Ken Taylor,
There is so much unchallenged in this essay, particularly from a philosopher. But perhaps the most impressive unchallenged statement is this: "...there has never been and will never be a vast and populous nation like ours without armed services." From the host of show dedicated to "questioning everything" this is quite impressive. Instead of supposing that what we seek is the "goldilocks" military - not too big, not too small, not too many wars, not neither the folly of too few wars, not too much torture, nor too little torture, not too many bombs, but neither too few bombs - one should be looking at the comparing the costs of a military versus the benefits of a military. Also, consider a different view from yours - that a military is at the very best a necessary evil, and therefore consider how far we could go in de-militarizing our society and economy to our benefit - how close could we come to the ideal of a demilitarized society?

在美国进入越南之前，肯尼迪想要阻止的就是恐惧。他会走进会议室，看到一群战争指挥官渴望得到一份工作，他就会厌恶地离开。我赞同他的观点。

维塔斯在这里,
Oh, the military is a useful thing.
I still agree with my old UC Philosophy Prof, Tussman, that the military virtues ( loyalty, bravery, service, sacrifice etc.) are, well, virtuous. But ten years in the military taught me that top ranked career military long for glory and would love the opportunity to become another McArthur or Patton and perhaps eventually, like ike, be President. Peace is the last priority of the military, and, apparently, of our current Federal Government as well.
But I suppose our nuclear arsenal --still thousands of warheads---gives some assurance that we won't be invaded by --somebody (the Chinese?). Though, of course we still could be blown to nuclear hell by the Russians or the Chinese---there have been some close calls due to technical malfunction and false information and who knows what future coo-coo birds may yet come to roost in the high offices of nuclear powers generally?---might Pakistan push the button if it felt a national threat from the US? Already some in the US have argued we should deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Afghanistan. In any case, the nuclear genie is unlikely to re-bottle.
我认为，所有这些都意味着，这个世界(包括美国)仍然足够疯狂，我们需要一支军事力量来防御;我们需要防御别人对我们的疯狂的反应。
It is not enough to say that the world needs to de-militarize---yes, we do---it's just that there's no trust yet------even if desire were high, and it is not---so we must also say that until there is such trust a US army is needed to defend.
Some argue that our ability to defend the US from direct invasion is greatly diminished since Rumsfeld made the US military more a playtoy of corporations to "project" American corporate greed around the world. If the Chinese invaded the US could we halt it? Or would we just push the nuclear button and there goes the whole American/ Asian hemisphere?
All this, I think, must be included when you think of the US military.
Until we, the world's folk, have sentiments and institutions of peace that are stronger than the institutions of greed and hate and political ambition and blind nationalist jingoism---there will be military defense. Does the world need it? No. Only petty, selfish, distrusful and untrustworthy, ignorant, foolish and unevolved nation -states need such a military---but that pretty much includes everybody. Maybe the world will outgrow the nation-state as it did the city-state and become one. Or maybe one nation will conquer the rest to form one government-- as the abundance of such conquerors in history would suggest, or perhaps some kind of elaborate military coup will subdue the globe.
An army for territorial defense then would be unecessary, perhaps. But then again there is nothing like a war with---somebody--- to patriotically boost dismal popularity polls and boost corporate profits. Yes, the military has many uses.

如果我们这样做，那就糟了;如果不这么做，我们就完了。奥克汉姆剃刀还是达摩克利斯之剑?永远做你一直在做的事，永远得到你一直得到的东西。但是，你就是停不下来。即使你想…
Historionic Effect? Could be. Hey, Heisenberg---come back and talk to us about uncertainty, please?

War?
What a telling question.
That you and others question war at all only tells me just how terribly far you and we and they and US still have to go for peace.
Peace,
=
MJA
=
MJA

纽曼告诉我们这是怎么回事:总是做你一直在做的事情……等等。米鲁盖采取了全面的方法:摆脱战争，无论如何……历史效应说，现在要走出我们自己所描绘的那个角落已经太晚了。许多人(思想者和非思想者)都会同意，战争是解决分歧的一种代价高昂的方式。但我们之所以成为今天的我们，是因为几千年来我们面对的所有突发事件。历史从不让我们忘记，也很少让我们原谅——尽管我们可能会公开承认并非如此。斯蒂芬·霍金在他的《时间简史》中提出了一个尖锐的问题:如果我们能看到过去，为什么我们不能看到未来?当然，他的问题是基于物理学、量子理论、相对论等等。我的想法没那么复杂，因为我对霍金的理论知之甚少:我们能看到过去，因为它已经发生了。我们只能基于我们的持股比例，以及已经发生的事情还会再次发生的观念，来预测未来。 The notion of seeing the future appears to depend on how fast someone can travel and that speed must exceed the speed of light. But nothing CAN exceed the speed of light---can it? So where are we left? Right here, I assert. Always doing what we have always done---always getting what we have always gotten. It is interesting how the aspect of complexity (see: Stuart Kauffman) can be overcome by the aspect of simplicity. As Clint Eastwood said in one of the Dirty Harry movies: ...man's got to know his limitations. Sure.
(* OEOs: observations, experiences and opinions)

我真希望我听到了这个直播。作为一名退役军官和现在的ROTC教官，我认为这是一个重要的思想。这是一个仅靠军事专业人员无法决定的问题。
First of all, do we need a military? We can dream of a world of total peace, but no philosophical position that fails to take human nature into account is worth pursuing, because one cannot live it out. Human nature is basically selfish, and this translates into national nature - whether of nation-states, or ethnic groups, or any other grouping. Neutrality is possible - but only if surrounding belligerents allow it (Switzerland's neutrality has been successful for the past five centuries, however Holland's has failed twice just in the 20th century). For us, even if the US completely disarmed, our potential power is too great to be ignored - no would-be world conqueror could afford to leave us alone. So not having a military is only a viable option if we are willing to accept the consequences - being conquered or destroyed from the outside.
如今的美国军队规模庞大，令人生畏。我们是地球上唯一一个拥有强大力量投送能力的国家，所以我们不会面临入侵的风险。只有俄罗斯、中国和印度可以用核打击打击我们，而且只有俄罗斯拥有足够大的武器库来摧毁我们——中国可能有20枚导弹，印度更少。那么我们应该有多庞大和强大呢?我们应该只专注于保卫我们自己所需要的东西，还是我们强大的国力和财富需要承担比这更大的责任?我持后一种立场——就像一个富人承担的责任不仅仅是建造自己的豪宅，一个强者也承担着保护弱者的责任，所以我们也承担着在力所能及的地方提供帮助的责任，包括支持我们的盟友，包括军事上的支持。我们必须在任其发生或决定成为和平与正义的力量之间做出选择。因此，我们必须选择每天承担多少责任，以平衡我们“可以”做的事情和“帝国过度扩张”(借用肯尼迪先生的《大国的兴衰》一书中的一个术语)的风险。
认为和平是事物的自然秩序，战争是某种邪恶的反常行为，这是错误的。这种思维上的错误导致人们认为，只要我们不主动发动战争，我们就会自然地获得和平。这是无稽之谈。和平必须努力争取和积极维护，那些拒绝付出这一代价的人最终以战争结束，而战争的代价更大。认为战争是终极邪恶，和平总是更好的想法同样是错误的。从历史上看，这是一个非常近期的想法，但它是错误的。有些和平是不值得维持的——例如，一个“和平”会让基地组织等组织拥有一个全国性的安全避风港和基地，可以随意发动袭击，或者一个“和平”会让欧洲被纳粹吞噬。Sometimes war is the better alternative .

War is better altenative?
OMG!!!
=

Michael: in some cases, it clearly is. Do you really believe it would be "better" to just allow the Nazis to rule Europe, and maybe have had time to wipe out all the Jews, Gypsies, Poles, et al? Or to leave al-Qaeda running around unchecked in Afghanistan, and perhaps have three or four 9/11s by now? Or maybe the Israelis should just allow the surrounding Arabs to exterminate them - which they've tried to do several times? Would that be "better?"
Again, don't make the mistake of believing that peace is the natural order of things, and war is some kind of aberration. War is just as natural a state of affairs, and peace does not maintain itself. Only those willing to do the work and pay the price will have peace. History demonstrates that one of those prices is being strong enough to make potential aggressors think twice.
Which brings us back to the original question - what is a military good for? The answers are: 1) to prevent aggression; 2) to defeat aggression should it occur; 3) thereby to maintain the liberty of the American people (and often as not, other people too); 4) in accordance with our oath, to ensure the protection of the Constitution; 5) to provide the capability to stop some really bad things happening around the world (genocide and the like). Examples abound of the military doing all of these things, when no other institution could have done the same.
Unless someone out there can show me an actual example of unilateral disarmament leading to peace? Or any disarmament regime of any kind leading to peace? Or an disarmed nation that remained free?
Philosophy is a wonderful thing, but a philosophical position that cannot function in the real world is useless.

I think our Dept. of Defense should be renamed the dept of Offense and then done away with.
今天，我们的总统结束了伊拉克战争，这场战争是我们挑起的。
We are responsible for the invasion, destruction, and injuries and deaths of well over 100,000 Iraqi people and their country.
Is it a day to celebrate Nathan, or a day to say we are sorry?
=
=

The invasion of Iraq was unjust, and we do owe an apology there. The Dept of Defense did not start that war, though, the President did, as he was allowed to by a Congress that has abdicated its war powers responsibilities in the interest of avoiding blame.
One instance, however, does not make your case. If the United States had no military capability, there would be no United States. If the democracies had no military capability, there would be no democracy. Would that be a good thing?
In the real world there are people, organizations, even nations, that hate us, that dream of our destruction, and that covet what we have. There is no evidence to suggest that if we unilaterally disarmed, they would suddenly forget about us. Five thousand years of human history suggest quite the opposite.
所以问题仍然是:如果我们没有在军事上保护自己的手段，你会建议我们使用什么手段?如果我们没有办法在军事上保护我们的盟友，你会用什么来代替?如果我们没有阻止侵略的军事手段，你们会用什么手段?If we gave up the military means to stop genocides, police peace agreements, even respond to natural disasters, what capacity would you put in its place that could do all those things?

Maybe I am wrong Nathan to think this Way, but I would rather be totally defenseless than be responsible as an American, as we the people of the United States are responsible for the horrific deaths, injuries and destructions we have caused and are causing to the innocent peoples of other countries all around the world, and all in the name of Democracy. I Nathan would rather have none.
To Peace,
=

Mike: there are many kinds of Peace, not all of them good. We don't feel it directly, because of where we are, but most of the world operates on a very different set of rules than we experience here in the US. In most of the world, "he who kicks the most ass makes the rules." I've seen some of these places with my own eyes, so I know beyond doubt that I would not want to live in that world, that I would not want anyone else to live in that world, that I do not want my children to end up living in that world. Which means protecting them, and the democracy that keeps our world from becoming that world. You may not think democracy is worth that much, but I'm not sure if you've seen the parts of the world that don't have it. I have. Democracy, even at the price we've paid for it, is a bargain.

I think America kicks the most ass don't we?
我想我们定了规矩。
我们甚至告诉其他国家他们不能拥有核武器，但我们拥有最多。
当我们同意不扩散核武器时，我们把它们送给朋友。
We arm the world with weapons and build up or military to stop them.
We invade other countries and call them terrorist,
But if we were ever invaded, how terrific would we be?
There is no good in war,
Unless of course you drink the cool aid.
Cheers,
=

Thank you Cat. Really hplfeul and powerful across the cyberspace when people share their deepest Truths, and help me to expand mine. This communication is a blessing.God bless, Catrin

PFC US Army Infantry, i have never been deployed, i cant speak from first hand experience, but this is my opinion.
美国的问题是，我们从来没有被入侵过，所以平民不知道战争到底是什么，他们只是认为是高层感到无聊，想“找点乐子”。他们不明白大多数伊拉克人民是如何感谢我们所做的，他们不明白压迫性政府有多糟糕，我的意思是，看在上帝的份上，萨达姆和他的孩子折磨和杀害了整个伊拉克足球队，因为他们输了一场比赛，你真的认为伊拉克人民宁愿我们没有入侵，宁愿萨达姆回来吗?
People need to stop being naive ignorant fools and see both sides of the story before you speak, and yes i do believe that some wars are unjust and some just happened because of the higher ups, in the most part they are for good reasons and do good.