4 ms·
Until 1947, the US Department of Defense was called the Department of War. I think your confusion is rooted in the misconceptions this renaming was designed t
by robonerd 5y ago
Until 1947, the US Department of Defense was called the Department of War. I think your confusion is rooted in the misconceptions this renaming was designed to foster. The United States has the ability to wage numerous simultaneous wars around the world. That's the capability all that money buys, the ability to stomp any conventional military force anywhere in the world, numerous times at once. Morality aside, it makes a lot of sense. It's only nonsensical when you take the 'Defense' name at face value.
- stickfigure 5y agoThat understanding is too simplistic. 1947 was two years after the end of WW2, the second time in half a century that the US got dragged into a massive European war. From a defense perspective, it's better to keep the fighting on someone else's territory. If Hitler or Stalin or Putin rolls over Europe, North America will be next. There's nothing nonsensical about putting a stop to that early. Also, Europeans are our friends. It's right to help defend them.
- robonerd 5y agoWell if defense means fighting wars in other countries rather than in America itself, then there's no confusion. The US Military is very good at defending both American strategic interests abroad, and defending America's allies. It becomes nonsensical when you think of "defense" as repelling invasions of American soil. > Also, Europeans are our friends. It's right to help defend them. You've read too much into my comment. I support NATO and believe America is generally a force for good.
- khoobid_shoma 5y agoyou wrote: "The United States has the ability to wage numerous simultaneous wars around the world" An example of those wars is Afganistan. Yes, the US managed to destroy the country but could not win the war. Russia also destroyed Ukraine and probably will not win the war.
- robonerd 5y agoI did specify "any conventional military force"; 'winning' an occupation/insurgency is quite another matter, particularly when the 'win conditions' are political rather than military. And doubly true when those political win conditions are poorly defined in the first place. But trust me, defense industry lobbyists are very eager for the US Government to spend even more money to address these shortcomings...
- karaterobot 5y agoThe ability for the U.S. to wage numerous simultaneous wars is about the cold war. It's effectively the basis for NATO's deterrent effect, reducing the number and scale of wars in Europe and Asia compared to the pre-NATO era.
- rosndo 5y ago> the US managed to destroy the country That’s a downright lie.
- foverzar 5y agoDefine "win"?
- poxrud 5y agoMost of Ukraine is not “destroyed”. In fact most of it has not even been attacked.
- khoobid_shoma 5y agoWell, then the same is true for Afganistan. By destroy, I did not mean they have attacked every village.
- agapon 5y agoSo, what do you mean? I am in Ukraine and I do not feel like I am in a destroyed country.
- cafard 5y agoThe Department of War was essentially the department of the Army: the Department of Defense merged the Department of the Army with the Department of the Navy, and rolled in the newly separate Air Force.