Military spending

[Spartiate]

Is it important, in this day and age, for a country to maintain a strong and effective military? Should your country make keeping an adequately staffed military with up-to-date equipment a priority? Obviously your answer can vary greatly depending on your nationality, so feel free to chime in with local considerations.

[Supernova]

No war, man! Now, In today's world, I understand the need to keep a military force sufficient to repel any potential attacks, just because there are still those in this world who are all too eager to go to war. However, I feel like the US ought to be taking a much stronger anti-war stance. And based on what I know, the US military is so technologically advanced that, with our current military, we're quite far from being threatened by invasion. Nuclear war is different, but we've got enough nukes to blow up the whole earth. That's about it. I don't really have time ATM to spew a long-winded rant on the subject; but yeah, that's basically how I feel.

[JussiKala]

Depends on the country in question, and how we define strong.

[DrunkenArse]

I live in the Illegally Occupied Nation of Hawai'i. We don't have a military. A large part of me kinda thinks that we should ... If I vote as a citizen of the US then I of course vote for a smaller military. Especially on Hawai'i.

[Spartiate]

Depends on the country in question, Yours and how we define strong. I would say at the very least competitive with other countries of similar size and wealth, both in terms of manpower and technology.

[Alric]

Well the US military is ridiculous by any standard. Unless we were going to go to war against every other country on the planet, there is no need to have a military like we do. We have more oversea military bases than there are countries.

[IndieAnthias]

I live in the Illegally Occupied Nation of Hawai'i. We don't have a military Notice: the following question requires a multitude of disclaimers. These disclaimers include but are not limited to: I only ask so that I can better understand that statement. I don't ask because I think your point is invalid if you answer a particular way (in fact, I think your point is valid, regardless). I don't expect an answer at all, actually. Not that it would matter if I did. Are you ethnically Hawaiian?

[DrunkenArse]

OT: sorry Spart. No I'm not ethnically Hawai'ian. I'm 3/4 European, 1/8 African and 1/8 Asian Indian.

[IndieAnthias]

OT: sorry Spart. ditto... which means I owe an on-topic post. I'm thinking of the current state of humanity as maybe being in a certain "globalization shock", which is bound to happen but once but should level off to a steady equilibrium, now that we all have access to each other's thoughts and whatnot. The nation-state may have been inevitable, like it or not. Balance-of-power is a legitimate peace strategy for nation-states, but it requires strong militaries. I just hope I can endorse balance-of-power without endorsing imperialism. Imperialism is expensive, defense doesn't have to be. (Let me stop beating around the bush... yes I think my country spends much too much.) Presumably, once globalization shock wears off, something like trust will emerge. Then strong militaries won't be so important. [/talkingoutmyass]

[Seroquel]

Every nation should have a military large enough to defend itself, whatever that is. I also think every citizen should have compulsory service for a short time, receiving military training until a certain age. A gun in every home, and every citizen trained in combat is a good deterrent any attacker would be weary of. What a hornets nest that would be.

[DrunkenArse]

Personally, I think that "globalization shock" is just a conceptualization of the same old shit that's been going on since the dawn of civilization and has changed only slightly (mainly in the technology used and the tactics dictated by it) since Europeans became "The Whiteman". Specifically, one portion of the population is using force and political manipulation to obtain control of target resources at the expense of another portion of the population. Though it has added segments of target populations to itself (and hence gained racial diversity), it is still essentially the whiteman, i.e. a continuation of the conquest of the Americas, Australia and the islands of the Pacific and Indian oceans. Honestly, I don't believe in armies or in the decision at the state level to go to war. The populace should be trained warriors. A vote of the general populace should trigger the transfer of the people into a "state of war" at which point, individuals may make the decision to actually go fight that war. So war shouldn't occur unless the actual people that will be doing the actual fighting have decided that their life is worth risking for the cause and the general populace is willing to back it financially and karmically. I don't anticipate that war would be that frequent with those conditions.

[IndieAnthias]

Personally, I think that "globalization shock" is just a conceptualization of the same old shit that's been going on since the dawn of civilization and has changed only slightly (mainly in the technology used and the tactics dictated by it) since Europeans became "The Whiteman". I'm glad you at least understood what I meant with that term I basically just made up, whether or not you agree that it describes the state we're in. Honestly, I don't believe in armies or in the decision at the state level to go to war. The populace should be trained warriors. A vote of the general populace should trigger the transfer of the people into a "state of war" at which point, individuals may make the decision to actually go fight that war. I'm in agreement that I don't believe that nation-states have any intrinsically legitimate authority (and everything that follows from that). I just wonder if they were inevitable or not.

[cmind]

I'm in agreement that I don't believe that nation-states have any intrinsically legitimate authority (and everything that follows from that). I just wonder if they were inevitable or not. They're not inevitable. The latest theory of state formation is that they arose out of religious cults, which in turn were only possible because of a largely schizophrenic population due to extremely violent child rearing practices. Indeed, until a couple hundred years ago, it was normal and expected for young girls to be raped by their father. However, even a stateless society would need a way to mobilize in case of invasion. Ryan Faulk (fringeelements on youtube) talks about this at length, and his conclusion is that the polycentric law would handle this through mandatory 'defense dues'. If you want legal protection in that country, you are compelled to pay a certain (small) defense due. A $1000 per person due in the US would be enough money to maintain a large nuclear arsenal. Besides the defense due, we may also have something similar to Switzerland, where every citizen is required to keep a rifle in their house and be trained to use it. These are both very reasonable deterrents.

[Meakel]

I think it's universally agreed upon that the United States has a ridiculous amount of military. We have rail guns. RAIL GUNS. Then again those may come in handy during the coming alien invasion. Hrmm. ditto... which means I owe an on-topic post. I'm thinking of the current state of humanity as maybe being in a certain "globalization shock", which is bound to happen but once but should level off to a steady equilibrium, now that we all have access to each other's thoughts and whatnot. The nation-state may have been inevitable, like it or not. Balance-of-power is a legitimate peace strategy for nation-states, but it requires strong militaries. I just hope I can endorse balance-of-power without endorsing imperialism. Imperialism is expensive, defense doesn't have to be. (Let me stop beating around the bush... yes I think my country spends much too much.) Presumably, once globalization shock wears off, something like trust will emerge. Then strong militaries won't be so important. [/talkingoutmyass] I think the term is either just 'globalization' or the 'shock doctrine'.

[DrunkenArse]

Indeed, until a couple hundred years ago, it was normal and expected for young girls to be raped by their father. That's a particular fact (rather than an interpretation of many facts) and as such, I'll have to ask for a reference.

[cmind]

The book is "The Origins of War in Child Abuse" by Lloyd DeMause. You'd have to check the appendix to see his sources.

[Laughing Man]

I live in the Illegally Occupied Nation of Hawai'i. Isn't that the truth.

[Laughing Man]

Personally, I think that "globalization shock" is just a conceptualization of the same old shit that's been going on since the dawn of civilization and has changed only slightly (mainly in the technology used and the tactics dictated by it) since Europeans became "The Whiteman". Specifically, one portion of the population is using force and political manipulation to obtain control of target resources at the expense of another portion of the population. Though it has added segments of target populations to itself (and hence gained racial diversity), it is still essentially the whiteman, i.e. a continuation of the conquest of the Americas, Australia and the islands of the Pacific and Indian oceans. Honestly, I don't believe in armies or in the decision at the state level to go to war. The populace should be trained warriors. A vote of the general populace should trigger the transfer of the people into a "state of war" at which point, individuals may make the decision to actually go fight that war. So war shouldn't occur unless the actual people that will be doing the actual fighting have decided that their life is worth risking for the cause and the general populace is willing to back it financially and karmically. I don't anticipate that war would be that frequent with those conditions. Well I don't understand your reasoning here. Why do you not believe in declaration of war by a small group but believe in a declaration of war by a big group? Just because there is more doesn't legitimize it. Since you said that people who actually volunteer to do the fighting were going to go, I assume that also applies to funding it? If I did not agree to the war then I would not contribute to it financially.

[[SomeGuy]]

Every nation should have a military large enough to defend itself, whatever that is. I also think every citizen should have compulsory service for a short time, receiving military training until a certain age. A gun in every home, and every citizen trained in combat is a good deterrent any attacker would be weary of. What a hornets nest that would be. So basically Switzerland?

[Seroquel]

So basically Switzerland? Indeed.

[[SomeGuy]]

I love Switzerland.

[DrunkenArse]

Well I don't understand your reasoning here. Why do you not believe in declaration of war by a small group but believe in a declaration of war by a big group? Just because there is more doesn't legitimize it. Since you said that people who actually volunteer to do the fighting were going to go, I assume that also applies to funding it? If I did not agree to the war then I would not contribute to it financially. I wasn't clear. It's not that I believe in the scenario that I'm advocating. I don't believe in war at all. However I believe that this would have advantages. Specifically, a small group is more likely to have interests in common and less likely to have friends, family, and role models on "the other side". With more diverse interests and relationships, a larger group is less likely to support a war. So it's not about legitimizing war, which I don't believe to be possible, but about reducing its likelyhood. One force operating against my hypothesis is patriotism. This and misinformation were responsible for a fair amount of support for the wars on terror. Afgahnistan was supposed to be a war to eliminate the Taliban. I suppose that's fair enough. Honestly I would have supported that war if it had been accompanied with a willingness to deal with the greater muslim world as equals. But it wasn't. Iraq was made possible by misinformation that is inevitable with a distinct warrior class managed by a political elite. Talking is better than war. The more talking that can be done before fighting, the better.

[Laughing Man]

I wasn't clear. It's not that I believe in the scenario that I'm advocating. I don't believe in war at all. However I believe that this would have advantages. Specifically, a small group is more likely to have interests in common and less likely to have friends, family, and role models on "the other side". With more diverse interests and relationships, a larger group is less likely to support a war. So it's not about legitimizing war, which I don't believe to be possible, but about reducing its likelyhood. One force operating against my hypothesis is patriotism. This and misinformation were responsible for a fair amount of support for the wars on terror. Afgahnistan was supposed to be a war to eliminate the Taliban. I suppose that's fair enough. Honestly I would have supported that war if it had been accompanied with a willingness to deal with the greater muslim world as equals. But it wasn't. Iraq was made possible by misinformation that is inevitable with a distinct warrior class managed by a political elite. Talking is better than war. The more talking that can be done before fighting, the better. Ok, I see what you mean. You are proposing the idea that enlarging the declaration of war would include more complexities and problems thereby reducing the likelyhood of it. I see your point and the problem of patriotism is a factor since governments will obviously lie and perpetrate the myth of the "other" (the "bad guys," the "evil do-ers") in order to bring about a war craze. I would like to add onto that premise with the proposal of the disarming and disbanding of the U.S. military. A part of your ideas was that individuals who believed in the war would be the ones to fight it so it would naturally follow to disband the military since it is composed of both willing and possibly unwilling individuals.

[DrunkenArse]

Exactly. I thought that I had made clear that armies (specialized warrior classes) should be abandoned in an earlier post but I guess I must have left it unsaid. I think that patriotism would not be able to exist in a sustained manner in the absense of the monopoly on information which is associated with states.

[Lemons]

I think that it is important for any country to have defenses, but most seem to be going too far. Switzerland is the best military example I can give of a proper spending for military. In Switzerland, by law, the majority of males go through military training so they can defend their country. They are given assault rifles and everything they would need if an attack were to happen. However, they don't have an active military. They are able to see that an active military isn't needed to protect a country. They also are able to see that militaries don't have to be attacking other countries to protect their own. Switzerland only spends 0.8% of GDP on military expenses. America spends 4.7%, and in my mind, Switzerland is taking the better approach about spending.