How Important is Being the Most Powerful Country?

Ok, let's say countries like China and India will inevitably rise to take our spot as the top country if we continue on our same course. You know that the U.S. will no longer have the military superiority we now enjoy over other countries. You have a tough choice as China and India catch up to our military in capability. If it is inevitable that China and India will catch and surpass our military if things continue the way they are, do you just accept it and significantly reduce military spending now so that resources can be put to use in other things? Let's say we cut it so much that our military becomes a purely defensive force and becomes weaker than Russia, China, India, and even some smaller countries on the world stage. This means we will not interfere at all with other countries and will probably weaken our geopolitical position in the world. We would still have more than enough military forces to deter any attack on our home land. Or, do you try to hold out as long as possible and gradually increase military spending as a percentage of our GDP? This will extend our military advantage over other countries for several more years, but it may put significant strain on the rest of the economy. This may also get us dragged into conflicts we don't want to be involved in.

 

Also, you can choose to keep on our current path, spend the same as a percentage of our gdp on the military as we currently do, and pass on the torch when the time comes.

 

Someone's gonna rule the world...it might as well be U.S. We in America are made up of people from almost every country anyway.

 

Being the most powerful country militarily has very little impact on an average citizen, so I don't see how it matters much. Depending on how you look at it (total troops versus total spending versus best ray guns) you have countries on the list like North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Those are places I would not choose to live.

 

So you think we should reduce military spending?

 

I think you've heard my position before. I believe that the USA has already economically collapsed and the ONLY reason that the USA is not living a reduced standard of living is because of 50+ years or ridiculously large investments in military technology. Lose that and live like a Mexican if you are lucky. The USA has already chosen a "go for broke" philosophy. Opinions are something analogous to what Dirty Harry thinks to the USA government. Of course, the next scandal will probably be a photograph of clown-boy Obama handing a flash drive labeled "Predator drone design" to a Chinese government official.

 

Well, given the math my opinion means little. That having been said, yes I think we spend far too much and our foreign policy is far to overreaching and militaristic. But at the end of the day we must get our deficits in order and given the very simple math, we need to cut military spending. It would ironic if spending on the military to "protect" us actually ends up being a major contributor to our economic collapse.

 

I'd like to sharply scale back, sure. My policy preferences would have the armed forces be a defensive measure first, and a respectable asset for participating in multilateral humanitarian interventions second. Emphasis should be given to the quality rather than quantity of forces, the USN and USAF are the two most important branches to fund, in that order, and keeping an edge in R&D is - in my opinion - more important than being able to quickly apply overwhelming hard power to just about anywhere on the planet. We no longer need many of our bases at home and (especially) abroad.

While perhaps this could be construed to be a posture of weakness, I prefer to see it as being financially responsible, abstaining from foreign policies that could easily be construed as imperialist in character, and acknowledging that - though we should have some influence on a global scale - it is not important (or even healthy) for us to pursue global hegemony via strength in arms. Neither China nor India are able to fill the power vacuum we leave just yet. They're both developing countries with forces ill-equipped for intercontinental force projection. Russia has a potent yet aging arsenal that I think still could be matched even by a weakened American force working in concert with members of the EU, and in the meanwhile it might do us some good to get out of debt so that if/when the next major threat starts to loom we have plenty of cash to burn on churning out cutting-edge hardware and training an expanding supply of personnel.

Mind you, I don't want to see an illiberal Russia or authoritarian PRC outmatch us in regards to force proficiency so much as I consider a draw-down of forces a demand of budgetary practicality.

 

I think China shows us that economic power means more than military power.

 

We could reduce the size of our enlisted force. We cannot reduce R&D and definitely not the officer corpse. It takes at least a decade if not longer for a new soldier to turn into an experience officer. You can have all the best equiment in the world but if you don't have experienced people running them it dramatically reduces their effectiveness.

India is too disorganized at this point and China's economy has been show to be a paper tiger. Its slowed to being on the verge of collapse and its been know for awhile that the Chinese lie about their real growth numbers routinely. No one actually knows how fast they have grown. And up until literally last year they have been export oriented while basically ignoring their own domestic development. Only now after the great recession have they been forced to look inwards to grow their markets.

 

The average working man can't afford to be number one. Cut back the standng Army, require anyone who owns a weapon to be a member of the militia, whether as Army Reserve, National Guard, State Guard or a civil guard to be formed at the state level. That would protect us from both foreign and domestic enemies. Keep the Navy and Air Force up to date so that we can gain air superiorty without a problem anywhere in the world.

If somebody tries to isolate us from trade or resources, we can call on the high-rech weapons of the Navy and Air Force to guard our flanks while all of the militia is activated, some to go to the front, some to guard the homeland.

That was really what the founders had in mind.

 

I feel the only demands for our troops is defend and remove US citizens abroad and dealing with crimes at sea like Piracy and Drug Smuggling which the Coast Guard, Marine Corps and Navy all arguable Constitutional for those reasons. They are also fine for humanitarian missions. And then the second if we are invaded or likely to be invaded in force as in lose our nation to a foreign power for that we need to be feared the Soviets knew this they had nukes, biological weapons and chemical weapons and would likely use them. For us a diverse and flexible nuclear arsenal, a real defense from them from smaller players and the ability to utterly destroy an enemy with them is ideal.

Terrorism is an issue for our intelligence services.

 

All of you who would willingly, cheerfully submit our fortunes and futures to the dictates of foreign powers and governments which have little allegiance to or fondness of our own interests or concerns are being swept up in a silly fad of self effacement, self loathing or a lack of self confidence.

Where you would (*)(*)(*)(*) and moan and cry over being governed by a Conservative President or having a GOP majority in Congress, you are enthusiastic at the IDEA of letting China or Russia tell you what you can or cannot do.

I emphasze the word IDEA because, just as the dream of a 'dreamy' Barack Obama has turned into America's nightmare, in no time at all the IDEA of sucking hind tit to nations without our sense of self debasement or generosity or charitable spirit would turn into a hard reality we'd all find diffcult to live with.

But we'd have little choice by then. Any nations that were more powerful than the USA and which wanted to keep us in line could do so at will and we'd have to go along with it.

You need to stop looking at our foreign policy as being a bad thing. It's merely a tool which needs to be wielded more wisely, more skillfully.

And we can start here at PF.

Instead of deciding matters such as this from your emotional brains, think of what this means with your logical brains!

Did you buy into the whole line of malarkey about Mitt Romney being a heartless powerful rich guy who is out of touch with your concerns?

Well, you are now saying you want to give up being able to influence situations and events in the world to a heartless government like COMMUNIST China, which permits only one child per family. A China which is so wealthy that a majority of our consumer goods are made there and they already own our economy, so to speak.

Think, people.

Think!

 

You have really learned from the examples of small, weak, timid nations which are forced by circumstances of wealth or will to operate much as you propose we should.

What you SHOULD study is how to be strong and smart and big and powerful.

Instead of US being like them we should learn to be all we can be.

 

[MENTION=61643]Pregnar Kraps[/MENTION]:

Are you implicitly saying that, because of our military's great strength and robust amount of funding, both the Russian Federation and PRC are in our hands to do with as we please - whether it be to shape their futures, bully them out of any foreign interests that might be conflicting with ours, or even get away with crushing their regimes if they fail to conform with the will of our leaders? Personally, I do not think that is the case, nor do I think having the second, third, or even fourth strongest military in the world would make us at all weak in our relations with other major world powers so long as we steer well clear of brinksmanship over issues of minor importance in distant lands.

I cannot speak for anyone else here of course but must say that I do not loathe the U.S. I have a sense of national confidence and don't want to punish my country for its misdeeds. Rather, I think the federal government is spending many hundreds of billions of dollars on projects in relation to defense that in practice do not add substantively to our national security. There are diminishing returns on investment here; we're well past the point where tossing in a few more billion only gives us back very slight, marginal gains in relative hard power over other countries. Our spending on defense eclipses that of all other major world powers - most of which our government is already on decent terms with - and we are getting buried in a debt that is putting us in a position of having to choose between huge tax hikes or moderate tax hikes plus deep cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and/or the armed forces. Among those three, the latter-most is the state service whose quality for taxpayers will be least detrimentally affected by big cuts (not that I am opposed to looking at options for social program reforms as well, mind you).

If Republicans want to keep defense spending right where it is right now, I welcome them to help marshal bipartisan support for implementing the sort of tax rates we had prior to Pres. Reagan, or perhaps those from just after WWII when we were more serious about rebounding from serious deficit spending. If they can make big government happen at the same time as a balanced budget I'd be glad to maintain current levels of spending, though I would probably still want to shift around our priorities. Is that the sort of logical appeal you're looking for from those on the left here in this thread?

I still complain about U.S. foreign policy nearly as much as under the Bush administration. Current drone strike policies bother me. The situation with Guantanamo Bay bothers me. I do not approve of U.S. policies pertaining to Syria, Israel, China, or Pakistan. I don't like that we export military hardware to regimes with poor human rights records. Hell, I do not even entirely like how the administration dealt with Libya. I've the same concerns on privacy as was the case during the Bush years. The President's stances on affairs abroad are just a handful from among the reasons I chose not to vote for him again in 2012, so I at least do not think there is any double-standard at work.

Likewise, I would never suggest that Republican leadership is even remotely close to being less desirable for the U.S. than subjugation of our national interests to those of Russia or China. I take issue with the Right on these sorts of matters only because they generally have far a darker perception of human nature and the prospects of international collaboration than I - one I consider just as misguided as they deem mine. There is a deep rift in thought betwixt realists and idealists. In spite of that, I want to be empathetic even when I don't agree with ya.

Though I respect your opinions and agree that foreign policy is a tool that is neither innately good or bad, we are talking about our men and women in uniform here, those trying to serve their respective governments in other lands, and millions of civilians both on our side of the ocean and theirs - not some collection of plastic pieces scattered over the board in a life-and-blood game of Risk. Not every contest is zero-sum, countries aren't hell-bent on world domination, and nearly none of the challenges we face today can best be solved by throwing a huge bloc of armies at the partition of the globe making us lose some sleep. You know these things to be true. Nobody here should have to point out that diminishing the size of our force is not the same thing as running up a white flag of surrender - as if the world was ever something for the U.S. (or any other country for that matter) alone to mold into the shape best fitting its preferences in the first place.

 

Our nation is MUCH more concened about the value of a single life, human rights issues, promoting freedom and democracy, doing things fairly and for being seen as a force for good than Russia or China are. So, where we try not to appear to be 'heavy handed' or Godless or cold and uncaring in our approach to things, the Russians and Chinese don't care about such inconsequential things. They just do what they believe is in their best interests, pretty much.

You mean to say you'd expect the Russians or Chinese to go to war to PREVENT the possible annihilation of Israel or to PREVENT the Middle East from erupting in all out regional war like we did?

Be real, whydontcha?

If there was a threat to the continued flow of oil from the Middle East due to military actions by some adversary, and Russia or China were top dog, do you think they would be more inclined to assure that OUR allies were kept supplied or THEIR allies?

When you are in control you can make these decisions to be fair with other nations. But if you are in a position of weakness you must accept the options or tems presented you by the stronger powers.

Always do what you can to negotiate from a position of strength.

Not weakness.

Oh, and as bad as things are in the world, any degree of peaceful, orderly and fairly administered world wide business and political activities that now exist are PRIMARILY due to OUR making it this way or helping preserve this type of climate.

Just like no one among the Obama campaign's supporters could have foreseen the "fundamental changes" BOB would lay on America which threaten his very presidency, you seem unable or unwilling to imagine the very real possibility that if/when you allow Russia or China to call the shots, things will no longer remain the way they are now.

 

I like a big, strong military with lots of fighter jets and submarines, but it would be hard for me to care less about our geopolitical position in the world. I got no quarrel with Somalia or Bumfukistan.

 

This is true I suppose, though only really since the Clinton administration in our country's modern history. Even then it has been more of a self-righteous cloak to wrap ourselves in than the focus on our foreign agenda. When it comes to human rights what was the U.S. doing during the genocides in Rwanda and Sudan? Is American influence being heavily exerted on Israel right now over its policies oppressive to the Palestinian people? What is the United States doing in Syria right now? How about during other uprising during the Arab Spring? Who are our allies right now, and are they all bastions of freedom and democracy? Earlier on during the Cold War it wasn't even our policy to respect the outcomes of free and fair elections; we preferred to conduct our business with pro-Western dictatorships.

To an extent we still see leaders valuing stability over freedom today, with many folks in our government preferring to see despots like Assad, Mubarak, Gaddafi, etc. in power than to risk having new democracies give rise to regimes that espouse controversial ideas and can't be counted on to do what the U.S. wants. At a fundamental level, the United States is operating under the same philosophy as Russia and China when it comes to its goals abroad: do what's best for ones own country, present that to the public with the most attractive rationalizations possible, and only go significantly out of ones way to help others when there is something to gain from it in return for the effort. We have our idealists here sure - neoconservatives like Bush in the Republican Party and liberal internationalists such as Carter with the Democrats - but it's certainly not a black-and-white matter of the U.S. being a righteous liberator and the PRC and Russia evil empires.

To be fair though I do agree that the United States is more humanitarian and less heavy handed in comparison.


In regards to Israel, I do not expect the Russians or Chinese to intervene. Then again, I do not think we should either unless a major humanitarian crisis emerges. Israel has the most powerful, proficient armed forces in their region and almost certainly possesses dozens of nuclear weapons - many of which can be mounted on submarine launched cruise missiles and delivered to high-value targets deep within the territories of its North African and West Asian adversaries. Depending on what events lead up to such a conflict, I may even be in favor of contributing forces to a multilateral intervention to defeat Israel and finally implement a two-state solution to address the deepest fault-line of contention in that region. Not that I want to derail the thread into a deliberation of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

As much as I would like for Israel to continue to exist for many centuries to come, I do not believe it is our job to serve as Israel's personal bodyguard and obstruct the establishment and global recognition of Palestine existing alongside it, regardless of what Israeli officials say or do. There is only so much we can reasonably be expected do to stop other people from fighting when there's no effective, accountable, representative tier of global government.

As for oil supplies, let the market work its magic and countries steer their own fates. We need only work in coordination with our allies to discourage other countries from forcing others to cater preferentially to their economic needs or otherwise succumb to neo-colonialism.

Again - and I do not mean to come across as repetitive about this - spending less on defense does not necessarily translate into negotiating from a position of weakness.

I respectfully disagree. It was very much a team effort.

I imagine just fine, and do not think it is important to stop either of those countries from wielding greater influence in global affairs. Likewise for Brazil and India, which are both rising powers as well. Changes will occur but things are going to be alright. I suspect you disagree but that is fine too; I haven't much interest in trying to change your mind.

 

Nothing weak about having a bad ass Navy that can blow everybody else's shipping out of the water, an Air Force that can deliver bombs or troops anywhere on short notice, and a rifleman behind every tree if some idiot actually manages to land an occupation force.

Well, if we could afford it, fine. There are, however, other things that a civilization needs to do to advance the common welfare.

 

Rwanda and Sudan are two prime examples of our not wanting to be the world's policeman.

Even though I cite our "Kinder, gentler" foreign policy some like to call soft power, I don't want anyone to doubt the existence of and the wisdom of our policy to do what is most bestest for OUR interests, first, if not exclusively.

And that is what we want, or should want. The ability, the options, to do what is best for US interests first and before any other power removes those best options from our consideration.

You must not have any older siblings who tried keeping you from getting the biggest piece of chicken or who competed with you for the prettiest girls or for the right to determine what programs the family would watch on TV. Being on the second tier of power sucks. Ask Brazil and India. They want a seat at the BIG table with US.

Americans aren't accustomed to being second tier anything. America loves winners and hates losing.

And we should take heed of Biblical messages about God cursing those who curse Israel and blessing those who bless her. But do you really understand what might happen if Israel feels it is forced to use her devastating power to its full extent? How reckless could a foreign policy be? We can help prevent a regional war which very easily could escalate into a global war. Do you want to gamble on that not happening if we signal the Arab states we'll no longer step in to prevent an Israeli loss? And when you say you MIGHT be willing to support military action against Israel to get her to agree to a two state solution, I think you STILL have yet to see either the Israeli's absolute rightness and justifications for being there in the first place; their postion regarding allowing the Palestinians their own state without first requiring them to provide assurances of non-offensive conduct toward Israel...or else you have bought into my idea.

My idea is for Israel to allow the Palestinian state to be founded and recognized and given this one warning: One attack from Palestine will trigger the death and utter destruction of everything you have and hold dear. Then publicize it to the world so no one will be caught by surprise. Then, when the first serious attack takes place, the IDF should destroy the state of Palestine and then relocate the survivors to somewhere around Jordan, permanently.

That must be what you have in mind, right?


All of your important considerations seem to take for granted this current political climate will continue after we stepped down from our position as Top Dog, and I guarantee you things would change discernably very quickly once the other countries vying for dominance knew we weren't going to regulate things anymore. And those changes would make your assumptions crumble into dust.

 

1. The Federal government only has those powers that were delegated to it. The government was never given the authority to do such a thing, therefore the power remains with the states/people.\
2. The 2nd amendment makes no qualification upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The regulated militia clause is a justification, not a limitation. This is clear to anyone who reads the thing, or the debates when it was being ratified.

If you want to enact this restriction on liberty then fine, go ahead and pass a constitutional amendment.

 

Go back and read it again. Congress shall make provisions for the calling out of the militia. Pretty damned simple.

 

Ran across this and felt it would put this whole matter to rest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Huntington

 

The U.S. is no better than any other country for the world than if some other country had our power. Democracy is not inherently good and economic growth is not inherently good.

 

In case you didn't catch this earlier.