Can Militarism Make America Great Again?

There is no doubt that the United States' reputation has suffered on the world stage since the "end" of the Cold War. It has invaded foreign nations overtly, and has been accused of meddling in the affairs of other states covertly. A quick perusal of nearly any thread on ATS outside of the paranormal forums shows overwhelming animus towards America and its political system.

The current President has made it clear that he wants to increase military spending. He wants to acquire more ships, planes, and "weapons of mass destruction." He clearly equates military might with prestige and influence.

Will militarism improve the United States' reputation in the eyes of others? Why or why not? Please be specific.

(Disclosure: I personally believe that soft power is more influential in the long run than force of arms, and I vehemently oppose military adventurism.)

a reply to: DJW001

You're right it has suffered, greatly. Thank God Trump took over or it would have become a Liberal Nightmare headed by Hillary and Co.

Of course the Military arm is important for obvious reasons, particularily when run by SANE leadership, example TRUMP. However where you are going with this is unclear. Do you mean taking over weak countries and imposing coups on them while instilling dicators that drive the agenda's of evil men? If so then no, i disagree. I think the world is in the process of a major overhaul and swamp draining, so we can only wait and see where this goes, but atleast the world now has HOPE with Trump, as apposed to HOPELESSNESS via Obama.

originally posted by: DJW001
There is no doubt that the United States' reputation has suffered on the world stage since the "end" of the Cold War. It has invaded foreign nations overtly, and has been accused of meddling in the affairs of other states covertly. A quick perusal of nearly any thread on ATS outside of the paranormal forums shows overwhelming animus towards America and its political system.

The current President has made it clear that he wants to increase military spending. He wants to acquire more ships, planes, and "weapons of mass destruction." He clearly equates military might with prestige and influence.

Will militarism improve the United States' reputation in the eyes of others? Why or why not? Please be specific.

(Disclosure: I personally believe that soft power is more influential in the long run than force of arms, and I vehemently oppose military adventurism.)

I agree but at the same time if our military is not strong enough then in many cases those with superior fire power are not interested in "soft power" influence.

ETA: A good example would be North Korea.

No..I'm only 38,but I know my history of Pres Eisenhower warning of the military Industrial complex.Nothing can come from it.Peace,and talking is the answer.

a reply to: DJW001I guess this is what the General Public views when they talk about Military Spending, its not Militarism, its called updating the old crap that we have and staying a super power.

If you look at the Military strength today and go back 30 years you will see how much the Military was cut, bases closed, and we as a nation are asking our Military to do more with less every year, we are spreading our self's to thin,The people that don't want to go to war are those in uniform, but it would be nice to show up to one with new equipment instead of a broken down and outdate equipment.

a reply to: brutus61

I agree but at the same time if our military is not strong enough then in many cases those with superior fire power are not interested in "soft power" influence.

The question, then, is what does "strong enough" mean? The Pentagon's current standard is having the ability to fight two full scale conventional wars in two separate theaters. Is that not "enough?" Is it not possible that being able to dominate all of the nations of the world single handed is one of the sources of their resentment?

a reply to: greydaze Peace and talking won the Cold War, but it was the Military's that kept the peace so those in power could talk.

damn double..

Ooops double..

a reply to: 19KTankCommander

I guess this is what the General Public views when they talk about Military Spending, its not Militarism, its called updating the old crap that we have and staying a super power.

It's one thing to maintain a well equipped military, especially in the face of changing circumstances. We could probably use a couple of nuclear powered icebreaker frigates. Those would allow us to safeguard our share of the newly opening Northwest Passage. Ironically, that is not a priority for this administration.

On the other hand, there seems to be enthusiasm for getting involved in the internal affairs of other nations, specifically Syria and Iran, under the guise of "making America safe from terrorism." It is precisely this sort of adventurism that has made the United States and its overseas assets the targets of wrath.

a reply to: DJW001 from my experience "strong enough" means being able to deploy any where in the world with the Means to be able to protect yourself, feed, cloth, move, communicate, ect. The military is so widely spread thin I don't believe we could follow the current doctrine that has been in place since WWII.

originally posted by: 19KTankCommander
a reply to: greydaze Peace and talking won the Cold War, but it was the Military's that kept the peace so those in power could talk.

So... Korea, Afghanistan, Angola, and Viet Nam were at peace?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: brutus61

I agree but at the same time if our military is not strong enough then in many cases those with superior fire power are not interested in "soft power" influence.

The question, then, is what does "strong enough" mean? The Pentagon's current standard is having the ability to fight two full scale conventional wars in two separate theaters. Is that not "enough?" Is it not possible that being able to dominate all of the nations of the world single handed is one of the sources of their resentment?

Yes it is very possible. It is the same with any nation. There is always the possibility that the power will be abused(such as under at least the last 3 administrations in America), however if we don't keep our military updated and strong then the actions of some of former leaders will bring about our assured destruction. We have been abusing our power for so long now that unfortunately we must continue to build in order to maintain our safety.

originally posted by: 19KTankCommander
a reply to: DJW001 from my experience "strong enough" means being able to deploy any where in the world with the Means to be able to protect yourself, feed, cloth, move, communicate, ect. The military is so widely spread thin I don't believe we could follow the current doctrine that has been in place since WWII.

This begs the question. Why would we need to be able to deploy anywhere in the world on short notice?

a reply to: 19KTankCommander
I agree,Just use the military wisely/strategic..

originally posted by: brutus61


I agree but at the same time if our military is not strong enough then in many cases those with superior fire power are not interested in "soft power" influence.

ETA: A good example would be North Korea.

This is what makes me laugh!

The USA was never weak. Your military even under Obama was still more powerfull than the top 10 nations combined!

a reply to: crazyewok

The USA was never weak. Your military even under Obama was still more powerfull than the top 10 nations combined!

Exactly. How do you, as a Brit, feel about the United States expanding its already vast military? (That is the point of this thread.)

a reply to: DJW001 Internal affairs of other countries? enthusiasm ?, well lets see, since I have been alive and then some, Korea, Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, Iranian Hostage Crisis (I think it was 412 days) Grenada, Falkland War, Panama, Pan Am Flight 103, Cold War, Gulf War, 911, and the war on terrorism, if you look at all these things what is the one thing in common?


I don't think this any sort of adventurism at all.

originally posted by: 19KTankCommander
a reply to: DJW001 Internal affairs of other countries? enthusiasm ?, well lets see, since I have been alive and then some, Korea, Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, Iranian Hostage Crisis (I think it was 412 days) Grenada, Falkland War, Panama, Pan Am Flight 103, Cold War, Gulf War, 911, and the war on terrorism, if you look at all these things what is the one thing in common?

None of them posed a threat to American soil.

I don't think this any sort of adventurism at all.

When you go abroad looking for a fight, that is adventurism. The politicians may have had better or worse motivations, but from the outside, America's actions sure looked like aggression.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: crazyewok

The USA was never weak. Your military even under Obama was still more powerfull than the top 10 nations combined!

Exactly. How do you, as a Brit, feel about the United States expanding its already vast military? (That is the point of this thread.)

As a Brit I would rather the USA be the superpower than China but I think the USA goes to overboard, especialy when there are areas of the USA living in 3rd world conditions.