Why does US military have such a gang mentality. They are tough with sophisticated weaponry but not 1 on 1?

Question

In an enlightened society, the military is an outdated useless institution. We have a mercenary military that is really spineless. We all know that wars are ended through negotiations not killing so what is the sense to even have a military. There is no nation big enough to take over the US. They just don't have the people. If they nuke the US then the land will be useless. The military is usless and is comprised of young kids susceptable to propagana. There is just no need for a military and no need for any killing ever. So why even have a military?

Answer 1

I know a few Navy Seals who would love to test you on that theory.

Answer 2

I have to disagree with you on all counts. A military is necessary not because a society is unenlightened, but because OTHER societies are unenlightened. An enlightened, peaceful society is great, but it is very susceptible to unenlightened, warlike societies.

Wars can not always be prevented or ended by negotations alone, and negotiations are not always the best way. There is no need to negotiate if one side can simply take what they want. In order for negotiation to work, there has to be an alternative worse than compromise. And sometimes, even compromise will not work. Suppose an enlightened society is threatened by another society wanting to enslave half the enlightened population. Should they just negotiate, and agree to enslave only a quarter of the population?

Finally, the military is not spineless, and it is not made up of "young kids." Typically, the youngest a person can be when serving in the military is 18. That is not a child, that is a man. And these men are not spineless. They can fight hand to hand if they have to, and hold their own. It would be stupid to do so, however. Their job is to win wars, not prove how tough they are to you or anyone else.

Answer 3

Obviously, you are a product of a socialist, Liberal education. "We all know that wars are ended through negotiations not killing..." What war ever ended purely from negotiation? The negotiations started when one side won over the other (and yeah some killing was involved along the way) and forced the loser to come to the table. That's how it works in the real world, my friend...not the utopian vision you have been fed. There will always be a need for the military, because there will always be someone who will try to force themselves on someone weaker for power, idealism, greed, zealotry, or some combination thereof.

Answer 4

I'm interested to see where you draw your question from. The original question, not the attached rant. The truth is, all militaries train for hand-to-hand combat, so there really isn't a huge advantage to be had that way. The U.S. gains its advantage through technology. Technology like robots, which can explore a cave where an ambush might be lurking, or approach a suspicious container that might hold a bomb. If necessary, our men and women are trained to fight one-on-one, but the chances of losing troops are much larger that way.

As for your assertion that "We all know that wars are ended through negotiations not killing so what is the sense to even have a military," the truth is that attrition (loss of soldiers, either through death or desertion) is what motivates the losing side to negotiate. If Hitler hadn't killed himself in a bunker back in 1945, would the Nazis have been so quick to negotiate? Doubtful; Hitler's followers were loyal, and they were willing to follow any order he handed down. Only after his armies had been defeated and his capture nearly assured did he pull the trigger. And only after he pulled the trigger were his generals ready to negotiate.

I'm not saying it's right; I would like to see fewer wars started, and less of America's military might being used to serve our corporate masters. But when one nation is determined to use force upon another, force is needed to repel the attack.

Answer 5

This is funny coming from someone who has never been in the military. What happened, did you get beat up once by a soldier?

In an elightened society, we know that war is a means of diplomacy. It is and has been a necessary arm of the government since the beginning of governments.

It sounds like you have it all figured out. Instead of whining about the military - why don't you show us the right way. Go to the middle east, and bring peace for us all. We are waiting for you enlightenment.

Answer 6

I am running for President.

When I am elected, I propose a 'mono y mono' policy.

If it gets to the point where we cannot negotiate it is sometimes necessary for men to act as men.

If the United States of America wrongs you from this point forward we will maintain the following
Standard Operational Procedure 1:
The USA shall provide an open online forum for complaints about USA foregn policy decisions. The WOLRD will have access to voice the complaint of every human, or any other being capable of utilizing internet communication technologies.

The USA shall maintain a world affairs call center operations. This will be in Butte, MT. Located in the old ST. James hospital.
This call center will respond to EVERY complaint.

If there is a signifigant number of complaints, [significant is defined as more than 0], the human may request a live debate on world affairs. This would be posted to the world and voted on by the population of EARTH.

Upon completion of the debate the world will vote on proposed sollutions.

The United States of America will maintain its soveirnty to the World. As a nation of peace, we will make afforts in a humanitarian nature only. We will not send 1 more weapon [both those known and yet to be discovered] anywhere.

The United States of America will reserve the right to defend our selves, but we will do so as gentlemen. We propose that leaders of the world, people of honor, act as such. If a battle is to happen, it will be one human against one human. No weapons. Alternatives to weapons are: Wit, humanitarian efforts, technological advances, medical advances, standards of living for the populous, and other such motivations that will produce life.

Answer 7

obvious to all who do know anything at all about the military that you no nothing of the military, and nothing about life. the military is not a choice, neither is operating in numbers. propaganda in the US, yes, susceptible naive young minds, yes. spineless useless military, no. cowardly or mercenary military personnell possible but does not represent the whole. one day perhaps you will come to understand what it is to bear responsability for the hard , dirty job. to live with your back against the wall in a no win situation and find a way to get yourself and others through while never failing to pull off the near impossible so that you can sit smuggly,blindly on your high horse and spew forth ignorance wrapped in the veil of a question. pull your head out and see the truth right in front of you. this world doesn't run on words or ideas it runs on force and resource. stop making noise and contribute to making what has to be done less dangerous, less lethal, less violent, more effective. find a way to better prepare and/or heal those people who volunteer to bear the burden of real security in a real world. our world, this world, the only one we are living in. no doubt that war is terrible and seemingly wasteful of life and resource but the privelege of having life and resource is protected and preserved by no other means. if you really believe humans will ever all agree to live harmoniosly and cooperatively then i feel bad for you, you will live a life of dreams unrealized.

Answer 8

Humans are a violent race. Always have been.

In order to negotiate there has to be a show of force. The fist inside the glove. It has always worked that way, except in a self defense scenario. Not enlightened at all, but logical. Think of it as chess, but with blood and needless suffering.

Young people have no fear (comparatively) and less life experience, so are easier to mold into a weapon. Ideal for military purposes.

And China is pretty big, but not as organized as the US - yet

Answer 9

The whole point of the US Military is not to have to be tough 1 on 1. In fact, the US Military would prefer not to ever even have men in the field shooting at people. If we could send remote or A.I. robots into places to clean up the problems other radical religious groups cause in the world, it would be done. If the U.S. had no military at all to speak of, many other countries could easily take it over.

Answer 10

Stay away from people in the military with that attitude. I hope you have good medical coverage because its going to cost big bucks to put you back together Humpty Dumpty. I'm not even going to think what their families would do to you. Bottom line genius when somebody puts their life on the line for you just say "Thank You" and mean it.

Answer 11

Us army is coward when it comes to one on one. Look what they did in Afghnistan, they bombed the whole country because they knew perfectly well that in ground offensive they'll get their soldiers killed in thousands.
Also US army is the world's first army which employs police or other security people for its protection. How can you call an army an army which itself needs protection and employs security personnel for its protection. Definitly US army is a coward army of the world.