The Military Industrial Complex

[Scarface]

I know this isn't exactly stimulating banter, what with our current crisis and all, however I believe that if we lose track of this growing problem it will cause another crisis.

Part of Eisenhower's farewell address.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdrGKwkmxAU

Definition: An informal alliance of the military and related government departments with defense industries that is held to influence government policy.

The term was made famous by Eisenhower at the end of his presidency when he warned against the growing defense industry and it's grave implications it posed to America in the future.

In the years since President Eisenhower and during every presidency there has been a "need" to protect our interests abroad through the use of military force. And when you really start to ask and look at what our "interests" are, you realize that our interests are everything.

Most of all this started with Truman's presidency when the dropping of the Atomic bomb was used for the first time, which Eisenhower was against to begin with:

"I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."

We started asserting our military strength to the rest of the world and the U.S. is a world power because of it.

Now I propose that the United States dismantle this military industrial complex in the interests of peace abroad and to go back to the way things were.

But until we get a leader and a Congress willing to do this there will always be these useless wars protecting interests.

Thoughts? Vents?

 

[Cailst]

If we were to do that, what role would you have the US do in the world?

 

[Matt]

Sadly I don't think it is a variable thing to happen.


Plus Americans aren't known for being pacifists.

 

[Lobster]

Sadly I don't think it is a variable thing to happen.

I don't think the question is 'will this happen' so much as 'what do you think'?

Plus Americans aren't known for being pacifists.

No more then the English.


I'm no patriot, and I am against war in general. But If I WAS a patriot, I would disapprove, as guns and those who are trained to use them to protect innocents are necessary in today's world - fact.

 

[Cailst]

Plus Americans aren't known for being pacifists.

We were born in war and now we're the super power so I guess we'd be fairly warlike as you guys were last turn of the century and like the Spanish were in the 1500s. There are a lot of US interests that we can directly ensure.

 

[Matt]

Well Obviously thats the reason but I don't like to deal in ifs or buts.

Be wonderful if we could go to mars in half an hour, I think that would be a wonderful idea but I'd like to know if there is a chance of it happening. In the present climate I can't see how the military could be disbanded in any way shape or form.


Don't remember saying they weren't Shrimp.

 

[Fieuline]

What would happen if we dismantled the United States military to any significant degree? (I don't see any substantial evidence that the military is controlling the government through some sort of tie with the defense industry; indeed, current and recent federal attitudes toward the military seem to suggest quite the opposite trend. Therefore, I'm just going to address the practical results of following through on the perceived dismantling of this "partnership")

Simple. The United States would slowly cease to be an international hegemony as foreign entities would come to realize that we were unwilling to maintain free trade abroad, and to protect our various interests. What would result would be something akin to the results of the fall of the Delian League in Greece, the Roman Empire in Europe, and the British Empire in Africa. That is, a complete disintegration of respect for international law, the sovereignty of nations which are unable to defend themselves from their larger neighbors (Japan being a point in case), and the collapse of international free trade.

In short order, it would not be good.

 

[Random Hero]

I don't think that we should dismantle or downgrade some our military instantly; but what I do think should happen is that the United States should enter an age of neutrality in world conflicts that we have no reason to be in and it will just happen at a slower pace until there is a large enough confict to warrant such a massive military. The reason people hate us is because we always stick our nose into other peoples (Countries) business, and I think we should put an end to that. Will it ever happen though? Honestly, probably not.

 

[Scarface]

What would happen if we dismantled the United States military to any significant degree? (I don't see any substantial evidence that the military is controlling the government through some sort of tie with the defense industry; indeed, current and recent federal attitudes toward the military seem to suggest quite the opposite trend. Therefore, I'm just going to address the practical results of following through on the perceived dismantling of this "partnership")

Simple. The United States would slowly cease to be an international hegemony as foreign entities would come to realize that we were unwilling to maintain free trade abroad, and to protect our various interests. What would result would be something akin to the results of the fall of the Delian League in Greece, the Roman Empire in Europe, and the British Empire in Africa. That is, a complete disintegration of respect for international law, the sovereignty of nations which are unable to defend themselves from their larger neighbors (Japan being a point in case), and the collapse of international free trade.

In short order, it would not be good.

We did well for a hundred years without a national military.

I don't understand why America always has to be number one. It's when we try to protect our reputation that we fall flat on our faces.

Other nations hate us because we constantly try to protect our interests and invade nations and send military forces in without merit. If we were to decrease this idea of protecting foreign interests, and decrease military spending we could preserve longer lasting peace.

There is a major difference between being strong and diplomatic, from being strong and aggressive. And corporations only encourage war in the interest of contracts and profits. Blackwater and Halliburton come to mind.

 

[Captain Awesome]

Of course, dear ol' Teddy's "Big Stick" Diplomacy played a large role in making us an international superpower. It's not like the masses would condone such behavior as to undermine America's military system.

 

[Ka've]

I don't think that we should dismantle or downgrade some our military instantly; but what I do think should happen is that the United States should enter an age of neutrality in world conflicts that we have no reason to be in and it will just happen at a slower pace until there is a large enough confict to warrant such a massive military. The reason people hate us is because we always stick our nose into other peoples (Countries) business, and I think we should put an end to that. Will it ever happen though? Honestly, probably not.

Pretty spot on. In essence, we should mind out own ****ing business.

 

[Captain Awesome]

As I recall, that was our mindset in the years between WWI and WWII. Our resulting economic boom was astounding. But of course, the money to fund such a boom came from war profits...

 

[Ka've]

As I recall, that was our mindset in the years between WWI and WWII. Our resulting economic boom was astounding. But of course, the money to fund such a boom came from war profits...

One more war and we call it quits!

 

[Dan.]

I think the word Matt is looking for in his first post was 'viable', which means, in essence, 'do-able', not 'variable'.

 

[Neutrino]

As I recall, that was our mindset in the years between WWI and WWII. Our resulting economic boom was astounding. But of course, the money to fund such a boom came from war profits...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that mindset came from the nonsense of WWI and a depression. And the real economic boom was during/ after WWII.

 

[Fieuline]

We did well for a hundred years without a national military.

Yes. When the French and British Empires fulfilled (with, I might add, much more brutality and selfishness) the role the US fulfills now. I'm not saying that the US must be the international hegemony; I'm saying that someone has to be, and if it isn't the US, and it isn't Europe, then it's going to be someone like China or Russia.There is not, and has not been historically, such a thing as international equality simultaneous with international peace and stability. There is always an Athens, an Alexander, a Caesar, a Napoleon, a Bismarck, a Hitler, a Wilson who comes and fills the vacuum of power. The Concert of Europe failed and brought about WWI, Chamberlain failed and brought about WWII, and that pattern is not about the change.

Other nations hate us because we constantly try to protect our interests and invade nations and send military forces in without merit. If we were to decrease this idea of protecting foreign interests, and decrease military spending we could preserve longer lasting peace.

Point 1: Hegemonies are rarely popular, but the aftermath of their collapse is almost always less desirable than the stability they bring. Popularity is nice for soft-power, but if you have to choose between hard power and soft power, you're going to go alot further with the former. Furthermore, if the US decided to simply stop protecting its interests, while Europe might applaud, I have a hard time that the other countries which "hate" us would be particularly impressed. Iran, for instance, is not going to start lauding the multi-faceted virtues of the United States simply because we refuse to back up our interests. China and Russia would have similar reactions, I would imagine. The United States' unpopularity stems from alot more than its failure to dismantle the military.

Point 2: We maintain stability and peace all over the world through our military endeavors. I don't believe that Japan, the Philippines, Poland, or any of the many other nations that want us protecting them from their hostile neighbors, would have an easier time maintaining peace without us. Indeed, I think that if we simply decided that we no longer held any obligations to international trade or to the interests of our allies, a dramatic increase in war would be the result. I base this on current hostilities between Russia and the former satellites, China and Taiwan, China and the Philippines, China and Japan, and so forth.

As I recall, that was our mindset in the years between WWI and WWII. Our resulting economic boom was astounding. But of course, the money to fund such a boom came from war profits...

Huh? Which mindset are we talking about, exactly?

 

[Captain Awesome]

No, the depression came after the economc boom (which was, by the way, known as the Roaring 20's). And yes, we have also benefited tremendously from WWII. If not for those two wars, we would be significantly less powerful and wealthy than we are now.

 

[Scarface]

WWII couldn't have been paid off without the American people buying war bonds, our national debt was at it's highest point during WWII and shortly afterward, I believe (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) that our national debt was roughly 140% of our Gross Domestic Product during the war. Following WWII was the threat of imminent doom of the Soviets. WWII created a lot of jobs but when the war was over the jobs would probably be lost and never come back, IF we hadn't sharply paid off the debt we had incurred during the war. I think it's a fallacy to say that WWII created a great amount of prosperity afterward.

Also as a side note, the Civil War was the closest we've ever been to bankruptcy.

 

[Scarface]

Yes. When the French and British Empires fulfilled (with, I might add, much more brutality and selfishness) the role the US fulfills now. I'm not saying that the US must be the international hegemony; I'm saying that someone has to be, and if it isn't the US, and it isn't Europe, then it's going to be someone like China or Russia.There is not, and has not been historically, such a thing as international equality simultaneous with international peace and stability. There is always an Athens, an Alexander, a Caesar, a Napoleon, a Bismarck, a Hitler, a Wilson who comes and fills the vacuum of power. The Concert of Europe failed and brought about WWI, Chamberlain failed and brought about WWII, and that pattern is not about the change.


Point 1: Hegemonies are rarely popular, but the aftermath of their collapse is almost always less desirable than the stability they bring. Popularity is nice for soft-power, but if you have to choose between hard power and soft power, you're going to go alot further with the former. Furthermore, if the US decided to simply stop protecting its interests, while Europe might applaud, I have a hard time that the other countries which "hate" us would be particularly impressed. Iran, for instance, is not going to start lauding the multi-faceted virtues of the United States simply because we refuse to back up our interests. China and Russia would have similar reactions, I would imagine. The United States' unpopularity stems from alot more than its failure to dismantle the military.

Point 2: We maintain stability and peace all over the world through our military endeavors. I don't believe that Japan, the Philippines, Poland, or any of the many other nations that want us protecting them from their hostile neighbors, would have an easier time maintaining peace without us. Indeed, I think that if we simply decided that we no longer held any obligations to international trade or to the interests of our allies, a dramatic increase in war would be the result. I base this on current hostilities between Russia and the former satellites, China and Taiwan, China and the Philippines, China and Japan, and so forth.

Apologies for the double post.

In response to point one:
Most past empires have failed miserably, due to their expanded interest in foreign affairs. The British empire failed partly to it's policy of imperialism, and the Romans spread their armies too thin. Empires only open themselves up for reckless leaders who's vested interest in gaining new territory and militarism leads to a nations utter destruction. This hasn't happened yet in this country, but it can and it probably will eventually happen. American Imperialism is a unique brand of expansion, slavery through debt, foreign entanglements and global corporatism. This (what we are seeing today) is what both Eisenhower and even Washington were warning about when they left office.

In response to point two:
We haven't done so good a job in the past 40 years in maintaining peace and stability in fact I would argue the point that we are less stable as a result of recent conflicts whether violent or not. Our last president wasn't exactly Gandhi much less a Reagan.

 

[Sovereign]

WWII couldn't have been paid off without the American people buying war bonds, our national debt was at it's highest point during WWII and shortly afterward, I believe (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) that our national debt was roughly 140% of our Gross Domestic Product during the war.

That's exactly how the U.S.A got out of the great depression. By investing massively and getting in debt.

Following WWII was the threat of imminent doom of the Soviets. WWII created a lot of jobs but when the war was over the jobs would probably be lost and never come back,

Which is why the end of WW2 really marked the beginning of American consumerism. After WW2, the U.S middle class grew exponentially, and so did the demand for goods.

I think it's a fallacy to say that WWII created a great amount of prosperity afterward.

Not only did it bring great wealth, but many technological advances as well.