Fear mongering nonsense.
In retrospect maybe the EU shouldn’t have guzzled Russian nat gas for a decade+?
Wow. A new account with a history of negative posts. Color me shocked.
I mean, look at the username.
Without looking at posters history, he is kinda right (about the gas guzzling, not fear mongering)
EU had years to start to diversify/start goverment run energy supply from a) polluting and b) “come on, look what laws they were implementing at home” Russia.
Could have put two and two together and realise that funding Putin might not be the best idea…
But no, let’s just keep buying things from obvious dictators…
This, above-me, is more important than its score is indicating:
“unconscious at the wheel” is humankind’s default “governing”, evidence now proves.
NOBODY’s been doing proper dimensions-by-dimensions orthogonal-sets of scenario-planning,
& that means nobody’s got actual strategy.
Just moderating the status-quo isn’t strategy, it is committee-negotiating.
There are people who played the Risk boardgame…
having a MMPORPG ( or whatever the hell they’re called ) with the correct divided-by-dimensions representation of our world,
& using it for scenario-planning, could really put a dent in the wildcard-dictator-sadists of this world’s plans!
Simply by discovering their leverages, & systematically-extinguishing them, more-moderate-path could be enforced, strategically…
Mind you, it’d also discover our weaknesses, which we’ve ignored-too-long, & … to great political-difficulty … suddenly now have to be dealing with, of course…
but better to have a shored-up immune-system ( at the national level ) before a pandemic hits, than to have a rotted-out one in the same pandemic, isn’t it?
_ /\ _
Should be noted that in Norway it is not just for war, but rather any emergency like natural disasters or someone takes out critical infrastructure in a digital attack etc.
You can see all the information that is sent out here: https://www.sikkerhverdag.no/en/
Should be noted that in Norway it is not just for war, but rather any emergency like natural disasters or someone takes out critical infrastructure in a digital attack etc.
A digital attack would be an act of war, though, so…
No, digital attacks happen all the time, nobody will go to war over it.
Example of only one type of attack in real time: https://www.digitalattackmap.com/#anim=1&color=0&country=ALL&list=0&time=18763&view=map
terabits per second, sustained…
Yikes!
Governments are preparing for war because they want one. Cut the military budget to 0 and drive off lunatic politicians before it’s to late.
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
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.
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…
You don’t need military budget to defend yourself. Governments need military budget to gain power and attack others.
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?
_ /\ _
There’s some truth to this. One does need a military, but you don’t need one that costs 2T a year. Canada and Mexico, combined, spend around 35 billion a year on war material, and both have universal health care.
I’m Canuck, so this issue is of central concern for us, ongoingly…
The reason we’re able to spend so-little on military, per GDP,
is because of the excessive expenditure by the US.
Pretending that these expenditures are “independent” of the US’s expenditure, is intellectually-dishonest.
I’m not saying that was your intent, I’m saying that’s what the result misrepresentation is…
_ /\ _
"people take anti-cancer drugs because they want war-with-cancer:
simply by stopping all war-with-cancer, & stopping all the anti-cancer-drugs,
then everybody won’t having malignant-tumors killing them!"
False reasoning.
WHEN there are truly-rabid people with armies,
THEN defense is a SANE investment, if the truly-rabid could affect one’s country’s life.
Lethal-self-defense is exercised within your body by your own immune-system, all the time.
Whatever health you’ve got, it’s because of that!
Countries are the same as individual-organisms, in terms of being killable-by-pathogens & killable-by-cancer.
Destroy both, & live healthy.
You CANNOT give your body to pathogens/cancer & be healthy: that’s just delusion.
_ /\ _
Don’t forget the postcard to Russia inviting them over for tea
You chickenhawks are always so loud and self-righteous, until someone wants to force you or your kid to actually go fight in the war.
On the contrary, I would rather NOT go to war. You know what’s the best way to get that to happen? Have a strong enough military that bullies like Putin and Xinnie will think very very carefully before launching a ‘special military operation’ into your country.
You know what’s the best way to get that to happen? Have a strong enough military
History, at least in the US, does not support your position on this. Hell, the US has rebranded what war means so we can get involved in even more foreign conflicts and kill more civilians. (“Enemy combatant” and “peacekeeping actions”)
At one point under Obama and Trump the US was at war in seven different countries. (Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen.)
And people call it a bad thing that Trump got us out of Syria and Afghanistan, lol.
Our military is not a tool of peace. It’s a weapon for corporate interests to brandish throughout the world.
Oversimplification:
Actually, it’s both, at different times, in different places, sure, but it isn’t just-1 or just-the-other.
Never has been.
Politics has ALWAYS been this way, through millenia.
Read Sunzi ( formerly Sun Tzu, aka Master Sun ), about how the supreme general never has to get into battle,
simply because the entire region’s too busy prospering, for anybody to be digging-into battle…
As machiavellian as some of that book is, that final principle’s right right right.
_ /\ _
