A conservative argument supporting Reagan's military buildup was that the best defense is a good offense. The power to annihilate another country, combined with the (nascent) ability to defend oneself from their missiles, would provide enough deterrent to keep semi-rogues such as the USSR from trying anything untoward. A strong force in terms of ground troops and a navy would provide further deterrent. Unfortunately, post-Reagan experiences such as North Korea's apparent attempts to develop a nuclear arsenal; the nuclear testiness between India and Pakistan; and China's recent deployment advances remind us that it would be unwise to dump our own nuclear arsenal, nor should we cease development of a space-based missile defense system.
But what other kinds of disarmament are there? Also relevant: What is proper in terms of military capability – what should our armed services be able to accomplish? Many free thinkers assert that our military presences in Bosnia, Israel, Japan, etc. are unwarranted and inconsistent with the Constitution. Perhaps it is time to allow Japan and Germany to have whatever armies they want; it's been 50 years, and the United States should not be the world's police force. A big step in slimming the federal budget, then, would involve pulling those forces from "peacekeeping" and other dubious missions around the globe. Our Constitution fails to provide for most if not all of the uses to which the military has been put over the last eight years and perhaps the last 50 years.
What military might should be maintained, then? The final answer could only be provided by numerous experts after extensive discussion, but I have an idea that might provide a good starting point: A massive campaign encouraging homeowners to own firearms.
In Vietnam, one of the reasons we could not win whatever it was we were waging was that people there were willing to strap anti-personnel bombs disguised as toys onto children. A little weapon goes a long way when it seems every citizen has one and is willing to use it. Switzerland provides another example: Every male has a military rifle and is trained to use it. While this is only one reason the Swiss have stayed neutral through the years (others include terrain and a, to be charitable, creative bent in foreign policy matters), it is a big reason.
A large country simply cannot be occupied if homeowners are armed, minimally trained, and willing to fight. If America were populated by people like the Swiss, there would be no hope, now or ever, to invade with any success. To invade and occupy requires ground troops – this means people, people entering towns and ultimately walking around. If citizens of a sufficiently populous nation (say, bigger than Denmark) are armed, there is no possibility that a military force large enough to occupy could ever get there. Just enough navy to defend border cities, and enough mass-destruction weapons to deter others from launching theirs would be all we need. A foreign military force large enough to occupy the United States, which would mean millions of personnel, would be an easy target for a missile attack. The mere mobilization of such a force would be noticed long before it got anywhere.
We cannot follow the example of the Swiss literally: Personal weapons there are provided by the government, and every man serves in the army. But we can have the same result. In America, law-abiding, mentally sound people should be encouraged to own weapons and know how to use them. Many department stores, including Wal-Mart, still sell inexpensive rifles, shotguns, and ammunition, and will offer free safety and instructional literature. Defending your household for $250, and maybe $5 per year afterward for ammo and cleaning supplies, is a bargain: Bush's current budget requests $310 billion for the military, which comes out to a little over $1100 for each man, woman, and child in the country, or nearly $3300 for the average-sized household. And that's for only one year, while an inexpensive shotgun, properly maintained, can last a lifetime. Here's one off-the-cuff speculation: If the military budget provided only for the constitutional purpose of the military, which today probably should mean both defending borders and deterring nuclear, chemical, and biological attack, it likely could be cut to $150 billion or less while IMPROVING salaries, equipment, arms, and training for the remaining personnel.
As a bonus, our nation would be less attractive as a target of foreign invasion, though of course we're not an inviting target now. Another bonus, as John Lott has demonstrated, is that we could expect a sudden and substantial drop in most crimes. Yet another bonus is that the wishes of the founding fathers as expressed in e.g. Federalist 29 that free, armed people can outgun a tyrannical central government if necessary – good wishes indeed – would be realized (assuming the US government never sees an advantage in nuking us). There's almost no limit to these bonuses: There would be fewer military commando-types to "consult" the FBI and ATF on military tactics to use against American citizens in their homes. It would no longer be necessary to quiz new Marine recruits as to whether they would be willing to take up arms against the citizens of America (to the extent such reports are accurate, which they seem to be).
We do not need the ability to invade another far-off country. As historians will confirm, no democracy attacked another democracy in the 20th century.
It's just an idea.
March 3, 2001
Brad Edmonds, Doctor of Musical Arts, is a banker in Alabama.
