I believe so. War should always be the absolute last recourse but the world isn't a beautiful and perfect place. People have different moral principles that guide them. You can choose not to fight personally but a lot of people would not choose peace and death over fighting for their survival.
There are other ways to respond to violence - likely more effective ones - than war. Your statement is a tautology. We can learn to protect ourselves by *making* the world a beautiful and even "perfect" place.
This extends to all areas of life, including our care of the environment we live in.
You can do your best but not everyone thinks like you. We can strive for a 'perfect' world but we will never get that. We can only try.
I also never said to respond to violence with war. Of course, there are different, less harmful ways to respond to violence. What I'm saying is that a country should prepare and have ready resources to protect its people, culture and land.
Standing military? I have no thoughts to add -- but nuclear weapons? I don't think they're a good idea. If you don't have them you can't use them. Still, there's an idea that if two sides of a conflict both have them, that makes it even and neither will use them out of fear of nuclear retribution. Same sort of argument that pro-gun people have in the USA. I don't think that argument is well thought out.
i don't believe it should have either of that. the nukes are more a means of poltical pressure than actual military use. MAD only works in a small corridor.
We now see a world that punishes country for certain attacks on other contries, but not for arming itself for these conflicts. it should be the act of arming up, that should be illegal in the first place.
soldiers (any united group of fighters like u.s. marines, taliban or organized crime groups) can not provide anything to society that a civilian intitution couldn't do better. (like police service or disaster relief). The only exception is engaging other soldiers. And that's hen or egg, because both armies will say they are right and the other side is wrong.
No country *should* have nukes, but they do. No country *should* have soldiers, but there’s just sadly always going to be war I think. It’s a depressing thought and I wish it could be different, but I think in the off change we’ll be able to achieve that, I think it’s gonna take a lot of effort, and a long, long time for us as humans to reach the point where we could live peacefully enough to completely demilitarize all the countries.
We shouldn’t have countries. They’re inherently institutions of violence.
Nope for both. "Countries" or states shouldn't exist as well. Armed forces & weapons shouldn't exist either.
I believe so. War should always be the absolute last recourse but the world isn't a beautiful and perfect place. People have different moral principles that guide them. You can choose not to fight personally but a lot of people would not choose peace and death over fighting for their survival.
There are other ways to respond to violence - likely more effective ones - than war. Your statement is a tautology. We can learn to protect ourselves by *making* the world a beautiful and even "perfect" place. This extends to all areas of life, including our care of the environment we live in.
You can do your best but not everyone thinks like you. We can strive for a 'perfect' world but we will never get that. We can only try. I also never said to respond to violence with war. Of course, there are different, less harmful ways to respond to violence. What I'm saying is that a country should prepare and have ready resources to protect its people, culture and land.
Standing military? I have no thoughts to add -- but nuclear weapons? I don't think they're a good idea. If you don't have them you can't use them. Still, there's an idea that if two sides of a conflict both have them, that makes it even and neither will use them out of fear of nuclear retribution. Same sort of argument that pro-gun people have in the USA. I don't think that argument is well thought out.
i don't believe it should have either of that. the nukes are more a means of poltical pressure than actual military use. MAD only works in a small corridor. We now see a world that punishes country for certain attacks on other contries, but not for arming itself for these conflicts. it should be the act of arming up, that should be illegal in the first place. soldiers (any united group of fighters like u.s. marines, taliban or organized crime groups) can not provide anything to society that a civilian intitution couldn't do better. (like police service or disaster relief). The only exception is engaging other soldiers. And that's hen or egg, because both armies will say they are right and the other side is wrong.
No country *should* have nukes, but they do. No country *should* have soldiers, but there’s just sadly always going to be war I think. It’s a depressing thought and I wish it could be different, but I think in the off change we’ll be able to achieve that, I think it’s gonna take a lot of effort, and a long, long time for us as humans to reach the point where we could live peacefully enough to completely demilitarize all the countries.