Is it in the US' interest that eg Europe militarizes?

[Commodore]

Collapse changing stability by its very definition, I do not argue this. But honestly I believe that we moved on in history and current Germany is not looking for blitzkrieg in case when Russia and USA will keep minimal forces.

Its realy nitpicking from your side. Economy capacities and knowledge of nuclear bomb substituting real nuclear bomb but I accept that its useful keep some for better effect. Army should be also useful in case of zombie apocalypse or alien invasion. But the spending is ridiculous.

It's only ridiculous if you can't afford it; and the US most definitely can afford it.

And let's say Russia, US, and China give up their armies (or at least scale them back to the point they have no power projection capability). What then? What guarantees do we have that every tin-pot dictator and warlord out there isn't going to start attacking their neighbors because they know there is no greater force out there to counter their aggression?

Unfortunate as it may be, large military forces from powerful nations are what keeps the peace in this world. A lot of regional conflicts don't happen because the potential belligerents are afraid the US, Russia, or some other powerful military will intervene.

 

[Ajidica]

And let's say Russia, US, and China give up their armies (or at least scale them back to the point they have no power projection capability). What then? What guarantees do we have that every tin-pot dictator and warlord out there isn't going to start attacking their neighbors because they know there is no greater force out there to counter their aggression?

It isn't like US, Russian, and the Chinese military is that much of a deterrent now. The Rwandan Genocide and the collapse of Zaire plunged the African continent into a 20 year long conflict that is still sputtering along. The closest America/Russia/China came to preventing the conflict was some halfhearted UN resolutions and paying other countries to contribute peacekeepers. The strongest military response from a "great power" was France's brief intervention during Operation Turquoise. If American/Russian/Chinese military power didn't prevent the most destructive conflict since WWII I don't really see what deterrent effect it has on sordid little dictators.
The threat of superpower intervention did nothing to prevent any of the following:
Biafra Civil War
Uganda-Tanzanian War
Rhodesian Bush War
Portuguses Overseas War
South African Bush War
Angolan Civil War/Angolan-South African Border War
Mozambican Civil War

In Africa the closest I can think of superpower military intervention -or threat thereof- working to bring about an end to a conflict was during the Congo Crisis after the US was likely complicit -at the very least aware of- the Belgian execution of the democratically elected Prime Minister. Even then it was carried out under the auspices of the United Nations.

Unfortunate as it may be, large military forces from powerful nations are what keeps the peace in this world.

Odd, I could have sworn Iraq and Afghanistan ended up as the cluster-[censored] they are now due to intervention from superpowers.

A lot of regional conflicts don't happen because the potential belligerents are afraid the US, Russia, or some other powerful military will intervene.

Can you name a conflict averted because of the threat of superpower intervention? The best I can come up with are the perennial Greco-Turkish kerfuffles over Cyprus and the Suez Crisis; although even that is debatable given that the UK and France still considered themselves Global Powers during the Suez Crisis and it was a situation where the US and Soviet Union both wanted the same thing. (Nevermind that Operation Musketeer occurred anyhow.)

Just to be clear, I'm not one of the types who blames "the west" or "the first world" for everything that goes wrong in the rest of the world but claiming the threat of military intervention by a superpower prevents conflict seems a bit far fetched.

 

[innonimatu]

The threat of superpower intervention did nothing to prevent any of the following:
Biafra Civil War
Uganda-Tanzanian War
Rhodesian Bush War
Portuguses Overseas War
South African Bush War
Angolan Civil War/Angolan-South African Border War
Mozambican Civil War

Not only the superpowers failed to prevent these, they provided weapons for some sides fighting several these.

To be fair, they also embargoed others and actually made an effort to deescalate wars. The UK kept up a patrol to intercept weapons and fuel destined to Rhodesia. It could be bypassed, but that was costly and eventually led to the end of the rhodesian regime. South Africa had to fight with its own weapons, few other countries were willing to supply it. The angolan government got proxy soviet support but only through Cuba, and the rebels got some proxy US support, but in a very roundabout and ineffective way (funding for buying mercenaries and weapons on the black market). Biafra was a local war that foreign powers didn't had to incite and could hardly prevent. And so on.

I guess this does validate your point: superpowers don't wast their treasury and men acting as "policemen of the world". When their governments start or join wars it is usually for their own motives.

 

[Commodore]

Can you name a conflict averted because of the threat of superpower intervention?

Off the top of my head? I would say a resuming of open hostilities between North and South Korea has been prevented by the presence of both US and Chinese forces.

Also, it's a personal belief of mine that the existence of superpower militaries has prevented another global conflict on the scale of WWII from occurring. Of course this belief is related more to the existence of large nuclear arsenals and MAD, but let's be real, only superpowers are capable of stockpiling a large enough nuclear arsenal as to be an effective global deterrent.

Not to mention, who deals with piracy? The navies of powerful nations, because other nations simply don't have the assets (and can't afford them) to combat piracy.

Also, the conflicts you mention were either civil wars or brushfire wars, that never really escalated into significant state-on-state warfare. I mean, when's the last time the world has really seen a major, bloody, state-on-state conflict? The Iran-Iraq War?

You also mention intervention being done under the auspices of the UN. Well, who do you think makes UN interventions possible? The majority of UN peacekeeping forces come from the most powerful member nations.

In the end it's hard to say just how many conflicts exactly have been prevented due to the fear of superpowers precisely because the conflicts never happened. However, I am reminded of that episode of Futurama where Bender meets God and God says something to the effect of "You know you're doing your job right when people think you're doing nothing at all." The point being: just because you don't see any good coming from having a large military, doesn't mean there aren't immense positive benefits from having one, for both the wielder of that military and the rest of the world.

 

[Ajidica]

Off the top of my head? I would say a resuming of open hostilities between North and South Korea has been prevented by the presence of both US and Chinese forces.

The presence of US and Chinese forces also contributed to the fact it hasn't gotten resolved. So, success?

Not to mention, who deals with piracy? The navies of powerful nations, because other nations simply don't have the assets (and can't afford them) to combat piracy.

Because guided missile cruisers and SSNs are a rational response to pirates with knockoff AK47s and RPGs in fishing boats.

Also, the conflicts you mention were either civil wars or brushfire wars, that never really escalated into significant state-on-state warfare. I mean, when's the last time the world has really seen a major, bloody, state-on-state conflict? The Iran-Iraq War?

The Angolan-South African Border war was definitely a full state-on-state conflict, seeing the largest armored battle in Africa since WWII at Cuito Cuanavale. The Ugandan-Tanzania War was a full war between states. That the Second Congo War was messy doesn't get around the fact Kabila's regime was saved because Angolan T-55s prevented a Rwandan advance on Kinshasa and a whole host of countries were maintaining a formal military presence in the country.
If we include Northern Africa -which I'm fuzzier on- we get the Libyan-Mali War and the perpetual Arab-Israeli conflicts. Even by excluding the bush wars, sordid little dictators don't really care what superpower intervention might occur.

You also mention intervention being done under the auspices of the UN. Well, who do you think makes UN interventions possible? The majority of UN peacekeeping forces come from the most powerful member nations.

Peacekeeping forces?
Nope.
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/contributors.shtml
China barely eeks its way into the top 10 due to its recent surge in African peacekeeping involvement. The next closest is Italy in the mid 20s. The United States is down there with Zimbabwe and Namibia. Ukraine currently has over 5 times more people serving with the UN as troops, police, and advisors than the United States does.
During the Congo Crisis - which was unique in that it was a peacekeeping operation two years before the Cuban Missile Crisis enjoying the support of the US and USSR- neither the US nor USSR contributed troops. Nor did any of the other P5 for that matter.

Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Ceylon, Denmark, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Liberia, Malaya, Federation of Mali, Morocco, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Sweden, Tunisia, United Arab Republic and Yugoslavia

I would hazard a guess that the most powerful country in that list was the UAR. Hardly an example of superpowers providing any peacekeeping forces. Let alone the majority.

 

[Commodore]

The presence of US and Chinese forces also contributed to the fact it hasn't gotten resolved. So, success?

Well, people are killing each other in the hundreds of thousands and the North Korean regime is on the brink of collapse, so yes.

Because guided missile cruisers and SSNs are a rational response to pirates with knockoff AK47s and RPGs in fishing boats.

Of course not. But then those weren't designed for that purpose, it just turns out they can be used for that purpose. Plus, it's all about the intimidation factor. Pirates with AKs and RPGs aren't going to want to ply their trade when they see modern warships patrolling their waters. I mean, just sending a few more ships into the Indian Ocean near the Somali coast and the Horn of Africa caused a pretty sharp decrease in piracy incidents.

The Angolan-South African Border war was definitely a full state-on-state conflict, seeing the largest armored battle in Africa since WWII at Cuito Cuanavale. The Ugandan-Tanzania War was a full war between states. That the Second Congo War was messy doesn't get around the fact Kabila's regime was saved because Angolan T-55s prevented a Rwandan advance on Kinshasa and a whole host of countries were maintaining a formal military presence in the country.
If we include Northern Africa -which I'm fuzzier on- we get the Libyan-Mali War and the perpetual Arab-Israeli conflicts. Even by excluding the bush wars, sordid little dictators don't really care what superpower intervention might occur.

I'll take your word for it, since I'll admit I don't know too terribly much about wars in Africa outside of the Liberian Civil War. But I would say that kinda helps my argument a bit. I mean, the powerful nations of the world largely ignore Africa and it is the most conflict ridden continent in the world. Maybe a little more attention from the powers of this world would calm things down a bit.

Peacekeeping forces?
Nope.
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/contributors.shtml
China barely eeks its way into the top 10 due to its recent surge in African peacekeeping involvement. The next closest is Italy in the mid 20s. The United States is down there with Zimbabwe and Namibia. Ukraine currently has over 5 times more people serving with the UN as troops, police, and advisors than the United States does.
During the Congo Crisis - which was unique in that it was a peacekeeping operation two years before the Cuban Missile Crisis enjoying the support of the US and USSR- neither the US nor USSR contributed troops. Nor did any of the other P5 for that matter.

I would hazard a guess that the most powerful country in that list was the UAR. Hardly an example of superpowers providing any peacekeeping forces. Let alone the majority.

Okay, you got me there.