14 votes

Can You Imagine The USA Without A Military? Without an Army, Navy Airforce?

Can you let your mind run with that? Can you ponder and ponder all the angles and how our free republic would look like and operate without a military?

Its not easy.

But then, think back to a time long ago, a time of kings and great empires of Britain, Spain, and France. Think back to 1776 -1800, where the New America, fresh and new and without a King --- who had ever heard of such nonsense!? Why all countries have a King, or Emperor, or Queen at least! But no king?? Just 3 squabbling bodies? And to top it off, no Military?? No navy or army, just a bunch of armed citizens....)

So now lets think about today, with Russia and China out there. And then there is us, the USA. Could the USA actually go back to a citizen army? Could we go back to a time of 1910, with just a tiny army and navy? How small could we go?

Mmm Lots to think about.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You all might be interested in this thread...

http://www.dailypaul.com/297488/how-should-the-us-military-b...

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Provision for a Navy is in the law

Since there were no aircraft back then - Navy aircraft are definitely legal and so are Marines.

Just Call everything in under the Navy Department and all is good lol

donvino

Without a standing Army, and without an Air Force, yes...

Here's something I wrote on the topic a while back -

What Would A Constitutional Military Look Like?

A Constitutional Military would call for far more than just an end of our overseas military bases.

A standing peacetime Army is unconstitutional, our Founding Fathers abhorred them and warned us not to keep them.

From Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution -

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy"

The Founders made a clear distinction there between an Army to be called up when needed and a full time Navy.

"I am for relying for internal defense on our militia solely till actual invasion, and for such a naval force only as may protect our coasts and harbors from such depredations as we have experienced; and not for a standing army in time of peace which may overawe the public sentiment; nor for a navy which, by its own expenses and the eternal wars in which it will implicate us, will grind us with public burthens and sink us under them." --Thomas Jefferson

“A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.” - James Madison, Father of the Constitution

What would a Constitutional military look like?

End the branch I myself served in, the Army and the Army Reserves. Save the Ranger battalions, Special Forces, and Delta units and their respective support units from the chopping block, because warfare has changed since the days of flintlocks and block formations. They would from then on serve as U.S. Marines. The Department of the Navy, which oversees both the Marine Corps and the Navy, is the only professional time of peace force the Constitution allows for.

End the Air Force, Air Force Reserves and the Air National Guard. Any planes that the Navy deem necessary to their new defensive mission will become Naval aircraft.

An end of The Militia Act of 1903 would return control of the National Guard to the States, and each State would have a choice of keeping the status quo of a paid force, returning to a militia or a hybrid of the two. My guess is most States would return to a militia or at least a hybrid when they also get to foot the bill again.

Guarding the coast would once again become the Navy’s job, and so the Coast Guard can go back to being the Revenue Cutter Service as originally established.

This would leave us with the Navy, Navy Reserves and “the Navy’s Infantry,” the Marines and Marine Reserves, plenty of firepower to keep any enemy at bay. Reduction of those forces to reflect a defensive mission would follow. Letters of Marque and Reprisal would fill any gaps in Federal military capabilities.

Our debt is currently our biggest national security risk, and we have to cut back everywhere. Returning to the Constitution will show us the way.

"There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war." -Thomas Jefferson

“Interventionism opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.'' - George Washington

http://www.dailypaul.com/138400/what-would-a-constitutional-...

Support Liberty Media! http://benswann.com/ - http://www.bluerepublican.org/ - http://krisannehall.com/ - http://lionsofliberty.com/

We won't turn things around until we 1st change the media - donate to a liberty media creator today!

all we need is a small fleet

all we need is a small fleet of nuclear submarines, and the citizens armed. Everything else is overkill...unless the goal is to run around the globe terrorizing people.

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul

The people themselves make up

The people themselves make up the army and that's all we need. If another nation succeeded in conquering us, there would be no one left but the cowards. Life and liberty only exist for those willing to protect it.

________________________________________

Better yet, I can imagine a world without borders

If you seriously think about it... We are a world divided along boundaries of religious and political groupthink, formed throughout millennia among pockets of isolated communication.

Thus, if only there was some way, at some point in human history when a technology will come around that could allow us to communicate instantaneously on a global scale and change all that forever. ;)

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

Esperanto lol

A universal language would be a first step. What if instead of just reading news and content from English speaking countries, US, UK, Canada, you read the news from around the entire world, no translation needed.

If we all spoke one language, that would be a start.

Imagine

"Can you let your mind run with that?"

* We would shed a huge amount of overhead
* We would pay down our debt
* We would reduce cronyism
* We would be more relevant as an economic superpower than a military superpower running on borrowed money and borrowed time
* Our influence in the world would actually increase
* We would have greater freedom

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

Go Swiss! (sort of, they are

Go Swiss! (sort of, they are not as free as they once were) :(

This is why I like Israel's military set up

Israel is not occupying the world with a military police state.

The majority of Israel's communities ar Mushavs. These communities are privately owned and for all practicle purposes, managed small businesses and corporations that make everythink from tech, ag, plastics, mills, that are for the most part, different ethical and cultural people, Etheopia, Yenem, Iraq, America, France, Briton, Germany, China.. the list goes on.. they exchange products first locally, and the free market determines the popularity and the product goes global, so they do more than "sustain", not only themselves, other communities, the cities, but they thrive, so they can export.

Several things protect them, they have rights to their land, the water, arms, they have IMO, more freedoms than Americans, because the government protects the rights.. the people protect themselves.

The majority of Israelis are trained in the IDF. Most go through the IDF before the go to college, which the professors say make better students, they are willing to learn, open to debate, and not afraid to challange professors and peers, visitors..

Israel has a military that protects Israel's interests, people and property. Some areas now have an iron dome to stop the non-stop rockets from Hamas in Gaza. But all know their police, because they are either the mushave police or working in a unit concerning border patiol, coast guard with navel capabilities, supreme airforce, intel, special forces and more.

This is the kind of model I would like to see in the US.. if we thought of states like Mushaves, it puts it into perspective, and I think it follows our constitution better than we do.

Granger,

Do you think America's Military is abiding by their oath to the Constitution? If not, can you figure out what they are trying to accomplish?

Personally

I believe the constitution has been under attack for a long time. I have not read what the military enlisted contracts are today; However, by the looks of things from the outside, it appears to me, it is not with the constitution they contract, except as an oath the US Inc, with the MIC, on an international level. What they are going to accomplish is global government in the name of global PEACE.

The Localist Solution

Is for all ground forces to be borrowed from the states. The Feds would only have a navy and air force (though states could have these units too as some credit against the taxes they would pay to the feds to have them.) It is kind of hard to oppress your own population, or start or maintain an unpopular war, when all your ground forces have to be borrowed. Also, Fedgov would have no power to borrow money, all debt instruments are issued by the states. Makes for a more judicious use of the military.

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

States "quitting" the National Guard

and replacing it with local defense forces would
be a good start. Liberals these days tend to say
the the Guard is the militia, when in fact it is operated
more like a branch of the military. All too often
it's deployed overseas somewhere when needed
at home and is far too dependent on the federal
government for its equipment - or so it looks like
to me.

We should be thinking hard about launching state level
campaigns to create organized militia sanctioned under
state law. Some states still have state troops that are not
part of the NG -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

Not at all sure whether those could serve as a basis
for a true local-based effective militia defense force, though.
Still haven't seen anything that beats the Swiss system.

Link to Oregon Defense Force:

http://www.orsdf.org/

The government is actually

The government is actually authorized to run a full-time navy, but a full-time standing army/military is illegal.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Correct. and it makes perfect sense.

even in today's world.

we DO NOT need a "standing" army. our national guard would be just fine. a STRONG Navy and Air-force, backed by a localized national guard would promote peace.

We have nukes.

That's all we need.

Once you can destroy someone's homeland when they invade, you can finish the rest with small arms.

Once you fry the mother ship, their goose is cooked. The supply chain of spare parts, food, fuel, etc, would be all gone. An army can't live off the land and fight effectively at the same time. Every combat troop in WWII needed about 19 people behind him to keep him in the fight.

I think the very fact that we have other weapons reduces the deterrent of our nuclear arsenal. If our policy was to nuke the homeland of anyone who stepped on our soil, and we had no other recourse available, folks would really think twice. If they thought they could drag us into a shooting war, it wouldn't seem quite as stupid.

Author of Shades of Thomas Paine, a common sense blog with a Libertarian slant.

http://shadesofthomaspaine.blogexec.com

Also author of Stick it to the Man!

http://www.amazon.com/Stick-Man-Richard-Moyer/dp/1484036417

I disagree

It's understood that no sane government would use nukes against another nuclear nation except in retaliation for a nuclear attack. Therefore, nukes are not useful to deter anything but a nuclear attack. The US nuclear arsenal is not going to deter any other nuclear nation from making a conventional attack on the US, because no one believes that the US would start a nuclear war in retaliation for such an attack (and, indeed, it would be insane for the US to do so).

Nukes are necessary to deter nuclear attack, but conventional forces are still necessary to deter conventional attack.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Out of curiosity

Are you between 20 and 30, 30 and 40, 40 and 50? I think that the gut fear of nuclear weapons is a generational thing.

I was 4 or 5 when the Cold War ended, and maybe as such, I don't regard nuclear weapons as a unique and terrible instrument of last resort. To me, a 30kt weapon is just a really, really good bomb, without the emotional aversion older people developed from years of fearing the bomb. There are people living on ground zero in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and they were living there shortly after the cities were nuked.

Unless you are groundbursting 10MT bombs, fallout just isn't that big of an issue worldwide because the loft isn't high enough. Locally, yes, but worldwide radioactive ash clouds just won't happen with smaller nukes carpeting an area.

I think the threat of total global annihilation is overstated, and you have to admit that the MIC benefits tremendously by overstating that threat. Nukes make such a joke out of tanks, ships and infantry that there would be no market for them if nukes became an acceptable means of warfare.

Conventional forces invite and enable conventional wars, and without standing conventional forces, the political cost of going to war becomes enormous.

A nukes-only policy would put a lid on proxy wars, foreign adventurism and "nation building", while keeping our shores pretty darn safe.

Author of Shades of Thomas Paine, a common sense blog with a Libertarian slant.

http://shadesofthomaspaine.blogexec.com

Also author of Stick it to the Man!

http://www.amazon.com/Stick-Man-Richard-Moyer/dp/1484036417

Dont understate the impact

Dont understate the impact that even a small nuclear war can have on the planet. One the the major problems is the amount of ash that would be thrown up by one. Although yes, a singular detonation or something like that isnt a problem.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

If you were 4 or 5 when the Cold War ended...

...that means I'm younger than you.

Anyway, I agree that the government exaggerated the likelihood of nuclear war with the USSR, but their claims about the consequences of any potential nuclear war were not exaggerations. Forget about fallout and nuclear winter and all that. A relatively small nuclear arsenal, with the proper delivery system, can kill hundreds of millions of people and cause trillions of dollars in damage in a few minutes. And a nuclear arsenal like that of the USSR or the US could in fact kill the vast majority of the world's population and pretty much end modern civilization.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Maybe the solution

is to have small countries only - say Holland or Switzerland size or smaller.

And every country gets two nukes and the ability to target any other country
on the planet. If you use a nuke you can replace it - after 50 years - assuming
other countries weren't so offended by your use of them that they nuked your
country out of existence first...

A quick glance at a map....

...reveals that we barely need an army at all. The USAF spends almost all of its resources overseas, guarding Japan and Korea and bombing third world nations, leaving US air defense to the Air National Guard. So the USAF could be gotten rid of entirely. The USN is the most important service (again: consult map). But the USN is built for offense (carrier battle groups), not defense. A far cheaper solution would be submarines. I've done some extensive research on this subject, trying to figure out what kind of force is needed for actual defense, and how much it would cost, and I've come up with a figure of $222 billion (and that's using high-end estimates).

P.S. If anyone is interested, I can post details.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Sounds a bit high

I am game for a break down. But I think we need a defensive posture but we should have a rapid reaction strike force. Not for occupation but for decapitation or to destroy other countries abilities to make war.

For a breakdown....

...see this thread.

http://www.dailypaul.com/297488/how-should-the-us-military-b...

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

ok

i look