• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is the Global Role of the U.S. Military in the 21st Century?

G

GoNavy

Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2015
Messages
230
Reaction score
16
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Iron clads changed Naval warfare back in the 19th century. Rifled barrels and the ojive changed close infantry engagements back in the 18th century. Then, came the 20th. Battleships, tanks, machine guns, massive submarines, chemical warfare, nuclear bombs, aviation, bombers, RPG, AK-47, IEDs, aircraft carriers, stealth, drones, satellites, the internet ...

Our world never rests. We are in a constant state of flux. Equilibrium is always trying to zero out. What used to be important in the 18th century, is now outdated. What used to be important in the 19th and 20th centuries is now outdated. Battleships were replaced by cruise missiles. Tanks are now sitting ducks for RPGs and IEDs. Nuclear bombs are too impractical and too indiscriminate.

As technology evolves - SO MUST our MILITARY IDENTITY !!! In 1776, our military goals were much different than 2015.

The game changer: terrorism. The low-budget, flag-less, homeless, entity without a Navy or Air Force. A force without tanks, drones, or stealth. A force that is KICKING our BUTT !!

Trey Parker and Matt Stone hilariously brought up the question of: Is the U.S. the 'world police' ?? Does our $18 Trillion GDP obligate us to solve EVERY problem in the world !! ?? If that principle is true - than why are Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Larry Ellison being left alone about what they do with their money ?? They could make our country completely energy independent. They could set up enough Desal plants to make us a drought-resistant country. They could completely overhaul existing fiber and coax to usher our nation into a more secure future of internet security and necessary bandwidth. But they aren't. Why do we as a country ASSUME this responsibility of the global janitor? The solo neighborhood watchman?

Iraq, Syria, Egypt, ... why are we EXPECTED to intervene 99.9% of the time? Why are we hated if we don't?

We didn't just roll out of bed as the strongest nation in the world. (And the Native American topic is EXTREMELY valid, of which I sympathize, but let us stay on topic). We had to struggle for independence, fight again in 1812, then against Mexico, a massive Civil War, WWI, WWII, the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam ... it literally took us until 1955 for our economy to really start separating from the pack. That's almost 180 YEARS of blood and sweat !! Democracy is one of the most demanding political responsibilities. It ISN'T a Christmas present that someone gives to you.

So - what is so unethical about embracing a more isolationist approach to international drama these days?

And what is the global role of the U.S. Military in the 21st (NOT 20th) Century?
 
GoNavy said:
Iron clads changed Naval warfare back in the 19th century. Rifled barrels and the ojive changed close infantry engagements back in the 18th century. Then, came the 20th. Battleships, tanks, machine guns, massive submarines, chemical warfare, nuclear bombs, aviation, bombers, RPG, AK-47, IEDs, aircraft carriers, stealth, drones, satellites, the internet ...

Our world never rests. We are in a constant state of flux. Equilibrium is always trying to zero out. What used to be important in the 18th century, is now outdated. What used to be important in the 19th and 20th centuries is now outdated. Battleships were replaced by cruise missiles. Tanks are now sitting ducks for RPGs and IEDs. Nuclear bombs are too impractical and too indiscriminate.

As technology evolves - SO MUST our MILITARY IDENTITY !!! In 1776, our military goals were much different than 2015.

The game changer: terrorism. The low-budget, flag-less, homeless, entity without a Navy or Air Force. A force without tanks, drones, or stealth. A force that is KICKING our BUTT !!

Trey Parker and Matt Stone hilariously brought up the question of: Is the U.S. the 'world police' ?? Does our $18 Trillion GDP obligate us to solve EVERY problem in the world !! ?? If that principle is true - than why are Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Larry Ellison being left alone about what they do with their money ?? They could make our country completely energy independent. They could set up enough Desal plants to make us a drought-resistant country. They could completely overhaul existing fiber and coax to usher our nation into a more secure future of internet security and necessary bandwidth. But they aren't. Why do we as a country ASSUME this responsibility of the global janitor? The solo neighborhood watchman?

Iraq, Syria, Egypt, ... why are we EXPECTED to intervene 99.9% of the time? Why are we hated if we don't?

We didn't just roll out of bed as the strongest nation in the world. (And the Native American topic is EXTREMELY valid, of which I sympathize, but let us stay on topic). We had to struggle for independence, fight again in 1812, then against Mexico, a massive Civil War, WWI, WWII, the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam ... it literally took us until 1955 for our economy to really start separating from the pack. That's almost 180 YEARS of blood and sweat !! Democracy is one of the most demanding political responsibilities. It ISN'T a Christmas present that someone gives to you.

So - what is so unethical about embracing a more isolationist approach to international drama these days?

And what is the global role of the U.S. Military in the 21st (NOT 20th) Century?
Click to expand...

It is blood, sweat and rats I guess. But it does not mean it would be better to try isolation. It won't work, you see. We need stuff from all around the globe and sell them things they need and help them in defence for which we have certain advantage. If we give up the security the quality of life will deteriorate.
That does not mean we can go on as we have been. So we must have an alternative plan.
 
I'm a simpleton. Globally I believe in "stable international order." But to have that you have to have clearly defined parameters, as in, this is good and that is evil. And so proceed accordingly.

An object is either in motion or it is at rest right? The military is either at rest or it is engaged. When it's at rest it builds, when it is engaged it is prepared.

The direction , it would appear, would be one of fine tuning command and control. But we need to keep in mind that it is rapidly becoming apparent that conventional warfare is only capable of containing just so much evil. So to me command and control translates to developing space systems, guarding satellites, C & C, and for lack of a better option, fine tuning the nukes. I think we're on the right path technically but if it were me I'd also be looking at kinetic weapons. Because there is a possibility a lot could be accomplished relatively inexpensively. And perhaps in a somewhat more environmentally friendly manner.

The problem with all this is that tech can only take one direction. And that is command and control. Thus the inherent flaw. And so we need to guard hen-house as well.

Even our police forces, the goal is precision with an eye towards minimizing loss while maximizing potential.
 
Last edited:
joG said:
It is blood, sweat and rats I guess. But it does not mean it would be better to try isolation. It won't work, you see. We need stuff from all around the globe and sell them things they need and help them in defence for which we have certain advantage. If we give up the security the quality of life will deteriorate.
That does not mean we can go on as we have been. So we must have an alternative plan.
Click to expand...

Increase free trade and continue to chip away at free trade barriers.

Free trade = less wars

It's no surprise that wars were rampant during the age of mercantilism.

But with free trade, we see less major wars because no one wants to kill their customer ;)
 
Declaring "evil" is the million dollar question, that no one wants to do, with the War on Terror. It involves Islam and the principle of jihad.

How do you make that declaration without the extremist Middle East NOT interpreting that as a war on Islam ??
 
There is no such thing as free trade, in a world with China. The country ready and willing to exploit hundreds of millions of people - to simply decimate another country's economy (namely - ours).
 
Luftwaffe said:
Increase free trade and continue to chip away at free trade barriers.

Free trade = less wars

It's no surprise that wars were rampant during the age of mercantilism.

But with free trade, we see less major wars because no one wants to kill their customer ;)
Click to expand...

That certainly will not harm. It is unclear that it would clear the growing risk from multi polar organization of international security.
 
GoNavy said:
There is no such thing as free trade, in a world with China. The country ready and willing to exploit hundreds of millions of people - to simply decimate another country's economy (namely - ours).
Click to expand...

Our economy was decimated? That hilariously large number known as our GDP doesnt seem to agree with you. Also, china is slowing down, their growth isnt sustainable, no matter how cheap their labor is.
 
Perhaps you need to look up our National Deficit.
 
Luftwaffe said:
Our economy was decimated? That hilariously large number known as our GDP doesnt seem to agree with you. Also, china is slowing down, their growth isnt sustainable, no matter how cheap their labor is.
Click to expand...

Plus the fact that they are a major user of raw materials (much of which is imported from the US). And even more important, China is not an "originator nation", it is simply a "manufacturing nation".

Look at much of what China makes. Radios and other electronics designed in the US, Japan, Germany, and other nations. Cell phones designed in the US, the list simply goes on and on and on. Very little of what they make they actually designed, and the items that they do design are noticeably inferior in quality and features then those designed by others that they simply make.

And yes, you are very right about their economy. Their stock market is almost in freefall (having lost almost 50% of it's value since July), and more and more companies are looking for other nations to go to. If sompanies start to pull out of China and move to other nations that are less agressive (India, Vietnam, and Indonesia are front runners), odds are even more will follow.

China is highly vulnerable, because it is not an originator nation. If the companies they are building things for leave, they will have nothing to replace them with.
 
GoNavy said:
So - what is so unethical about embracing a more isolationist approach to international drama these days?
Click to expand...

And how well did that work during the Barbary Pirates? Napoleonic Wars? Mexican-America War? Mexican Revolution? WWI? WWII? 2001? The list simply goes on and on and on.

In short, unless you are a small country that does not rely upon imports and exports for it's economy, you can not be isolationist. Because other nations will always target you, either to hurt you or to try and enrich themselves.

The main role of the military in the 21st century is what it has always been, to protect our country, and it's citizens overseas. Remember, the first overseas military action we were ever involved in was in protecting our merchant ships from African pirates. And in the 21st century, over 200 years later, our Navy is still protecting our merchant ships from pirates from Africa.
 
After all, how many are going to give up their true iPads, for some poor quality knock-off?

apcnewsiPadClone-hot_mainImage1.jpg1.jpg


618UDOpIlGL._SX425_.jpg


There are only 2 reasons I see for buying most Chinese originated electronics. First, if I want to give something to kids. Replacing originals is expensive, so give them a cheap clone.

The other is if I want to try and impress others, who do not realize I really have a piece of crap that may not even work.

Kind of like the fake cell-phone antennas that many put on the back of their cars in the 1980's.

CKhvfv6UkAEcpKU.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom