Why does Amrica need so much military?

[Krugar]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

I've had disputes in my life, but I've never fought, I've never wanted to hurt somebody

You cannot extrapolate from individual behavior. Mob mentality obeys far different rules and behaves in a much more unpredictable way. While an entire nation is moved by far more complex issues such as economy or ideology.

Collectively humankind is a warring species. There is no denying that. So the actual question as to why we are the way we are is more philosophical than practical. There is no absolute answer anyone can give you. We just are.

If instead all this exercise is meant to answer a far more practical question of "Is this or that war justifiable?", this is the wrong away about it. Here the issue becomes one of morality. The ideas of right or wrong can be very different from individual to individual. War can be the right thing to some and the wrong thing to others. It will all depend on the context, and especially the enemy. You don't need to go far. Just look at how the Iraqi War divided our planet and even the American society.

Do not assume you aren't capable of war. You almost certainly are. And would be as supportive of an aggressive act as the next person to you in case you felt that would be the right thing to do. If you didn't experience it yet, it certainly is no reason to ignore the fact you may one day. And only then you will be able to judge your ability, or lack thereof, of waging war.

We often ignore or reject certain actions only to find ourselves supportive of them when the proverbial s*** hits the fan. Regardless if we are being told the truth or not, ultimately it all boils down to how affected we feel we and those we love are going to be by the events.

 

[BobCox2]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

:thumbup: Q.F.T.

 

[bladesyz]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

What do you do if you know that I am plotting to kill you and working on developing weapons to do so? Do you sit back and wait for me to try and hope that when I do try, I screw up?

The US spends a lot on its military because other people don't. Just like why the US spends a lot more on prescription medication.

Also note the geographical size of the top countries - the bigger a country, the more expensive it is to protect.

Are you kidding me? The US is bordered to the north by Canada, and the south by Mexico, neither of which is even remotely a potential military threat. It is separated from its nearest enemies and rivals by the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

Now compare that with countries like China or Russia, who shares land borders with over a dozen countries, most of whom have less-than-stable governments, along with a history of border conflicts.

No, the only reason the USA needs such an expensive military is to maintain its bases all over the world, and thus maintain its ability to strike at any target anywhere in the world.

In other words, it's all about power.

 

[Stoutwood]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

I'm sure North Korea will just trundle down to the local F-35 dealer to pick one up for reverse engineering purposes. :jig:

That's why we pay $100 Million per jet. I'm sure in 10-20 years F-35s won't seem nearly as sweet.

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

Yeah, it's not like we have military bases spread throughout the country to protect different areas. And the military certainly doesn't do any work inside the country. The National Guard and Army Corps of Engineers must be figments of my imagination.

 

[stillman]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

because we have canada to the north
we have to be prepared, we never know when a bunch of mooses will invade us, and then after that, the rest of the world will fall to them

Don't worry, our military is crumbling. But we don't need one, because we've got our good buddy USA to the south! And USA had BETTER cuddle hard with us, because they're going to need our oil and natural gas.

 

[BobCox2]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

Who care about Amrica
They got nothing.

 

[Stoutwood]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

No kidding, they can't even afford the letter "e".

 

[BobCox2]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

Bom-bom/bom-bom--Bom- CRASH!

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

In my humble opinion, war/fight/battle wouldn't be an asset of intelligence, but rather a lack of it, just an easy and fast way to get whatever you want.

As has been identified, what exactly is unintelligent about elimination of rivals? Particularly if it gets you something in the bargain?

War can build you say?
Whatever needs building, should be done more easily without war, or can you give an example?

I think you're confusing a very valid issue similar to the "broken window" in economic theory with the logical fallacies inherent in 1970's songs

Wars cost a lot, not just money, but human lives as well, those can never be replaced, so whatever you're building is worth the loss of human lives?

Everyone dies. Not everyone truly lives. :crazyeyes:

 

[Diak]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

Allow me to quote Isaac Asimov, he'll explain it for you:

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
-Salvor Hardin

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

But my original problem stays: why would you want to attack/kill me?

How about this:

You have stuff. I don't have stuff. I kill you. I take stuff. Your stuff is now my stuff.

EDIT: There's also that classic, "You don't agree with me" excuse.

I like the classics - lebensraum is one of my favorites.

No, the only reason the USA needs such an expensive military is to maintain its bases all over the world, and thus maintain its ability to strike at any target anywhere in the world.

In other words, it's all about power.

Wrong - at least in part. The <reason> we have to project power world-wide has to do with the worldcop role. Twice in recent history we've had to sacrifice extensively because Europeans were busy destroying themselves, and the American Executive calculated that we couldn't stick our heads in the sand. Many Americans disagree and desire isolationism, but in a global economy & so forth, the ability to protect our national interest demands being able to project power.

There are numerous other examples - and while sneering critics insist that it's nothing but blood for oil, or American hegemony, etc. etc. the fact remains that other than the U.S. pretty much nobody else gives a fart about other peoples' national well being. We were the ones who provided aid, and more importantly the movement of this aid, to the Tsunami victims, and we're the ones from whom ProgLibs demand intervention in Darfur. We're constantly the ones whom the world is demanding rescue by, so it little behooves us to not be able to do so effectively.

No kidding, they can't even afford the letter "e".

You'd think they could make a sole-source contract with Vanna White, or something.

 

[Dawnmaster]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

In your average bar fight maybe. But then, that kind of situation tends to display a lack of intelligence in the first place, so I don't think it's the fight that does it....

Anyway, on the matter of violence being an asset to intelligence, you can either:

A) Sit down at a table with your opponent. Talk. Have lunch. Talk. Part ways. Talk on the phone. Set up another meeting. Talk about the meeting. Meet opponent again. Talk. Invite him to another meeting. Talk. Write angry letters to each other. Talk. Invite others to talk to him. (Repeat process over several decades.) Eventually end conflict in a stalemate, or when one of you dies of old age.

B) Kill him. Grievance solved. On to the next problem.

A bit simplistic, but I think it illustrates the point well enough. "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."

How about this:

You have stuff. I don't have stuff. I kill you. I take stuff. Your stuff is now my stuff.

EDIT: There's also that classic, "You don't agree with me" excuse.

Doesn't this sound a bit childish/retarted/cavemen-like?

"He has more candy than me, I'm gonna steal it and kick him"

"Me like your chair, give chair to me or I keel you"

etc...

One would think most normal people would have grown past this kind of behaviour?

You cannot extrapolate from individual behavior. Mob mentality obeys far different rules and behaves in a much more unpredictable way. While an entire nation is moved by far more complex issues such as economy or ideology.

Collectively humankind is a warring species. There is no denying that. So the actual question as to why we are the way we are is more philosophical than practical. There is no absolute answer anyone can give you. We just are.

If instead all this exercise is meant to answer a far more practical question of "Is this or that war justifiable?", this is the wrong away about it. Here the issue becomes one of morality. The ideas of right or wrong can be very different from individual to individual. War can be the right thing to some and the wrong thing to others. It will all depend on the context, and especially the enemy. You don't need to go far. Just look at how the Iraqi War divided our planet and even the American society.

Do not assume you aren't capable of war. You almost certainly are. And would be as supportive of an aggressive act as the next person to you in case you felt that would be the right thing to do. If you didn't experience it yet, it certainly is no reason to ignore the fact you may one day. And only then you will be able to judge your ability, or lack thereof, of waging war.

We often ignore or reject certain actions only to find ourselves supportive of them when the proverbial s*** hits the fan. Regardless if we are being told the truth or not, ultimately it all boils down to how affected we feel we and those we love are going to be by the events.

I must admit, your first line makes a lot of sense and makes up for an excellent argument, I assume you are referring to chaos-theory there?
That has always intrigued me :thumbup:

But while that may explain mob-behaviour, it still doesn't explain how the mob got so far, if no individuals acted like that, the end-result couldn't be this, so atleast a handfull of rotten apples with convincing arguments and/or a stupid mob could end up in a war-like state for no decent reason.

I know darn well that everyone justifies war for different reasons that suit him/her best, and I've been on that road, trying to find the key-element that would be equal for "all parties", but because some people are just pure evil, there is no key-element, everyone just has their own agenda.
(although, from a humane perspective, you have to admit that if you didn't provoke anyone, and there are is no general unjust in your country, defending it against invaders would be a righteous cause)

I also didn't say I was incapable of going to war, I just don't have the need to go kick someone for no reason, and even after reasons, I still don't see how kicking someone could solve anything? (best case scenario you kick someone else, you defeat them, but a lot of their big friends come back and kick you, end of story)
And I also mentioned that I'm all for defence, you don't need to get out to other countries and do godknowswhat, just stay in yours, don't meddle in any affairs that aren't your business and protect yourself.

And again, your last line, masterfull argument, I can totally relate to that.
In Belgium, we have had some serious problems with child-molesters, and whilst this doesn't affect most people on the other side of the country, I can surely imagine going from boiling hate into a killing spree if it was my kid.
But, these are circumstances that cause you to be provoked when you are treated in an unjust way, if the child-molester never touched a kid, you would feel no hatred towards him.



So note that I never said I was against a country having an insane big army, as long as they only use to defend their country.
(and I'm talking about DEFENDING your own country, not attacking some other country because you fear they might attack you, you'll only end up killing a lot of innocent people)

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

One would think most normal people would have grown past this kind of behaviour?

That's extraordinarily naive. Are you labeling a large number of the citizens of New Orleans abnormal?

Violence is a response to a failure of civilization, nothing more. And if the rules of a civilization break down or come into conflict with those in another, violence is the result. Churchill's "jaw, jaw" concept is a noble goal, but to quote Heinlein (who was much more grounded than Asimov, IMO):

"Anyone who clings to the historically untrue - and thoroughly immoral - doctrine that 'violence never settles anything' I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington, and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."

 

[Dawnmaster]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

As has been identified, what exactly is unintelligent about elimination of rivals? Particularly if it gets you something in the bargain?
I think you're confusing a very valid issue similar to the "broken window" in economic theory with the logical fallacies inherent in 1970's songs
Everyone dies. Not everyone truly lives. :crazyeyes:

So, everytime you could benefit from something by eliminating someone who stands in your way, you should do it?
Isn't that criminally thinking?

That's extraordinarily naive. Are you labeling a large number of the citizens of New Orleans abnormal?

Violence is a response to a failure of civilization, nothing more. And if the rules of a civilization break down or come into conflict with those in another, violence is the result. Churchill's "jaw, jaw" concept is a noble goal, but to quote Heinlein (who was much more grounded than Asimov, IMO):

Since I'm not an American, I have no idea what New Orleans has to do with any of this?

Also, I never said violence didn't solve anything (defending oneself is still violent, but atleast it keeps you from dying)
Where does war do something good? (I know good and evil are relative terms, but from a common human perspective)

 

[whitey]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

Because rather than draft everyone of military age like some countries do, they would rather make the manpower available more effective. This means spending lots of money on expensive technology and research. Staying on the cutting edge is expensive, especially when everyone else can just reverse-engineer your stuff for a fraction of the cost.

Israel drafts every man for 3 years and every woman for 2. They have some of the best trained troops in the world so I'm not sure that argument is valid. I'm not sure how much actual research the armed forces really do. Most of the things we have (jets, guns etc) are all developed by companies (M16/M4 was/is developed and manufactured by Colt, F/A 18 Hornet by Boeing) not the army, they just buy them.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

So, everytime you could benefit from something by eliminating someone who stands in your way, you should do it?
Isn't that criminally thinking?

You could call it criminal, or you could call it primitive. It's valid either way, and only society stops it.

Since I'm not an American, I have no idea what New Orleans has to do with any of this?

A massive crime rate, particularly during Hurricane Katrina. One was statistically safer in Baghdad at the height of the Iraq war than one is in New Orleans.

Where does war do something good? (I know good and evil are relative terms, but from a common human perspective)

Well, to also use relativity, it prevents evil (in the eye of the beholder). The fledgling U.S. warred against Britain to prevent its extortion and subjugation, Nelson Mandela and the ANC warred against the apartheid regime of South Africa, and the Communists warred against the cronyism of the Tsarist structure. All of these had positive effects - the question you ought to have stated is, where has war ever accomplished anything good for all sides?

There's a subsidiary response bordering on what whitey said - the defense industry has been behind all kinds of technological breakthroughs that directly benefit mankind. Aviation, culinary technology, energy storage, and medicine are just a few of the sectors which have directly benefited from military research.

 

[Diak]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

I'm sorry jmervyn but you sound awfully like Orwell and the "war is peace, freedom is slavery" motto.
Yes, war may have positive consequences. No, this fact will not give solace to families who lose family members cause they were torn in half by some bomb or granade, or the soldiers and civilians who's lives become ruined possibly for generation or two to come.
War will always do more harm than good. Always. More weapons will always do more harm than less or no weapons. But let's not stray from the OP's issue - I don't think there is any justification aside of malice to arming a country with the said amount of weapons and army. Even considering the last 8 years under the "war-president".

 

[Dawnmaster]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

Well, to also use relativity, it prevents evil (in the eye of the beholder). The fledgling U.S. warred against Britain to prevent its extortion and subjugation, Nelson Mandela and the ANC warred against the apartheid regime of South Africa, and the Communists warred against the cronyism of the Tsarist structure. All of these had positive effects - the question you ought to have stated is, where has war ever accomplished anything good for all sides?

There's a subsidiary response bordering on what whitey said - the defense industry has been behind all kinds of technological breakthroughs that directly benefit mankind. Aviation, culinary technology, energy storage, and medicine are just a few of the sectors which have directly benefited from military research.

And who's to say which country can decide what's best for another country? Shouldn't that be left to the country itself to decide?
It may go down the drain, but whatever happens will be the fault of that country alone, when you go to war, you're bound to hurt innocent people, and all of the sudden, the other country is at fault as well, so it's best to stay out of someone else's affairs, that way you can't do anything wrong.

Also, I have nothing against military research, as long as it's intended and implemented only for defending your country, not attacking some other country for any reason.
Really, howmuch do the US spend on a simple rocket that could shoot any weapon of mass destruction above the ocean before it reaches the US, and howmuch do they spend sending their troops into war? Atleast the former doesn't take the lives of anyone, no soldiers die, no civilian casualties at all!

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Why does Amrica need so much military?

I'm sorry jmervyn but you sound awfully like Orwell and the "war is peace, freedom is slavery" motto.

Won't be the first time I've been called a warmonger around these parts... :whistling:

Yes, war may have positive consequences. No, this fact will not give solace to families who lose family members cause they were torn in half by some bomb or granade, or the soldiers and civilians who's lives become ruined possibly for generation or two to come.

That's not the issue nor the questions asked. What was asked in regard to this tangent was "Where does war do something good?" Obviously there are numerous examples.

War will always do more harm than good. Always.

Bullcarp. By your logic, war to eliminate slavery, topple despots, or prevent ethnic cleansing is morally indefensible. And that position, in and of itself, IS morally indefensible. You, sir, are embracing the slaughter of Hitler's death camps as being acceptable as a lesser evil. :thumbsup:

I don't think there is any justification aside of malice to arming a country with the said amount of weapons and army.

Sure there is, regardless of your distaste for the last presidency. The fact, as I already stated, is that the U.S. not only plays worldcop but defends both Europe and Asia in addition to North America. There are those who are gravely concerned that what's already there wasn't enough, as was seen when we went in "light" in Iraq; when those three theaters are added to our continuing troop commitments then we're pretty thinly spread.

The current Executive's entertainment of Barney Frank's demand to slash spending by 25%, along with his various statements about space weaponry, nuclear capabilities, and the like are clear indicators that he's planning to shrink if not gut certain areas. Cutting defense spending isn't a bad concept by any stretch of the imagination, but its rarely done intelligently and there's no indications that we're even going to try playing it smart this time around.