It would definitely be dangerous to move all of our military budget into social spending. However, if we just took about 5% of the military budget, we could probably fund universal healthcare for all, with no noticeable change in our ability to defend ourselves. In fact, we could probably still be safe taking an additional 5% and using it to pay off the national debt.

If you enjoy using the Politics Forum, please consider supporting PoFo by subscribing (to donate directly), or by using an affiliate link when you shop on-line (costs you nothing extra). PoFo costs a lot of money to run, so your support really is appreciated.

My perception is that Sweden has a stronger military than Norway.


To me it seems that it is mostly Garden (Hans Majestet Kongens Garde), Telemarksbataljonen, FSK, the different Jeger's (artillery, border, coast jeger) etc. that are well trained in the Norwegian army.

My perception is that the other infantry units make coffee and drive around, do a little firing and play playstation.

Canada:



Neither. Canada's military spending is not enough for it to have a major impact on the world. A few more might die as some peacekeepers and those in Afghanistan withdrew. A few in Canada might live slightly longer. But much of the money would simply dissappear in the bureaucracy, the rest would have nominal impact.


Neither. The US would still protect us from foreign threats. But the social spending might have a small effect on crime, but nothing would make us significantly safer.


No.


It would solve nothing, contribute to no problems.


Probably not, the loss of our peacekeepers and Afghan troops would make the world slightly less safe.


The tax need would increase. The new bureaucracy created by the new wealth would demand more funding, which would lead to more tax, and so on.

Bad idea.


USA:


More. Korea, Taiwan, Iraq, and Afghanistan would all rapidly descned into hellfire. Iran might become more expansionest, Israel would probably either be attacked with no US protection or attack before the balance of power shifted against it. In other words, the Middle East and Asia would go up in flames. Who knows what Russia might do and conflict between Pakistan and India would likely become less restrained.In exchange there would be a nominal increase in the US life expectancy and more wasted, poorly designed foriegn aid programs propping up dictatorships.


America would be less safe. Some other country would likely invade (They may not be close, but with no military how would the US stop a naval landing). Social spending would have a minor effect on crime. Foreign aid programs would increase terrorism and instability as dictatorships become more entrenched, and the forces fighting them become richer.


No.


It would contribute to terrorism, despotism, and war. It would solve nothing.


No.


Increase. As the new bureaucracy created for the new social programs becomes entrenched it will demand and be given more resources, and taxes would increase. As well, the new social programs if poorly designed (as most government programs are) will decrease incentives to work, leading to less general prosperity, meaning less tax money, meaning higher tax rates for the same services.


Bad idea.

This is hard to say. If the US (my country) stopped spending ANYTHING on defense, then its armed forces would quickly dissolve (troops, after all, would not be paid), making the nation and its resources ripe for the taking by any nation who wanted it and had even the smallest army. Conquering the nation would be easy, of course, and resistance would take the form of armed citizens. Certainly there would be bloodshed when invading troops ran into these militias. Whether that would be greater or less than the human cost of US adventurism, is difficult to say. I would be among those casualties, so I wouldn't be available for comment.

Lest anyone think it's improbable that an undefended US would be conquered, remember that we DO have oil. Also a heck of a lot of coal. In fact, even though we burn through resources at quite a clip, we have an awful lot of them to start with. The US is a hell of a prize.


The average citizen of non-US nations? Neither. The average citizen of nations whom the US has aggressive intentions towards? (Iraq, Iran, etc) More safe. The average American? Less safe.


For the nations receiving aid, it would unquestionably be better. Except that I do believe the US would quickly fall, in which case the aid could reasonably be expected to stop.


Solve: US aggression overseas.
Contribute to: Me grabbing guns and heading into the hills with people I probably wouldn't get along with (after all, they're the ones with the guns).


What do I know? I'm hiding in a chicken coop.


Well, given that I believe the US would fall to a foreign power (or powers) in this event, it's unreasonable to think that such powers would continue a policy as ludicrous as zero defense spending, and would quickly begin building up a sympathetic national army, much as we're doing in Iraq. Tax rates would probably increase for rebuilding.


I'm gonna have to go with "bad idea."

As I pointed out, the military superiority the US enjoys over other countries at the moment makes the invasion of most other places in the world a complete walkover (at least in terms of getting a 'Mission Accomplished' sign going up), but still despite the fact that there are a whole lot of countries out there with great natural resources - more abundant than back at home - the US either doesn't invade these countries, or invades them - like Iraq - but turns the whole thing into a mess. It's not because the US is somehow a moral superpower while other countries aren't that it holds back from simply taking the East Timor oil fields or Liberian diamonds - it's that the risks, costs and pitfalls of invasion even with a piss-poor official enemy to defeat are too great.

So, whether or not you are *militarily capable* of invading or vastly outnumber the enemy doesn't make for an easy or worthwhile invasion - the problems of the home population, support for the war, the difficulty of raping a foreign land of its resources etc. etc. are really quite high these days: we no longer live in a colonial world. The US is stretched trying to just assimilate some bits of Iraq roughly (in an Iraq with basically zero defence) so to say that another power would attack the US and expect to win out of it is quite laughable.

So I don't get that, man.

Actually, it is because the US is 'moral'. Take Iraq for example; the US has lost between 2000-3000 (I am unsure of the actual numbers). In comparison to the size of it's armed forces this number is statistically insignificant, it is only the US' intolerance for its own being killed that this is significant and that their are calls for withdrawal.

As for pacification of the local populace, the problems result from the 'morality' of the US. Almost all the violence from the resistence comes from the Sunni population and the majority of the violence occurs in the Sunni triangle. The Sunni's make up roghly 15% of the Iraqi population if I remember correctly (I might not). All the US would have to do to end resistence is eliminate this 15% (or even just the young adult males in this population); whether through concentration camps, an extermination campaign, or mass bombings. Neither the Shiites nor the Kurds would be all that upset over this and the resistence would be over.

It is solely the 'morality' of the US that prevents this.


Only if you're a stable liberal democracy with a peaceful population. The PRC would have no problems with support, the home population, or with extracting resources, other than a few militias and some scattered American resistence which would be relatively easily crushed. The same goes for most Middle East countries, or even Russia (depending on how the internal politics there shape up).


Only because the US limits itself.

The US is so stretched because it simply can not afford the bad PR of engaging in the required colonial tactics.

A world sans the US would be ruled by Russia and China, I don't really see Russia or China having an issue utilziing the required colonial tactics.

Humanity has not evolved Maxim, only our perception of it due to the nature of world trade. China can roll whoever it wants if there is no threat of US military intervention and I have no doubt that the Chinese would roll through North America as the Japanese did throug China ... the difference of course is that China won't be lacking the manpower to complete the mission.

Russia could, if it wanted to, roll through Europe and utilize the required tactics with no threat of losing face.

The US simply does not have that luxury ... we imprison a few hundred people in Gitmo and we are compared to the Nazis.

Why is the US moral though? Because it needs basic support from its citizens for actions - even citizens that are more belligerent than most in the West struggle to support the invasion of Iraq. It is not moral because it is filled with 'better people', but because almost the entire world is filled with these liberal-thinking people who, provided they have the ability to earn a living, don't want their country to go to war.


And this was, no doubt, also the case in Vietnam where the US was willing to eliminate that 15%...


You see Russia, a country of less than 200 million, deciding to invade America, a country twice its size? Or China sending millions of troops across the Pacific to invade the West Coast, sticking ordinary Americans in thrall and forcing them to mine their raw materials for export to the motherland of the PR of China? Or perhaps 20 nuclear missiles raining down over the US? I'm sorry, but thinking through it all I can't see that happening - with or without a US standing army, an invasion would be no mean feat and not obviously of benefit. An attack without any invasion wouldn't really improve life either.

Small scale invasions and suppressions of 3rd states - like Taiwan - are one thing, but the idea that China would invade tomorrow if you didn't keep a large standing army is fanciful.

If America disarmed to the point where it could no longer launch or no longer had the deterrent of being able to successfully launch a successful nuclear counter strike against “the enemy” (Russia, PRC, North Korea) then it would cease to exist as soon as the generals of the aforementioned believed that the situation was irreversibly in their favour.

After America falls, Western civilization, Japan, the Jewish peoples, as well as many others, are at the mercy of those consumed by irrational rage, hatred and envy. So it’s not really a good idea, is it? Nation will rise against nation; the world would enter a period of savagery absolutely unparalleled in history. The atomic Caesars could do as they pleased, and would.

Anybody who doesn’t think this is inevitable under the proposed circumstances simply fails to understand human beings and the nature of the beast, despite their intellectual credentials (not having a dig at anybody in particular).

Yet it seems that this is exactly what our “wise men” think. That with the so-called collapse of communism (which is a farce), we have reached, to quote the clown Francis Fukuyama, “The End of History”. In other words, after 1989 and the end of the Cold War we have reached a point where Liberal Western Democracy becomes universal and the only acceptable form of government.

It’s nothing but self-flattery, delusion and vanity on behalf of western leaders who toy with the idea of a global village whilst laughing at the idea of another great war, if the thought ever enters their minds, that is.





This is a contentious subject and far too weighty to go into in any detail, but invading America is not impossible if you have already wiped out half the population in a nuclear first strike and used chemical weapons extensively. Socialist Europe of course would remain neutral.

Island hopping by the enemy via the Aleutian Islands would play a major role in the invasion, since Russia and China would want to take Alaska first. Firstly, there is not much in the way of defence there; secondly it is rich in natural resources. If they control Nome, Prudhoe Bay, Fairbanks and Anchorage, the Russians have access to strategic oil reserves.

Seattle / Vancouver would next on the agenda from there.

One force would follow the AlCan Highway from Fairbanks, Alaska to British Columbia and the other would follow the Coast to Vancouver / Seattle. Tacoma (Washington) and Victoria (BC) would also be taken to secure further port facilities so as to facilitate further troop transportation and also to control the I-90 and I-5.

At the same time Russia would take control of New Orleans in order to secure access to the Mississippi River and later attempt to control the St. Lawrence Seaway.

This would be the beginning.

Admittedly the initial transportation of troops would take some time, but once sizeable forces arrive they are in a glorious position to finish the job.

Also take note at China controlling several ports, including ones located in Long Beach and New York.
The Hutchison Whampoa Company Limited most notably has completed construction of the largest container port in the world, just 60 miles from Florida.

Also we should be reminded of who now controls the Panama Canal, the very same aforementioned company, which has ties to the communist party. All of these acquisitions would be invaluable in a future war against America.

As for occupation, China would be the main occupier due to the size of the military. They would likely take the Pacific North West and California. Latin American forces / Mexico would take the South and South West. Florida and the South East would be taken by Cuban and quite possibly African troops. Russian forces would take the North East and possibly certain areas of the Mid West. Later on the centre would be taken by Chinese, in particular the farmlands.




Rational men are par for the course as leaders throughout history, are they not, in particular communist leaders? Again, not having a dig at anybody in particular.





You forgot envy.

It is 'moral' because the leader has to hold the support of a liberal population that puts high value on human life. Otherwise it will be voted out of power in the next election.

Take away either the liberal population, the democratic system, or the high value on life and the 'morality' will dissappear.

China has none of there and Russia is on the edge in all of them.


They also had rules of engagement that worked against them and limited them in that war.


If America had no army it would not be that big a feat. Britain invaded and cominated a quarter of the world with a very small population, because its enemies were not organized into a single force. Although, Russia would have to become more extremist first, but that is not improbable.


Why not? They would need resources to support their population, their expanding industry, and their army that is being modernized.

If America was defenceless it could work out quite well.


It wouldn't be easy, but it wouldn't be impossible either.

8 million Americans fought in the army in WW2, all of them had to be transported long distances. Surely China (or even Russia) could do better with modern tech and a greater population, than America could 60 years ago.

Even 8 million would be enough to take and hold a decent chunk of the US against a few militias and scattered resistence. And I'm sure either China or Russia could easily come up with many times that number.


Do you think a nuclear-armed Iran would hesitate to attack the US just to get them if the US didn't have the ability to pound them to dirt? or the DPRK?


Not fanciful in the least. With no defence, it would be expected.

The bedrock principles of democracy... *dramatic pause*. I honestly think you've answered your own question Maxim.



No one has never argued that America was filled with better people, it's just filled with...people who have a well established tradition of adhering to fundamental democratic principles as best they can. It is not however because the rest of the world so ardently believes or follows liberalism. Outside of the US, most of Europe, and various democratic 'satellite' countries of Western Civilization like Australia, Japan, and so on most of the world is still trying to catch, and has a ways to go before before that statement is actually true. I agree wholeheartedly with Boon and MatthewJ on this subject.



What do you mean? Vietnam really isn't that comparable to Iraq on that basis. A better analogy would be more along the lines of the Phillipine insurrection in the early 20th centruy where the US actually did use the intended colonial tactics.



After a pre-emptive nuclear first strike and followed up with a land invasion through Alaska and down through Canada? Definitely. Haven't you seen Red Dawn?



Why not? There would be nothing to stop or stand in the way of the new powers that be at that time from doing as they pleased, especially if doing as such would grant them (you guessed it) even more power. Invading America under that sense would be like stealing candy from a very big baby.



MatthewJ has already expressed my opinion on this matter.

The US military protects more then the USA. Russia would not be tempted to inavade and occupy the cities of the USA, clearly. However a Russian retaking of Alaska and her natural resources would not be crazy thought, were the US to simply have no military capacity what so ever.





They would be rather busy utilizing said tactics against most Asians.



Not if the US were retain its nuclear counter strike capacity, no.



A few points ...

IIRC I was speaking of the tactics of proper colonial rule, not necessarily applying them to only a Russian-Chinese invasion of the US mainland. The point was that the US has PR concerns that prevent it from certain tactics, I do not believe China or Russia suffer from such a weakness.

You can apply that to the US mainland, Asia or Europe if you like ...

I am fine, btw, with said tactics being utilized by the Chinese and Russians provided they were not used on Americans. As you point out though, it is unlikely that anyone would really want to invade mainland USA at this time with or without a standing US military.

As for the last point, I'm not really sure when an attack or an invasion is meant to improve life ... It is true that the attacking state will utilize propaganda stating such but that is hardly to be trusted.



Of course nto tomorrow!

China would need to build a proper logistical fleet, topple a few small ones, fatten itself up and then look to the larger prizes.

The point was, that China would not have to worry about the PR issues that the US has to worry about.