Do you support the idea of the US dismantling its military?

[Clausewitz]

The concept of offense over defense is as old as military writing.

Because I feel like nerding out: Admiral McRaven (Commander of SOCOM; architect of the Abbottabad raid that kill OBL) challenged the traditional Clausewitzian notion of defense being tactically superior to offense, while he was in war college. For obvious reasons, it is generally easier to defend a piece of land than to attack it. However, McRaven posited that small, offensive forces could temporarily gain an upper hand over a numerically superior defensive force through surprise and maneuver. This concept became a cornerstone of SOF doctrine, especially within the SEAL community.

Ultimately, my tangent doesn't add much to your discussion. However, I find it interesting nonetheless.

[Kellhound]

In brief, (what I think is realisitic, not what I'd call a utopia) something like this:
Vision - the aforementioned "defense at the coastline" plus co-operative global naval security operations proportionate to US trade volume.

Future - 3rd generation war is dead and gone, stop preparing to fight WWII with sci-fi tech, and prepare for quantitatively and fundamentally different conflicts. (There are lots of relevant buzzwords: bioweapons, information warfare, 5th Gen warfare. If I could authoritatively and succinctly describe what war in two decades would look like, I wouldn't be in IT. )

Goals - Safety of the citizens of the United States, their freedom, and their prosperity. The only 'nation-building' the US government should do is at home.

Means - Stop prepping to fight super-mega-scifi version of WWII. Maintain "Peace and friendship with all nations, and entangling alliances with none" and stop "going abroad in search of monsters to destroy". Cut the 'Defense' + 'Security' budget to roughly 1/3 of what it is now. Fold the Army into the National Guard, cut and refocus the Navy and the Air Force. (Yes, the mil-geeks and the flag officers are going to lose many, but not all, of their cool toys.) High-level service unification. Unify the intel community the same way. (And do away with my bête noire of the NSA, and move their missions to other agencies that can actually accomplish them.) Maintain enough conventional forces for true national defense + commerce protection. (And seriously, just defense, not "defense" that is enough offensive striking power to end WWII in 3 days.) Maintain a resilient nuclear deterrent. Focus on emergency response, resilience and robustness. Recognize that terrorism is ultimately a law-enforcement problem. End corporate-welfare military contracting. Scrap the idiocy that is Homeland Security. Realize that the CDC is going to be more important than the CIA. Remember that, as H.G. Wells put it, "People always overestimate what will be possible in the next two years... and underestimate what will be possible in the next ten."

In other words, give up all hard power and basically become a backwater in world affairs? No, not wise.

- - - Updated - - -

Because I feel like nerding out: Admiral McRaven (Commander of SOCOM; architect of the Abbottabad raid that kill OBL) challenged the traditional Clausewitzian notion of defense being tactically superior to offense, while he was in war college. For obvious reasons, it is generally easier to defend a piece of land than to attack it. However, McRaven posited that small, offensive forces could temporarily gain an upper hand over a numerically superior defensive force through surprise and maneuver. This concept became a cornerstone of SOF doctrine, especially within the SEAL community.

Ultimately, my tangent doesn't add much to your discussion. However, I find it interesting nonetheless.

The idea of the power of defense (aka the fabled 3:1 attacker to defender ratio) is based around the traditional goal of taking and holding ground. Though if you want to take the idea of the science of war, the 3:1 ratio is more correctly seen as the concept of local combat power after force multiplier have been applied.

[Clausewitz]

The idea of the power of defense (aka the fabled 3:1 attacker to defender ratio) is based around the traditional goal of taking and holding ground. Though if you want to take the idea of the science of war, the 3:1 ratio is more correctly seen as the concept of local combat power after force multiplier have been applied.

I must admit, my knowledge of such information is rather limited. I graduate high school in a week, so I haven't even been able to take a basic intro to IR class, let alone delve into the nuances of war theory. Are force multipliers supporting weaponry, such as artillery, helicopters, tanks, and planes?

[ringpriest]

In other words, give up all hard power and basically become a backwater in world affairs? No, not wise.

U.S. hegemony is going to end. The only choice America has is whether it ends in a way America has some control over, or in a way that is completely outside of U.S. control. As a resident of the United States, I much prefer the former course. And your false dilemma that the only choices are 'World Domination!' or 'backwater' is ludicrous - no nation with the resources and human capital of the United States is going to become a backwater absent economic and political collapse.

[Clausewitz]

U.S. hegemony is going to end. The only choice America has is whether it ends in a way America has some control over, or in a way that is completely outside of U.S. control. As a resident of the United States, I much prefer the former course. And your false dilemma that the only choices are 'World Domination!' or 'backwater' is ludicrous - no nation with the resources and human capital of the United States is going to become a backwater absent economic and political collapse.

Well, reducing American hard power by such a large degree will certainly undermine our global position even further. The notion that conventional military forces have no place in modern warfare is ridiculous--they're still very important in both deterrence and actual war fighting. Fourth generational warfare will not enable Iran to shut down the Strait of Hormuz nor will it provide China with a feasible way to take action over their territorial claims. Furthermore, it's often the case that 4G warfare is preceded by a conventional conflict that creates a political power vacuum, as was the case in America's 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Edit: Not to mention that most contemporary maritime security issues are based around 3G warfare. A2/AD weapons are pretty reminiscent of the conventional naval battles that took place in World War Two, not some people's war on the water.

[Kellhound]

I must admit, my knowledge of such information is rather limited. I graduate high school in a week, so I haven't even been able to take a basic intro to IR class, let alone delve into the nuances of war theory. Are force multipliers supporting weaponry, such as artillery, helicopters, tanks, and planes?

Force multipliers can be those things, as well as training, superior tactics, shock and surprise, really anything that is "fighting dirty" or "cheating".

- - - Updated - - -

U.S. hegemony is going to end. The only choice America has is whether it ends in a way America has some control over, or in a way that is completely outside of U.S. control. As a resident of the United States, I much prefer the former course. And your false dilemma that the only choices are 'World Domination!' or 'backwater' is ludicrous - no nation with the resources and human capital of the United States is going to become a backwater absent economic and political collapse.

When it ends, we will have little control over it no matter how much we try, but then and only then will I support the return to our shores defend the island ideas. We may have a decent amount of resources but we are isolated from the rest of the world.

[lolpriestnoob]

I see you haven't met reality.

It seems zoefschildpad has a fair point, and in no way showed any lack of connection from reality in their statement. Acknowledging reality does not have to mean you believe in it.

Reality is more harsh than anything you will ever experience. I don't have to know you to know that. It is a shame that people are ostracized for having an opinion that opposes firing a gun at one another. Every person on this planet is either a political tool or corporate bargaining chip. There are no conspiracy theories, only a true, harsh reality, that people are educated to demonize one another. History should not be used to vilify the atrocious events that we, as a society, condone. Pointing a gun at another person may serve to solve personal (or in this case a countries) issues, but we will never solve our collective issues this way. If you point a gun at someone, they are going to point one back. We then educate individuals on how and why firing that gun is the right thing to do. To solve problems, we need responsible education that promotes understanding and a reduction in violence. I understand well the reality of our world. Just because things are the way they are, doesn't mean it's how they should be.

[ringpriest]

Well, reducing American hard power by such a large degree will certainly undermine our global position even further. The notion that conventional military forces have no place in modern warfare is ridiculous--they're still very important in both deterrence and actual war fighting. Fourth generational warfare will not enable Iran to shut down the Strait of Hormuz nor will it provide China with a feasible way to take action over their territorial claims. Furthermore, it's often the case that 4G warfare is preceded by a conventional conflict that creates a political power vacuum, as was the case in America's 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Edit: Not to mention that most contemporary maritime security issues are based around 3G warfare. A2/AD weapons are pretty reminiscent of the conventional naval battles that took place in World War Two, not some people's war on the water.

I've not saying that conventional forces have no place, simply that if the US is going to abandon the idea of fighting multiple 'near-peer' competitors in distant theaters (as I think it ought to), there's no longer a need for 10+ fleet carriers and 20+ amphibious ships of various sorts. Likewise, anti-piracy operations do not require the utter domination of the blue-water theater that the US is presently prepared to practice. And so on down the line.

And what are the practical, negative consequences of the US abandoning 'hard power' interventions and the threat of them? Bear in mind, I'm not advocating doing anything amazingly rash - such a draw-down as I've described would take years and give America's allies sufficient time to ensure their own military defenses are up to whatever standard they deem necessary.

I think its fair to point to Ukraine as an ongoing example of 4th generation warfare without any conventional conflict precursor. And situations like Ukraine are going to become more common, not less, if the US continues to meddle. Absent a US military intervention, what is Iran's motivation for shutting down the Strait, and cutting off their nose to spite their face. What do the citizens of the US gain from having a fleet in being off China's coast?

Your comparison of a hypothetical near-future battle in the Straits of Taiwan with WWII fleet actions is partly accurate - that's why I decried the US military's plans to fight a super science-fiction version of WWII in my earlier post. A world where fleet actions will involve ballistic missiles, autonomous drones, railguns, and lasers, while thrilling to picture, is not (in my opinion) a world where such fleet actions have any relevance.

[Kellhound]

I've not saying that conventional forces have no place, simply that if the US is going to abandon the idea of fighting multiple 'near-peer' competitors in distant theaters (as I think it ought to), there's no longer a need for 10+ fleet carriers and 20+ amphibious ships of various sorts. Likewise, anti-piracy operations do not require the utter domination of the blue-water theater that the US is presently prepared to practice. And so on down the line.

And what are the practical, negative consequences of the US abandoning 'hard power' interventions and the threat of them? Bear in mind, I'm not advocating doing anything amazingly rash - such a draw-down as I've described would take years and give America's allies sufficient time to ensure their own military defenses are up to whatever standard they deem necessary.

I think its fair to point to Ukraine as an ongoing example of 4th generation warfare without any conventional conflict precursor. And situations like Ukraine are going to become more common, not less, if the US continues to meddle. Absent a US military intervention, what is Iran's motivation for shutting down the Strait, and cutting off their nose to spite their face. What do the citizens of the US gain from having a fleet in being off China's coast?

Your comparison of a hypothetical near-future battle in the Straits of Taiwan with WWII fleet actions is partly accurate - that's why I decried the US military's plans to fight a super science-fiction version of WWII in my earlier post. A world where fleet actions will involve ballistic missiles, autonomous drones, railguns, and lasers, while thrilling to picture, is not (in my opinion) a world where such fleet actions have any relevance.

Taken to the logical conclusion of your view, the US needs nothing but the National Guard and Coast Guard. The US Merchant Marine is small and we have no reason to defend other nations' ships.

[PACOX]

ITT - A bunch of armchair politicians and generals.

[belfpala]

ITT - A bunch of armchair politicians...

There are other kinds?

[Clausewitz]

ITT - A bunch of armchair politicians and generals.

This is very true, but I embrace the term. It's important for an educated society to engage in debate about matters of policy.

[ringpriest]

ITT - A bunch of armchair politicians and generals.

I'm an armchair petty officer tvym - I know who both my parents were and I work for a living, so kindly don't casually lump me in with your 'generals and politicians'.

And, as Major-General von Clausewitz pointed out above, what is wrong with a citizenry that knows and cares what is being done in their name?

[speehs]

And gamble an entire country on hoping the rest of the world wouldn't immediately take advantage of an extremely wealthy but defenseless nation? Have you not seen what people in this world are capable of? Keep dreaming.

[ringpriest]

And gamble an entire country on hoping the rest of the world wouldn't immediately take advantage of an extremely wealthy but defenseless nation? Have you not seen what people in this world are capable of? Keep dreaming.

I find the fake dilemma that keeps being presented of "current or more" defense spending or "no defense at all" as the only options both sad and amusing.

[Zython]

why should we dismantle our military? why should anyone dismantle their military?

Because people don't work for free.