this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
1336 points (96.3% liked)

memes

10701 readers
2717 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 33550336@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

In a ideal word, sure, I'd too. But we live among fucking beasts.

[–] JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, if history has taught as nothing else, it's that the guy with the biggest stick usually wins. There are many criticisms of the U.S. military, but no one could accuse it of being weak. That kind of deterrence is invaluable.

[–] Allero 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If only they wouldn't use that force to invade half the planet...

The peace of Americans is paid for by the terror of dozens of nations. It ain't cool.

[–] JasSmith@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I can't say I disagree. There is much to criticise.

[–] Allero 1 points 7 months ago

My fear is, this approach is unsustainable in general, and cannot be effectively applied for global security.

It's not just US military being poorly led.

[–] Allero 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You are fucking beasts

The purpose of military is always dual: to deflect other country's military and to "protect national interests" (read: attack another country that now has to have military too, and may consider using it for an attack).

Wildly assuming you are American, you should have no issue understanding that defensive forces are not really always defensive.

[–] 33550336@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I am from Europe, from country invaded by nazi Germany so I know well what means an oppressive use of army. But could you give an alternative to the army?

[–] Allero 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Uhm...no army?

We have to push politicians to drive UN-scale policies on demilitarization - not this playful "lemme dismantle 10 rockets and call it a day" demilitarization, but a real effort - and expanding mutual defence-type alliance (could be NATO expansion if they're gonna get their shit together, or a new bigger alliance) to as many countries as humanly possible in order to reduce their need to rely on their own armies and drastically reduce armed manpower globally.

Switzerland-like militias can help in the transitional period.

[–] 33550336@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I wonder how Switzerland militia would deal with Russian tanks and rockets.

Uhm…no army?

After the Russian invasion do you really believe than all countries in the world will become peaceful and any of them will ever try to invade another?

[–] Allero 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Which is why I suggested transition into a worldwide military alliance first. One that would cover Ukraine, and even Russia at the end of the conflict if it would like to join.

Any sort of aggression, from members or non-members, should be met with united forces. With such circumstances, you really won't need that much, even if your plan is to keep forces like US or China at bay, not to mention Russia.

Militias should be there not as a force that can solely defeat an army, but as a stopping force for the initiation of the conflict, while logistics is busy moving troops. And yes - Switzerland is actually equipped to deal with Russian tanks (see demolition of roadways) and rockets (see a vast network of bunkers).