We have no need for a military other than the Coast Guard and National Guard

[wuushew]

Amerika has no true interests outside its own borders and problems there in can be solved by means other than lethal force.

Mind you my position does not prevent deployment a peace keepers in U.N. sanctioned peace missions.



If you feel we have need for a full time Army, Navy and Air force please list them so that I may rebut you

[mike_c]

1. in large measure I agree with you....

I think a very small standing army is justified, both to maintain the national defense structure and to conduct research and development, or at least to serve as a testbed for civilian defense industry R&D.

The main thing is to reduce the military to a size that will not be an effective instrument of foreign policy while maintaining the ability to reconstitute a defense force if necessary. It's a complex question, but it's very dangerous to avoid asking it.

[achtung_circus]

7. Rigghtt.

Foreign policy should be under the control of elected representatives, it's a political arena. A military in-being is one of the tools of that foreign policy.

But this:

"The main thing is to reduce the military to a size that will not be an effective instrument of foreign policy while maintaining the ability to reconstitute a defense force if necessary."

is disingenuous. One cannot "reconstitute a defense force" by handing out a few rifles. The technical skills, the infrastructure, the leadership skills, hell the skills to be an effective infantryman, need to be maintained and practiced.

Unless you expect this "defense force" to be cannon fodder.

See Barbarossa for details on how that works.

[conscious evolution]

41. ''handing out a few rifles.'

The Iraqi's made a good case for this.




edited

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BuyingThyme]

9. Good question. What do we do if we're attacked?

Your president, by turning the U.S. military into a corporate venture, has destroyed our defense capabilities. We are in danger. It's a done deal.

The OP's suggestion has already been implemented by your president.

[B Calm]

32. That's why we have the 2nd amendment!

[BuyingThyme]

34. The Second Amendment was written under the assumption

that we would not have a standing military.

[Odin2005]

11. Exactly.

Our millitary is certainly bloated, but I still think we need a good sized millitary. We have basically become stuck with the job of being the body-guard of all Western countries since the end of WW2.

[blindpig]

14. Seeing as the Cold War was largely an American invention

your point about it is moot. Our enormous armed forces are a tool of hegemony,the muscle of Corporate America, not to mention a irreplacable cash cow for the merchants of death. Wouldn't need anything like we field today if we weren't pushing people around on a planetary basis to exploit their resources and markets. Of course, if they hate us for our freedom......

[Odin2005]

22. It depends on what part of the Cold War you are talking about, early or late

During the 50's and 60's policy makers were honestly concerned about the activities of the USSR (of course we know know that most of the concerns were unfounded and somewhat paranoid, the USSR was far more concerned with self-presevation then anything eles, but we didn't know that then). The later part of the Cold War was the part that was mostly frabrication and scaremongering.

[DireStrike]

15. Yeah, what WILL we do if Canada attacks us?

To maintain readiness we need to maintain a small military that can be scaled up if necessary. A serious evaluation of threats requiring military response will show that there are very few.

The biggest waste of money by far is our air force. We already far outstrip any competitor to the point that none of our aircraft (except helicopters) are threatened. We command the high ground from the get-go in just about any conflict that would realistically occur.

We may need to increase the size of the military if new, serious threats emerge, but that's to be done then instead of wasting money now.

[treestar]

57. Nowadays we have enough satellites that Canada could not

build up its military without being noticed before it got that far.

Which is progress over the days of Nazi Germany, building up its army even when that was illegal by treaty.

[wuushew]

16. What do you feel causes armed conflict?

Through out world history powerful nations have conquered weaker nations in an effort to enrich themselves by building large area land empires and exploiting the resources of those lands. Invariably these empires have all fallen for a variety of reasons. Once past the expansion phase these entities crumbled from the difficulties governing non-homogeneous populations over distances which lines of communication became problematic.


Humanity followed this pattern through out the age of European empire and colonialism. Exploiting the resources of the subject lands even though the monetary value of the material remained more or less constant at the same time the average cost of fielding armies and their associated equipment has risen by orders of magnitude. Supposedly according to the Neocons we are in the Middle East because we are addicted to oil. It is true that oil has great monetary value and enables our wasteful lifestyle. However, the oil will not last forever. It will be gone fifty years along with our alleged concern for Middle Eastern democracy. What will replace oil? Who knows but it will be geographically distributed and producible in all countries that have access to alternative energy. There will no be no great disparity between the United States ability to grow ethanol vs. African bio-diesel vs. European fuel cell energy.

Will there be grain wars in the future? Will we invade Canada to have access to their rich iron and tungsten deposits? The cost of the conquest as measured in dollars is not favorable to simply buying the commodities on the open market. Tanks and aircraft carriers are not getting cheaper. The degree to which the world is now integrated through trade further reinforces my point. Do you honestly believe that China of whom we are their largest trading partner is up to the challenge of staging a trans-pacific invasion into a country of obese, highly-religious, highly ignorant and well armed citizenry? No Chinese leader is that dangerously optimistic or in want of an impossible challenge.


The United States is geographically isolated. Our only immediate neighbors are Canada and Mexico. Please cite examples of wars where a belligerent country for no apparent reason has leap frogged its immediate neighbors and attacked a distant land? The Crusades perhaps? Why would North Korea attack the continental United States over South Korea or Japan first? Even they have a a method to their madness. Given limited military assets, plans of attack by both defending and attacking powers seek to maximize potential results given rationing of finite military force.


Finally we live in the post 1945 atomic world. The hydrogen bomb has enabled the ultimate scorched Earth policy. If country (A) seeks to conquer country (B) not only does it have no chance occupying the intended target but most likely faces destruction itself.


The Cold War was the final conceptual death of centuries of conflict caused by imperialism and nationalism. Although it too occurred in the modern atomic age, by the end had not both sides realized the stalemate of armed conflict? Certainly Gorbachev did. Aside from command economy problems was not the Soviet Union a victim of the same size of empire problems I suggest in my first paragraph?


Finally let us not overlook opportunity costs. Every dollar spent on the war machine is one less dollar on infrastructure improvement, health care or foreign aid. Is forcibly stopping a armed conflict equivalent in saved lives to defeating AIDS or malaria? I suppose there is a certain psychological boost to being part of a righteous cause, but good government should match intent with desired results and the military is not the most efficient tool to that end.



Why do you wish United States to have a military greater than the rest of the world combined?

[Odin2005]

24. "Why do you wish United States to have a military greater than the rest of the world combined?"

I don't, it does need to be shrunken somewhat (like by half), but getting rid of it entirely is stupid.

[hughee99]

44. Examples...

"Please cite examples of wars where a belligerent country for no apparent reason has leap frogged its immediate neighbors and attacked a distant land??"

Japan attacks the US
Napoleon attacks Egypt.
Spanish Armada attacks England. (though England wasn't a neighbor, I'll admit it isn't exactly a "distant land" either)

[wuushew]

45. The Japanese also attacked the much more proximate American Philippines

Do you find unusual that Amerika's colonialism created military targets between competing empires? Maybe if Pearl Harbor was located in Iowa it would have been more shocking, but as it stood it was an outpost for the projection of Amerikan military power in the Pacific. Its not like juicier targets were bypassed.

[hughee99]

52. "It's not like jucier targets were bypassed"???

So, what your saying is that countries may attack the juciest target no matter where it is? I believe your argument was that countries attacked their neighbors and didn't leapfrog 1/2 around the world. I thought you were asking for someone to cite examples of where this happened?

[twilight_sailing]

4. Moot

point

[dairydog91]

5. There is a need.

The threat of military force is a key element in diplomacy, hence the maintainance of professional forces. Historically, even if many countries follow a pacifist foreign policy, there will be one that adopts a militaristic stance. The only way to force such aggressive nations to the bargaining table is to possess an army strong enough to make military action unappealing. Without a military, and hence the threat of bloody engagement, how does one negotiate with a hostile power? The very thing holding that hostile power back may in fact be the threat of a nasty, ugly, and possibly unsuccessful war.

Example 1: Britain and France disarm to a large degree after WWI. Both desperately wanted peace, but the existance of militant Germany meant that their desires were irrelevant. But Britain and France didn't possess the military power (Or the public support of such power) to intimidate Germany into negotiations and containment through diplomacy. As such, the only diplomacy they could engage in consisted of "threats" such as "Clean up your act Hitler, or we'll be forced to allow you to take more Czech land."

Example 2: Bush goes after Iraq, as opposed to North Korea. North Korea is an ugly regime, which actually has WMDs, and so would seem to be a better target under neocon theory. Of course, North Korea also has thousands of artillery pieces aimed at Seoul, which makes military action against the regime far less appealing than an engagement against the Iraqi army. In a way, North Korea's military strength helps force hostile nations to the bargaining table, and prevents direct military action.

The main thing is to reduce the military to a size that will not be an effective instrument of foreign policy while maintaining the ability to reconstitute a defense force if necessary.

A military with the power to "reconstitute a defense force" is still an instrument of foreign policy. It allows a country to say "No, you can't attack us, at least without losing thousands of your own soldiers. Since we know that you don't really want to lose a large piece of your army, and we don't really want to lose a large piece of ours, let's negotiate."

[DireStrike]

19. Military spending

Let's say I agree with everything you said. Which I do, mostly.

Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

We spend as much money on military as just about every other country in the world combined. What situation could possibly require this?

And to top it off, all of that military can't fight its way through a third world hellhole like Iraq, because it all goes to ultra-expensive planes and bombs, which do a HELL of a job on conventional militaries... none of which threaten us. Or even would for the next few decades, if we stopped all military spending right this second.

[wuushew]

25. Several paradigm shifts have occurred since then

the ancient enemies France and Germany have bonded as the rest of Europe by the mechanism of the European Union. The EU has come closer to any other endeavor to ending war on the European continent. I see no clamoring for war but a mindset that realizes that continued existence requires cooperation in science and environmental matters to attain economic and demographic sustainability.

I don't see a superpower coming out of South America or Africa that would threaten world peace in a manner similar to conflicts of 19th or 20th century Europe.

[dairydog91]

39. Not really that important...

For starters, Russia is not really all that stable and China's power is extremely centralized (And therefore tempting and potentially highly exploitable to some madcap dictator). As far as I'm concerned, the presence of one potential threat is enough to justify the maintainance of a good military, if only to prevent a threat from going unchecked. Personally, I think that the US should possess an army and reserve it for use in defense, protection of allies, and in internationally-sanctioned peace missions.

[OneBlueSky]

6. well, I wouldn't go that far . . . but we certainly don't need . . .

four separate branches with overlapping administration and functions . . . combining them into a single national defense force would save tons and tons of money and make things far more efficient . . .

[achtung_circus]

10. Canada went that route in the 1960's

It removed pride in your branch of service. The NDHQ National Defense Head Quarters seems as bloated as ever.

Not a panacea.

[OneBlueSky]

70. certainly not a panacea . . . but maybe an improvement? . . . just a thought . . .n/t

.

[Odin2005]

8. I disagree.

To think that all things outside out boarders can be solved by diplomacy, soft power, and UN peacekeepers is to be horribly naive.

[RB TexLa]

12. Let's guess--- We should also have no commerce outside of our

borders, no immigration allowed, forbid Saint Patrick's Day, Cinco De Mayo and such on "American soil." God bless the USA and NO where else, huh?

[wuushew]

20. Where did I say that?

I don't oppose mutually benefitally exchanges of people and goods. I think you mistake me for Pat Buchannan.

[hughee99]

13. Then our troop "contribution" to any U.N. sanctioned

peace keeping mission would be part time soldiers and coast guard?

[aardvarkascent2006]

17. Um, what?

Is this intended to be satire of some kind? I'm a pacifist, and even I will acknowledge the need for a full-time military. The real question is how we use it.

[newyawker99]

67. Hi aardvarkascent2006!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Cleita]

18. I grew up in a base town (now closed). At the time though

most of the civilian jobs available in the town were at the base. This also supported peripheral businesses like contruction, groceries, retail stores, and recreation that the base employees and military spent in town, not to mention schools and hospitals.

I have no problem with supporting a core military. It's good for business. I do believe we have to change the power of the commander-in-chief though so that he absolutely cannot order troop deployment without oversight. Since Congress didn't do such a good job of this, may it should be provided by the state governors instead.

[nytemare]

21. I agree on some points.

My feelings are that the National Guard should be non-deployable. It should only be a National Guard. If we have a disaster, or if someone invades, we need a substantial force to protect us. As Katrina showed, we do not have that force. They don't do us much good in Iraq.

I do think we need an active duty military. Human beings are not evolved enough to get past an "us vs them" mentality that seems to drive just about everything. It seems too difficult for people to truly unite behind a cause. We have people on the extremes of "us and them" which makes an Army necessary. America has Bush, Iran has Ahmadinejad. Their people thought they needed fire to fight fire. As long as warlike personalities remain, which will be a hell of a long time, we need an Army.

The active duty forces should be the only deployable forces, and the reserves should be activated to take their place in the stateside units when they are deployed.

I was in the Army, and after seeing some of the things I have seen, I have become somewhat of a pacifist. Somewhat. War represents a failure to communicate, a failure of diplomacy, sometimes, as in Iraq, a failure of brains. People get motivated by fear, and propaganda, and here we are. UN forces do not have permission or capability to deal with some of these threats.

There is a need, though, to counter the Hitlers of the world. Obviously, in our case, oversight needs to work a lot better, or we get little chickenhawk emperors like Bush.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

23. Umm...

Amerika has no true interests outside its own borders

:rofl:

Pat Buchanan, is that you?

[wuushew]

27. What are these interests?

Oil and profit reducing trouble spots for various multi-national corporations?

Don't fool yourself into thinking the United States is a altruistic nation. Among developed nations we give the least amount of foreign aid to alleviate suffering and we oppose sensible things like debt relief and family planning?!

[rockymountaindem]

28. Altruism has nothing to do with interests beyond our borders

In fact, I'd say the relationship between the two is an inverse one. What does foreign aid have to do with the military? We can do both and I, for one, would never want to yield American military supremacy.

[wuushew]

31. What are those interests?

please define them. I only brougt the humanitarian aspect because so frequently is used as post facto justification for military force.

[rockymountaindem]

37. The securing of markets, the maintanence of international norms

and the protection of our allies. The United States largely became the power it is today because during the Cold War (real or imagined, depending on how one interprets it), we could make the case to potential allies that the US could help them militarily against communism/the USSR. This was a key selling point for NATO, which remains a key part of the foundation of US preeminance today. I don't want to give that up.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

29. No nation is altruistic.

Get over yourself. Don't pretend that the actions of the current misadministration represent the will of the American people. America is more than dubya.

[wuushew]

35. Why do you dismiss the premise of my original post?

you are free to critique it and elaborate how you feel the United States is either deficiently or excessively equipped militarily.

Expansionist and isolationist societies have existed in the past and will continue in the future, we currently have a large full time military force. We have not always had such. Instead speaking in absolute declarative statements why not entertain the possibility that your theory of military power may contain flaws? Elaborate them, elicit support from board members. I come to DU for the discussion.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

40. Because it's ridiculous. n/t

[Rex]

26. As long as political boundries exist, we will need an Army/AF/Navy.

nt

[heidler1]

30. When South Carolina fired on Ft. Sumter it proved the flaw in the

militia idea. The Civil War added to the proof. After the Civil war we slowly created a national Army. Several Pres. including Bush have proven that men at least can not be trusted to make honest decisions about going to war or expanding some existing war. This coupled with the fact humans are by nature too, damn gullible when it comes to going along some stupidity for a short period or till the body bags show up.

So how do we fix this? IMO I'd put a threat of impeachment in the oath of office for the President that way if they were were so keen on wars we would have something to brake their desire for lame brained wars or putting our troops in harms way. In this impeachment it perhaps should only require 51% of the Senate to convict. Some way we must "Bell the Cat".

[leftofthedial]

33. we absolutely need the world's biggest, most expensive Air Force

so they can forget to scramble when terrorists hijack airplanes and start flying them into buildings

[Rex]

36. Hey why use 2 flight wings ten miles away when you can call 2 jets up

from Norfolk, knowing it has a 400 mile flight plan?

Makes perfect sense. :sarcasm:

[leftofthedial]

38. the primary purpose of our military

indeed the primary purpose of our foreign policy


is to extort money from American civilians in the maximum possible amount

[earth mom]

47. It is exactly that and also this:

<snip>

Simone Weil once wrote: "The great error of nearly all studies of war... has been to consider war as an episode in foreign policies, when it is an act of interior politics..." War has long been the ultimate social control. The war in Iraq–like the "war on terror"–is no different. Steve Lopez wrote in the Los Angeles Times, "There's a dirty secret no one has told you, and here it is: This war is not about changing Iraq, it's about changing America....The whole idea is to train you to expect less and to feel patriotic about it."


The terror attacks on the people of London, the 9/11 attacks on Americans, and the Iraq war itself are not matters principally of foreign but of domestic policy–a fact which has been neglected by most anti-war commentators, who tend to view these things only in terms of American (or British) imperialism. While the main victims of the war on Iraq are the Iraqi people, the main purpose driving the war and its attendant terror is the class war by the American elite against American working people. The war in Iraq is being waged as a means of controlling ordinary Americans (and British), providing the opportunity for transforming American society into a military and police state through such measures as the Patriot Act, airport searches, the suspension of habeas corpus at Guantanamo and in the case of Jose Padilla and more than 1,000 persons detained in the US after 9/11 without charges or due process, and for the unprecedented attack on pensions and retirement and other aspects of working people's livelihoods. The ruling class could never get away with these things in the absence of a war, which had to be created under false pretenses for the purpose.

<snip>

http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/War/London.htm

[leftofthedial]

48. bingo

[genie_weenie]

42. How would Government then defend it's theft?

How will Duncan Hunter be elected president?

How will the lesser classes be thinned from time to time (like now for instance)?

[stillcool]

43. when you consider....

this list of military installations, listed alphabetically
A
Aberdeen Test Center, MD- Altus AFB, OK- Andersen AFB, Guam-Andrews-AFB, MD - Anniston Army Depot, AL -Ansbach, Germany - Arnold-AFB,-TN, - Aviano AB, Italy
B
Bad Aibling, Germany- Bad Kreuznach, Germany- Bamberg, Germany -
Barksdale AFB, LA - Battle Creek Federal Center, MI - Baumholder, Germany
Beale AFB, CA - Bolling AFB, DC -Brooks AFB, TX -Buckley AFB
C
COMFLEACTS Chinhae, South Korea- COMNAVREG (OAHU), HI- Camp Casey, South Korea- Camp Henry, South Korea -Camp Hialeah, South Korea -Camp Humphreys, South Korea- Camp Lejeune, NC -Camp Pendleton, CA -Camp S.D.- Butler, Japan - Camp Zama, Japan -Cannon AFB, NM -Carlisle Barracks, PA- Charles M. Price Support, IL -Charleston AFB, SC -Clear AS, AK -Columbus AFB, MS
D
DLI FLC Presidio-Monterey, CA -Darmstadt, Germany -Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ
Defense Depot Susquehanna, PA -Defense Distribution Depot San Joaquin, CA
Defense Supply Ctr Columbus, OH-Defense Supply Ctr Philadelphia, PA
Defense Supply Ctr Richmond, VA -Devens Reserve Training Area, MA
Dover AFB, DE-Dugway Proving Ground, UT -Dyess AFB, TX
E
Edwards AFB, CA- Eglin AFB, FL-Eielson AFB, AK- Ellsworth AFB, SD-
Elmendorf AFB, AK
F
FCTCLANT Dam Neck, VA- FE Warren AFB, WY- FLTACT Sasebo, Japan-
Fairchild AFB, WA- Fort Belvoir, VA- Fort Benning, GA- Fort Bliss, TX
Fort Bragg, NC- Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico- Fort Campbell, KY-
Fort Carson, CO- Fort Detrick, MD- Fort Dix, NJ- Fort Drum, NY- Fort Eustis, VA- Fort Gordon, GA- Fort Greely, AK- Fort Hamilton, NY- Fort Hood, TX- Fort Huachuca, AZ- Fort Irwin, CA- Fort Jackson, SC- Fort Knox, KY- Fort Leavenworth, KS- Fort Lee, VA- Fort Leonard Wood, MO- Fort Lewis, WA- Fort McCoy, WI- Fort McNair- Fort McPherson, GA- Fort Meade, MD- Fort Monmouth, NJ- Fort Monroe, VA- Fort Myer, VA- Fort Polk, LA
Fort Richardson, AK- Fort Riley, KS- Fort Rucker, AL- Fort Sam Houston, TX- Fort Sill, OK- Fort Stewart, GA- Fort Story, VA- Fort Wainwright, AK
Friedberg, Germany
G
Garmisch, Germany- Geilenkirchen AB, Germany- Giebelstadt, Germany- Goodfellow AFB, TX- Grafenwoehr, Germany -Grand Forks AFB, ND- Grissom ARB, IN
H
HQ SouthCom, FL- Hanau, Germany -Hanscom AFB, MA- Heidelberg, Germany
Henderson Hall, VA- Hickam AFB, HI -Hill AFB, UT- Hohenfels, Germany
Holloman AFB, NM -Hunter Army Airfield, GA- Hurlburt AFB, FL
I
Illesheim, Germany- Incirlik AB, Turkey- Izmir AB, Turkey
J
JMF St. Mawgan, UK
K
Kadena AB, Japan- Kaiserslautern, Germany- Keesler AFB, MS- Kelly AFB, TX
Kirtland AFB, NM- Kitzingen, Germany- Kunsan AB, South Korea
L
Lackland AFB, TX- Lajes Field, Portugal- Langley AFB, VA- Laughlin AFB, TX- Little Rock AFB, AR- Livorno, Italy- Los Angeles AFB, CA- Luke AFB, AZ
M
MCAGCC 29 Palms, CA- MCAS Beaufort, SC- MCAS Cherry Point, NC- MCAS Iwakuni, Japan- MCAS Miramar, CA -MCAS New River, NC- MCAS Yuma, AZ -MCBH Kaneohe Bay, HI- MCLB Albany, GA- MCLB Barstow, CA- MCRD Parris Island, SC- MCRD San Diego, CA- MCSA Kansas City, MO- MacDill AFB, FL
Malmstrom AFB, MT- Mannheim, Germany- March ARB, CA- Maxwell-Gunter AFB, AL- McAlester Army Ammo, OK- McChord AFB, WA- McClellan AFB, CA
McConnell AFB, KS- McGuire AFB, NJ- Minot AFB, ND- Misawa AB, Japan
Moody AFB, GA- Mountain Home AFB, ID
N
NAB Little Creek, VA- NAES Lakehurst, NJ- NAF Atsugi, Japan- NAS Atlanta, GA- NAS Brunswick, ME- NAS Corpus Christi, TX- NAS Fallon, NV
NAS JRB Fort Worth, TX- NAS JRB New Orleans, LA- NAS JRB Willowgrove, PA
NAS Jacksonville, FL- NAS Keflavik, Iceland- NAS Key West, FL- NAS Kingsville, TX- NAS Lemoore, CA- NAS Meridian, MS- NAS North Island, CA
NAS Oceana, VA- NAS Patuxent River, MD- NAS Pensacola, FL- NAS Pt. Mugu, CA- NAS Sigonnella, Italy- NAS Whidbey Island, WA
NAS Whiting Field, FL- NATO-Brussels, Belgium- NAVDIST Washington, DC
NB Point Loma, CA- NCBC Gulfport, MS- NCBC Port Heuneme, CA- NCSS Panama City, FL- NS Barking Sands, HI- NS Bremerton, WA- NS Everett, WA
NS Guantanamo Bay, Cuba- NS Ingleside, TX- NS Mayport, FL- NS Newport, RI
NS Norfolk, VA- NS Pascagoula, MS- NS Pearl Harbor- NS Portsmouth, NH
NS Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico- NS Rota, Spain- NS San Diego, CA
NSA Bahrain- NSA Gaeta, Italy- NSA La Maddalena, Italy- NSA Mid-South, TN
NSA Naples, Italy- NSA New Orleans, LA- NSA Souda Bay, Greece- NSB Bangor, WA- NSB Kings Bay, GA- NSB New London, CT- NSF Diego Garcia
NSGA Ft. Meade, MD- NSGA Northwest, VA- NSU Saratoga Springs, NY
NSWCDD Dahlgren, VA- NTC Great Lakes, IL- NTTC Corry Station, FL
NWS Charleston, SC- NWS China Lake, CA- NWS Earle, NJ- NWS Yorktown, VA
Naval Forces Marianas, Guam- Naval Post Graduate School, CA- Nellis AFB, NV
O
Offutt AFB, NE
Osan AB, South Korea
P
Patrick AFB, FL- Petersen AFB, CO- Picatinny Arsenal, NJ- Pine Bluff Arsenal, AR- Pope AFB, NC
Q
Quantico, VA
R
RAF Lakenheath, UK- RAF Menwith Hill, UK- RAF Mildenhall, UK- RAF Molesworth, UK- Ramstein AB, Germany- Randolph AFB, TX- Red River Army Depot, TX- Redstone Arsenal, AL- Rhein-Main AB, Germany- Robins AFB, GA
Rock Island Arsenal, IL
S
SCSC Wallops Island, VA- SHAPE-Chievres, Belgium- Schinnen, Netherlands
Schofield/Shafter, HI- Schriever AFB, CO- Schweinfurt, Germany- Scott AFB, IL- Seymour Johnson AFB, NC- Shaw AFB, SC- Sheppard AFB, TX
Soldier Systems Center, MA- Spangdahlem AB, Germany- Stuttgart, Germany
T
Tinker AFB, OK- Tobyhanna Army Depot, PA- Tooele Army Depot, UT- Torii Station, Japan- Travis AFB, CA- Tyndall AFB, FL
U
US Army Europe, Germany- US Army Recruiting Command, KY- US Mil Training Mission, Saudi Arabia- US Naval Academy, MD- US Naval Activities, London UK- USAF Academy, CO- USCG Elizabeth City, NC- USCG Hampton Roads, VA
USCG ISC Honolulu, HI- USCG ISC Kodiak, AK- USCG Juneau, AK- USCG Ketchikan, AK- USCG Miami, FL- USCG Sitka, AK- USCG TC Yorktown, VA
USCG TRACEN Petaluma, CA- USMA West Point, NY
V
Vance AFB, OK- Vandenberg AFB, CA- Vicenza, Italy- Vilseck, Germany
W
Walter Reed Army Medical Center, DC- Watervliet Arsenal, NY- White Sands Missile Range, NM- Whiteman AFB, MO- Wiesbaden/Mainz, Germany- Wright-Patterson AFB, OH- Wuerzburg, Germany
Y
Yokosuka, Japan- Yokota AB, Japan- Yongsan, Korea- Yuma Proving Ground, AZ
and then we have Iraq, and what we've acquired there



and then there are these..
Military Contractors
The following companies are the top 10 recipients of U.S. military dollars for the 2005 fiscal year.

Lockheed Martin of Bethesda, Maryland; CEO: Robert J. Stevens
Military contracts in 2005: $19.4 billion
Total contributions for the 2004 election cycle: $2,212,836

Total CEO compensation for 2002-2006: $50,265,100
Products: F-16, F/A-22 jet fighters, C-130J air transport, Hellfire, Javelin missiles

Boeing of Chicago, Illinois; CEO: Jim McNerney
Military contracts in 2005: $18.3 billion
Total contributions for the 2004 election cycle: $1,659,213

Total CEO compensation for 2002-2006: $40,379,500
Products: F-15 fighter, C-17 air transport, Apache Helicopter, JDAM "smart" bombs

Northrop Grumman of Los Angeles, CA; CEO: Ronald Sugar
Military contracts in 2005: $13.5 billion
Total contributions in 2004 election cycle: $1.77 million

Total CEO compensation for 2002-2006: $30,049,800
Products and services: B-2 stealth bomber, amphibious assault ships, training Iraqi army

General Dynamics of Fall Church, Virginia; CEO: Nicholas D. Chabraja
Military contracts in 2005: $10.6 billion
Total contributions in the 2004 election cycle: $1,437,602

Total CEO compensation for 2002-2006: $65,892,700
Products: Abrams M1 tanks, Trident submarines

Raytheon of Waltham, Massachusetts; CEO: William H. Swanson
Military contracts in 2005: $9.1 billion
Defense-related contributions in the 2004 election cycle: $811,949

Total CEO compensation for 2002-2006: $27,407,000
Products: Patriot & Tomahawk missiles, "Bunker Buster" bomb, “Paveway” laser guided bomb

Halliburton of Houston, Texas; CEO: David J. Lesar
Military contracts in 2005: $5.8 billion
Oil and gas-related contributions in the 2004 election cycle: $221,249

Total CEO compensation for 2002-2006: $49,491,100
Services: Runs US military bases in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Djibouti, Georgia, Jordan, Kuwait, Turkey and Uzbekistan. Built Guantanamo Bay, Cuba prisons, South Vietnam & Diego Garcia military bases. Oil field services, logistics (including feeding
troops)

BAE Systems PLC of Farnborough, UK; CEO: Mike Turner
Military contracts in 2005: $5.6 billion
Defense-related contributions in the 2004 election cycle (by its North American subsidiary, BAE Systems Inc.): $486,734
Products: Gun and missile systems, infantry fighting vehicles, military fighter aircraft

United Technologies of Hartford, Connecticut; CEO: George David
Military contracts in 2005: $5.0 billion
Defense-related contributions in the 2004 election cycle: $558,850

Total CEO compensation for 2002-2006: $200,303,900
Products: Black Hawk, Sea Hawk, Comanche helicopters, engines for
F-15 and F-16 fighter jets

L-3 Communications of New York, New York; Interim CEO: Michael T. Strianese
Military contracts in 2005: $4.7 billion
Defense-related contributions in the 2004 election cycle: $403,719

Total CEO compensation for 2002-2006: $18,209,000
Products: Satellite, avionics, missile defense, marine communications

Computer Sciences Corp. of El Segundo, California; CEO: Van Honeycutt
Military contracts in 2005: $2.8 billion
Total CEO compensation for 2002-2006: $44,078,800
Products: Information technology, biometric ID systems for US military facilities in Iraq

Military contract figures are from the US Department of Defense. Campaign contribution figures are from opensecrets.org. CEO compensation figures and product information are from Executive Excess 2006: Defense and Oil Executives Cash in on Conflict, a report authored by Sarah Anderson and John Cavanagh of the Institute for Policy Studies, and Chuck Collins and Eric Benjamin of United for a Fair Economy.
http://www.betterworldlinks.org/book73q.htm
and these...

[BlueCollar]

46. Disagree

The ability to credibly project the use of force is integral to the concept of sovereignty

[wuushew]

53. What about numerous civil wars and national national liberation movements?

A unified Vietnam was not contingent on their ability to "fight us over here". The whole concept was absurd just like blather that comes out of Bush's mouth.

[BeFree]

49. It is sad

To see so many on this thread who still think militarization is the answer to human problems: kill, kill, kill, or threaten to do so.

With such attitudes so seemingly concreted into people's thinking, hope for real peace fades like a setting sun.

[Toots]

50. Hmm sounds like you believe in the US Constitution

It states fairly plain for all the the USA is not to have any standing Army or Navy..Only Militias, state militias not federal.. but it also says the ownership of "arms" should be highly regulated......

[dysfunctional press]

51. trade routes.

need protection.

[wuushew]

54. Trade is both useful and desirable

however I don't see why lethal force should be used to protect a commodity. Americans in times past have produced many many manufactured goods domestically, including televisions, shoes and wide variety raw materials such as steel and cooper. Labor costs have been the prime reason these activities have been outsourced. A complete embargo of the United States would not kill anyone or lead to starvation it would merely diminish the standard of living.

If oil is cut off by Iran why not simply let the market reflect the increased scarcity and volatility of the commodity? Risk and privation can also be compensated economically through the mechanisms of insurance. How many people died at the Hands of the Barbary pirates in the 18th century? For ending the small ransoms they demanded the United States lost many marines and several ships in a war outside the territorial waters of the United States.

I still would insist on a coast guard and cooperation with the like forces among nations we call friends. Are we talking Chinese or Russian naval take over of the world or something? I don't see it and I don't see it becoming any more likely given the diminishing liquid fuel situation of the 21st century. Projection of power will simply be too expensive.

[mdmc]

55. what about the marines

and the navy seals.

[treestar]

56. IA, though we need an Air Force

Though the Air National Guard covers that?

And some type of nuclear babysitting force.

No nation should be starting ground wars with troops in modern times. If they do, the UN or some type of international peacekeeping force needs to be involved, not one particular country claiming to have been attacked when it was not the actual country attacked. All aid needs to go to the country actually attacked.

There is that fear of "world government" but these international forces so far don't present a threat of that, and they would not be standing forces.

[Pavulon]

58. Sure, and the rest of the world will go to plowshares

give me a break..

The us has maintained a military to protect its interests and will continue to do so.

You can speak freely here because we killed people in japan and germany. East germany is no more because of military force. The list goes on.

[wuushew]

59. Sorry the era of world conflict on a global scale is over

What country can afford to project power on a global scale given the limits of the environment and natural resources to support expansionist powers? It is going to be a herculean task just to continue to run tractors and cars let alone tanks and bombers.

What country do you fear and why do you feel such a hypothetical threat nation would be able build up an offensive force more quickly than our defensive reaction to it? The old boogie men of China and Russia?

[Pavulon]

63. china...

I do not fear any nation. Having a proper military is like a seat belt. Nice to have, hopefully you won't need to rely on it.

What is the problem with a military?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

60. Well, we were invaded as recently as.....1812.

[wuushew]

62. Yes how dare they after we invaded Canada and burned their capital

I mean throwing thousands of lives away over impressed sailors whose plight would have been resolved by diplomacy and the end of the Napoleonic wars was the perfectly Amerikan thing to do

I mean look at all the necessary defensive wars we fought since then

Mexican-American
Spanish-American
WWI

We'r under attacks I tell ya! :sarcasm:

[Swede]

66. Actually,it was Canada that burned Washington.

Just sayin.

[wuushew]

68. After we burned York (Toronto)

On April 27, 1813, American forces attacked and burned York (now called Toronto), the capital of Upper Canada, including the Parliament Buildings. However, Kingston was strategically more valuable to British supply and communications along the St Lawrence. Without control of Kingston, the American navy could not effectively control Lake Ontario or sever the British supply line from Lower Canada.


<snip>...

The expedition, led by Admiral Sir George Cockburn and General Robert Ross, was carried out between August 19 and August 29, 1814. On August 24, the inexperienced American militia, which had congregated at Bladensburg, Maryland, to protect the capital, were destroyed, opening the route to Washington. While Dolley Madison saved valuables from the White House, President James Madison was forced to flee to Virginia; American morale was reduced to an all-time low. The British viewed their actions as retaliation for the Americans' burning of York in 1813, although there are suggestions that the burning was in retaliation of destructive American raids into other parts of Upper Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812

[donsu]

61. agree 100 percent

nt

[Retired AF Dem]

64. Can you see into the future?

If you can't there is nothing to rebut. You don't have a clue on what the world will be like 10 or more years down the road. If you can see into the future and tell me there will no more dictators running countries like China or Russia than fine, all we need is a defensive force.

[wuushew]

65. Poor return on investment

What about the opportunity costs of maintaining that military?

Global climate change, near earth asteroids and disease pandemics pose far greater threats to the continuance of our civilization. Why are we funding our military at the expense these real dangers?

[Bigmack]

69. War for peace...

For the most part, I agree that the military is an anachronism, and that we simply can't afford it.

But..... part of me would love to see what a few Predator drones and Special Ops teams could do in Darfur against the real baddies. It certainly would take the fun out of raping and killing the villagers if a whole slew of face-painted monsters with serious firepower popped up to welcome the Janjaweed. Whole camel-mounted mobs would disappear in a cloud of shrapnel. Wouldn't have to be every village, but it sure would discourage them.

Bloodthirsty, I know, but it sure would be nice to see US military power used to help the actual people somewhere once in a while.