War

[Soldier]

But not to nearly the same scale here. They can maybe influence a neighborhood or two, but if they get much bigger, there's problems. They can never get to the size that they can actually challenge/influence the real government.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Soldier

But not to nearly the same scale here. They can maybe influence a neighborhood or two, but if they get much bigger, there's problems. They can never get to the size that they can actually challenge/influence the real government.

How much of the military is a police function then? How much of the police are actually military? I would wager that this is a good point: one of the largest reasons for the military is to enforce the government's will.

[Soldier]

I think the line between the two does frequently blur: The police are basically a less-trained, less-equipped, cheaper version of the military, to be used on the small-scale at home. They're cheap enough for individual towns and cities to field for themselves, to take care of the little crime. Some larger cities have gang problems; they also have things like SWAT teams. If gangs were to really get out of hand someplace, then the regular military could be called in.

Rambling aside...yes, I think the military's primary function is to enforce the government's will, usually abroad (police for at home, usually). The military frequently become much like a police function when we've taken territory abroad, and are now trying to hold it.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by drippingwet

So if goverments can provide the food, why would charities be asking for donations so that they can feed people?

Because, obviously, governments choose to spend money on things other then food.

Poor agricultural circumstances - well then, the money can be spent on irrigation and water pipelines etc.

Well, the problem is that there is little money to go around in the first place. No matter what you spend it on, you're not going to be able to do much with it.

Warlords - why are there warlords in the first place? Perhaps if more of goverment's money was spent on education instead of weapons, potential warlords could be living in a good environment with good jobs and not feel the need to be a warlord. I don't particularly think it's a coincidence that warlords/genocyde/famine/refugees/war often originate in poor places. None of this seems to happen in my country, or America. Why? Perhaps because generally we are in a happy, wealthy enviroment. Two different races in a rich country for instance might get on perfectly fine, but in a poor country, they might be slaughtering each other.

Education is certainly a large determinant as to whether a country is rich or poor. The relative wealth of the nation then determines whether the people resort to violence or not. The more instable the country, the less economic activity being engaged within that country, the less wealth the people have, the more likely they are to try to take what limited resources there are for themselves from their neighbours. That's why war is generally a bad thing economically. Increased instability leads to decreased wealth and increased military. This fundamental question was one of the original thoughts I was kicking about in my wee brain about the marginal utility of the military. Obviously, restoring order and increasing stability are good for a nation, doing the opposite is bad for it. In both situations, the military has a key role to play.

There may be a lot of money to do a lot of things for the developing world, government or non-governmnet, but I'm not sure that there is enough to totally refurbish the educational, health and agricultural circumstances in every country that needs it. But maybe there would if much of the world's money currently spent on militaries was spent in these areas instead. I'm not saying it would be easy to get to this state - if one country takes the lead in this, someone might just take advantage and invade.

Or else someone would defer some money to the military after this state and clean up in the new world.

Perhaps we could hand over our armed forces to the UN, then no single country has the power to assert it's will on another. I mean signs may already here of federalisation of huage areas of the planet. Take Europe... the EU has it's own judiciary, it's own laws, I'm not sure on the current situation, but a constitution has also been mentioned. It has its own currency and government system, and there's even talk or something about European Armed Forces. Some might say that it will eventually become federal, like the USA. EU citizens are not fighting each other, I'm not sure the member states would need armed forces if it wasn't for any exernal threats. Why can't federalisation happen with Australia and New Zealand? They aren't fighting each other. Why can't it happen with America and Canada? No war there. Why can't it happen with South America? And eventually, why not the whole world. If Europeans can unite - a once war ridden population, then so can others.

Well this is a fine idea, so long as you hold the same values as the UN. When the UN is divergent from your values then giving them power to assert their will over you is not the smartest idea. This fear, in fact, is the major stumbling block to the military suggestion you have put forth. There is a reasonable push by middle to small nations to give the UN the teeth it needs to enforce it's will, whether that will be enforced on the the US, Iraq, Iran, USSR, China or the UK. The problem is that those nations with the power now are, justifiably, loath to give up their power to an organisation that is going to turn around and use it against them. Federalism, without an external uniting threat, never happens. Since the world faces no external threat (until the Aliens come, of course) there is no reason whatsover for any rational nation to do so.

Great comments though.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Soldier

I think the line between the two does frequently blur: The police are basically a less-trained, less-equipped, cheaper version of the military, to be used on the small-scale at home. They're cheap enough for individual towns and cities to field for themselves, to take care of the little crime. Some larger cities have gang problems; they also have things like SWAT teams. If gangs were to really get out of hand someplace, then the regular military could be called in.

This I'd argue. The skill of the military lies in its warrior nature, domination, victory, death and destruction. In fact, in its ability to destroy order and stability; to cause maximum destruction and confusion, in the minimum time. The skill of a police force, rather, is in reinforcing and strenghtening peace and stability. In fact, increasing order. Their tools are much more verbal and diplomatic then coercive and destructive. I would even argue that the line is quite broad between police and military, with the only real similarity being in the fact that they have the legal and moral capacity to use force and they both serve the State. In fact, the mere concept of a completely defensive standing army is unique to the 20th century.

Rambling aside...yes, I think the military's primary function is to enforce the government's will, usually abroad (police for at home, usually). The military frequently become much like a police function when we've taken territory abroad, and are now trying to hold it.

And this, I think, is where they get into trouble. An M1 is not a cop car. A stockade is not a jail. A military POW camp is NOT a prison. Soldiers are not lawyers. A defensive perimetre is not a jurisdiction.

[Soldier]

Hmm...very good points. I do completely agree that this is where militaries get into trouble.

Concerning the first point: I also agree with the difference between the two functions. My point is that they serve the same purpose - the enforcement of the government's will when somebody wants to disagree.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Soldier

But not to nearly the same scale here. They can maybe influence a neighborhood or two, but if they get much bigger, there's problems. They can never get to the size that they can actually challenge/influence the real government.

The degree may not be as much smaller than all that. Think about not only street gangs but larger organizations, like the various Mafia groups, which largely controlled aspects of whole cities at one point ( and even called their people "soldiers" ). Think of the Hell's Angels and other groups. Think of the transregional prison gangs, like the Aryan Brotherhood, and the gangs coming in from Mexico and Latin America with the illegal immigrant population.

I think the real difference is that here the gangsters are content with money and do not aim for political power.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I think the real difference is that here the gangsters are content with money and do not aim for political power.

Counterexamples: Too many to count in Africa, Eastern Africa, parts of Asia, parts of Latin America.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Not valid. Soviet Union had far too many other problems stemming from being Communist. It got to the point that our spooks could never figure out just how strong their economy was, because not even their leadership really knew - nobody reported real numbers, they were so afraid of the system.

Which is evidence that economic prosperity is better then military prosperity. I would wager that the economic wealth in the US is not a by-product of direct investment in the military, but rather in indirect peaceful spinoffs of military technology. So the US government takes the loss for research, then the companies use that research to make buckets of money. The size of the military in this case is irrelevent, it is the investment in the research that matters.

As for Israel...well, when that many people hate you, the punishment needs to be swifter and more terrible. Maybe invade/assimilate all of the palestinian area, or simply say "for every one of us you kill, we're going to kill 100 civilians". Granted, that would be terrorism in response, but possibly enough to get the point across. And again, we're not looking at morals or ethics yet.

Israel is a great issue to bring into light. Is Israel more secure or less secure since it started a policy of making punishment swift and more terrible? Would the wanton destruction of civilians deter bombers? Why do bombers attack Israel? Why is Israel hated in the region?

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

The degree may not be as much smaller than all that. Think about not only street gangs but larger organizations, like the various Mafia groups, which largely controlled aspects of whole cities at one point ( and even called their people "soldiers" ). Think of the Hell's Angels and other groups. Think of the transregional prison gangs, like the Aryan Brotherhood, and the gangs coming in from Mexico and Latin America with the illegal immigrant population.

I think the real difference is that here the gangsters are content with money and do not aim for political power.

True.

(Plus a few)

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Counterexamples: Too many to count in Africa, Eastern Africa, parts of Asia, parts of Latin America.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

"...difference is that here the gangsters..."

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Which is evidence that economic prosperity is better then military prosperity. I would wager that the economic wealth in the US is not a by-product of direct investment in the military, but rather in indirect peaceful spinoffs of military technology. So the US government takes the loss for research, then the companies use that research to make buckets of money. The size of the military in this case is irrelevent, it is the investment in the research that matters.

Yes, economic prosperity is definitely better. I was talking about using the military as a means toward that end. I definitely agree with what you're saying about research (especially in modern times), but I still think that (to an extent, at least - and I don't know exactly what extent) military spending is a good industrial stimulus.

Originally Posted by jBirch

Israel is a great issue to bring into light. Is Israel more secure or less secure since it started a policy of making punishment swift and more terrible? Would the wanton destruction of civilians deter bombers? Why do bombers attack Israel? Why is Israel hated in the region?

Hence my saying "swifter and more terrible." Kill or assimilate everybody who hates you, and...well, then there's nobody left to hate you. [Captain Obvious - away!] I think part of Israel's problem is that they can't just go and take that whole area of land, settle it, indocrinate it, and turn it into more Israel.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Yes, economic prosperity is definitely better. I was talking about using the military as a means toward that end. I definitely agree with what you're saying about research (especially in modern times), but I still think that (to an extent, at least - and I don't know exactly what extent) military spending is a good industrial stimulus.

So it's a matter of degree then? Some military spending is good to a point, after that, more military spending is actually bad?

Hence my saying "swifter and more terrible." Kill or assimilate everybody who hates you, and...well, then there's nobody left to hate you. [Captain Obvious - away!] I think part of Israel's problem is that they can't just go and take that whole area of land, settle it, indocrinate it, and turn it into more Israel.

And what if I said that killing and assimilating anyone who hates you will cause more people to hate you? Obviously, you can just speed up your rate of death so that the net change brings you to zero (if that's possible). Is there a more efficient way of accomplishing the same goal? Ie// reducing the number of people that hate you without simply killing them all? I think Israel's problem is, as you said, that they can't turn that land into more Israel. How do you deal with that problem from a military perspective? Is it better handled from a diplomatic, political and economic one? What role does the military have in furthering this goal?

[Soldier]

Definitely can't assimilate a land from a military angle. You can conquer it militarily, but it must then be assimilated through settlement, etc. Then, kill the ones who refuse to assimilate.

And yes, it's a matter of degree. After all, industry will only ever need (let alone tolerate) so much stimulus. Past that, it's just wasted dollars.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!



Counterexamples: Too many to count in Africa, Eastern Africa, parts of Asia, parts of Latin America.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

By "here" I meant the US.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Definitely can't assimilate a land from a military angle. You can conquer it militarily, but it must then be assimilated through settlement, etc. Then, kill the ones who refuse to assimilate.

And yes, it's a matter of degree. After all, industry will only ever need (let alone tolerate) so much stimulus. Past that, it's just wasted dollars.

So we're back to the beginning again. What's the purpose of keeping a huge standing military?

You seem to be implying that a huge standing military serves, as its sole purpose, to generate economic stimulus for the nation. That to increase an armed force beyond that required for self defense is, essentially, to give the government an excuse to invest in high risk research projects that might have valuable corporate spinoffs. So the utility of a large armed force must, therefor, be evaluated in purely economic terms. Ie// it must take less then it gives into the economy.

You mentioned that assimilation of a land can not be achieved through purely military means. That it must be accomplished through settlement, in fact. What does this mean about the current trend of expeditionary warfare? Ie// where you invade a place, but don't assimilate it? Is then the purpose of invading a place but not assimilating it merely a cost minimizing effort? If so, what is to be gained by the invasion, but not occupation? How does this tie into political and economic goals?

[grotto]

Originally Posted by jBirch

So we're back to the beginning again. What's the purpose of keeping a huge standing military?

You seem to be implying that a huge standing military serves, as its sole purpose, to generate economic stimulus for the nation. That to increase an armed force beyond that required for self defense is, essentially, to give the government an excuse to invest in high risk research projects that might have valuable corporate spinoffs. So the utility of a large armed force must, therefor, be evaluated in purely economic terms. Ie// it must take less then it gives into the economy.

You mentioned that assimilation of a land can not be achieved through purely military means. That it must be accomplished through settlement, in fact. What does this mean about the current trend of expeditionary warfare? Ie// where you invade a place, but don't assimilate it? Is then the purpose of invading a place but not assimilating it merely a cost minimizing effort? If so, what is to be gained by the invasion, but not occupation? How does this tie into political and economic goals?

Ahh but we are assimilating it regardless of elections and the trappings of democracy thrown over the shoulders of the government. The U.S. Military is on the ground, it is also the only thing standing between factioning and civil war. So in the end, those who buy the new deal will prosper get contracts, those who will not be assimilated will be cast aside. Do you think that if the Iraqi interim council decided they wanted a monarchy and voted for said monarchy the US would support that decision.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by grotto

Ahh but we are assimilating it regardless of elections and the trappings of democracy thrown over the shoulders of the government. The U.S. Military is on the ground, it is also the only thing standing between factioning and civil war. So in the end, those who buy the new deal will prosper get contracts, those who will not be assimilated will be cast aside. Do you think that if the Iraqi interim council decided they wanted a monarchy and voted for said monarchy the US would support that decision.

Would you consider Japan to be an assimilated land?