Well what is it you mean by undersized? I simply believe that we must maintain a strong military and not deploy troops or weapons until we are attacked in some way, shape, or form. We must be purely on the defensive. If we are sought out, we should go after our enemies. But other than that, we must stay out of everyone’s way.
I don’t think that just because we wouldn’t be imperialists would mean that we wouldn’t be feared. A developed military is healthy, but an over sized one is extreme and uncalled for.
Agreed. I’m just trying to come to a conclusion on Plato’s opinion on this.
I’m not sure how possible it is to keep a defensive army that is non-imperialistic. No matter how good the training is, surely an imperialistic army will always have more experience than a defensive army that has never tasted battle?
Also, I know that libertarians typically say “A nation that cannot defend itself with volunteers alone does not deserve to exist”, which is a point with some fairness behind it, but I don’t think it makes sense in the real world, not morally. I mean which, to you, is a more preferable scenario:
An isolationist nation conscripting soldiers as an absolute last resort to fight against a powerful imperialistic force.
Or an imperialistic, fascist, conscription-fuelled nation taking over the world because all the other nations were too morally liberal to conscript the troops necessary to fight it.
Well don’t forget, I am not opposed to all forms of taxation. Mainly I only support a sales tax, but it is easily able to fund a military. I’d rather have well-trained volunteers (via tax dollars) than poorly trained conscription men. Many draftees are so unwilling to be in the military they prove to be inefficient soldiers. Fascism, in that sense, is a failure. Large in numbers, but diminished in quality.