▲ 938 ▼ war, war never rules (lemmy.blahaj.zone) submitted 1 month ago by TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone [M] to c/onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone 250 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 103 points 1 month ago (39 children) What about defensive wars, though? Occupations are often quite brutal, as well. permalink fedilink source hideshow 43 child comments replies: [–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone [S] 46 points 1 month ago (7 children) Even when a war is necessary to prevent a worse outcome, it is still bad permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 81 points 1 month ago (6 children) Well yeah, but if that's the only kind of war that a military is planning on fighting, IMO it's a bit much to call it "evil". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 11 points 1 month ago (2 children) As militaries are a tool of states to protect their sovereign power: That's not what militaries do, though. I don't want to die for a state. Even if that state is being challenged in it's sovereignity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Shellofbiomatter@lemmus.org 35 points 1 month ago (1 child) Of course depending on a defensive war, but often times you're not fighting for the state, but your loved ones. Like on a smaller scale nearly everyone would defend the people close to them from harm, for example trying to stop a rapist from abusing your wife/sister/daughter of course not limited to women. Rape can be used against men as well. In a defensive war the goal of states sovereignty and you defending your loved ones can align. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 month ago (21 children) What if the state attacking is doing so for the purpose of murdering you and your family and everyone who remotely looks like you or shares your culture? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments load more comments (21 replies) load more comments (5 replies) [–] Rich_Benzina@feddit.it 35 points 1 month ago (1 child) I think every army that had to defend their home country would have preferred doing other things, and until 2022 i honestly tought that invasions were a thing of the past, at least in Europe. Russia showed otherwise, now i think that being capable of defending yourself is important. You dont have to have a ginormous army like the US but you have to be enough of a threat that somebody would think twice before attacking. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 6 points 1 month ago I live in Australia and until 2024 I thought we don't need an army, we're so far from any threats. But now I think we need to build drone bombers so we can drone strike some IDF bases. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) You're right, all war is bad. War sucks and it should never have to happen. Even wars fought for good reasons are still terrible and it would be a better world if they never had to be fought at all. The part you're missing is that war is not the military. They're different things. Militaries fight wars, that doesn't mean that wars will magically stop happening to everyone who gets rid of their military. It would be wonderful to live in a world where militaries aren't needed, but instead we live in a world where many countries live under the constant threat of invasion. The Canadian military maintains a constant presence in Latvia, because if we didn't, Russia would walk in there tomorrow and take over. My wife just finished a tour. The Latvians don't resent the presence of our military, they love us. Everywhere she went, barring some very specific exceptions, people were glad to see them. They felt happy, reassured by their visible presence. People from the other side of the world who had upended their lives to spend six months away from family and loved ones defending their tiny little country from the threat of brutal autocratic rule. No one wants these things to be necessary, but they are, whether we like it or not. We would not be living in a better world right now if, in 1939, the whole world had just rolled over and let the Nazis walk in without a fight, would we? permalink fedilink source parent [–] edible_funk@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago Pacifism is so logically inconsistent. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (3 replies) [–] rafoix@lemmy.zip 27 points 1 month ago Defensive wars? Like insurrections against invading armies and mercenaries? permalink fedilink source parent [–] birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children) Oftentimes governments make use of that and try to indoctrinate their governments into thinking a war is defensive when it isn't. False flags, clamping down on freedom of speech, large-scale censorship, promoting authoritarian and totalitarian tenets, violence against independent journalists and protesters, and so on. That said, billionnaires and power-tripping CEOs are the source of far-right ideologies (as it benefits them to repress all labourers), and those should be combatted. When someone claims antifascism is an issue, they have practically admitted to being a fascist. And the only good fascist... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies) [–] SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 month ago (1 child) If a fighting force assembles when its home country is attacked and disbands once they're no longer being invaded, it hardly feels like "the military" at that point. That's not how it works these days, at least in most places. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 27 points 1 month ago (2 children) That's a little naïve, isn't it? Your fighting force isn't trained, doesn't have any equipment and so on, more people will die because of this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Zombie@feddit.uk 5 points 1 month ago* (4 children) Switzerland has conscription for men and voluntary service for women over 19. They receive military training and are issued a service weapon. They then return to civilian life, with the idea being the population is now an armed militia in the case of invasion. It seems to have worked out for them so far, surviving being right in the middle of 2 world wars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#Government_and_politics scroll down from there to Military permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] napoleonsdumbcousin@feddit.org 19 points 1 month ago It seems to have worked out for them so far, surviving being right in the middle of 2 world wars. Their conscription system is only a part of the story. Switzerland was not invaded in WW2 because: A. it is geographically difficult to invade, has a lot of bunkers and armed people. B. because the Nazis used it to exchange gold and currency to Swiss Francs and get free access to trade with neutral countries. Switzerland was more useful to Germany as a "banker" and middleman during trade embargoes than it could have ever been as occupied territory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_during_World_War_I_and_World_War_II#Financial_relationships_with_Nazi_Germany permalink fedilink source parent [–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 month ago (1 child) I know about Switzerland, they have a military with conscription. Lots of countries in Europe are currently considering reintroducing conscription, but that's not some random fighting force that assembles out of nowhere in times of need, it's still a military. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago (1 child) That training is funded from the Swiss military budget for the purpose of protecting the state of Switzerland? Suggesting that conscription, aka a mandatory military service term, is akin to a training program for stateless militias seems to me a bit of a stretch... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zombie@feddit.uk 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) If a fighting force assembles when its home country is attacked and disbands once they're no longer being invaded, it hardly feels like "the military" at that point. That's not how it works these days, at least in most places. I'm pro abolition of the state, but this comment thread had no mention of a stateless society. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago Fair point, I'll accept that bit of nuance. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago scroll down from there to Military So it is a military then? permalink fedilink source parent [–] SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago (1 child) You could train them, obviously. My point was that when people think of "joining the military" they aren't thinking about a defensive war - which is true. So "the military" is, overall, pretty bad. (Some might argue a necessary evil, perhaps, but it's still bad.) The logistics of what you'd replace the current system with are beyond the scope of "is the military bad?" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (35 replies)
[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone [S] 46 points 1 month ago (7 children) Even when a war is necessary to prevent a worse outcome, it is still bad permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 81 points 1 month ago (6 children) Well yeah, but if that's the only kind of war that a military is planning on fighting, IMO it's a bit much to call it "evil". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 11 points 1 month ago (2 children) As militaries are a tool of states to protect their sovereign power: That's not what militaries do, though. I don't want to die for a state. Even if that state is being challenged in it's sovereignity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Shellofbiomatter@lemmus.org 35 points 1 month ago (1 child) Of course depending on a defensive war, but often times you're not fighting for the state, but your loved ones. Like on a smaller scale nearly everyone would defend the people close to them from harm, for example trying to stop a rapist from abusing your wife/sister/daughter of course not limited to women. Rape can be used against men as well. In a defensive war the goal of states sovereignty and you defending your loved ones can align. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 month ago (21 children) What if the state attacking is doing so for the purpose of murdering you and your family and everyone who remotely looks like you or shares your culture? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments load more comments (21 replies) load more comments (5 replies) [–] Rich_Benzina@feddit.it 35 points 1 month ago (1 child) I think every army that had to defend their home country would have preferred doing other things, and until 2022 i honestly tought that invasions were a thing of the past, at least in Europe. Russia showed otherwise, now i think that being capable of defending yourself is important. You dont have to have a ginormous army like the US but you have to be enough of a threat that somebody would think twice before attacking. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 6 points 1 month ago I live in Australia and until 2024 I thought we don't need an army, we're so far from any threats. But now I think we need to build drone bombers so we can drone strike some IDF bases. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) You're right, all war is bad. War sucks and it should never have to happen. Even wars fought for good reasons are still terrible and it would be a better world if they never had to be fought at all. The part you're missing is that war is not the military. They're different things. Militaries fight wars, that doesn't mean that wars will magically stop happening to everyone who gets rid of their military. It would be wonderful to live in a world where militaries aren't needed, but instead we live in a world where many countries live under the constant threat of invasion. The Canadian military maintains a constant presence in Latvia, because if we didn't, Russia would walk in there tomorrow and take over. My wife just finished a tour. The Latvians don't resent the presence of our military, they love us. Everywhere she went, barring some very specific exceptions, people were glad to see them. They felt happy, reassured by their visible presence. People from the other side of the world who had upended their lives to spend six months away from family and loved ones defending their tiny little country from the threat of brutal autocratic rule. No one wants these things to be necessary, but they are, whether we like it or not. We would not be living in a better world right now if, in 1939, the whole world had just rolled over and let the Nazis walk in without a fight, would we? permalink fedilink source parent [–] edible_funk@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago Pacifism is so logically inconsistent. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (3 replies)
[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 81 points 1 month ago (6 children) Well yeah, but if that's the only kind of war that a military is planning on fighting, IMO it's a bit much to call it "evil". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 11 points 1 month ago (2 children) As militaries are a tool of states to protect their sovereign power: That's not what militaries do, though. I don't want to die for a state. Even if that state is being challenged in it's sovereignity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Shellofbiomatter@lemmus.org 35 points 1 month ago (1 child) Of course depending on a defensive war, but often times you're not fighting for the state, but your loved ones. Like on a smaller scale nearly everyone would defend the people close to them from harm, for example trying to stop a rapist from abusing your wife/sister/daughter of course not limited to women. Rape can be used against men as well. In a defensive war the goal of states sovereignty and you defending your loved ones can align. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 month ago (21 children) What if the state attacking is doing so for the purpose of murdering you and your family and everyone who remotely looks like you or shares your culture? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments load more comments (21 replies) load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 11 points 1 month ago (2 children) As militaries are a tool of states to protect their sovereign power: That's not what militaries do, though. I don't want to die for a state. Even if that state is being challenged in it's sovereignity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Shellofbiomatter@lemmus.org 35 points 1 month ago (1 child) Of course depending on a defensive war, but often times you're not fighting for the state, but your loved ones. Like on a smaller scale nearly everyone would defend the people close to them from harm, for example trying to stop a rapist from abusing your wife/sister/daughter of course not limited to women. Rape can be used against men as well. In a defensive war the goal of states sovereignty and you defending your loved ones can align. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 month ago (21 children) What if the state attacking is doing so for the purpose of murdering you and your family and everyone who remotely looks like you or shares your culture? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments load more comments (21 replies)
[–] Shellofbiomatter@lemmus.org 35 points 1 month ago (1 child) Of course depending on a defensive war, but often times you're not fighting for the state, but your loved ones. Like on a smaller scale nearly everyone would defend the people close to them from harm, for example trying to stop a rapist from abusing your wife/sister/daughter of course not limited to women. Rape can be used against men as well. In a defensive war the goal of states sovereignty and you defending your loved ones can align. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 month ago (21 children) What if the state attacking is doing so for the purpose of murdering you and your family and everyone who remotely looks like you or shares your culture? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments load more comments (21 replies)
[–] Rich_Benzina@feddit.it 35 points 1 month ago (1 child) I think every army that had to defend their home country would have preferred doing other things, and until 2022 i honestly tought that invasions were a thing of the past, at least in Europe. Russia showed otherwise, now i think that being capable of defending yourself is important. You dont have to have a ginormous army like the US but you have to be enough of a threat that somebody would think twice before attacking. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 6 points 1 month ago I live in Australia and until 2024 I thought we don't need an army, we're so far from any threats. But now I think we need to build drone bombers so we can drone strike some IDF bases. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 6 points 1 month ago I live in Australia and until 2024 I thought we don't need an army, we're so far from any threats. But now I think we need to build drone bombers so we can drone strike some IDF bases. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) You're right, all war is bad. War sucks and it should never have to happen. Even wars fought for good reasons are still terrible and it would be a better world if they never had to be fought at all. The part you're missing is that war is not the military. They're different things. Militaries fight wars, that doesn't mean that wars will magically stop happening to everyone who gets rid of their military. It would be wonderful to live in a world where militaries aren't needed, but instead we live in a world where many countries live under the constant threat of invasion. The Canadian military maintains a constant presence in Latvia, because if we didn't, Russia would walk in there tomorrow and take over. My wife just finished a tour. The Latvians don't resent the presence of our military, they love us. Everywhere she went, barring some very specific exceptions, people were glad to see them. They felt happy, reassured by their visible presence. People from the other side of the world who had upended their lives to spend six months away from family and loved ones defending their tiny little country from the threat of brutal autocratic rule. No one wants these things to be necessary, but they are, whether we like it or not. We would not be living in a better world right now if, in 1939, the whole world had just rolled over and let the Nazis walk in without a fight, would we? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] edible_funk@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago Pacifism is so logically inconsistent. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rafoix@lemmy.zip 27 points 1 month ago Defensive wars? Like insurrections against invading armies and mercenaries? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children) Oftentimes governments make use of that and try to indoctrinate their governments into thinking a war is defensive when it isn't. False flags, clamping down on freedom of speech, large-scale censorship, promoting authoritarian and totalitarian tenets, violence against independent journalists and protesters, and so on. That said, billionnaires and power-tripping CEOs are the source of far-right ideologies (as it benefits them to repress all labourers), and those should be combatted. When someone claims antifascism is an issue, they have practically admitted to being a fascist. And the only good fascist... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 month ago (1 child) If a fighting force assembles when its home country is attacked and disbands once they're no longer being invaded, it hardly feels like "the military" at that point. That's not how it works these days, at least in most places. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 27 points 1 month ago (2 children) That's a little naïve, isn't it? Your fighting force isn't trained, doesn't have any equipment and so on, more people will die because of this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Zombie@feddit.uk 5 points 1 month ago* (4 children) Switzerland has conscription for men and voluntary service for women over 19. They receive military training and are issued a service weapon. They then return to civilian life, with the idea being the population is now an armed militia in the case of invasion. It seems to have worked out for them so far, surviving being right in the middle of 2 world wars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#Government_and_politics scroll down from there to Military permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] napoleonsdumbcousin@feddit.org 19 points 1 month ago It seems to have worked out for them so far, surviving being right in the middle of 2 world wars. Their conscription system is only a part of the story. Switzerland was not invaded in WW2 because: A. it is geographically difficult to invade, has a lot of bunkers and armed people. B. because the Nazis used it to exchange gold and currency to Swiss Francs and get free access to trade with neutral countries. Switzerland was more useful to Germany as a "banker" and middleman during trade embargoes than it could have ever been as occupied territory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_during_World_War_I_and_World_War_II#Financial_relationships_with_Nazi_Germany permalink fedilink source parent [–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 month ago (1 child) I know about Switzerland, they have a military with conscription. Lots of countries in Europe are currently considering reintroducing conscription, but that's not some random fighting force that assembles out of nowhere in times of need, it's still a military. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago (1 child) That training is funded from the Swiss military budget for the purpose of protecting the state of Switzerland? Suggesting that conscription, aka a mandatory military service term, is akin to a training program for stateless militias seems to me a bit of a stretch... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zombie@feddit.uk 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) If a fighting force assembles when its home country is attacked and disbands once they're no longer being invaded, it hardly feels like "the military" at that point. That's not how it works these days, at least in most places. I'm pro abolition of the state, but this comment thread had no mention of a stateless society. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago Fair point, I'll accept that bit of nuance. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago scroll down from there to Military So it is a military then? permalink fedilink source parent [–] SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago (1 child) You could train them, obviously. My point was that when people think of "joining the military" they aren't thinking about a defensive war - which is true. So "the military" is, overall, pretty bad. (Some might argue a necessary evil, perhaps, but it's still bad.) The logistics of what you'd replace the current system with are beyond the scope of "is the military bad?" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 27 points 1 month ago (2 children) That's a little naïve, isn't it? Your fighting force isn't trained, doesn't have any equipment and so on, more people will die because of this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Zombie@feddit.uk 5 points 1 month ago* (4 children) Switzerland has conscription for men and voluntary service for women over 19. They receive military training and are issued a service weapon. They then return to civilian life, with the idea being the population is now an armed militia in the case of invasion. It seems to have worked out for them so far, surviving being right in the middle of 2 world wars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#Government_and_politics scroll down from there to Military permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] napoleonsdumbcousin@feddit.org 19 points 1 month ago It seems to have worked out for them so far, surviving being right in the middle of 2 world wars. Their conscription system is only a part of the story. Switzerland was not invaded in WW2 because: A. it is geographically difficult to invade, has a lot of bunkers and armed people. B. because the Nazis used it to exchange gold and currency to Swiss Francs and get free access to trade with neutral countries. Switzerland was more useful to Germany as a "banker" and middleman during trade embargoes than it could have ever been as occupied territory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_during_World_War_I_and_World_War_II#Financial_relationships_with_Nazi_Germany permalink fedilink source parent [–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 month ago (1 child) I know about Switzerland, they have a military with conscription. Lots of countries in Europe are currently considering reintroducing conscription, but that's not some random fighting force that assembles out of nowhere in times of need, it's still a military. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago (1 child) That training is funded from the Swiss military budget for the purpose of protecting the state of Switzerland? Suggesting that conscription, aka a mandatory military service term, is akin to a training program for stateless militias seems to me a bit of a stretch... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zombie@feddit.uk 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) If a fighting force assembles when its home country is attacked and disbands once they're no longer being invaded, it hardly feels like "the military" at that point. That's not how it works these days, at least in most places. I'm pro abolition of the state, but this comment thread had no mention of a stateless society. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago Fair point, I'll accept that bit of nuance. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago scroll down from there to Military So it is a military then? permalink fedilink source parent [–] SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago (1 child) You could train them, obviously. My point was that when people think of "joining the military" they aren't thinking about a defensive war - which is true. So "the military" is, overall, pretty bad. (Some might argue a necessary evil, perhaps, but it's still bad.) The logistics of what you'd replace the current system with are beyond the scope of "is the military bad?" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Zombie@feddit.uk 5 points 1 month ago* (4 children) Switzerland has conscription for men and voluntary service for women over 19. They receive military training and are issued a service weapon. They then return to civilian life, with the idea being the population is now an armed militia in the case of invasion. It seems to have worked out for them so far, surviving being right in the middle of 2 world wars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland#Government_and_politics scroll down from there to Military permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] napoleonsdumbcousin@feddit.org 19 points 1 month ago It seems to have worked out for them so far, surviving being right in the middle of 2 world wars. Their conscription system is only a part of the story. Switzerland was not invaded in WW2 because: A. it is geographically difficult to invade, has a lot of bunkers and armed people. B. because the Nazis used it to exchange gold and currency to Swiss Francs and get free access to trade with neutral countries. Switzerland was more useful to Germany as a "banker" and middleman during trade embargoes than it could have ever been as occupied territory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_during_World_War_I_and_World_War_II#Financial_relationships_with_Nazi_Germany permalink fedilink source parent [–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 month ago (1 child) I know about Switzerland, they have a military with conscription. Lots of countries in Europe are currently considering reintroducing conscription, but that's not some random fighting force that assembles out of nowhere in times of need, it's still a military. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago (1 child) That training is funded from the Swiss military budget for the purpose of protecting the state of Switzerland? Suggesting that conscription, aka a mandatory military service term, is akin to a training program for stateless militias seems to me a bit of a stretch... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zombie@feddit.uk 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) If a fighting force assembles when its home country is attacked and disbands once they're no longer being invaded, it hardly feels like "the military" at that point. That's not how it works these days, at least in most places. I'm pro abolition of the state, but this comment thread had no mention of a stateless society. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago Fair point, I'll accept that bit of nuance. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago scroll down from there to Military So it is a military then? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] napoleonsdumbcousin@feddit.org 19 points 1 month ago It seems to have worked out for them so far, surviving being right in the middle of 2 world wars. Their conscription system is only a part of the story. Switzerland was not invaded in WW2 because: A. it is geographically difficult to invade, has a lot of bunkers and armed people. B. because the Nazis used it to exchange gold and currency to Swiss Francs and get free access to trade with neutral countries. Switzerland was more useful to Germany as a "banker" and middleman during trade embargoes than it could have ever been as occupied territory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_during_World_War_I_and_World_War_II#Financial_relationships_with_Nazi_Germany permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zaphod@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 month ago (1 child) I know about Switzerland, they have a military with conscription. Lots of countries in Europe are currently considering reintroducing conscription, but that's not some random fighting force that assembles out of nowhere in times of need, it's still a military. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago (1 child) That training is funded from the Swiss military budget for the purpose of protecting the state of Switzerland? Suggesting that conscription, aka a mandatory military service term, is akin to a training program for stateless militias seems to me a bit of a stretch... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Zombie@feddit.uk 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) If a fighting force assembles when its home country is attacked and disbands once they're no longer being invaded, it hardly feels like "the military" at that point. That's not how it works these days, at least in most places. I'm pro abolition of the state, but this comment thread had no mention of a stateless society. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago Fair point, I'll accept that bit of nuance. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Zombie@feddit.uk 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) If a fighting force assembles when its home country is attacked and disbands once they're no longer being invaded, it hardly feels like "the military" at that point. That's not how it works these days, at least in most places. I'm pro abolition of the state, but this comment thread had no mention of a stateless society. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago Fair point, I'll accept that bit of nuance. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago Fair point, I'll accept that bit of nuance. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago scroll down from there to Military So it is a military then? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago (1 child) You could train them, obviously. My point was that when people think of "joining the military" they aren't thinking about a defensive war - which is true. So "the military" is, overall, pretty bad. (Some might argue a necessary evil, perhaps, but it's still bad.) The logistics of what you'd replace the current system with are beyond the scope of "is the military bad?" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)