Four Reasons We Should Abolish the Military

Nice job, Poob. I can see it happeng exactly how you describe it.

I can sympathize with libertarians' desire to severely reduce both the size and scope of gov't, but it's suicidal to mess around with (let alone eliminate) national defense.

Looks like Lew Rockwell and the UN are in agreement.

If I were the ChiComs, I'd simply build up lots of shipping, an infantry-heavy army of occupation, lots of nukes, and arrive off the coast after detonating a nuke in orbit over North America. No means of electronic communication equals no means of marshling forces--or even knowing where the enemy is until he drives up to your front door. In each locality, the PLA commander would notify the public (via leaflet drops and other means) that the first act of armed resistance would be dealt with by withdrawing the occupation troops, followed by liberal use of enhanced radiation warheads on all human habitation within fifty miles of the point of resistance, plus the nearest major city...and then carry out the threat if anything happens.

And to think, people on this thread are accusing Brad Edmonds of being a nutcase. LOL

Why is that "nutty" in a situation where one's enemy has no organization, and nothing more lethal than an AK-47? It would be quite effective, especially after showing the disorganized rabble what happens when you defy the will of Beijing.

I've never read anything by Edmonds detailing his nuclear stance, but I don't read anything in that piece that would preclude the deployment of those weapons neccessary for pure defense from nuclear weapons (missile defense, or possibly even nuclear deterrent.) There's just no particular reason why it must be run by soldiers, or even government proper.

China is not run by fanatical Muslims bent on mass murder. They are power hungry statists, like most world leaders. The destruction of the American economy would be extremely detrimental to China itself. The only reasonable motivation for Chinese attack of the U.S. is to occupy and control it. Detonating nuclear weapons, leaving the United States a desolate radioactive wasteland, isn't compatible with that objective. They would be forced to use conventional means or they would be cutting off their nose to spite their face----and if they're going to do it, what is truly stopping them from doing it now? Only the threat of response in kind, but that doesn't stop the kind of lunatics you're apparently worried about.

Even a huge occupying army would have virtually no chance at enslaving 280 million Americans, when approximately half of them are armed. If only 10% of them resisted, that's a force of 28 million. The Revolutionary war was fought by only 11% of the population of the colonies.

I've never read anything by Edmonds detailing his nuclear stance, but I don't read anything in that piece that would preclude the deployment of those weapons neccessary for pure defense from nuclear weapons (missile defense, or possibly even nuclear deterrent.) There's just no particular reason why it must be run by soldiers, or even government proper.

Uh-huh.

Company A holds the nuclear deterrence contract.

Company B wins the recompete.

Company A files a protest...

...and conducts a "readiness exercise" to underline the point that giving the contract to Company B might not be a good idea.

China is not run by fanatical Muslims bent on mass murder. They are power hungry statists, like most world leaders.

And Edmonds' idea would aid and abet them in accomplishing this.

There is a reason that privately-owned military organizations stopped being significant on the battlefield.

The destruction of the American economy would be extremely detrimental to China itself. The only reasonable motivation for Chinese attack of the U.S. is to occupy and control it.

Which Edmonds' idea would make attractive.

Detonating nuclear weapons, leaving the United States a desolate radioactive wasteland, isn't compatible with that objective.

Enhanced radiation weapons do relatively little damage to physical assets--they merely kill the owners thereof.

They would be forced to use conventional means or they would be cutting off their nose to spite their face----and if they're going to do it, what is truly stopping them from doing it now?

The knowledge that it wouldn't work.

Only the threat of response in kind, but that doesn't stop the kind of lunatics you're apparently worried about.

Edmonds' idea would make such an effort eminently feasible, unless you really like the idea of privately-owned nuclear weapons.

None of what you said is any proof of anything, just bald assertions. I never said that Edmonds is of the opinion that they MUST be run privately. Frankly, I don't know his stance. You are the one dismissing an idea out of hand as unfeasable with sweeping gestures.

It may be that privately-run nuclear defense is unfeasable, and perhaps government involvement in this area is not prohibited by the Constitution (personally I don't think it is.) But whatever, I'm willing to give it a try if it means it will assist the rest of our government in returning to the Constitutional box it escaped from. I am of the opinion, as were many wise men in history, that the primary threat to our liberty is never the far-away invader---it's the government in your own backyard.

Enhanced radiation weapons do relatively little damage to physical assets--they merely kill the owners thereof.

And keeps on killing them for many, many half-lives. It's not the physical damage that is the main problem with nuclear weapons. This still leaves the land and infrastructure useless.

What, again, is stopping China from using nuclear weapons against us? "The knowledge that it wouldn't work." ??? Why wouldn't it work? Launching the weapons at us would work just fine, they would fly over here and destroy us. That they would be attacked in retaliation is no matter. What you have said so far leads me to believe that you don't think other governments behave in a rational, albeit self-serving, manner. You are convinced that our missiles and our military are the single leash holding back a world bent on the utter destruction of the United States. I don't buy it.

And keeps on killing them for many, many half-lives.

True--but the heavy neutron emitters used in enhanced radiation weapons have very short half-lives. It's not the physical damage that is the main problem with nuclear weapons. This still leaves the land and infrastructure useless.

What, again, is stopping China from using nuclear weapons against us? "The knowledge that it wouldn't work." ??? Why wouldn't it work?

Because, dear sir, it would not accomplish the intended goal--the US would retaliate and destroy China.

In Edmonds' ideal world, there wouldn't BE a nuclear force to retaliate with. Just a stout army of yeoman peasants with AK-47s.

Launching the weapons at us would work just fine, they would fly over here and destroy us.

True enough. But a government bent on gaining something from its actions would not pursue such a policy.

That they would be attacked in retaliation is no matter.

Coupled with the next sentence you wrote, this statement is unintentionally funny.

What you have said so far leads me to believe that you don't think other governments behave in a rational, albeit self-serving, manner.

Actually, I do believe that most governments rationally act in their self-perceived self-interests.

If the greatest economy--and thus the only potential rival for global hegemony--could be subordinated to a Chinese Greater Co-Prosperity Sphere for the price of a few nuclear warheads and a modest army of occupation--as Edmonds' proposal would make possible--then it is entirely possible that a Chinese government that perceives itself as "rational" might decide to pursue a policy similar to what I outlined. The rest of the countries in the world would quickly figure out that with America out of the picture, their best bet is to swear fealty to Beijing.

Minimal risk of failure, and great reward for success.

You are convinced that our missiles and our military are the single leash holding back a world bent on the utter destruction of the United States.

Yup. There are, believe it or not, bad people out there in the world.

I don't buy it.

Tough noogies. Reality has a way of disagreeing with you.

I think your B-movie portrayal of the evil ChiComs is marvelous. Couldn't you have had a general say in a badly accented English, "You razy Amelicans pay for these capitarist pig-dog attacks against godress Communism!" [kicks small, starving WASP child begging for food]

Thinking back on how productive those tactics were for the Japanese, Spanish, and Germans, one can't help but wonder if you are a bit prejudiced toward a standing army regardless of the outcome for those employing such tactics. Your scenario is rife with the assumption that only a unified command structure can survive and win against an invader, and that only the battlefield tactics of a standing army can win a war against a unified command structure. I think there are myriad examples otherwise, not least America's one outright failure in interventionism in Vietnam.

This Red Dawn scenario you pose is blindingly predicated on no nuclear forces being used, that the people in the U.S. see the commies coming en masse, and just wait for the commies to show up, get off the boat, and shoot at them in an orderly fashion so they can shoot back. I don't think any invader facing nukes will be eager to ship thousands of troops across the ocean (unless the Chinese or some other country have developed some hella big planes I don't know about) if they know there's a nice atomic kiss hello waiting for them.

I'm not some pacifist idiot or anti-military dipshit. I'm just not sure that what we've been doing in the way of intervention gets the American people what they want, because I believe there is a divergence between the stated aims of intervention and the reality. From what I've seen, most of the minor U.S. intervention outside our country is less promotion of American principles of freedom in the way average Americans like to think, and more promotion the interests of American politicians and the international businessmen who donate to them heavily. Government in D.C. does the same thing with the tax code and subsidies. Why is the military supposed to be so different? Because we know it can protect us, too? Lest we forget, swords are double-edged.

Only recently have I had any reason to think differently about politicians' direction of the American military, because I do think that Iraq and Afghanistan were intended to be defensively preempting in the first case and in the latter, punitive, and in both cases, reasonably so. But unfortunately, I'm still not sure I can reconcile a preemptive defense policy with any internal policy allowing possession of guns by the populace, and I don't know if I can trust a policy of preemption as a result given that its logic could lead to dangerous thinking at home about the Second Amendment.

Ping to 109.

I think your B-movie portrayal of the evil ChiComs is marvelous. Couldn't you have had a general say in a badly accented English, "You razy Amelicans pay for these capitarist pig-dog attacks against godress Communism!" [kicks small, starving WASP child begging for food]

Nope. America is going to attract enemies by its mere existence, unless we undergo something truly catastrophic (complete economic breakdown, a massively depopulating plague, et cetera).

A country as large and as prosperous as ours represents a great deal of potential power. Whether that power is actually made manifest or not, a nation seeking hegemony would need to deal with it. If that power is latent and not actual, a decisive move to prevent that power from manifesting itself could be a realistic strategy for the potential hegemon.

Thinking back on how productive those tactics were for the Japanese, Spanish, and Germans, one can't help but wonder if you are a bit prejudiced toward a standing army regardless of the outcome for those employing such tactics.

They worked quite nicely for the Japanese and the Germans, actually, until the *standing armies* of the US, UK, and USSR put paid to them.

Your scenario is rife with the assumption that only a unified command structure can survive and win against an invader, and that only the battlefield tactics of a standing army can win a war against a unified command structure.

Yup--when Side A has a coordinated idea of what the heck they're trying to do, and Side B doesn't, then Side A is likely to win.

I think there are myriad examples otherwise, not least America's one outright failure in interventionism in Vietnam.

Actually, it quite thoroughly proves the argument: the Vietnamese had a unified command structure, and the Americans didn't. This was particularly noticeable in the air war over the North, where the Air Force and the Navy didn't even try to talk to each other, let alone try to fight any sort of coordinated campaign--but it also affected ground operations in South Vietnam (Army/Marine Corps infighting, and even political infighting between the airmobile and leg units in the Army).

This Red Dawn scenario you pose is blindingly predicated on no nuclear forces being used, that the people in the U.S. see the commies coming en masse, and just wait for the commies to show up, get off the boat, and shoot at them in an orderly fashion so they can shoot back.

You stop an amphibious assault at the beachhead--or you get set to fight a long, bloody, and (probably) losing war, because you've handed the initiative to the enemy. If they've gotten to the beach, it's because they have maritime superiority. Maritime superiority means that the invader can take as much--or as little--of the war as he wishes. (Credit to Sir Francis Bacon for that line.) Leaving an invasion beachhead alone for any length of time allows the enemy to build his forces up to gain local superiority.

I don't think any invader facing nukes will be eager to ship thousands of troops across the ocean (unless the Chinese or some other country have developed some hella big planes I don't know about) if they know there's a nice atomic kiss hello waiting for them.

Well, privately-owned nukes are, IMNHO, a non-starter--as are private large-scale military forces.

Here's the problem: the privately-owned military would have to show a profit. Military readiness is an inherently unprofitable line of work--it requires capital assets that could generate a higher ROI elsewhere (i.e., making and doing things that are very obviously in demand).

As I pointed out, the age of the condottieri passed away for a reason--because warfighting ceased to be profitable.