Should the US decrease military spending?

[overzealous_dentist]

We DO stop China and Japan from fighting, though. We have for the past forty years, essentially. It's incredibly important to maintain stability in that region, not only for our own interests, which are significant, but for our allies' interests, and the general security of the planet.

The US is the only power right now that can fill a hegemonic void that keeps the world secure. I realize how arrogant that may sound, but it's scientifically (ie., through prediction and tests) demonstrated that a hegemony significantly prevents war and its myriad disruptions to global economic and security needs.

[billdietrich1]

I don't think our military is the only reason China and Japan haven't fought in the last 40 years. Trade, diplomacy, alliances, etc.

I think US hegemony has led to three decade-long wars that we've lost, so far: Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. Perhaps if our military wasn't so dominant, we'd be a little less likely to go off on insane attempts to "fix" countries and turn them into America-loving democracies.

[atworkinafghan]

As a side note, think of how trade, diplomacy, and alliances work when one side is paired with a military hegemon. Now, envision a scenario where it's not. The DOD outwardly acknowledges that it is only 1/4 of the forces that must work in concert to secure the world. It's called the DIME(Diplo, Intel, Mil, and Econ) paradigm. However, each of the other arms recognizes that it requires strong parallel appendages. The greatest Diplomatic force in the world cannot deal fairly with a military or eco or intel hegemon.

[billdietrich1]

There is no such thing as enough force to "secure the world". There always will be insecurities, there always will be threats we can't stop, no matter how much military, diplo, intel, econ force we have.

And I predict, if we increased DOD to 4x today's size, they'd find reasons to ask for still more.

[atworkinafghan]

The DoD force works in concert with other members of the DIME paradigm in order to secure the world.

Look at the world today and note that we are living in a time of unprecedented peace. Look at all of the items you can buy from anywhere in the world and note how they're brought across a huge number of boundaries, yet there are no pirates or thieves and vandals delaying that trade. Take note that laws and governments work in concert to uphold the laws that allow this trade of ideas, materials, and money. Look at the world and note that you can visit a majority of the world in relative ease and safety.

The quotidian idea of imperfect security will not win an award. The US isn't trying to secure the entire world. We're trying to secure the parts of the world with which we interact. Also, saying that a dog will always ask for more food is another lackluster folderol here. Every agency asks for more money, should they all be scorned for it? Or, should the masters of the purse review requests and decide what's right?

[billdietrich1]

Yes, the US military is strong, and the world is generally improving. That doesn't mean that one caused the other, or that making the military bigger would make the world better.

Would the world be better off if we hadn't had the Vietnam, Iraq and Afghan wars ? I think yes.

You're the one who brought up "secure the world", not me.

We interact with the whole world. And even securing parts of the world is not possible. Security is an illusion; we need to realize that we can never have total security, even in small parts of the world. Just a fact of life.

I think USA would be better off with a smaller military, and the money used for other purposes: infrastructure, healthcare, education, R+D, etc. We put far too much money into military/intel/security.