- Me: Should the US missile defense in Poland had not been scrapped in 2009 by the Obama administration with an independent decision course, despite the then deep concern of the Polish government with the US's decision, would today's US be in a different strategic position towards Russia?
- C. N.: : Do we really want to get into another war anyway?
-
Me: Strategic balance prevent war. On the contrary, the imbalance is incentive or opportunity for another country to start a war. Don't you think so? Voluntarily weakening military force is world peace? No... I think the existence of a common awe brings world peace. We had a cold war before, it seems the cold war might become a hot war now? Ukraine is a country in a position changing the world's structure.
-
C. N.: I'll start with saying I'm not sure what the right thing is to do here.
If someone is out front of my house waving a gun around, I'm not sure, honestly, if bringing a gun out will help stop him or escalate the situation.
On another point: Is it even our business to police Russia in that region of the world? Why not leave it to countries more immediately present, like those in the EU?
We did have a cold war with Russia before, but a hot war? That is what we still have Afghanistan and Iraq...not sure how NOT getting involved with Russia in the Ukraine would lead to a hot war there. I do think that if we showed up there with a bunch of tanks, jets, and missiles we would be far likelier to end up in a hot war.
Again, not sure what the right thing is to do, morally speaking. Maybe we do have an obligation, as a country with immense military spending, to use some of that. But maybe we don't. Maybe we have a moral obligation to instead not get involved.
-
Me: US military bases are everywhere around the world protecting its own economic and strategic interest and those of the host countries. I am not sure theoretically whether the worldwide conflicts should be the US's business, but it has been a reality and traditional habit that the US gets involved. EU is especially protected by the US. I do not recall they took initiatives leading to protect other countries. With all the dangerous, irrational bullies around the world, I'm afraid it is quite difficult, impraticable and dangerous for the US to step out suddenly without identifying and installing an alternative protecting force and system. Remember the killing field in Vietnam when the US stepped out suddenly under it's domestic political pressure? The best decision here I think, is not to shrink the military force back to the pre WWII level and fantasize to become the world peace role model this way, but to rebuilt and maintain the strategic balance, which is the way to prevent a large scaled war and loss of lives.
-
C. N: You realize that the US spends far, far, far more than anyone else on the military, right? Something like more than the next 5 or 10 countries together... In an era where many people are calling for tighter government spending, particularly the conservative right, isn't a smaller military right on par with that? Furthermore, isn't the budget (and thus the size) of the military decided not only by the president but by Congress? Didn't the demands of the GOP for spending cuts directly (I'm not saying fully) contribute to a decrease in military spending?
Putting this all on Obama is scapegoating and accomplishes nothing. He's not solely responsible for military spending or its size. The Congress currently in office is more at fault, if not completely at fault, for the state of our military (which may or may not be a good thing). And that includes Democrats as well as Republicans.
On a related note: Comparing this to pre-WWII numbers is not necessarily an apt comparison, since the ability to cause far more damage with far fewer people and far fewer casualties seems like a very good thing to me. -
Me: US was involuntarily pushed to have a humongous military spending - who knew that the Soviet was only building shells? Any suggestion how to get out now? As I remember US once tried to withdraw the US military base from Germany - What was Germany's reaction? They deeply worried about the economic and national security impact. So, US is de facto, in this allies protector role, NOT by choice. Okay... I'm not trying to persuade or blame anyone, but just think it's a valid question to ask and think about for the pending policies' view.
-
C.N.: Ok. It just seemed from your original post that you put the blame for this squarely on the Obama administration, and yet given the government shut down and the all of the budgetary infighting going on in Congress, I just have to wonder if that wasn't simply a decision he had no real choice in.
I agree that we should think about these things.
I do see that you did say "Obama administration," but really, when talking about the executive branch, that means the President, doesn't it? I think we all think that whether it's "_______'s administration" or "The White House" that did something...we think of that as being the President. At least, I think most Americans would agree. -
Me: I really don't have any expertise or passion on political rhetoric. The president took the office meant he is ready to take ownership of his decisions and being referred to as "The Obama Administration" when discussing his policy, like any other president in history - plus, the president does own this one - and the motive appeared to be to satisfy the domestic voters' expectation instead of selecting the best alternative by thoroughly weighing all factors relevant to the real issue. There was only one alternative: to realize his campaign promise to his voters. I apologize if there is anything sounded offensive to you. I am not interested in offending people holding different vision. You know me and thanks for pointing it out.
-
C. N.: I do know you don't mean to be offensive! EVER! You're far too kind, if anything!
And you know I like to disagree with you! I always appreciate our conversations and your thoughtfulness! -
Me: Thanks! Actually I think the congress especially GOP is quite dysfunctional in terms of safe guarding bad decisions, so I do agree with you in terms of that.
In terms of whether possessing a violent force is the way to end an offensive violent force, I don't have a theory. However per the empirical evidence, what do you think ended the world war II? Atomic bomb. Human are perpetually in a war mode. Fear of the world destruction has put the US block and the Soviet block into a cold war and we could enjoy half-century relative peace. During this half century, are there even one day that the strategic missiles of countries who own them stopped pointing at each other? Why would any one think we are able to coexist peacefully without a authoritarian figure that every country could look at for answer when there is a conflict? And who would be the best authoritarian figure? Russia? China? Or the US? UN - See which countries have the veto power in UN? How they handled Syria? Something to think about, I think.
In terms of debt. Although half of the federal debt is owed to Social Security, still a fairly large portion of debt is owned by the foreign creditors. When a country is in trouble, if US has a interest in it, US would stand up to the conflict, at least have the power to exercise trade sanction, if not extreme military involvement. Imagine when US is in trouble. Who would stand up for the US and have the power of punitive punishment? Yes US has always been in a morally condemned position - as any types of leader who has guts to take responsibility. People who doesn't understand how decisions are made can always enjoy acting as a morality court. Even the possibility is remote, such thing happened before for real: Creditors used military power to call the debt of Ecuador and took control of the country. What if the US's foreign creditors collaborate to call the debt with military force, while the US is too weak to defend itself? Excessive foreign debt is a dangerous thing, I would say. Yes I would say to possess a strong military is necessary for the US to defend it's position in a debtor-creditor relationship and prevent extreme situations as well.
In summary, mistakes in US's national defense policy at critical timing = world security disaster.
