Phydeaux
Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Today, large standing armies are primarily used as tools of enforcing diplomatic goals of the state, not as a means of defense. Since WW2, there have been few wars of expansion, the primary exception being in the area of the Persian Gulf, and the "ideological" wars in Korea and Vietnam. Instead there have been a number of civil wars where the US and Soviet Union supplied various sides to project the political philosophies of the super powers.
Since the revolution, the United States has been invaded twice, once during the war of 1812, and the second time when the Japanese invaded two of the Aleutian Islands of Alaska.
Since the end of WW2 and the dawn of the nuclear age, the United States had an effective deterrent to invasion, a nuclear arsenal. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has involved itself in three wars, The first gulf war, Afghanistan and Iraq. Forgetting the first Gulf War, and focusing on Afghanistan and Iraq, one could have been dealt with more effectively with surgical strikes against terrorist training camps rather than a full scale invasion and Iraq was invaded based on lies and half truths, and therefore was totally unnecessary.
So, I have to ask, why does the United States need a large standing military, if not to project its agenda on the world stage? If this country were to be invaded by a foreign power, the United States would not hesitate to launch a nuclear strike at the heart of the invading country.
It would save the United States billions to keep a smaller standing military and maintain reserve forces, national guards and state defense forces instead.
Those state defense forces would be made up of private citizens that supply their own equipment and weapons, and it would be prudent if those weapons were of similar type and caliber as issued to the standing military and federal reserve forces.
Your premise is inutterably flawed. Our military forces are used on a daily basis. Troops keep the peace by allowing a graduated response to threats. Without forces on call, what would we do when an embassy was attacked, or commercial ships seized. Nukes are an inappropriate response.
Second. We have troops in Nato, in Korea, and in Japan. Our forces serve, not only as a counter to forces which can be brought to theater faster than a regular militarization would allow us, but they also serve as a promise more concrete than the words of politicians.
Military forces in Korea have allowed South Korea to remain independent and flourish. It has kept Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Yemen in the American sphere of influence.
Military forces allow us to interdict intenational slavery.... provide access to resources.
|
RE: Why was the 2nd Amendment written and added to the ... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread