Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
"Defend"? Since when are they using brute force for defence?
I don't think it will be necessary for the larger countries like China and Japan because they have a lot more to lose. As for the unstable, weak ones in the Middle East and other parts in the world, I believe it will always be necessary.
What planet are you living on?
I agree. States like China and Japan are too large to want to cause trouble. It's the unstable ones where brute force will always be necessary.
LOL I'm with you on that response.
We've started exactly one war in our history because we directly were attacked by another nation. What makes you think other countries go to war over defence either?
The reason nation-states have armies is to use them to attack or to repress. They don't use them for defensive purposes.
Deterrence of attack is, historically, better achieved through peaceful relationships, shared mutual interests as established through trade and the flow of ideas/migrants.
Put another way, simply having a military, even a powerful one, does not deter attack and violence from actors (state and non-state) who wish to do harm to a state and its people. All it does is change the tactics that people who wish to strike must use in order to succeed in implementing violence. That may indeed make investment in national defence worthwhile (though I seriously question the volumes we are currently spending ourselves), but it doesn't stop brute force from existing and ultimately has nothing to do with the question of defending against it as a result.
You need to brush up on American History . . .
There will always be war.
It is the unfortunate side of Human Nature.
"Greed is the most powerful and destructive of all Human emotions" – And you can quote me on that!
Which wars do you think were caused by someone else attacking us? Vietnam? No. Iraq 1&2, no. Afghanistan, no (we were attacked by a bunch of thugs that were partly from Afghanistan, but not the nation-state itself). Korea, no. WW1, no. Mexico, no. Spain, no. Revolution & Civil War, no (both I think were at least good choices to go to war, but they were basically started by us voluntarily). 1812, no.
WW2 – yes (and the European part of that is arguable, because we were already backing against and fighting German ships well before the war started). I don't see too many of those that gave us any particular great gains either. Certainly not Vietnam, Korea, WW1, either Iraq, or Afghanistan, and probably not Mexico either (we still had to pay for the land we conquered and it gave us a huge headache over slavery enough to kick start the Civil War finally).
I don't see where I need to brush up on anything in particular. I didn't even count any non-declared wars or "peacekeeping missions" in Central America or Europe or Africa where we were definitely not threatened and attacked first by foreign forces and often had/have purely selfish national interests (not that there's anything wrong with that per se…). Panama or Nicaragua or Mexico was attacked or invaded several times for example over the 19th and 20th centuries. Same with Cuba. If anything, I probably understated the problem that we (and other powerful nation-states) go to war and use brute force by choice, not because we "have to".