Why does the United States need a military today?

[Callisto]

Good point, although as empires go, ours has been kind of tame by comparison. I mean, the Roman Empire used to crucify people, and the British Empire burned people at the stake. The Mongol Empire did all kinds of horrible things.

In any case, many Americans still think that they're on the side of good. But if we have an emperor wearing a black robe and emitting an evil cackle, then people might begin to realize.

Tangerine Palpatine.

 

[Augustus]

No. The only existential threat to the US is from its own excesses. The greatest threat to our freedom is from our own government.

When you have the world’s most powerful military the main threat is yourself.

When you have no military the main threat is anyone with a powerful military.

 

[Valjean]

It's one thing to be cynical.
And it's reasonable to criticize
US's wrongdoing.
But it's another entirely to be in
denial of anything remotely positive.

I don't deny a positive side, a pax Americana, safe shipping routs, &c. But the US became obsessed with maintaining an economic and military hegemony. It began nation building, installing governments, suppressing democratic movements, supporting brutal military regimes.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't deny a positive side, a pax Americana, safe shipping routs, &c. But the US became obsessed with maintaining an economic and military hegemony. It began nation building, installing governments, suppressing democratic movements, supporting brutal military regimes.

Tis important to recognize the different
reasons for a military, both proper & dubious.

 

[Kfox]

Why does the US need a military,

All countries should have a military for protection against enemy forces

especially one as large and spread around the world as it is now? We are a constitutional republic with a Bill of Rights, not an empire.

How is our Constitutional republic different from an Empire?

 

[Valjean]

All countries should have a military for protection against enemy forces

But that's not what the US uses it's military for.
The US military secures markets, installs puppet governments, and suppresses democratic movements,

How is our Constitutional republic different from an Empire?

ROFL! It is an empire.

 

[Heyo]

All countries should have a military for protection against enemy forces

If no country had an army to attack with, no other country would need and army to defend.

 

[Unfettered]

Why does the US need a military, especially one as large and spread around the world as it is now? We are a constitutional republic with a Bill of Rights, not an empire.

A Military (ie, standing armies)? Agreed.
Local Militias? We should always have those.

I shouldn't have to pay taxes to fund a military that protects shipping routes, unless I'm directly engaging in international commerce; let shipping companies pay for their own security and protection.

Agreed.

If other nations want outside help for their defense and security, such as from the US, I think they ought to just work that out with private entities that offer such services & leave taxpayers out of that.

Agreed.

Some of the military even involves things that aren't in the US Constitution, such as having an air force or using aircraft (such as in the US Army & Navy). Same with ICBMs, nuclear weapons, etc. It only gives the federal government the power for armies and a navy. I'm not sure how the federal government is getting around the constitution - if at all.

This goes too far. An "army" is just a fighting force to repel an aggressor. If the engagements are in the air, an air "force" is needed. On water, a naval "force." Etc. And the armaments the force uses must be equal to the task of victory; otherwise those who fight are likely just throwing their lives away.

We already have the US Coast Guard to protect the border at sea. National guard units can be managed at the state level. If 2nd Amendment rights were respected, as they always ought to be, then everyone in the US could be armed to the teeth & no foreign entity would dare try to invade us.

Agreed. So long as the arms the citizens have are not less than what the army has.

Regarding conscription in the US - it's totally unconstitutional. It blatantly disregards the 13th Amendment ban on slavery & involuntary servitude.

Agreed.

The reason it exists now is because a bunch of totally corrupt US Supreme Court justices ruled unanimously that it is constitutional (Arver v. US) back in the early 20th century. It seems like a lot of crap that took our rights & destroyed the US happened back in the early 20th century

Agreed, and the usurpation continues.

 

[lukethethird]

Why does the United States need a military today?​

The U.S. is in the protection racket.

 

[Valjean]

A Military (ie, standing armies)? Agreed.
Local Militias? We should always have those.

I don't think we should be encouraging our natural tribalism by arming the tribes. I'd expect local uprisings and coups every other week.
You're describing Port-au-Prince in Haiti, or Niger, or Los Angeles' Gang neighborhoods. How's that working out for the peace and prosperity of the locals?

Agreed.
Agreed.
This goes too far. An "army" is just a fighting force to repel an aggressor. If the engagements are in the air, an air "force" is needed. On water, a naval "force." Etc. And the armaments the force uses must be equal to the task of victory; otherwise those who fight are likely just throwing their lives away.
Agreed. So long as the arms the citizens have are not less than what the army has.Agreed.
Agreed, and the usurpation continues.

Small, poorly armed groups can hold out against superior forces for a long time. Afghanistan has defeated the British, The Soviets and, the Americans. Viet Nam defeated the French and the Americans. An armed and angry populace is more likely to sow chaos than preserve peace and prosperity.

 

[Unfettered]

I don't think we should be encouraging our natural tribalism by arming the tribes. I'd expect local uprisings and coups every other week.
You're describing Port-au-Prince in Haiti, or Niger, or Los Angeles' Gang neighborhoods. How's that working out for the peace and prosperity of

When respected and effective local police exist, local militias wouldn't be for day-to-day law enforcement, but for responding to invading threats, including from one's own government. I don't think having local militias would result in the kind of chaos seen in the places you described. The inclusion of L.A. seems odd, though. If there were local militias there, they could be called upon by state, county or city law enforcement to help with serious gang violence.

Small, poorly armed groups can hold out against superior forces for a long time. Afghanistan has defeated the British, The Soviets and, the Americans. Viet Nam defeated the French and the Americans. An armed and angry populace is more likely to sow chaos than preserve peace and prosperity.

The US citizenry is well armed, but chaos doesn't reign here. Media sensationalizes extremes, but those are not the norm. Not even close. Where chaos is found, it is usually marked by severe social deficiencies or breakdowns in local government or policing, not by the simple fact of armed citizens.

Afghanistan's and Vietnam's successful resistance has more to do with terrain than the arms being used in the conflict. Mountains and jungles offer significant advantages for entrenched forces; cities less so; people in open fields, less still. If the holdouts are well dug-in in tunnels and jungles and can engage in sustained guerilla warfare, the effect of advanced arms may be neutralized.

I don't think your comparisons here are good ones, honestly.