Why are you for OR against the Military??

[Yunru]

The current type of military is usless. It causes to much damage. (and hate after)
All you need is self-replicating nano-bots and they can easy take over any country.
Send the bots, kill the goverment and their supporters = war won --) place new leaders, who can fix the country.

It minimizes the cost of war placed on your population.

[Skroe]

The current type of military is usless. It causes to much damage. (and hate after)
All you need is self-replicating nano-bots and they can easy take over any country.
Send the bots, kill the goverment and their supporters = war won --) place new leaders, who can fix the country.

It minimizes the cost of war placed on your population.

The invasion of Iraq largely targeted and killed the very top of the Baathist regime. Most infrastructure was spared. Most of the civil servants and mid-level baathists who were responsible for running the country on a day to day basis were spared. The Iraqi Military was spared, except for the Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard.

We brought in new leaders who could "fix the country"

Iraq still fell to chaos for years.

Using your (fictional) nanobots would have produced less physical damage (that was relatively modest to begin with) and mostly reduced the Iraq's human cost (that was again, very modest and very focused), but it wouldn't have helped in stopping the looting and ensuing years long insurgency that came about as the social order and civil society of Iraq collapses without the very leaders we killed holding it together.

In a sense, this shouldnt have been surprising. In a developed country, the social order and civil society is very bottom-up. But in developing or autocratic countries, it is by design, top down, and replacing that, especially with a bottom up model will take time and be extremely complex, if it is indeed possible at all. With Iraq, for example, a key problem was that many Iraqis were much more loyal to their neighborhood, their tribe, or their sectarian faction, than they were to the idea of "Iraq". The Shiites for example, wants a United Iraq, because they very much wanted to run the full potential power, opportunity and wealth of a whole Iraq for the first time, but they were REALLY interested in a Shiite empowerment at the expense of the Suniis and Kurds. If the Sunnis and Kurs could have been transported to Mars and the Shiites could run a United Iraq, they would have been largely down for it.

The point is, you ascribe too many failings of a country to the top. Relatively recent experience shows that merely replacing those at the top will not be neat or easy or ultimately successful.

[Shoat]

I'm a pacifist. I hate guns.
I dislike the concept of paying a great portion of your nation's budget on preparation for war when it could instead be spent on something more productive. Literally the only reason why any nation builds military is fear of other nations building a military, it's so fucking stupid and backwards and it's a damn shame that it's still happening.

[the game]

Having served and having several generations on my mom's side of the family serving the US military has my full support. We need an effective military.

[Kathandira]

The Peace-Unto-the-World folks are living in their own fantasy land, so their reasons aren't logically valid

I would love if we can achieve world peace, I really would. If I was able to live in a world where weapons were no longer needed, and wars were fought by discussions rather than blood shed. But that isn't the current reality we live in. If any major power disbanded their military, other nations wouldn't see it as an inspiration to do the same, they would see it as an opportunity to crush them, and profit off of it.

So yeah, i'd really love world peace, but that is absolutely unreachable in this lifetime, so therefore, we absolutely need military to keep the wolves at bay.

[Yunru]

The invasion of Iraq largely targeted and killed the very top of the Baathist regime. Most infrastructure was spared. Most of the civil servants and mid-level baathists who were responsible for running the country on a day to day basis were spared. The Iraqi Military was spared, except for the Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard.

We brought in new leaders who could "fix the country"

Iraq still fell to chaos for years.

Using your (fictional) nanobots would have produced less physical damage (that was relatively modest to begin with) and mostly reduced the Iraq's human cost (that was again, very modest and very focused), but it wouldn't have helped in stopping the looting and ensuing years long insurgency that came about as the social order and civil society of Iraq collapses without the very leaders we killed holding it together.

In a sense, this shouldnt have been surprising. In a developed country, the social order and civil society is very bottom-up. But in developing or autocratic countries, it is by design, top down, and replacing that, especially with a bottom up model will take time and be extremely complex, if it is indeed possible at all. With Iraq, for example, a key problem was that many Iraqis were much more loyal to their neighborhood, their tribe, or their sectarian faction, than they were to the idea of "Iraq". The Shiites for example, wants a United Iraq, because they very much wanted to run the full potential power, opportunity and wealth of a whole Iraq for the first time, but they were REALLY interested in a Shiite empowerment at the expense of the Suniis and Kurds. If the Sunnis and Kurs could have been transported to Mars and the Shiites could run a United Iraq, they would have been largely down for it.

The point is, you ascribe too many failings of a country to the top. Relatively recent experience shows that merely replacing those at the top will not be neat or easy or ultimately successful.

Nano-bots could be programed to build police drones (similar like those in half-life ... yes we can make those already).

Any sucuide attack on drones will be pointless, since even if they end up destroyed, they will just re-build themself (wich you cant do with living security soldiers).

They could also be used to build infracture, schools and things that civilized world needs.
You dont have to take whole country over night. You can go city by city, village by village.
If you can teach people that attacking each other is pointless, they will accept it over time. (for example.. french and german were always fighting for quite a long history, but with a new thinking all changed)

[Army Dreamer]

I'm against - I don't want to die for someone's ambitions cause
I'm for - someone has to protect my ass from those who want to die for someone's ambitions cause

[Varitok]

I'm FOR. I'd rather see tax money go to military spending than to people who won't work and other social programs that never worked.

I laughed honestly.

[Aoyi]

A military is necessary as conflict is always a possibility. I don't see us reaching a point as a species where we are peaceful enough to not need a military, at least any time soon. I'm personally against war as those who start them rarely fight them and, as a US citizen, I think our defense spending is way more than it should be. That doesn't make me anti-military though. Both my wife's family and my own have a lot of people who have served. My father in law is a Lt. Colonel and a life long military man.

[ellieg]

100% for. Aint no one gonna fuck with us because we have the biggest military. I dont agree with everything we use it for, but im fine with how big it is. Its also a great tool that gives lower income youth a chance to improve their status

[Kathandira]

I'm FOR. I'd rather see tax money go to military spending than to people who won't work and other social programs that never worked.

I'm sure you are saying this specifically to get a reaction (can't say the magic word that sums that up...but you know what I mean.)

But in case you are serious. Do you really mean that you would rather spend money on people's deaths and suffering, rather than spending money to ensure people do not die, and do not suffer?

[primalmatter]

I'm sure you are saying this specifically to get a reaction (can't say the magic word that sums that up...but you know what I mean.)

But in case you are serious. Do you really mean that you would rather spend money on people's deaths and suffering, rather than spending money to ensure people do not die, and do not suffer?

I don't think you have a firm grasp on what it is the army does...

[Kathandira]

I don't think you have a firm grasp on what it is the army does...

In reference to what I was quoting, I think my focus on specifically the combat part is appropriate.

I am aware that there are many many functions of the military. Some of which are focused on supporting those in need. But the comment I was replying to didn't seem to concerned with that part of the military either.

[Aggrophobic]

For.

Because Russia is our neighbor. No other reason, really.

This, pretty much.

[Blade Wolf]

Your question is loaded with a conclusion that you're already reaching before asking the question. It's not an "us vs. them" mentality. People can be "against the military" without being against those in the military. There's a difference between the military, as a federal program and an institution, and the people who serve in it.

I'm not against the military as a program of national defense, nor as a fine example of how socialism works in this country. What I'm against is the rampant military spending in this country that's both completely unnecessary, and wasteful. I'm against politicians manipulating this country's pro-military mindset with promises of increased military spending, when that spending is largely a boondoggle for their military industrial complex lobbyists. The United States spends far more on our military than we have any need to, and the US's history of military expansion and "policing" throughout the world is what is causing the rift that you say you see.

The US spends more on our military ($596 billion) than the next 6 nations do put together ($569.9 billion), and 4 of them are our allies. It's a massive drain of resources and money. The United States is lagging severely behind other developed nations in things like infrastructure, education, transit systems, and even something as simple as internet connectivity. If even a quarter of our military budget was re-directed toward developing the nation year over year, it would take us a long way forward.

We need a military. It's necessary for both national defense, and as a social program for our citizens. What we do NOT need is 800+ military bases around the world, nor an always-ready combat force who's primary purpose is to protect allies that should be protecting themselves.

This comment pretty much nailed it.

[primalmatter]

In reference to what I was quoting, I think my focus on specifically the combat part is appropriate.

I am aware that there are many many functions of the military. Some of which are focused on supporting those in need. But the comment I was replying to didn't seem to concerned with that part of the military either.

Right but cutting funding doesn't change the combat portion of it. It really only prolongs the fighting (that and some utterly absurd rules of engagement and leaders who lack the spine to do what is needed to win wars).

I don't idealize the army even through I am a part of it. If your goal is saving lives and helping people however dollar for dollar you won't get better then the army.

[Dadwen]

I think what some fail to see is they are also not all about death and destruction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operat...ied_Assistance
an other aid missions they assisted in like the Japan earthquakes 2011 etc.

but dammit they have some cool toys and that alone is worth the $$$$$......

[McFuu]

I think what some fail to see is they are also not all about death and destruction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operat...ied_Assistance
an other aid missions they assisted in like the Japan earthquakes 2011 etc.

but dammit they have some cool toys and that alone is worth the $$$$$......

During my time in the military most of my friends went on non-combat deployments such as the Japanese 2011 relief, Haiti, friendly nation cross training in Norway and Sweden. Only 1 of my friends and myself actually went on combat deployments. Honestly the majority of the Military either doesn't deploy or deploys on non-combat tours.

[GreenJesus]

People who disavow "social programs" en mass are basically uninformed idiots. This guy will not be listening to reason or logic, so your time is basically wasted.

Well.. The social security is literally about to collapse once the baby boomers reach the age.. My generation will never see social security because the baby boomers will have all taken it.

[Bighud44]

Im sort for and against.

Im for it, as it is necessary. A country without military defense is a sitting duck.

Im against in that I don't feel all military objectives are necessary, and sometimes out right wrong. I also, as a US citizen, would like to see our military spending further reduced as it is a very large sum of our government spending.

Not as much as welfare spending and entitlement spending. And btw, VA compensation IS NOT an entitlement. Its something myself (when I retire) and every veteran earned.

Little excerpt for you from a liberal journalist....

"A few more thoughts on the view from 1957. Relative to the size of the U.S. economy (which is to say, as a share of GDP) we have cut military spending to barely a third of what it was in 1957, from 9.8 percent of GDP then to 3.3 percent of GDP now. Even though we were spending three times as much on national defense in 1957—and even though we had lower taxes (17.2 percent of GDP then vs. 17.7 percent of GDP today) we ran a budget surplus. It’s usually described as a “modest” surplus, but at 3.4 percent of GDP, the budget surplus of 1957 was proportionally larger than military spending is in 2015.

So, where’d the money go? Feel free to consult the historical data yourself, but the short answer is: welfare spending.

The broadest budget categories are national defense, human resources, physical resources, net interest, other functions, and undistributed offsetting receipts. National defense, net interest, other functions, and undistributed receipts are pretty self-explanatory; human resources includes welfare and health-care programs, entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security, and education spending. Physical resources means things like energy development, transportation, natural resources maintenance, environmental conservation, and community- and regional-development programs, the “infrastructure” we’re always going on about. Interest on the debt today is almost exactly the same as it was in 1957; it is exactly the same as what it was in 1953: 1.3 percent of GDP. In 1957, we spent 1 percent of GDP on physical resources; today, we spend a bit less, 0.8 percent of GDP. Other functions constituted 1.6 percent of GDP in 1957, today down to 1.1 percent of GDP. Undistributed receipts is nearly unchanged, up 0.1 percent of GDP. That leaves us with the welfare category, the only area of federal spending that has grown significantly relative to the size of the U.S. economy. In 1957, it was 3.9 percent of GDP—not insignificant, to be sure; that’s a slightly larger figure than our present-day military spending. But welfare entitlement spending in 2015 is 15.2 percent of GDP. Which is to say, broadly defined welfare spending alone is equal to 86 percent of all the federal taxes that are going to be collected this year. Most of that is Social Security, health-care spending, traditional welfare, and federal education spending, which has grown substantially despite the fact that most education spending happens at the state and local level. Recap: In GDP terms, we spend about a third on the military today compared to what we spent in the late 1950s. We spend almost exactly the same on interest on the debt. We spend 20 percent less on energy, transportation, the environment, and natural resources. And we spend almost four times as much on welfare. Again, that is in GDP terms, and our economy is a heck of a lot bigger than it was in 1957. As a share of all federal spending, welfare has gone from 23 percent of spending to 73 percent of federal spending. In constant-dollar terms, we spend 17.5 times as much. In nominal-dollar terms, we spend 150 times as much. We could probably stand to trim the Pentagon budget a bit and reform defense procurement. But the real problem is the welfare state. The numbers don’t lie."

- - - Updated - - -

Well.. The social security is literally about to collapse once the baby boomers reach the age.. My generation will never see social security because the baby boomers will have all taken it.

Incorrect.....We wont see it because the current government is borrowing it for other entitlement programs and allow people to pull from it who NEVER put into it.

Plus there are less people in the work force paying into it right now. If the government would have left it alone it would sustain itself on interest alone. The program is self sustaining until 2025 in its current form. After that...Who knows.