Abolish the armed forces

[Hemingway]

There was an article in the newspaper over here recently ( here's an English article with all the details ) concerning a pledge made by Vladimir Putin to expand Russia's defense budget by $770 billion over the next ten years. The article calls it "the Kremlin's biggest military spending spree since the Cold War". It's also about a hundred times what my country currently spends on defense. It's comparing apples and oranges, for sure, but it puts things into perspective, for me at least. But it's not Russia or Russia's spending I'm really curious about. It's just a nice lead-in.

I have two propositions for you to consider. The first one is relatively straight-forward, while the second one will require some more explanation.

1. If we're serious about the long-term survival of our species, spending ever more money on what we euphemistically refer to as defense is not the way to go. Or, put differently, standing armies and weapons of mass destruction must go.

I recognize that this view may be seen as naive and utopian. If that is the case - which I don't believe it is - then utopia is necessary, unless we want to leave our survival to chance, and simply hope that someone, at some point, doesn't decide to blow us all up. Furthermore, I realize that an armed force of a limited scope may be necessary, as, of course, there are those who don't play by the rules, and would exploit a world without weapons for its own benefit. But that, at least I hope, is quite different from having a standing army numbering in the hundreds of thousands or an arsenal of weapons that could annihilate the world many times over. Now, I'm not suggesting we should do this over-night. It's a goal to work toward.

The one major flaw I see with this - and it's not really a flaw, so much as a setback, or a means to an end - is that achieving this may require military intervention in places where people are concerned with surviving from day to day, and not in the long term.

2. In as few words and put as simply as possible, countries with militaries that serve no actual purpose, should absolish them entirely. This would include countries with no conceivable threats to its safety ( ones that might be countered by a military presence, anyway ), or with armies so small that even in the case of an actual war they wouldn't do much good.

There are a few problems with this proposition. One is that many countries today are parts of international organizations where their armed forces are just a part of a greater whole. Or it may be seen as being very isolationist, putting that country's own interests before the interests of the world. After all, a country that can abolish its armed forces without any negative consequence, is in a privileged position. It's also possible that, as smaller states give up their armed forces, others that might actually need their armies ( say, South Korea and its ally, the US, being perhaps the most obvious example ) would become even more of a "world police", and get a lot of power with potential for abuse.

There may very well be more, but these are the most obvious to me.

As I see it, there are quite compelling reasons not to rid ourselves of our militaries just yet. But, on the other hand, the most compelling reason of them all - our survival - weighs heavily against. There's a conflict here, and I can't seem to solve it. That is the reason I'm posting this. Perhaps I'm missing something important, or perhaps there's some alternative I can't quite see. The best I can come up with is that what we need is some sort of fundamental restructuring of the world's armed forces, but I don't know how.

[Callie Del Noire]

Consider this.. the Russian federation (and associated countries) aren't stable, but they are sitting (collectively) on some of the greatest unexploited resources in the world and all you have to do is look East.. and South to see where the future problems are coming from. You've got the middle east (with some of the most erratic leaders out there) and China.

If you don't think the Chinese won't do a landgrab, you're sorely mistaken. If they think they can get away with it, they will do so in a hairy minute. The People's Republic of China is a growing industrial economy just LOOKING for material. If I was a neighbor.. I would be worried. After all they took Tibet for nothing but to use as a gateway further west. Indian and Pakastan both are sweating for decades because of that.

Not to mention you are looking at a military that is in DIRE need of rebuiling and restructuring. That takes money.

[Hemingway]

That doesn't really address any of the points I raised. I even brought up the example of North and South Korea, which isn't even an armed conflict that's waiting to happen, but waiting to escalate.

On the other hand, while North Korea is run practically like a religion, the leaders of China and Russia ( at least for the moment - I suspect there are less pleasant alternatives, which is saying quite a bit ) are at least rational people. That being the case, an armed conflict is not inevitable. I would hope it's anything but, because I'd hate to find out what an all-out war between two or more states with vast nuclear arsenals would look like. If ever there was a recipe for the total extinction of our species, that must be it.

[Callie Del Noire]

Thing is.. both sides are very pragmatic. If EITHER of them thinks for a moment they CAN get away with something they will do it. Russia and China are very alike in that. Don't assume for a moment that will change.

As for the North/South Korea.. I'm witholding opinion till a better read on Kim Il Sun's son and how much control has (as well as how many bodies are put in the ground)

Depending on how you measure it, North Korea's army is one of the .. top eight or so armies in the world (by volume/size). Much has been said about their tech but what they have is reliable and good.

Not to mention that they have had 50 years to plan out what they are going to do. Like dead zeroing artillery on a LOT of real estate across the DMZ. They might lose (eventually) but the butcher's bill will be bad.

And consider this. The only reason they are still standing is because China is using them as a buffer. They don't want a stable, industrialized and unified Korea on their borders.

[Hemingway]

In the interest of keeping the thread from derailing, I'm just going to repeat that none of what we've talked about so far directly relates to either of the two propositions I'm actually curious about. I already made conessions concerning situations where the armed forces of a country serve an actual purpose. I'm not saying the US and South Korea, to name but a few, should abolish their armed forces and hope their adversaries and enemies follow their shining example.

However, I think we've already proven, during the Cold War, that it's possible for two states opposed to each other to work things out diplomatically, and make a mutual effort to, in the case of the Cold War, put an end to a pointless arms race and reduce the number of weapons of mass destruction. War is, sadly, profitable to some. But nobody benefits from war on a truly global scale ( even if there's a clear winner in such a conflict, what are they left with? ). So it is possible to be completely pragmatic about it, and still work toward this goal of abolishing first all weapons of mass destruction and second all standing armies. I think, once you point out the stakes, that all but the utterly suicidal ( the entire reason, I think, that North Korea poses a threat at all, is the fear that they might in the face of defeat turn suicidal ) would see the benefit of a world with no armed conflict. Again, that's a sort of utopia, and most likely it's something we'd have to continuously work toward rather than a state to reach, but still. That's the long-term goal.

[Caela]

The idea of being able to have all armies stand down and melting down all the weapons of mass destruction is a pretty one but I think it's highly unrealistic. Even when the world was a much larger place and war a much more difficult prospect (no motorized vehicles, troop movements taking months instead of days, having to fight your enemy hand to hand and the likelihood of both of you ending up dead of wound infections if not killed outright in battle etc.) we still had wars. Leaders became greedy, wanting to take what was their neighbors and expand their own lands and used many means to motivate their people to go and take it for them. When it wasn't temporal greed, it could, often, be religious greed and various religious leaders have used the names of their gods to motivate people to slaughter each other (thus putting money in the temples pockets) for centuries.

Sadly, the motivations behind those wars hasn't changed. Leaders of many types still become greedy and want to take what isn't there's. Religions still pit people against each other with claims that they are the, "One true way," etc.

Until a basic part of human nature changes and we learn to set greed and fanaticism aside we will need standing armies to protect us from the threats such human failings pose. And you can bet that if some countries DID lay down arms, they'd quickly be swallowed up by someone who hadn't. It would be a recipe for mass annexations by more powerful countries because of the above mentioned human failings.

[Zeitgeist]

Between universal health-care and the dispensing with war, we better be looking at colonizing space and other planets as we would in short order be living on top of one another. As cruel as it may sound, sickness and war play a role in our world as a safety valve. That's not to say we shouldn't make strides to tamp down on those but it is a cold truth.

[Hemingway]

Until a basic part of human nature changes and we learn to set greed and fanaticism aside we will need standing armies to protect us from the threats such human failings pose. And you can bet that if some countries DID lay down arms, they'd quickly be swallowed up by someone who hadn't. It would be a recipe for mass annexations by more powerful countries because of the above mentioned human failings.

I have two points to make to this.

First, what you're saying does not pose an insurmountable challenge. Greed, I would suggest, is a consequence or a side effect of our instinct for survival. We have armies because we want to survive, but the only reason we need those, is because others have them, too. It's like sort sort of global catch-22. In the end, I think the value of peace far outweighs that of the potential for conquest. That shouldn't even be controversial, unless you're of a sort of "get rich or die trying" mentality, where if you can't conquer everyone you'd rather see the whole world burn and our species end.

Secondly, saying countries that do lay down their arms would be swallowed up by someone else simply doesn't conform with reality, because it's not a hypothetical question. Several countries have abolished their standing armies, and they remain sovereign states. It's true most of these are protectorates of other countries or organizations, but not all of them.

Between universal health-care and the dispensing with war, we better be looking at colonizing space and other planets as we would in short order be living on top of one another. As cruel as it may sound, sickness and war play a role in our world as a safety valve. That's not to say we shouldn't make strides to tamp down on those but it is a cold truth.

That's one dangerous safety valve. A global armed conflict would essentially be a coin toss between a conventional war followed by a peace treaty, and a very permanent sort of population control, from which we'll never recover.

[Callie Del Noire]

Short of finding two things: cheap renewable power and something like a replicator a la star trek, there will be no way to avoid the resource issues of war. And we have too many cultures that aren't mature enough to put historical and cultural differences behind them. Yet.

As a species we are capable of doing a lot.  As individuals and countries, we got a way to go. 

[Zakharra]

I have two points to make to this.

First, what you're saying does not pose an insurmountable challenge. Greed, I would suggest, is a consequence or a side effect of our instinct for survival. We have armies because we want to survive, but the only reason we need those, is because others have them, too. It's like sort sort of global catch-22. In the end, I think the value of peace far outweighs that of the potential for conquest. That shouldn't even be controversial, unless you're of a sort of "get rich or die trying" mentality, where if you can't conquer everyone you'd rather see the whole world burn and our species end.

Secondly, saying countries that do lay down their arms would be swallowed up by someone else simply doesn't conform with reality, because it's not a hypothetical question. Several countries have abolished their standing armies, and they remain sovereign states. It's true most of these are protectorates of other countries or organizations, but not all of them.

Those countries only exist because someone strong militarily is standing up for them. That's why nations like Taiwan and S. Korea still exist. If the Chinese and N. Koreans thought they could grab them without much consequence, they would do it, as Callie said, in a hairy minute. That's what Iraq tried 22 years ago with Kuwait. They thought they could get away with it and had to be curb stomped. Standing armies are very much needed.  You might not like them but they have been a necessity for the last 5,000 years and there's no sign they are going away.

A nation with out a standing army is only possible in places like Europe, where their neighbors will respect their boundaries. If a neighbor doesn't respect the boundary, there's nothing to really stop that nation from coming in and taking over.

If several S. American or C. American nations disbanded their armies, their neighbors would be biting off chunks of their territory within a year or twoo at the most. After all, there's nothing to stop them. Do you think for a moment, Chavez of Venezuela wouldn't invade Columbia or any other neighbor if they disbanded their armies? He'd find an excuse so fast, your head would spin.

[Callie Del Noire]

Zak is right.. he (Chavez) would be across the border to quash 'drug cartels seizing our assets' or something. Not to mention it would be a GREAT distration for how he's hijacked the democratic process of his country.

As for the Kuwaiti invasion way back when, it was easy enough to see why he did it. Coast line. Look at Iraq and Kuwait on the map. Iraq has what.. 20 to 40 miles of coast line, is like.. 3rd in overall volume in countries in the gulf, where is Kuwait is TINY but has dozens more in coastline than Iraq. Add in oil, banking and assets it was no surprise.

Right now the only thing that is keeping China from 'recovering' Taiwan (which they have always maintained was a 'rogue' province) is they want to keep it working. A smoking crater doesn't make them money. I'm willing to bet within the next 2 decades they will keep some of sharing agreement that will keep the infrastructure and political in place while China 'recovers' them. Something similar to what they did with Hong Kong. The only thing that can change this equation, in my opinion, is if Taiwan finds allies with the backbone to back them up. Not likely to happen, just look at how many formal recognition of Taiwan's sovereignty are on the record. They aren't many and most of them are ambiguous at best.

Grant prior to the 1970s, Taiwan was almost as bad as their rivals the People's Republic, but today they are a strong democracy. Which is why it will be sad when their independence is sacrificed under the power of appeasing the People's Republic.

[Hemingway]

If several S. American or C. American nations disbanded their armies, their neighbors would be biting off chunks of their territory within a year or twoo at the most. After all, there's nothing to stop them. Do you think for a moment, Chavez of Venezuela wouldn't invade Columbia or any other neighbor if they disbanded their armies? He'd find an excuse so fast, your head would spin.

If? Again, not hypothetical. The list of countries without standing armies isn't very long - about two dozen - but of those, two are in Central Armerica ( actually, remarkably few are European, most are in the Pacific and Caribbean ); Costa Rica and Panama. You might argue that these countries are well protected by other countries, in particular the latter, which the US has a bit of a vested interest in. But they directly contradict the example you gave, and if they can do it, then what's to keep others from doing the same? In doing so, the world would, I dare suggest, become a less volatile place. Furthermore, the money not spent on superfluous defense can be used elsewhere.

You might not like them but they have been a necessity for the last 5,000 years and there's no sign they are going away.

Part of the reason I wanted this debate in the first place is this suggestion, that armies are necessary. It's implicit in practically all countries, even ones like mine that haven't needed to defend themselves in over half a century. But I see no good arguments for this. The only one I can think of is that others have armies, therefore we need an army, after all we wouldn't want to seem like a tempting target for them. But that's a perfectly circular argument, both from and for the status quo. I'm not going to put words in your mouth and assume that's it, but if it isn't, I'd like to hear your argument.

Otherwise, I think the issue is actually a lack of imagination and serious consideration of alternatives. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "armies are necessary" argument seems to view world peace as a delicate balance. Not all that different from the Cold War. Deterrence theory in effect, really. But then what about bilateral or multilateral agreements, where all parties involved reduce their military spending proportionately? I can see how there might be considerable resistance to such a suggestion, but is the logic behind it fundamentally flawed? If all sides cooperate, then the relative "weight" of each of them in the global balance of power remains the same. It's a situation where everybody benefits, and nobody loses anything. Unless you can demonstrate that some countries are just naturally more aggressive than others and wish to dominate others, I don't see how such a cooperation would be impossible.

Now, I'm by no means an expert on the intricacies of global politics, especially those concerning military matters, but the bottom line is that alternatives exist. It's just a matter of finding them, and having the will to follow them. It'd definitely be difficult, and might take a very long time, but it'd be worth it, unless we destroyed ourselves along the way. And if we don't, how long until we do destroy ourselves? Even if you're vehemently in favor of the armed forces, can you ( as in, anyone ) honestly say the world we live in is a safe place, what could possibly go wrong?

[Callie Del Noire]

The military does more than just stand around on their hands you know. The Army Corp of Engineers do survey work in the US, the Navy assists the coast guard at see. In fact the 'up cycle' training of my last squadron involved working with the CG on sea search and rescue work, and 'down training' cycles included doing the same or helping other agencies like ICE and the DEA. Disaster assistance is another point all the services work on as well.

And if you think the Somali pirates are a problem NOW, imagine what they'd be like if we were even small in military services than we are. Something like.. FIVE navies commit forces to patrolling that region and STILL don't find them all. And there are other 'flash points' around the world.

One of the points of the Navy that frequently gets lost is the open seas policy. Downsizing the navy will continue to impact on this duty. I think pretty much EVERY standing navy has that particular mission.

[Hemingway]

I'm well aware of that. But arguing that they perform other perhaps very necessary tasks is not an argument for keeping them armied. Here, at least, the Home Guard have a many duties that don't require them to be armed, but they still are. This is where, as I believe I mentioned, there's room for restructuring. In cases like that, it's basically a technicality. I don't take issue with everything that falls under the umbrella of 'armed forces', just because of that name.

As for Somali pirates, and terrorism, and drug lords, and whatever else fits within that same rough category, the measures to counter those are precisely the ones I made concessions for in the first post, so again, no argument from me.

On an unrelated note, I've noticed that so far no one has mentioned weapons of mass destruction. If this means people agree that we need to get rid of them, I suppose that's good. If not, I'd be curious to hear from whoever that might be.

[Oniya]

Given the development of 'smart' munitions, I can get behind saying that WMDs are fast becoming obsolete.

[Callie Del Noire]

Given the development of 'smart' munitions, I can get behind saying that WMDs are fast becoming obsolete.

Unfortunately there are many who want to have them.

Scary that you have countries who can't control their own people yet think the Bomb will help them out.

[Zakharra]

If? Again, not hypothetical. The list of countries without standing armies isn't very long - about two dozen - but of those, two are in Central Armerica ( actually, remarkably few are European, most are in the Pacific and Caribbean ); Costa Rica and Panama. You might argue that these countries are well protected by other countries, in particular the latter, which the US has a bit of a vested interest in. But they directly contradict the example you gave, and if they can do it, then what's to keep others from doing the same? In doing so, the world would, I dare suggest, become a less volatile place. Furthermore, the money not spent on superfluous defense can be used elsewhere.

A large part of that is the unspoken threat that nations like the US would come down like ten tons of bricks on anyone who tried to invade. They can avoid getting invaded because they either have the backing of a nation like the US, they have neighbors that aren't warlike or they are far from any other nation (the Pacific island nations are an excellent example of that.)

Part of the reason I wanted this debate in the first place is this suggestion, that armies are necessary. It's implicit in practically all countries, even ones like mine that haven't needed to defend themselves in over half a century. But I see no good arguments for this. The only one I can think of is that others have armies, therefore we need an army, after all we wouldn't want to seem like a tempting target for them. But that's a perfectly circular argument, both from and for the status quo. I'm not going to put words in your mouth and assume that's it, but if it isn't, I'd like to hear your argument.

Otherwise, I think the issue is actually a lack of imagination and serious consideration of alternatives. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "armies are necessary" argument seems to view world peace as a delicate balance. Not all that different from the Cold War. Deterrence theory in effect, really. But then what about bilateral or multilateral agreements, where all parties involved reduce their military spending proportionately? I can see how there might be considerable resistance to such a suggestion, but is the logic behind it fundamentally flawed? If all sides cooperate, then the relative "weight" of each of them in the global balance of power remains the same. It's a situation where everybody benefits, and nobody loses anything. Unless you can demonstrate that some countries are just naturally more aggressive than others and wish to dominate others, I don't see how such a cooperation would be impossible.

Now, I'm by no means an expert on the intricacies of global politics, especially those concerning military matters, but the bottom line is that alternatives exist. It's just a matter of finding them, and having the will to follow them. It'd definitely be difficult, and might take a very long time, but it'd be worth it, unless we destroyed ourselves along the way. And if we don't, how long until we do destroy ourselves? Even if you're vehemently in favor of the armed forces, can you ( as in, anyone ) honestly say the world we live in is a safe place, what could possibly go wrong?

That's only possible if all sides are willing to not wage war. And that hasn't happened in over 5,000 years of civilized human history. Right now, the US president Obama, is wanting the US military to reduce it's nuclear warhead count to like 300, while the Russians and Chinese are looking to increase their nuclear capacity.  Iran is very likely trying for a nuke and if they get  one will either hand it off to a terrorist group like Hamas/Hezbollah to use or use it as a club to threaten the nations in the Middle East to bow to Iran's sovereignty.

As long as you have people and nations like that, you will always need a standing military. Just because the Cold War is over, doesn't mean the world is automatically a safer place.  The alternatives you mention, only exist if everyone agrees to the,. The moment someone doesn't agree is when it fails.

There's another thing to take into consideration now too. No longer can you conscript  people into the military and send them off to war in a week. Military personnel need a lot of training to be ready to use the weapons they're given. And it takes time to make those weapons.  You need soldiers ready to act almost instantly in today's world.

[Callie Del Noire]

That's only possible if all sides are willing to not wage war. And that hasn't happened in over 5,000 years of civilized human history. Right now, the US president Obama, is wanting the US military to reduce it's nuclear warhead count to like 300, while the Russians and Chinese are looking to increase their nuclear capacity.  Iran is very likely trying for a nuke and if they get  one will either hand it off to a terrorist group like Hamas/Hezbollah to use or use it as a club to threaten the nations in the Middle East to bow to Iran's sovereignty.

As long as you have people and nations like that, you will always need a standing military. Just because the Cold War is over, doesn't mean the world is automatically a safer place.  The alternatives you mention, only exist if everyone agrees to the,. The moment someone doesn't agree is when it fails.

There's another thing to take into consideration now too. No longer can you conscript  people into the military and send them off to war in a week. Military personnel need a lot of training to be ready to use the weapons they're given. And it takes time to make those weapons.  You need soldiers ready to act almost instantly in today's world.

You can bet on that. It's a forgone certainty in the Gulf states that if the Iranians get the Bomb that they will use it as a political club to everyone within reach of them. The Gulf at the very least, more likely the entire Middle East. I could see them using it as a lever to build a Pan-Islamic state of their liking.

[gaggedLouise]

As the saying goes, a country always has an army: its own or somebody else's. If the armed forces are phased out, left in "yesterday state" technically, or pushed down so much that they cannot credibly defend the land, then you get an opening for someone else with a stronger hand to step in.

Living next door to Russia myself, in a country that's always perceived Moscow as the main threat and arch enemy, I am not feeling amused by their rearmament plans but still can't say it was a big surprise. This had to come, seeing that the Russian economy is rebounding long-term and that they feel they have lost ground and "respect" (the ability to 'make' other countries listen to their arguments and offers, benevolent or not) , both to the U.S. and its allies and to China - and they want to restore some of this great power status. Besides, I think it has to be counted in that Russia lost people in WW2 on a much larger scale than any other allied nation (excepting only Poland, which was bled white on its home soil, but most of that was when there wasn't much actual fighting in the country). The assault that Hitler waged on Soviet Russia was clearly genocidal in character and it cost the country in excess of twenty million lives (between 22 and 25 million, according to most estimates); and from summer 1941 to summer 1944, Russia was the one major country to put boots on the ground in Europe to fight Hitler head-on, on a day-to-day basis and on a long front. It was a "never again" experience, and it's still with them for sure; they will read new threats in the light of what they endured back then just like Americans will read new threats in the light of Iran in 1979 or the Pacific war of the 1940s.

So if Germany, the US, China or some other major power or superpower would say to Russia under present conditions "hey, we're not planning to invade you, board your ships or wrest any of your territory or your trading deals from you! Just relax!" the reaction is going to be, openly or not, "Well, that's not something you're gonna decide alone - and how do I know what you're planning in ten years time?". I don't think one can fault them for that. Like many countries, they can certainly be blamed for how they have used their armed forces and armed advantages at times, but hardly for looking to the long-term preservation of their country and the safety and wellbeing of its people.

[Hemingway]

I'm getting the distinct sense I should've been more careful in choosing a subject for this thread, because most of the arguments here seem to be in opposition to a general "abolish the armed forces, period" proposition, and not to the ones I actually made in my opening subject. I made those specifically because they would make the world a safer place, but they're not utopian fantasies.

The first one is simply a statement of principle, the reason why I hold the positions I do. I don't think it's controversial to say that a world without armies is safer than one with armies. I certainly don't think a world with even larger armies than we have now is safer than one with smaller. And that's to say nothing of WMDs.

The second is that countries that don't need their armed forces, for whatever reason, should abolish them. Against this, there have been some arguments, generally that this is only possible in certain places that are peaceful to begin with, or because they're protectorates of other states or organizations. Well, what of it? To say it's only possible because some requirement has been met, is not to say that it's impossible.

It's possible there's some confusion in what I wrote, not least because of my lurid subject line. I never suggested that any country completely do away with its capacity for violence, to get rid of all its weapons so to speak. But if there's an organization of defense in place where each state contributes only a part of the whole, then essentially you get a country that's far more capable of self-defense ( because it can count on other members of the same organization ) than it is of invading its neighbors. That's well within the limits of what I proposed initially.

My hope, of course, would be that in the long term, the whole world is organized in a similar fashion, basically abolishing the need for armed forces. That is a utopian fantasy, at least in the current political climate. But even if we never get to that place, just the fact there are countries like that will make the world a slightly safer place, and it will allow those countries to spend their defense budgets ( those parts that are superfluous, anyway ) elsewhere.

[gaggedLouise]

Just stating a quick one here because it's a vital point but one I didn't get around to making before: I don't feel Russian rearmament means they will be going for a nuclear duel or armageddon anytime soon. The Russian leaders - Putin or any leader they might select in the foreseeable future - are rational people (agreeing with Hemingway here) and these days they can't simply boss around the major part of their own nation. Plus they don't have the belt of allies at their west frontier that they had before 1989, and that really counts in how they size up a major war. They know that an all-out nuclear war with the US (or possibly with China) would spell cataclysm for themselves too.

[Sethala]

On an unrelated note, I've noticed that so far no one has mentioned weapons of mass destruction. If this means people agree that we need to get rid of them, I suppose that's good. If not, I'd be curious to hear from whoever that might be.

I'm not going to touch the rest of the thread right now (partly because I'm supposed to be out shoveling snow right now, not typing on a forum...), but I do want to toss in my $0.02 on this one.

There is a saying that goes, I believe, "the best weapon is that which you never have to use."  WMDs are a last-resort, a failsafe.  It's the idea behind MAD (Mutually-Assured Destruction); that if you decide to wipe me out, I can still hit a button and wipe you out.  While it may seem that this doesn't accomplish anything (and in fact, it would be incredibly horrible if it actually happened), it's a very large deterrent.  If any country tries a full-scale war, WMDs are there to ensure that there's still a limit to how high the issue can escalate.

That being said, while I'm not in favor of us disposing of all of them, I do agree that they should be scaled back a lot.  Have some available as a deterrent, but that's it.

[Oniya]

The one reason I think that WMDs are heading towards obsolescence is that right now, the US can send GPS-guided munitions to knock on the enemy leader's door.  Okay, I'm exaggerating slightly (and I'm sure the folks that have worked with them will correct me to the extent that security allows ;D <3), but the fact remains that we can take out the leadership of an enemy group while leaving most of the population intact.  Unless you have a situation where the population is just as fanatical as their leadership, there's no need to 'nuke 'em 'til they glow'.

(The 'fanatical populace' argument is the one reason that WMDs aren't already obsolete in my eyes.)

[RubySlippers]

I'm not going to touch the rest of the thread right now (partly because I'm supposed to be out shoveling snow right now, not typing on a forum...), but I do want to toss in my $0.02 on this one.

There is a saying that goes, I believe, "the best weapon is that which you never have to use."  WMDs are a last-resort, a failsafe.  It's the idea behind MAD (Mutually-Assured Destruction); that if you decide to wipe me out, I can still hit a button and wipe you out.  While it may seem that this doesn't accomplish anything (and in fact, it would be incredibly horrible if it actually happened), it's a very large deterrent.  If any country tries a full-scale war, WMDs are there to ensure that there's still a limit to how high the issue can escalate.

That being said, while I'm not in favor of us disposing of all of them, I do agree that they should be scaled back a lot.  Have some available as a deterrent, but that's it.

Actually that is why I think nuclear proliferation is not a bad thing lets say every nation had 10 nukes and they could hit any other nation with them that would be a deterrent. Okay would you be the one to want to go to war and worry at some point someone will used some of these? I note India and Pakistan are nuclear as is Israel the fact they have these weapons reduced the odds of a major war significantly between these powers and anyone else. So I have an idea the major two powers should give every nation ten nukes as a gift with ICBM's and the whole nine yards if the nation wants them. Then if 90% of nations have them it will immediately make major war a very risky thing forcing nations to behave more and even despotic regimes will think about attacking anyone outside their borders.

[Hemingway]

There are some fundamental problems with deterrence theory, though. It's basically a game of chicken. The most important, I think, is that it doesn't factor in insane or suicidal regimes. If the threat of nuclear annihilation isn't enough to discourage someone, then it does nothing. It's basically about who's willing to apply the most pressure without actually pulling the trigger. It also doesn't take into account terrorist groups, or Tom Clancy-style extremists factions within the Russian armed forces. Or the US armed forces, for that matter. Don't think I trust the US with its nukes any more than I do Russia. I trust North Korea even less, but that sort of goes without saying.

You'd also need someone actually willing to consign the human race to extinction. I mean, if one side's nuclear arsenal is sailing through the upper atmosphere toward you, what are you going to do? You'd basically be saying if you can't have the planet, no one will.

It's a thoroughly suicidal plan, is what I'm saying. Even people who were for it during the Cold War now realize this

Then if 90% of nations have them it will immediately make major war a very risky thing forcing nations to behave more and even despotic regimes will think about attacking anyone outside their borders.

How is that even remotely the case? Assuming there's a 100% certainty that an attack ( nuclear or otherwise ) will be met with a nuclear strike, yes, it might work. But that's not how reality works. It further assumes that all leaders are willing to push equally hard, with no one willing to push just a little bit harder. It also doesn't prevent conventional wars. It might prevent the use of nuclear weapons in those wars, but then again, why should it, once one side grows desperate?

In short, we'd be dead within a week.

[SilentScreams]

Well MAD did a good job of not killing us in a week during the Cold War.

It's an impossibility to abolish the armed forces of the various nations. We are not noble savages. Since the damn of man we've been killing each other. To abolish the armed forces would leave nation states defenseless to protect their interests, their land, and their people. Without standing armies there is nothing to stop a local strong man from taking what he or she wants from the territory surrounding their stronghold. Even if firearms were abolished that would not solve the problem, far more humans have died at the point of a sword then under the barrel of a gun.

It would be counterproductive to dismantle our nuclear arsenal. No matter how much we may wish it that particular genie has been let out of the bottle. Anyone with an internet connection can discover exactly how to make a nuclear weapon. Anyone with enough capital can make one. To dismantle our arsenal would only serve to dismantle our deterrence. Until the current administration the standing response to a strike against us with a WMD was to retaliate with a nuclear response.

Deterrence implies strength. The greatest deterrence is that the person you are thinking of attacking is stronger then you are. It may not be pretty but that is the way the world works.

[Hemingway]

Well MAD did a good job of not killing us in a week during the Cold War.

Barely.

It's an impossibility to abolish the armed forces of the various nations. We are not noble savages. Since the damn of man we've been killing each other. To abolish the armed forces would leave nation states defenseless to protect their interests, their land, and their people. Without standing armies there is nothing to stop a local strong man from taking what he or she wants from the territory surrounding their stronghold. Even if firearms were abolished that would not solve the problem, far more humans have died at the point of a sword then under the barrel of a gun.

I've responded so similar claims before. I think the first thing to point out is that I've never suggested, and certainly no one else in this thread has, that we completely abolish all armed forces. I'm arguing for abolition where it's possible, reduction where it's not.

For me, the most important thing is for supernational organizations to be able to intervene, if necessary with military might, in places where it's necessary to prevent even greater atrocities. That's quite distinct from every country on the planet having an entire army numbering in the tens of thousands ready to invade a neighboring country. It just isn't necessary, and it certainly doesn't make the world a safer place, which is what this is ultimately about.

It would be counterproductive to dismantle our nuclear arsenal. No matter how much we may wish it that particular genie has been let out of the bottle. Anyone with an internet connection can discover exactly how to make a nuclear weapon. Anyone with enough capital can make one. To dismantle our arsenal would only serve to dismantle our deterrence. Until the current administration the standing response to a strike against us with a WMD was to retaliate with a nuclear response.

Deterrence implies strength. The greatest deterrence is that the person you are thinking of attacking is stronger then you are. It may not be pretty but that is the way the world works.

If you're implying that any person with access to the internet can get his hands on the technology required to make a nuclear warhead and a delivery system, not to mention that actual components, including enriched uranium, I think you're underestimating the difficulty of making such a weapon. Especially if you want to do it without attracting attention.

Furthermore, suppose some private entity, some non-government organization, whoever - not the state - gets their hands on a nuclear weapon, and threaten to use it. Given how many people are willing to die for a cause, do you really think they'd hesitate, just because they might get hit back? Do you want to bet your life on that? And if you do, and they still threaten you, are you suggesting we nuke some innocent third party in the hopes we'll get the terrorists at the same time? A small group is hiding somewhere in some city in some wretched part of the world, and you want to kill everyone there, just in case?

Because otherwise I can't see any way nuclear weapons would help in that situation. In other words, no compelling reasons for keeping them, but a lot to get rid of them.

As for some reasons why deterrence simply can't be relied upon, I'll refer you to my previous post.

[Oniya]

Musical interlude time:

[noembed]Who's Next[/noembed]
[noembed]So Long, Mom (A Song For World War III)[/noembed]
[noembed]We Will All Go Together[/noembed]

*coughs*  Lovely thing about satire - it seems to be easily recycled.

[SilentScreams]

There is no barely. Extinction is a zero sum game. Either we survived, or we didn't.

I, for one, am wholly unwilling to put my trust and well being in the hands of foreign masters concerned with running a planet. Slavery is something that humanity has been fighting for millenniums to abolish and to blithely imply that a strong, central international body would have the ability to intervene to prevent "atrocities" is a cunningly concealed argument advocating the enslavement of the human race because we just can't be trusted to not destroy ourselves.

Who is to judge what these "atrocities" are? Maybe in the short term they are quasi-legitimate but in the long term what is to stop an all powerful international organization from deciding that private ownership of guns, or free expression, or property ownership is an "atrocity"? When it come to governemnt, any government, it will ultimately devolve into an exercise meant to perpetuate its own existence and it will create "emergencies" to justify that existence.

When I referred to the internet and making nuclear weapons I was referring to the technical process, not the mechanical. Although with enough capital someone who be able to build one. Any billion dollar company could build one. They would diversify into mining (not all sources of uranium or plutonium around the globe are guarded, or even know), begin industrial production, it could be done. The remainder of your argument against someone privately doing it is a poorly constructed syllogism.

Terrorists use weapons.
Nuclear bombs are weapons.
Terrorists would use nuclear weapons.

Of course they would. That's a moot point. The people you have to worry about are the ones who wouldn't use the weapon but would have it just to have it, or have it for long range, strategic goals. The most compelling reason to keep them is that other nations, no matter what claims they may make to the contrary, would keep some laying around. Sure, this supernational orginization could do inspections. To what end? That worked so well with North Korea, right? Or would the supernational organization intervene militarily to keep a nation from retaining or producing nuclear weapons? Without an armed forces, or with a drastically reduced one, it sure would be easy for this supernational organization to soon control everything and everyone.

[Hemingway]

Allow me to elaborate, then. We barely, or, if you will, very narrowly avoided a nuclear exchange that would at worst lead to the extinction of our entire species, and at best set us back to a state we could never expect to recover from.

I take issue with "cunningly concealed argument advocating the enslavement of the human race". No more than a state is an attempt to enslave its citizens. I know there are certain groups where any talk of a "world government" is seen as something sinister, but I happen not to be one of those people. I may be critical of some key parts of organizations like the UN and the EU, but I don't see how we can expect to progress as a species if we can't first set aside our essentially tribal squabbles and differences.

I happen to also think that it's possible to agree on certain situations that would fit the description of an "atrocity". A government carrying out a genocide against a part of its own population would be one of those, and we can take it from there.

It seems you've got a few views in common with people and groups like Alex Jones and the John Birch Society. Now, that's fine, I'm not trying to discredit what you're saying on that basis. It just so happens that I find myself, politically, almost as far from those views as it's possible to get. In other words, what you see as major problems simply aren't problems to me, not in the same way. The fact that Russia, for instance, can prevent the UN from acting as a whole, seemingly for completely selfish ends, that's a problem. Governments, in and of themselves, are not.

And, I'm sorry, but you'll have to do better than simply declaring my argument poorly constructed. I'm not going to do your work for you.

When you say the people you need to worry about are the ones who wouldn't use their weapons, I tend to disagree. I'm more worried about suicidal terrorists attacking a major city for no reason other than their faith, their politics or their plain insanity compells them to do it.

Nuclear weapons are funny like that, in that they only work when they're not used. It used to be different, sure, but today using one is tantamount to suicide. You can't use them preemptively, and by the time you need to use them for self defense, you've already lost. Even a limited nuclear exchange would have catastrophic consequences for the world as a whole, and the idea that you can keep a limited nuclear exchange limited is absurd.

As for your final point, it would serve your arguments better to respond to my actual positions. I think I made it clear that the military would not, in any case, disappear overnight. It would be naive, I've already said, to abolish your armed forces and expect everyone else to do the same. But diplomacy works, and it's possible for two states, even ones that are not on very good terms, to negotiate for instance a reduction in their nuclear arsenal. It's possible because it's a situation that everybody benefits from. In an arms race, neither party benefits.

[SilentScreams]

I understand what you are saying but there we reach the crux of the problem. I am unwilling to, in any way, allow foreign masters to lord over me. I have enough of a problem with local government, let alone national or international. In my opinion, government is always the problem and never the answer. Add to that the complexity of an international force in my state or in my town? I'm fighting. I don't care why they are there, it's just wrong for them to be there. Actually, foreign or domestic. But no, I'm not a Bircher and Alex Jones strikes me as a shill for the globalists. He begs you to sign up on his website, to comment, blah blah blah. I don't trust him.

[Hemingway]

I would be remiss not to say that I don't think my proposed solution is somehow perfect or complete. I've just noticed that I, and many others, tend to be critical without giving any alternatives, something I feel I should do from time to time. I created this thread because I wanted my views challenged, because that's the only way of developing a good idea into a workable solution. The one fundamental belief that's the root of this, is the belief, one I think is based firmly in facts and reason, that a world with no nuclear weapons is safer than a world with nuclear weapons. If that's something people agree with, then no matter how idealistic and utopian that view is, I think it's something we ought to work toward. I'm far from an optimist by nature, but I think people who think it's impossible to get a world without wapons of mass destruction are simply not using their imagination.

[Zakharra]

 Safer from nukes? Yes. Safer over all? Not really.  Conventional wars can do a lot of damage and waste lives.  Nuclear weapons just do that in an instant rather than taking days, week or months. You also have dirty bombs (radiological) and biological warfare. It's getting terrifyingly easy to design a custom disease and release it. How long do you think it will be before terrorists are using biological warfare on their enemies in major cities?  Can you imagine what a  fast and lethal version of the bird flu would do to some place like New York City? To London? Paris?  I shudder to think of the carnage.

As long as you have someone willing to force people to believe his way/obey him by force, you will have a need for a military. You can't really say that the leader of Syria would be willing to abolish his military. He needs it to stay in power.

[Callie Del Noire]

Safer from nukes? Yes. Safer over all? Not really.  Conventional wars can do a lot of damage and waste lives.  Nuclear weapons just do that in an instant rather than taking days, week or months. You also have dirty bombs (radiological) and biological warfare. It's getting terrifyingly easy to design a custom disease and release it. How long do you think it will be before terrorists are using biological warfare on their enemies in major cities?  Can you imagine what a  fast and lethal version of the bird flu would do to some place like New York City? To London? Paris?  I shudder to think of the carnage.

As long as you have someone willing to force people to believe his way/obey him by force, you will have a need for a military. You can't really say that the leader of Syria would be willing to abolish his military. He needs it to stay in power.

Yeah.. I'm sure that he's seeing the writing on the wall though. Shooting journalists might curtail reporting in the short term BUT it's definitely a policy to ensure that you will be reported on. In detail. (granted from a safe distance or from flack vested reporters in the field.)

[Hemingway]

Safer from nukes? Yes. Safer over all? Not really.  Conventional wars can do a lot of damage and waste lives.  Nuclear weapons just do that in an instant rather than taking days, week or months. You also have dirty bombs (radiological) and biological warfare. It's getting terrifyingly easy to design a custom disease and release it. How long do you think it will be before terrorists are using biological warfare on their enemies in major cities?  Can you imagine what a  fast and lethal version of the bird flu would do to some place like New York City? To London? Paris?  I shudder to think of the carnage.

As long as you have someone willing to force people to believe his way/obey him by force, you will have a need for a military. You can't really say that the leader of Syria would be willing to abolish his military. He needs it to stay in power.

To say that nuclear weapons do in an instant what other weapons take longer to do is an oversimplification. The most important distinction, so it seems to me, is with conventional weapons there's a chance for retaliation, and for putting an end to conflict before the destruction of the world becomes complete. With nuclear weapons, once they fly, you've essentially annihilated the entire world - assuming there other side is willing to launch their nuclear arsenal as well. But, of course, there are other differences as well. Nuclear weapons are indiscriminate by nature, while conventional ones at least have some measure of precision in who they affect. There's no nuclear fallout. There's less risk of what you might refer to as a nuclear winter.

I fail to see the relevance of engineered diseases here. If you think I'm against nuclear weapons but not other forms of WMDs, you're wrong. If what you're saying is that we have all these other terrible possibilities, so whether or not we have nuclear weapons doesn't matter, that's a complete non sequitur. It's a line of reasoning that could be used to justify inaction in any situation. Take the last invasion of Iraq, and let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that Iraq actually had WMDs and was a real threat. It would be like saying we shouldn't bother invading them, because there are still other countries that have them, so it would amount to nothing. It just doesn't make sense.

The only way the world can be made, to paraphrase you, safer from nukes but not safer overall, is if something fills the vacuum left by the threat of an ICBM carrying a nuclear warhead. The problem with this is that there are really no alternatives that are quite as ( in a very grim way ) reliable, effective and precise. Sure, you could use a virus as leverage, but that has a very large chance of backfiring. How an outbreak of a certain virus would occur and what its effects would be are to a certain degree predictable, but not in the same way the trajectory and blast radius of a nuclear weapon is. There's a reason why deterrence theory is based on nuclear weapons, and not other WMDs. Others would have devastating effects, of course, but they're not quite the apocalyptic weapons that nukes are.

[Zakharra]

  Part of the deterrent of nukes is, 'if you use yours, we will use ours.'  That also implies that the other side will be sane enough to not deploy them and stick to just conventional (hopefully) warfare.  With some nations and people (Iran and terrorists come to mind), they would either use it as a club and say 'obey me or else' and use it if their demands were not met (their pride would make them use it if nothing else.) or use it to stroke against an enemy. Iran using it against Israel or a terrorist group using it against Israel, the US or another enemy. Terrorists would absolutely love to get their hands on a nuclear weapon. They would use it in a heartbeat.

For the other WMDs, chemical warfare is fairly ineffective, but biological was never really a problem. It took a lot of equipment to make a disease back then. Nowadays, with computer technology and smaller, more efficient equipment for gene splicing and genetic manipulation, it's getting to the point that a terrorist with the know-how could make a disease with a frighteningly high lethality rate. The 'poor mans nuke' is what I've heard that called because it doesn't require anywhere near the amount of equipment, resources or personnel to make. Thankfully it hasn't happened yet, but I'm afraid it will only be a matter of time.

If this biological tech had been in existence 70 years ago, it would have been used as a WMD without question. If not by the US, then by the Germans, Japanese or Soviets. Any of them would have gleefully used nukes or biological diseases if they would have had them. Especially if it leaves the infrastructure intact.

I fail to see the relevance of engineered diseases here. If you think I'm against nuclear weapons but not other forms of WMDs, you're wrong. If what you're saying is that we have all these other terrible possibilities, so whether or not we have nuclear weapons doesn't matter, that's a complete non sequitur. It's a line of reasoning that could be used to justify inaction in any situation. Take the last invasion of Iraq, and let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that Iraq actually had WMDs and was a real threat. It would be like saying we shouldn't bother invading them, because there are still other countries that have them, so it would amount to nothing. It just doesn't make sense.

I'm not sure I understand that clearly, can you clarify it please?

[Hemingway]

The problem with biological weapons - and I thought I made this quite clear - is that they're extremely unpredictable in ways that nuclear weapons aren't. If you actually use it, there's a very good chance the deadly killer virus you've created ends up killing you as well, because viruses spread and mutate in ways that are only partly predictable. The closest thing you get with a nuclear weapon is the radioactive fallout and potentially catastrophic environmental effects, but those are to a much greater extent predictable.

As for terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons, I must ask the following: yes, and? It's not an argument in favor of nuclear weapons that terrorists, many of whom appear to have no regard for personal safety and who wouldn't hesitate to hide behind a civilian population, might get their hands on nukes. Deterrence in that case does not work. It might actually be an argument against it, because they lack the resources to create weapons themselves and so must rely on stealing or buying them, something that, it seems to me, becomes easier the more weapons there are.

I'm not sure I understand that clearly, can you clarify it please?

What you just said is remarkably close to what I wanted to say. What I said was in response to this following quote from your previous post:

You also have dirty bombs (radiological) and biological warfare. It's getting terrifyingly easy to design a custom disease and release it. How long do you think it will be before terrorists are using biological warfare on their enemies in major cities?

Here it appears to me you're saying that because other weapons of mass destruction exist, getting rid of nukes is pointless. Hence my reference to Iraq.

[Strident]

I strongly encourage everyone to go and search on youtube for a documentary made in the 1960s by the BBC called "Wargame".

It's a cinematic masterpiece, and properly shocking even in 2012, let alone when it was made, depicting nuclear war.

I say this to emphasise that I fully understand the horror of what we are talking about here, and yet....and yet....

I think the west should maintain it's nuclear defence. It remains the best hope for peace. Maybe, just maybe, there will come a day when we no longer need it, but we are a long way from that yet.

[Oniya]

I was properly horrified when watching the movie 'Failsafe'.  In that movie, some kind of miscommunication sent bombers going between the US and Russia.  Due to the titular 'failsafes', there was no way for the erroneous bombers to be called back.

[Callie Del Noire]

Right now I'm watching Israel with concern. To date they have stayed pretty quiet about the Iranian nuclear program but there is a data approaching real soon when the elements they are watching with concern will be beyond their reach in hardened bunkers but within reach of US forces. To date they have been happy to stay out of the mix and let the US and allies handle the issue but it's going to come to the point where they will want assurances that if diplomacy fails the US will move to eliminate the threat.

Now, looking at it from their pov, I'd be very very wary of any empty promise I get from some of the folks in DC. Because, I think there is a lack of intestinal fortitude to follow through with promises on both sides of the party divide. I can see the president promising the world a LOT but doing nothing when the time came. (This current one or another president from the other party).

Why? Because it would hurt the standings of said president. Clinton waffled for a few hours when he was in office and MIGHT have missed Bin Laden because of it, Bush II spent months shopping the public before moving on Iraq (when he should have focused on Afganistan) and I could name more. We got leaders these days who seem more concerned with the opinion polls than anything else.

Ronald Reagan dropped a bundle of bombs on Libyan defense ministry to push a point home. One of the things that had happened months before was a Libyan dissident had been kidnapped from US soil and taken back to Libya where he was executed. Up to that point Kadaffi had done moves all over Europe and beyond, and that was one of the first moves in the US. He didn't do any such things after.

Today.. we'd have to hope that the opinion poll was in favor of such an action.  Political correctness has crippled us.

[SilentScreams]

The bugbear that is the current march to war against Iran is not helpful. If Israel wants to stop it they need to stop it themselves unfortunately, we will get dragged into a war that we can not afford. A useless war that should not even be fought.

On the more general topic, I do believe that the armed forces can be substantially reduced. If we don't go off getting ourselves involved in foreign entanglements we could adopt the Swiss approach where everyone, barring conscientious objectors, reports for a few months of basic training when they turn eighteen and then return to their homes. In the event of invasion, the citizens, who are armed, have had training and have had two weeks of refresher courses every year so that they can defend the nation.

[Zakharra]

 That war wouldn't even be fought if Iran would just shut the hell up and stop antagonizing Israel. The fact Iran has been promising to attack Israel, calling for it's destruction and aiding the terrorist groups attacking it, is not helping the situation at all. Israel is in a catch 22 situation. They can do nothing and come under further attack (Egypt is rapidly becoming a flashpoint by itself) when Iran is ready, or do a preemptive attack in the hopes of delaying Iran's nuclear ambitions and deal with the aftermath in it's own way.  Right now, an armed military are very much needed by Israel.

I'm not sure the Swiss model would work ion the US. The draft has been abolished for what? About 30 years now? Getting it reinstated would be a nasty uphill fight by either party and would, to the Democrats, be a major expansion of the US military. That's something they don't want. They've been trying to reduce military spending for decades.  Not to mention I think a lot of the population would be against such a draft now when there is no obvious need for it.

[Hemingway]

I have a lot to say about Israel, but this isn't really the right place, as it's a different debate entirely. I don't mind that whole situation being brought up in the context of war and peace, and how to avoid war and achieve peace, but I'd appreciate it if we could avoid a discussion on the relations between Iran and Israel in general, as it's not really relevant, and I'd like this to stay on topic.

That being said, I think there's lessons to be learned from Israel. Avoiding the religious side of the issue as much as possible ( religion is another issue I like to debate, but this isn't really the place for that, either ), I think the greatest lesson there is that creating a state is a great deal more complicated than that, at least if you want to do it peacefully. It's essentially a relic of imperialism, so I would imagine there's less potential for that today.

And, honestly, does Israel having nuclear weapons make the region a safer place? Israel, in spite of the propaganda, is hardly a peaceful state that acts only in self defense and to protect itself. Iran is more difficult to understand because of its religious leadership, so it's hard to say where the politics end and the religion begins ( that is, are it's motivations political - protection from Israel and its western allies, or are they religious? ).

[Callie Del Noire]

Agreed, Israel isn't a nice group of people. I got issues with their refusal to stop expanding in the contested areas.. That being said, Israel with the bomb.. how likely is it that Syria and/or other contries haven't gotten adventurous because they might have the bomb. And knowing that if you back them into a corner that they will blow YOU up?

[SilentScreams]

The Swiss model isn't an expansion of the military and it's not a draft. You do your basic training, you serve your two weeks every year to keep the information fresh, and then you go back to your homes. If anything, it would be cheaper. Assault rifles, when produced in huge quantities, are not that expensive. A Colt AR sells for about $1,300. For the price of one M1-A2 Abrams MBT (price: $6.12 million) you could get approximately 4,700 rifles, or for the cost of an F-35 ($122 million) approximately 94,000 rifles.

Before someone else mentions it, our F-18s and, if need by, Tornado Interceptors purchased from Britain, would be more then adequate to protect our skies. There is already enough armor in service to protect our land possessions.

In addition, billions would be saved in salaries, foreign wars, and healthcare, and benefits. Our carrier fleet would be maintained, perhaps even expanded, but with a savings generated by the above cute/reductions. Our ability to involve ourselves in foreign adventures would be greatly curtailed while the homeland would be safer then it is now with both more weapons, and more people with training, available should we ever be invaded.

[Zakharra]

The Swiss model isn't an expansion of the military and it's not a draft. You do your basic training, you serve your two weeks every year to keep the information fresh, and then you go back to your homes. If anything, it would be cheaper. Assault rifles, when produced in huge quantities, are not that expensive. A Colt AR sells for about $1,300. For the price of one M1-A2 Abrams MBT (price: $6.12 million) you could get approximately 4,700 rifles, or for the cost of an F-35 ($122 million) approximately 94,000 rifles.

Before someone else mentions it, our F-18s and, if need by, Tornado Interceptors purchased from Britain, would be more then adequate to protect our skies. There is already enough armor in service to protect our land possessions.

In addition, billions would be saved in salaries, foreign wars, and healthcare, and benefits. Our carrier fleet would be maintained, perhaps even expanded, but with a savings generated by the above cute/reductions. Our ability to involve ourselves in foreign adventures would be greatly curtailed while the homeland would be safer then it is now with both more weapons, and more people with training, available should we ever be invaded.

It is an expansion of the military and it is a draft if every one is expected/required to do it. While in boot camp, you have to pay them a salary, you have to feed and clothe them and there are literally millions of people who would be in the boot camps  every year. You'd have to reopen and expand them to take the influx of new recruits. Then you need to equip them. Uniforms and by your model, give them all M-16s?

You'd also need to pay then for the two week annual training as well. Then there's transportation, medical costs, housing, and insurance. The cost to the military with this model would only go up. The bureaucracy would have to expand with the influx of recruits (medical and service records). Unless you mean that the citizens and the military would be expected to do this all for free...   Talk about throwing money away then.

And that's not even mentioning the draft dodgers

[Hemingway]

the Swiss approach where everyone, barring conscientious objectors, reports for a few months of basic training

I think that should clear up a lot of your questions, Zakharra.

That being said, it's not very different from the system we have here. I do think it has issues, though. It might be a workable solution for defense of a country with a very large population, but it hardly seems efficient. I would think that a smaller but highly trained and well-equipped force would be much less expensive, much less of a burden on the population, and certainly a better tool for defense of the country's allies.

[Zakharra]

I think that should clear up a lot of your questions, Zakharra.

That being said, it's not very different from the system we have here. I do think it has issues, though. It might be a workable solution for defense of a country with a very large population, but it hardly seems efficient. I would think that a smaller but highly trained and well-equipped force would be much less expensive, much less of a burden on the population, and certainly a better tool for defense of the country's allies.

Nope. It doesn't clear up my questions.  There would be more than a few conscientious objectors, and remember, many of the people who hated the military in their youth (60's and 70's) are not in office.  The US has a population of over 300 million. That is a hell of a lot more than Switzerland. Switzerland has what? A few million? Ten million?

The US military downsized the number of bases it has in the US and reduced the boot camps to just a few. To handle the new recruits for even a 2 month training regime, would mean they would have to open up a lot more. That means more training staff, more base staff, you have to have uniforms, medical checkups, bureaucracy to handle the records, equipment and gear.  In all ways it is a fairly large gearing up of the military when the government is in the process of  reducing the military. With 300+ million citizens, I can't see how you would have less.

Also. would people be required to go into the Army, Marines, Navy or Air Force?  Would they be able to choose or would that be picked for them? If I remember right, boot camp is different lengths for the different services and it's at the most, a basic training, more or less to get you physically fit and see what you are qualified for. (and anyone who has been in the military lately please correct me if I'm wrong) The schools after boot camp is what makes you as a service man. There you get more advanced training in your rating, on the machines you will be using and what not.

It would be nice if something like the Switzerland model could be used, but getting it enacted by Congress and paid for would be a massive uphill battle.

[Hemingway]

I was referring specifically to it being a proper draft, since you made reference to that, and to draft dodgers.

[Zakharra]

 Ah. Well, I'm not sure how the Swiss model deals with draft dodgers. I do not here in the 60's and 70's, it was almost an art form and a popular sign of rebellion against the government to try and avoid the draft.  Does the Swiss model have women as well as men in it?

[Hurricane]

A nation with out a standing army is only possible in places like Europe, where their neighbors will respect their boundaries. If a neighbor doesn't respect the boundary, there's nothing to really stop that nation from coming in and taking over.

Actually, the European continent isn't immune that that sort of aggression at all as this footage aptly demonstrates.

[Zakharra]

 Hhmm.. yes. During the Cold war. Which no longer exists. I am mainly speaking about the EU part of Europe in which some of the internal nations that do not border the outskirts can and do exist without any real need for large standing armies.