[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

I mean, why are we even conceptualizing fighting two wars at the same time?

Because of WW2, the Cold War, and the fact that the US wants to remain a superpower. Military strength and infrastructure cannot be mothballed and rebuilt at a moment’s notice, especially in this day and age for a military that depends primarily on air and water for power projection. The days when you can just start a factory and cranking out useful planes and tanks like in WW2 are long gone.

You can substantially reduce the military’s capability if you want, but at the same time you’ll have to be prepared to lose that capability for a very long time – just look at NASA and their struggle to get back out beyond LEO.

If it was that easy to develop military capability, China would have SEA in its bag already.

There is no question that there are aggressors around the world, but at the same time it is reckless to look always to means of force when people today are suffering and dying in our streets due to lack of care.

Maybe it’s just me, but for some reason I get the feeling that even if we eliminate the military completely tomorrow, it’s not going to be the poor/middle class that’ll see the benefits.

Anyhow, the Cold War is over though

May want to send a memo to Putin.

I hope we haven't forgotten the stockpiles of nuclear weapons

Putin certainly hasn’t, as a matter of fact they’re trying to pull out of the nuclear arms treaty.

and if two powers were to come to blows that all the conventional weaponry isn't going to save us.

Conflicts don’t automatically escalate to nuclear exchange just because the participants are nuclear powers - Pakistan and India certainly hasn’t nuked each other yet. But you CAN see what happens to countries that unilaterally disarmed itself – see Ukraine.

If the start of the 21st century hasn't been clear enough that expensive military endeavors haven't caused a big enough mess yet, we can always look at what happened to the Soviet Union.

The Soviets were done in primarily by terrible economic policies and management, with a topping of overspending on a military it can’t afford. The biggest crisis facing the US are things like healthcare cost, failing infrastructure, and income distribution etc. We literally spend more than twice as much on healthcare and pension as on defense, yet we have one of the worst healthcare system, and little retirement security, and those are problems that's only getting worse.

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

In any case, I think we could at least agree that the US should not base its policy on fighting simultaneous wars like it is 1900. We would not need an equivalent force to deter an attack on American territory.

You’re only looking at part of it. Like it or not, military power is part of politics and diplomacy, it’s not there simply to deter an attack on the country, but also its interests abroad. For the US this means protection and stability for its major allies/trading partners, and open sea lanes for the flow of goods.

What do you think will happen in Europe (especially eastern Europe) and east Asia if the US withdraws completely? You’d have instant arms races in those regions, probably a few that’ll be nuclear.

Indeed, when the US themselves cannot pacify Iraq and Afghanistan, the notion that we need an enormous overwhelming force to guard our borders is absurd

I don’t see how the two are related. Those are primarily political/policy failures where the US left it to the local governments to govern effectively, which they have failed to do so spectacularly.