War

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by jBirch

So the point is not just self-defense, nor is it economic, it is coercive as well? Ie// the purpose of a large military is, in large part, to enable one to dictate the economic, diplomatic, and political rules of any arena. Can you give me an example of a need as opposed to a want? I would read that the purpose of such a large standing military is to dominate anyone you *want* to, rather then anyone you *need* to. One requiring justification, the other, not so.

Semantics, then - I'd agree that it should be "want".

Originally Posted by jBirch

I'm not sure that the "little boxer" has the capacity to even enter the ring with a nimble heavyweight, though the rule of thumb is that smaller is faster, I'd agree. And I think that that is part of the problem: the larger the military, generally, the more monolithic it's structure. However, the US, as an example, is not slow to deploy or act, understanding as it does that warfare is predicated on "getting there firstest with the mostest men". I can see how you want a large force to dictate the terms of negotiation. However, how much is too much? And what if you have that large force but are somehow constrained against using it?

So long as it's a nimble heavyweight. The idea is just to make sure that you don't get some quick little guy in under your guard who can hit you lightly, but dodge every blow you send back. So if the heavyweight is indeed nimble, then I don't think the little guys have to be worried about.

I think the US has it about right - we still have a good size of conventional battlefield weapons, so that we could go up against a sizable standing army. At the same time, however, we have Expeditionary Air Forces and SOF teams, letting us hit quickly, quietly if need be - and still hard. Also, we can get men where we need them, quickly - firstest with the mostest, like you said. I think we've got the nimble heavyweight thing decently in hand.

How much is too much? I think that's simply a cost/benefit analysis. Figure a price for the deployment; what's the price of not winning there?

Originally Posted by jBirch

Ie// the cost of using that force is so great that it can not practically be used at all and so loses its raison d'etre?

The who with the what now?

Originally Posted by jBirch

I think it is, yes. If the purpose were to go in and go home, then it would not have any assimilation purpose behind it. Iraq and Afghanistan are prime examples right now, where the goal is to pacify and then assimilate (through political manipulation instead of settlement) the land. I'm not sure if this is going to be a sucessful strategy though. Do you (or anyone else) know of a sucessful use of this strategy? Are Japan and Germany examples of this concept working?

I happened to have just recently read an interesting article on this in Imprimis. The author was saying that countries don't always have a capacity to be free. How, for example, do you intend to establish a firm (but free) government in a country where most people don't trust anyone they're not actually related to? Japan and Germany were used as two examples of quick successes - but in circumstances where there was already a lot of societal groundwork in place. Turkey was used as a counter-example - they've been moving forward, yes, but it's taken them nearly a hundred years to achieve even a parliamentary democracy. I think the strategy will be successful; I just don't know about the timeline.

Originally Posted by jBirch

And open to manipulation. The resources of a state are vastly greater then the resources of a criminal syndicate and I think that the police officer, in your example, needs a much bigger stick then some pepper spray and a handgun. Why should a state risk its people and resources to enforce nebulous laws? Who writes those laws? Who interprets them? How are they enforced equitably?

By police actions, I don't mean small and quibbling matters - even powerful crime syndicates in foreign countries, are too small. Military isn't good for that kind of thing. The police actions I'm talking about are things like stopping genocide in progress - where you can simply put soldiers in place to enforce the idea of "Stop it." Even then, one cannot hope to stop all killing; only to halt massive slaughter.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Semantics, then - I'd agree that it should be "want".

Well, I think it's important to distinguish between what is absolutely justifiable (need) and that which is tainted by greed, lust, envy and desire (want). I know the words are a little harsh but the concept is the same. If you absolutely NEED something, then there can be no moral quibbles about you acquiring it. If you don't then there can be.

So long as it's a nimble heavyweight. The idea is just to make sure that you don't get some quick little guy in under your guard who can hit you lightly, but dodge every blow you send back. So if the heavyweight is indeed nimble, then I don't think the little guys have to be worried about.

I think the US has it about right - we still have a good size of conventional battlefield weapons, so that we could go up against a sizable standing army. At the same time, however, we have Expeditionary Air Forces and SOF teams, letting us hit quickly, quietly if need be - and still hard. Also, we can get men where we need them, quickly - firstest with the mostest, like you said. I think we've got the nimble heavyweight thing decently in hand.

I'd agree kinda. The current US force allocation, I think, is a bit too heavy but certainly nimble. The "TWO-FRONT" strategy allows the US to carry on regular defense operations, fight one major war and STILL have resources left over for expeditionary endeavours elsewhere. I think that in the current climate, this is just a little too much.

How much is too much? I think that's simply a cost/benefit analysis. Figure a price for the deployment; what's the price of not winning there?

Well, you also have to factor in having the potential to go and do any given deployment as well. How many troops are sitting around simply on the off chance that there might be a deployment?

The who with the what now?

raison d'etre = reason to be. The concept that, like nuclear weapons, once you've got the force, it costs too much to use it to any real extent.

I happened to have just recently read an interesting article on this in Imprimis. The author was saying that countries don't always have a capacity to be free. How, for example, do you intend to establish a firm (but free) government in a country where most people don't trust anyone they're not actually related to? Japan and Germany were used as two examples of quick successes - but in circumstances where there was already a lot of societal groundwork in place. Turkey was used as a counter-example - they've been moving forward, yes, but it's taken them nearly a hundred years to achieve even a parliamentary democracy. I think the strategy will be successful; I just don't know about the timeline.

You hit on the head the concept I was alluding to. A society has to yearn for freedom before it can be achieved. The imposition of "freedom" on an immature culture will ruin it.

By police actions, I don't mean small and quibbling matters - even powerful crime syndicates in foreign countries, are too small. Military isn't good for that kind of thing. The police actions I'm talking about are things like stopping genocide in progress - where you can simply put soldiers in place to enforce the idea of "Stop it." Even then, one cannot hope to stop all killing; only to halt massive slaughter.

Right, that's what I meant too. But the question still stands, what are crimes? Who decides what is and is not a crime? What's the punishment? How is it meted out equally amongst the weak and the powerful? Why should a state risk its citizens for others? The case in Darfur is classic right now. Rwanda was the same. We know there is a genocide, but no one is doing anything. Why not?

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Well, I think it's important to distinguish between what is absolutely justifiable (need) and that which is tainted by greed, lust, envy and desire (want). I know the words are a little harsh but the concept is the same. If you absolutely NEED something, then there can be no moral quibbles about you acquiring it. If you don't then there can be.

No, not really. If we're looking at all of this sans morals, the premises we started with, then there's no real difference between want and need, and taint by greed, lust, envy, or desire, doesn't really matter.

Originally Posted by jBirch

I'd agree kinda. The current US force allocation, I think, is a bit too heavy but certainly nimble. The "TWO-FRONT" strategy allows the US to carry on regular defense operations, fight one major war and STILL have resources left over for expeditionary endeavours elsewhere. I think that in the current climate, this is just a little too much.

I think it's good to have that much strength around, in case we ever have to use it. Who's to say we might not be facing that many problems in the future?

Originally Posted by jBirch

Well, you also have to factor in having the potential to go and do any given deployment as well. How many troops are sitting around simply on the off chance that there might be a deployment?

I just figure that in the price of maintaining a nimble force.

Originally Posted by jBirch

raison d'etre = reason to be. The concept that, like nuclear weapons, once you've got the force, it costs too much to use it to any real extent.

French. Bah. If something works as a deterrent, what's wrong with that?

Originally Posted by jBirch

You hit on the head the concept I was alluding to. A society has to yearn for freedom before it can be achieved. The imposition of "freedom" on an immature culture will ruin it.

Don't know if it would ruin it; it might simply take a lot longer to take hold.

Originally Posted by jBirch

Right, that's what I meant too. But the question still stands, what are crimes? Who decides what is and is not a crime? What's the punishment? How is it meted out equally amongst the weak and the powerful? Why should a state risk its citizens for others? The case in Darfur is classic right now. Rwanda was the same. We know there is a genocide, but no one is doing anything. Why not?

Who decides? Why, the people holding the reins, that's who. If it's the American military we're talking about, then we'll decide when we feel like stepping in, and when we don't. If you want to bring up a moral discussion about when we should be intervening or not, that's another whole bag of worms. The only reasons for a state to risk it's citizens for another is if there is some advantage to it (control, political clout, alliances, something like that), or because it's the right thing to do. But then, why should, say, America, always be expected to police the world? Why not everybody else? Perhaps that's what the UN should be expected to do.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Soldier

No, not really. If we're looking at all of this sans morals, the premises we started with, then there's no real difference between want and need, and taint by greed, lust, envy, or desire, doesn't really matter.

Yeah it does and here's why: if you can justify to the international community that you're good to go to start a war then you don't need to keep the strength around to fight them too. I'm not interested in whether the size and use of the force is moral, but it is important if other nations are more likely to intervene in your use of that force.

I think it's good to have that much strength around, in case we ever have to use it. Who's to say we might not be facing that many problems in the future?

Who's to say that's enough? Your argument here is to always keep increasing the size of the military then, which I don't think you're proposing, are you?

I just figure that in the price of maintaining a nimble force.

Fair enough.

French. Bah. If something works as a deterrent, what's wrong with that?

Nothing, but the question always comes back to, how much of a deterrant is necessary and how much is wastage?

Don't know if it would ruin it; it might simply take a lot longer to take hold.

I'd argue that because you've set up an active resistence to the proposal that wouldn't have existed had the change come about naturally.

Who decides? Why, the people holding the reins, that's who. If it's the American military we're talking about, then we'll decide when we feel like stepping in, and when we don't. If you want to bring up a moral discussion about when we should be intervening or not, that's another whole bag of worms. The only reasons for a state to risk it's citizens for another is if there is some advantage to it (control, political clout, alliances, something like that), or because it's the right thing to do. But then, why should, say, America, always be expected to police the world? Why not everybody else? Perhaps that's what the UN should be expected to do.

RIGHT ON! This is what I'm driving at. Why should the US, for example, be expected to "police" other nations' behaviour? What's in it for them? I disagree with the "it's the right thing to do" concept though. How can a state act thusly without doing a whole lot of stupid in the process?

I figure that the UN lacks the very force that it requires to do its job and so other self-interest groups step up to the plate when needs be. Notably, the US and Nato. What the UN needs is a standing military force, something not likely to happen because no nation is going to willingly make itself subservient to another. I can think of no powerful nation that is interested in making the UN stronger rather then weaker and so it's doomed to die a horrible death. Weaker nations, most certainly are interested in that proposal, but everything comes back to state self interest, doesn't it? At any rate, the UN is constrained by the US and Europe. China hasn't been particularly forthcoming with troops and missions. Nor has Russia. So the UN only acts when it is in the interests of the US and Europe, rather then when it is in the interests of other nations.

Which leads to another interesting sidebar...does the UN need a military force more powerful then the US'? If not, why not?

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Yeah it does and here's why: if you can justify to the international community that you're good to go to start a war then you don't need to keep the strength around to fight them too. I'm not interested in whether the size and use of the force is moral, but it is important if other nations are more likely to intervene in your use of that force.

True. Very true.

Originally Posted by jBirch

Who's to say that's enough? Your argument here is to always keep increasing the size of the military then, which I don't think you're proposing, are you?

Back to cost/benefit analysis. How many enemies can we reasonably expect to have to ward off at once? Technically, you're not safe unless you can hold off the entire world all at once. But that's not exactly reasonable. So you need to sit down and look at protection vs. cost. When is extra protection reasonable, and at what point does it become paranoid? At what point does a little bit more protection become a lot more expensive? You've got to find that curving point in the asymptotic plot.

Originally Posted by jBirch

Nothing, but the question always comes back to, how much of a deterrant is necessary and how much is wastage?

That's for strategic analysts with more letters after their names than I actually have in my last name, to figure out.

Originally Posted by jBirch

I'd argue that because you've set up an active resistence to the proposal that wouldn't have existed had the change come about naturally.

Possibly. Presuming, of course, that the change ever would have come about naturally.

Originally Posted by jBirch

RIGHT ON! This is what I'm driving at. Why should the US, for example, be expected to "police" other nations' behaviour? What's in it for them? I disagree with the "it's the right thing to do" concept though. How can a state act thusly without doing a whole lot of stupid in the process?

See, we've got this part of the Air Force core values, that goes, "Service Before Self"...I don't see why that can't apply on a national scale. Obviously not all the time...but I don't know that we should become completely isolationist, either. Again, deciding when we should help out or not, is far above my pay grade.

Originally Posted by jBirch

I figure that the UN lacks the very force that it requires to do its job and so other self-interest groups step up to the plate when needs be. Notably, the US and Nato. What the UN needs is a standing military force, something not likely to happen because no nation is going to willingly make itself subservient to another. I can think of no powerful nation that is interested in making the UN stronger rather then weaker and so it's doomed to die a horrible death. Weaker nations, most certainly are interested in that proposal, but everything comes back to state self interest, doesn't it? At any rate, the UN is constrained by the US and Europe. China hasn't been particularly forthcoming with troops and missions. Nor has Russia. So the UN only acts when it is in the interests of the US and Europe, rather then when it is in the interests of other nations.

And then, when the interests of Europe and the US part ways, we get ugly international name-calling, and endless Latin-infused debates on Fencing.net...horrors! I agree that the UN isn't exactly suited for the job. What I meant, is that if we're looking for world police, they're going to have to be their own organization - not a certain nation. The problem with the whole deal is that nobody wants to go the expense themselves - for obvious reason: There's no real thanks to it. Not much goodwill, certainly no economic benefit. You usually just end up pissing everybody off. So unless a nation feels a higher calling to do good - basically goes on a crusade - there's not much reason (other than self-interest) to go doing good in the world.

What we really need, I think, is an alien invasion. An outside threat to unite the people on Earth.

Originally Posted by jBirch

Which leads to another interesting sidebar...does the UN need a military force more powerful then the US'? If not, why not?

If the UN were going to be world police, yes. But the problem is that the UN is not impartial. It's like having a President of the World - they're basically in charge. But you want to have some kind of checks and balances to make sure that power won't be abused. So, that's the "why not" - I don't trust the UN.

Now that I've just put it that way, world resentment against the US (or whoever happens to be most powerful at a given time) makes even more sense. Nobody likes to have a more powerful neighbor, whom they don't completely trust. And nobody will ever be trusted by everybody else in the world.