9 ms·

The basic perversity is building a gigantic military in peacetime because the arms companies have enormous lobbying power. Everything else flows from and is sec

The basic perversity is building a gigantic military in peacetime because the arms companies have enormous lobbying power. Everything else flows from and is secondary to that.

sithadmin 12y ago
We're not talking about scaling out cloud deployments or something here. Building a military takes an incredible amount of lead time. If you don't have a strong standing military force during peacetime, you won't have one during wartime.
- javajosh 12y ago
  Utterly false. Prior to involvement in World War 2, the US had hardly any standing army and rather weak tooling industries (being wiped out by the Great Depression) and yet still managed to field like 2 million troops and vast amounts of weapons for allies in a very short period of time.
  - ArkyBeagle 12y ago
    I don't know how this was downvoted - it's completely true. Read any bio of Eisenhower. Eisenhower was involved in big experiments just to see if men and materiel could even be moved across country in the US by wheeled vehicles.
    - hackuser 12y ago
      > I don't know how this was downvoted Perhaps it was the tone, "utterly false". When I see writing like that, I generally stop reading; often what follows is another hyperbolic Internet rant and I've seen enough of them for my lifetime.
      - javajosh 12y ago
        Interestingly, the score for my comment has fluctuated back and forth between +6 to -2. Clearly something touched a chord, which is strange because a) WW2 is a valid counter-example to the claim that you need a huge standing army to fight and win wars, and b) the extent of my "tone" was a single word, "utterly". May all the 'hyperbolic internet rants' limit themselves to a single word.
      - ArkyBeagle 12y ago
        I hear ya - fatigue happens.
    - brc 12y ago
      That is the number 1 reason for the interstate system. It's also why Germany built the autobahn. The peacetime/domestic benefits were considered secondary.
  - philwelch 12y ago
    The US began the WWII draft over a year before Pearl Harbor, and was manufacturing arms for the Allies months ahead of Pearl Harbor as well. Even a weakened American industrial base was significantly larger than that of any other country in the world at the time (http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm). World War II was an unusual case, though. Every war since then has been a relatively limited one in the sense that no one on the home front really made any kind of sacrifice or even any substantial contribution to the war effort. In World War II, as much of the country's productive output as possible was dedicated to the war effort. Civilian consumption was strictly rationed, and the population actually went along with this. People gardened and learned to get by with less because every gallon of gasoline they didn't burn, every tire they patched up instead of replacing, every bit of food or cloth or wood or steel that you didn't needlessly consume could be shipped off to the front lines and contribute to victory. Every dollar you saved could be invested in war bonds. There was hardly a single American who lived through that war who didn't make sacrifices and materially contribute to victory. If you were able to get that level of dedication out of the population again, you could scale an effective military force in very short order the way the US did in WWII. But that just isn't going to happen again for any foreseeable conflict.
    - rsanders 12y ago
      That may mean that the population doesn't really support those conflicts. There's a term for the government following the wishes of the population, what is it...
      - philwelch 12y ago
        Beating up countries like North Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Serbia, and Iraq doesn't require the same level of effort, and all of those wars were made possible by the large standing military the US had. Without a standing military, we would have had to skip those wars, which would be fine in some cases (Vietnam) and potentially disastrous in others (Iraq 1991, Serbia).
    - javajosh 12y ago
      >There was hardly a single American who lived through that war who didn't make sacrifices and materially contribute to victory. Contrast this with how Americans were told to support Iraq 2 and Afghanistan: "Go shopping." The best possible policy for peace-loving American's to adopt would be a "no war without conscription" law. This seems counterintuitive, but it is my believe that when Senators' and Presidents' and CEOs' sons lives are on the line, they'll think twice before using force. As it stands, to them it's like risking the lives of a few hundred thousand Wal-Mart employees.
  - ckozlowski 12y ago
    Prior to WW2, such mobilizations were possible. In the post WW2 era though, the increases in firepower and mobility made this point moot. A well orchestrated and timed advance could conquer a nation in days, nuclear weapons not withstanding. the Army's Active Defence doctrine post WW2 reflected this, recgonizing that in the era, a war would be won or lost in the first few battles. Eisenhower reflected upon this in his Farewell Address. The warning regarding the "Military-Industrial Complex" was placed in the context that such a construct was necessary, but needed to be kept in check: "Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions."
    - ScottBurson 12y ago
      I think it's worth quoting a bit more of that speech: Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
  - Scramblejams 12y ago
    And because the US wasn't ready the Japanese were free to run wild in the Pacific for six months, taking many islands that had to be retaken at terrible costs to combatants, civilians and treasuries. It would have been better simply to be ready.
  - mcguire 12y ago
    Designs for the US's more advanced fighters, like the P-38, P-47, and P-51, were begun in 1937-39. They were not initially available when the US entered the war. The M4 Sherman tank design began about 1940, although it followed closely on US light and medium tank designs from 1935. If by "prior to involvement," you mean 3 or 4 years prior, you're probably right. Most of the design and development work was done to supply the British well before 1941. Further, the Great Depression not withstanding, and certainly by 1941, the US had the strongest economy in the world.
  - tsotha 12y ago
    Sure, after two years of getting kicked around by its enemies. Modern war moves too quickly for that.
xnull2guest 12y ago
Isn't it more complicated than that? Today being behind on military technology by as little as 5 years can be decisive in confrontation. The last decade has brought huge changes in military technology including super and hypersonic missile delivery systems (these can defeat the US's current interception capabilities), THAAD technology, directed energy weapons, new reactive armors, satellite bombing systems, startling new radar arrays, hybrid warships, autonomous drones, practical railguns, missile adhoc networks and intelligent interception, material science bringing in new stealth materials and body armor, satellite kill systems, not to mention advancements in electronic warfare. There is constant pressure on the US, because it is the second largest arms dealer around the world, to constantly build better military equipment. And there is constant pressure to do the same because the US's military might has everything to do with the geopolitics that continue to make it rich. The Washington Consensus chose 25 years ago to continue the investment of military with a pivot in tactics and to uses its military might in tandem with 'soft power', financial leverage, social disruption, culture export, etc in an attempt to fix its success and the success of its allies with "minimal bloodshed" - but a form of colonialism nonetheless. It will continually sell off old equipment to aid in funding new research and development. The US is a world empire - and while this can be seen by looking at a map of military locale it is better seen as a Capitalistic one. It uses its host of leverage, import-export bank, 'structural adjustment programs', 'value sharing initiatives' and the like. The US's foreign policy is wrapped up intrinsically in providing energy security to the first world, which means constant interventionism in the Middle East. It also has a huge number of security and military obligations around the world - e.g. right now we're promised to go to nuclear war were there to be an attack on Latvia. The US has many reasons to be militaristic - its waning economic dominance but continued military commitments and global footprint, its obligations and its own incentives to fix its success during continued globalization. Military contractors feed this fire, yes. They benefit from it, yes. But it is not as simple as military contractors lobbying successfully.
- tim333 12y ago
  >US's military might has everything to do with the geopolitics that continue to make it rich I'm sceptical that the military might does that much to make the US rich besides providing basic peace. Obviously things would be screwed if WW3 started. The US has got rich mostly by trade and enterprise and producing much of the worlds high value stuff. Spending a huge portion of governments revenues on the military rather than things like education, R&D and science has probably been a drag on growth.
philwelch 12y ago
Gigantic? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/us/politics/pentagon-plans-to-shrink-army-to-pre-world-war-ii-level.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/us/politics/pentagon-plans... Have you considered the gigantic military requirements that are placed on the United States? By treaty alone, the US is required to defend almost all of Europe, Japan, and South Korea. These are not easy requirements to disentangle from; if Japan alone were allowed and required to rearm, it could lead to an arms race that would destabilize all of East Asia and either stall or undo the tremendous economic gains that have been achieved in that region. If it wasn't for US obligations towards NATO, most of Eastern Europe would suffer the same fate that Ukraine is facing from Russia. If it wasn't for the US Navy enforcing freedom of navigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_navigation#United_States_.22Freedom_of_Navigation.22_program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_navigation#United_St...), tinpot dictators could shut down international trade by making and enforcing illegal claims on international waters. Maintaining the Pax Americana is a hard, unappreciated task.
- hackuser 12y ago
  I'm not sure why the parent was modded down. It's 'settled theory' in the foreign policy world, though what philwelch lists are significant risks and not certainties. Also, I would add our obiligation to ensure the flow of energy from the Middle East. There are many benefits to being a hegemon, but it comes with obligations too.
  - eru 12y ago
    > Also, I would add our obiligation to ensure the flow of energy from the Middle East. A serious investment in nuclear would render those obligations moot.
    - ryanx435 12y ago
      nuclear powered planes, trains, and automobiles?
      - philwelch 12y ago
tsotha 12y ago
The US military is on the order of 4% GDP. That's comparable to pre- WW II levels.

The basic perversity is building a gigantic military in peacetime because the arms companies have enormous lobbying power. Everything else flows from and is secondary to that.

sithadmin 12y ago

We're not talking about scaling out cloud deployments or something here. Building a military takes an incredible amount of lead time. If you don't have a strong standing military force during peacetime, you won't have one during wartime.

javajosh 12y ago
Utterly false. Prior to involvement in World War 2, the US had hardly any standing army and rather weak tooling industries (being wiped out by the Great Depression) and yet still managed to field like 2 million troops and vast amounts of weapons for allies in a very short period of time.
- ArkyBeagle 12y ago
  I don't know how this was downvoted - it's completely true. Read any bio of Eisenhower. Eisenhower was involved in big experiments just to see if men and materiel could even be moved across country in the US by wheeled vehicles.
  - hackuser 12y ago
    > I don't know how this was downvoted Perhaps it was the tone, "utterly false". When I see writing like that, I generally stop reading; often what follows is another hyperbolic Internet rant and I've seen enough of them for my lifetime.
    - javajosh 12y ago
      Interestingly, the score for my comment has fluctuated back and forth between +6 to -2. Clearly something touched a chord, which is strange because a) WW2 is a valid counter-example to the claim that you need a huge standing army to fight and win wars, and b) the extent of my "tone" was a single word, "utterly". May all the 'hyperbolic internet rants' limit themselves to a single word.
    - ArkyBeagle 12y ago
      I hear ya - fatigue happens.
  - brc 12y ago
    That is the number 1 reason for the interstate system. It's also why Germany built the autobahn. The peacetime/domestic benefits were considered secondary.
- philwelch 12y ago
  The US began the WWII draft over a year before Pearl Harbor, and was manufacturing arms for the Allies months ahead of Pearl Harbor as well. Even a weakened American industrial base was significantly larger than that of any other country in the world at the time (http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm). World War II was an unusual case, though. Every war since then has been a relatively limited one in the sense that no one on the home front really made any kind of sacrifice or even any substantial contribution to the war effort. In World War II, as much of the country's productive output as possible was dedicated to the war effort. Civilian consumption was strictly rationed, and the population actually went along with this. People gardened and learned to get by with less because every gallon of gasoline they didn't burn, every tire they patched up instead of replacing, every bit of food or cloth or wood or steel that you didn't needlessly consume could be shipped off to the front lines and contribute to victory. Every dollar you saved could be invested in war bonds. There was hardly a single American who lived through that war who didn't make sacrifices and materially contribute to victory. If you were able to get that level of dedication out of the population again, you could scale an effective military force in very short order the way the US did in WWII. But that just isn't going to happen again for any foreseeable conflict.
  - rsanders 12y ago
    That may mean that the population doesn't really support those conflicts. There's a term for the government following the wishes of the population, what is it...
    - philwelch 12y ago
      Beating up countries like North Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Serbia, and Iraq doesn't require the same level of effort, and all of those wars were made possible by the large standing military the US had. Without a standing military, we would have had to skip those wars, which would be fine in some cases (Vietnam) and potentially disastrous in others (Iraq 1991, Serbia).
  - javajosh 12y ago
    >There was hardly a single American who lived through that war who didn't make sacrifices and materially contribute to victory. Contrast this with how Americans were told to support Iraq 2 and Afghanistan: "Go shopping." The best possible policy for peace-loving American's to adopt would be a "no war without conscription" law. This seems counterintuitive, but it is my believe that when Senators' and Presidents' and CEOs' sons lives are on the line, they'll think twice before using force. As it stands, to them it's like risking the lives of a few hundred thousand Wal-Mart employees.
- ckozlowski 12y ago
  Prior to WW2, such mobilizations were possible. In the post WW2 era though, the increases in firepower and mobility made this point moot. A well orchestrated and timed advance could conquer a nation in days, nuclear weapons not withstanding. the Army's Active Defence doctrine post WW2 reflected this, recgonizing that in the era, a war would be won or lost in the first few battles. Eisenhower reflected upon this in his Farewell Address. The warning regarding the "Military-Industrial Complex" was placed in the context that such a construct was necessary, but needed to be kept in check: "Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions."
  - ScottBurson 12y ago
    I think it's worth quoting a bit more of that speech: Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
- Scramblejams 12y ago
  And because the US wasn't ready the Japanese were free to run wild in the Pacific for six months, taking many islands that had to be retaken at terrible costs to combatants, civilians and treasuries. It would have been better simply to be ready.
- mcguire 12y ago
  Designs for the US's more advanced fighters, like the P-38, P-47, and P-51, were begun in 1937-39. They were not initially available when the US entered the war. The M4 Sherman tank design began about 1940, although it followed closely on US light and medium tank designs from 1935. If by "prior to involvement," you mean 3 or 4 years prior, you're probably right. Most of the design and development work was done to supply the British well before 1941. Further, the Great Depression not withstanding, and certainly by 1941, the US had the strongest economy in the world.
- tsotha 12y ago
  Sure, after two years of getting kicked around by its enemies. Modern war moves too quickly for that.

xnull2guest 12y ago

Isn't it more complicated than that? Today being behind on military technology by as little as 5 years can be decisive in confrontation. The last decade has brought huge changes in military technology including super and hypersonic missile delivery systems (these can defeat the US's current interception capabilities), THAAD technology, directed energy weapons, new reactive armors, satellite bombing systems, startling new radar arrays, hybrid warships, autonomous drones, practical railguns, missile adhoc networks and intelligent interception, material science bringing in new stealth materials and body armor, satellite kill systems, not to mention advancements in electronic warfare. There is constant pressure on the US, because it is the second largest arms dealer around the world, to constantly build better military equipment. And there is constant pressure to do the same because the US's military might has everything to do with the geopolitics that continue to make it rich. The Washington Consensus chose 25 years ago to continue the investment of military with a pivot in tactics and to uses its military might in tandem with 'soft power', financial leverage, social disruption, culture export, etc in an attempt to fix its success and the success of its allies with "minimal bloodshed" - but a form of colonialism nonetheless. It will continually sell off old equipment to aid in funding new research and development. The US is a world empire - and while this can be seen by looking at a map of military locale it is better seen as a Capitalistic one. It uses its host of leverage, import-export bank, 'structural adjustment programs', 'value sharing initiatives' and the like. The US's foreign policy is wrapped up intrinsically in providing energy security to the first world, which means constant interventionism in the Middle East. It also has a huge number of security and military obligations around the world - e.g. right now we're promised to go to nuclear war were there to be an attack on Latvia. The US has many reasons to be militaristic - its waning economic dominance but continued military commitments and global footprint, its obligations and its own incentives to fix its success during continued globalization. Military contractors feed this fire, yes. They benefit from it, yes. But it is not as simple as military contractors lobbying successfully.

tim333 12y ago
>US's military might has everything to do with the geopolitics that continue to make it rich I'm sceptical that the military might does that much to make the US rich besides providing basic peace. Obviously things would be screwed if WW3 started. The US has got rich mostly by trade and enterprise and producing much of the worlds high value stuff. Spending a huge portion of governments revenues on the military rather than things like education, R&D and science has probably been a drag on growth.

philwelch 12y ago

Gigantic? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/us/politics/pentagon-plans-to-shrink-army-to-pre-world-war-ii-level.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/us/politics/pentagon-plans... Have you considered the gigantic military requirements that are placed on the United States? By treaty alone, the US is required to defend almost all of Europe, Japan, and South Korea. These are not easy requirements to disentangle from; if Japan alone were allowed and required to rearm, it could lead to an arms race that would destabilize all of East Asia and either stall or undo the tremendous economic gains that have been achieved in that region. If it wasn't for US obligations towards NATO, most of Eastern Europe would suffer the same fate that Ukraine is facing from Russia. If it wasn't for the US Navy enforcing freedom of navigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_navigation#United_States_.22Freedom_of_Navigation.22_program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_navigation#United_St...), tinpot dictators could shut down international trade by making and enforcing illegal claims on international waters. Maintaining the Pax Americana is a hard, unappreciated task.

hackuser 12y ago
I'm not sure why the parent was modded down. It's 'settled theory' in the foreign policy world, though what philwelch lists are significant risks and not certainties. Also, I would add our obiligation to ensure the flow of energy from the Middle East. There are many benefits to being a hegemon, but it comes with obligations too.
- eru 12y ago
  > Also, I would add our obiligation to ensure the flow of energy from the Middle East. A serious investment in nuclear would render those obligations moot.
  - ryanx435 12y ago
    nuclear powered planes, trains, and automobiles?
    - philwelch 12y ago

tsotha 12y ago

The US military is on the order of 4% GDP. That's comparable to pre- WW II levels.