What would be the consequences of ditching the armed forces?

[laklak]

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

Australians?

Fair dinkum Bruce, but don't be giving away state secrets.

[Coito ergo sum]

You know what I really like. I really like complaining about what my country's military does in other parts of the world. It sure as fuck beats complaining about what some other country's military is doing here.

[Clinton Huxley]

There are herrings in this thread.
A preponderance of which are red.

[Warren Dew]

No, even then you can't just rule out what all that effort might have been spent on, if not the military. Any other scientific research and education for example - rather than vast industries manufacturing weapons and training people to kill each other.

Not only that, but many of the advances might have happened anyway. The public internet's success, for example, can be traced primarily to university funded initiatives to develop the infrastructure, which would still have been possible without ARPA. They would just have ended up using some other protocol than IP - possibly a better one.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No, even then you can't just rule out what all that effort might have been spent on, if not the military. Any other scientific research and education for example - rather than vast industries manufacturing weapons and training people to kill each other.

Not only that, but many of the advances might have happened anyway. The public internet's success, for example, can be traced primarily to university funded initiatives to develop the infrastructure, which would still have been possible without ARPA. They would just have ended up using some other protocol than IP - possibly a better one.

Wasn't it DARPA back then?

[Ian]

No, even then you can't just rule out what all that effort might have been spent on, if not the military. Any other scientific research and education for example - rather than vast industries manufacturing weapons and training people to kill each other.

Not only that, but many of the advances might have happened anyway. The public internet's success, for example, can be traced primarily to university funded initiatives to develop the infrastructure, which would still have been possible without ARPA. They would just have ended up using some other protocol than IP - possibly a better one.

Wasn't it DARPA back then?

They changed the name three times.
ARPA: 1958-1972
DARPA: 1972-1993
ARPA: 1993-1996
DARPA: 1996-Present

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No, even then you can't just rule out what all that effort might have been spent on, if not the military. Any other scientific research and education for example - rather than vast industries manufacturing weapons and training people to kill each other.

Not only that, but many of the advances might have happened anyway. The public internet's success, for example, can be traced primarily to university funded initiatives to develop the infrastructure, which would still have been possible without ARPA. They would just have ended up using some other protocol than IP - possibly a better one.

Wasn't it DARPA back then?

They changed the name three times.
ARPA: 1958-1972
DARPA: 1972-1993
ARPA: 1993-1996
DARPA: 1996-Present

So which one is the one Al Gore invented?

[Toontown]

Threats which do not currently exist would quickly develop. For example, Mexico would be taken over by a tyranny and would quickly evolve into a military power, intent on taking full advantage of the spineless undefended gringos.

That's how things have always worked on Planet Earth. Wherever there is something to eat, something emerges to eat it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We could also be invaded by armored bears from Svalbard. Never can trust them.

[Robert_S]

I think it should be up to the armed individual to protect their own homes from invading armies. [/libertarian]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think it should be up to the armed individual to protect their own homes from invading armies. [/libertarian]

[Tero]

The internal security and borders will be the more costly part soon. But of course we need to protect oil. The rest of the world will go the way of Somalia. But there is a little oil there.

[apophenia]

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.

Thank God we're not North Korea.

North Korea is the most militarized country in the world today, having the fourth largest army in the world, at about 1,106,000 armed personnel, with about 20% of men ages 17–54 in the regular armed forces. Military service of up to 10 years is mandatory for most males. It also has a reserve force comprising 8,200,000 personnel...and includes the world's largest Special Forces contingent (numbering 180,000 men).

Running short of men, North Korea earlier this year lowered the draft age for men to 16, lowered minimum height requirements to 4 feet 9 inches and started drafting women for all-women units.

Asked what portion of North Korea's military is made up of women, he declined to give an estimate, saying, ''That is classified.''

He added, however, that one could ''just follow Kim Jong Il's on-site inspections,'' of the military. ''If he visited 36 units last year, as was reported, at least one-third of them were female units.''

This in a country with a total population of 24 million. Basically, roughly half the population is either active or reserve military.

And it adds a whole new meaning to the phrase, "Gott mit uns."

[JimC]

I do wonder what the UKs armed forces would look like if they were thought out rationally - what do we really need to defend Britain's interests rather than what we need to be a US satrapy.

A rather similar thought of mine in Oz...

The eternal preoccupation here in defence and foreign affairs seems to be the preservation of the US alliance at all costs, which seems to entail being willing to send troops anywhere the US wants, anytime. A more rational re-organisation of our defense capabilities (given our island nature) would be to minimise our ability to send armed forces overseas, and to maximise our ability to stop aggressors attacking our shores. This could surely be done on a cost-neutral basis, or possibly even with some savings.

[Toontown]

I think it should be up to the armed individual to protect their own homes from invading armies. [/libertarian]

The invading armies would like that very much.

Why do you hate armed individuals?