Taking into account the world situation at the time (from relative calm to total war), what would the absolute minimum size and strength (of the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard) be, to protect the nation?
Not enough informaton to even hazard a guess.
What does ‘defend’ mean?
Against whom?
Against how many?
One man. One very, very, very large bomb. Instructions to detonate it if anything happens.
You could remove the man from the loop, but there might be maintenance issues.
Absolute minumum?
Zero. Abolish the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and National Guard, just like Costa Rica.
In case of invasion the backup plan would be for policemen to form the backbone of militia units, using whatever weapons and equipment the local and/or state governments have provided for them. With no national Coast Guard I imagine local law enforcement would have to provide local search and rescue and interdiction, so police departments would have more patrol craft. Lots of police departments have transport and reconnaisance helicopters and SWAT teams.
Who are we being invaded by again? Canada? Mexico? Red China? Islamist Terrorists?
Of course right now there is no military in the world that could even contemplate an invasion of the US. Even if we abolished our military there would be almost no way for any existing country to invade and occupy us, they just don’t have the logistical abilities to ship combat divisions across the oceans to the US. Even invading tiny little third world dictatorships isn’t something that can be done lightly.
Are we able to rely on assistance from NATO? Of course, we can only claim membership in NATO because we have the military power to provide the other NATO members with assistance in return. So NATO would probably dissolve. But we might be able to rely on individual militaries for help…Canada or the UK maybe.
But if we abolished our military things won’t stay the same. Other countries are going to take that into account. Today there’s no point for third world enemies of the US to develop their navy or sealift capability, since we’re so far ahead of them that they couldn’t even pull out of the harbor without being destroyed. But if we didn’t have that overwhelming edge then investing in their third-rate navy makes sense. No country today has the sea-lift to invade the US because they’d get sank. But what if they wouldn’t be sank?
How is that defending America? If you come to kill us we’ll kill ourselves in a mighty explosion?
OK, seriously, if you’re asking how we can defend America, and America only, with a minimum standing force, here’s what I think.
-
R&D must continue, because when you’re fighting for your homeland there is no retreat. Therefore, we must be technologically the best equipped. So that would stay the same.
-
The Navy: slash the hell out of it. Keep 2 carriers for each coast with one for each coast in mothballs. That gives us the ability to fight away from our coasts and minimize damage at home. Keep the Aegis cruisers and destroyers, slash the sub fleet, and keep only the landing-type ships you would need to retake Hawaii.
-
The Air Force: have only what you need for maintenance purposes on active duty, all the rest revert to Reserve or Guard. Get rid of Stealth bombers and fighters, as they are unnecessary. Convert the B-52s to standoff platforms and have them do coastal patrols.
-
Upgrade the nuclear force: make sure an invader knows what will happen if they come and what will be left of their country when it’s all over. And follow through on that threat when they come.
-
Here’s the big one: Required Service. You train, you do your time, and you go home, taking your weapons with you so you have easy access to them, like the Swiss model. That way, when the balloon goes up you’re ready to go, there’s no need to start from zero in training.
That way, we have a hard-hitting defense force with little in the way of standing forces and everybody is involved in defense. Ask the Russians how they defended themselves in WWII, and they’ll tell you that virtually everybody got involved in the fighting, even the women. Rather than wait for the war like they did and suffer grievous losses, it’s better to do it ahead of time.
With the above, I envision around 1 million or so under arms in total on active duty, with most of that being Navy and Air Force, and a small skeleton crew holding up the Army and Marines, just enough to maintain chain of command and training.
That is, of course, an absolutely ludicrous proposition, because that assumes that 1) there will be a nation-state type enemy, 2) we are powerless against terrorists, and 3) a withdrawal into isolationism that that kind of downsizing would require would destroy our economic power and contribute greatly to the demise of the US in virtually every way. Isolationism is the road to the Third World.
Ironically, it would also contribute to global fighting. People like to say that we are not the World’s Policeman, but who do they call when something happens? Who gets torn up when there’s genocide somewhere? We do. Somehow it’s our fault that it’s not stopped. Imagine if we just let North Korea take South Korea. Imagine if we just let China take Taiwan. Imagine if we just let the countries of the Middle East have at each other. I can all but guarantee that that’s what would happen if we worried only about ourselves.
But hey, we can do it. If we do, though, don’t act surprised about the bedlam that results.
Costa Rica isn’t completely without an armed force. They have the Fuerza Publica, which in addition has a Coast Guard section and an Aviation section. The main section of the Fuerza Publica performs police functions, and has protected their nation’s borders (when they were having a dispute with Nicaragua.) This police force has also received military training and equipment from the United States.
Even Iceland, (which technically has no military) is going to build up what forces they have as the United Staes pulls out of their bases there, though they will remain in NATO.
Iceland has a Coast Guard and a newly formed body called (I believe) the Icelandic Peace Forces, (which is looking very much like an army), and they’ve even stationed people from this force in Afghanistan.
It is simply put impossible to answer this question the way you are phrasing it. What committments do you forsee the US having abroad? Are we going to become completely isolationist in our foreign policy? What about our vital strategic needs (such as oil)? Do we defend those or let them go? How about our defensive commitments to nations like Korea? To Europe and NATO? Keep or toss out?
Assuming for a moment that we become complete isolationists and completely manage (somehow) to cut off all trade with the outside and become self reliant (say, but going back to 17th century technology I suppose), then the minimum we’d need to defend the nation would probably be answered best by Lemur866…we don’t need any, or at least very little. I suppose a coast guard of some kind for SaR type stuff (and I guess anti-drug and perhaps piracy supression). A minimal Air Force…perhaps a couple of hundred fighters of some kind. A minimal Army…maybe a division of light infantry with a few organic artillary and engineer batallions attached. And some kind of militia system run by the various states with equipment procured by the state.
Thats about it. No need for a Navy or Marine Corps at all. No need for mechanized infantry or heavy armor. Blah blah blah.
However the US wouldn’t be the same after doing all this…we certainly wouldn’t be a world leader and at a guess our economy would be 3rd world (or perhaps we’d be up there with the Russians today). If you wanted the US to basically remain what it is today and THEN you want to ask the question the answer is probably…we are pretty much there already at the minimum. In fact, Iraq seems to indicate we may be a bit below the optimal level if we intend to do that projection stuff in future.
So…you need to fill in a bit more before you will get a meaningful answer.
-XT
You’re underestimating the size of the bomb. Split-the-earth bomb. That’d do it. “Go ahead. Do something, and everyone dies.” You could eliminate the police that way, too.
It’s not very efficient, but it is minimal.
I don’t know how to look this up exactly, but there was a famous annecdote from when the original Constitution was being written up, showing mostly just how long this sort of thing has been a concern.
There was a motion back then - hey, maybe this is a true story - to limit the size of the U.S. Army to, ah, whatevever. 50,000? Anyhow…
Ben Franklin said this would be fine, as long as we could get a commitment from all the other countries to only attack us with only half that number.
Motion died.
But maybe this illustrates the problem. (Minimum size, maximum size, simialr issue - if only we could definitely know what armed forces we were really going to need.)
I believe E-Sabbath is (somewhat farcically, I assume) subscribing to the Herman Kahn school of deterrence. "Based on the findings of the report, my conclusion was that this idea was not a practical deterrent for reasons which at this moment must be all too obvious. "
As for the OPs question, I think it is insufficiently vague to provide an answer. The military, as it stands today, exists for three reasons:
[ol]
[li]To protect American interests (political, economic, and otherwise) abroad.[/li][li]To assist our allies and enforce a Pax Americana, as seen fit by the Powers That Be.[/li][li]To provide for itself and the so-called military-industrial complex as a postive-feedback, self-fulfilling prophesy of necessity, i.e. provide jobs and maintain stability in one of the largest industries in the United States.[/li][/ol]
Given that the US enjoys, by virtue of geography, fairly limited borders with countries either nonhostile or incapable of engaging a major invasion, the size required of a military strictly for national defense is but a small fraction of the existing forces. That the military has been co-opted to serve the whims of a short-sighted executive and the world-molding plans of his boosters is of little consequence; the fact is that a significant depreciation of the scale of the US military would cause large economic ripples at home and would result in significant instability abroad. The island nation/rogue state of Taiwan, for instance, exists largely at the pleasure of the US (even though we fail to fully recognize her), and other nations such as Japan, South Korea, and Israel owe their continued (relative) peace and stability in no small part to US intervention.
One must also be fair and note that a substantial amount of the technology we use today in our daily lives, including this robust, distributed, worldwide computer network across which we are communicating, and the device by which we compose and transmit messages, is a direct result of military and strategic research and development; while it is impossible to say what-would-have-been had there not been a Cold War and the justification for public spending on massive and unlikely technology development, it is certain that technologies like satellite communications, the Internet, the integrated circuit, et cetera would not have been developed so rapidly or thoroughly without the onerous spectre of the Cold War threat and the impetus of technological military superiority.
We can, and have, reduce both troop counts and investment in technology and equipment, but with a concomitant loss of investment in development and a more limited ability to enforce our version of international tranquility; whether it represents and improvement or a failure is an exercise for the reader. “Minimum” would reduce us to the Coast Guard and some reserve units…but at a loss of the title of “superpower” and resulting economic slide.
Stranger
I didn’t realize America’s economy was fueled by international trade conducted at gunpoint. How does lack of military might equate to loss of international trade? How do you explain the wealth of Switzerland or of Singapore if an offensive military is necessary to keep an economy vibrant?
On the contrary, I’d say that freeing up hundreds of billions of dollars previously spent on largely non-productive ends would boost the economy like nothing we’d ever seen.
To go on a slightly different tack than xtisme, generally, the US is regarded as the only superpower in the world right now (setting aside the up-and-comers). Much of this superpower status is because of the American military, though another part is certainly the size and strength of the US economy.
If the military were to pack up and vanish, US defense contractors would also have to cease much of their operations since they rely heavily on contracts with the US government. Therefore, allies of the US would likely be no longer able to buy new US planes, warships, missles, etc. Other smaller countries would have to find new countries to ally themselves with and be reliant on for protection. The influence as well as the reputation of the US would suffer enormously. American products, particularly technology and other areas where there is plenty of international competition, may not seem so appealling anymore.
It isn’t OUR trade that would be at risk, but rather the stability of many of our trading partners. Good luck getting semi-conductors out of South Korea or Taiwan, Oil out of the gulf might get hard too. South American goods would be iffy at best. Germany, France, and the UK would have to step up Military spending (something Germany and France would be hard pressed to do right now) to handle the commitments of the UN. The US military keeps a lot of things ‘open’ as a passive force (just being there is enough for a lot of situations), it isn’t about trading at gun point, but rather being the big guy on the block who doesn’t like bullies (or in some people’s opinions OTHER bullies).
There is plenty of waste in the DoD (as well as in many other government and privately run groups); but I’ll bet you anything from dollars to donuts, that by getting rid of some of the ‘wasteful’ programs you make the problem worse. Heck the DoD spends a significant portion of their money on watching for waste (which in and of itself could be considered a waste).
I’ve heard people ask to get rid of all kinds of ‘expensive’ programs (from F22/F35 to C-130J’s to V-22’s) without understanding what that would do to the current systems (and how much we pay to keep them running).
You didn’t realize that trade and vital national interests need to be protected by SOMEONE through military means? You never heard of this facinating subject called History before? Or perhaps you didn’t realize that it STILL needs to be protected…because you didn’t realize that it currently was. You probably don’t realize WHO is doing the heavy lifting either when it comes to protecting such things…right?
How do I explain Switzerland or Singapore’s economy being ‘vibrant’ when they have next to no military? Same way I would explain most of Europe’s ‘vibrant’ economy…they rely on others to do the heavy lifting as far as defense of their foreign interests goes. They are also pretty small, and in the case of Switzerland they have some interesting defensive terrain that makes them more trouble then they are worth to take out. Singapore of course has ties to China. Recall though that during WWII the Japanese sacked their ‘vibrant’ economy…so they aren’t exactly immune when they don’t have someone else to watch their back.
No doubt it would be all goodness and light in the world if the US stepped down and completely or even partially de-militarized. I’m sure some other superpower (or various regional powers) would step up do the right thing, maintaining peace and goodness throughout the world and making it safe for trade by ramping up THEIR militaries. And of course, since they aren’t the US, they would do a much better and more noble job of it too…
In the short term you are probably right…the US would gain a huge ‘peace’ dividend. Until of course various regional bad guys figured out there wasn’t anyone out there to spank them if they got out of line…and that the UN had no teeth at all so they could essentially disreguard (more than before) whatever they said. Or until nations going for the newly freed brass ring of Superpower™ decided that they didn’t have to play nice anymore, or that their vital national interest dictated that they invade their neighbors…for their neighbors own good of course. Think China for instance if you need an example…unless you figure they have changed their ways of course. You could ask the folks in Tibet what THEY think if you like.
Hell, I’m not even sure the Europeans have REALLY changed their ways for that matter…
-XT
Yes, I agree that if we cut military spending to a minimum, defense contractors would lose a lot of business. That’s part of the plan.
Is that true? Could these defense contractors continue selling their products to other countries?
Yes I agree that our influence via military threats would drastically decrease. But I don’t see how that affects American commerce overseas other than possibly the defense industry itself. I also don’t think the reputation of the U.S. would suffer. Have you checked recently to see what other countries think of us? Our military is not exactly our best sales rep.
I also don’t see how our military might convinces international businesses to buy tech products from our country. Can you give a more specific example (other than from the defense industry, which I grant will be affected)?
Why wouldn’t they be able too?? How would you prevent them since you have no military? (tongue in cheek there). Seriously, how would you keep them from divesting themselves of their US holdings and moving to more economicly favorable climes? Are you saying that Defense Contractors would have to sign what would amount to a suicide pact to go out of business if you decided to gut the US’s military?
And yet Europe has made no real effort to ramp up their own military (in otherwords they STILL rely on the US to do the heavy lifting). Neither has Japan. You are quite right that this doesn’t make us popular. I didn’t know it was a popularity contest. I just thought of it as necessary…
You seem to think that if the US had no military that there would be no need to protect foreign trade or vital international interests. Can you say WHY that would be the case? Would China lose interest in Taiwan? North Korea in South? Would the Middle East calm down and everyone play nice? Cutting to the chase…would strong nations suddenly (for the first time in our history as a species) decide to play nice and not eye weaker nations who may have something they need? I can think of several regional powers that would be more than happy to invade weaker neighbors if there was no US military out there, um, discouraging them.
-XT
Yes, US defense contractors routinely sell their wares to other countries, albeit strictly controlled by the Department of Defense. Here you can see a breakdown of how much (in billions) US (and foreign-owned) defense contractors made in the 2004 fiscal year. The US is consistently first among the top ten defense-spending countries in the world and in fact spends more than the next nine countries. No one country or even the next nine countries could replace US orders with defense contractors.
I wasn’t speaking of popularity, but the reputation that develops from political and military power and influence. Be it from using military personnel to assist in tsunami relief, persuading allies to buy American, or as EEMan alluded to, keeping trade routes safe.
Err, combined.
The military needs of a nation are based on probabilities. You could reduce the United States armed forces to zero. You would just have to hope you were very lucky after that and never needed a military.
I never suggested doing away with the military. We were talking about reducing the size of the military to a minimum. It’s the definition of “minimum” that I think is up for debate here.
On his way out of office, Eisenhower warned of the growing and seemingly unstoppable influence that the military-industrial complex was acquiring. Was he off base? Has something happened since then that has abated their influence over government spending? If not, then I think suggesting that our military is oversized is not a ridiculous statement.
Of course those countries haven’t ramped up their military. And they won’t until the U.S. stops the gravy train.
I think protecting foreign trade from pirates or whatnot is a legitimate use of our military. I’m not sure what other vital international interests you are referring to that require a military to maintain.
Remember, we are talking about what would constitute the minimum size of our military. Taiwan and South Korea are not part of the United States. I therefore conclude that their defense would not be included in the minimum effective defense of the United States. Their well-being is not essential to the territorial integrity of our country. (I think it highly unlikely that South Korea would crumble without our defense, if we gave them notice of our pullout. They are apparently ready to start making nukes on a moment’s notice.)
I have no delusions about the warlike nature of our species. I’m not arguing that we don’t need to defend ourselves. But most of our military is offensive in nature and is thus nonessential to our defense.