@Solace,
Quote:The history of the conflict itself shows otherwise, though. There was a long and bitter debate in Britain about whether or not it was worth it, and the most persuasive attitude was that the American colonies were a bunch of crude unarmed cretons who couldn't possibly stand up to the Imperial might. And Britain had this attitude pervasivaly throughout the war, which led them to conduct vainglorious and stupid campaigns all the way from Boston through Yorktown.
How does any of this contradict the following?
'Many of their conflicts involved popular rebellion, like the American struggle, but the British were also plaque by almost constant war with major world powers.'
I'm not trying to debate that the British made many mistakes in handling the war. The point is that the British Empire, the most powerful military force in the world (of that time) was beset by almost constant warfare, whether the conflict was with another major power or in their many colonies.
Having a military capable of waging an effective aggressive war seems to increase the chances that that nation will wage an aggressive war.
Quote:Only because the Germans knew what the rest of the world didn't, that France was undermilitarized, had nonsensically dispositioned their troops leaving the Belgian border undefended, and used static strongpoints along the Maginot line that were utterly obsolete in the face of the mechanized warfare that Germany had developed. (ironically Germany tried the same thing with abysmal results along the Atlantic wall). France's military preparation was a complete ruse, and Germany, the only aggressor that matters for this discussion knew it. Hitler's whole calculus was based on ultimately fighting a one front war in the Soviet Union, and he knew that France would easily capitulate -- and he was correct.
Fair enough.
Quote:There are examples on both sides. My only point is it's hard to generalize.
Yeah, and my initial claim is a generalization. One that can't really be defended.
Quote:But what SHOULD be instructive is the example of the Cold War. The US and USSR would not let themselves engage one another militarily. So they took on Korea, and Vietnam, and funded / armed all kinds of puppet states in Africa and Latin America, and the USSR took on all the WWII-ravaged eastern block countries and all the central Asian states, and invaded Afghanistan, etc. The Cold War was essentially characterized by superpowers waging war in puny states to avoid taking one another on.
And what lessons do you pull out of this conflict with respect to military build up?
Quote:I just don't think this is an argument that can be made from first principle. I mean all we can really do is look back probably no further than WWI or maybe the Spanish-American and Russo-Japanese wars, i.e. just ~110 years ago, if we want to draw principles out of the historical record. Before that tactics, strategy, military funding, etc were so completely different. And since then we have a whole new scale of warfare, the concept of total war with general mobilization, and we have the capacity to reach any point in the globe. It's just too little history for us to say what happens with nations that invest in military spending -- and too little specificity to know what's meant by "aggressive".
I don't see why we cannot look further than the Spanish-American war for these principles. I understand that warfare has undergone significant changes, but the waging of wars has always changed. Wasn't total war an 'innovation' of the American Civil War? The British were capable of reaching any point in the globe with significant military force before 1800.
By aggressive I mean investing in military designed for something other than defense. Establishing national militia installations across the nation with arms for the general public in the event of invasion is defensive - an aircraft carrier or a battleship is an aggressive tool.
Quote:Don't blame the US as a whole. Bush has changed the whole landscape. I've got no problem with our military striving to be technologically advanced and efficient if that will 1) protect our own troops and 2) make strategic warfare much less disastrous.
Eisenhower warned us in the 50's - he warned that the military industrial complex would become powerful enough to insight wars for the sake of a marketplace for their goods.
My history gets shaky sometimes (as you can tell), but I'm having a hard time thinking of an American President after WW2 who did not push to expand the military.
Maybe it's worth noting that I'm a pacifist who advocates the total disarmament of all nations - I'm biased on this issue.
Quote:On the other hand, this unchecked excess is putting us at most risk simply by destabilizing our economy and forcing us to compromise other things. This 10% cut in Medicare payouts that went through Congress yesterday is going to be devastating. Doctors offices already lose money or barely break even on Medicare patients -- and with this cut, most doctors offices are going to stop seeing Medicare patients altogether because they won't be able to afford to see them. And what makes matters worse is that private insurance companies often link their payouts to Medicare rates, so this is going to truly crush the medical system, especially in primary care and in hospitals. And where do you think this savings is going to go?
Military spending I would imagine. As an aside, I didn't realize the changes in Medicare would be so devastating. I knew it couldn't be good, but... well, this is terribly sad to hear.
Quote:Honestly, policy-wise they're like buzzards and rats coated in cheese and chocolate. Their sanctimonious policies have protected them from war, but believe me they've LOVED having war waged around them on all sides since time immemorial.
Well sure. The Swiss make a lot of money when other nations wage war.
But the modern Swiss state, to my knowledge, has kept a purely defensive military. But as you know, I don't know a whole lot.
