• Shampiss@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    12 days ago

    Unfortunately a strong military is necessary to maintain peace

    It might sound contradictory at first but you should consider that people will always disagree. And if you and your neighboring country disagree and they have 20x more military power than you, they might be inclined to use force to solve your differences

    The only thing that allows you to have a civil and diplomatic discussion is the assurance that war is the worst of the options. As we see today, strong military nations are not afraid to abuse weaker military powers.

    I understand the hate towards the production of weapons, and I’m with you. But defunding the military is a simplistic, utopian argument that unfortunately would not work in the present time

    • index@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      12 days ago

      Unfortunately a strong military is necessary to maintain peace

      Peace is maintain by seeking peace and avoid conflict not by spending billions of dollars in weapons that in most cases are designed to attack and kill other people.

      they might be inclined to use force to solve your differences

      And that’s why you want to cut the military budget to 0 so that there’s no leverage to use force against others. According to your logic people will always disagree? So ban nukes and weapons before everyone kill each others, putting a gun in everyone hands is going to lead to a bloodbath not to peace.

      As we see today, strong military nations are not afraid to abuse weaker military powers.

      Again cut the military budget to 0 so that your nation doesn’t abuse weaker military powers.

      I understand the hate towards the production of weapons, and I’m with you. But defunding the military is a simplistic, utopian argument that unfortunately would not work in the present time

      You sound like you are making an apology to war and authoritarian nations. You are not with me and you are not with the human race, you are against it. What’s utopian is to believe that you can achieve peace by spending Trillions of dollars in war. What’s simplistic is to believe that you can’t do without a government tossing billions of public money into military weapons.

      • evergreen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        12 days ago

        I’m very curious as to what your suggested course of action would be if you were to “cut the military budget to 0”, and then another nation with a strong military uses their military to abuse or murder the citizens of your nation because they disagree with your nation in some way…

        • index@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          11 days ago

          You don’t need military budget to defend yourself. Governments need military budget to gain power and attack others.

          • Whelks_chance@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            11 days ago

            If your country has zero weapons and my country has some weapons, what’s your plan for stopping your country becoming an extension of mine, and your culture, language and history becoming lost forever?

          • Paragone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 days ago

            Sorry: I’d mistaken you for a person using considered-reasoning.

            Ideology doesn’t reason.

            Its symbols are comforting substitutes for reason, & they’re enough, for it, right?

            _ /\ _

      • Shampiss@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        Brother, I respect your principles but you’re not understanding the issue with having no military.

        First you would have to convince all countries in the world to cut all military budgets. Including convincing countries that would suffer economically from the extinction of the arms industry.

        And once all countries have 0 military, there is an incentive for aggressive leaders to produce weapons since it would be easy to win a war against an unarmed country

        Disarming a country is an impossible mission because it only works if the entire world agrees to it, and because it makes everyone vulnerable once someone decides to break the agreement.

        I hope you can see it clearly now. Unless you have a proposal that fixes the two points above, your 0 military plan would not work

        I’m happy to discuss more if you’d like

        • index@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          Including convincing countries that would suffer economically from the extinction of the arms industry.

          This highlight that you are thinking only according to how the system currently work (or how you are told it works). No country would actually suffer economically if they cut off the arms industry because they can use the money and resources for something else.

          Countries are populated by people and humans can defend themself even without stealth planes or nuclear submarines. It’s the government that needs asset to exercise their power be it machines or people.

          • Shampiss@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            Sorry but you don’t understand how this works.

            It doesn’t make sense when you say:

            they can use the money and resources for something else.

            For example. The US arms industry exports were worth 238 Billion $ in 2023. That means that the arms industry brought 238 billion from outside the US to inside the economy

            Because the money is coming from outside. If the industry stops, the US will lose this money.

            You are putting your convictions above logic. It doesn’t matter how hard you believe in something, if it is not practical it won’t work.

            If your suggestions really make sense you should be able to convince at least a few people. But look at the responses you’re getting. How can you convince all the world leaders to change if you can’t convince a few people in the comments?

            At some point you have to consider that you might be in the wrong. Admitting your mistakes makes you a better person and allows you to grow in character. I kindly ask you to consider that.

            My guy, I’m going to finish this conversation here. I hope this was useful. Cheers!