• Honytawk@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            You can discredit Einstein as much as you like.

            That doesn’t change a thing about the truth of the quote.

          • uis@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Soviet Union, which was established on anti-war. WW1, anyone remembers that?

        • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

          • PugJesus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            I seem to remember a continuous series of wars leading to the utter collapse of western Rome before the end of that century.

            Wars they were utterly unprepared for, yes.

            I prefer si vis pacem para pacem.

            Cool. You’re prepared for peace. You get into a dispute with your neighbor. Your neighbor is prepared for war. How does this end?

            • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              Wars they were utterly unprepared for, yes.

              Rome had the largest army ever assembled at the time. They did more military preparation than any nation in Europe. They had 56 legions of professional soldiers. How many more do you think they would have needed to be considered prepared?

              Cool. You’re prepared for peace. You get into a dispute with your neighbor. Your neighbor is prepared for war. How does this end?

              I’ve never had an issue with my neighbors that could be solved with war. Once I lived next to a guy who was pretty militant, but we got along alright. I hired his son to help mow my lawn. Maybe I’m just not good at getting into disputes.

              In a geopolitical sense, it seems to be more about alliances than independent preparation. Nations can prepare for war and still get steamrolled, or prepare for peace and put up a solid resistance. I think a constant paranoia of war is more likely to do harm than conjure safety.

              • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                I’ve never had an issue

                Do you understand how hypotheticals work?

                Hypothetically, I’m your neighbor. I feel like killing you. I have a gun. I have no sense of morality. What stops me?

                • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  My point is that I’ve lived next to people preparing for war, and it was never an issue. I don’t see why people can’t coexist.

                  Hypothetically, I’m your neighbor. I feel like killing you. I have a gun. I have no sense of morality. What stops me?

                  My evasion, guile, and misdirection.

                  What’s your response to the hypothetical? Shoot first?

              • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                Rome had the largest army ever assembled at the time. They did more military preparation than any nation in Europe. They had 56 legions of professional soldiers. How many more do you think they would have needed to be considered prepared?

                Jesus. If you’re not informed about the state of the Late Empire, don’t use it as a point of comparison.

                I’ve never had an issue with my neighbors that could be solved with war. Once I lived next to a guy who was pretty militant, but we got along alright. I hired his son to help mow my lawn. Maybe I’m just not good at getting into disputes.

                Or maybe you live in a society with a massive apparatus for the resolution of conflicts that relies on the threat of force in case of non-cooperation?

                No, that’s silly.

                In a geopolitical sense, it seems to be more about alliances than independent preparation.

                What the fuck do you think an alliance is if not preparing for war

                Nations can prepare for war and still get steamrolled, or prepare for peace and put up a solid resistance.

                I can’t think of many. Got any examples?

                • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Got any examples?

                  Britain was absolutely not prepared for WW2 but put up a successful resistance. They had spent the decade prior, focusing on disarmament and the League of Nations. The US was not prepared for WW2 either, the attack on Pearl Harbor damaged nearly the entire battle fleet. For a more contemporary example, Ukraine was unprepared for the Russian invasion, but has been putting up more of a fight than anyone expected.

                  Or maybe you live in a society with a massive apparatus for the resolution of conflicts that relies on the threat of force in case of non-cooperation?

                  Then what was the point of your hypothetical?

          • Андрей Быдло@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            One can find the application to this quote pretty much everywhere, everywhen, even in small personal situations, so once it spread it stuck and outlived the Rome itself because it does correspond to what we sometimes think and do. In soviet times (another dead empire) there were a couple of the same-meaning proverbs, like ‘alarmed, thus got armed (in time)’ I used when I prepared for things like exams, job interviews, long camping trips and stuff, and I’m pretty sure your culture has them too.

            I believe that Einstein was very optimistic and said that too early, or dreamed of the future when wars over beliefs, ego or profits aren’t a usual occurence. But we as humanity haven’t arrived there yet. One of the ways this can occur is if we would see the war not worth it for a long time, to get used to it, and Europe mostly got this by now within itself, but not against external threats. As, so it happens, there are still rogue actors who can start their shitty crusade on their border. And if we won’t be so europocentric, the Middle East and Africa and Asia has a lot of war axes dug out for their peers, there are hot and cold conflicts going on even if they aren’t covered in what news sources we can read.

            Star Trek: TNG’s first season has a little mention of how we humans came here, through unimaginable wars and atrocities, before we aknowledged that our ways are wrong. I hope, we would be better and won’t see WW3 (or WW4 with sticks and stones as Albert said) play out before we reach something akin to their fantastic future. We may need to come to the parity and agree to tone it all down, and have a century of peace, before we even get into the mentality characters have in this show.

    • Hupf@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Einstein, Tucholsky, Gandhi and Jesus all seem to be very naive blokes indeed.

        • kerrigan778@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          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.

      • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

        • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

          • PugJesus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            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.

            • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              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.

              • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                Alan Turing broke the German cyphers and was staunchly antiwar.

                Are you confusing correlation with causation?

              • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                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.

                • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  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.

            • then_three_more@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              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.

              • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                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.

              • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                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

                • then_three_more@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Oh, right, I had forgotten, cultural movements in one culture automatically take root simultaneously in others regardless of geographical or ideological distance

                  That’s actually a good point.

                  What

                  Simple maths. Less people fighting is less people killing and dieing.

            • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              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.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          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.

          • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            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.

            • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              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.

              • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                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.

          • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            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.

        • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

          • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            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.

  • 800XL@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    You can refuse to serve and then they institute the draft. Then you dodge the draft and get elected President.

  • Roflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Yeah, Untill some Ork shoots you for fun while you pass them on your bike, in an occupated zone which was once your hometown. Sometimes you HAVE to make a stand.

    • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I see no problem here: I refused to serve in the military and did my service in a hospital instead. The Ukraine war did make me reconsider my attitude towards the necessity of a draft army.

      Conclusion 1: I would emigrate and work against my country of origin in a heartbeat if they started a war of aggression (hello Russians) - unchanged from before

      Conclusion 2: I would support with my medical and other skills those defending a non-aggressive country I live in

      Conclusion 3: I might fight, given no other choice. But I would try everything else first, and I would probably not be good at it (fighting) at all.

      • Roflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Okay, that’s fair. I would also never fight in a war of aggression. My Point was more about defensive wars. Maybe I need to clarify this.

        • humbletightband@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          I remember a video from the first days of the Ukrainian war when Russian soldiers brought their wounded brother and asked for help. And they helped him.

          No guns, no violence, no threatening. Just one human being helps the other one. Unimaginable today.

          • uis@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Fucking Putin. Divides closest nations. Goose says “Hauge”.

      • humbletightband@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Russian here and here how it will probably go.

        I would emigrate and work against my country of origin in a heartbeat if they started a war of aggression (hello Russians) - unchanged from before

        You will emigrate and either work with a charity organization that helps refugees from the other side (often refusing help to your nationality because they are Orks) or you will start helping the military on the other side, which would seem righteous to you until this military starts to neglect collateral damage.

        I used to work in a charity that helps refugees here in Georgia. I still donate but I was unable to comprehend the very people that we were helping up calling me an occupant.

        When Ukraine started shelling and droning Belgorod, many of my Russian friends stopped military donations.

        I would support with my medical and other skills those defending a non-aggressive country I live in

        That’s actually what will happen, yes. Rally 'round the flag effect is real and those of my acquaintances who happened to be communists in Ukraine have been supporting the military and Zelensky given the communism is banned in Ukraine.

        I might fight, given no other choice. But I would try everything else first, and I would probably not be good at it (fighting) at all.

        And you will either end up with PTSD, screaming in the middle of the night, or dead. Don’t do it unless you really believe that you are fighting for things that are more important than you yourself.

        • Roflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Uff that’s hard. When the side that people count you to is the aggressor and clearly responsible for so much harm, it’s hard to make people clear that you are not one of them, you are not one of these orks coming to kill them. So all I can say is thank you for not fighting for Russia in this war. I hope one day Russia will be free and can join the rest of the world in peace.

          • humbletightband@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            The volunteers that I was with had a wise rule not to argue with these people. They are not coming from the best place in the world to make clear judgment or be judged for having extreme views. The center is providing help to Ukrainians who asked for it. It’s just extremely hard and the people who endure it are the heroes of this war.

            can join the rest of the world in peace.

            I’m quite skeptical about this one both because I don’t think that Russia will be easily freed from Putin’s regime and because the world doesn’t seem to be peaceful anymore

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Obviously, Americans and Ukranians should refuse military service. Russians and Chinese are okay to keep fighting, because reasons.

  • buzz86us@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    If there is a draft for some oil resource war then I’m out if there US… We have all the tools to replace it I’m not fighting for some megacorps right to exploit the environment

  • ummthatguy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Largely, we’ve not been defending ourselves, but rather, maintaining our interests and investments. Who wants to stand behind that other than the misinformed?

      • ummthatguy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        There are still those that believe they’re fulfilling some patriotic duty, but that only feeds back into my original statement. The “bad apples” only serve to highlight part of the problem. Culling and replanting the “orchard” is a magnitude of order more difficult.

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

  • BezzelBob@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Can yall imagine if we only used military to fight actual criminals, like terrorist. Instead of bombing 3rd world countries because they made a your mom joke

    • Stovetop@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Governments can and have just branded people and organizations as terrorists to justify conflict. That is typically why third-world countries like Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. have been so heavily devastated by the west. Stopping “Nazi terrorists” is why Russia is invading Ukraine right now as well.

      Be careful of when a country’s media starts throwing out the label “terrorist regime” to describe countries that would be convenient to invade. “Terrorism” is just as much made by fear, instilled by a country’s media, as it is the practice of creating fear directly.

  • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Soldiers are a “solution” to a problem they themselves cause.

    If there were no soldiers, we wouldn’t need any either.

    So any person who wants to become a soldier is just a fool. There are of course those who have no choice, but the ones who do and still chose that life definitely are idiots.

    • CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I don’t know about you, but my country borders Russia. What do you suggest I do when the first tanks roll across the border, the first glide-bombs start raining down on the city, and the first occupiers come to take my father, mother, sister and girlfriend for “interrogation” in a cellar? I could choose to run away.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      So any person who wants to become a soldier is just a fool.

      Or they’re desperate. I can’t speak for other countries, but in the U.S., if you grow up in poverty, the military is one of the only ways out. Especially if you don’t have the academics or athletic talent to earn a really good scholarship.

      It sucks.

  • 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.

    • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        Funny how China and Russia combined spend a tiny fraction of what the US does on the military if the US only has it for defense.

        • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          You either know that these dumb over simplifications are disingenuous at Nestor you should really go to school.

          Yes, yes, yeah yeah, military industrial complex is a thing, but you should.also count your blessings that the US does spend what it does. As bad as the US is, as fucked up the shit is that it regularly pulls with its armies, it’s all child’s play with what, say, China or Russia would do.

          Before you start with how loving and caring Russia and China are, maybe you should ask the Uyghurs and Ukrainians about that.

              • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                The point that I should lick the boots of the murderous monsters who killed hundreds of thousands of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan and are actively arming an ongoing genocide, all so they can protect their precious quarterly profits and buy off more senators? That point?

                I hope you someday find yourself on the receiving end of what you support, imperialist warmongerer.

                • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  No, the point is that you apparently like licking boots? So you prefer China’s rule or Russia’s?

                  Understanding reality is not licking boots

                  I wonder how well you’d fare under chinas or Russia’s rule. But that is the point you’re missing. I never claimed that the US plays nice, a lot of US politicians belong in jail for life.

                  However.

                  If China was in power (or Russia for that matter) you wouldn’t even be able to vent your frustrations, lest you are far away from high windows you can fall out off. Or maybe you just need to spend 20 years in a Chinese rededication camp?

                  As bad as the US is (and yeah it’s bad, nobody denies that) the alternatives are way WAY worse

        • el_abuelo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Nothing funny about it. USA has a lot more money to spend, and spends a lot of money on overseas defence - basically bases across NATO and beyond - along with maintaining a huge technological advantage against any of its adversaries.

          If you look at Russia, it spends a much higher percentage of its GDP on its military than the US - it just happens to be a relatively poorer country (so probably should focus on economic growth than aggressive foreign policy…) - since its invasion of its sovereign neighbour it has only gone on to spend an even higher share of its budget on war machines, further stunting its economic growth and long term prospects. Things the US doesn’t need to worry about as much.

          China’s spending per GDP is difficult to know given their self reported figures are largely regarded as under-reported. Some estimates put their spending at a higher % of GDP than the US as well.

          Don’t be fooled into thinking Russia and China wouldn’t be just as bad, if not worse, than the US if they were able to achieve military dominance. Make no mistake that Russia would have invaded many more of its neighbours by now, and China would have at least invaded Taiwan and likely subjugated many of its other neighbours along with taking control of a huge swathe of international and foreign territorial waters by force.

          Personally I am better off with the US having the dominion it does, and I worry for those who will start to fall into the dominion of those other fascist and totalitarian states. But I can also see the evils that the US has perpetrated in order to gain and maintain and dominion.

          None of the players have clean hands - don’t think for a second any of them wouldn’t do the same shit if it could.

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Nothing funny about it. USA has a lot more money to spend, and spends a lot of money on overseas defence - basically bases across NATO and beyond - along with maintaining a huge technological advantage against any of its adversaries.

            Yes, that is what I’m criticizing, thanks for spelling it out.

            If you look at Russia, it spends a much higher percentage of its GDP on its military than the US

            Comparing military spending by GDP is such a funny metric. It makes literally no sense whatsoever. Do you think countries should just keep spending more and more on their militaries as they develop, even if there is no practical strategic reason to? Do you think that a countries with powerful rivals, who’s continued survival depends on meeting certain strategic criteria, should ignore genuine threats to security if it would mean spending a higher percentage of GDP than other countries? Complete insanity.

            The only reason to compare military spending as percentage of GDP instead of absolute numbers is because the numbers are more convenient to your argument. The country with the biggest military is the most militaristic and the biggest threat to the world. Anything else is nonsense.

            Things the US doesn’t need to worry about as much.

            Really? Because US infrastructure is falling apart. Medical debt and student loans are soaring out of control. Rents are skyrocketing. I could go on, if you like. There’s a lot of really important domestic priorities that are getting ignored so that the US can maintain hegemony in every corner of the globe.

      • MacAnus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        I think you missed this part: “Imagine if each country spent their military $$ on water, food, housing, and free medical care for their citizens.” I know it unfortunately isn’t even remotely realistic but that’s the comment you answered to :)

      • 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.

        • in4aPenny@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      And you want people to vote for the guy currently supplying and giving cover to a genocidal regime…

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • efstajas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        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”.

    • RippleEffect@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • masquenox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

      • Stovetop@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.