Ken Taylor,
There is so much unchallenged in this essay, particularly from a philosopher. But perhaps the most impressive unchallenged statement is this: "...there has never been and will never be a vast and populous nation like ours without armed services." From the host of show dedicated to "questioning everything" this is quite impressive. Instead of supposing that what we seek is the "goldilocks" military - not too big, not too small, not too many wars, not neither the folly of too few wars, not too much torture, nor too little torture, not too many bombs, but neither too few bombs - one should be looking at the comparing the costs of a military versus the benefits of a military. Also, consider a different view from yours - that a military is at the very best a necessary evil, and therefore consider how far we could go in de-militarizing our society and economy to our benefit - how close could we come to the ideal of a demilitarized society?

Well fear was what JFK was trying to stop before the US went into Vietnam. He would walk into meetings, see a bunch of war commanders itching for a job to do and he would just walk out in disgust. And I'm with him on that school of thought.

Vitas here,
Oh, the military is a useful thing.
I still agree with my old UC Philosophy Prof, Tussman, that the military virtues ( loyalty, bravery, service, sacrifice etc.) are, well, virtuous. But ten years in the military taught me that top ranked career military long for glory and would love the opportunity to become another McArthur or Patton and perhaps eventually, like ike, be President. Peace is the last priority of the military, and, apparently, of our current Federal Government as well.
But I suppose our nuclear arsenal --still thousands of warheads---gives some assurance that we won't be invaded by --somebody (the Chinese?). Though, of course we still could be blown to nuclear hell by the Russians or the Chinese---there have been some close calls due to technical malfunction and false information and who knows what future coo-coo birds may yet come to roost in the high offices of nuclear powers generally?---might Pakistan push the button if it felt a national threat from the US? Already some in the US have argued we should deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Afghanistan. In any case, the nuclear genie is unlikely to re-bottle.
All of which means, I think, that the world is still nutty enough (including the US) that we need a military for defense; we need defense from other's nuttyness in reaction to our nuttyness.
It is not enough to say that the world needs to de-militarize---yes, we do---it's just that there's no trust yet------even if desire were high, and it is not---so we must also say that until there is such trust a US army is needed to defend.
Some argue that our ability to defend the US from direct invasion is greatly diminished since Rumsfeld made the US military more a playtoy of corporations to "project" American corporate greed around the world. If the Chinese invaded the US could we halt it? Or would we just push the nuclear button and there goes the whole American/ Asian hemisphere?
All this, I think, must be included when you think of the US military.
Until we, the world's folk, have sentiments and institutions of peace that are stronger than the institutions of greed and hate and political ambition and blind nationalist jingoism---there will be military defense. Does the world need it? No. Only petty, selfish, distrusful and untrustworthy, ignorant, foolish and unevolved nation -states need such a military---but that pretty much includes everybody. Maybe the world will outgrow the nation-state as it did the city-state and become one. Or maybe one nation will conquer the rest to form one government-- as the abundance of such conquerors in history would suggest, or perhaps some kind of elaborate military coup will subdue the globe.
An army for territorial defense then would be unecessary, perhaps. But then again there is nothing like a war with---somebody--- to patriotically boost dismal popularity polls and boost corporate profits. Yes, the military has many uses.

Damned if we do; doomed if we don't. Ockham's razor or the sword of Damocles? Always do what you have always done and always get what you have always got. But, you just can't stop. Not even if you want to...
Historionic Effect? Could be. Hey, Heisenberg---come back and talk to us about uncertainty, please?

War?
What a telling question.
That you and others question war at all only tells me just how terribly far you and we and they and US still have to go for peace.
Peace,
=
MJA
=
MJA

Neuman tells us how it is: always do what you've always done...etc. Mirugai takes the holistic approach: get rid of war, one way or another... Historionic effect says it is way too late to get out of that corner into which we have painted ourselves. Many people (thinkers and those whose don't) would agree that war is an expensive way to settle differences. But we are what we are because of all contingencies we have faced over several millenia. History never lets us forget, and seldom lets us forgive---though we may avow otherwise. Stephen Hawking asked a poignant question in his A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME: If we can see the past, why can we not see the future? His question is, of course, based on physics, quanta, relativity and the like. My thought was less sophisticated because I know little of Hawking's discipline: We can see the past because it has already happened. We can only see INTO the future, based upon our OEOs* and the notion that that which has happened will happen again. The notion of seeing the future appears to depend on how fast someone can travel and that speed must exceed the speed of light. But nothing CAN exceed the speed of light---can it? So where are we left? Right here, I assert. Always doing what we have always done---always getting what we have always gotten. It is interesting how the aspect of complexity (see: Stuart Kauffman) can be overcome by the aspect of simplicity. As Clint Eastwood said in one of the Dirty Harry movies: ...man's got to know his limitations. Sure.
(* OEOs: observations, experiences and opinions)

I wish I had heard this broadcast live. As a retired Army officer and current ROTC instructor, I think it is an important thought piece. And it is a question that the military profession alone cannot decide.
First of all, do we need a military? We can dream of a world of total peace, but no philosophical position that fails to take human nature into account is worth pursuing, because one cannot live it out. Human nature is basically selfish, and this translates into national nature - whether of nation-states, or ethnic groups, or any other grouping. Neutrality is possible - but only if surrounding belligerents allow it (Switzerland's neutrality has been successful for the past five centuries, however Holland's has failed twice just in the 20th century). For us, even if the US completely disarmed, our potential power is too great to be ignored - no would-be world conqueror could afford to leave us alone. So not having a military is only a viable option if we are willing to accept the consequences - being conquered or destroyed from the outside.
The US military today is large and formidable. We are the only nation on earth with significant power projection capability, so we face no risk of invasion. Only Russia, China, and India could even hit us with a nuclear strike, and only Russia has a large enough arsenal to actually destroy us - China has maybe twenty missiles, India less. How large and formidable should we then be? Should we focus just on what we need to defend ourselves, or does our great power and wealth entail greater responsibility than that? I take the latter position - just as a wealthy person bears more responsibility than just building his own mansion, and a strong person bears some responsibility toward protecting the weak, so we bear some responsibility to help where we can, which includes things like standing by our allies, including militarily. We must choose between letting whatever happens happen, or deciding to be a force for peace and justice. And we must therefore choose how much responsibility to take on, each and every day, to balance between what we "can" do and the risks of "imperial overstretch" (to borrow a term from Mr. Kennedy's book "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers").
It is a mistake to think that peace is the natural order of things, and war is some kind of evil aberration. This mistake in thinking leads people to think that we will naturally have peace as long as we don't actively start a war. It is nonsense. Peace has to be worked for and actively maintained, and those who refuse to pay that price end up with war, which is costlier still. It is equally a mistake to think that war is the ultimate evil, and peace is always better. This is a VERY recent idea historically, but it is wrong. Some peace is not worth maintaining - for example, a "peace" that leaves groups like al Qaeda with a nation-sized safe haven and base to launch attacks at will, or a "peace" that would have left Europe swallowed up the Nazis. Sometimes war is the better alternative .

War is better altenative?
OMG!!!
=

Michael: in some cases, it clearly is. Do you really believe it would be "better" to just allow the Nazis to rule Europe, and maybe have had time to wipe out all the Jews, Gypsies, Poles, et al? Or to leave al-Qaeda running around unchecked in Afghanistan, and perhaps have three or four 9/11s by now? Or maybe the Israelis should just allow the surrounding Arabs to exterminate them - which they've tried to do several times? Would that be "better?"
Again, don't make the mistake of believing that peace is the natural order of things, and war is some kind of aberration. War is just as natural a state of affairs, and peace does not maintain itself. Only those willing to do the work and pay the price will have peace. History demonstrates that one of those prices is being strong enough to make potential aggressors think twice.
Which brings us back to the original question - what is a military good for? The answers are: 1) to prevent aggression; 2) to defeat aggression should it occur; 3) thereby to maintain the liberty of the American people (and often as not, other people too); 4) in accordance with our oath, to ensure the protection of the Constitution; 5) to provide the capability to stop some really bad things happening around the world (genocide and the like). Examples abound of the military doing all of these things, when no other institution could have done the same.
Unless someone out there can show me an actual example of unilateral disarmament leading to peace? Or any disarmament regime of any kind leading to peace? Or an disarmed nation that remained free?
Philosophy is a wonderful thing, but a philosophical position that cannot function in the real world is useless.

I think our Dept. of Defense should be renamed the dept of Offense and then done away with.
Today our President ended the war in Iraq, the war we started.
We are responsible for the invasion, destruction, and injuries and deaths of well over 100,000 Iraqi people and their country.
Is it a day to celebrate Nathan, or a day to say we are sorry?
=
=

The invasion of Iraq was unjust, and we do owe an apology there. The Dept of Defense did not start that war, though, the President did, as he was allowed to by a Congress that has abdicated its war powers responsibilities in the interest of avoiding blame.
One instance, however, does not make your case. If the United States had no military capability, there would be no United States. If the democracies had no military capability, there would be no democracy. Would that be a good thing?
In the real world there are people, organizations, even nations, that hate us, that dream of our destruction, and that covet what we have. There is no evidence to suggest that if we unilaterally disarmed, they would suddenly forget about us. Five thousand years of human history suggest quite the opposite.
So the question remains: if we did not have the means to protect ourselves militarily, what means would you propose we use? If we did not have the means to protect our allies militarily, what would you place in its stead? If we did not have the military means to deter aggression, what means would you use? If we gave up the military means to stop genocides, police peace agreements, even respond to natural disasters, what capacity would you put in its place that could do all those things?

Maybe I am wrong Nathan to think this Way, but I would rather be totally defenseless than be responsible as an American, as we the people of the United States are responsible for the horrific deaths, injuries and destructions we have caused and are causing to the innocent peoples of other countries all around the world, and all in the name of Democracy. I Nathan would rather have none.
To Peace,
=

Mike: there are many kinds of Peace, not all of them good. We don't feel it directly, because of where we are, but most of the world operates on a very different set of rules than we experience here in the US. In most of the world, "he who kicks the most ass makes the rules." I've seen some of these places with my own eyes, so I know beyond doubt that I would not want to live in that world, that I would not want anyone else to live in that world, that I do not want my children to end up living in that world. Which means protecting them, and the democracy that keeps our world from becoming that world. You may not think democracy is worth that much, but I'm not sure if you've seen the parts of the world that don't have it. I have. Democracy, even at the price we've paid for it, is a bargain.

I think America kicks the most ass don't we?
And I guess we do set the rules.
We even tell other countries they can't have nukes but we have the most.
And we give them to friends when we agreed to non proliferate.
We arm the world with weapons and build up or military to stop them.
We invade other countries and call them terrorist,
But if we were ever invaded, how terrific would we be?
There is no good in war,
Unless of course you drink the cool aid.
Cheers,
=

Thank you Cat. Really hplfeul and powerful across the cyberspace when people share their deepest Truths, and help me to expand mine. This communication is a blessing.God bless, Catrin

PFC US Army Infantry, i have never been deployed, i cant speak from first hand experience, but this is my opinion.
See the problem here in the US is that we have never been invaded so the civilians dont know what war actually is, they just think its the higher ups getting bored and "having some fun." They dont understand how most of the Iraqi people thank us for what we did, they dont understand how bad the oppressive governments are, i mean for god's sake, Saddam and his kid tortured and killed the entire Iraqi soccer team because they lost a game, do you really think the Iraqi people would rather we hadnt invaded, and would rather have Saddam back?
People need to stop being naive ignorant fools and see both sides of the story before you speak, and yes i do believe that some wars are unjust and some just happened because of the higher ups, in the most part they are for good reasons and do good.