Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'defense'.
Found 2 results
Trump has been criticizing NATO, calling it "obsolete" and threatening to pull funding for it. This has rattled both liberal internationalists as well as "hawkish" American conservatives. I'm far from a Trump supporter, but I'm skeptical of the morality of NATO's purpose to say the least. It seems like pure collectivism: all these countries pool their military resources allegedly for everyone's benefit, but of course we as the country with the biggest defense budget end up pulling the most weight for the least benefit. Is that not a fair assessment of it? When I argue with NATO defenders that the U.S. military should only be for defending Americans and that other countries should have to rely on themselves, they claim I'm just ignorant of history, that without NATO Russia would invade and conquer all of Europe. Sounds highly far-fetched to me. The conservatives in particular talk about how NATO is critical to our "standing" as a "world power" (world power, world's policeman, potato, potAHto). They have this romanticized view of the purpose of our military, that we should use it to be "the good guys", fighting to defend innocents around the world (like we're Superman or something). And hey, what about all the non-U.S. NATO members who died fighting in Afghanistan because of 9/11? Yeah, I respond, it was immoral of them to sacrifice their troops when we were the ones who were attacked (and besides, we stayed way too long and lost sight of our mission in Afghanistan anyway). Liberals, of course, snarl at me that I'm "isolationist" and "cold-hearted", that we and Europe should be "united" in matters of war because, well, we just should. Was there every any moral basis for NATO's existence? As a young person (32) I may be speaking from naivete, but it seems to me that even at the height of the Cold War NATO didn't serve our national self-interest (national self-interest defined as the self-defense of individual Americans as delegated to the U.S. government). Russia was never going to attack us because we always outpaced them on military spending, particularly on nuclear weapons development (Mutually Assured Destruction and all that), so we didn't need other countries to be prepared to come to our aid. It was all about preparing to sacrifice American troops to protect Europe from invasion, and I can't see any moral justification for that. Tying this back to the present, there are those who fear that Putin is trying to bring back the Cold War (based on his buddying up with Assad in Syria, I'd say he's at least up to no good, that's for sure) and therefore, it's claimed, we must be prepared to defend our allies should he attack them. As one conservative on Twitter put it (paraphrasing), "The very reason to prevent the breakup of NATO is that Putin is for it." But I say we shouldn't play that game, that we should never have been in NATO to begin with. If Putin is scheming at rebuilding Russian power to its Cold War-era height, let him. As long as we don't fall behind on our own defense (and given our $500+ billion military budget, we'd have to fall a long way), we need not fear a direct attack, and we should just wait for his plans to inevitably collapse. Yes, he might invade Europe (although it's unlikely) and many innocents would die in that case (not to mention the destruction to the global economy, which WOULD hurt us, I don't doubt), but that would be on Putin's hands, not ours. Besides, I'm skeptical that Russia even has the resources to go back to the good ol' days of trying to take over the world what with oil prices plummeting and the ruble weakening.
I was sitting in the Hennepin county courthouse on jury duty last week and to pass the time, I brought along a book I recently purchased called "why businessmen need philosophy" its a collection of essays on Objectivism and Atlas Shrugged including two essays by Ayn Rand. The book is a really good collection of essays actually. Anyways, I'm sitting in the waiting room and this older gentleman picks up my book and starts looking at it and me, trying to start a conversation. I engage, and he starts attacking me, saying that I have no idea what I'm filling my head with and that I'm not actually thinking for myself if I follow Objectivism. So in my rebuttal, I did my best to explain my interpretation of Objectivism and how I live by it, but got torn apart by this guy. My question is what type of talking points would be good to use in defense of Objectivism when someone tries to argue that Objectivism is evil?