It's difficult to turn a military indiscriminately against its own populace. It would have to isolate a particular group, and then individual dissenters, intimidating the rest of the populous.

So no worries, only the most defenseless minorities are in the real shit when that happens.

Yes, the primary role of the military is to protect citizens. From what? Well, external threats. We have the police to tackle domestic problems. These external threats are against the union which all states agreed to in forming the federation.

Do you still think the military should be state-controlled?

It might be difficult, but I don't think it would be impossible. If we were to have federally funded state governments that could prevent against a totalitarian state I think that would be the best option. I don't really see how it could take away our ability to defend against external threats either.

Why should the military focus only on external threats? If we were to ever reach a point where we had to rise up against our national government, there isn't much we could do at this point. With the advancements of weapon technology, most people couldn't really afford to pay for anything that could fight off drones, missiles, tanks or any of the technology the government uses.

Maybe we should just reduce the external. One world government. Illuminati confirmed.

Why should the military focus only on external threats? If we were to ever reach a point where we had to rise up against our national government, there isn't much we could do at this point. With the advancements of weapon technology, most people couldn't really afford to pay for anything that could fight off drones, missiles, tanks or any of the technology the government uses. — MonfortS26

You're right in that the military can become a threat to the very citizens it was created to protect but I don't foresee such a problem in healthy democracies around the world. It's a problem, if history teaches anything, for totalitarian regimes.

Shouldn't our healthy democracies be prepared for such situations though? Wouldn't state run militaries be a potential solution?

Shouldn't our healthy democracies be prepared for such situations though? Wouldn't state run militaries be a potential solution? — MonfortS26

You'd be jumping from the frying pan into the fire. State-run militaries are prone to the same problems as a federal army. I think the problem of the military (its potential to turn cancerous) is very deepseated, defying a solution (for me atleast).

I believe that a single authority on any matter is a dangerous road to corruption. By leaving our military under the ultimate control of the federal government aren't we putting ourselves in the likely position of losing our freedoms? Shouldn't military power be divided? — MonfortS26

Why would the state as the single authority be better than the federal government as the single authority? Why not an independent military for each county? Each city?

People are always in danger of losing their freedom whether there is 1 centralized military or 50. There are several entities -- the military, the local police, educational institutions, religious organizations, political systems, etc. who would like to trim back the sails of freedom -- get people's thinking and actions under control.

What keeps people from losing their freedom, is (to borrow a phrase) eternal vigilance. One must be on guard against control by brute force, mind control, fear mongering, propaganda, lies, drugs, media, and so on. Use your freedom or lose it.

If the purpose of the military is to protect its citizens, ... — MonfortS26

:-} The military is also used for attack, conquest, or invasion, recall, which has little to do with protection. The US-led invasion of Iraq, for instance, served special interests far more than it protected citizens against alleged "weapons of mass destruction". The idea of protection was misused to mislead the citizens.

By leaving our military under the ultimate control of the federal government aren't we putting ourselves in the likely position of losing our freedoms? Shouldn't military power be divided? — MonfortS26

A federal government is, by definition, a mixed or compound mode of government, and that's how power should be divided in a democracy.

A democracy without government merely amounts to "might makes right", in which case all citizens lose their freedoms because (like what Bitter Crank says about "eternal vigilance") they end up being on guard against each other all the time and everywhere.

like what Bitter Crank says about "eternal vigilance") — jkop

Oddly enough, or not, it isn't clear who actually first wrote or spoke the phrase, "Eternal Vigilance is the price of liberty." Thomas Jefferson may or may not have said it, an abolitionist may or may not have said it, an Irish lawyer may or may not have said it. I definitely know that I didn't make it up, so somebody said it, sometime, somewhere, to someone.

:-} The military is also used for attack, conquest, or invasion, recall, which has little to do with protection. The US-led invasion of Iraq, for instance, served special interests far more than it protected citizens against alleged "weapons of mass destruction". The idea of protection was misused to mislead the citizens. — jkop

Well I believe that the use of the military for unnecessary violence or monetary gain is immoral. Obviously the act of misleading citizens to satisfy special interests is wrong. Arguably depending on the special interests, but I don't enough about the war on Iraq to make claims about it. I certainly think the main focus of our military should be protection.

A democracy without government merely amounts to "might makes right", in which case all citizens lose their freedoms because (like what Bitter Crank says about "eternal vigilance") they end up being on guard against each other all the time and everywhere. — jkop

I agree, but I also think that we should have our guards up at all times. I'm incredibly concerned about the strengths of our freedoms. I see too much possibility for our government to lose power to a hidden corrupt elitist agenda, and I think that we should divide our military so that it isn't under complete control of one person because that could lead to some very bad situations. A democratic military with the capability of separating and fighting our government if need be.

A democratic military with the capability of separating and fighting our government if need be. — MonfortS26

Who would appoint your "democratic" military if not the citizens or their representatives, i.e. the federal government?

Moreover, without a shared commander of the military you'd have different independent commanders, and the mightiest of them would get to rule what is "right", like a puppet master of the government and the citizens. That's a dictatorship.

The state governments could elect a leader and whenever there is any international threat there would be a meeting to decide what to do about it. We shouldn't have a system in place where someone like Donald Trump can come in out of nowhere and have full power of our armed forces. When the country was founded it made sense to have a president because of the slow speed of communication. There needed to be someone to make a decision and fast. We don't need that anymore. With the advancements of technology, fast communication isn't an issue.

I don't think there needs to be a single commander of the military. There should be a board in command of the military. That seems like the best way to keep our country protected from the inside to me.

Why draw the line at the state level? Why not districts or counties?

If the purpose of the military is to protect its citizens, Why is that left up to the federal government? — MonfortS26

For better or worse, the Constitution specifically identifies the military as the responsibility of the federal government.

If the purpose of the military is to protect its citizens, Why is that left up to the federal government? — MonfortS26

Because 50 state governments would have one hell of a problem coordinating their collective defense against foreign enemies. Imagine the 48 states trying to decide how to defend themselves from Germany and Japan in WWII: 48 governors, 48 legislatures, 48 treasuries, 48 military organizations... it makes one ill thinking how badly that would end.

The individual states all have the means (more or less) to defend themselves within their own borders. They have city police, county sheriffs, highway patrols, riot squads, and so forth. They all have "national guard" units.

War between states, like Florida attacks Alabama? Connecticut seizes Rhode Island? Minnesota annexes both Dakotas and then sells them to Canada? California secede? 49 states decide to erase Texas from the face of the earth?

That's why some central power needs to be on hand.

For better or worse, the Constitution specifically identifies the military as the responsibility of the federal government. — T Clark

My thoughts exactly. Congress has the exclusive authority to make a declaration of war. Philosophically we can easily see the justification for it. The constitution can be viewed in one aspect as a treaty between the States of the Union.

Federal government vs state government arguments have never resonated with me. I don't think that states are any less prone to corruption, the other people in my state are no more likely to agree with me than other people elsewhere in the country, etc.

If the purpose of the military is to protect its citizens, Why is that left up to the federal government? Shouldn't that be a state concern? I believe that a single authority on any matter is a dangerous road to corruption. By leaving our military under the ultimate control of the federal government aren't we putting ourselves in the likely position of losing our freedoms? Shouldn't military power be divided? — MonfortS26

Seems like the existence of a standing army itself is the biggest risk that OP sees in armed forces. Not that actually militaries are there to fight against other militaries or create a deterrence against other armies. In our very peaceful times where the only threat seems to be individual terrorists, this seems to be forgotten.

First of all, there's the basic rules of economics of scale: having a multitude of various organizations creates parallel organizations likely with incompatible equipment and basically a lot of confusion. Likely a state would prefer it's local arms producers to a producer from another state.

Then there is the issue of command: if the military is under state/district/municipal rule, who decides the force structure? The mission? When will it be used? How much money is put into it? An extremely naive answer (assuming the focus is US) is that there is a National Guard system on the state level in the US, so why could there just be the National Guard? The obvious answer is that there has to be a centralized command. And with that centralized command, it isn't just a thing for the state level anymore.

In fact, still in the 19th Century it was common for nations still be so weak that the mission of defence could be delegated to districts, cities and as the last resort, to rich people willing to put the money to the common effort. I recall during WW2 in my country various cities and individual factories bought Anti-Aircraft cannons by themselves... to defend themselves from enemy air attacks. But the truth is that even for Bill Gates it would extremely expensive to deploy an infantry battalion to Afghanistan. To understand just how expensive modern war is, here's an example: For the US to have one single company in Afghanistan for a year the same amount that the country of Estonia uses for defence spending in a year. And Estonia does actually spend the 2% of GDP in defence.

Above all, this question of how armies are organized isn't just a legal issue as war itself has defined how armies are. Warfighting itself has transformed a long time ago how militaries are organized. Under a centralized command of a sovereign state.

There are no external threats. If we've learned but one thing from the Romans, it's that external threats are just projections of the internal.

It is necessary for the military to be operated under a mostly centralized authority not because of lack of fast communication, but because of lack of agreement. When a time of war comes, do you really want the military to be guided like a politcal system? Slow, painful, and usually pointless squabbling that result in death of military personel and civilians? It is rare indeed to find two or people in near absolute agreement on the proposed course of action. The lack of unity if left up to individual states would lead to chaos and eventually distruction if a foreign enemy should attack.
While some here have expressed fear on the matter of a centralized military overcoming the civilian populace, there is ample compensation provided in the case of the American Constitution in the Second Amendent, provided that the government has so long gone unchecked with the other precautionary checks and balances in the document. The Second Amendment provides the uninfringed right to bear firearms and other weapons, and for indiviual states to operate and maintain militias. Many times the use of the word "militia" triggers a negative response due to their aquaintance with rebelious civilians committing treason, but that is not what the document suggests. Instead, a militia at that time was more like what we now consider a national guard, but that all civilans were to be instructed in the art of guerrilla warfare, and able to defend themselves against not only foreign enemies, but also domestic. I have seen this also in Swiss military history. I am of the conviction that this was why in World War II they were able to prevent many invaders due to these strong tendencies of independence