• Shampiss
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Brother, I respect your principles but you’re not understanding the issue with having no military.

    First you would have to convince all countries in the world to cut all military budgets. Including convincing countries that would suffer economically from the extinction of the arms industry.

    And once all countries have 0 military, there is an incentive for aggressive leaders to produce weapons since it would be easy to win a war against an unarmed country

    Disarming a country is an impossible mission because it only works if the entire world agrees to it, and because it makes everyone vulnerable once someone decides to break the agreement.

    I hope you can see it clearly now. Unless you have a proposal that fixes the two points above, your 0 military plan would not work

    I’m happy to discuss more if you’d like

    • index
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Including convincing countries that would suffer economically from the extinction of the arms industry.

      This highlight that you are thinking only according to how the system currently work (or how you are told it works). No country would actually suffer economically if they cut off the arms industry because they can use the money and resources for something else.

      Countries are populated by people and humans can defend themself even without stealth planes or nuclear submarines. It’s the government that needs asset to exercise their power be it machines or people.

      • Shampiss
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Sorry but you don’t understand how this works.

        It doesn’t make sense when you say:

        they can use the money and resources for something else.

        For example. The US arms industry exports were worth 238 Billion $ in 2023. That means that the arms industry brought 238 billion from outside the US to inside the economy

        Because the money is coming from outside. If the industry stops, the US will lose this money.

        You are putting your convictions above logic. It doesn’t matter how hard you believe in something, if it is not practical it won’t work.

        If your suggestions really make sense you should be able to convince at least a few people. But look at the responses you’re getting. How can you convince all the world leaders to change if you can’t convince a few people in the comments?

        At some point you have to consider that you might be in the wrong. Admitting your mistakes makes you a better person and allows you to grow in character. I kindly ask you to consider that.

        My guy, I’m going to finish this conversation here. I hope this was useful. Cheers!

        • index
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          The US spend a trillion on war each year

          • Shampiss
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Did you even read what I wrote? Are you willfully ignoring the points that I made? God, how do you expect to get anywhere like this 🤦‍♂️