4 ms·

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

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.

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.