▲ 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
[–] 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 2 child comments replies: [–] 9bananas@feddit.org 2 points 1 month ago quick note: that's national service, not conscription. permalink fedilink source parent [–] 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 2 child comments replies: [–] Narauko@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago I would argue that the vast majority of people think that joining the military is about defensive war. There is a reason that military enlistment skyrockets in a country after that country has been attacked by a foreign source. Generally a government must convince its populace that a war not taking place on its own soil is still defensive, because offensive war isn't palatable to the vast majority of people. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 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 2 child comments replies: [–] 9bananas@feddit.org 2 points 1 month ago quick note: that's national service, not conscription. permalink fedilink source parent [–] 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 2 child comments replies: [–] 9bananas@feddit.org 2 points 1 month ago quick note: that's national service, not conscription. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 9bananas@feddit.org 2 points 1 month ago quick note: that's national service, not conscription. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] 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 2 child comments replies: [–] Narauko@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago I would argue that the vast majority of people think that joining the military is about defensive war. There is a reason that military enlistment skyrockets in a country after that country has been attacked by a foreign source. Generally a government must convince its populace that a war not taking place on its own soil is still defensive, because offensive war isn't palatable to the vast majority of people. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Narauko@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago I would argue that the vast majority of people think that joining the military is about defensive war. There is a reason that military enlistment skyrockets in a country after that country has been attacked by a foreign source. Generally a government must convince its populace that a war not taking place on its own soil is still defensive, because offensive war isn't palatable to the vast majority of people. permalink fedilink source parent
