[orf]

> The result of US society following this advice would be the subjugation of the US, and possibly all western democracies, by other countries.

This seems to be a common sentiment in the USA. Perhaps I'm naive, but you're saying that without your grossly overpowered military the USA would be overtaken by... Mexico? Canada?

I think it's a bit reductionist to simply say "less army = we die". Things are more complex than that. And perhaps you're missing the other side of the coin: "more army = more death". The military industrial complex is very real and this narrative benefits them a whole lot.

There is always a middle ground that doesn't result in the world burning or the USA spending 50% of it's discretionary budget on weapons.

[philwelch]

The US wouldn’t necessarily be overrun, but Syria already almost certainly will, and a unilateral disarmament and withdrawal by the United States would also put Taiwan, South Korea, and every NATO member immediately bordering Russia at risk. Over the ensuing decades, the free world would gradually be eroded away by autocratic regimes until, at best, the US and Canada are isolated between two oceans and surrounded by a world of despotism.

[boomboomsubban]

> Taiwan, South Korea, and every NATO member immediately bordering Russia at risk. Over the ensuing decades, the free world would gradually be eroded away by autocratic regimes until, at best, the US and Canada are isolated between two oceans and surrounded by a world of despotism.

Right, this is all a fight against despotism. Which is why the US helped Kai-Shek in Taiwan, propped up Rhee for South Korea, and included Turkey and Portugal as founders of NATO.

[philwelch]

All four of those countries became democracies.

But yes, admittedly, the United States has supported autocratic regimes due to strategic concerns elsewhere. In many of those cases, it was a calculated tradeoff between allying with a single military regime such as Turkey—which would not have turned democratic had they not been included in NATO—in exchange for gaining a crucial advantage over a despotic superpower with a history of aggressive expansion and a stated ideology of world domination.

Of course, the biggest example of this policy going wrong was American support of the Soviet Union during the Second World War, but there are plenty of reasons that doesn't get mentioned. Most people in my position would likely agree it was a mistake for the US to support Stalin as much as we did; if the Soviet Union came out of the Second World War in a much weaker geopolitical position due to a lack of food and industrial aid from the United States, the ensuing half-century would have been considerably better for the rest of the world.

The other reason it doesn't get mentioned is because your argument is a very old and worn-out Soviet propaganda talking point, and not only do Soviet apologists not want to admit that US support was vitally important to the Soviets during WWII, but they also don't want to admit that the Soviets themselves are the single worst autocratic regime that the US has ever allied itself with. Such an admission would underline the crucial importance of curbing Soviet domination over the rest of the world and justify exactly those actions that one seeks to criticize.

[manfredo]

The US itself is likely safe. Not many militaries are capable of occupying most of a continent across an ocean. But the absence of strong democratic militaries could easily put subjugation of much of Eastern Europe by Russia, or East Asia by China within the realm of possibility. The latter may be more willing to use gunboat diplomacy in Africa if their loans aren't repaid.

[TaylorAlexander]

But the US military could be 25% the size and still be “strong”.

So discussions of size reduction do not mean advocating a weak military. There obviously must be some point at which additional military spending weakens the US by crippling our ability to grow. And many have reasonably argued we are well past that point. We spend 10x the next closest competitor at 750B a year. We could cut spending by hundreds of billions and leave that money in the pockets of Americans to better choose how to spend it. That could leave us much stronger. One may take a look at China’s incredible ability to build infrastructure as one alternative way to spend our money. We build bombs to protect oil interests while China builds solar panel factories and bullet trains.

[manfredo]

Yes, the US could be "strong" but the US isn't just defending its own soil. It's effectively propping up allies all across the globe.

Also, as a percentage of GDP US military spending isn't all that high. It's just over 3% [1]. South Korea is at 2.6%. In most years, Israel outranks the US (they probably could afford to drop their spending because their regional rivals are having very bad domestic problems and are in no condition to attack Israel). In theory, all NATO countries are supposed to spend 2%.

[lostlogin]

If an allied country is mad keen on military spending and demonstrating their power while you aren’t, why would you spend on your military?

Could this be a factor in how other countries operate?

[philwelch]

It’s not purely a question of spending. There are qualitative differences as well. No US ally has even an approximation of the US nuclear deterrent or the US Navy. Partially as a consequence of this, no US ally can match the quantity, quality, or versatility of American air power.

[manfredo]

It could be, that's part of why Trump flirted with the idea of making NATO's 2% of GDP military spending target a requirement rather than a general guideline.

However, the fact that the US is the main component of NATO gives the US a lot of leverage over those other countries which is valuable in its own right.

[yason]

Yes, the US could be "strong" but the US isn't just defending its own soil.

It would seem natural to think your own soil is the only thing you can ever rightfully defend. USA seems to be doing the defending anywhere but on their own soil.

[manfredo]

True, but the US soil really doesn't need much defending. There are large oceans to the East and West. To the North is an allied country, and to the South is a country with close economic and cultural ties. There are no countries that could feasibly carry out a transoceanic invasion of the US, even were they to exert the entirety of their military might.

Countries like Poland and South Korea are within the reach of geopolitical rivals, though. So places like those are where the US is garrisoning much of its combat ready troops. Which makes perfect sense.

I'm also not so sure what you meant by "It would seem natural to think your own soil is the only thing you can ever rightfully defend." Why wouldn't it be rightful to defend the territorial integrity of other countries? In fact, the US is obligated to defend it as per international treaties like NATO.

[porpoisely]

Following that line of reasoning, is it better that eastern europe and east asia be under our subjugation? Or is it only subjugation when they do it?

We are less than 250 years old as a nation. How did eastern europe and east asia manage before we arrived?

Pride goeth before a fall. I'm afraid our hubris is going to cost us big one of these days.

[manfredo]

> Following that line of reasoning, is it better that eastern europe and east asia be under our subjugation? Or is it only subjugation when they do it?

I'm not sure I follow. Is it your genuine belief that Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic states would prefer Russian hegemony? Or that South Korea prefers Communist hegemony? The reality is that if the US doesn't maintain a strong presence in these regions, then other powers will exploit that power vacuum. Sure, in an ideal world, every country would turns it's swords into plowshares, it's tanks into tractors, etc. But we live in the real world, not the ideal world.

> We are less than 250 years old as a nation. How did eastern europe and east asia manage before we arrived?

Eastern Europe spent most of the last 250 years under monarchies and dictatorships. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most[1] find the 21st century is preferable to domination by the USSR, domination by the Fascists before that, and imperial monarchies before that.

East Asia spent most of the last 250 under either feudalism[2] or domination by an imperial power. Again, I'm going to go out on a limb that they prefer their situation in the 21st century to that.

1. Probably all Eastern European countries other than Russia and maybe Belorussia and Moldova. The latter two are pretty pro-Russian.

2. Some point out the Qing dynasty had an extensive central bureacracy and isn't exactly fudalism. It's some form of monarchic rule, though.

[porpoisely]

My belief is that they don't prefer any subjugation. Certainly not subjugation from someone on the other side of the world. Also, you talk of the US maintaining a strong presence in these regions as if we are there to protect or help these regions. We are an invading imperial power in these regions to benefit ourselves, not them. We are no different than russia or china. You could argue we are worse considering the russians and chinese have cultural, geographical and ethnic ties to these regions and we don't.

And everyone is going to prefer modernity to the past. North koreans would prefer their modern dictatorship to the dictatorship of the past too.

All I'm saying is subjugation is subjugation and empire is empire. Nobody likes being subjugated by an empire in the long run.

[manfredo]

The US is hardly doing what most would consider "subjugation". And for the record, many Eastern European countries are actually asking for the US to establish a presence there. Poland is trying so hard that he's willing to name such a base "Fort Trump"[1].

> We are an invading imperial power in these regions to benefit ourselves, not them. We are no different than russia or china.

When was the last time the US rounded up religious or ethnic minorities and put them in concentration camps? We did it to the Japanese, over half a century ago and it remembered as a point of national shame. After 9/11, Muslims were subject to "random" searches at airports at a higher rate and it was considered unacceptable by many people. Contrast that with China that has somewhere between 500k and a million Uyghurs in "reeducation camps" and most of the populace doesn't seem to bat an eye.

When was the last time the US forcibly annexed territory from a neighboring country? Unless you count military bases such as the ones on Okinawa (which are still part of the sovereign territory of Japan), it was the Mexican American war over 150 years ago. Russia did the same less than a decade ago. And they invaded Georgia not long before that.

To say that "we are no different than Russia or China" seems to be based more on an a priori decision that all forms of international hegemony is bad, rather than thoughtful comparison between the three countries.

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/polan...

> All I'm saying is subjugation is subjugation and empire is empire. Nobody likes being subjugated by an empire in the long run.

I agree. Most countries agree as well. That's why so many of them have a high opinion of the US, and why many of them are asking for US military presence: to shield them from subjugation of neighboring powers.

[porpoisely]

If you think what we have done and are doing isn't subjugation, then we have read different histories and different news. Millions of people were killed for us to develop our "strong presence" in these regions. It's called empire building and empire growing.

By many eastern european countries, you really mean one - poland. And by many eastern countries, you also mean a small group of political entities within those countries.

The high opinion of the US stems from our wealth and our cultural domination. Once again, that doesn't translate to a desire for subjugation. For example, if I have high opinion of japan, germany and new zealand, it doesn't mean I want them to militarily and political dominate the US. Certainly I wouldn't want their troops stationed here.

Also, there are protests against US military presence in all these regions as well, but I guess we can ignore those.

I guess our difference ultimately boils down to our view of empire. I don't think they are ever a good thing and they certainly don't exist to serve the subjugated.

[zdragnar]

We have recent history to demonstrate: WW2 followed by the cold war. Is there a Nazi Germany today? No. Could there be something similar again? Of course.

Hell, there's even a show on Amazon (based on a book) centered around the idea of an alternate history where the Allied forces lost WW2 and the US is occupied territory.

[orf]

Things where a little bit different back then, don't you think? Do you believe nothing that's happened in the last 70 years (most notably nuclear weapons) changes this scenario at all?

There are also many fictional shows on Amazon, should we use them to guide us?

[landryraccoon]

I don't think philosophically this helps the case that armed forces are unnecessary. All it argues is that a nation needs a nuclear armed force instead of a conventional one to stay independent.

If a nation has no nuclear weapons and cannot compete conventionally, it could be bullied. Take Ukraine for example - would they really be worse off if they kept some nukes? Perhaps Russia would be deterred from aggression if they did.

[aswanson]

I think Ukraine example shows the weakness in the single point of failure NATO model, with the U.S. as the current failure point. Our current leadership is less committed to NATO, and Putin pounces. I think a European alliance, with a strong military force led by England, Germany, & France, needs to think about a more localized force to check Putin's aggression.

[landryraccoon]

I agree, but the key phrase here is strong military force. There's no avoiding the existence of armed forces; we're really debating how those forces should be governed.

[mmirate]

> Things where a little bit different back then, don't you think? Do you believe nothing that's happened in the last 70 years (most notably nuclear weapons) changes this scenario at all?

The majority of the Cold War happened while both sides' superpowers had nukes.

In other words: nukes didn't change this scenario; they helped create it.

> Things where a little bit different back then, don't you think? Do you believe nothing that's happened in the last 70 years (most notably nuclear weapons) changes this scenario at all?

Guide? No. Inspire and/or remind? Why not.

To be fair, however, the PKD book that spawned that show, contained factual errors due to information that was declassified only after the book was written. Turns out, even if the US had been neutral in WW2, it's fairly certain the remaining Allies would have won regardless; and furthermore, in such a case it is possible the Soviets might've been so thoroughly weakened by the Japanese, that the former wouldn't have emerged as a superpower nor as the other side of the Cold War.

(And while we're on the topic of conjectures about counterfactual US neutrality: it is possible that US neutrality in WW1 would have averted the creation of the Nazi empire and WW2 with it.)

[shadofx]

Academia boycotting the military won't destroy the MIC. It will simply move all military research into military sectors, because if you can train a person to kill, you can train them to do science.

[bassman9000]

Perhaps I'm naive, but you're saying that without your grossly overpowered military the USA would be overtaken by... Mexico? Canada?

This is textbook naive. China/Russia, to begin with.

Plus: there doesn't need to be a imminent invasion danger. Without the US protection of commercial sea routes, global economy would suffer a serious blow, which would affect Asian and South American countries way more than the US.

[orf]

You think Russia or China would launch a ground invasion of a nuclear capable country in a different continent, for no other reason that it looked a bit weak?

I wonder why the Russians are not launching invasions of several resource rich African countries as we speak.

I agree that currently the US protects strategic sea routes that benefit the US, and as a byproduct other countries. That's fine, and the seas have always needed policing, but it's just a small part of military expenditure, and doesn't counter anything I said.

[bassman9000]

At some point, yes, they would. The whole point of the article is that people with the technical knowledge to maintain and improve the US miltary shouldn't do it. Luckily, reaching a critical mass of scientists and engineers with such attitude, enough for basic defense systems to fail, seems unlikely. But there's such an horizon.

I wonder why the Russians are not launching invasions of several resource rich African countries as we speak.

Because the US is far stronger. And still they grabbed half Ukraine, at the border of NATO, way more important than most African countries. Same with China, the South China Sea, and expansion via artificial islands.

If Russia and China can get away with that, the US being vastly superior from a military standpoint, what world destabilization, or plain open war would happen if the US just a bit weaker?

And, BTW, the war has started already, in the information battleground, with US and Western Europe's being ravaged by Russian and Chinese attacks.

The naivete point stands. We need more computer scientists defending Western democracy values, because today, more than ever, they're under attack.

[orf]

> If Russia and China can get away with that, the US being vastly superior from a military standpoint, what world destabilization, or plain open war would happen if the US just a bit weaker?

Ok, so if I'm following this logic, which is if you're not the strongest then someone is going to invade you, then the USA is going to start invading everyone because it is the strongest.

Or, if not, could there possibly be other factors that come into play when deciding to invade someone and destabilise the world?

> The naivete point stands. We need more computer scientists defending Western democracy values, because today, more than ever, they're under attack.

I agree. Let's fund this with a reduction in our standing army. Oh wait... the people who make the bombs might not like this.

[bassman9000]

then the USA is going to start invading everyone because it is the strongest.

That's where the values matter: US ones are better than Russia/China's. And before the barking: not perfect, just better. Good enough not to grab Ukraine or the South China Sea.

Let's fund this with a reduction in our standing army

False dichotomy. It is not the only way to fund it. Besides, OP article wasn't a funding issue, it never is, as you point out, with military spending. It's a moral one, and the author decided in 2004 that virtue signaling was more important that defending the aforementioned values against internal and external enemies. 14 years later we (the West) seem to be behind in information warfare.

[mmirate3]

> You think Russia or China would launch a ground invasion of a nuclear capable country in a different continent, for no other reason that it looked a bit weak?

A nuclear arsenal is nothing without trained and loyal personnel to secure it and to operate and maintain it correctly. If your army is weak enough or makes bad enough decisions, enemy troops can blow the nukes up, kill the nukes' operators, or even sabotage them in a variety of ways.