I can see a few problems with that line of thought though.
I mean, just to begin with, say for instance America is invaded. The military is geared entirely towards defence, and successfully throws off the attack. Then what? The invading country can sit back and recover, because America lacks the forces to counterattack. This is assuming that they even attack directly in the first place, rather than by bombing or via submarine.
Also, nukes are hardly a replacement for troops and a good airforce. If America nukes a country, for a lot of the world they be the bad guys. It would be seen as a major escalation of force, and suicidally stupid to boot.
Maybe the America's military could afford to cut back a little, but not to the point of uselessness.
- 1) "Defensively minded" doesn't mean "never attack ever, at all." In the event of war, hell yes, go on the offensive. I'm just saying that we should not be invading other countries without due cause, period.
- 2) We get into a serious war with anybody who poses a credible threat and we mobilize everything in the US and rape the shit out of them. "(Relatively) small standing army" does not translate to "that's all we'll use to fight any wars ever." Besides, I said we should keep six of the carriers. Most countries can't even field one. If somebody can honestly reach the US, and it isn't Canada or Mexico who have proximity advantage, we really kind of deserve to get conquered because we just suck ass at that point.
Your still going to have the expense of trying to make a civilian body capable of defending in a reliable way. They would be far from an effective defense force. The time, effort, and expenses needed to even try that you might as well have a active military component.
Well, of course, but think about it this way:
There are about 52 million American households that collectively possess about 260 million firearms.
Oh, and there's about 800,000 trained and armed law enforcement personnel in the US, both State/local and Federal put together.
Really, the United States, even if most of its populace wasn't
trained, is just about one of the most nightmarish places on Planet Earth to consider attacking directly. The "Second Amendment army" would rip any invading force to shreds simply by Death of a Thousand Cuts
(And hell, that's not even including all the armed criminal groups who'd probably side with the US just because "better the devil you know.")
I would avoid waving the nuke stick or even using it. Convential war will always be prefrable to nuclear.
So would I. Waiving the nuclear big stick is reserved for profoundly stupid countries that may not see reason otherwise, like North Korea.
I say yes we do. Pacifism is great and all, but it requires the other nations of the world share your philosophy. Our philosophy now prepares for when someone doesn't.
? Hardly. I'd be disappointed if the US Military couldn't effectively flatten anything and everything it touches. Point is, the world isn't our problem, so the US Military should do exactly
what it was intended to do—defend this country—and nothing else
Foreign adventures are the UN's concern. Would I support helping UN missions? Absolutely. But the days of unilateral American world police actions should go die in a fire.
The actually using nukes makes pretty much everyone hate you.(plus, it would be pretty bad to kill a lot of civilians for actions of government + irradtion unless they are nukes which only kill people :P)
You think I'm evil enough to immediately nuke an enemy and his civilians for attacking us?
Hardly. I'd tactical nuke the invading force itself. So, yes, you try and call that bet. Say hello to nuclear torpedoes/Davy Crockett tacnukes.
Disagree with you on the nukes thing.
In what way, specifically?
You act like the US actually stands up for human rights to begin with, as opposed to regularly propping up dictators and overthrowing democratically-elected leaders, and committing plenty of war crimes and oppressive tactics ourselves.
Let's be honest—the reality is that the US intercedes wherever is most profitable, not because we currently actually give a shit about human rights. We're not the world's Paladins by a loooooooooooong shot. So, you know, you act like I even trust the US to do any of the things you mentioned.
You know what, fuck this "defenders of democracy" shit. Nobody buys the propaganda garbage.
If I were President, I'd be very up front. I do business with people I vaguely like. Keep doing business with us and be honest, and I'll do the same. Maybe I'll eventually be willing to call you a friend and not "that guy who buys our shit but I don't really trust him all that much." If you're stupid and like to start shit with me, I won't do business with you. I'll take my toys and go to someone who will play fair.
And for fuck's sake, I would stop doing stupid shit (like tariffing Canada in spite of NAFTA) so people stop getting pissed at the US for goddamned idiotic reasons that need not exist.
In other words, you are saying that America acts in its self-interest First?
So does Every Other Nation.
It's practically the first Rule of Diplomacy.
Have a cookie.
What was needed, if anything, was special forces to take down key leaders in Al Qaeda and after 10 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, that's exactly what took him out, not any US marines or mass floods of GIs.
Exactly. Given a choice between "send Force Recon/Delta Force/the Green Berets/Navy SEALs/some combination thereof" and "throw the US Army, Navy, and Air Force at them, wholesale," I'm going with the first option.
Of course, an aircraft can be used for both aid and war, but you don't need 11 super carrier fleets.
Exactly. We need six. Three for each ocean, and hell help you if you decide to fuck with us, because I'd be plenty happy to turn six carriers into twelve through mobilization before I level your navy.
@Number of nuclear weapons,
, we'd have, under my preferred conditions, somewhere between 750-2000 MIRV nuclear weapons. Enough to buttfuck China and Russia both at once, but not so many that we're just cartoon supervillains with doomsday devices.
Cut military hardware purchases. It's fantastic and all to have F-35s except we haven't even used F-22s yet in combat. So what does that tell me? It's a big ass waste of money. First, cut off half the Weapons Acquisition Program.
Well, we wouldn't need to entirely cut military hardware purchases. Just scale them back and start recycling old stuff, using the now-freed funds from that upkeep to help pay for the new shit. Stay on the bleeding edge of technological development, but don't have nearly so much stuff to being with.
edited 7th Nov '11 4:17:35 PM by USAF713