What would be the consequences of ditching the armed forces?

[klr]

Getting back to serious matters: You would have little or no influence on any foreign state that decided to throw its weight around. You might also lose influence amongst your neighbour states and others with whom you regularly co-operate and/or align yourself.

I was thinking about this when I posted the OP and I'm pretty sure this would be the worst consequence.

The external security issue is interesting. Does it matter? Do we need to deal with security issues outside our borders? I don't really buy the claim that we need to be in Afghanistan and Iraq (for example) to prevent terrorism within our borders. If anything, our actions there exacerbate the problem.

There's the obvious point about getting invaded by another country. A risk assessment would have to conclude that the UK being invaded by a foreign power is a low risk threat, but something that has extremely serious consequences if we did have no armed forces.

Firstly, you have to consider all scenarios, of which the UK represents just one. Ireland doesn't really need strong armed forces, either in absolute terms or relative to its population/GDP. Its needs are dictated by factors such as internal subversion* (basically because of N. Ireland), maritime patrols/security (because we are an island**), and our peacekeeping commitments as a member of the UN and other international bodies. To the extent that such requirements cannot be met by police, coastguard, etc., then we need some armed forces, but not a lot. We're so small that we couldn't really defend ourselves properly anyway against a large aggressor. The same applies to (say) the Baltic states, which were annexed by the Soviet Union in the early months of WW II. Being a small country in the first world is generally a comfortable enough proposition. Military aggression is not the problem, but lack of economic/resource/policy control in these days of globalisation.

But your mileage may vary. Try to convince some Taiwanese, or Israelis, that they don't need any armed forces. Or people in many other countries with a recent memory of being a colonial power, or being otherwise manipulated or controlled by the great global powers.

*Which is gradually becoming less and less of an issue
**Well, sort of. Let's not go there ...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The current needs for a military do not reflect possible future needs. Unless you can see the future, of course. Or we re-institute the Kellogg-Briand Pact.

[Clinton Huxley]

The current needs for a military do not reflect possible future needs. Unless you can see the future, of course. Or we re-institute the Kellogg-Briand Pact.

Aye, 'tis why everyone is prepared for their previous war.

[laklak]

Aliens, dude, fucking ass-raping, human eating aliens.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The current needs for a military do not reflect possible future needs. Unless you can see the future, of course. Or we re-institute the Kellogg-Briand Pact.

Aye, 'tis why everyone is prepared for their previous war.

"The cost of not learning from history is unreasonably high."

Flexible response is important, but it only works if the high command is flexible.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, once country A doesn't have an armed force, then country B may feel freer to acquire some of country A's territory, engage in fishing and industry in country A's waters, and drive impossible bargains in trade negotiations. Some countries do o.k. without significant armed forces, but mainly that is because they are under the umbrella of protection from friendly countries with significant armed forces.

It would, of course, be wonderful, if nobody had any armed forces, and we could use the resources wasted on military expenditures on better things, like space exploration an development, clean energy development, and feeding/housing the world, etc.

Referring specifically to the US, the presence of the US military likely prevents a lot of invasions and annexations of disputed lands. Moreover, it's pretty likely that if the US just eliminated its military, then Chinese and Russian forces would start showing up offshore, and a process of encroachment and hemming in (at a bare minimum) would occur. Mexico might become more vociferous about claims to certain territories.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Agreed. "We ain't gonna study war no more" implies that nobody else will either. And that implies that people are basically nice. And that implies that somebody is a damn fool.

[Coito ergo sum]

The implied threat of military reactions protects global shipping. Without the US military, for example, attacks or incursions onto ships flying US flags would likely increase dramatically. I.e. - an oil tanker leaves the Persian Gulf and enters the high seas - someone knows the US shipping lane or route is there, and they decide that a free tanker full of oil would be quite helpful. The risk to shipping would go up, and the cost of products shipped would go up, in the same way that a lack of ability to prosecute shoplifters would increase the rate of shoplifting and thus the price of goods would go up. Given the tremendous expense associated with international shipping, it wouldn't take much to take a big bite into various countries' economies and hamper the ability to import/export (which would hamper the ability to feed, clothe and house people). Some private folks who want to make money would then take self-help action by engaging or forming private military forces to combat the threat.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Imagine the chaos off the Horn of Africa if there were no military forces there. A thousand times worse than now, I do believe. It would be a no-go zone, and the cost of avoiding it would be passed on to the consumer.

We used to sail in a considerable force when I was active duty. It was nothing to see a dozen merchantmen shadowing us, staying under our umbrella. Policy was to allow this if it didn't interfere with operations. And in places like the Gulf of Siam we had the option to deviate from our planned course if we determined there was a threat to shipping.

[Warren Dew]

Assuming the police, spooks and security services continued handling matters of internal security, what would be the consequences of ditching the armed forces in your country?

The U.S. is a mercantile nation; our economy is dependent on international trade - both exports and imports, though you hear more about the imports. Our armed forces keep the trade routes open and help ensure trade rules that facilitate rather than discourage trade. Without the armed forces, we'd go into a depression - more of one than we're already in - and stay there.

In addition, as with all countries, our armed forces probably keep the police, spooks, and security services in check to some degree.

Edit: oh, and as Rum brings up - eliminating the U.S. armed forces would cut our deficit - by a third or so. The fact it isn't our entire deficit kind of illustates just how big our deficit problem is.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And eliminating our armed forces would put a few hundred thousand people into the job market immediately, and the people who aren't active duty but supply the military with food, material, etc., would be out of work as well. So you have a few million military and civilian paychecks involved there.

[drl2]

Robert Heinlein had an interesting idea about war expressed in one of his books - though I can't recall which one at the moment (I think it was the one where the old man and his young wife had sex with a barely-pubescent little girl , which I put down at that point):

When a country contemplates going to war, a special vote is held; if the majority vote for war, the draft starts the next day, drawing first from the part of the population that voted "Yes". War suddenly became a much less popular pastime.

Totally unworkable in the real world, of course, even if everybody does it - because fanaticism does such a good job of overriding common sense.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Imagine a world where everyone but the Islamists were unarmed.

[klr]

And eliminating our armed forces would put a few hundred thousand people into the job market immediately, and the people who aren't active duty but supply the military with food, material, etc., would be out of work as well. So you have a few million military and civilian paychecks involved there.

This is actually a very important point. Yes, the armed forces cost the state an awful lot of money, but a certain proportion of it goes back into the economy (and thence to the state) via taxes, multiplier effects, etc.

Everybody wins!

Well, sort of.

[Geoff]

While I can see the advisability of keeping a certain level of military capability, I remain unconvinced that it needs to be as high as it is for most countries, whether in absolute terms or as a % of GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... penditures