That is only looking at wars. Remember the existence of a large standing army also prevents war and invasion. I would counter your point by saying the Nato military alliance prevented another war in Europe and a very large Navy prevented any thought of anyone attempting to invade.
While you disagree with this projection of power, I think you would concede the argument has some merit.
Jim
So the French might have an argument for not bashing our soldiers. You’ll have to ask them. When was the last time that anyone considered invading the United States? I could be wrong, but I don’t think we had a large standing army before The Great War, but it had still been a century since anyone had invaded us. ANd the last attack on our soil by another nation’s military was an attack on a military base–hardly an argument that a large military prevents attacks.
I’ve called before for scaling our military back to just what we need to protect our borders from invasion. Let us enjoy the benefits of a peace dividend for awhile; let those countries who have gotten to spend all their money on education and infrastructure and nationalized health-care deal with their own problems for a bit while we improve the lot of our own citizens. Once that’s done–once our Department of Defense becomes a Department of Defense–I’ll have much less condemnation of people that choose to join the US military.
Daniel
I didn’t want you to think I was ducking this question. But the statistics on it are quite hard to track down, especially since some authorities count as CO’s those who went to Canada, even though they certainly didn’t hold that status legally.
As of right now, I can state that at least 172,000 men were granted legal CO status during the Vietnam War, and the vast majority of these claimants were granted a 1-O classification. That classification absolutely would not have made them available for service as medics.
More to come as I scrape up the data, with cites.
I feel like I have had a similar conversation with you before. I respect the fact you are a pacifist, please don’t insult young kids that choose to join the military.
Would Taiwan be free today if we had scaled back our military in 1980?
Are you sure the USSR would be defunct now?
Would Kuwait be free?
If we scale back today, how many countries would end up gobbled up by larger neighbors?
Is this really the better world you are hoping for?
I go the other extreme; right after WWII we should have followed Patton’s half baked plan to use US, German, French, Italian & UK forces to immediately destroy the USSR. We could have avoided the whole cold war debacle of which Korea, Vietnam, Red China, the missile crisis where results. We could have toppled despots instead of supporting them because they were anti-communist. We could have prevented religious dictatorships in the Middle East and democratized the world.
Instead we are now edging towards theocracy and the dreams of one world government would appear impossible in the foreseeable future.
Jim
I think engaging in might-have-beens is not very helpful. If the US had a purely defensive military in teh past, who knows what would have happened? Would other NATO countries have stepped in to fill teh gap? Would Vietnam have experienced a much more peaceful transition to a democracy? Would Cuba be a dictatorship if the US didn’t provide such a handy tool for uniting Cubans behind their despot? What would South America look like without having had the US topple democratic regimes there?
Daniel
No, I don’t think Nato without the USwould have stopped the Soviet dictorship.
Of course US toppling regimes was CIA and not Armed forces.
Jim
And they weren’t just giving that status to everyone who applied. You could apply for it, be denied and sent off Nam.
Anybody remember that gem? Anyone?
You might not know who Pete Seeger is, but he is now considered a national treasure even though he was once on McCarthy’s list.
He once told be and 7 other 20-30 year olds that we should not be afraid to be arrested for a good cause.
Jim
Absolutely spot-on first reply. Down to the vulgarity. I have nothing to add at this time.
OK, I would modify this:
The decision to join a particular military action ought properly to belong to the individual. * A man ought to have his right recognized to choose for what he will kill & die. Abolishing the draft was* good**, in that it abolished a form of involuntary servitude. I consider there to be more to be done to take the US military away from indentured servitude.
But that’s a different thread.
No, appeal to authority is a logical fallacy in any case, by definition. But especially if you think Ghandi is some kind of moral authority on a free society. Ghandi damn near used his people as cannon fodder to fight a war without guns, because he was a nut. I’m sure this has been debated on this board.
Such a definition is keyed to support the policy being supported. Accepting a few weeks in jail for civil disobedience is easy. Hey! Free room & board!
But what would your policy say in a draconian society, where the least infraction is punishable by death? Or in a society where the worst violent criminals are kept in cages, to rape & torture anyone else the state’s lawyers deem unworthy of both freedom & life?
To be fair, the person who enlists, then refuses to kill, & disrupts the war effort, may be most honorable of all.