4 ms·

Just gonna float this out there... Maybe the US is better without so many people in the military. Do we really need to be everywhere? And I'm not saying let'

Just gonna float this out there... Maybe the US is better without so many people in the military. Do we really need to be everywhere? And I'm not saying let's walk away from conflict zones. I'm saying there's not that much of an need to patrol the north Atlantic, or defend Japan or keep troops in other places which were only relevant in 1948.

xkqd 3y ago
While I agree with you in spirit, the United State’s hegemony relies on its ability to project power across the globe. It’s just been getting really expensive to do it the way we’ve been doing it.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  The more expensive it gets, the closer we get to a point of system failure. Whether you believe this to be good or bad is a function of your belief in value in US force projection and the human cost it incurs.
dboreham 3y ago
Because there are no enemies with access to the north Atlantic or the Sea of Japan.
poszlem 3y ago
The real question isn't whether withdrawing from the North Atlantic, Japan, and similar locations will save money. Instead, it's about whether remaining there is more cost-effective than having to reclaim these areas in 20 years from adversaries who will certainly try to exploit the power vacuum.
kjkjadksj 3y ago
There is still very much a need to patrol the north atlantic and defend Japan today.
wharvle 3y ago
Part of the shift to a large standing army is probably the MIC milking the taxpayer, as many suppose. Another part, however, is that the pace of war is so high and the minimum required level of training and military organizational capability to be able to go toe to toe with a top-tier foreign power is so great that it's not been clear, since the end of WWII, that the US would again be able to take so very long to get rolling as it did in that war, if it wants to be able to project power abroad at all in a meaningful way against strong enemies. IOW scaling back our military too much might well be the equivalent of bowing out of the first stage or two of the next great conflict, even more so than it was in WWII, and it's less clear all the time that our historical gigantic advantage of the two-ocean moat will give us so much leisure to prepare, or that we'd quite so easily be able to wrest back control of vital supply lines if another world war breaks out, having allowed the enemy to take them in the first place (even if it stays non-nuclear—if it goes that way, of course, we're in totally uncharted and very bad territory, for all concerned) Then there's the domestic concerns: the military is the only jobs program with bipartisan support. College, free housing (including for a family!), free healthcare (ditto!), good education for your kids. Retirement! Why, it's practically a way for a blue collar American kid to opt into European-level social support (though with some, ah, significant costs). There are social-stability interests in keeping recruitment levels high.
throw0101d 3y ago
> Maybe the US is better without so many people in the military. Do we really need to be everywhere? Where do you not want to be? Europe as part of NATO? The Pacific to counter-balance China? The Middle East (to help protect shipping through the Suez Canal)?

xkqd 3y ago

While I agree with you in spirit, the United State’s hegemony relies on its ability to project power across the globe. It’s just been getting really expensive to do it the way we’ve been doing it.

toomuchtodo 3y ago
The more expensive it gets, the closer we get to a point of system failure. Whether you believe this to be good or bad is a function of your belief in value in US force projection and the human cost it incurs.

dboreham 3y ago

Because there are no enemies with access to the north Atlantic or the Sea of Japan.

poszlem 3y ago

The real question isn't whether withdrawing from the North Atlantic, Japan, and similar locations will save money. Instead, it's about whether remaining there is more cost-effective than having to reclaim these areas in 20 years from adversaries who will certainly try to exploit the power vacuum.

kjkjadksj 3y ago

There is still very much a need to patrol the north atlantic and defend Japan today.

wharvle 3y ago

Part of the shift to a large standing army is probably the MIC milking the taxpayer, as many suppose. Another part, however, is that the pace of war is so high and the minimum required level of training and military organizational capability to be able to go toe to toe with a top-tier foreign power is so great that it's not been clear, since the end of WWII, that the US would again be able to take so very long to get rolling as it did in that war, if it wants to be able to project power abroad at all in a meaningful way against strong enemies. IOW scaling back our military too much might well be the equivalent of bowing out of the first stage or two of the next great conflict, even more so than it was in WWII, and it's less clear all the time that our historical gigantic advantage of the two-ocean moat will give us so much leisure to prepare, or that we'd quite so easily be able to wrest back control of vital supply lines if another world war breaks out, having allowed the enemy to take them in the first place (even if it stays non-nuclear—if it goes that way, of course, we're in totally uncharted and very bad territory, for all concerned) Then there's the domestic concerns: the military is the only jobs program with bipartisan support. College, free housing (including for a family!), free healthcare (ditto!), good education for your kids. Retirement! Why, it's practically a way for a blue collar American kid to opt into European-level social support (though with some, ah, significant costs). There are social-stability interests in keeping recruitment levels high.

throw0101d 3y ago

> Maybe the US is better without so many people in the military. Do we really need to be everywhere? Where do you not want to be? Europe as part of NATO? The Pacific to counter-balance China? The Middle East (to help protect shipping through the Suez Canal)?