5 ms·
In what way does the US Army have anything to do with "survival"? Isolated in the western hemisphere by large oceans, bordered only by large, friendly neighbors
by marssaxman 8y ago
In what way does the US Army have anything to do with "survival"? Isolated in the western hemisphere by large oceans, bordered only by large, friendly neighbors, it's as naturally safe as a nation can feasibly be. Nobody on earth has the military capacity to come attack the USA.
- aurailious 8y agoRecently some technologies were developed called airplanes and missiles. That changes things when before we just boats.
- gbear605 8y agoAnd if anyone launches a direct attack on the US, they’ll be attacked with nuclear weapons in return. Hololens wouldn’t help the US at all for self defense, only for action involving deploying troops.
- ocdtrekkie 8y agoDeploying troops is far less genocidal than dropping nukes, don't you think? I'd much rather us the former than the latter.
- ardy42 8y ago> And if anyone launches a direct attack on the US, they’ll be attacked with nuclear weapons in return. Hololens wouldn’t help the US at all for self defense, only for action involving deploying troops. So you're saying the US should have nuked Afghanistan? I think you have an oversimple view of international relations and military affairs.
- stale2002 8y agoNo. An obvious solution to the afganistan problem is to simply cut off all immigration from that country. Or enact similar immigration restrictions, like Trump did about a year ago.
- emberrider 8y agoNuclear weapons weren't necessary for that job, but the outcome was the same: the removal of the Afghani government through military force.
- knappe 8y agoI think you're forgetting about Pearl Harbor.
- bduerst 8y agoIt's defense through deterrence - i.e. the opportunity cost of forcefully acquiring control of the largest-GDP nation is quite high. In a post-nuclear world, this is incredibly complex so it usually ends up playing out in different theaters (Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Syria, etc.) rather than the shores of the U.S. as you pointed out, but the total reserve and reach of that force is still just as important. The argument can get slippery though when trying to justify allocating resources, because with deterrence it's hard to know exactly how much you need, especially when gaining that knowledge usually comes through defeat of some sort.
- sadris 8y agoICBMs can go anywhere.
- NikolaeVarius 8y agoThis is literally what the USA thought before pearl harbor
- ShorsHammer 8y agoThe USA didn't have a nuclear arsenal capable of destroying all major cities on Earth a few times over in 1941. Nor a military force that is larger than the next ten biggest militaries on earth combined. It's hardly similar circumstances. An attack on the US mainland today would mean global nuclear war. It's highly improbable to ever happen.
- SamReidHughes 8y agoThe USA's neighbors only became friendly after the USA's military got way more powerful than theirs. Much of Mexico's territory is de facto controlled by enemies of both Mexico and the USA, and Russia has, or at least is eyeing having, an outpost in the Caribbean right now. The US used its army directly in the New World at least as recently as 1982, in the invasion of Grenada.
- UncleEntity 8y ago> The US used its army directly in the New World at least as recently as 1982, in the invasion of Grenada. Or even more recently in '89 down in Panama. Or in Haiti in '94 -- though that one wasn't necessarily an invasion but the troops were in the air if diplomacy failed.