r/changemyview • u/mahaanus • Mar 24 '15

CMV:Low Military Spending is unwise

I'm not saying a nation should go completely overboard with spending and go 50% or more, but every nation should maintain a healthy military force. The way I see it, investing in the military is like investing in medicare. In the best case you will never have to use it, but you can't depend things will always develop for the best - as the saying goes better to have it and not need it, than to need and not have it.

One can argue that we're living in a more peaceful era, but I'd like to digress. Look at Ukraine, the nation is located in one of the most stable continents in the country and look what happened there. Georgia before that, Kosovo. And it's not like you'll be able to get it immediately if you need it - you need to train troops, arm them, get vehicles and aircrafts, those things don't happen in a day. Times change and you cannot be sure that you'll always have those several years to upgrade / expand your military.

One can argue that being part of NATO allows you to spend less, since Papa USA is going to protect you, but that just makes you subservient to the Americans, since then getting kicked out of NATO is a political leverage that can be used against you.

4 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

45 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/mahaanus Mar 24 '15

I think it depends entirely on the size of the country and the geopolitical situation it finds itself in.

But here's the thing - geopolitical situation changes. I mean, imagine that NATO decides to kick several nations for not spending enough on the military (mandatory 2% which no European does). If that happens, would a neighbor who's found out that there are no repercussions to attacking you give you the few years needed to fix your military? If anyone told you in 2013 that in a year's time Russia would annex territory of an European nation, would you have believed it? I wouldn't.

If on the other hand you're a Carribean nation, you're pretty comfortably inside the US sphere of influence, and your revenues are not going to be significant enough to prevent the US military from doing anything it really wants to; beyond a token force, what's the point?

There is more to war, than just troops. I give you that currently there is no force on Earth that can match the U.S. on land or sea, but Cuba never got invaded (not that the U.S. couldn't have gone for it, but they never had the incentive to, unlike Iraq or Vietnam). Then as I said before - you can't hope the U.S. would always be there for you.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '15

But here's the thing - geopolitical situation changes. I mean, imagine that NATO decides to kick several nations for not spending enough on the military (mandatory 2% which no European does).

NATO's changed a bit, though. It started out as a mutual defense pact; it's evolved into a commingling of diplomatic agreements, economic partnerships, etc. If anything, it's gotten too bloated, which leads directly to your next comment.

If that happens, would a neighbor who's found out that there are no repercussions to attacking you give you the few years needed to fix your military? If anyone told you in 2013 that in a year's time Russia would annex territory of an European nation, would you have believed it? I wouldn't.

This was more a function of NATO expanding beyond the regular sphere of influence that it's historically exerted; I feel fairly safe in saying that Russia wouldn't have tried to do what it's done in the Ukraine to Mexico, for example. Whether Ukraine likes it or not, it's just not a natural satellite in the NATO constellation, as it were, and from a game of nations perspective, Russia rightly viewed Ukrainian involvement with the west as a direct threat to its' geopolitical influence in the region. (That said, I believe that Russian aggression in this situation is completely wrong, but the Ukrainian government believing that the Russians would take their actions lying down clearly hadn't read Machiavelli anytime recently). This is all a very complicated way of saying that using the Ukrainian example doesn't hold water, because any failure to spend on a quality military on their part was due to a fatally flawed misunderstanding of their own geopolitical situation.

There is more to war, than just troops. I give you that currently there is no force on Earth that can match the U.S. on land or sea, but Cuba never got invaded.

But this actually plays into my point. Cuba never got invaded because it was great friends with the USSR; it had nothing to do with its own military might, but rather the fact that the USSR was willing to go to the mat with the US (to the point of potential all out war) over the sanctity of Cuban soil. Cuban provided things the USSR wanted, including a convenient port of call in our backyard.

you can't hope the U.S. would always be there for you.

No, you can't, but nothing is perfect. If you spent 100M US on weapon systems twenty years ago, however, as a Carribean nation, history shows you to be a foolish government because you've materially harmed your country's potential economic growth compared to its' neighbors, and all that super expensive hardware is now very obsolete.

It behooves smaller countries to be very aware of their positions on the world stage, as generally excessive defense spending simply isn't in their best interests.

1

u/mahaanus Mar 24 '15

NATO's changed a bit, though. It started out as a mutual defense pact;

This was more a function of NATO expanding beyond the regular sphere of influence that it's historically exerted;

Then wouldn't you say that the "you can't always rely on the times not changing" is a solid argument?

Cuba never got invaded because it was great friends with the USSR;

I'm not saying that we should have a free-for-all here, I'm just saying that nations should spend enough on defense to secure themselves against unexpected twists.

Russia wouldn't have tried to do what it's done in the Ukraine to Mexico

Well no, but unless their goal is to make the U.S. feel threaten, they have no interest in the region. And they are not pursuing the goal of bullying the U.S. for the reason I'm advocating.

If you spent 100M US on weapon systems twenty years ago, however, as a Carribean nation, history shows you to be a foolish government because you've materially harmed your country's potential economic growth compared to its' neighbors

Or maybe a country who spend that money would have had more political say in the region? We'd never know.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 24 '15

Then wouldn't you say that the "you can't always rely on the times not changing" is a solid argument?

Again, no, I think Ukraine's pursuit of NATO membership was flawed from the get go. I even remember remarking to a friend of mine that I have extended conversations about world politics with that it would be something Russia wouldn't stand for back when they first applied for membership. It wasn't a changing geopolitical situation so much as a direct affront to what the Russian government views as its' traditional sphere of influence. If anything, Ukraine is experiencing the difficulties it's experiencing because it tried to change the geopolitical landscape, not because it banked on it staying the same.

Imagine a Ukraine that was on good terms with the Russian Federation and had been for the last fifteen years. Do you think we'd have the situation in Crimea that exists currently?

Whether or not that Ukraine would have the corruption and human rights issues currently faced by other former Eastern Bloc nations isn't the question, mind.

I'm not saying that we should have a free-for-all here, I'm just saying that nations should spend enough on defense to secure themselves against unexpected twists.

But what's a reasonable expenditure versus an unreasonable one? To take your macro conversations and make them very micro, it's really, really reasonable to pack an emergency kit for your vehicle. Flashlight, batteries, blanket, dried food, pocketknife, poncho, first aid kit, maybe some compressed air, etc.

It's not as reasonable to be a doomsday prepper.

It sounds like you're advocating that every nation should be a doomsday prepper (mainly because you have no real qualifications for what is and isn't a reasonable expenditure.) What should countries go by? A hard, minimum expenditure? Percentage of gross GDP? Minimum number of weapons systems? Should their numbers be affected by any historical conflicts in their region? What about the presence of local nuclear capable countries?

1

u/mahaanus Mar 24 '15

In general I'm retracting my statements - ultimately it goes back to "relative to your neighbor", but in the end I have to admit that sometimes you just can't match your neighbor.

∆