Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News What's Your Alternative to the Military-Industrial Complex?

  1. Jul 31, 2006 #1
    Three quick exercises.

    1) Briefly articulate a national security view and supporting strategy for the United States.
    2) Briefly characterize the force required to meet the strategy you've laid out.
    3) Briefly outline the means for acquiring and maintaining the force you've designed to meet the above strategy.

    For example:

    1) The United States does nothing but invite hostility any and every time it exercises military might. To that end, the United States should eschew all use of military force.
    2) Since I reject all use of military force, I need no force to implement this strategy.
    3) Since I have no military force, there is no need for industrial support for a military machine.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 31, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 31, 2006 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    1) Well, I think we definitely need to protect shipping lines and have a sizable Air Force and Navy. I disagree with the use of military force as a means to political ends generally, as we've seen in the past. Not a whole lot of the countries in which we took down 'communist' regimes was in much danger of becoming another Cuba.
    2) I can't give numbers without any expertise, but at the very least a Pacific and an Atlantic fleet, along with Coast Guard stations at every major port, along with search and rescue units. There doesn't need to be much in the way of a standing Army and Marine Corps, though (ceteris paribus, I mean - obviously there is given the current conflict). Having the command and training structure in place should be enough.
    3) I wouldn't imagine there would need to be any exlusive defensive contractors necessary. Civilian ship and jet plane and helicopter builders could build the necessary ships and carriers and planes. Is this the way it's already done, though? Who builds these things as it stands? As far as the manufacture of missiles and guns and ammunition and artillery and all that good stuff, if we weren't at war, I can't see why there would be much need. You don't need a continuous supply unless you're using it continually. Of course, discontinuing our own use isn't going to slow the complex, since there are plenty of other parties to sell to that are not a part of the US armed forces.

    I have to say, though, I really think this topic requires some level of expertise that few here are likely to have. Anyone that has been a defense contractor or served in the military might have a better idea. I'm pretty damn clueless on this. (So why'd I respond, right?)
  4. Aug 1, 2006 #3
    Why a sizable Air Force and Navy?

    Wait, hold on a second. What do you mean by "political ends." I mean, what is the exercise of military power if not to achieve some policy aim?

    Nicaragua? Guatamala? El Salvador?

    The same people who build your civilian air and sea fleets. Bath, General Electric, Sikorsky, Northrop Grumman, National Steel, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc.

    Or replacing aging and defective units and components...or maintaining institutional competence in designing, manufacturing, and delivering such systems.

    You can always catch up...to an extent.
  5. Aug 1, 2006 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    No one wants to actually provide comprehensive solutions. They just want to bash whoever is running what we have at a given moment in time. You have to give LYN some credit for taking a stab at it. :)
  6. Aug 1, 2006 #5
    Amen to that.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook