• A7thStone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

      -Dwight D. Eisenhower

        • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          His foreign relations record includes a hell of a lot of ratfucking the third world, including being so paranoid about communism he ended up pushing quite a few nations into the Soviet sphere when the coups didn’t work (Cuba, cough cough cough) and directly enabling some of history’s greatest monsters when they did, but he is an American president so grade that on a curve I guess

          • A7thStone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            6 months ago

            Exactly. I like Ike, in comparison to other U.S. presidents. He had some good ideas, but we have a really shitty track record with the rest of the world, and he’s no exception to that.

      • JasSmith@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yeah, if history has taught as nothing else, it’s that the guy with the biggest stick usually wins. There are many criticisms of the U.S. military, but no one could accuse it of being weak. That kind of deterrence is invaluable.

        • Allero@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          If only they wouldn’t use that force to invade half the planet…

          The peace of Americans is paid for by the terror of dozens of nations. It ain’t cool.

            • Allero@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              My fear is, this approach is unsustainable in general, and cannot be effectively applied for global security.

              It’s not just US military being poorly led.

      • Allero@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        You are fucking beasts

        The purpose of military is always dual: to deflect other country’s military and to “protect national interests” (read: attack another country that now has to have military too, and may consider using it for an attack).

        Wildly assuming you are American, you should have no issue understanding that defensive forces are not really always defensive.

        • 33550336@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          I am from Europe, from country invaded by nazi Germany so I know well what means an oppressive use of army. But could you give an alternative to the army?

          • Allero@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Uhm…no army?

            We have to push politicians to drive UN-scale policies on demilitarization - not this playful “lemme dismantle 10 rockets and call it a day” demilitarization, but a real effort - and expanding mutual defence-type alliance (could be NATO expansion if they’re gonna get their shit together, or a new bigger alliance) to as many countries as humanly possible in order to reduce their need to rely on their own armies and drastically reduce armed manpower globally.

            Switzerland-like militias can help in the transitional period.

            • 33550336@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              I wonder how Switzerland militia would deal with Russian tanks and rockets.

              Uhm…no army?

              After the Russian invasion do you really believe than all countries in the world will become peaceful and any of them will ever try to invade another?

              • Allero@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                Which is why I suggested transition into a worldwide military alliance first. One that would cover Ukraine, and even Russia at the end of the conflict if it would like to join.

                Any sort of aggression, from members or non-members, should be met with united forces. With such circumstances, you really won’t need that much, even if your plan is to keep forces like US or China at bay, not to mention Russia.

                Militias should be there not as a force that can solely defeat an army, but as a stopping force for the initiation of the conflict, while logistics is busy moving troops. And yes - Switzerland is actually equipped to deal with Russian tanks (see demolition of roadways) and rockets (see a vast network of bunkers).

    • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      Idk, I’m not sure I could get much use out of a particular accelerator even if I got it running. An aircraft carrier though might be joyride-able, and that I can understand. Might still be moot since both need a team, but if I get to have either one I’d have to at least think on it.