About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - 3:24pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Here is what I think is the proper set of policies for a country (any country) with regards to the military industry:


  • The government holds to sole right to development and ownership of military-grade weapons*

  • The government will not engage in the trade of military-grade weapons to any foreign entity, be it foe or ally

  • The government will only use the military for the defense of the nation**

  • Foreign military bases and other installments are only to be maintained for the purpose of ensuring the defeat of a recent enemy in war, until such a time as the enemy is on neutral terms with the nation and is no longer a threat.



* military-grade weapons are defined as large-scale offensive weapons whose only purpose is destruction of human life and property in war. e.g. tanks, ships, submarines, fighter jets, bombs and missiles.

** "defense of the nation" needs to be carefully defined. What I basically mean is the protection of the nation's citizens and property which are on the nation's own territory. I do not mean the "protection of interests".

Discuss.




Post 1

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - 3:31pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
That's a solid position, Ricky.

However, I do think the manufacturer of many weapons and the like should be in private hands.




Post 2

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - 7:30pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I agree with that Chris, the point is that they only have one customer - their government.



Post 3

Thursday, September 28, 2006 - 6:40amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I disagree with all except the 3rd point:

“The government holds to sole right to development and ownership of military-grade weapons”

The government will rarely be as efficient or creative as private parties when it comes to developing and creating military arms. If anything, the government should stick to programs like DARPA and let Lockheed Martin and Boeing do what they’re the best at. At best the government should stick to nuclear related material.

“The government will not engage in the trade of military-grade weapons to any foreign entity, be it foe or ally”

That’s what I like to call “shooting yourself in the foot”. To maintain the best military in the world means turning over a lot of systems that still work well in favor of better ones. For instance we just retired the F-14, a damn good aircraft. What do you want to do...scrap all those planes? Why shouldn’t we sell our surplus and allow Northrop Grumman to sell new planes to our allies who are likely to HELP us in our next war.

“Foreign military bases and other installments are only to be maintained for the purpose of ensuring the defeat of a recent enemy in war, until such a time as the enemy is on neutral terms with the nation and is no longer a threat.”

That makes as much sense as saying we only need a minimum military until we actually fight a war. This isn’t the early 20th century anymore, you fight a war with what you have, not what you can build up to because by then the war might be over and you’ll be sitting on your ass with a big ass shiner over your eye. Furthermore you can’t predict the future, if you would have told me on Sept. 10th that we would shortly be fighting in Afghanistan of all places, I would have laughed in your face. But we were able to engage there quickly because we had based in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Diego Garcia.




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Thursday, September 28, 2006 - 9:55amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Clarence is right, you guys are living in the last century.  with globalization, which is the best hope for the ultimate development of capitalism, you cannot simply firewall us off - and having bases and cooperation with other militaries creates peace and mutual security.  NOT having that interaction breeds hostility and suspicion, trade barriers, and a general environment that leads to wars.



Post 5

Thursday, September 28, 2006 - 5:45pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Let me get this traight, not occupying other countries "breeds hostility and suspicion"?



Post 6

Friday, September 29, 2006 - 6:36amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
The US does not have a single base in any nation where the government says we're not welcome. And I can't think of a single instance where we invaded a country we currently had a base in.



Post 7

Friday, September 29, 2006 - 9:20amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Let me clear something up... I believe that Kurt's statement that:
having bases and cooperation with other militaries creates peace and mutual security.  NOT having that interaction breeds hostility and suspicion, trade barriers, and a general environment that leads to wars.
Specifically, I have a problem with the notion that any country where we don't have a military base is running around shrieking that we don't trust them. And regardless of whether or not government's have invited us, I would disagree that the citizens of these countries welcome our military with open arms.





Post 8

Monday, October 2, 2006 - 9:47amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Jonathan, when a Nation's military works together with the US Military, this creates a perception that war is not possible, and such is the case in Japan, Western Europe, and in some of the developing countries now as well.  The Nation benefits from the enhanced security and does not feel the need to spend on its own military.  Otherwise, they will build up their own military for their own protection, and eventually under your scenario, our military will atrophy, and soon you have a new arms race.



Post 9

Monday, October 2, 2006 - 10:06amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
The US does not have a single base in any nation where the government says we're not welcome. And I can't think of a single instance where we invaded a country we currently had a base in.
Iraq




Post 10

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 - 9:54amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
The Nation benefits from the enhanced security and does not feel the need to spend on its own military.  Otherwise, they will build up their own military for their own protection
Ah yes, God forbid any of these countries should take personal responsibility for their own defense. Why should they when the US will altruistically come running at the first sign of distress?




Post 11

Tuesday, October 3, 2006 - 10:15amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Ah yes, God forbid any of these countries should take personal responsibility for their own defense. Why should they when the US will altruistically come running at the first sign of distress?
It's not altruistic. Most of those countries know this.




Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.