Imagine if the World stopped fighting at the end of WWII and the U.S. stopped making any other atomic weapons. Imagine a global “Peace Treaty”.
Imagine if each country spent their military $$ on water, food, housing, and free medical care for their citizens.
Fuck them all!!
The World could’ve been an amazing village of humans living together as friends and have the freedom to roam the globe without the need for a passport.
One World!
Fuck every military leader and/or political leader that has screwed over the people of the World.
Then one day, putins russia could roll down over the whole of Europe in one big swing.
Someone said “Every country has an army. Their own or someone elses”.
Could be better for sure, but it could also be worse.
I mean, we’re discussing a hypothetical utopia. In this hypothetical, Russia wouldn’t have an army to “roll down over the whole of Europe”.
Yeah but… That is kind of the problem.
Imagine that the US goes full hippie and dismantles its entire military, sending all the money to schools and hospitals and infrastructure and its economy. Fixes poverty, free healthcare, yay!
Pardon my French, but China and Russia would ass duck it into oblivion within a week. THAT is why we can’t have nice things. As long as there are dictators out there, we will continue to need armies, unfortunately.
Russia has shown that depending on each other with economies doesn’t work to keep the peace, all you need is a greedy bastard who is happy to throw hundreds of thousands of innocent lives into the meat grinder, happy to ruin his countries economy, all so he can play the next tzar.
So like it or no, we NEED armies and given the choice of being ruled by the US or China or Russia, I’ll choose the US a hundred times over, as idnlike to stay out of punishment camps for the rest of my life.
I’m very aware the World won’t play nice. That’s why my scenario was dependent on an impossible situation. That sucks!
Humans suck.
Of course there are countless nice people that love others, wish kindness, and happiness.
Unfortunately, the masses have not been able to control the powers that have driven the World in a combative and globally destructive feedback loop. The combination of violence and climate disaster will mean the extinction of humanity much, much sooner than most believe.
We’ve been in these situations before, albeit in smaller scale, the formula still works the same. And it never ends up well for the “ruling class”. It’ll probably take a lot of fuckery before the world unites in the class struggle, but when that happens we’ll know what to do. Just look at what human nature does in natural disasters - we collaborate, cooperate, and rebuild. We will do the same in the future.
No. Sorry. Bubble burst. You’re in true denial if you think humanity will save itself. We’re finished within a few years. Not decades, plus…
Just a few years.
And you want people to vote for the guy currently supplying and giving cover to a genocidal regime…
Where did you see him asking people to vote for anyone? I’m tired of this no need to bring this shit into every conversation, lots of people on here don’t even live in the U.S. Fuck off
Oh? It’s almost like I was talking directly to him about something he knows about. Like that time he decided to call me a moron because I want Biden to stop supporting weapons to Israel. Then he posts… This.
Do you think everyone on this godforsaken website is American? Fuck your American politics and fuck you.
No. But this guy came at me for protesting Israel’s genocide. So this is pretty hypocritical of him.
No we want people to vote for the guy who’s not going to make it worse.
open separately: jpeg
I’m saving this
Yeah, Until some Ork shoots you for fun while you pass them on your bike, in an occupied zone that was once your hometown. Sometimes you HAVE to make a stand to stop wars of aggression.
My advice? Stay of of Mordor then.
That’s an… incredibly naive view of reality.
Einstein, Tucholsky, Gandhi and Jesus all seem to be very naive blokes indeed.
Jesus was crucified and spawned one of the most vile institutions in human history.
Gandhi thought Britain should surrender to the Nazis.
Very naive blokes indeed.
You’re so wise!
Especially for a Holocaust survivor.
Einstein emigrated in 1933, years before the Holocaust.
Technically yes, but he left when Nazi persecution of Jews became official government policy. It was the beginning of the buildup to the Holocaust. He survived the Holocaust in the sense that he was a Jew who lived in the Nazi occupied state and survived.
Yeah, everyone knows you can only prevent war by fighting in wars. War is peace.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum.
Ah yes, the famous quote from fourth century Rome. How did that work out for them? I seem to remember a continuous series of wars leading to the utter collapse of western Rome before the end of that century. It also inspired the name of the Parabellum pistol (AKA Lugar) manufactured in Germany for both worlds wars. The quote doesn’t have the best track record.
I prefer si vis pacem para pacem.
*oops now there’s a cold war and thousands of nukes*
Like come on, if there’s one person who didn’t like to make things simple it was Einstein. The guy was a fan of the Soviet Union, which was established through a revolution. This is just a catchy one-liner about pointless wars and militarism, not a deep and detailed political analysis.
Soviet Union, which was established on anti-war. WW1, anyone remembers that?
You can discredit Einstein as much as you like.
That doesn’t change a thing about the truth of the quote.
Easy to say when you’re American, Russian, or Chinese.
Not so easy when you’re Palestinian, Ukrainian, or Taiwanese.
Honestly not sure how easy it is to actually stay out of the military when there’s compelled service in any country. Draft evasion often carries significant risk.
I appreciate the sentiment, but results will vary.
Honestly not sure how easy it is to actually stay out of the military when there’s compelled service in any country.
Don’t know about other countries, but in Apartheid-South Africa it was a very difficult thing if you were male, white and not rich. When I was a kid in small-town South Africa there was a conscientious objector living on our street. He was disabled - they had beaten him to such an extent that he was brain-damaged.
For the rich it was pretty easy - just ask Elon.
Palestine doesn’t have a mandatory draft tho?
I think it’s more the idea that nonviolence isn’t saving them. You can swear off violence, Israel will kill you and your family anyways.
I mean, comparing the west bank which is (relatively) less violent to Gaza, and have a much better quality of life - doesn’t make a good case of proving violence is the answer in that conflict.
Largely, we’ve not been defending ourselves, but rather, maintaining our interests and investments. Who wants to stand behind that other than the misinformed?
I will stand behind US Military maintenance to the degree that NATO remains the top world power, but I will also stand behind any global demilitarization such as the many past treaties to dismantle nuclear weapons. It’s okay for nuance to exist.
If only it was that easy.
Bone spurs
It is that easy.
Ahhh, that sounds nice to hear, if only it was that easy.
Not if you’re from Ukraine
It would have to be global otherwise someone realizes “hey I’m the only one with an army” and marches it into whatever they claim as theirs.
You have discovered the essential flaw in the plan yes
Engineering a world without war sounds like a great idea. Just disarming and hoping everyone else will do the same isn’t it.
I would suggest that just people in just a handful of countries doing it would be enough. Unfortunately, those handful are the ones causing all the trouble in the world right now.
I think you’re misinterpreting the quote. It’s saying that the pioneers of a warless world (global context) will be the ones who refuse service in current wars. It’s about how a refusal of war is integral to the mindset of a peaceful world. He isn’t advocating for asymmetrical disarmament, but for a global movement for peace lead by conscientious objectors.
I think you’re misinterpreting the quote. It’s saying that the pioneers of a warless world (global context) will be the ones who refuse service in current wars.
Oh, cool, if only more citizens of the Allies during WW2 had refused military service, what shining examples of morality they would be to lead the world into an era of peace.
I think you’re thinking about it at a very basic level. In a world where more citizens of the allies refused military service more citizens of the axis powers would have also. Likely leading to the same overall result, but with a far lower death toll.
I think you’re thinking about it at a very basic level. In a world where more citizens of the allies refused military service more citizens of the axis powers would have also.
Oh, right, I had forgotten, cultural movements in one culture automatically take root simultaneously in others regardless of geographical or ideological distance. This is why circumcision is mandatory all across the world. Definitely, the fascists would have followed suit if the Allies proclaimed, over and over again, “Peace in our time!”
Likely leading to the same overall result, but with a far lower death toll.
What
In a world where more citizens of the allies refused military service more citizens of the axis powers would have also.
If you’re making up the world, for sure. But stating it doesn’t guarantee it’s true for this world. The logic simply doesn’t hold, unfortunately. Remember, the biggest single common attribute of conservatives and fascists is the loyalty they demand – and that includes military service so they have a willing stream of bodies to waste.
Sad? Yeah. True? Yeah. Moving us to a better society still requires a decent standing army through a slow and steady evolution until we’re sure we’re safe. Also sad, also true.
If you’re making up the world, for sure
I thought that was the point of a hypothetical.
There were many brave and accomplished citizens of allied nations who refused military service and who were integral to victory over the axis.
Alan Turing broke the German cyphers and was staunchly antiwar. Howard Florey won the nobel prize for the mass production of penicillin and rejected military rank. Einstein himself was an outspoken pacifist, but it was his research that made the atomic bomb possible.
If the allies had been as interested in forcing everyone into military service as the axis, it’s likely the war would have been even more bloody and prolonged.
There were many brave and accomplished citizens of allied nations who refused military service and who were integral to victory over the axis.
Alan Turing
… didn’t refuse wartime service. The exact opposite, in fact. You… you do realize not all military service is shooting guns, right? Turing’s work was directly related to discovering German movements, and then, killing them. The Brits weren’t codebreaking to find out the Nazis’ favorite color for a Valentine’s day card.
Howard Florey won the nobel prize for the mass production of penicillin and rejected military rank.
… okay?
Einstein himself was an outspoken pacifist, but it was his research that made the atomic bomb possible.
If the allies had been as interested in forcing everyone into military service as the axis, it’s likely the war would have been even more bloody and prolonged.
Well, I am glad you agree that the atomic bombs saved many lives, at least.
Alan Turing didn’t refuse wartime service.
He was part of the anti-war movement while attending Cambridge. By your reasoning Gandhi was part of the military because he volunteered as a medic. Turing was not a soldier.
Send my ass to prison. Fuck going to the military
People dont have as much agency as he thinks. And game theory(a relatively new concept for his era) dictates that the one who convinces/forces more of their people to fight, is the one who wins.
Let’s say that your entire country, every single person, refuses to go to war. And the country next door has a mere 100 people who are willing(or otherwise) to go to war. Now your country is part of their country and those 100 people are in charge.
In a world where noone wants to fight, those who are willing(or forced) to fight, rule everyone else.
And to bring this concept into the modern era, it is near impossible to post antiwar posts in Russia, because of state control of the internet and the cultivated perception that everyone who is antiwar, is antirussian and a traitor. This is literally the law there.
Yet in the liberal western states, you are free to do that. So what is the result of this difference? People in the West are less willing to go to war. Now you might think that is a good thing but ultimately this benefits Russia, who is then free to take over their smaller neighbours. This is just interference, marketing for Russia’s war machine, even if it doesnt feel like that.
People in the West are less willing to go to war.
The fact that the west was, and still is, the most prolific war mongerers of the post-Enlightenment era blows your hypothesis out of the water as soon as it tries to float.
The fact that the west was, and still is, the most prolific war mongerers of the post-Enlightenment era blows your hypothesis out of the water as soon as it tries to float.
How about we talk about the last 30 years then. What wars have europeans participated recently? Yugoslav wars? Afghanistan? Iraq?
Yugoslav wars were about ethnic cleansing between different ethnic groups who wanted to go their own ways. Afghanistan was because of 9/11, the taliban refusing to offer Bin Laden and the american thirst for revenge. Iraq was extremely controversial in Europe, pretty much every state opposed it, even if some european governments supported it, the majority of their people opposed it(huge protests).
Even the US, the imperium, which is usually doing imperial things, havent been doing much imperialism recently, after Afghanistan. And because of Afghanistan and Iraq, meaningless and immoral wars for most people, the US has trouble recruiting military personnel nowadays. Thats how democracies work, eventually the truth rises to the top.
The Ukraine war is one of the most clear cut wars since the Iraq invasion. And the West has the opportunity to be on the right side for once. Let me remind you that historically neutral countries like Sweden, joined NATO and countries like Germany are quickly re-arming for the first time in almost 100 years.
Because till recently, Europe was “let’s all hold hands together”, living in their own dream bubble about how war is not only bad but also insane. Putin reminded them that “sanity” is not a requirement for governance.
If the West is so war mongering, why did the West not spend more on military in the last 20 years? Why did the West wait till the Ukraine invasion to start pumping untoled trillions into the military industrial complex?
The only event with bigger impact on military spending was the collapse of USSR. For decades, Europe(and even the US) was taking advantage of the peace dividend. That doesnt sound too war mongery to me. And suddently, with just 1 Ukraine invasion, the West doubled and trippled its military budget.
So is the West war mongering or is Russia that caused an insane re-armament because of the Ukraine invasion?
And in before “nato expansion”, blah blah. Sovereign countries have the right to join any alliance they want. Nato didnt invade those countries and force them to join, those countries literally “blackmailed” to join. Poland threatened to get nukes if they werent allowed into NATO.
If Mexico joins an alliance with China, would you approve an invasion of Mexico by the US? I wouldnt.
Your arguments are fucking laughable - if I wanted to deal with rotting offal like this, I would have become a garbage collector.
How about we talk about the last 30 years then.
Yes. Lets.
US shitfuckery in Afghanistan.
More US shitfuckery in Somalia.
US shitfuckery in the Red Sea.
These are only off the top of my head - I’m sure there’s a few I’ve left out. These also don’t include the wars the west wages through it’s colonialist proxies and client states.
why did the West not spend more on military in the last 20 years?
As is perfectly obvious to anyone that can read, France and Germany together easily matched China’s military spending and outspent Russia by a wide, wide margin in 2009.
If you’re going to post bullcrap, I’d advise you not to post so much of it in one go - all you’re achieving is to make the stink reach further.
-
I was talking about Europe in case you missed it.
-
Half your examples are older than 30 years old. The other half are literally fighting Al Qaeda and ISIS, on behalf and request of the local governments and population. In fact, in many west african countries, the West was “kicked out” and now Russia is literally doing the same(or promised to). Is Russia going after jihadists in Africa imperialism?
Regarding the Red Sea, Is your argument that the West should allow people/nations/groups to attack commercial vessels? Is that morally ok with you? Is trying to stop them, imperialism? Should the West start hitting iranian vessels? Iran absolutely needs ships to be safe to travel in order to sell their oil. In fact, the Houthis hit a ship that was going to Iran.
https://www.reuters.com/world/ambrey-says-bulker-was-targeted-by-missiles-bab-al-mandab-2024-02-12/
Even China has publicly opposed this shit.
As is perfectly obvious to anyone that can read, France and Germany together easily matched China’s military spending and outspent Russia by a wide, wide margin in 2009.
You need to understand what ppp is. And you need to break down the cost to see what each country is paying for. France and Germany have limited but highly paid military personnel. Countries like China have an huge military+paramilitary, that work for low wages while they are spending a lot of money on new equipment(at higher ppp, thus cheaper per identical thing).
Remember when Trump was complaining about Nato allies not spending 2% of their gdp on defense? Literally every country in Europe has almost doubled their defense spending after the invasion of Ukraine. Why is that?
Russia is spending 7.1% of their gdp on defense, 35% of total government spending. Are they doing it because they are imperialistic or because they are afraid the West will invade them? And if you say “obviously they are doing it in self defense”, let me remind you that
-
They started it by invading a sovereign country.
-
They have nukes, noone is invading them.
-
Even the US, the imperium, which is usually doing imperial things, havent been doing much imperialism recently, after Afghanistan.
“Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?”
I am not trying to defend american imperialism, i am trying to rank it on a curve. And the curve is wild but relatively to its past, the US is chilling atm. Maybe because of China, maybe because military recruitment has fallen off a cliff or maybe because it is less cool to do “stuff” anymore.
20+ years ago, Yemen would have been invaded. Nowadays, noone wants to do that, they just dont want the Houthis to fuck with shipping. Thats why only the US and UK bombed the Houthis and even that was very limited, not the usual “shock and awe” kind of bombing.
Even China has had enough of this bullshit
I am pretty sure Iran and Russia feel the same. Fucking with trade hurts everyone.
US military spending is at an all time high, higher than the next 10 countries combined. After ending decades long occupations of multiple countries on the other side of the world, military spending is still increasing. The US is starting to face enough blowback that it’s somewhat more limited in what it can get away with, but it’s still pretty bad.
US military spending is at an all time high, higher than the next 10 countries combined.
Not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures
The difference is even smaller if you use PPP.
In order to understand this better, imagine how much a chinese soldier is paid and how much an american one is. And then do the same for literally everything. How much a chinese ship builder is paid vs how much an american one. How much a chinese engineer is paid vs how much an american.
In almost every category, the american worker will be A LOT more expensive. So a chinese ship that needs 100 people would be a lot cheaper than the american equivalent one. Obviously some of the cost doesnt differ, ie raw materials cost around the same in both countries. But wages and other factors make running a western military a lot more expensive than a chinese one.
And thats how you ended up with China having 370 warships while the US has 280. Now this number is extremely misleading, since american ships are heavier and are mostly blue water navy(while a lot of the chinese ones are green water ones) but still.
Not true.
Next 9 countries, my mistake.
Iirc we used to have some kind of deal to cut down nuclear weapons but that those numbers have climbed up.
And now I’m hearing people say there’s no risk in the West attacking Russia because “their nukes haven’t been maintained.”
