country from bailing out the banks? If you are happy for them and sad we weren't able to do the same, does that mean you should move to Iceland?

[jmdrake]

Austrian, You're so behind the times. Nowadays the the government has new technologies that its professional armies can use to put down any rebel militias. These complex technologies are more sophisticated than any weapons system that have been developed by the US government's technocrats.

Didn't you hear about the "surge?" Didn't you hear that its working? Admiral Mullen's dad was a Public Relations mullah for the William Morris agency. They dressed Pitch-man Petreaus up in the shiniest bling ever and put him on TV and ahd him lead the nation in chanting the mantra: "The surge is working. The surge is working".

And now Sadr's militia to whom the US's imperial legions had handed the country over have disappeared from TV news. What militia can overpower this kind of mass psychological technology when pointed at the brains of Boobus Americanus?

Comment by BlackTerrel from page 3 of this thread:


Could Iraq have used a stronger standing army? I'd say yes.

Yes, indeed the surge is "working"...on y'all.

I missed that, but here's another point. Without such a large standing army Saddam Hussein might not have been tempted to invade Iran, run up a huge debt, then invade Kuwait to keep them from siphoning off shared oil reserves and running down oil prices preventing him from paying off his Iran war debt. So having a large standing army led to the ruin of that country.

[klamath]

Except the modern army isn't authorized by the constitution. We've already gone over this, but I'll reiterate it. Congress was authorized to raise and army and the appropriation for that raised army wasn't supposed to be for more than 2 years. In other words that raised army was supposed to be de-mobilized when it was no longer needed. The constitution doesn't authorize having a million man army for the purpose of serving as a deterrent for someone who might attempt a land invasion sometime in the future. Yes we need to protect our approaches. That's what the navy (and by my reasoning air force) is for.

Now if you want to play fast and loose with the constitution and say that the only limitation is that the money needs to be "reauthorized" every two years, but an unnecessarily large standing army is ok? Well the Obama's of the world can play fast and loose with the meaning of the word "general welfare" to include food stamps and free healthcare. You can't have it both ways.
Either be strict in your interpretation of the constitution, or be loose.

Really, this is ridiculous. Anyone who's looked at military spending knows that even our domestic military spending is largely wasteful and unnecessary. Why do you think we had the whole base closing commission some years ago? And some of the bases that were recommended for closing were kept open for political reasons. The bases provided jobs. For many the military is one big jobs program. Neither you nor anyone else in this thread have articulated any reason why we need anything close to a million man army for national defense. And we simply can't afford it.
I do have to ask where in the constitution is the air force listed?

[jmdrake]

No it will be bankruptcy because people try and sell RP as an Zero army candidate instead of the 1/10 army candidate, and ensure Romney is elected who will jack the defence budget up another 20 or 30 percent.

There seems to be a consensus in this thread on the need for a "West point" like corps of military trainers and commanders to get the militia in shape in the requisite amount of time. So your "zero army" comment is a bit of a straw man.

[klamath]

There seems to be a consensus in this thread on the need for a "West point" like corps of military trainers and commanders to get the militia in shape in the requisite amount of time. So your "zero army" comment is a bit of a straw man.

Thread title?
Does America need a standing army

[jmdrake]

I do have to ask where in the constitution is the air force listed?

I already went over this earlier in the thread. But I'll answer your question with a question. Where in the constitution is the Internet mentioned? Since it's not mentioned, does "freedom of the press" extend to the Internet? The founders could not have written about the airforce because flight didn't exist. But the concept of protecting the approaches to this country (mainly sea at that time) and for the federal government providing for something that the average citizen could not provide (each militiaman could buy his own gun, but it's difficult to outfit your own warship) holds true for the airforce. That said, I wouldn't be against folding the function of the airforce into the navy. If you can land on an aircraft carrier, landing on a runway is a piece of cake.

By contrast standing armies did exist at the time of the framing of the constitution. And our founders choose one that could be "raised".

[jmdrake]

Thread title?

Trainers needed to build and command a standing army and a standing army are not the same thing.

[klamath]

Trainers needed to build and command a standing army and a standing army are not the same thing. Zero army means zero standing army. The point remains the same, sell that to the average republican.

[Krugerrand]

I already went over this earlier in the thread. But I'll answer your question with a question. Where in the constitution is the Internet mentioned? Since it's not mentioned, does "freedom of the press" extend to the Internet? The founders could not have written about the airforce because flight didn't exist. But the concept of protecting the approaches to this country (mainly sea at that time) and for the federal government providing for something that the average citizen could not provide (each militiaman could buy his own gun, but it's difficult to outfit your own warship) holds true for the airforce. That said, I wouldn't be against folding the function of the airforce into the navy. If you can land on an aircraft carrier, landing on a runway is a piece of cake.

By contrast standing armies did exist at the time of the framing of the constitution. And our founders choose one that could be "raised".

I would agree with incorporating the airforce into the navy. I'd also be okay with an amendment that created it separately.

BTW - anybody up on their history know if any militias also maintained their own navy?

[Brett85]

You know, I expect this kind of childish retort at Redstate or Hannity forums. Let me turn it on it's head. Do you lament the fact that America has lost its manufacturing base while China's is growing? Does that mean you should move to China? Do you lament the fact that America is now the world's largest debtor nation and China is the world's largest creditor? Does that mean you should move to China? How about the fact that the people of Iceland were able to stop their country from bailing out the banks? If you are happy for them and sad we weren't able to do the same, does that mean you should move to Iceland?

...

[klamath]

I mantain my position that we need only about 3 or 4 divisions, east coast, central, west coast and alaska. The rest being backed up by reserves. You do not get a division ready to move and effectively engage an enemy by training the officers in an academy. The mastery of logistics, CNC, communications and squad through battallion tasks are only achieved and maintained through training 6 to 9 months a year which no reservist can afford to do.
And by your same logic to include the airforce because the framers did not know about it then can also be applied to the fact that they never contemplated an army landing on american shores in a matter of hours.

[demolama]

no militia navy because the Fed constitution forbids them from having a navy in times of peace

[Brett85]

I do have to ask where in the constitution is the air force listed?

He believes in an "expansive Constitution" when it comes to the Air Force but not the army.

[Brett85]

Zero army means zero standing army. The point remains the same, sell that to the average republican.

Sell that to anyone other than a hardcore libertarian. Even Democrats don't want to abolish the army.

[demolama]

How do you keep a strong standing army from taking over the government without the militia system being the primary defense?

[affa]

Sell that to anyone other than a hardcore libertarian. Even Democrats don't want to abolish the army.

it will be harder for them to buy their standing army than for us to sell them the idea of limiting it, soon enough.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

How do you keep a strong standing army from taking over the government without the militia system being the primary defense?

I'll take this one. But I'm stealing the answer from AustrianEconDisciple's tagline quote from Elbridge Gerry:

"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty."

[jmdrake]

He believes in an "expansive Constitution" when it comes to the Air Force but not the army.

I don't know how many times I have to say "Airplanes didn't exist in 1789" for you to understand that. Again do you think the first amendment doesn't apply to the Internet? The constitution specifically put restriction on the idea of a standing army. But if you want to nitpick, roll the function of the air force into the navy. Again I've said that multiple times too. At some point you'll get it though. ;)

[Arion45]

Also, if I'm a "big government conservative" for not wanting to abolish the military, Ron Paul himself is also a "big government conservative."

You said you wanted to keep the military the same size. To me that means you still want one that costs over 600,000,000,000 a year. That is big government sums.

Do i have the right to disagree with you on whether there should be a standing army or not?

[jmdrake]

I mantain my position that we need only about 3 or 4 divisions, east coast, central, west coast and alaska. The rest being backed up by reserves. You do not get a division ready to move and effectively engage an enemy by training the officers in an academy. The mastery of logistics, CNC, communications and squad through battallion tasks are only achieved and maintained through training 6 to 9 months a year which no reservist can afford to do.
And by your same logic to include the airforce because the framers did not know about it then can also be applied to the fact that they never contemplated an army landing on american shores in a matter of hours.

They didn't contemplate an army of any significance landing on American shores in a matter of hours because it can't freaking happen even today! Really, go back and do some recent military history. Look at all of the months of preparation that went into Gulf War I, Gulf War II, the Afghan war etc. And the lag time was not just because of congressional slow downs. It simply takes time to move the amount of troops and equipment in needed for sustained land conflict. And oh yeah, how exactly are those ships going to land if they're being taken out by navy subs? How are the airplanes going to drop of troops and supplies if they don't have air superiority and are being shot down by fighters and SAMs? You want to roll in by land through Canada or Mexico? You think nobody's going to notice you amassing troops on the border?

[jmdrake]

You said you wanted to keep the military the same size. To me that means you still want one that costs over 600,000,000,000 a year. That is big government sums.

Do i have the right to disagree with you on whether there should be a standing army or not?

Correction. He said he wanted to spend 700,000,000,000 per year. You cut him 100 billion short.

[jmdrake]

no militia navy because the Fed constitution forbids them from having a navy in times of peace

... I've never read anywhere that the constitution forbids militias from having a navy. It does grant cg authority to maintain a navy as opposed to raising an army.

[idirtify]

Sell that to anyone other than a hardcore libertarian. Even Democrats don't want to abolish the army.

TC,

I see you have come and gone again without addressing the MIC. Are you familiar with it now? Did you educate yourself on this basic reason for not having a standing army? Did you at least read the Wikipedia page?

[klamath]

They didn't contemplate an army of any significance landing on American shores in a matter of hours because it can't freaking happen even today! Really, go back and do some recent military history. Look at all of the months of preparation that went into Gulf War I, Gulf War II, the Afghan war etc. And the lag time was not just because of congressional slow downs. It simply takes time to move the amount of troops and equipment in needed for sustained land conflict. And oh yeah, how exactly are those ships going to land if they're being taken out by navy subs? How are the airplanes going to drop of troops and supplies if they don't have air superiority and are being shot down by fighters and SAMs? You want to roll in by land through Canada or Mexico? You think nobody's going to notice you amassing troops on the border?
I was part of desert storm I don't need to read about it in history books.

The 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, provided the ability to begin executing a strategic airborne forcible entry into any area of the world within 18 hours of notification. Their primary mission was airfield and seaport seizure. Once on the ground, they provided the secured terrain and facilities to rapidly receive additional combat forces. The Division is the nation's strategic offensive force, maintaining the highest state of combat readiness
A country of over a billion people and soon to be the largest economy in the world would have no problems setting up 10 82nd Airborne divisions and the fighter support to see that they made their target.

[jmdrake]

I was part of desert storm I don't need to read about it in history books.

Great. Then you should know that the preparation for desert storm began even before Iraq invaded Kuwait.



A country of over a billion people and soon to be the largest economy in the world would have no problems setting up 10 82nd Airborne divisions and the fighter support to see that they made their target.

And how exactly is that fighter support supposed to get past a superior air force? (Which is why we shouldn't be jointly developing stealth fighters with other parts of the world). And how are those fighters going to stop SAMs guided by celldar? Celldar can pick up stealth fighters and being passive radar its immune to anti radar missiles (unless you're going to take out all the cell towers). And once this airborne division lands, how does it maintain fuel for its vehicles? Note that Desert Storm wasn't done by airborne alone. Dropping a few thousand troops behind enemy lines without any logistics does not a war win. And currently no air force in the world would even be able to pull it off against U.S. air defenses.

And one other thing. If the "country with a billion people" you're talking about is China, why would they even invade when they can take us out economically without firing a shot?

[josh b]

Who said no army? On the contrary -- those of us who want to abolish the Standing Army aka Government Army, want MORE defense. The only rightful defense of a Free-State is the Militia. People really need to stop with the false dichotomy and total non-sense regarding this issue. Mind you a significant portion of the original founders of this country wanted no Standing Army, and the defense was to be manned by Militia. Standing Armies have always been used for Offense everywhere and always, period. They always become pawns of the Government to be used to further profligate their 'prestige', influence, and power. It is the enemy of the People and of Property and Liberty. You should really open up some Anti-Federalist works.
Yes, this. I don't think there has ever been a 'standing army' raised for the exclusive purpose of defense. +rep


(This is also an issue I usually depart on with reference to fellow An-Caps/Voluntaryists...I think Private Defense Agencies would be inimical to a free-society, but I wouldn't try to forcibly stop their chartering. Private Security is a wholly other matter to PDA's. I think Market Security would be amazing.)
Ok, as a fellow ancap I have to ask. What is the distinction you make between private security as you define it, and PDAs? Just curious.

[klamath]

Great. Then you should know that the preparation for desert storm began even before Iraq invaded Kuwait.



And how exactly is that fighter support supposed to get past a superior air force? (Which is why we shouldn't be jointly developing stealth fighters with other parts of the world). And how are those fighters going to stop SAMs guided by celldar? Celldar can pick up stealth fighters and being passive radar its immune to anti radar missiles (unless you're going to take out all the cell towers). And once this airborne division lands, how does it maintain fuel for its vehicles? Note that Desert Storm wasn't done by airborne alone. Dropping a few thousand troops behind enemy lines without any logistics does not a war win. And currently no air force in the world would even be able to pull it off against U.S. air defenses.

And one other thing. If the "country with a billion people" you're talking about is China, why would they even invade when they can take us out economically without firing a shot?

But you miss the whole point. I never said we would lose the war, I don't want to get into a GDed war to begin with and an enemy knowing we would have the capability totally destroy any airborne attempt at airfield and seaport seizure is the best way not to ever get into a war. The cost of a few trained divisions is a small price to pay for the death of the initial ill trained reserve troops trying and dying against highly trained airborne troops dug in at ports of entry on American soil.
Why did we not invade Iran, China, or pakistan but we have invaded weak countries? The answer is very simple. It is not seen as feasible. Reserve and militia units are widely considered weak by military strategic planners until the reserves have gone through extensive substained training.
And no there was no military preparation before Iraq invaded Kuwait besides the normal doctrine of protecting mideast oil supplies which is basically a doctrine that has been going one since WWII.

[Pericles]

That may apply to some of the second or third world nations listed, but to first world nations like Germany?

I'd have to look into it, but I find it hard to believe that they are equipping the Deutsches Heer with $30 AK variants.

Or take the Saudis, they buy mostly all our stuff, they just don't buy as much of it.

Procurement cycles play a big role, and cost of people. The US is on a constant procurement cycle - especially the AF and Navy (the Navy has sunk ships less than 20 years old in weapons tests - and ships are not cheap). NATO has a different problem in that as members join, the numbers of weapons can not increase due to this:

TREATY ON CONVENTIONAL ARMED FORCES IN EUROPE

The Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech and Slovak
Federal Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Federal Republic of
Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Iceland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Turkey, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America, hereinafter referred to as the States Parties,

Guided by the Mandate for Negotiation on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe of
January 10, 1989, and having conducted this negotiation in Vienna beginning on
March 9, 1989, and so on limit the number of tanks, armored fighting vehicles, artillery pieces, helicopters, and aircraft located in Europe.

Limiting the size of NATO forces limits how much they can buy and have, so Germany has not bought a tank since 1989, and in fact has had to get rid of the stuff it inherited from the former East Germany, and several countries upgraded from German and US "surplus". Using low paid conscripts and other measures help to keep the cost down in addition to no nuke missiles, submarines, carriers, stealth aircraft, and so on.

Russia and it allies have a different problem in that anything earlier than the T-80 is crap, and had to be gotten rid of in order to be replaced - this provides incentives for Russia to sell equipment cheap to other nations, keeping their procurement costs down on equipment that Russia would otherwise have to scrap. Latest sales price for a T-72 (if you would like to own one) is $105,000 and how to do it can be found here:

http://www.steelsoldiers.com/russian-eastern-block-vehicles/46427-test-driving-buying-russian-t-72-a.html

If I could by a M1A2, I'd have to come up with $4mil.

[georgiaboy]

That's basically the Swiss model. And it's the founding father's model as well.

Do the Swiss require compulsory a term of military service of every able-bodied youth who is a Swiss citizen? IIRC they do.

Oh, and to the OP, I voted yes. I'm not much into the particulars, but we need an active military force of some type for defending the homeland, dissuading and repelling attacks, and waging constitutionally authorized war against those who attack us.

Some of the ideas for how to reshape the current overbloated military empire to that end are very intriguing. thumbs up.

[Pericles]

Do the Swiss require compulsory a term of military service of every able-bodied youth who is a Swiss citizen? IIRC they do.
Yes, you have two weeks service per year until age 42 for privates, higher ages for increased rank.

They have changed the system to a total number of days required (scaled based on year of birth) so you have the option of all at once, or chunks of time, or the traditional 90 days plus two weeks a year, and mandatory training events such as annual rifle qualification which you can do at any time during the year, and a couple of other time combinations.

[Cutlerzzz]

And how exactly is that fighter support supposed to get past a superior air force?

He was in the army 20 years ago. He doesn't need to read about subjects or be asked critical questions. He's knows this stuff.

[Arion45]

And you don't see many African Americans like me willing to vote in Republican primaries to support Ron Paul either. ;) We all come from different backgrounds with different preconceived notions. But the key to growth is to at least think deeply about those preconceived notions. And the end of the day you might end up with the same notions, as I have largely done on the civil war and the civil rights movement (much to the chagrin of some here), but you should be at least able to understand the other side and better articulate your position.

With that in mind can you answer this question? What deficiency do you see with the Swiss military model? Do you honestly believe the Swiss are in danger of being invaded or that such an invasion could be successful? I don't. Even a modern military has a hard time dealing with a coordinated insurgency. Look at the Soviets in Afghanistan (or us in Afghanistan) or look at Israel's unsuccessful recent attempt to invade Lebanon and destroy Hezbollah. Think of the Swiss militia as mujahadeen on steroids. They go through the same professional training as any Chinese, Russian, American or Israeli solider. Plus they have an air force, and more importantly modern air defense systems. The Swiss wouldn't have to wait on someone else to supply them with the equivalent of stinger missiles.

The other element of the Swiss model that makes them more secure then the U.S. is since they have no large standing army there is no temptation to use it to intervene in foreign countries. I know that you are against foreign adventurism, but the problem is that you aren't the president. I remember reading once after the Bosnian war a general confiding with someone about his frustration with secretary of state Madeline Albright. He was trying to explain to her why the Bosnian intervention was not a good idea (we still have soldiers there by the way), and she responded by saying "What good is having a big military if you aren't going to use it?"

Nor is use in foreign countries the only concern. Remember Katrina? Remember how at first FEMA kept everybody out? Remember that later, after Bush fought with the governor of Louisiana over who should be in charge of the Louisiana national guard deployment, they sent the national guard in with a dual mission of providing aid and confiscating guns?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tta1qhQZWSE

Remember why this country passed the Posse Comitatus Act? It was to prevent scenes like the one above. This couldn't happen under a Swiss militia model, because the people you would be being asked to disarm would be your fellow troops. But with a large imperial style "professional" military it can happen (already HAS happened in the U.S.) because there is an "us" versus "them".



Spending nearly 3/4 of a trillion a year hear at home to maintain a force ready to enforce martial law here in America isn't sustainable either. Oh, and you should change the above to say that no republicans in congress other than Ron (and I believe Justin Amash and a few others) are advocating that large of a cut. But there are democrats like Barney Frank who signed on to Ron's large cuts. And that's the problem. You can get republicans to sign on to massive cuts in social spending but not in the military. You can get democrats to sign on to massive cuts in military spending, but not social. It's like the debt is a huge arch with the left side and the right side of the arch propping it up. Here's a better way. Do away with taxes and let people donate to the part of the government they feel is necessary. You think we need 700 billion for the military? You fund it. Someone else thinks millions are needed for space exploration? They should fund that. Someone wants to spend money on education or medical research or anything else? Let that person fund that. But our current system is in reality unsustainable. Thinking there will be a balanced budget based on your priorities is a pipe dream.

This is an awesome post. Well thought out and supported. I totally agree.

[klamath]

He was in the army 20 years ago. He doesn't need to read about subjects or be asked critical questions. He's knows this stuff.

And again you are wrong. My last deployment was 6 years ago. When was your last military experience since you believe you are an expert on all doctrine, strategic and tactical military issues?

[jmdrake]

But you miss the whole point. I never said we would lose the war, I don't want to get into a GDed war to begin with and an enemy knowing we would have the capability totally destroy any airborne attempt at airfield and seaport seizure is the best way not to ever get into a war. The cost of a few trained divisions is a small price to pay for the death of the initial ill trained reserve troops trying and dying against highly trained airborne troops dug in at ports of entry on American soil.


They would airborne divisions would never get through modern air and sea defenses in the first place. I know that. They know that. Apparently you don't for some reason. Anyhow while I don't think those divisions you crave so much are even necessary, I could live with them (provided we really allow the 2nd amendment to do its job and any citizen to own any armament any infantryman might have) that's really not what "Traditional Conservative" wants. He wants to maintain a level of military spending of 700 billion. I think that's utterly ridiculous.

And lastly, you still haven't answered the question of why would China invade (the only country with a billion people) when they could just destroy our economy at this point and save the troops?



Why did we not invade Iran, China, or pakistan but we have invaded weak countries? The answer is very simple. It is not seen as feasible. Reserve and militia units are widely considered weak by military strategic planners until the reserves have gone through extensive substained training.


Ummm....Iran and Iraq fought to a stalemate. We invaded Iraq. So logic would have it that we could invade Iran. If you've read the U.S. army war college report on the Iran/Iraq war then you know that Iraq actually had the better military. Iran just had more people. The Iranians would use "human wave" attacks against Iraqi positions. These were not professional well trained divisions. Sorry but this grossly undercuts your argument.

The Pakistani military? They've got nukes and that's about it. We don't invade Pakistan because they basically have done what we want by creating Al Qaeda and the Taliban. They created Al Qaeda using CIA money under the Carter administration as a means to destabilize the Soviet Union. The created the Taliban, again with CIA money, to re-stabilize Afghanistan. That's why when we invaded Afghanistan, we paused first long enough to allow the Pakistanis to pull their troops out that were fighting with the Taliban.

See:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340165/ns/world_news-brave_new_world/t/airlift-evil/
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7718
http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/pak.htm


Speaking of nukes, which country do you think wants to risk nuclear war with the U.S.?



And no there was no military preparation before Iraq invaded Kuwait besides the normal doctrine of protecting mideast oil supplies which is basically a doctrine that has been going one since WWII.

You're ill informed. I've seen the documents as well as the soldiers who talked about doing training exercises against Iraq prior to the invasion of Kuwait. Plus there's CIA documentation of preparation.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB63/doc6.pdf

We knew Saddam was planning to invade Kuwait long before he got permission to invade from U.S. ambassador April Glassby. Just because you might not have been aware of the foreknowledge and preparation doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[georgiaboy]

Yes, you have two weeks service per year until age 42 for privates, higher ages for increased rank.

They have changed the system to a total number of days required (scaled based on year of birth) so you have the option of all at once, or chunks of time, or the traditional 90 days plus two weeks a year, and mandatory training events such as annual rifle qualification which you can do at any time during the year, and a couple of other time combinations.

Thanks, P. Sorry if I'm being redundant (long thread), but would this model then be included under the umbrella of "having a standing army"? Seems the semantics are getting thick.

[Arion45]

Then maybe you should just move there.

Fail -5. So over used and so utterly ignorant.

[libertarian4321]

This is total drivel.

Let's examine it then, shall we? Having 30 years in the Army (active and reserve) and being a military history buff, I'd love to have this discussion.


War wasn't complex in 1776? Tell that to the British, French, Turks, and the Japanese.

War was FAR less complex in 1776. War was fought by small armies, in a localized area, using a very limited variety of weaponry, with command and control generally limited to the range of a human voice or instrument. Also, war was NOT modern total war in those days, or the kind that involved entire populations/economies.

To say that 18th century warfare is similar to 21st century warfare is like saying a Big Wheel and a Ferrari are similar because they both have wheels and provide transportation.


That completely misses the point in any event, as evidenced that the most advanced military in history the USA were defeated by a bunch of peasants in the Viet Cong, and the same in Afghanistan

Those are examples of unconventional warfare, not the conventional warfare we've been discussing in the thread.

There is a HUGE difference between being able to beat back an invasion (conventional warfare) and harassing occupying troops after an invasion in the hope that they will, after some number of years, go away and stop raping your nation (guerrilla or unconventional warfare).

Do you really want to spend a decade or more under the thumb of an invader, waiting for a guerrilla army to (hopefully) someday succeed?

It took the VC almost 2 decades decade to "win" even with foreign support and the help of the NVA- and btw, that war wasn't a case of one nation invading another, only to be forced out by guerrillas. The USA went into S. Vietnam to prop up the existing government. Prior to getting that "win" millions of Vietnamese were killed, tens of millions were displaced. Their economy and nation were shattered. I'm not sure most of us think that is a "better" solution than having to put up with the "indignity" of having a standing army.

Sometimes you have to set the radical rhetoric aside and think practically.

Regarding Afghanistan, we have no idea how that will turn out. They've already been occupied for 10 years, with no end in sight.

Militia and "guys with guns" can be successful at guerrilla warfare, they tend to be very unsuccessful at preventing invasions.


-- not withstanding the Swiss whom haven't been attacked in lord knows how long.

Primarily as a result of their politics and official state of "neutrality", not their "unbeatable" military.

FYI, the oft believed story that Switzerland has been completely peaceful nation that hasn't fought or been invaded in many centuries is a MYTH.

Switzerland was very successful at staying out of war in the 20th century, but had been invaded and occupied in the late 18th and early 19th centuries (the last by Napoleon, who invaded and set up a client state- the Swiss remained a French puppet until 1814). It had also been historically invaded on a number of prior occasions


A militia is a default Non-interventionist Defensive / Neutral stance. Having a Standing Army makes us less safe, poorer, and is the agent of TYRANNY. No ifs and or buts. I would rather live in the tempestuous sea of liberty, than to be chained. I will not surrender this power to the Government, and if in the event of another Revolution you can bet your bottom gold coin that I will be strongly against any idea of a Government-Army.

Now you sound like you are making a long-winded extremist political rant. I'll let you step off your soap box...


The most complex weapon on the battlefield in 1776 was probably the Galleon,

The Galleon wasn't on the field of battle, as it was a naval asset.

BTW, by the late 18th century, the Galleon was obsolescent at best.


and as the same today you can teach someone to shoot in a few days no problem (You should go to an Appleseed).

There is a hell of a lot more to modern warfare than just being able to competently fire a rifle. Again, this isn't 1776 where small groups of men line up in a small area and fire away. Modern Armies used complex command and communications, integrate air forces, and a wide variety of weapons, many of which require specialized training to use.


Not to mention that the Militia trains more than a Standing Army.

?????????

What?

Did you really mean that, or did the words get jumbled somehow?

Wow. This has to be one of the most sillies things I've ever seen on these forums. Professional soldiers train for their job on a daily basis. Militias and Reservists do not. Historically, militia training has been irregular in interval and inconsistent in quality (and by "inconsistent" I mean it's generally been of poor quality, with rare examples of good quality training preventing it from consistently being bad).

There is a reason militias were NOT considered reliable in war- they were often used out of necessity, but you never knew what they would do. They would sometimes break and run after the first volley, and would rarely be able to stand for any length of time against regulars.That goes for every war in which militia was employed, including the American Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars.


I'll just leave by saying war is so complex we got beat by a bunch of peasants using bamboo traps. You severely under-estimate the power of will and heart -- things which no Standing Army has, just ask the Brits in 1780, the US in 1970, the Soviets in 1986, etc. etc.

If you think the job of the Army is to allow an invasion, then fade into the hills and carry on guerrilla warfare in the hope that someday the enemy will get sick of occupation and leave, after years of raping, pillaging, and enslaving the populace, then an "army" composed of militia and "guys with guns" MIGHT do the job (or it might not).

However, I think most of us would prefer to have an Army that could REPEL and invader rather than allowing him to rape and pillage for years prior to being expelled.

Again, I'm not for a large standing army, but a militia alone won't cut it unless you are willing to allow the USA to be occupied and enslaved.

[Cutlerzzz]

And again you are wrong. My last deployment was 6 years ago. When was your last military experience since you believe you are an expert on all doctrine, strategic and tactical military issues?

You're claiming that being in some unnamed military post 6 years ago means that your knowledge cannot be questioned. I guess that we need more of these government experts to tell us mundanes what to do and what we need. Nobody should argue with a police officer about the war on drugs; hell, he doesn't even have to read about the war on drugs. He's a cop, so he wins the debate by default.

So far you have displayed willful ignorance and claimed that you don't need to read anything because at one point you were in the military. You believe that Russia can conquer Alaska, and that China can air drop an entire army 6,000 miles away against a superior air force and navy in 18 hours. You have not shown yourself to know much of anything.

It does not matter how you slice it. Going thousands of miles over the sea without a strong air force or navy is impossible. Modern armies are far more powerful than old ones, they are however much more expensive.

[Arion45]

Yes, but in the late 18th century, the most complex weapon on the battle field was probably a 6- or 12-pounder cannon. Firing that weapon could be learned in fairly short order. Military battles usually consisted of small groups of men lining up and firing muskets at each other.

There were no complex weapons systems, there were no complex strategies, there were no complex communications systems, there was no need for coordination between land/sea/and air forces.

War is a Hell of a lot more complex today than it was then. Today, you can't train a soldier in a few days like you could in 1776. And even in those simpler times, the US always maintained at least a small professional military.

The USA doesn't need the massive standing army it has today, but to completely eliminate it would be a very bad idea. The best answer lies somewhere between "no army" and "massive, bloated army."

You are going to have to make the argument that the free market could not provide these things.

[Cutlerzzz]

Let's examine it then, shall we? Having 30 years in the Army (active and reserve) and being a military history buff, I'd love to have this discussion.



War was FAR less complex in 1776. War was fought by small armies, in a localized area, using a very limited variety of weaponry, with command and control generally limited to the range of a human voice or instrument. Also, war was NOT modern total war in those days, or the kind that involved entire populations/economies.

To say that 18th century warfare is similar to 21st century warfare is like saying a Big Wheel and a Ferrari are similar because they both have wheels and provide transportation.



Those are examples of unconventional warfare, not the conventional warfare we've been discussing in the thread.

There is a HUGE difference between being able to beat back an invasion (conventional warfare) and harassing occupying troops after an invasion in the hope that they will, after some number of years, go away and stop raping your nation (guerrilla or unconventional warfare).

Do you really want to spend a decade or more under the thumb of an invader, waiting for a guerrilla army to (hopefully) someday succeed?

It took the VC almost 2 decades decade to "win" even with foreign support and the help of the NVA- and btw, that war wasn't a case of one nation invading another, only to be forced out by guerrillas. The USA went into S. Vietnam to prop up the existing government. Prior to getting that "win" millions of Vietnamese were killed, tens of millions were displaced. Their economy and nation were shattered. I'm not sure most of us think that is a "better" solution than having to put up with the "indignity" of having a standing army.

Sometimes you have to set the radical rhetoric aside and think practically.

Regarding Afghanistan, we have no idea how that will turn out. They've already been occupied for 10 years, with no end in sight.

Militia and "guys with guns" can be successful at guerrilla warfare, they tend to be very unsuccessful at preventing invasions.



Primarily as a result of their politics and official state of "neutrality", not their "unbeatable" military.

FYI, the oft believed story that Switzerland has been completely peaceful nation that hasn't fought or been invaded in many centuries is a MYTH.

Switzerland was very successful at staying out of war in the 20th century, but had been invaded and occupied in the late 18th and early 19th centuries (the last by Napoleon, who invaded and set up a client state- the Swiss remained a French puppet until 1814). It had also been historically invaded on a number of prior occasions



Now you sound like you are making a long-winded extremist political rant. I'll let you step off your soap box...



The Galleon wasn't on the field of battle, as it was a naval asset.

BTW, by the late 18th century, the Galleon was obsolescent at best.



There is a hell of a lot more to modern warfare than just being able to competently fire a rifle. Again, this isn't 1776 where small groups of men line up in a small area and fire away. Modern Armies used complex command and communications, integrate air forces, and a wide variety of weapons, many of which require specialized training to use.



?????????

What?

Did you really mean that, or did the words get jumbled somehow?

Wow. This has to be one of the most sillies things I've ever seen on these forums. Professional soldiers train for their job on a daily basis. Militias and Reservists do not. Historically, militia training has been irregular in interval and inconsistent in quality (and by "inconsistent" I mean it's generally been of poor quality, with rare examples of good quality training preventing it from consistently being bad).

There is a reason militias were NOT considered reliable in war- they were often used out of necessity, but you never knew what they would do. They would sometimes break and run after the first volley, and would rarely be able to stand for any length of time against regulars.That goes for every war in which militia was employed, including the American Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars.



If you think the job of the Army is to allow an invasion, then fade into the hills and carry on guerrilla warfare in the hope that someday the enemy will get sick of occupation and leave, after years of raping, pillaging, and enslaving the populace, then an "army" composed of militia and "guys with guns" MIGHT do the job (or it might not).

However, I think most of us would prefer to have an Army that could REPEL and invader rather than allowing him to rape and pillage for years prior to being expelled.

Again, I'm not for a large standing army, but a militia alone won't cut it unless you are willing to allow the USA to be occupied and enslaved.

It does not matter how you slice it. Going thousands of miles over the sea without a strong air force or navy is impossible. Modern armies are far more powerful than old ones, they are however much more expensive. Iraq, a third world country with a 15th of our population, has cost us 3 trillion dollars over the last 8 years. That's with a few junior partners supporting us. Imagine what invading the United States, a country where the average citizen is more armed, has 10 times the income, more geographical advantages, and a huge population, would do to the invaders. The US has nuclear weapons to boot.

The idea of America being directly invaded is insane. In the time it would take for any country to build up that kind of force the US could have an army ready. Even if nothing was done and they increased their naval/aerial strength ten fold while the US did nothing, it would take months for them to over power the navy/air force and get over here, prepare any kind of invasion. In 3 months you could have a million man army backed by militia/insurgents. They would go bankrupt in a few years trying to fight the US.

[libertarian4321]

Sell that to anyone other than a hardcore libertarian. Even Democrats don't want to abolish the army.

Yeah, I agree. Our military could be vastly reduced in size, but to eliminate it would be insane.

All this extremist rhetoric about being "enslaved" by a standing army is silly.

I guarantee you'd be "enslaved" a lot worse if we were invaded by a hostile nation.

At some point, we need to tone down the extremist theoretical rhetoric and think of practical solutions.

[Arion45]

Correction. He said he wanted to spend 700,000,000,000 per year. You cut him 100 billion short.

I low ball so I don't have to argue over how much the government spends. In reality the military spends a trillion.

[AuH20]

It took the VC almost 2 decades decade to "win" even with foreign support and the help of the NVA- and btw, that war wasn't a case of one nation invading another, only to be forced out by guerrillas. The USA went into S. Vietnam to prop up the existing government. Prior to getting that "win" millions of Vietnamese were killed, tens of millions were displaced. Their economy and nation were shattered. I'm not sure most of us think that is a "better" solution than having to put up with the "indignity" of having a standing army.


The Vietnamese never won. That's hogwash. They lost close to 4 million including civilians, while the American toll was merely 60k. They got their asses summarily kicked and that was including the treachery in the defense department, which made the U.S. proverbially fight with one hand behind it's back with no-bombing zones in Hanoi or Haiphong Harbor. Capture a hill of strategic interest one day only to surrender it the next due to so-called ammunition quotas. Hell, if the Joint Chiefs wanted to they could have bombed the dike and dam system along the Red River Delta and flooded the whole goddamn country!

[Arion45]

Yeah, I agree. Our military could be vastly reduced in size, but to eliminate it would be insane.

All this extremist rhetoric about being "enslaved" by a standing army is silly.

I guarantee you'd be "enslaved" a lot worse if we were invaded by a hostile nation.

At some point, we need to tone down the extremist theoretical rhetoric and think of practical solutions.

Do I have the right to disagree with you whether there is a standing military or not?

[libertarian4321]

It does not matter how you slice it. Going thousands of miles over the sea without a strong air force or navy is impossible. Modern armies are far more powerful than old ones, they are however much more expensive. Iraq, a third world country with a 15th of our population, has cost us 3 trillion dollars over the last 8 years. That's with a few junior partners supporting us. Imagine what invading the United States, a country where the average citizen is more armed, has 10 times the income, more geographical advantages, and a huge population, would do to the invaders. The US has nuclear weapons to boot.

The idea of America being directly invaded is insane. In the time it would take for any country to build up that kind of force the US could have an army ready. Even if nothing was done and they increased their naval/aerial strength ten fold while the US did nothing, it would take months for them to over power the navy/air force and get over here, prepare any kind of invasion. In 3 months you could have a million man army backed by militia/insurgents. They would go bankrupt in a few years trying to fight the US.

The fact that an invasion may be expensive has never been much of a deterrent in the past.

As far as the "sea" is concerned, I agree that the Chinese or Russians or whomever would not have the capability (today, at least) to establish a beach head.

However, should they enter into an agreement or alliance with a nation like Mexico, that problem would largely be solved. A military operation staged from Mexico, opposed only by militia and guys with guns, would result in a quick victory for the Enemy, and an occupation.

Sure, those occupiers may, in time, choose to leave, but as I stated in my last post, I don't think most Americans would consider "let the enemy invade us and occupy us and enslave us for years while we wait for our guerrilla forces to annoy them enough to make them leave" to be an adequate level of defense.

Some of the extremists among you might think that's a great solution, but I suspect 99.9% of Americans would disagree...

[libertarian4321]

Do I have the right to disagree with you whether there is a standing military or not?

You are free to believe whatever you want.

But if you say something nutty, expect to be called on it.

Fair enough?

[libertarian4321]

The Vietnamese never won. That's hogwash. They lost close to 4 million including civilians, while the American toll was merely 60k. They got their asses summarily kicked and that was including the treachery in the defense department, which made the U.S. proverbially fight with one hand behind it's back with no-bombing zones in Hanoi or Haiphong Harbor. Capture a hill of strategic interest one day only to surrender it the next due to so-called ammunition quotas. Hell, if the Joint Chiefs wanted to they could have bombed the dike and dam system along the Red River Delta and flooded the whole goddamn country!

I think you completely missed the point of my post.

[Cutlerzzz]

The fact that an invasion may be expensive has never been much of a deterrent in the past.

As far as the "sea" is concerned, I agree that the Chinese or Russians or whomever would not have the capability (today, at least) to establish a beach head.

However, should they enter into an agreement or alliance with a nation like Mexico, that problem would largely be solved. A military operation staged from Mexico, opposed only by militia and guys with guns, would result in a quick victory for the Enemy, and an occupation.

Sure, those occupiers may, in time, choose to leave, but as I stated in my last post, I don't think most Americans would consider "let the enemy invade us and occupy us and enslave us for years while we wait for our guerrilla forces to annoy them enough to make them leave" to be an adequate level of defense.

Some of the extremists among you might think that's a great solution, but I suspect 99.9% of Americans would disagree...

Unless they solve the naval/aerial situation, they will be cutoff of supplies and reinforcements while in Mexico. Nobody would ever try, and if they did, they could no take a single state. The logistics are too insane.

[jmdrake]

Let's examine it then, shall we? Having 30 years in the Army (active and reserve) and being a military history buff, I'd love to have this discussion.

War was FAR less complex in 1776. War was fought by small armies, in a localized area, using a very limited variety of weaponry, with command and control generally limited to the range of a human voice or instrument. Also, war was NOT modern total war in those days, or the kind that involved entire populations/economies.


Uh-huh. That's why the proper defense of this country requires a modern navy and/or airforce. For those who can't deal with the fact that the founders couldn't read the future and write the words "air force" into the constitution, the air force could be folded into the navy which arguably has better pilots. I'm not sure why your side insists on ignoring this important detail. You know what stopped Hitler at the Battle of Britain? It wasn't the army. They were too busy being rescued across the English channel by the navy and the "militia navy". (Basically fishermen using whatever would float to bring troops back across). Still despite Germany having the best army in Europe, they couldn't land. Why? Because of the R.A.F.! You can't land an army unless you have first established air and/or sea superiority. And if you some how manage to sneak a few troops in they'll be cut off and killed without support.



Those are examples of unconventional warfare, not the conventional warfare we've been discussing in the thread.

There is a HUGE difference between being able to beat back an invasion (conventional warfare) and harassing occupying troops after an invasion in the hope that they will, after some number of years, go away and stop raping your nation (guerrilla or unconventional warfare).

Do you really want to spend a decade or more under the thumb of an invader, waiting for a guerrilla army to (hopefully) someday succeed?


Hmmmm....how many years did it take Hezbollah to beat back one of the best armies in the world? Oh, that's right. It didn't take years. It only lasted 34 days. And their best weapons were RPGs, AK-47s and unguided rockets. They had no Stinger missiles that could take out helicopters and slow flying troop transport planes, let alone sophisticated SAMs or fighter jets.



It took the VC almost 2 decades decade to "win" even with foreign support and the help of the NVA- and btw, that war wasn't a case of one nation invading another, only to be forced out by guerrillas. The USA went into S. Vietnam to prop up the existing government. Prior to getting that "win" millions of Vietnamese were killed, tens of millions were displaced. Their economy and nation were shattered. I'm not sure most of us think that is a "better" solution than having to put up with the "indignity" of having a standing army.


I'm not worried about the "indignity" of a standing army. I'm worried about the standing army contributing to our bankruptcy and then enforcing martial law as we are taken into receivership. Your side of the argument conveniently forgets that point. Now maybe an army of the size klamath is advocating would neither bankrupt the nation nor be strong enough to enslave the rest of us when things go south. But what some here are advocating just to scare off some unnamed bogeyman will lead to our ruin. If we can agree that a million man army isn't needed at home or abroad, we can work out the details of what we actually need later.



Militia and "guys with guns" can be successful at guerrilla warfare, they tend to be very unsuccessful at preventing invasions.


Iraq's standing army didn't prevent an invasion. Hezbollah's militia drove back a military better than Iraq's in 34 days.



FYI, the oft believed story that Switzerland has been completely peaceful nation that hasn't fought or been invaded in many centuries is a MYTH.

Switzerland was very successful at staying out of war in the 20th century, but had been invaded and occupied in the late 18th and early 19th centuries (the last by Napoleon, who invaded and set up a client state- the Swiss remained a French puppet until 1814). It had also been historically invaded on a number of prior occasions


Did they have the same militia structure then that they have now? Maybe they learned their lessons from the late 18th and early 19th centuries.



The Galleon wasn't on the field of battle, as it was a naval asset.

BTW, by the late 18th century, the Galleon was obsolescent at best.


Yep. And nobody's saying don't have a navy.



There is a hell of a lot more to modern warfare than just being able to competently fire a rifle. Again, this isn't 1776 where small groups of men line up in a small area and fire away. Modern Armies used complex command and communications, integrate air forces, and a wide variety of weapons, many of which require specialized training to use.


Ummm...in 1776 it was the British that were lining up in lines, not the Americans (generally speaking). If we went to a militia model and the 2nd amendment was followed as written then any citizen would have access to any infantry weapon and/or an opportunity to train on it. If you're worried about someone going rogue and using a Stinger to take out his ex-wife then keep weapons like that in armories and just provide training on its use.

As for electronic communications, your average middle schooler shouldn't have any problem with that. I know...I know...the military version of the cell phone is soooo much more complex than the civilian one right? But it doesn't have to be.



There is a reason militias were NOT considered reliable in war- they were often used out of necessity, but you never knew what they would do. They would sometimes break and run after the first volley, and would rarely be able to stand for any length of time against regulars.That goes for every war in which militia was employed, including the American Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars.


It didn't happen in the Hezbollah / Israeli conflict.



However, I think most of us would prefer to have an Army that could REPEL and invader rather than allowing him to rape and pillage for years prior to being expelled.

Again, I'm not for a large standing army, but a militia alone won't cut it unless you are willing to allow the USA to be occupied and enslaved.

Lebanon is occupied and enslaved? That's news to me. ;) And again quit ignoring the fact that the other side isn't saying don't have a navy or fighter jets or missile defense or SAMs or a professional officer corps or regular training of the militia with modern weapons.

[jmdrake]

All this extremist rhetoric about being "enslaved" by a standing army is silly.


You didn't watch this video did you?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tta1qhQZWSE


You are free to believe whatever you want.

But if you say something nutty, expect to be called on it.

Fair enough?

"Nutty" is believing that the military won't do what it's already done on more than one occasion. "Nutty" is ignoring the reason for the posse comitatus act.

[libertarian4321]

You didn't watch this video did you?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tta1qhQZWSE

No, I didn't, but I'm pretty sure I know what's in it, this has been discussed to death on these boards.

I'm pretty sure that nothing that happened during Katrina would equate to what it would be like to be occupied by a hostile nation, though I'm sure the extremists among you will continue to try and equate the two.

[demolama]

... I've never read anywhere that the constitution forbids militias from having a navy. It does grant cg authority to maintain a navy as opposed to raising an army.

Article 1 section 10 clause 3


No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

[jmdrake]

The fact that an invasion may be expensive has never been much of a deterrent in the past.

As far as the "sea" is concerned, I agree that the Chinese or Russians or whomever would not have the capability (today, at least) to establish a beach head.

However, should they enter into an agreement or alliance with a nation like Mexico, that problem would largely be solved. A military operation staged from Mexico, opposed only by militia and guys with guns, would result in a quick victory for the Enemy, and an occupation.

Sure, those occupiers may, in time, choose to leave, but as I stated in my last post, I don't think most Americans would consider "let the enemy invade us and occupy us and enslave us for years while we wait for our guerrilla forces to annoy them enough to make them leave" to be an adequate level of defense.

Some of the extremists among you might think that's a great solution, but I suspect 99.9% of Americans would disagree...

And so you believe the Chinese and/or Russians would be able to sneak massive amounts of troops, tanks, supplies and fighter jets into Mexico without us noticing? I have 3 words for you. Cuban missile crisis! An operation like that would take months to set up (at least) and it would somehow have to deal with the threat of American attack from sea and/or air. In short, that's a pipe dream.


Unless they solve the naval/aerial situation, they will be cutoff of supplies and reinforcements while in Mexico. Nobody would ever try, and if they did, they could no take a single state. The logistics are too insane.

Yeah, that too. Maybe the Chinese and Russians don't need logistics like we do? ;)

[klamath]

The militia would never turn on americans and would be totally peaceful:rolleyes:
The majority of the indiscriminate slaughter of of native americans were done by wonderful militias, as opposed to the US army.


Governor John Evans of Colorado Territory sought to open up the Cheyenne and Arapaho hunting grounds to white development. The tribes, however, refused to sell their lands and settle on reservations. Evens decided to call out volunteer militiamen under Colonel John Chivington to quell the mounting violence.
Evans used isolated incidents of violence as a pretext to order troops into the field under the ambitious, Indian-hating territory military commander Colonel Chivington. Though John Chivington had once belonged to the clergy, his compassion for his fellow man didn't extend to the Indians.
These Indian fighters were led by an old Franklinite militiaman from Tennessee named Hiram "Big Tooth" Gregory who came from Sullivan County Tennessee at the settlement of Franklin and had fought many Franklinite campaigns under John Sevier to eliminate all the traditional Thunderbolt Cherokees totally and without mercy.

The peaceful Shoshone camp was attacked at dawn by Colonel Patrick Edward O'Connor and his militia from Salt Lake City, UT. The Bear River camp was in Washington Territory. Not even a part of the territory O'Connor was sent to watch and protect pony express riders and telegraph lines. O'Connor also brought howitzers, but the snows were to deep. It was this bit of luck that allowed a few Shoshone to escape. Only a very few did escape. 55,000 bullets were used to kill a sleepy camp of about 300.
The Gnadenhutten massacre, also known as the Moravian massacre, was the killing on March 8, 1782, of ninety-six Christian Lenape (Delaware) by colonial American militia from Pennsylvania during the American Revolutionary War. The incident took place at the Moravian missionary village of Gnadenhütten, Ohio, near present-day Gnadenhutten.
The murder of more than 150 Wintu people in the Hayfork Valley of California, by 70 men led by Trinity County sheriff William H. Dixon, in retribution for the killing of Col. John Anderson.

Major Gabriel J. Rains, Commanding Officer of Fort Humboldt at the time, reported to his commanding officer that a local group of vigilantes had resolved to "kill every peaceable Indian - man, woman, and child."[7] The vigilantes, calling themselves the Humboldt Volunteers, Second Brigade, had been formed in early February of 1860 in the inland town of Hydesville, one of the ranching communities in the Nongatl area. They spent most of February "in the field" attacking Indians along the Eel River. A petition had been sent to California Governor John G. Downey asking that the Humboldt Volunteers be mustered into service and given regular pay.[8] Downey declined the petition, stating that the U.S. Army was sending an additional Company of Regulars to Fort Humboldt.[1]

[jmdrake]

The fact that an invasion may be expensive has never been much of a deterrent in the past.

As far as the "sea" is concerned, I agree that the Chinese or Russians or whomever would not have the capability (today, at least) to establish a beach head.

However, should they enter into an agreement or alliance with a nation like Mexico, that problem would largely be solved. A military operation staged from Mexico, opposed only by militia and guys with guns, would result in a quick victory for the Enemy, and an occupation.

Sure, those occupiers may, in time, choose to leave, but as I stated in my last post, I don't think most Americans would consider "let the enemy invade us and occupy us and enslave us for years while we wait for our guerrilla forces to annoy them enough to make them leave" to be an adequate level of defense.

Some of the extremists among you might think that's a great solution, but I suspect 99.9% of Americans would disagree...


No, I didn't, but I'm pretty sure I know what's in it, this has been discussed to death on these boards.

I'm pretty sure that nothing that happened during Katrina would equate to what it would be like to be occupied by a hostile nation, though I'm sure the extremists among you will continue to try and equate the two.

So you honestly believe that Katrina is as worse as it could get? Seriously? If we had a total financial meltdown, 1923 style German hyperinflation, a total collapse of the banking system and word from our government that we were going to get stuck with the bill for all of the banking shenanigans in the form of higher taxes that people wouldn't get seriously pissed and Greece would look like a day in the park? I'm not talking "extremism" here. Ron Paul has predicted much of that if we don't get our financial house in order. Maybe he hasn't specifically talked about the reaction of the people, but he's certainly talked about how bad the financial crisis could get. Katrina is nothing in comparison.

[Arion45]

You are free to believe whatever you want.

But if you say something nutty, expect to be called on it.

Fair enough?

If I am free to disagree with you then I should also be free to not pay for the taxes that go to pay for a standing army. It would be meaningless to say that I am allowed to disagree but forced to pay. I am not free if I am not allowed to act. So would you support the government in forcing me to pay for the standing army that I disagree with and you agree with?

[jmdrake]

The militia would never turn on americans and would be totally peaceful:rolleyes:
The majority of the indiscriminate slaughter of of native americans were done by wonderful militias, as opposed to the US army.

So let's go ahead and fully disarm the American public because only the U.S. Army can be peaceful. :rolleyes: Yeah, general Sherman was peaceful. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the ultimate result. But the starvation Sherman left in his wake of civilians isn't something to sneeze at.

[heavenlyboy34]

So let's go ahead and fully disarm the American public because only the U.S. Army can be peaceful. :rolleyes: Yeah, general Sherman was peaceful. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the ultimate result. But the starvation Sherman left in his wake of civilians isn't something to sneeze at.
IOU a +rep when I get some more ammo. :cool:

[ClayTrainor]

if i am free to disagree with you then i should also be free to not pay for the taxes that go to pay for a standing army. It would be meaningless to say that i am allowed to disagree but forced to pay. I am not free if i am not allowed to act. So would you support the government in forcing me to pay for the standing army that i disagree with and you agree with?

qed :)