- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Shrink the military? Can right and left agree on this?
Posted on 1/24/14 at 8:24 pm to zeebo
Posted on 1/24/14 at 8:24 pm to zeebo
It's an interesting question. For most of our nation's history, the military has been astonishingly small, the idea has been that we can build up quickly if needed and this worked out well during WW2.
Since that war we have been basically the world's police and while that certainly has benefits I'm not convinced it is worthwhile. I could be mistaken, but that debate is something that takes place in more scholarly places than TD.
Since that war we have been basically the world's police and while that certainly has benefits I'm not convinced it is worthwhile. I could be mistaken, but that debate is something that takes place in more scholarly places than TD.
Posted on 1/24/14 at 8:31 pm to foshizzle
The problem is that with modern technology, the gap between the beginning of hostilities and when an enemy could realistically project force against the people and resources of the United States has gone from months to seconds. Our two oceans which protected us throughout the late 18th through the early 20th century is no longer the deterrent it once was. There is simply no longer enough time to "build up" when conflict comes any more.
Instead of taking months for an aggressive force to cross an ocean or thousands of miles of wilderness to project force, the press of a button could anhilate a city in minutes. In a day or two, entire armies could be on our shores and in the interior within a week. This has necessitated a completely different approach.
Mutually assured destruction has mostly prevented nuclear holocaust, while keeping a relatively large standing army and navy has allowed for "preventative action" as well as the capacity for instantaneous response to threats of force.
Instead of taking months for an aggressive force to cross an ocean or thousands of miles of wilderness to project force, the press of a button could anhilate a city in minutes. In a day or two, entire armies could be on our shores and in the interior within a week. This has necessitated a completely different approach.
Mutually assured destruction has mostly prevented nuclear holocaust, while keeping a relatively large standing army and navy has allowed for "preventative action" as well as the capacity for instantaneous response to threats of force.
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)