Is the US Militarized?

[Commodore]

When people complain about 'cops having tanks' they envision your local deputy driving around an Abrams M1 tank, but that is not anywhere near the actual truth of the situation.

So what you're saying is it's not like this at all:


Link to video.

 

[daft]

One of the things that struck me about the US on a recent visit to New York City was the massive numbers of visible US flags; far more than in any other country I've been to.

That said, I don't think flag quantity has a unique relationship with militarism.

Absolutely doesn't. Quantity of flags only proves patriotism, and the Americans are known to be very patriotic. Patriotism can lead you into major trouble. As example I remind you of the story of a talented football player/patriot/volunteer, Pat Tillman. Killed by fellow Americans in Afghanistan in a friendly fire accident.

 

[daft]

Is US a traditionally militaristic nation? There can be no denying that. Since WWII more so, I would say.

 

[MobBoss]

I said tank and you posted a pic of something you say is not a tank. Try googling police battering ram tanks, some of them got treads.

No, I posted the image of what Steven Seagall drove in the link you provided. Apparently you didn't do your homework.

Again. Not a tank. It's an APC.

That aint non-lethal, even cops have been killed by them. And sadly cops carry out these no-knock raids on homes based on the possibility of a well-armed criminal intent on a shootout, not on reality. That means the SOP becomes the shock and awe means of apprehending home owners.

Again, non-lethal doesn't mean that it cant kill you if things go horribly wrong. Non-lethal means it is not purposely designed to kill, and it's not.

For example, tasers are non-lethal, however, they can still cause someone to have a heart attack and die.

I found 1 site with dozens just within the last few years, the case that initially gave me reason to oppose no-knock raids and explosives was the 1989 Minnesota case of an elderly couple killed by the fire the cops set with their bombs.

Right, but they died from fire, not from the flash bangs. It was an extreme occurrence in consideration of how often they are used.

They're following our lead

Not really. I believe Flashbangs originated in the UK.

How many innocent people get hurt or killed when cops knock at the door and wait for it to open so they can wave their warrant in the face of the home owner?

Is your standard a zero-error situation? Because that is simply unrealistic. Not going to happen. Not as long as people are involved in such things.

Do people get hurt in law enforcement actions? Assuredly. But if they get hurt wrongfully, then those injured/wronged can pursue legal means to be compensated for it.

Yes, they're effective at terrorizing people

Again, a few dozen instances in the last 20 years doesn't prove this. Stunning someone with a flash bang is indeed disorientating, but is it terrorism? Not even if the broadest definition of the word.

If you're bombarding someone's house with explosives or tear gas and it catches fire, the courts say thats a reasonable search. They're nuts, they wouldn't think it reasonable if it was their home being invaded. Neither would you.

First of all, you over-hype the issue significantly. People simply aren't being 'bombarded with explosives'. That's a complete over-exaggeration. You make it sound like people are being carpet bombed military style. They simply aren't.

Secondly, its up to the courts to determine reasonableness and liability. It's how our system works.

If you're plowing into someone's house it dont matter if wheels or treads propel the vehicle. The cops have both... Wow, arguing over treads or wheels now?

Again, you seem uninformed on the issue. The only reason I made that comparison is because of President Obama's recent order to limit military equipment to police. Wheeled vehicles are allowed, tracked vehicles aren't.

You didn't ask for dozens or hundreds or thousands of cases, just a few. So I post a few and you ignore them because it was only a few.

Actually, I made no such distinction. You only posted your presumably quick google search. That's simply not nearly enough evidence to prove your allegations.

So you didn't terrorize or torture people... How many court martials for the torturers?

Again, you seem to not be clear on the context of what was said. A breach of the Rules of Engagement as you earlier alleged (anything goes) isn't really a torture war crime as one would find at Abu Graib prison. I'm sure to a laymen like you it might all be the same, but I assure you it's not. I participated in dozens of courts martials and probably hundreds, if not thousands of admin separation boards for such issues over my 26 year military career as a paralegal. The military takes a dim view of those lacking the discipline to respect the laws of land warfare.

 

[cav scout]

Unless you count Israel, the US is clearly the most militarized western nation by a large margin. This is immediately obvious to anyone who has experienced less militarized societies.

Is it militarized to a problematic degree? That's a different question I suppose. It's militarized enough to make me personally uncomfortable, at least.

Germany, Switzerland, Denmark and Norway all have conscription while the U.S. doesn't. Why do you think the U.S. is militarized? Is your opinion based on personal experience? What is it that makes you feel uncomfortable?

 

[Berzerker]

No, I posted the image of what Steven Seagall drove in the link you provided. Apparently you didn't do your homework.

Again. Not a tank. It's an APC.

It dont matter if the tank bulldozing your house has wheels or treads, it aint reasonable and that means its a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Again, non-lethal doesn't mean that it cant kill you if things go horribly wrong. Non-lethal means it is not purposely designed to kill, and it's not.

If its lethal it aint non-lethal, you wanna argue over what a tank is?

Right, but they died from fire, not from the flash bangs.

And people dont die from bullets, they die from the loss of blood.

Is your standard a zero-error situation? Because that is simply unrealistic. Not going to happen. Not as long as people are involved in such things.

You said these tactics save the lives of the people being apprehended. Thats nonsense. I expect cops to obey the 4th Amendment, searches are to be reasonable. Throwing grenades at people and driving tanks into their homes are not reasonable.

Do people get hurt in law enforcement actions? Assuredly. But if they get hurt wrongfully, then those injured/wronged can pursue legal means to be compensated for it.

More people get hurt and killed enforcing drug laws

Stunning someone with a flash bang is indeed disorientating, but is it terrorism? Not even if the broadest definition of the word.

Of course its terrorism, the whole point of a no-knock raid with grenades is to scare the bejesus out of the occupants.

First of all, you over-hype the issue significantly. People simply aren't being 'bombarded with explosives'. That's a complete over-exaggeration. You make it sound like people are being carpet bombed military style. They simply aren't.

How many explosions at your door before you feel like you're being attacked?

Again, you seem to not be clear on the context of what was said. A breach of the Rules of Engagement as you earlier alleged (anything goes) isn't really a torture war crime as one would find at Abu Graib prison. I'm sure to a laymen like you it might all be the same, but I assure you it's not. I participated in dozens of courts martials and probably hundreds, if not thousands of admin separation boards for such issues over my 26 year military career as a paralegal. The military takes a dim view of those lacking the discipline to respect the laws of land warfare.

Does that mean you helped court martial people for torture or not?

 

[Berzerker]

no knock raids are how the military behaves in a warzone

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

No, it is not. In fact, it is so de-militarized and peaceful that even North Korea could occupy half of it in a few weeks (proof). That is why all the good guys, all the democracies of the world must bunch together so that neither of them were attacked by evil crazy dictators who burn their own officials with flame-throwers or masturbate on beautiful politician ladies of the good countries.

 

[MobBoss]

It dont matter if the tank bulldozing your house has wheels or treads, it aint reasonable and that means its a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Except there isn't a single example of tanks, wheeled or tracked 'bulldozing' peoples houses. Is there a reason you insist on hyper-exaggerating the issue?

If its lethal it aint non-lethal, you wanna argue over what a tank is?

By that definition, everything is lethal.

And there isn't any argument over what a tank is. None. I think most reasonable people would acknowledge the difference in an APC that's basically an up-armored truck and an actual tank.

And people dont die from bullets, they die from the loss of blood.

Death from ballistic trauma can be from more than just simple blood loss. But I appreciate your attempt there.

You said these tactics save the lives of the people being apprehended. Thats nonsense. I expect cops to obey the 4th Amendment, searches are to be reasonable. Throwing grenades at people and driving tanks into their homes are not reasonable.

We've already ascertained that the claim of 'tanks being driven into people's homes' simply isn't true, so you can dispense with that allegation.

And reasonableness of a search typically has to do more with the warrant as opposed to the execution thereof. What you are talking about is use of force. And it's long been decided that the use of non-lethal flashbangs are within the limits of use of force if there is a valid suspicion of armed response to the execution of the warrant.

I'll give you this. You're incredibly wrong, but you don't give up easy.

Of course its terrorism, the whole point of a no-knock raid with grenades is to scare the bejesus out of the occupants.

Totally false on both counts. The point of the no-knock warrant isn't to scare people, it's to take them by surprise with as little chance of reprisal as possible. That's not terrorism by even the broadest definitions of the word.

How many explosions at your door before you feel like you're being attacked?

With a flashbang hopefully you're in custody even before you feel like it. Kind of the point actually.

Does that mean you helped court martial people for torture or not?

For not obeying lawful orders.

 

[Agent327]

I am reading the biography of John Maynard Keynes that came out this week. I have learned to hate the man. Still, that does not mean he was wrong. (In fact he was rarely wrong, which is why I have grown to hate him.)

In any case, in the 1920s, he decried the militarism of Britain in that era. He was not talking about Imperialism. That seems to never have been a blip on his moral radar. He was concerned that the huge number of veterans from the Great War changed British society.

The purpose of reading history is to see the present and future more clearly.

Interesting point of view. (Especially considering that 'the future' isn't something anybody can see. Which, I believe, hasn't changed much since Keynes. It's hard enough to see the past.)

 

[Phrossack]

Germany, Switzerland, Denmark and Norway all have conscription while the U.S. doesn't. Why do you think the U.S. is militarized? Is your opinion based on personal experience? What is it that makes you feel uncomfortable?

Germany abandoned conscription four years ago, actually.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Germany abandoned conscription four years ago, actually.

I think France did too, but don't quote me on that. iirc, the US has had peacetime conscription in the past, but not recently. Our last wartime draft was in the early 1970s.

 

[Civ'ed]

most european countries got rid of peacetime conscription.

 

[calad]

I dont want to turn this into a gun debate but:

US has always had an unhealthy relationship with weapons, personally I think increasing firepower in society during time of peace always will have more negative sides than positive. And currently US has become more militarized and it is cancer of society.

 

[Sonereal]

I'm sure you'll explain to the class why private ownership of weapons = militarization and how this is related.

 

[Borachio]

I dont want to turn this into a gun debate but:

It's a real mystery to me why Mexico, Brazil, Russia and South Africa aren't included in the "developed" world.

 

[plarq]

It's a real mystery to me why Mexico, Brazil, Russia and South Africa aren't included in the "developed" world.

They're not rich enough.

But where're middle eastern oil producers? Where's Singapore?

 

[Pangaea]

So are people actually arguing the US isn't militarised? That's a bit peculiar for a country with about 50% of the "defence" [sic] spending on the planet.

 

[MobBoss]

So are people actually arguing the US isn't militarised? That's a bit peculiar for a country with about 50% of the "defence" [sic] spending on the planet.

As has been pointed out several times, as a percentage of GDP there are several nations above us in that category.

 

[civvver]

Uh... why does it matter exactly? What would demilitarizing the US accomplish?