Careful chase. Wouldn't want people to think the US military is in bed with the oil companies now would we? I understand your points. I just feel there has to be other ways of achieving them. That's not to say I have the answers.
And yet we could spend half as much as we do and still be able to defend America and Americans. We STILL have enough nukes to cover the entire world more than once. How many do we need? How are we to point to the world and say "no nuclear weapon development" when we are developing new nukes of our own? Thus the hypocracy.
Start by rescinding farm subsidies, cut SDI, cut new nuclear weapon development, cut out the prescription drug "plan," and 86 bush's tax cut and the budget is nearly balanced even with the action in Iraq.
I have a few ideas but you might not like them. I would advocate having the US pull back from NATO. Not withdraw totally but reduce the amount of bases, equipment and personel. I would encourage the Europeans to build up their own military and wouldn't oppose them building their own Euro defense force apart from NATO. The Europeans aren't totally defenseless and France and the UK have more than enough military to deal with regional thugs like Milosevic but have become too dependent on the NATO command structure to act on their own. I would encourage Japan, the PRC, and the ASEAN nations to work on their own Asian security structure by letting them know that the US was planning on phasing out its presence. Their will be a lot of sabre rattling some realignment of territory and Taiwan might quickly decide to join the PRC but in the end most Asian countries will probably realize that they've made so much progress economically to go to war. I also think that the PRC, SK, and Japan all realize that Kim Jong Il is nuts and will continue containment of NK even without the US. Lastly I would allow the UN to have its own rapid reaction force composed of volunteers from member countries but with its own equipment and command structure. This force would be responsible for dealing with global hot spots like Darfur and Liberia. Only when they ran into a situation that was too large for them would member nations be called upon to help and then the primary force should be limited to the a regional power. The model for this would be East Timor where Australia took the lead.
If US does not have such a large military foce and bases all over the world, does anyone here believe they would still have the influence it currently have?
Its something worth considering, but it might not work out as you see it. The reality is that U.S. is the only superpower in the world, and other countries expects us to shoulder the majority of the responsibility for global security. You can't cut back the military force without having someone ready to take over. And for those countries we provide security, there is little reason for them to spend more on defence when they can get it for free (at least cheap). And if you decide to just withdraw regardless, you run the risk creating some power voids that causes instability. Like even there are protests all the time in SK asking for U.S. withdraw, U.S. military will still be there for a long while. I am sure PRC would want to play the leading role in providing security for Asia/Pacific. But they are not capable at this point, it takes a long time reach that capability, and by the time they get there, they would be a superpower already.
That's my though. If the U.S. downsizes it's military presence it will leave a vacuum. While Sishir's scenario could play out to fill that vacuum, Russia or China could try to fill the void as well. Who knows?
Yes, I don't see any of this happening anytime soon but the the situation isn't going to change as long as other countries are dependent on the US. I mean why should France send its soldiers to fight in Kosovo when the US will. European countries get all of the benefits while the US gets all of the costs and I'm not just talking about money and lives. I'm talking about making another enemy of the US from a situation that doesn't really concern us. Anyway if there was a serious move towards what I'm talking about I wouldn't recommend doing it right away but something phased in begining with allowing and even encouraging the Europeans to take on more of their own defense and then move on from there.
Not worth starting a new thread, but this is interesting and mildly on-topic: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4598955.stm
Well it is sort of a new twist to claim that we need this huge military not to defend ourselves, but because other countries want us to do so. I just wish George W. had run on the platform of giving other countries a "veto" on how much we have to tax ourselves to be the world's policemen whether we want to or not. Now that the the whole Iraqi threat has been debunked, we do seem to be basically saying that we are paying the price in Iraq because we love Iraqis and want democracy for them. Sort of like good hearted social workers.
Speaking of weapons, everybody wants to have some superior advantage over others. Once you have that, you don't want everybody else to have it, that's just human nature. None of the existing nuclear power countries want any small countries to have nuclear weapones, because their intentions are "evil", but the intention of having those weapones and to produce more is just protect themselves and their friends. Despite the fact that the reserve we have can already blow up the whole earth 50 times. I am not even talking about right or wrong, of course it's wrong, and it's unfair. But we are no saints, we want unfairness, as long as we are the one to take advantage. However, just on a rational base, by nature, any one-sided deal won't last. You can use your super power to force others, but it can't last. That's why somewhere somehow somwhat compromise needs to be made, in order to achieve your goal.
