this post was submitted on 27 May 2024
864 points (94.5% liked)
Political Memes
5488 readers
2795 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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've talked before about how nuclear disarmament, like total nuclear disarmament, is going to happen suddenly.
Not because the missiles launch or because someone cracks the diplomatic code to get North Korea, India, Pakistan, China, Russia, Israel, France, the UK, and the US all on the same page, but because countermeasures developed enough that someone is able to make a complete decapitation play to try and get an early lead on the post nuclear game for primacy.
It will go down in history as the war of 30 seconds, because that's how long the mass strike on all the nuclear capabilities of the aggressed and their potential nuclear allies will likely be cut down to.
As for what the ultimate nuke killer in question will ultimately be. I would bet heavily on high speed long operation time drone tech. Build enough drones that can stay in the air for days or weeks or even months, make them fast enough, and all you would need is enough intelligence gathering to identify all the targets.
Ever seen Slaughterbots?
Well thanks for this, not like I was having enough trouble sleeping dealing with food poisoning lol
Enjoy thinking “hey why hasn’t that horrifying short film happened yet, there’s nothing to stop it” every now and then for a few years, until it happens
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.
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.
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.
... 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.
... okay?
Well, I am glad you agree that the atomic bombs saved many lives, at least.
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.
... okay? Your argument is then because at the age of 21, near a decade before WW2, he was part of an anti-war movement when in college; therefore, he was a total pacifist and his willing and eager service to military intelligence at the outbreak of WW2 against one of the most vile governments in modern history 'didn't count'?
When was this? The only military service I remember Gandhi being a part of was pre-WW2, and in those cases, quite decidedly in support of a brutal imperial British machine.
Turing was never a pacifist, but he was anti-war. He probably saw his work in signal intelligence as important to ending the war.
Oh, cool, then Eisenhower was also anti-war.
Eisenhower was a soldier, he served in the 19th infantry regiment. Turing wasn't a soldier.
Are you confusing correlation with causation?
He was part of the anti-war student movement at Cambridge in 1933.
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.
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.
I thought that was the point of a hypothetical.
The point of a hypothetical is to be useful.
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!"
What
That's actually a good point.
Simple maths. Less people fighting is less people killing and dieing.
It's really not, though. Especially not in context of a war like WW2. Less Brits fighting simply would have meant more freedom for Nazi bombers to crater London.
But in the hypothetical where both the axis powers and the allies have less personnel there wouldn't be as many pilots navigators etc for those bombers.
Actually in your example the defending forces come out on top, even if the level of conscientious objection wasn't symmetrical. A ww2 era bomber required several crew members (pilot, co pilot, radio operator, navigator) whereas fighters just needed one person.
So in the hypothetical we have both sides far less capable of doing things like dropping so many bombs on Desden that it caused one of the only firestorms created without the use of Nukes.
In this hypothetical, the effects are not symmetrical even if the reduction in military manpower is symmetrical. Britain lacked trained personnel more than materiel; more civilians would have exacerbated that problem. Germany, on the other hand, lacked both in the real world - in a situation where fewer civilians agreed to military service, their materiel disadvantage would have been lessened, while their personnel disadvantage would have remained proportionally steady to Britain's. Britain, primarily on the defensive in the air during those early days, also would have fewer troops to man air defences across the points where German air attacks were most likely to target or cross; and Germany, on the offensive, would suffer from fewer disadvantages as concentration of force in an offensive, especially in air campaigns, is most often bottlenecked by logistical concerns, rather than manpower concerns. As an additional consideration, manpower constraints would have favored highly destructive air campaigns which generally kill more civilians than soldiers, over ground campaigns which generally kill more soldiers than civilians.
Yes if there were move more conscious objectors in the world, there would be less wars.
If more citizens of the Allies AND the Axis during WW2 had refused military service, the war wouldn't have been so bloody and wouldn't have taken that long.
You need soldiers to wage war, if every soldier refuses, you can't have one.
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 would have to couple the pacifist attitude with physical destruction of the majority of weapons to see results. So long as the weapons exist someone is going to plot to use them.
Honestly, even that wouldn't work. The genie's out of the bottle so to speak. You could destroy all weapons today and they'd be rebuilt tomorrow.
Or earlier
+
=
Genie was out of the bottle the moment one human being picked up a stone and bashed another with it. Fuck, look at other primates - genie was out of the bottle before even that.
People resort to war less as there becomes less incentive to participate in war. The idea that the increased capability to wage war through technology and institutions (like military service) is the driving factor of war is just... fanciful.
Agreed -- the right bunch of countries under-going a sea change would definitely precipitate a huge jump in our evolution toward a non-violent society.
But that's a really dear dream to hold, and the odds are NOT with us today.