3 ms·

Devil’s advocate for keeping the military huge for legitimate reasons: America has been very sheltered from the realities of large scale violence. I think we a

Devil’s advocate for keeping the military huge for legitimate reasons: America has been very sheltered from the realities of large scale violence. I think we assume everyone will opt for civil discourse, diplomacy, and trade to resolve disputes naturally now that the world is wealthier and allegedly more enlightened. We think that large scale violence is off the table due to greater knowledge and having more to lose. We don’t know how important the hegemonic overwhelming military superiority of the US is a major disincentive for anything different. That disincentive diminishing could be disastrous. It’s an old argument, but I think there’s truth to it. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t be cheaper. Military seems very wasteful/not efficient. Also doesn’t mean that hegemony doesn’t have its own dangers.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> America has been very sheltered from the realities of large scale violence. America has not. Since America’s wars have not been fought with broad conscription since Korea or any conscription since Vietnam, Americans who don't volunteer for military service have been sheltered from the realities of large scale violence, of which the US is, and has especially become over the time where most Americans were sheltered from this, itself one of the major inflictors of on others. Which, I think, is an argument against the large standing all-volunteer military, not the argument for it.
- didericis 5y ago
  To be clear I’m not necessarily in favor of a large standing military, have very mixed feelings about it. Am giving voice to the part of me that sees the legitimate reasons to want one. Violence abroad is very different from the threat of violence at home, and my point was in regards to how destabilizing it is for a society to need to anticipate that risk in daily life. In general that risk is low in most developed countries, and I think it would be higher if there wasn’t a hegemonic superpower/that benefit is under-appreciated. But I get your point. There is definitely a temptation to use a very big army if you have one, and that’s dangerous.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> America has been very sheltered from the realities of large scale violence. America has not. Since America’s wars have not been fought with broad conscription since Korea or any conscription since Vietnam, Americans who don't volunteer for military service have been sheltered from the realities of large scale violence, of which the US is, and has especially become over the time where most Americans were sheltered from this, itself one of the major inflictors of on others. Which, I think, is an argument against the large standing all-volunteer military, not the argument for it.

didericis 5y ago
To be clear I’m not necessarily in favor of a large standing military, have very mixed feelings about it. Am giving voice to the part of me that sees the legitimate reasons to want one. Violence abroad is very different from the threat of violence at home, and my point was in regards to how destabilizing it is for a society to need to anticipate that risk in daily life. In general that risk is low in most developed countries, and I think it would be higher if there wasn’t a hegemonic superpower/that benefit is under-appreciated. But I get your point. There is definitely a temptation to use a very big army if you have one, and that’s dangerous.