The basic perversity is building a gigantic military in peacetime because the arms companies have enormous lobbying power. Everything else flows from and is secondary to that.
Have you considered the gigantic military requirements that are placed on the United States? By treaty alone, the US is required to defend almost all of Europe, Japan, and South Korea. These are not easy requirements to disentangle from; if Japan alone were allowed and required to rearm, it could lead to an arms race that would destabilize all of East Asia and either stall or undo the tremendous economic gains that have been achieved in that region. If it wasn't for US obligations towards NATO, most of Eastern Europe would suffer the same fate that Ukraine is facing from Russia. If it wasn't for the US Navy enforcing freedom of navigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_navigation#United_St...), tinpot dictators could shut down international trade by making and enforcing illegal claims on international waters.
Maintaining the Pax Americana is a hard, unappreciated task.
Also, I would add our obiligation to ensure the flow of energy from the Middle East.
There are many benefits to being a hegemon, but it comes with obligations too.
A serious investment in nuclear would render those obligations moot.
Placed by whom, exactly? It's not as if the US took on those treaty commitments involuntarily or expecting no benefits in return, and it's not as if the rest of the world would not adapt if the US reduced its military commitments over time.
For example, you talk about the US being required by treaty to defend almost all of Europe, but Europe already has collective defence agreements that are becoming stronger over time, over a million active military service personnel, thousands of aircraft, thousands of heavy armoured vehicles, hundreds of ships, special forces to rival any in the world, and two independent nuclear powers. There is exactly one sovereign state on earth that could single-handedly give the combined forces of Europe a serious fight today, and the consequences for all concerned would be so devastating that such a conflict is almost inconceivable.
There is a reasonable school of thought that argues the world would be a much safer place if the number of military superpowers in it was zero, and that as the only old-school military superpower remaining, the US is therefore a negative factor on global stability and peaceful relations.
Given the recent track record of the US, both acting as an aggressor under often dubious conditions and failing to act as a defender when weaker nations faced aggression by others, there seems little no moral high ground for the US to take here, nor any general mandate to act as the world's policeman. The alarming frequency with which the US military and its political leadership presume to take such positions anyway brings me back to the previous point about the world being better off in the long run with no military superpowers at all.
Britain, France and Germany alone have a combined military budget greater than any other nation save the United States. The UK went to the other side of the planet last time its dependant territories were threatened. The idea that the EU wouldn't defend itself, when it has the capability, the motive, and a long and bloody history of warfare, is so bizarre I can't even begin to understand your reasoning.
Europe is allowing Ukraine (of course not a EU member) to be destroyed right now. and Russia isn't done yet, they're going to take more territory. Europe at best has been half-limp in its response. Which makes sense given the energy ransom Russia holds over most of Europe's collective head.
Like Europe previously looked the other way while Georgia was sliced to pieces. What does that have to do with the EU? We're seeing that right now, Putin is being encouraged in Ukraine, he is seeing that there are no military consequences from the EU to taking non-EU European territory.
By the time Russia gets to Odessa, Moldova is going to look like a free acquisition. Belarus is another easy target for Russia, and Putin has already said 'unifying' with Belarus was desirable and possible. Is the EU going to war with Russia over Belarus? No chance, and that's as much in their backyard as you can get.
China's military is also severely lacking in combat experience. The US is one of the most battle-tested military forces in the world, has relatively little corruption compared to China, and yet it still suffers from projects like the F-35. It's hard to estimate how effectively that Chinese budget is being employed.
The EU isn't sending a military force into Ukraine, but then neither is the US. The EU does have problematic energy ties to Russia, but that works both ways; just as Europe has an unhealthy dependency on Russian gas, Russia has an even greater dependency on Europe.
Putin's playing a dangerous game with the EU. On the one hand, the EU relies on Russia for about a third of its gas and petroleum. On the other hand, Russia depends on the EU for the majority its energy exports, and virtually all its gas exports. The EU doesn't need to go to war with Russia to cripple it; Russia's economy currently depends on the EU accepting its imports.
Ukraine is a difficult problem to solve. Sure, the EU could march in and reclaim Ukrainian territory without much resistance. The Russian army may have a lot of equipment, but most of it is outdated, and the first Iraq war proved how overwhelming an advantage a technology gap can be. But the EU has also seen what's happened to Iraq and Afghanistan, and knows that the east of Ukraine has strong Russian ties. It doesn't want to find itself in embroiled in a decades-long guerrilla war, which is what would happen if it used force.
Putin knows this, but he also knows that his country's economy is dependent on the EU. He's trying to edge Russia into a better strategic position without provoking the EU into action.
So, in other words, you'd prefer a situation similar to the world as it was before World War 1? That world wasn't exactly peaceful either. You say that you would prefer a world with no superpowers. Such a world has existed, and it's always been rather unstable, with many regional powers jockeying for position, often leading to massive wars. And in the end, a superpower or two (Spain and Portugal, France and Britain, USA and USSR) always emerges. In fact, it's the periods between superpower domination that have been the bloodiest, as declining superpowers and regional powers jockey to see who will be the next global hegemon.
I didn't say that.
You say that you would prefer a world with no superpowers.
I didn't actually say that either. I'm commenting on one particular theory, not expressing any sort of personal preference.
Such a world has existed, and it's always been rather unstable, with many regional powers jockeying for position, often leading to massive wars.
If you look far enough back through history, that is true.
Then again, periods with a single superpower that became aggressive have probably led to more death and damage than any other periods in modern history except for the World Wars, while two superpowers playing poker gets you the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Given the developments in both international diplomacy and military power since those historical periods, I don't think it is reasonable to assume that a lack of superpowers would necessarily have the same result in the future.
Look at East Asia. South Korea can't afford to defend itself from the North and hope to maintain their standard of living, Japan is barred by their own constitution from rearming (and if they did, that would start a regional arms race), and Taiwan would have no hope of maintaining their self-determination by themselves.
I will be the first to say that the U.S. has followed an unnecessarily aggressive foreign policy. But a very large part of how the world works depends upon the American military, and if it just went away, we would all be poorer and less safe for it.
While it's true that if current US foreign policy went away overnight it would probably make certain other parts of the world less stable for a while, such rapid change couldn't actually happen as a practical matter of international diplomacy and even basic logistical issues. This isn't a logical reason not to move in a slower and more controlled way towards a more balanced position where power and responsibility are more widely distributed.
It also seems fair to observe that the US has caused a lot of instability in recent years with its aggressive foreign policies. A large part of how the world works may indeed depend on the American military as you say, but it isn't always in a good way.
That's not a coincidence, it's a benefit provided by the US military's overwhelming superiority.
The US military has also taken an extreme share of the burden of keeping global trade / shipping lanes open and safe for operation - and it has done an extraordinary job at it.
The USSR wasn't going to just stop mid way through Germany, and Russia was obviously not going to just stop at Georgia. Who is going to act as a big enough deterrent to them? The same countries that prevented genocide in Europe's backyard in Kosovo? No, only the US is a powerful enough threat to Russia to keep them from going on a non-stop annexation spree.
Do you really think the British and the French haven't been re-enacting Waterloo lately because the United States asked us to play nicely?
Here are some other factually correct statements, using your definition of 'powerful nation':
"In the 70 years since the formation of the United Nations, there have been zero major wars between history's powerful nations."
"In the seven decades since they lost the Second World War, Germany has had zero major wars with nations that defeated them."
"Since the formation of the EEC, there have been zero major wars between its member states."
"In more than six decades since becoming a nuclear power, the UK has had zero major wars with other powerful nations."
Obviously numerous variations on these themes are also true.
The US military has also taken an extreme share of the burden of keeping global trade / shipping lanes open and safe for operation - and it has done an extraordinary job at it.
Are you sure?
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-u-s-navy-does-not-p...
No, only the US is a powerful enough threat to Russia to keep them from going on a non-stop annexation spree.
Apparently, not even the US is a powerful enough threat to Russia to keep them from going on a non-stop annexation spree.
"Working on" is a far cry from "tested and in force for decades", though. When push comes to shove, it's not clear that the EU member states would unanimously act in collective defense. Ultimately, while Europe may be able to collectively defend itself, it is certainly less capable of doing so without the aid of the United States.
Even setting Europe aside, what would you suggest for East Asia? Should Japan be allowed to rearm, potentially disrupting half a century of cordial relations and trade in the region? Should South Korea be left on their own to defend themselves from a North Korean army that outnumbers them two to one?
Against what threat, exactly? The big (physical, military) menace at the moment seems to be Russia, and European nations are now running almost continuous military exercises in eastern Europe to train for the possibility that any of those EU states might require protection from Russia aggression over the next few years. I don't know which banner they're operating under -- I'm guessing a lot of it is NATO -- but ultimately it's still European militaries co-ordinating to put the boots on the ground.
That said, realistically, the most effective way to protect ourselves against a belligerent Russia is probably economic anyway. Although some European states are dependent on Russia for energy supplies, that goes both ways, with Russia similarly dependent on Europe for having someone to pay for its natural resources. Neither side could trash that relationship today without suffering severely for it, but in the long run it favours Europe (because energy supplies are generally trending towards nuclear and ideally renewable sources anyway, giving Europe a credible long-term alternative, while Russia has relatively little other than energy exports to support its economy through international trade today).
Even setting Europe aside, what would you suggest for East Asia? Should Japan be allowed to rearm, potentially disrupting half a century of cordial relations and trade in the region? Should South Korea be left on their own to defend themselves from a North Korean army that outnumbers them two to one?
If you're going to make this kind of argument, you have to consider the effectiveness of armies. Bigger does not necessarily mean more effective if the little guy is better trained and/or has better technology.
More generally, I don't see why every nation should not be entitled to have a military force sufficient for its self-defence needs. The last world war ended 70 years ago. Concepts like expecting Germany or Japan of 2015 not to maintain effective militaries because of what Germany or Japan did in the 1930s and 1940s are obsolete.
In the modern world, I don't see why local agreements for mutual benefit could not provide similar assurances of defence and ultimately safer conditions than having the whole world depend on the US as you seem to want. It would take time to make the transition, but it would be better for everyone if that switch did happen over time. IMHO, that includes the US itself.
As for Japan, Japan and Germany are a false equivalence. Unlike Germany, Japan hasn't received the forgiveness of their neighbors yet. Relations between Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan, and even every minor Asian power would be considerably less friendly if Japan was allowed to rearm. You might convince me that the nations of Europe have learned to stop hating each other, but the nations of East Asia are a far different story, and there is nothing in the region like the EU to encourage peaceful cooperation.
And as long as the US continues to interfere in the regional politics to the same degree, there may never be.
The point is that we Europeans are so divided we can't even name a Foreign Minister of Europe because the Brits once again needed to prove they're special.
Hell, just kick GB out of the European Union and have a MUCH better organized and FVEY-free EU.
Whether this would actually be a good idea for either party is a different question, of course. In the short term, it would almost certainly be painful for both sides, but short term politics is not necessarily the priority at this scale.
In any case, it is important not to mistake avoiding a federal system of government for a general policy of xenophobia and isolationism. You can have things like free trade (the original EEC), free movement (Schengen), and shared recognition and defence of fundamental values (ECHR) without the heavy political integration of the EU or the heavy economic integration of the Eurozone. You could have mutual defence agreements similarly.
There are a lot of people in the UK right now who think we and the EU should recognise that our goals are not aligned and go our separate ways amicably, and that we should seek simpler and more narrowly focussed agreements with our European neighbours for mutual benefit, as we would with any other foreign partner.
Where is this "reasonable thought" that a world without superpowers would not devolve back into world wars and mass conflict? What's different this time to prevent that from happening?
- Real-time international communications
- Much better global diplomacy
- Many more small agreements between neighbours
- Knowledge of history
- Numerous countries possessing weapons so terrible that their mere existence should send shivers down everyone's spine
How many do you want?
Today being behind on military technology by as little as 5 years can be decisive in confrontation. The last decade has brought huge changes in military technology including super and hypersonic missile delivery systems (these can defeat the US's current interception capabilities), THAAD technology, directed energy weapons, new reactive armors, satellite bombing systems, startling new radar arrays, hybrid warships, autonomous drones, practical railguns, missile adhoc networks and intelligent interception, material science bringing in new stealth materials and body armor, satellite kill systems, not to mention advancements in electronic warfare. There is constant pressure on the US, because it is the second largest arms dealer around the world, to constantly build better military equipment. And there is constant pressure to do the same because the US's military might has everything to do with the geopolitics that continue to make it rich.
The Washington Consensus chose 25 years ago to continue the investment of military with a pivot in tactics and to uses its military might in tandem with 'soft power', financial leverage, social disruption, culture export, etc in an attempt to fix its success and the success of its allies with "minimal bloodshed" - but a form of colonialism nonetheless. It will continually sell off old equipment to aid in funding new research and development.
The US is a world empire - and while this can be seen by looking at a map of military locale it is better seen as a Capitalistic one. It uses its host of leverage, import-export bank, 'structural adjustment programs', 'value sharing initiatives' and the like. The US's foreign policy is wrapped up intrinsically in providing energy security to the first world, which means constant interventionism in the Middle East. It also has a huge number of security and military obligations around the world - e.g. right now we're promised to go to nuclear war were there to be an attack on Latvia.
The US has many reasons to be militaristic - its waning economic dominance but continued military commitments and global footprint, its obligations and its own incentives to fix its success during continued globalization. Military contractors feed this fire, yes. They benefit from it, yes. But it is not as simple as military contractors lobbying successfully.
I'm sceptical that the military might does that much to make the US rich besides providing basic peace. Obviously things would be screwed if WW3 started.
The US has got rich mostly by trade and enterprise and producing much of the worlds high value stuff. Spending a huge portion of governments revenues on the military rather than things like education, R&D and science has probably been a drag on growth.
NK is so poor they can barely stay alive. I don't believe there could be any sort of meaningful arms race...
Besides that, who needs an arms race when you have enough artillery to kill millions of people in Seoul in the first inning of a war? North Korea doesn't need to be advanced to decimate South Korea, unfortunately.
The US Dollar is stronger than it has been in 20 years, the global reserve standard is firmly in place. The Euro and Yen present no threat to that; and the Yuan, a second tier currency, is currently being backed up by the greatest accumulation of debt in world history in China.
Since 2007 the US has added around $3.x trillion to its annual GDP, while Europe has added zero and has failed to climb above the peak before the great recession. The US will hit $18 trillion in GDP in 2015, or over nine times the size of Russia, which used to be its primary superpower competitor. While US GDP has continued to climb, most countries in Europe have been flat for ~7 years (eg Germany's or France's GDP hasn't moved since 2008).
The US share of global GDP hasn't gone down in 35 years, and is still where it was in 1995/96.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fe/US_share_of_wo...
(and that's during a time, since 1980, in which both Japan and China came on line as global economic powers - to maintain the US share of GDP, the US had to keep up with China, Brazil, Japan, India and countless other countries that saw economic booms since 1980)
From all accounts the Renminbi is doing quite well and many allies despite pressure from the US are joining to AIIB, etc. Every criticism of the Renminbi you've put forward applies equally or greater to the dollar.
Europe is not a fair comparison. Nor is Russia (it waned into collapse the same time you start your 'comparisons'). Nor is Japan (can you fairly compare to a lost generation?). These are misleading 20th century comparisons.
Always be careful of charts and data that capture narrow slices and proxy measures - especially when they are not sourced and when the data isn't published alongside methodology. Proxy measures are extremely dangerous. Though it may explain why you feel confident using Japan as a reasonable example?
When we speak of declining dominance, it is in fact the US and its relationship to the stagnating EU, Commonwealth and Japan that informs this. The growth is not in the old world.
By all accounts, bankers, financiers, politicians, advisors - the next half century will be driven economically and politically by the Asia-Pacific. By the same accounts there are significant challenges to the world order set in WWII.
Thus the US's pivot to Asia, to the rise of China and of the Pacific.
Perhaps it was the tone, "utterly false". When I see writing like that, I generally stop reading; often what follows is another hyperbolic Internet rant and I've seen enough of them for my lifetime.
May all the 'hyperbolic internet rants' limit themselves to a single word.
The peacetime/domestic benefits were considered secondary.
World War II was an unusual case, though. Every war since then has been a relatively limited one in the sense that no one on the home front really made any kind of sacrifice or even any substantial contribution to the war effort. In World War II, as much of the country's productive output as possible was dedicated to the war effort. Civilian consumption was strictly rationed, and the population actually went along with this. People gardened and learned to get by with less because every gallon of gasoline they didn't burn, every tire they patched up instead of replacing, every bit of food or cloth or wood or steel that you didn't needlessly consume could be shipped off to the front lines and contribute to victory. Every dollar you saved could be invested in war bonds. There was hardly a single American who lived through that war who didn't make sacrifices and materially contribute to victory.
If you were able to get that level of dedication out of the population again, you could scale an effective military force in very short order the way the US did in WWII. But that just isn't going to happen again for any foreseeable conflict.
Contrast this with how Americans were told to support Iraq 2 and Afghanistan: "Go shopping."
The best possible policy for peace-loving American's to adopt would be a "no war without conscription" law. This seems counterintuitive, but it is my believe that when Senators' and Presidents' and CEOs' sons lives are on the line, they'll think twice before using force. As it stands, to them it's like risking the lives of a few hundred thousand Wal-Mart employees.
Here's an interesting story of a potential future US President who didn't survive WWII: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_P._Kennedy,_Jr.
His younger brother took his place doing that whole presidency thing.
May I recommend a listen to Fortunate Son by Creedence Clearwater Revival? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvwQmxLaknc
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-serves-...
But not before World War II started... Notice that you called it the WWII draft. U.S. involvement in WW II did not start with Pearl Harbor.
In the post WW2 era though, the increases in firepower and mobility made this point moot. A well orchestrated and timed advance could conquer a nation in days, nuclear weapons not withstanding. the Army's Active Defence doctrine post WW2 reflected this, recgonizing that in the era, a war would be won or lost in the first few battles.
Eisenhower reflected upon this in his Farewell Address. The warning regarding the "Military-Industrial Complex" was placed in the context that such a construct was necessary, but needed to be kept in check:
"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions."
Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
It would have been better simply to be ready.
The M4 Sherman tank design began about 1940, although it followed closely on US light and medium tank designs from 1935.
If by "prior to involvement," you mean 3 or 4 years prior, you're probably right. Most of the design and development work was done to supply the British well before 1941.
Further, the Great Depression not withstanding, and certainly by 1941, the US had the strongest economy in the world.