Your argument is in the same vein as why us has the largest military force. I don't think it's irrational, but I would say it does not address the new security threats.
I think this is a good point, and I'm not sure why it's been downvoted.
It's important to consider the sometimes positive externalities of the current levels of defense spending. Even more so, it's important to consider where we or others have come to rely on those positive externalities.
For example, I'd be perfectly happy with the US withdrawing from many parts of the world and closing foreign bases. However, I do imagine there would be sometimes not so subtle consequences to doing so. Is the current balance of global power sufficient to prevent large scale and disastrous conflict? Do we risk tipping that balancing in one direction at some point?
Part of the reason people would even want to send a boat full of troops is because of the way our military interacts with the rest of the world. It's an unfortunate situation to be in but that doesn't mean it needs to continue forever. If we would just scale back the size of our military presence it would definitely be safer for everyone.
These kinds of issues are the case with essentially all militaries: China, Russia and various European Union states have their fair share of similar issues. I actually think this is a domain where the US has an edge.
These comments sound analogous to real world security and societal issues. Like, the desire to increase army size and addressing the underlying issues.
One is a short term solution, the other long term.
Don’t be surprised by the downvotes. There seems to be a little bit of the “USA BAD” vibe here right now ~ especially in terms of the military.
The US does seem to emphasize training and preparedness over simply having equipment which could lead to higher relative levels of contamination when compared to other militaries. I’m not sure if that is the case, but I recall the training differences being considered a factor when evaluating operational challenges (for example Saddam’s iraqi troops vs Cold War Soviets in the same equipment and situation ~ the Soviets would be expected to present a significantly harder challenge just by virtue of better training ~ at least in theory)
I take your point in good spirit, but there may be an argument to be made that military power is a net asset. But it's beside the point of my original comment. Local infrastructure budgets are not equipped to keep up with the demands.
I was not asking about feasibility or externalities. I do not consider it a good idea. I was just asking about military usefulness. And as I said, after reflecting, I suspect even from that POV it would be detrimental.
The US has established bases all over the globe and has basically created a worldwide supply chain for its military, so that isn’t really a factor. (Please note, this isn’t being said in an anti-American way.)
Why precisely is having the worlds largest military bad? Do you think it doesnt add any value? It seems theres a lot of people outside of America who'd like to see it shrunk for very bad reasons.
Why not keep the military and solve our problems without it? We need it to be safe now, and until we've already solved our problems, we'll still need it.
Obviously it doesn't always work well and it definitely causes problems, doesn't mean we should get rid of or even reduce it.
reply