Does America really need projection power in this day and age?

Well, whatever, it still works out the same in the end as far as numbers and money go.

I kinda wish that the international taboo against resolving conflicts by direct assassination attempts on political leadership no longer was. Were that all international conflict be resolved by a much smaller number of deaths, and most of them politicians.

We'd need at least 6 still, One for each coast, a third in dock.

@Oscredwin You don't really think the world only fights wars related somehow to the world's superpower at the time, do you? There are at least 10 major-sized conflicts going on right now, most of them having little to do with the US. I also don't see how shrinking the size of the military a bit threatens in any way the political significance of the US. WWII-esque total war isn't going to be happening in a looong time (at least until oil starts to run out).

edited 9th Nov '11 7:24:27 PM by Harpsichord

I don't think the world only fights wars related to the world's superpower. I do think anyone who starts a war has to consider if the superpower will deign to stick it's head in and help the other side (something the US has done even when we promised not to). This causes fewer wars to be declared. This increases the proportion of conflicts the US takes an interest in and creates a virtuous cycle of peace.

You claim that there are 10 major conflicts going on right now that the US is not involved in. I would guess that one hundred years ago, there were over twice that. Likely much more.

I'd like to repeat that nothing in my model requires the US to act in a moral manner. The more moral the superpower acts, the better (mostly, I think interfering in wars we promise not to interfere with may make the world a more peaceful place).

Nations don't act in a moral manner. It would be better to extract ourselves from direct interference and simply passively interact with the world via trade and diplomacy. Less headaches for us.

@Radical,

Yeah, let's not and say we did. Assassination being fair game would end very poorly...

^ Historically it did...

edited 9th Nov '11 7:54:01 PM by MajorTom

And that wasn't even a state-sanctioned attack, either. o_o

Honestly we need a norm of responding to assassinations with more assassinations, not armies. The problem is that you need heads of state to sign off on this, and they make out the worst in such a scheme.

I dunno about that. Serbia certainly egged them on even if they didn't support them themselves (and that part is arguable that they did).Indeed, that was part of the problem that led to WWI. Belgrade really really wanted Bosnia.

...and not much has changed in a century.

I think it works when you aren't assassinating heads of state of equal parity. Assasinate Putin, you're in for trouble. Assassinate some tinpot Banana Republic dictator? It's Tuesday.

edited 9th Nov '11 8:03:36 PM by FFShinra

^^ The easiest way to spark a conflict between nations is assassinate a head of state. It's happened so many times it's not funny.

Why do you think the Soviets never went through with assassination plans against US Presidents (they had them on several occasions)? They knew that if they assassinated a US President the nukes would be on their way to Moscow and more to destroy everything the Russians held dear.

And no, I'm not reciting the film version of The Sum Of All Fears. That was the reality of the Cold War, neither side could run assassinations without basically flipping the switch on for nuclear war.

edited 9th Nov '11 8:02:57 PM by MajorTom

@Shinra,

True...

Anyhow, the US would be better off leaving most of its world neighbors alone. Hell, we'll make more money doing that, methinks. The UN and NATO—the US as a portion of that—can handle the world's myriad issues, if they like.

We are most of NATO's force, and fund a ton of it. While reducing the military's size would save money, it is not gonna save money if our enemies think were getting complacent and attack.

^ Getting complacent was how we ended up with the "paper tiger" stereotype and in a way 9/11.

Exactly my point.

&

I know — unsurpringly, the modern USA shares more Parallels with The British Empire of the Late 19th Century. It is why "Invasion Literature" like Riddle of The Sands, The Battle of Dorking and, in a different direction, The War Of The Worlds was written, to show the Complacency of the Time.

Right now, the USA is rather like The British Empire c.1890.

edited 10th Nov '11 7:24:54 AM by Greenmantle

Missile strikes on Sudan and intervention in the former Yugoslavia during the 90s was complacent?

edited 10th Nov '11 7:54:44 AM by RadicalTaoist

EDIT: Delete, sorry.

edited 10th Nov '11 7:54:28 AM by RadicalTaoist

Yes we are, Green.

Yeah... I frankly don't give a shit about stereotypes, and that we're the majority of NATO in terms of action is a bad thing, insofar as I care. If Europe doesn't want to enforce it's anti-breaking of human rights laws positions, then I guess it's just not going to get enforced, because I really don't think the US should be the crusader for that—or at least, not solely.

@ USAF:

It's more of case of they can't afford to — especially with the currently worsening economic situation in the UK and rest of the EU — so there won't be any enforcement of Human Rights*

Nobody can afford it.

Not even the USA.

Well then, I guess it won't get enforced for awhile, will it?

Gee how did that happen? I know, they blew their cash on silly welfare states and relying on the Americans to do all their heavy lifting during the Cold War.

Don't give me this shit they don't have the economy for it. They've had the economy for 50 years, they just spent it on foolish shit.

Welfare state isn't the problem. Welfare state without the taxes and economy to sustain it is.

Among other things.

Anyhow, yeah, international law isn't really something I care to be a zealot over. Short of genocide, I don't really see why it's our responsibility unless the UN cares to pass a resolution authorizing express military action.

-Citation Needed-

Whats that Tom? Oh wait I cant hear you because you've got crumbling infrastructure, shit healthcare and the worst inequality in the developed world.

...and what Economy? For one, Britain had to call in the IMF during The '70s — to Quote The Other Wiki's article: