Minimum Size of U.S. Armed Forces

Great Debates
21

From your link, I surmise that most of the tsunami relief we offered was in the form of money rather than fighting men. As it is, we wouldn’t need to try to create goodwill among the Muslims afflicted by the tsunami if we weren’t aggressing against a country in the Middle East in the first place.

I also don’t think using our military influence to get Poland to buy Lockheed brand airplanes is too good of a bargain for the non-Lockheed-stock-owning American.

I would agree that fighting pirates is a legitimate use of the military.

22

True enough, though you haven’t really defined what level of military you ARE proposing, nor your assumptions with reguard to our commitments or our expectations for things like continued trade.

Are you asking me for my opinion? Yes, I think Eisenhower was off base for a variety of reasons. I don’t believe that the tail is wagging the dog, at least not to the extent that he thought it would. I think the US’s large military stems from our large commitments overseas…most of which I see as vital to our continued well being and our economy and trade. A large part of that also stems from the fact that most of our European bretheren decided to gut their military post-Soviet Union and left us holding the bag as far as having a projectable military goes. They they complained about it. :slight_smile: Typical.

To a certain extent I actually agree with you here…though its not something I’d like to try cold turkey. Becoming dependent on the Europeans or Japanese is not something I personally relish as I am unsure if they either could or would ramp up to the level needed to fill the vaccume the US would leave if we cut back to border defense only (which seems to be what you are implying). In fact I don’t think ANYONE could do it…not in a timely enough fashion at least before there were several small regional wars that would have a huge impact on our trade and economy.

Certainly we are talking about the minimum…and thats really the core of the debate. Since no one has defined exactly what the US commitments would be though its an open question…thus the OP is really un-answerable IMHO.

That said, lets look at what you are saying here. Taiwan and South Korea are not part of the US. True enough. However, the US is a major trading partner to both…so we have an economic stake in their well being. In addition, looking at a map will show that in the case of Taiwan especially, they are pretty close to major trading routes…trading routes the US also relies on and which would be seriously disturbed in the event of a major war. Japan is also in close proximity to both Korea and Taiwan…and wars in either of those places would also heavily effect US trade, and thus our economy and well being. Finally, China would most likely be one of the combatants with reguard to Taiwan…and is in proximity to Korea for the other conflict. China is also a major trading partner and thus would also impact US trade.

The Middle East is ALSO not part of the US…yet I can see a half dozen possible wars springing up in the region without a heavy US (or SOME superpower) presence. If nothing else someone(s) will try and take out Israel (or Israel will pre-emptively strike in its own defense)…which will mean a shooting war in a very small pond over there…a pond that happens to be a major trade route (not to mention all that oil stuff).

So, we are back to the minimum size of the US armed forces with respect to what our expectations are for things like continueing to have a vital economy, with respect to our commitments to other nations for their defense (both for THEIR good and our own), etc. Until someone in this thread defines what exactly our future commitments and expectations would be there is no way to actually answer this question…as each answer is dependent on assumptions being made by the poster. For example, your assumptions seem to be either that someone will protect that trade when we fold our military hand, or that there is no reason or need to protect it. My assumption is that if we don’t protect our own trade and vital national interests we are dependent on someone else doing it…and given the current state of the world that means it most likely won’t get done. Not before there is some level of damage to our own economy at least.

-XT

23

Another important factor is that smaller nations will seek allies. If the United States announces it will no longer support defensive alliances with other countries, those countries will turn to other major powers. To use an example already given, if the United States announced it would not defend Taiwan, South Korea, or Japan, those countries would seek an accomodation with China. If the United States refuses to act as a superpower, other countries will fill that void.

24

Good point Little Nemo. I was actually going to make this point but got side tracked babbling about other things.

-XT

25

The United States also has interesting defensive terrain that makes them more trouble then they are worth to take out–the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

Funny sarcasm noted. :slight_smile:

I’m not sure about the Europeans either. They’re still humans as far as I can tell, so I suspect they are quite capable of atrocities like all of us given the right conditions.

I don’t deny that there may come another Napoleon or Hitler someday somewhere if there’s not already one out there. But I think in a nuclear world, his or her options will be much more limited regardless of US military manpower.

The United States became a superpower not because of its military spending but because of its wealth, which it had due to its economic freedom and limited government. That wealth also helped keep it safe, if only because every country wanted its business.

That freedom is slowly withering away and the government is becoming far from limited. The economic momentum we have been riding for the past 40 years is slowing down amidst crushing personal and government debt.

The United States would do well to focus on what made it great to begin with. Military might does not create wealth and is awfully expensive. Our balance sheet is ultimately unsustainable at its present trend (and not only because of military spending). The little dominoes that may fall if the U.S. pulls back its military presence from the world will surely fall anyway if the U.S. goes bankrupt. (I’m reminded of the fate of the Soviet Union and its satellites.)

26

Defense contractors already sell items to Allies (it is a way for the defense contractor and the country to make some money, good will, and help countries that don’t have the military contractor infrastructure to ‘stay american’), but if the US didn’t foot the bill for basic R&D, that would cease. Our allies get weapon systems that the US develops, then shares; though it is also true that some foreign nations help with the cost (it is minimal).

Helping other nations is a pure PR move? Do you really think THIS president went to help ANYONE to make us look better? There were thousands of men and women from our armed services who helped (money by itself was worthless in the begining), from search and rescue to delivering badly needed supplies (some of which came from our maritime prepositioning ships (military issue)).

The US is also how the UN is able to say ‘you better not do that’; and have ANY teeth what so ever. Do you think Iran is quaking in their boots when the UN passes a resolution, or when one of European partners tells them ‘you better not’. What would happen to NATO (much more than a military alliance, heck France no longer has a military portion to NATO).

The ‘western world’ relies on the US, and frankly for our current commitments we are already below minimum size (and i’m not even talking about Iraq and/or Afganistan, which further strain our forces).

The US military is not a ‘buy our stuff or else’ force (if it were China/US trade would be a different dynamic), but it certainly is a tool of international relations, and frankly one we could not afford to lose (nor could our allies, economic and military).

27

Very true. I seriously doubt any world power in existance today could conquere the US through force of arms…even if we had no military at all. However, the US is more highly dependant on world trade for its continued economic success than Switzerland is…which is why ‘defense’ of the US is more than simply thwarting invasion. Unless we are talking about a US that is isolationist and self contained…i.e. does not require things like foreign trade and oil.

:wink:

I disgree. I don’t think either or freedom or our economy is in any meaningful way slowing down or lesser than it was in the past…just the opposite in fact. On the world stage our economy is still expanding…its just that others are catching up so we aren’t the sole economic superpower we were just after WWII…which is a good thing IMHO.

As for freedom I can’t see how anyone can plausably state we have less freedom today than we did at any other period in our history…not if one actually LOOKS at our past history. Could you give some examples of how I, as a hispanic male who imigrated to the US when I was a child, am less free than hispanic imigrants of the past? How about from the perspective of black citizens? Orientals? Any other minority group?

How are we, as citizens, less free than say during the Civil War? How is the Patriot Act more invasive than say the Alien and Sedition Act…or the civil liberties curtailed during the Civil War? How are workers today less free than their 19th or 18th century counter parts?

-XT

28

It was George Washington, actually. Good story, and true, IIRC.

Before a democracy knows how big a military it needs, it must decide for what purposes it will be using that military. With our commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea and elsewhere these days, the U.S. military may already (in manpower, if not in force structure) be too small. It ain’t cheap being a hyperpower. And if you don’t think we should be a hyperpower, you need to explain what we should be instead, how the military should be different/smaller, and convince the President and Congress.

Good luck with that. Let me know how it works out.

29

Trading partners rarely attack each other–there is too much mututal dependency. What would be the worst that a trading partner could do to us anyway? OPEC already exists and yet has little effect on our access to oil. The energy crisis of the 1970’s was due to Nixon’s attempt to enact price controls, not the fact that there were oil embargos. It’s unlikely that any country is going to embargo a country with a tiny military that is minding its own business. Maybe this is all about pirates again? Enough with the pirates! I agree that we should maintain enough of a navy to kick pirate ass.

They’re catching up because they are becoming more free while we are becoming less so. The United States is currently tied for 9th place among countries in economic freedom, according to the Heritage Foundation. We’re behind England, Ireland, even Estonia! I grew up thinking that these were socialist countries. How did they end up having more economic freedom than the United States?

I agree that American history is not the libertarian paradise that some might like to think. The Civil War and Reconstruction were particulary horrendous. I would agree that we have more social freedoms now–although much of that of due to cultural change more than government mandate. However, we have less economic freedom than at any other time. Steven Greenhut said it best:

It’s easy to think of ourselves as being so free until you realize how little contact the average American citizen had with their government pre-1914 (Civil War aside).

30

I have no delusions about being able to convince the President or Congress of anything. They are both well served by having the largest possible military loyal to them that they can get away with. I have to work on the common folk instead.

My first suggestion would be to remove troops from the 132 countries we are currently stationed in. I reject the notion that these troops are there to maintain international free trade. China, Japan, and India seem to maintain trade routes just fine without foreign bases all over the place. I suspect these U.S. bases are there because the government never voluntary chooses to make itself smaller at any level. Those bases are all lobbying like hell every year to increase their own budgets, and no congressperson or DoD appointee wants to be seen as the person who cut those jobs. And so they stay, while new ones are built.

31

0

Will

32

Hmph. At least my solution explained how to deal with police and disaster relief matters, Will. How does yours?

33

I also said the minimum size of the US military would be zero. Pretty much by definition.

However, that doesn’t mean that we just fire all our servicepeople, sell the equipment off for scrap, and reap the tax benefits. As you say, services that are currently being done by servicepeople would have to be done by in other ways, or not be done at all.

We have to have some sort of a coast guard, even if it isn’t a federal uniformed service. Coastal states could each have a coastal state police force that takes care of interdiction of smugglers and search and rescue. Of course, that would have to be paid for with local tax increases. Back-country search and rescue could be done by state park services, or maybe the federal park service.

But it would probably cost a lot more money to have something like 22 state coast guards than 1 federal coast guard. So scrapping the Coast Guard doesn’t make any financial or practical sense, if we scrapped the Coast Guard we’d pretty quickly be scrambling to outfit thousands of coastal FBI and DEA agents or some such. If we scrapped the navy completely we’d still need a Coast Guard, and probably a beefed up Coast Guard with now that they don’t have the Navy for backup. But that scaled-up Coast Guard then effectively becomes our new, smaller Navy, albeit one with a different mission and philosophy. So if you want absolutely no Navy you have to get rid of the Coast Guard too.

I was just saying, if someone put a gun to my head and said, “Cut the military to the minimum size NOW!”, that we could cut the size to zero, like Costa Rica. That doesn’t mean zero is the optimum size, far from it, even if we imagine the US breaking all our defensive treaties, withdrawing from NATO, bringing home 100% of all our servicepeople, embracing pacifism, and shaking our heads in sorrow when wars and disasters happen in other places around the world, not our business to get involved, wouldn’t be prudent, we will have peace for our time.

But we’d still have to have some method of defending our borders unless we abolished the federal government. You could call those people patrolling the border a federal border patrol police agency, rather than soldiers, and you could call the people patrolling the coast a federal coast patrol police agency, rather than a Navy/Coast Guard. And you could call the people you mobilize for disaster relief an emergency disaster relief police force, rather than the National Guard (which is really 50 State Guards) (Assuming we’re getting rid of the National Guard too).

So yeah, zero. That’s not the number I’d pick if I were in charge, but it’s pretty much the minimum, you know?

We

34

I suppose we could reduce the American military to zero. And we could probably get away with it for maybe ten years. But I doubt we could for twenty and there’s no chance we’d make thirty.

35

Whoa, what? Where? You’re right about Afghanistan; we do have people there with the UN peacekeeping forces. I don’t think we’ve had any fatalities there as of yet but we have lost a testicle or two. Actually just the one, I think. The Icelandic UN people are usually technical crews, airport controllers and such (proud runners of the Kabul international airport from June 2004 to February 2005) but we also have a few peacekeepers–my friend is one of those and he just returned to Afghanistan again to serve a few more months. We also have people in Iraq, as part of the US army, but there is no such thing as a military here and we are absolutely not building up anything of the sort.

The USA did indeed give us yet another glimpse of its staggering geopolitical savvy the other day: during dicussions of terms for the continued presence of the US Army in Iceland, the 2006 army budget was released (as a seperate event, obviously). While Iceland believed the discussions to be going well, the Keflavik base is going out of the budget and the last jets and helicopters will be removed from Keflavik no later than September. All 592 Icelanders working at the base got mail today, telling them they were being laid off (for comparison, you guys outnumber us about a thousand to one, so that would be like the US losing over half a million jobs). While not surprised, we are extremely disappointed with the way this was done (with allies like these…) but we are already in talks with NATO and Norway; chances are Norway will be able to do the job with their Orion jets. The loss of jobs is not a problem but the loss of jets and helicopters is.

So that’s the end of 50 years of US presence in Iceland; good times and bad, surely, but mostly good. I’m hoping that now that we are officially offended, the people of Iceland may finally get the government to admit that we were never asked to join the coalition of the “willing” but at the moment we are just happy that we got to see the budget so we know when you guys are leaving–it would probably have been a little embarrasing for the people showing up for work October 1st to walk into an empty army base.

But by the ravens of Odin, you guys better clean up the mess at Keflavik or there’ll be heck to pay; Haidou hath no fury like a tiny island nation scorned shakes miniature fist and you tend to just leave everything as it is. If we’ll have another 20 million pounds of waste lying around (Mt. Heidarfjall has been waiting for your promised cleanup crew since 1974) in Keflavik, you just might find yourselves on the receiving end of a sternly worded letter. Consider yourselves warned.

Erm… to adress the OP… I am way out of my league so let’s just pretend I said something supporting the esteemed Mr. Doors (USAF), especially regarding nukes. Let’s just get this over with now and end humanity’s misery. We had a good run.

36

Crap. I misread the dates and thought this thread was alive and well. Had intended to vent in my own thread but deemed that unnecessary since there was a thread going that I could squeeze this into. Why start a thread when it takes much less time to just hijack an existing one? How lame, on a scale of five, would I be if I opened a new thread with pretty much exactly my last post?

37

[QUOTE=mr_moonlight]

They’re catching up because they are becoming more free while we are becoming less so. The United States is currently tied for 9th place among countries in economic freedom, according to the Heritage Foundation. We’re behind England, Ireland, even Estonia! I grew up thinking that these were socialist countries. How did they end up having more economic freedom than the United States?

[QUOTE]

I’m not sure the world in comming to an end because the united States is 9th in ecomomic freedom. It’s 9th on a list of almost 160 by the way, which certainly changes the perspective. A large part or your tax burdon, which drive this economic freedon calculation is due to pensions, health care and social security. Which one of these benefits don’t you want? Let me know and we’ll take you off the list.